|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Aug 19, 2005 10:14:44 GMT -6
If what you said is true- then it would also be logical to use the SAME trap in testing all species. If fact, it would be extremely hard to justify using different traps for different animals-
No it wouldn't, you can try a #3 on coons but what would you end up with? A very poor score, you could try a #1 on coyotes and you would end up with a very poor score! It's not just injury scores, it also has to do with tool performance as well, why recommend a trap that has good holding abilty but poor injury score? or why recommend a trap with very good injury score, yet only holds 30% of the intended target species?
We have different size traps to accomandate the different species and find traps that have good "balance" both high holding rates and good injury scores. The basic concept is the same for each species, a foothold trap has the same basic design no matter the size, the size helps eliminate injury to an extent and helps with overall performance of the trap to the speices. You can change and modify the "tool" but all else must remain constant to have a fair and unbias study done. Were looking for the "best" tools for each species, the very term (Best management practices) means not all will make the grade.
|
|
|
Post by trapperjoemo on Aug 19, 2005 21:59:26 GMT -6
When cars are tested in the crash tests, do they ALL use the same standards and threshholds? Do sports cars perform the same in a wreck as a SUV? And speaking of testing... those auto tests may show some corillation with the trap tests. Why demand car seats for kids, and shoulder belts for adults in cars and trucks, yet we send a whole load of kids down the road in the school bus with NO protection! Different standards. Different tests. Different reasons. And the soccer mom`s are OK with school bus`.
|
|
|
Post by MRussell on Aug 20, 2005 0:04:39 GMT -6
Some agencies are/will take this BMP "Science " and make it the threshold of standards. Write their rules by them and pretty much pitch everything else out the door if they can.And most can. As was said before most people in these agencies have never trapped and are clueless as to what we do and WHY we do it.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Aug 20, 2005 8:23:26 GMT -6
When cars are tested in the crash tests, do they ALL use the same standards and threshholds? Do sports cars perform the same in a wreck as a SUV?
OK trapperjoemo, what are you talking about? I don't know how they test cars and what scale they use, if your a car tester fill me in by all means, but what the heck does testing a car have to do with the BMP's ? 2 totally different things. No sports cars don't perform the same as an SUV, but a #3 won't perform like a 1.5 on some speices either and vise versa, thats why we test the tool, what is your point here? Your school bus deal is something else as well, because some schools have seat belts on buses while others don't. Do all schools use the same standards for testing children? Do all schools use the same grading system? Yet soccar moms are ok with this!
Your out in left field trying to compair other things to BMP's, animal welfare and the emotions associated with them, and not having a coyote who can talk and tell us what he thinks or feels, is why the testing is being done, to show through science that we can use various equipment yet be as kind to the speices as possible.
I mean look at PETA they state a lobster can feel the pain of being boiled, and they have alot of people buy into that. So if nothing else we can show on a scale that each trap does x to each speices, and by having thresholds that we can show this trap makes the grade or doesn't, if we switch the injury scores to best fit the species, will be showing that we care less about a coon or skunk because they chew, so we can slide that scale to get a trap to "fit" in, not perform the best but fit in. I mean if you changed the injury threshold guess what, the traps like the grizz getter and coon cuffs are still going to be at the top of the list and why, because the inventors designed those traps to be very coon friendly.
Can we defend a stance on the BMP's by moving the injury scale around to fit different species? I think the general public would look at this hole process with a very raised eyebrow to do so.
MRUSSELL, your point has been used many other times with this whole process, and the BMP"s change nothing on that end. As ALL States have the right to change and modify game laws and regs with or without the BMP's, the choice could be to encorperate part or all of the BMP's this is true, but the choice without the science and documintation could be NO TRAPPPING IN STATES!!!! Look at those who have lost there foothold trapping rights and ask them would they like to have the BMP"s drafted so far or stay the way they have it now? I think many are concerned with just there very own dealings and not looking at trapping as the big picture state to state and keeping the anti's from knocking off these states one by one.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 20, 2005 9:31:52 GMT -6
To the question- why not use all trap sizes- you never really answered it. You gave some reasons- but there is for sure, one definitive answer as to WHY you do or do not use 1 trap size for all animals.
and that answer- is simply this. No more, no less.....
All animals are different. Different feet, different power, different habits.
Therefore, different traps must be sued.
Now- and its so logical its Spockish- all since animals do indeed have different feet, dfiferent power and different habits.. I never would or could argue against that...... then DIFFERENT standards for testing should have also been used.
Heres a real simple analogy. worms and puppies. We can impale a steel hook through one and trolled for a monster, if we trolled with the other WE would be the monster.
Why? Worms and puppies too different?
How about frogs and puppies? Both feel pain, both bleed , both have similar requirements for life......
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Aug 20, 2005 20:17:28 GMT -6
You hit it Tman, public perception the Sole reason the BMP's were needed in the first place!!! The public perceives ideals or thoughts from what they receive from the media and other groups, we are trying to give them factual data to get the real insight into traps and trapping. So they can make an educated decision not one based on emotion or hear say, which all either side had until we got science involved!!!!
Yes species come in different sizes and shapes, power and lack there of, but your taking a tool of a basic design and testing it in various sizes and configerations to see how well it will perform on each species. You do that by altering the tool, thats keeping it fair and balanced not by altering the scoring system, thats why there is a group of footholds, conibears or in the case of coons spacific enclosed traps, to lump them wouldn't be fair to each respective group of tools. They each perform a different function in trapping. Some desinged to kill others designed to restrain, and the last group designed for an intended species only.
In any case I think it was you that pointed out that the 1.5 is a great trap for coons.mink,and muskrats, tell me how this can be if all have different sized feet and way different levels of power? I would then guess the #1 a better trap for mink and the #0 a perfect muskrat trap in corilation to foot size and power?
Again the BMP's aren't meant to find just 1 specific trap, there all lumped together by design and use and tested with animal welfare and performance in mind. Which is a fair deal for all species involved. The benefit comes from finding multiple traps of the same design for the trapper to choose from that passes both of the criteria. So many like to harbor this idea that the BMP's are set out to find 1 trap for each species and be done, not the case at all.
There are those that pass and those that fail, that is every day life when setting standards, you can't change the standards to make the end result fit all involved in anything or why have a standard in the first place? What creditability would anyone have with this sliding scale system?
|
|
|
Post by MRussell on Aug 20, 2005 22:43:41 GMT -6
I did take the time to read through the six pages of post before I weighed in. I did not take the time to take notes however. I really should have. This is surely a extra hot topic. What is hard to swallow is that some feel this grading scale could be better.All areas of life have gray areas and because we have terrorist groups(anti's) after us we can't have any thing that even seems close to gray. So now we have a definitive standard in this scale and we have to live with it, like it or not. TC35 you are right in that something with substance was needed to support the trapping community. Public opinion rarely involves the facts . It is usually emotion and propaganda. BMP's provide facts and figures to those that are really clueless. And plenty of ruffled feathers and long stares from several of those that are not. Yes the agencies have the rights to regulate as they see fit. That is where the average trapper tends to forget how big a help he or she can be. I believe that our trapping rights will hinge upon solid relationships with key people in key places and trappers that love the sport and are willing to get involved at any level that he or she can to help our cause. The Animal Rights groups are pretty passionate about their endeavor!They don't play half as fair as we do.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 21, 2005 8:20:12 GMT -6
In any case I think it was you that pointed out that the 1.5 is a great trap for coons.mink,and muskrats, tell me how this can be if all have different sized feet and way different levels of power?
There of course is a single, one word answer for your question.
And thats water.
Take any foothold trap for muskrat- even stoploss which are not meant for land use- and tell me if it would pass if used on land.
The answer no. Not a trap would pass. Even the stoploss, while reducing wring-offs- would have enough tooth, tendon, etc damage to fail.
so...what makes these traps acceptable, and where there is a BMP on them in Canada, the BMP simply says "any foothold that is used in drowning setups is a bmp trap for muskrats."
So- now- its the TECHNIQUE that passes the trap- NOT the trap.
Think on this a minute. Its an important concept.
---------------------------------------------------
So now, don't you think that when the US does BMPs on rats, or most likely comes out with a blanket statement like Canada has...that the US BMPs will mirror that of Canada's?
How could they not?
Its something every rat trapper knows as fact because it IS fact.
And- and this too is a fact- setting the trap in WATER rather than anywhere...makes setting it in water a method, a technique.
Testing/passing methods COMBINED with traps, not just traps.
Same in coon..........
|
|
|
Post by thebeav2 on Aug 21, 2005 10:09:58 GMT -6
I don't see It that way. Most if not all muskrats are trapped In the water, with mink probably 95% are trapped In water. Not so with coon.I guess It would run about 60- 40 with about 60% of the coon being caught In the water. There are times when 100% of my coon catch Is taken on dry land, and not all of them are conibeared. Most of us have some problems with how BMPs could effect us as trappers. But we are doing the same thing when you or me try and force our trapping methods on all other trappers,It's no difference then implmating BMPs on all of us. Gary
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Aug 21, 2005 10:24:51 GMT -6
force my trapping methods on others? Where in the world did you ever get that?
I am trying to get others to WAKE UP and see that correct methods get better results than incorrect methods. No one wants to use my methods fine with me- but why penmalize me becasue I can do what others can't?
Back ot the point- I've bene told by Dave Hamilton that by far most coon are NOT taken on land setting with footholds. To begin with, the majority of coon are taken at the water. THe majority of land killed coon are taken in either conibears, specilty traps or snares. Very, very few coon trappers use footholds extensively on land.
I think I could safely say that at least 80% of the coons taken delibrately in footholds are in water. I base this on talking to hundreds of plus 100 a year coon men and what their methods are. I don't know any don't use water, sanres and conibears as their #1, #2,and/or #3. In fact- heres a challange. I take 150 or so coon in footholds on land every year. Who else takes even 50 in footholds on land on this forum? Delibrately now- not as incidentals?
lots of muskrats are in fact trapped OUT of the water or in very shallow water...but the key is DROWNING.
Same as coon......
There is a secondary arguement here- is drowning humane on only certain animals- in other words- different thresholds for different species?
|
|
|
Post by thebeav2 on Aug 21, 2005 14:27:04 GMT -6
50 is no big deal, I could and have done this In a few days. The counties hear In WI have this very nasty habit of mowing ditches and destroying coon trails. A dirt hole or a PVC set at the corner of the culvert will catch a bunch of coon In short order. Long chain, coon runs In the culvert no big deal. I still say your testing methods and not traps. I have trapped a ton of rats and can't ever remember setting a trap on dry land for a rat.And dam few for mink. All I'm saying Is that one method won't fit all situations or different localities. Maybe that's all we have to do Is change the meaning of BMPs to Best Method Practices. Gary
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Aug 21, 2005 14:34:13 GMT -6
Tman, you not using a technique when water trapping mink and muskrats, your setting for them in there enviroment, you don't need a drowning apperatice to kill a rat or mink, it is because the weight of the tool, the trap that does them in more so than the need of a drowning wire, also weather and hypothermia helps for a quick death in water. The technique would be to stake solid,use a drag or have a drowning rig, not because you set the trap in the water.
If you set on sign is that a technique? So by having a coyote crossing a creek and I make a set in the water for him you call that a technique? Does that really differ much from making a trail set on dry land?
lots of muskrats are in fact trapped OUT of the water or in very shallow water...but the key is DROWNING. I wouldn't say the key is drowning: maybe to you, but to others the key is using 110 type kill traps in alot of instances were water is of short supply. You have many circumstances that you don't figure into all of this, not all trappers trap the way you do nor do they all have the same geographic area, so to keep from setting guidlines that state technique again which nobody wants, you must test the tool. Leave the techniques up to the trappers.
WE don't know the outcome of a stoploss because it has yet to be tested and I doubt it will, as each species have different prioritys and different traps to be tested for those speices. If 80% of coons are water trapped then tell me why a good choice isn't that of a double jaw or a 1.5 with a welded on coon guard? Would this trap not hold rats and mink with a high efficanty score as well?
Also not all water trappers have the needed water to drown coons, many trap shallow ditches and creeks were drowning of coons are not an easy option. Many creeks have great coon populations yet don't have more than 15" of water in many spots. Yet the key to all water variables is finding a trap that can pass the threshold, and then all water trappers can use these tools in any given situation correct? Does that make sense?
Your 80% being a number that is were the high majority of coons being taken, I would bet thats why the testing took place in the water, as this is the most popular area for high coon numbers and were the majority of coons are caught.
The drowning issue has yet to be decided on 100% in the US as of yet, I would think we would have an all or none policy, who knows that has yet to be 100% addressed, and who knows if it will be 100% addressed and if not how does that effect your trapping or mine or anyone elses? If you don't address the issue how can it be a negative? Again each state can use all,part or none of this whole process, the key word guidlines. Some will use the information, some will use part of it and others will continue to keep there trapping regs the way they are.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 21, 2005 17:01:22 GMT -6
Then hold them in that water- and you get almost/no chewing. Something not allowed under the bmps- showing once again, the absurdity of the protocol.
Never set dry for rats? never trapped houses, crossovers, upper bank feed routes. And no, simple weight of the trap isn't always enough- rats get tangled up on things and a surefire method is needed. Thus drowner's.
You don't know the outcome of stoploss? Use them for 40 years- you might have a pretty good understanding of them.
Gary if you trap 50 coon a year in foothold traps I would say that then you too, are in a minority.
I trap 150 or so every year in them. Sure, some are incidentals in coyote traps- an exception to my no chewing rules, set up like a coon protocol trap, chewing is major- but most in deliberate coon sets off of my coyote line. I've learned a little by doing so. These are all hill coon by the way.
Just as using water to hold or drown coon OR rats is a technique- after all...and this is such an important point it simply can't be argued- the coon bmp expressly PROHIBITED either drowning OR holding the coon in water- thus classifying it as a technique.
Now- when I argue the same thing- you say I am wrong. Either we (bmps and I) are both right- or both wrong.
The coon bmp- no matter how sincere, no matter how much money put in- is, in my opinion, flawed for the reasons I've states- but let me refresh them
1) Its not logical to have 1 set of standards for animals as diverse as muskrats to coyotes and
2) why ignore methods that ALL coon trappers I know of practice and consider 100% humane?
Because some liberal vets in Sweden think drowning American coon is inhumane-
This year, I will keep data on ever coon killed on my dry line. I'll visibly check teeth, toes and cuts, abrasions. I'll let you know my results.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Aug 21, 2005 17:57:04 GMT -6
Tman the coon BMP tried many ways to get the 1.5 passed, and I'm sure if money allows there will be more testing of this trap, you didn't answer though why the 1.5 with a double jaw or welded mouth guard would not be adiquate in your mind for water trapping?
Drowning is not yet a done deal, the forseable problem is cost of testing, I don't doubt for a minute that many traps could be passed under a drowning study, it's the testing and shear cost to do so, among other issues, but remember my point if not addressed how can this be a negative?
1) Its not logical to have 1 set of standards for animals as diverse as muskrats to coyotes
So you up the amount of damage allowed for certain species but hold others to more stringent standards? You call that unbias? That would prove what? Since coons have the ability to chew we have to allow for more damage? Or under "Best management" we look for other tools or tools refind to cause less damage? What one of these is the general public going to see as more favorable approach?
The scores so far have not proved that the 1.5 can acheive the thresholds set, so your answer is then to change the thresholds to allow passage? Or would you rather see a state to state BMP considered? Different geographic regions having different tools and guidlines?
I won't ever say all this is 100% perfect, but it is what we have and what could be agreed to by all sides, there had to be give and take, and there will be those tools that pass and those that fail for each species. I still don't feel the 1.5 issue is all done, but it is tough when you have a guy that made the Grizz coon trap and has 2 guys that did 1,000 coons each with them on water and land, to dismiss the BMP process, in this case he made a trap that has a definate place in coon trapping with all that has come about. I don't know but, without the talk of the BMP's would this trap have ever come to light? That would be a good question to ask huh? I know it doesn't take into account the ability to trap 3 species with one tool, thats were my question about the double jaw and mouth guard comes in.
As far as rats and mink, I have trapped them in my early years and used alot of conibears and 1 1/2 victor stoploss, and with 1 ft of water and 18" of wire I didn't come across many live rats or mink, I also liked the #2 victor sq jaw coils for both as they were heavy and I had quite a few shoulder caught rats and mink by having the dog at 3 O'clock and guiding to the set.
2) why ignore methods that ALL coon trappers I know of practice and consider 100% humane? Not ignoreing them, if it was up to me I would gladly try your methods to see if they do what you claim on the scoring system set. It's not what trappers concider humane, there are many things us trappers view as humane, like snaring I see nothing wrong with a snare setup to kill quickly and humanely, but others have different thoughts on this issue as well, but what a majority of the general public would view it as humane? They hold the cards, under states ballots, and if they can the anti's will try and eliminate one state at a time, they have proved this out in how many states! Were dealing with a very high dollar group of people, and if things keep going the way they are, less trappers, less money in fur trapping, we need more than just to wait until they attempt something somewere, with the BMP"s and the factual data from these studies, one day my hope is to do away with the Anti's in trapping, as we know they won't spend the money to do good factual research, such as the BMP"s, they won't take away from there money train and actually spend it on anything but more advertising and lawsuits. Once those lawsuits get defeated in sound fashion, from science and facts! and the dollars being pi**ed away on there part, they'll move onto other issues.
If we can educate 35-45% of the general public and school age children then we can go forward and not have all these ballot incatives to deal with in the future. I personally feel, groups like Peta and others, will lose interest after we have good factual data and look for the next gold laying goose, that meaning the next hot topic cause that will keep there donations rolling in.
I also see markets like china and japan not being so concerned with animal welfare and more concerned with buying goods that are in demand, more so than the European countries. Who would like the fur market all to themselves and there ranched goods.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 21, 2005 18:52:21 GMT -6
Drowning is a done deal- make no mistake about that.
Secondly- I've shown with one example that we judge animals different all the time-
slaughterhouse
confinement
status
Why does attaching a foothold trap to a foot- change all of that?
Are you really arguing that all animals are treated the same under the law? The same in state to state?
I can give countless examples as to how they are NOT.
Once again, why does attaching a trap change that?
One reason only- the Olsen scale-
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Aug 21, 2005 19:24:36 GMT -6
Why does attaching a foothold trap to a foot- change all of that? We are taking the bias out of that by keeping the same thresholds!!! You can state many examples of that, truth be known most don't relize unless your a hunter there are different fines for taking different game, that is all set up under an imaginary worth as well, to a deer hunter poaching of a trophy buck has a imaginary figure in there minds, and to a bobcat trapper one who sees a deer as a non target nusiance, would like to see higher fines or more worth into a poached Large Tom! So on down the list. I don't think anti's care if your talking chicken slaughter, beef, sheep or pork and I also beleive that the majority would vote if they had to, on having all slaughtered animals treated the same. Thats just general public perception of animal welfare, alot know there is the nessacary evil of death, and alot don't mind it if done in a humane and straight forward way. I think alot can justify it in there minds, as long as they know those in the business of slaughter or hunting or trapping do it in a humane way, and they want more than just to be told, oh yeh were humane, they want facts and proof! Why you might ask, because if you don't then thats added firepower for the one species being short changed from the ratical anti movement. It would be a never ending cycle, change the thresholds and then you will have those wanting tighter thresholds on all species, and they would have a good case, How would you answer to the general public that a coyote an animal that causes such pain and suffering to others ie: lambs, calves and house pets to be set on more stringent injury threshold, than the cute little coon or mink or muskrat, that poor fella doesn't harm a soul and we allow more damage to take place to these species? Public perception, thats the key. I can tell you a big reason the foothold trap is still around is because of species like the coyote, and how people perceive him far more a villian to other wildlife, than a coon, mink, rat or beaver. The coyote has been good for the trapper in many reguards. The number one tool for coyotes is and will remain the foothold trap. Olsen scale, Johnson scale, we need something to gauge injury from and this scale has been used in the past in other studies it has some history so makes it more credible than if we came up with something totally new, and also were would we be in that process with all involved? ? I don't know if we would have had a final draft of any study, they would all be in bickering over the scoring system to this day!!!!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 22, 2005 6:15:12 GMT -6
the olsen scale has NO credibility.
saying it has, doesn't make it true.
Who would complain> The inventors of the olsen scale? The vet council?
You say the coyote is keeping the foothold trap- because thats what others have said- but there is no evidence or indeed anything in writing anywhere that says that. Point in fact- the beaver causes much more damage nationwide than the coyote does. As do rats, ants, mice and bats and probably $$$ wise- coon.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi2 on Aug 22, 2005 8:56:08 GMT -6
I will admit to not reading every post on this thread and I have only made a couple of posts near the end of the thread. Some thoughts for what they are worth. It seems that there is just way too much energy, passion and talent on both ends of this argument to not find a way to have a beneficial outcome for trappers, general public and our target species. With all this thinking going on and a long history of field application covering many decades we should be able develop some type of generally acceptable practices and principles. I have just joined the FTA and have been reading Dave Hastings last too editorials concerning conceeding too much and now the BMP process and his concerns. The FTA and the NTA have effectively taken very similar and strong positions on the issue of BMPs and trapper's lack of input into the process. Okay if trappers have been excluded or minimized does that make the process wrong scientifically? I do not know. It does make it wrong politically in my book. Many states have fur bearer specialists on staff that work with the state DNRs and are the link between trapper organizations (trappers) and the departments. Have these persons been utilized to their fullest extent in the current BMP process. If not why not? I do believe that some sort of scientific unbiased screening for proper traps and methods would be in the best interest of trapping and trappers. NOW what is the correct or most correct way to achieve the desired outcomes? We seem to be spending lots of money on convincing the public and politicians that we trap humanely and with the least trauma methods to our targets as we can. If we say that those studies are important why are the major trapping organizations not spending a reasonable to considerable amount of money to conduct the research? Everyone says that if the trappers do the research it willl be fllawed and the outcomes will not have credibility. I have been working for 30 years in higher level ag ed. There are hundreds of research trails conducted by land grant universities that are primarily funded by industry. Does that sway the outcomes? Maybe but the practices that are evolved from the research can have major changes on management and methods. The results from these types of research studies will not necessarily flow through the regulatory and political areas either. They will be promoted through the trapper ed, demos, rondys etc. avenue. I would be much more inclined ( as an individual) to contribute to good sound research on better traps and trapping methods then some of the medial productions we have supported in the recent past. The real heart of the matter seems to be where to we get the funds, who is in charge, will we all play fair and how are the results to be used? Grad students are highly trained skilled and motivated minimum wage labor. I know our daughter spent 6 years in grad school. Also then if seveal wildlife biology type grad students work on this type of research we have another great positive outcome. Several more field trained biologists with much better trapping knowledge.
As Linda Richmand would say- " I give you yet one more topic to discuss, talk amoungst yourselves".
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Aug 22, 2005 9:27:45 GMT -6
that has always bothered me also- mosti ndustried, DO have their own studies, proposals, guidelines, etc...and while those studies certainly are biased to the degree- it doesn't make them scientifically invalid.
Yet at every corner- the refrain has been- if trappers were doing the tests, they would be flawed and not credible.
Yet- this very thing is happening- they ARE flawed and not credible.
Keep in mind that :
1) no entanglement was allowed.
2) coon had to have access to land, could not be held in water
3) drowning a BIG no-no.
Credible trapping methods? Not among the coon trappers I know.
The money arguement isn't reallty an arguement. "We spent X number of $$$, but to get it right we have no funding?"
then toss it. too bad, too sad. But flawed is NOT going to get the wide support needed by trappers
And in that scenerio- the money is wasted anyways.
|
|
|
Post by foxtail on Aug 22, 2005 9:43:57 GMT -6
In the end, it is not going to matter.
Those who opose us and those fools who would believe their crap are not going to believe any of this.
We ne3ed to toss this BMP money pit in the dump where it belongs and spend the money on something that is needed more than this stupid farce- education.
Not education of the trappers and future trappers, we are already taking care of that angle. We need to educate the general public, those who either have no opinion, or those who are being led astray.
Not one trapping org that I know of are actively attempting to educate the public.
We need to have the NTA spend some of it's embnezzeled money on public ads and the FTA, MTAs, NYTA, PTA and the rest need to put forth some sort6 of educational push for those not in the know.
The AR idiots spend millions to push BS down the throats of the ignorant. Why in the hell can't we do that? I know we don't have millions.
|
|