|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 23, 2005 12:19:08 GMT -6
is 55 scientifically proved a more accurate indication of (what-pain, damage, ??.... I'm not really sure) That number was agreed upon by all involved, is it scientific? As best as it can be without spending thousands of dollars proving otherwise. It' s called a baseline or threshold. What is a letter grade? What trully is the differance between an A or A-? B or b+ or B-, it is a baseline used to measure with. Why is an F grade failed yet a d- is a pass?
We had a coon bmp tester on here that stated the same in stronger terms- he said he was PREVENTED from making sets where he knew from past experience, that chewing would be less. I beleive that would be Top trapper 1, who posted above!
No way, no how should the same thresholds be applied to coyotes as coon as muskrats. They can all be the same, as your trying to match the best equipment to the species involved! Thats like saying you can hold students all to the same grading scales because there all unique and have different characteristics. BMP stands for (Best Managment Practicies). Not mediocur management practicies. Meaning that unless your willing to state word for word exact circumstances, on how,where and why this trap must be used, to obtain a passable score whats the sense? The traps need to pass for all who use them and the different ways they could be used or would be used. Not a directive on how they "must" be used, in order to obtain the same results as the BMP test did. You match the trap to the species that will obtain the desired results,or score if you will. So far in every test, there has been more than one that has passed! Multiple traps for all species tested. It seems to me that as long as your equipment and methods are used you would be fine with the coon BMP's, but the hang up is not everyone has your conditions, uses your methods. This testing is done on the basis of allowing freedom of choices and freedom of set construction and locations. I'm sure we could get every trap to pass if spent enough time and made specifics of use, and had a small enough test run. WE can make this thing a shady deal in the eyes of many looking in, or we can confront the issue and do the testing and pull no strings. We are testing equipment not trappers.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 23, 2005 14:34:21 GMT -6
no, Im not fine with the coon bmps- as you can see.
so the 55 threshold was agreed on, not on scientifc testing- but because of money? That may well be the case- but it steill means that the 55 was arbitrary.
And you keep saying "all agreed on it".
Eventually. To get on with things. Because the trappers were out voted.
I was told DIRECTLY by someone very high up in the BMP circel- that "we" argued "to no avail" to get the vets to agree on a different threshold for coon.
The vet council- would not agree.. "would not budge"- so "we" capitulated.
This testing is done on the basis of allowing freedom of choices and freedom of set construction and locations.
not true- read Hamiltons posts and he says it himself- set construction, etc and locations were DICTATED by the procedures.
I'm sure we could get every trap to pass if spent enough time and made specifics of use, and had a small enough test run.
well, we will never know- since the techniques used WERE mandated to specific dos and don't.
As far as small samples- heavens, man- could the bmp sample be any smaller and still have ANY merit?
heres the thing- why not then let individual trappers set traps the way THEY wanted? Using techniques that THEY developed to reduce chewing? Then you'd have a GOOD average of a traps worth.
In my mind- the coon bmps weren't shady- but they weren't science and they are distorted..at best.
Now- the VETS decided that coon had to have access to land.
Read that again..the VETS council determined that coon had to have access to land. That holding them in water...wasn't..... humane.
No chewing, no broken legs, digits, broken teeth, etc...yet being wet wasn't....humane?
And no overhead cover? ...man oh man-
read the eastern coyote bmps..whats printed near the front? Setting techniques o nhow to most effectively use the trap.
You telling me the same cannot be done on the coon bmps? A short couple of paragraphs tellingbHOW TO USE 1.5 COILS WITHOUT A LOT OF COON DAMAGE? Or wasn't that the goal?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 23, 2005 16:00:08 GMT -6
Tman, in testing the coyote traps there was very little to impact the outcome, because there was no need! I took part in the Western coyote BMP and we could use any set and the stipulations where to have them staked solid, checked every 24 hrs, and no potential for entanglement, otherwise any set, any trap placement, and any bait or lure could be used. You get into all this with the coon BMP because everyone went haywire trying to get the 1.5 reg jaw to pass! The threshold was agreed upon, I'm sure all involved would have liked a different number, but not being in the talks on the threshold I'm sure it was something all could live with. Which we are. The last thing I as a supporter of the BMP's would want to see from these drafts, is language that clearly defines a right or wrong way a trap, must or must not be used in order to achieve the same outcomes as stated in a BMP test. That would put you far closer to having it become law, in states if they start mandating how a trap "must be set" ie: location, vegitation requirements, exact chain length, etc. in order to comply with the BMP standards. My hope is to leave individual's the right to set traps and use different setting techniques to achieve the same out come. Again we are testing the traps, and the proper choices for each species that fit criteria developed by many interest groups. The whole point of this is to show we can use varied equipment and still be efficant and kind to the animals we persue. There will be other traps that will and won't pass I'm sure of it, but it won't be lack of effort, there could be different ways to get each trap to pass, but it all comes back to how much we spend on this testing and how critical the language we want written into these guidlines.
|
|
|
Post by Hamilton on Mar 23, 2005 16:24:57 GMT -6
Trappnnman-
Some things to clear up from your post(s) above, and in the past.
First, there is no "vet council" involved in the BMP process.... I have no idea what you are talking about.
We have two cooperating veterinarians... (now just one; Dr. Beth Williams was killed in an unfortunate automobile accident this winter in Colorado). Dr. Vic Nettles is the other one. They have done the vast majority of the trap research in the United States during the last 25 years. They are the best friends trappers have in the vet business in the US. They have worked hand in hand with us since day one, but they DO NOT set any requirements for trap setting protocol.
In the very beginning, Dr Terry Kreeger helped us to work out our details on the Animal Use and Care committee. ...but this doesn't influence "how" trappers make their sets.
No one with any standing in the BMP process has lobbied for different standards for raccoons or any other species. EVERYONE sees that it would be very foolish to support one species as needing "special" considerations ...ie. different thresholds. How on earth could you stand in front of the public with a straight face and advocate that, since raccoons sometimes chew their toes off, that we need a different standard?
No one was "out-voted" on this one, and no one "capitulated". I think all involved see that it would be very embarrassing to stand in front of an interested public and try to defend why one species is in greater need of humane treatment than another. This line of reasoning went nowhere fast, and despite what you might think about it, was not an issue.
Did discussions take place? Sure, lots of discussions about injury scores, thresholds, etc... but, I repeat, no one publicly stated that "raccoons deserve a separate injury threshold".
Trappnman, you have faulty information on that one.
Back to the "vet council".... I think you must mean the AVMA ... The American Veterinary Medical Association. They have been very difficult to deal with on a number of wildlife management fronts, including trapping, and we have successfully convinced them to modify their long-standing position on trapping. It has a long ways to go yet to be acceptable, but it is better now than it was a few years ago. Dr Vic Nettles and Beth Williams helped to get this changed.
The AVMA has no input to the BMP process. There is no "vet council" .... just two very trusted veterinarians.
The scores .... we used the International Organization for Trap Testing standards, and scores were attributed according to this widely- accepted procedure.
The 55 points were determined by (1) past research work where wildlife veterinarians agreed that these are "acceptable injuries". Although this work was prior to the ISO point system, 55 points on ISO is approximately where the old "Olson Scale" differentiated between acceptable and unacceptable injury.
(2) We held workshops across the country for furbearer biologist, showed them the data that had been collected at that time for coyotes and raccoons(without showing how each trap scored … just the scores were used; Trap A, Trap B, etc) , and at each workshop (3 were held), biologists all agreed that 55 was the accepted "threshold" for restraining traps. They also all agreed that all species should be held to the same threshold.
And (3), Moderate injuries are below 55 points, whereas moderately-severe injuries are above 55 points.
The No 1.5 coil spring trap was tested in many, many different studies, and some of the protocols allowed the trapper to do whatever he wanted to do as far as holding the animal either totally in water, totally on land, canopy cover, no canopy cover, etc.... and they all scored well over 85 points ... not even close to the 55 point threshold. So, moving the threshold to 60, or 65, or 70 ... 75, you name it. .... the 1.5 coil failed miserably.
Raccoons chew if they can.
When we recorded the 37% chew rate for the 1.5 coil stock in the Midwest, 31 out of 84 raccoons had at least on toe amputated due to chewing, and that led to an average cumulative score of 105.1 on the ISO injury scale. It had confidence intervals of + or- 14.5 points; meaning that if you were to repeat the study over and over numerous times, the new sample averages would fall between 91.1 points and 119.6 points most of the time (950 times out of 1,000 tests). It doesn’t predict how many raccoons would have chewed, but we could figure that out too. That’s where the confidence intervals are used- for the scores, not the chew rate. The chew rate is what led to the bulk of the high scores in the sample.
Now for comparison, the 1.5 Double Jaw tested in the Midwest (with many of the same trappers, on the same trap lines in Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio during November), had only 12.4% chew rate (only 15 out of 121 raccoons had at least one toe amputated due to chewing), which led to an average cumulative injury score of 53.4 + or – 8.8 points; meaning that if you were to do this test over 1,000 times, we’d get averages running between 44.6 and 62.2 points on 950 of the tests.
In my estimation, it is the reduction in the number of raccoons that chewed their toes, and the number of toes that were chewed (more toes missing leads to higher scores for that raccoon).
These are statistically different scores ... meaning that the traps themselves accounted for the difference in the scores, not the trappers or their techniques.
By the way, when you hold a raccoon in shallow water on a short chain, you possibly could reduce chewing... but a large % die of hyperthermia, and a dead raccoon scores 100 points. In our judgment, we decided to throw out those raccoons who died of hyperthermia, the thinking was that the raccoons died due to the conditions that the raccoons were in, not the trap/and or raccoon behavior. They were not used in the calculation of ave. trauma scores. Nonetheless, lots of dead raccoons in sets meant to be live-restraint isn't what we are trying to achieve.
I’ll post more info about the protocols used in the near future…. Seems that there is some confusion about how exactly things were done on the BMP trap lines.
Catchya later.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 23, 2005 17:11:43 GMT -6
Dave, Tman you heard it from the source no vets council in the BMP process, to bias the coon bmp outcome, you also heard as I have stated just in a more profound way, why the thresholds must remain constant, species to species. SMall samples I'm sure there were many 100's of coons caught during the lengthy coon bmp. As Dave stated you don't need to cacth 10,000 the laws of average would have prevailed.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 23, 2005 18:59:40 GMT -6
Well Dave- YOU told me on the phone several years ago when I called you- that the threshold level for coon was unabled to be changed, even thought trappers wanted it changed. I remember the conversation very well.
Whether you remember or not- you did. You also at the same time told me- don't worry about the 1.5s- you'll just be trapping mink and fox. Suite trapping.
regarding hypothermia- I have NEVER and I trap a lot of coon Nov-Feb in water- had one die of hypothermia. I told you that on the phone during the same conversation. You commented- it must be the size of the coon.
You had a western and eastern coyote study because of what..trapper pressure? Different methods? what?
Why not have northern and southern coon trapping bmps- obviously 1 fact for sure- and I'll prove it yo you any winter day- nothern coon very rarely (in my experience NEVER) succomb to hypotherimia even when in sub freezing temps.
Your comments on entanglement and cover don't ring true also on northern coon.
regarding the vets council- if you followed my other posts on this subject- I stated very clearly- that the Vets council is opposed to trapping- and we are listening to vets? If I implied (and perhaps I did) that the vet council was directly involved, I apologise. Are you stating that the vets involved in the bmps belong to no orgainsation of vets that has a policy against trapping?
past research work where wildlife veterinarians agreed that these are "acceptable injuries". Although this work was prior to the ISO point system, 55 points on ISO is approximately where the old "Olson Scale" differentiated between acceptable and unacceptable injury.
What wildlife vets? What orgainsations do they belong to? Any organisations that oppose trapping?
What animal and what conditions were these score developed from? Lab tests? Random traps? how? Any research we can read?
Furbearer biolgists agreed? a show of hands added to the scientific validity of the scores? The fact that a group of people with no training to speak of in the pain/injury field- gave their approval..proves exactly nothing.
Doing field work on mice or crows or ducks or otters- doesn't make anyone an expert in the scientific formuation of injury scores and their relative merits, how they affect each animal. It just makes them an expert on mice or crows or ducks or otters. Nice guys all- but scientists and pathogists? No.
Regarding samples: Read the sample size- quite a few under 40. more under 50.
we don't need 10,000 but perhaps a reasonable sample..flip a penny 50 times- tell me your results.
IT DOESN'T MATTER what traps passed with your protocal- what MATTERS is that with DIFFERENT protocal-more traps would have passed.
Read that again- because if I make no point but this- this is important-
IT DOESN'T MATTER what traps passed with your protocal- what MATTERS is that with DIFFERENT protocal-more traps would have passed.
The protocal choosen, was obviously only one of many to choose from. Other, perhaps equallity or MORE so correct, could have been chosen.
Dave- it stands to reason you have a very vested interest in getting the bmps accepted by the trapping public- but when the results counter what I KNOW to be true- I have no choice but to question their validity as they apply to MY coon.
TECHNIQUES- and why you don't want to accept this is beyond me DO HAVE A PROFOUND EFFECT ON CHEWING.
now- it could just be the difference on the coon tested- did you test MN, WS, MI coon?
one last point- so you are saying all animals feel pain in the same exact manner and degree?
Cause thats exactly what your "one size" thresholds are proclaiming. That self obvious.
The exact arguement btw the antis tried to use in MN to get fishing with live bait outlawed.
And I'd like to know- did your vets test blood circulation on trapped toes? pain response compared to untrapped toes vs trapped toes? whether chewing caused PAIN or just looked icky. Nerve ending repsonses on trapped footpads?
I'm thinking.....no.
Are perceived injuires the same as far as pain?
Does a cut on a coyote foot cause him more pain or less than a coon chewing on numb, nerveless toes?
Isn't that the humane way to look at it?
Cut of an inch off toes of the end of a coyotes foot...
pain?
debilitating injury?
Life threatening?
Not...humane? .........................................................
Do the same to a horse.
The effect of the injury- measured in animals discomfort and yes a pain index- is the true criteria to be tested. And perhaps the only one.
to look with a microscope and do a posting to add up injury scores- is proving exactly what?
I'd be real interested in the data on the formation of the Olsen scores. What years? What species? What sample size? Where tested? Why? Who funded the study would also be interesting to know.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 23, 2005 20:28:46 GMT -6
one last point- so you are saying all animals feel pain in the same exact manner and degree?
Tman with all respect, where in the BMPs is there a pain threshold and how is pain measured there? There is no talk of pain, but injury to the said species, if you want to corrilate that into pain then go ahead. The injury threshold needs to remain a constant species to species or you will end up with many bias studys. Again think of it as school, all kids are graded on the same scale A-F, to do so otherwise because this student has this or that characteristic, would be unfair to many! No different with the BMP, as Dave stated saying we can't allow more injury to pass because it's a coon, then why can't we up the coyote,fox, whatever species threshold as well? Your trying to fit the injury score with the trap you want to see passed. Thats is a bias study and one that would get the whole BMP process, looked at as a scam and very bias to trappers. Again the trap must pass, the animal is only the test subject, you can't change the threshold to fit the animal, the trap must do the work and perform for the betterment of the species. (Better Managment Practices). I beleive the vets Dave talks about are the ones doing the necocropys at WY and GA, not for sure, Dave can answer that better. A wildlife vet is different than a cat/dog vet, they do work and studys on wild animals, and don't always have the anti mind set, nor do many rural vets, because they are informed and have seen the damage wildlife can cause to livestock and other wildlife.
Again Tman reread what Dave says in this paragraph,No one with any standing in the BMP process has lobbied for different standards for raccoons or any other species. EVERYONE sees that it would be very foolish to support one species as needing "special" considerations ...ie. different thresholds. How on earth could you stand in front of the public with a straight face and advocate that, since raccoons sometimes chew their toes off, that we need a different standard?
|
|
|
Post by Hamilton on Mar 23, 2005 20:54:21 GMT -6
Steve- I may have said that some trappers wanted to change the thresholds for raccoons; I didn't say that the trapping experts from NTA supported that idea. Call them and ask them if you want to.
More on your theory of the BMP crew out to fail your 1.5 coil spring....
As far as I know, in every trap study, someone has to set traps, and whoever it is will influence the outcome to some degree.
Trappnman- in the first three years, we tested the 1.5 coil spring trap in five or six different studies... In the Midwest, traps were tested in Wisconsin, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri; in the Northeast, we took many raccoons in other studies, but raccoons in Vermont, New York, and Pennsylvania had similar injuries in the 1.5 coil as in the other studies (yes, they chewed); in the Southeast, traps were tested in Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina.
(Just for your info, the raccoons from Wisconsin had the worst scores of all.)
In every case, the 1.5 coil spring had the worst injury score of any trap tested, except for one study, and in that one, the 1.5 padded did a little worse.
In our study design, we’ve taken reasonable steps to make sure the trap setting protocols do not in any way introduce bias that would unfairly favor one trap over another, while trying to maintain as much of the reality in trapping.
Specific to our testing procedures...
Three to four trappers were selected to test traps in most of the participating states in each region of the U.S. for each species -- as many as 16 trappers participated in some studies in each region.
Trap types are randomly assigned along the trap line to prevent bias. That is, the trapper does not know which trap type he is about to set until he makes his decision on trap site.
Trappers were allowed to select their own trap set types, trap locations, and the bait/lure of their choice, based on their experience and knowledge of the target animals and the environmental conditions that influence capture rates (natural foods, weather, local traditions, other animals in the vicinity, etc.), as long as all trap types on each line were treated similarly. Trap testing protocols required this, and trappers and technicians had to attend training sessions where this was emphasized. Technicians monitored and assured compliance with all trap testing protocols on the trap lines.
Since the trap locations and the bait/lure combinations weren't tied to certain trap types, any potential bias is equally spread amongst the different traps and thus they fall out of the equation.
Trap anchoring systems were standardized among traps because these variables could effect injury rates. Additional research was done to see if anchoring systems (such as staking vs. drags) effects injury rates.
Pan tensions were standardized among traps for all of the coyote studies. For the studies of smaller animals, pan tensions were adjusted to capture a wider variety of suite species.
In the first year, trappers decided how they were setting their traps ... land or water, long chain or short, cover or not, etc.... just like Steve here is suggesting ... and we got very poor scores for the 1.5 coil springs ... so the next year, with the NTA trapping experts demanding, we tightened the protocols and compared the short chains to the long chains, and required that the trapper pay close attention to details to avoid entanglement (the raccoons that became entangled had worse scores than those that did not).
That year, we saw slightly better results with the 1.5 coil with the longer chains, which allowed the raccoons to leave the water (but did not force them to). However, the results were a long, long way from the 55 points needed.... like about 30 points or more.
We realize that much of the controversy surrounding BMPs revolves around the results of our raccoon studies and the No. 1 ½ coil spring trap (In the most recent survey, this trap was the most popular foothold trap in America- but use is down substantially from the 1992 survey).
However, it is important for trappers to know that these are not new results; this trap has been tested over and over again, dating back to the late 1970s, using all kinds of different protocols, chain lengths, swivel attachments, chain attachment locations, in different regions, using a variety of set types, baits, lures, etc.-- with basically the same outcome.
Raccoons in restraining traps tend to chew their toes if they can reach them. The good news is that alternative traps exist that have equal or even better efficiency (Grizz Getrz, EGG traps and Duffer traps), and chewing is practically eliminated. We’ve looked at modified jaw-type traps and found that adding a second jaw (foot-guard) also improves animal welfare by reducing the amount of space available for raccoons to chew.
This is one of the biggest hurdles of the BMP program, and we have delayed the development of raccoon BMPs until we’ve looked at every reasonable trap type and modification, and yes, protocol.
We did yet another test two years ago to satisfy others who argued (just like Steve here is) that "Our raccoons don't chew, so do it like we suggest" .... and we did, and found almost exactly the same results as we have in the now 6 or 7 different studies of raccoons in 1.5 coils spring traps.
Steve, you may be correct in saying you haven't seen raccoons in your sets chew .... but the data isn't biased, and the data do not agree with your observations.
I hate to say, I've heard it before... but..... 380 raccoons later, I have to believe the data on the 1.5 coil spring.
That's right ... approximately 380 raccoons captured in the 1.5 coil spring trap, using at least 6 different protocols (how trappers set the traps) .... and the ave is over 85 points.
More about the injury scoring system:
Wildlife veterinarians have provided professional assessments of the injuries observed among animals caught in traps. Over time, they refined a process and developed what are called ‘injury scales’ to help bring more objective evaluations into the research. One that has been used often in the past was referred to as the ‘Olsen scale’. (I can send you the reprint if you want .... done in the 1980s) ... This scale was very useful, however it continued to be modified, eventually making it difficult to compare one study to another. Thanks to an enormous amount of effort an international agreement was reached defining even more comprehensive injury scales than before. These are now a part of the standard trap testing protocols adopted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for both restraining traps and killing traps. Now all trap researchers across the globe have a common technique to use in evaluation, making it possible to communicate more clearly between researchers and to make better decisions. The BMP trap testing program conforms to this system. What ISO did not reach agreement on is what level of injury is ‘acceptable’, or where the ‘injury threshold’ should be. As far as the ISO protocol is concerned these decisions have been left for each country to decide.
And we decided. We chose 55 points, and the vets we worked with agreed to this point ... (yes, they are scientist, and yes, they are experienced pathologists.).
In today’s BMP work, as in the ISO protocol, each animal undergoes a complete nose-to-tail whole body dissection (called a necropsy), including an assessment of broken teeth, damaged gums, condition of internal organs, indication of muscle degeneration, in addition to looking for cuts, bruises, broken bones, cut tendons, other bone damage, missing toes, etc. In all, some 36 specific injury types are searched for and recorded, each with its own ‘score’. In addition, each injury is grouped into one of four ‘trauma classes’ based on their common level of severity.
Just so you’ll know, these vets have been doing trap research for years, and they know injuries associated with the trap, vs. those that happen due to other incidents. If, for example, an animal such as a raccoon or a fox is in a trap and is attacked and bitten by a coyote or an alligator, the injury is recorded, but is NOT CONSIDERED TO BE TRAP-RELATED, and is not attributed to the trap type... and the animal is dropped from the analysis. Old injuries and old broken and worn teeth are noted, but these also are not used in the analysis of injury due to trapping.
I don't know what point you are making about what organization these vets belong to....as far as I know, there is only one ... the AVMA. These vets do not agree with the position of the AVMA on the use of traps, and have worked to change the position from within.
Catchya later.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 23, 2005 21:59:46 GMT -6
its not supported by the data for 1 reason- the methods I suggested WERE NOT TESTED. you can tell other methods all you want- and collect data on them- but the fact remans- YOU DID NOT TEST the methods and fastenng systems I mentoned. so - you have no knowledge as to whether they work or not as I say they do. you never set in the type of locations I mentioned... for sure you did not fasten the traps as I mentioned..... all the data in the word on YOUR methods- doesn't change that. ......................................................... but thanks for your claification on a few things- many of my most pertinent questions concerning pain, nerve damage, etc...were not answered. includng- Do all animals feel pain the same? No- the good news is I can still mink and fox trap..... I apprciate you taking the time....
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 23, 2005 22:51:13 GMT -6
Dave-
to summarize:
1) I'd like more info on the Olson Scale- since that is the basis and only scientific study to determine the threshold scores. I oculd find nothing concerning it on the internet. I would be esp interested A) who funded study B) what animals were tested C) what was tested and D) how.
2) it defys credibility that the bmps equate a trap inflicted cut on a animals with self inflected wounds.
One must ask himself- do animals self mutilate themselves on a regular basis if they feel pain when doing so?
The answer of course is no- thus the rarity of coon chewing above the trap jaws. This should be self evident.
THe horse has already left the barn on this one- but that doesn't make it right.
This is where a stand could have and should have been made. A Pain Index would be more appropriate. After all- the objet of the whole kaboomb (after appeasing the EU) is to be humane, correct?
Injuries without pain are meaningless. What value do they have? is 1 numb digit chewed under a trap jaw less painful than 2? is it double like the threshold call for? 3 digits 3x the score? Not to me.
easy enough to count all chewed digits as 1 injury score- because in the practical world- it is.
3) once again I ask- bluntly- do you think all animals feel pain the same way?
4) You keep saying every possible combination of traps, etc has been tested. Have you tested- plain and simple, yes or no:
a) moveable, floatable wooden drags in water?
b) moveable wooden drags allowing mobility to entanglement on land?
c) my sapling and log wiring methods?
d) holding northern coon in water?
"you may be correct in saying you haven't seen raccoons in your sets chew .... but the data isn't biased, and the data do not agree with your observations. "
I wasn't aware any data was taken on my options?
4) data that shows the #11 dj to cause less damage than the 1.5 is...flawed. BiG time flawed. I used #11 dj for 20 weeks over 3 years in 3 seasons- FLAT OUT- THE CHEWING RATE IS THE SAME AS A 1.5 COIL. any data that says different- loses all credibility with me- because I know better.
Now- the passing trap was offset- I understand that- but tell me please- in that size trap- how the offset changes things- granted- with that low efficientcy score- maybe many coon just chewed out and were gone.
5) you admit that cover was found to make a difference- yet no overhead cover was specified. Sorry- moving in a few branches at the side of the set far enough away so the coon cannot reach them- isn't much in the way of cover-
btw- just remembered some conversations I had with a few other people involved in the early bmp stages- I won't mention their names just like I didn't mention your name and conversation until you asked who told me that- but this threshold thing on coon wasn't as cut and dried in acceptance as I hear here.
|
|
|
Post by Hamilton on Mar 24, 2005 12:20:43 GMT -6
Steve- with all due respect, I cannot understand your heart-felt attachment to the 1.5 coil spring trap.
I have looked at raccoons in traps most of my adult life, and have had contact with dozens of raccoon trappers for many years, and when it gets right down to it, all admit that raccoons chew if they can.
We tested northern coons held in the water. Some die, some chew. Just like the rest. 20-40%.
We tested 1.5 coils on drags .... it doesn't make much sense to me why a wooden drag would prevent chewing, while a metal grapple would encourage it.... all get hung up in the same bush sooner or later, and it is the hang-up that causes the swivels to foul, and then the 'coons will chew.
Your methods, if they did work, wouldn't be held in much higher esteem than our suggestion of adding a double jaw, or changing equipment over time to something even better.
Or just keep doing what you've been doing. I doubt you'll be attending any trapper education classes to see what is new on the BMP front. Its up to you.
The point system is based on the best veterinary input about how debilitating and how painful certain injuries are likely to be. Unfortunately, measuring pain is difficult; it is tough even to measure it on humans, and we can speak. There have been a few studies done on chemical markers in the blood that might be related to pain, but not much- and very expensive.
BMPs and other attempts to improve the humaneness of traps has been based on reducing injuries, because they can be measured. The vets set the scores. We'll leave that to them, they know better than you or I.
Its pretty senseless to argue that since the raccoons might not feel the pain, that its OK that they chew their toes off in the traps.
I doubt you will find many wildlife biologists in the country who will agree with you on that one, and I doubt many trappers will either, in the bottom of their hearts. No one in the BMP process has espoused that idea.
We want to improve the image of trapping to the public, not put a spin on it that says, its OK that they chew their toes- they probably can't feel it.
"Raccoons chew their toes, but they probably can't feel it." Put that in a headline and see where it takes you.
What does that matter to the public who determine if you trap in the future or not?
We can make a difference, and BMPs tell those who want to know, how to do it. Others will continue as they have. Its up to you. Its your future you are talking about.
Yes, some raccoons chew above the trap.... saw one last week ....up to the elbow. Why? God and the 'coons only know. It happens.
Yes, I remember, we are all in this together. Sorry for getting a little touchy.
I am done here.
I'll check in sometime next week.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 24, 2005 17:54:59 GMT -6
"I doubt you will find many wildlife biologists in the country who will agree with you on that one, and I doubt many trappers will either, in the bottom of their hearts."
talk to most trappers- "I'm killing it in the morning- so what?"
Why do I like the 1.5? depends on the trap. I hate vicotrs- I love the Dukes. The Dukes are in my opinion the best all around coon CATCHING trap out there.
Minimal damage, exceptional success rate. THey put coo nin my pocket. Look at the success score of the apporved traps? Why- with that loss rate I'd quit coo ntrapping! thats totally unacceptabel.
I am serious about wanting to know about the Olson Scores. I think it would make for interesting reading.
Perhaps if you would have tried moveable branch drags instead of metal prong drags, you would understand the difference in how they work.
Think shock spring action. I also beleive strongly that the #11 results are suspect- and was dead serious in saying perhaps just too many chewed and escaped.
I was also serious in thinking that 2-3 digits should be concidered one injury, that techniques make a hell of a difference.
Regarding chewing above the jaw- in several decades- I've had less than I can count on 1 hand- and those in sets as descibed by your protocal.
Thanks for your time.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 27, 2005 16:56:42 GMT -6
talk to most trappers- "I'm killing it in the morning- so what?"
That kind of thinking in the year 2005 will be the end all to trapping in the future! 40-50 years ago no problem, the world is a different place today less and less connected to the land, we must educate the middle and also there must be some appesement without it one by ones many states will fall!
Why- with that loss rate I'd quit coo ntrapping! thats totally unacceptabel. You bash the coon bmp's success rate and yet you use a trap for coyotes that had a 70% hold rate, thats 3 out of every ten coyotes not in the trap in a 24 hr check? or think of it as 30 out of 100 coyotes not in the trap ! Yet the coon capture efficancy is lowsy? How many good coyote trappers would except a 30% failure rate froma coyote trap? You state you have a far better capture rate than what was listed on the 1.75 and yet you feel the traps tested for coon that some can't or don't do better than published report? Or that with time and using the equipment that passed you couldn't better your rate?
was also serious in thinking that 2-3 digits should be concidered one injury, that techniques make a hell of a difference So 2 toes missing you get a passing score but that 3rd toe puts you over? What if it was 2 full toes and a partial toe? Pass or fail? 3 1/2 toes gets what score? and so on, again you can't change the baseline injury score to alter the outcome of the equipment, that would look like a setup deal and many would cry foul and you would lose aton of creditabilty from the bottom to the top of the whole BMP process! Why is that hard to understand? The baseline must remain intact for ALL species and that will give you the most creditabilty and also seperate the marginal from the best in terms of equipment.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 27, 2005 18:05:21 GMT -6
70% on my setups? I wasn't aware you had tested Dukes and used my methods? my % is well in to the 90s for SNAPPED traps by coyotes. I lost 2 this past season. I'll live with that if need be.
If you want to trap coon and lose 3-4 out of every 10 coon by using the bmp taps and methods -be my guest.
I'll pass.
Save your breath- the data and the explanations given only strengthen my resolve against the coon bmps.
back to the original thread- still a shocker that the ink wasn't even dry on the western bmps and Montana was trying to incorporate them into law.
the tip of the iceburg, the tip of the iceburg.
and when the only trappers left are ADC men like yourself- we'll all sit back and wonder how we got to that point.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 27, 2005 18:28:22 GMT -6
The 70% is what the 1.75 tested in BMP testing, not you or your techniques thats what the figure was on the 1.75, and the sterling was 94-96% capture efficantcy and the #3 bridger double laminated 4 coiled was 100%. I'm not stating you can't do better, but then you can't say others can't do better using the traps that passed the coon BMP.
Each state has the right don't forget that, that also includes doing away with trapping as some have chosen to do, because of the pressure applied to them. The BMP's will help and I guess if you can't see that so be it, each state will use the information from these studies how they see fit, that changes nothing pre testing except now, we have factual documentation to back up the trappers claims and the anti's are still left only with emotionalism and nothing factual. WE have progressed and they are still using the same song and dance and trick pony show. good day.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 27, 2005 18:32:26 GMT -6
I'm not stating you can't do better, but then you can't say others can't do better using the traps that passed the coon BMP
read what you wrote. If thats the case- and I'll agree its true- 100% true- then the SAME must apply to traps that DIDN'T pass.
My point from the get go.
And what makes this difference? Techniques.
and tell me again, how were the bmps going to help the Montana trappers?
Happy Easter TC.....
|
|
|
Post by 3n on Mar 27, 2005 18:35:16 GMT -6
t-man I agree with you about about adc men being the only trappers...I remember reading a post Slim P made a couple years back and he thought that's where trapping was headed...federal,state, county,and municipal..he also said he didn't think it was that far down the road..after this bmp thing here in Mt it makes you wonder
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 27, 2005 19:09:26 GMT -6
Tman techniques can mean a 1,000 things to a 1,000 different people, you trap in away that works for you and your area, the traps are tested not trappers or hard line techniques, do you really want what technique must be used for each trap type in order to get the same results? I don't!! Leave it as a pass/fail with absoulute minimum on techniques, test the trap as it is suppose to be a blind test for all trap types, they all get the same treatment. Some passed some failed, happened on the coyote BMP as well. The cc#33 didn't pass, but I still use them, maybe someday it will be retested, but I didn't cry foul becasue it didn't make it, I have great results with them, but the trap was tested not me or my technique. The traps that did not pass where under the same guidlines as those that did except they didn't meet the injurt scores! Thats why it is a test!!!! Should we give all who take final exams 3,4-10 times to pass because there technique on testing day wasn;t up to par? The 1.5 got so many chances more than any other trap tested period and yet couldn't make it, Dave told you over and over again it wouldn't get close to passing even though they tried many ways, how much money and time do you expect to be given to a trap that has failed? Next this has nothing to with being a control trapper, I care about trapping period! The last thing I want to see is trapping outlawed! As far as trapping the biggest down fall is fur prices with incentive the number of fur trappers will decline just fact! We have more human/animal conflict due to less pressure applied, and lower furprices and rising cost to trappers, therefore a bigger need for more ADC work! I don't know why Montana decided to try and pass this bill, but I would tell you read the wording of it again very vague, that being a benefit to trappers not against, also a trap check law of some kind would be of a benefit in case a large push by the anti's would come rolling into the big sky state. They sit kind of like colorado, with more anti's and socialites moving into the bigger cities of the state, maybe not yet but it could setup to be a prime state for the anti's to come calling in the future. Who would have ever thought it would have went the way it did in colorado? No one
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 27, 2005 22:01:39 GMT -6
until what I proposed has been tested- words are just words- not facts.
|
|
|
Post by Hamilton on Mar 28, 2005 15:10:11 GMT -6
Trappnman ... BMP -Raccoon traps averaged 83% capture/opportunity, while the beloved 1.5 coil spring averaged 83%. Check it out again, below.
Note that 4 of the 8 BMP restraining traps averaged over 94%, and that two were over 98%. Try to get that with any jaw-type raccoon trap!
Trap Type (region) N % Ca/Opp (>60) % Low Trauma (>70) ISO Score (< 55)
Meet or exceed standards
1.5 DJ (MW) 121 74.9 71.1 53.4
1.5 DJ L - Duke 22 72.0 73.0 47.5
1.0 Coil (SE) 89 69.8 74.1 54.0
11 DJ Offset (MW) 92 67.2 75.0 46.1
EGG trap (MW) 90 98.7 81.0 47.8
Duffer trap (SE) 97 98.9 86.6 35.3
Cage trap (MW) 112 95.0 95.5 13.6
Lil’ Grizz Getrz 25 94.0 92.0 26.0
Fail to meet standards
1.5 Coil-(MW) 84 86.2 40.4 105.1
1.5 Coil-( SE) 87 83.6 54.1 87.4
1.5 Coil (6" chain) 38 76.3 52.7 92.5
1.5 Coil (30" chain) 34 87.0 58.8 83.7
1.5 Laminated (SE) 108 78.5 52.7 76.0
1.5 DJ weak (MW) 35 72.6 74.3 57.9
1.5 DJ weak (SE) ? 65.5 77.7 59.3
1.5 Padded (MW) 76 76.5 46.0 92.2
1.5 Padded (SE) 83 71.2 69.8 63.2
1.0 Laminated (SE) 84 65.3 60.8 63.6
1.0 Padded (MW) 30 52.5 68.9 54.8
1.0 Padded (SE) 46 44.8 91.3 36.2
11 Longspring (MW) 139 88.0 56.2 73.1
11 DJ (MW) 46 71.4 71.7 68.7
11 DJ w/drag (SE) 58 79.2 44.8 95.9
11 DJ w/stake (SE) 65 90.9 49.2 91.2
1.5 DJ w/drag (SE) 39 62.0 56.4 72.9
1.5 DJ w/stake (SE) 45 65.5 77.7 59.3
Black Hole 23 83.0 52.0 54.0
|
|