|
bmp
Nov 24, 2005 7:49:32 GMT -6
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 24, 2005 7:49:32 GMT -6
Show me the scientific proof that the Olson scale has ANY validity in relation to trapping.Vets came upon this scale, taking all the different lacarations and breaks and other damage to an animal and gave it an injury score based on the severity of that damage!!!! We have 1,2, and 3rd degree burns what science is behind that? ? None it is a score given to an injury that can be used as a standard so all have the same idea of what a 1st 2nd or 3rd degree burn would entail!!!! You can't have it 100% science because you can't gauge pain thresholds with a species that can't give you a response to that pain!!!!! You want to hold onto this as not being valid because you know, it can't be proved 100% either can any other scale you think you can setup for injurys to animals!!! As long as it is accepted as the scale of choice and it has been used in the past for trap testing, then it is a valid scale. No different in much of the human field of medicine. Things are awarded a score on pain and we can talk and we still don't have a 100% fool proof pain gauge for humans! Nice red herring though!!!! THey have a vested interest in making SURE these bmp "recommendations" are adopted by as many states as possible. Why else would the STATES pay the way to have their personal continue to push for and test bmps? If they are adopted- money "well spent"- if tossed by honest trappers- they look like fools. Make no doubt about it- the STATES are not, in 99% of the cases- trappers friends. The states we speak of are the Game depts, not the govenors office or the such! If they didn't find this information as a value they wouldn't be paying for such testing!!! The states that have trappers involved wouldn't be invovled if no benefit came from this!!!! You must think ALL states Game depts or DNR people are dolts and have far less insight as you? Our state gets involved to have input in the whole process to make it better for trappers not worse!!! You can't have a strong voice in anything without particpation!!! These funds come from the Game Depts and beleive me the last thing they are worried about is failure in the BMP's and taking heat from the public! They all have so many other hot button issues to worry about,than heat from the public on the BMP's. I'll flat out bet you the farm- that beaver & coon do FAR more damage overall then coyotes do to farmers and ranchers in the United States.Perception of damage!!!!! Some like the beaver and there activitys, others don't, coon damage is not wide spread across the US and doesn't make the big list!!!! But very few producers will tolerate dead livestock period!!!! The market goes higher and the pressure on the coyote gets worse. When livestock prices are off, the perception of coyotes overall is lower, when the market goes high the tolerance for coyotes in the "area" goes way down!!!! The mear hearing of coyotes with a high market means more work, less tolerance due to the high market. Livestock producers have alot of poltical clout, I didn't make that rule it is what it is!!!! Thus one of the reasons for 2 coyote BMP's! and btw- the BMPs have NOTHING to do with domestic pets- if you are using that as a point to debate- you are playing right into the antis hands.No they really don't but state laws do!!!! Why do you think some outlawed conibears on land? Just because they thought today was a good day to do so? Because ussaly a domestic dogs or cats!!!! Or the perceived threat of that happing! Read that again- holding coon in water- ABSOLUTELY ELIMINATES CHEWING. Ain;t that a kick in the ass- a method that works almost 100% of the time, a method used by MOST water trappers of coon, a method that puts (ultimately) more coon on the boards- is deemed not animane by the powerful, all knowing bmp committee...with help from their buddies at the Vets council, of course. Tman what state has outlawed water sets because the BMP chooses not to deal with this issue at this time? See you think this is all law and will be all law, again you miss it!!! States have input on the BMP and they also have the power to control their own rules and regs, has been this way for years and will continue to do so, NO 2 States have the same biological needs or what the population likes and dislikes!!! That is why each state tweaks their game laws for the needs of the people of there state. Also some states are not willing to concede to ALL BMP ideals, if you/I have a strong state Game Agency they will still think for themselves, yet use the positives of the BMP! It is more an ideal of information gathering on an issue that has never really been tackled in depth! That scares some people, I'm not one to be scared of much!
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 24, 2005 11:22:30 GMT -6
Post by robertw on Nov 24, 2005 11:22:30 GMT -6
"and btw- the BMPs have NOTHING to do with domestic pets- if you are using that as a point to debate- you are playing right into the antis hands." I am afraid that currently this is not true as the BMP is currently being conducted, especially in the trapper education manual. To my knowledge no dogs have been killed in any BMP testing yet dog proof enclosures and devices affecting the effectiveness of 160 and 220 conibears are blanket recommendations in the BMP Trapper Education Manual. Arguably, maybe a dog somewhere ( ) has been killed in a 160 conibear (sure the possibility does exist, but is it a real problem?) but from conversations with several Furbearer Biologist I have been unable to locate a confirmed / reported case to substantiate the need for these devices on this size trap. If the BMPs are so honest and if their science / protocol is sound why is it that no information appears concerning the detrimental affects on efficiency of these traps when using these "Dog proof" devices?
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 24, 2005 14:56:06 GMT -6
Post by trappnman on Nov 24, 2005 14:56:06 GMT -6
perception of damage? No, actual damage. Coon do more damage (read that as eat corn) then deer ever do. Beaver destroy so much that some actually hire other trappers to trap for them on beaver contracts.
I rarely, rarely get a coyote complaint- and even then, it is perceived future damage that worries the farmers. Most of my farmers- could care less about coyotes. Care less. YET- I got a list my arm long on beaver and coon complaints. Look up the actual monitary amounts- you will see I'm right.
You are missing the entire point- WHY- and this is a serious question- WHY eliminate the BEST methods- and test the methods that will ENSURE chewing. For example, why didn't they use a #114 trap to test coyotes? huh? cause they KNEW it would fail. yet on coon, lets test the worst methods out there- and then profess surprise at the results.
gauge pain thresholds with a species that can't give you a response to that pain!!!!!
Exactly. nothing can be proved- yet WHY did the vets council INSIST, no DEMAND that certain threshold figures were written in stone? Simple- they would be tickled pink if NO foothold traps passed for ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
my state laws say no wandering domestics- they say feral cats are not protected and roaming dogs doing damage can be eliminated.
Oh, the GAME DEPT and not political entities. Wake up man- the game agencies are ALL political- The director or top men in most states ARE APPOINTED by the Govenor. Thats a simple fact. As soon as the Directors don't see a erward- the bmp funding is gone and so is funding and so are jobs. Gee, think maybe there is a vested interest.
Another simple fact- and you have not given me 1 reason to think differently- the coon bmps, because of the insisted on protocal- are as bogus as any study ever made- and any trapper that ACTUALLY traps coon on purpose- knows this.
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 24, 2005 22:31:05 GMT -6
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 24, 2005 22:31:05 GMT -6
You rarely get coyote complaints because you don't have big sheep numbers and no open range!!! Change the practices on your sheep and you would have more damage from sheep!!! Coons doing more damage than deer??? I highly doubt that!!! Many 1,000's are spent each year on deer fencing of stack yards of hay and the deer numbers and the amount of corn eaten is higher with deer, I would venture to say in alot of parts the goose causes more damage to early bean fields than anything! Your talking just in your area Tman not nation wide or East versus west US!
Robert, I can give you a confirmed case of a dog being killed in a 220 a year ago in Iowa, their was alot of hype over this even though the trapper was not in the wrong and I wrote en editoral on the subject to the local newspaper. Again it is what the general public perceives and what heat the DNR is willing to take, so far the IA DNR has stood strong and has not changed their regs on dry land 220's. Right or wrong, we are under the microscope and alot of city dwellers don't see ol' rufus as a feral or rouge, they see them as someones dear pet and trappers get the short end of the stick, sad but true. Tougher pet laws would help, but again with HSUS and the likes and just what people perceive makes a big differance.
I know the head of Game Depts are appointed, but you think there getting the chopping block over the BMP's and the money spent? Not going to happen, again they have many more issues that worry the appointed heads than the BMP"s and have to be always worried about a change in power at the Govenors level, yet many make it through multiple govenors because they know there job and do a good job for all the people!!! Ask any of them if their main concern is a flop in the BMP's as a ticket out I would bet that would be at the very bottom of the list! How many states have raised their revenue through big time increases in license sales and what they give to IAFWA is a very small portion of their annual budget. As fars as vested interest you can say that about any study done by any group that gets outside funding, not a BMP issue at all!!!!
The vets council is a part of process, but not the end all, were would we be if no trappers took involvment in this testing??? Better off or worse off? you can't have a voice without being involved, you want all to wash there hands of the BMP's because of this coon deal, again how would that look to the very people who control the outcome of trapping in many states? The threshold figures had to be documented or they could change with the damage seen trap by trap, species by species leading to really bogus testing on altering the thresholds according to the damage at hand and giving traps free passes, what a total waste of time and money and the impact that would have on trappers, when that information would get released and believe me it would! ALL CREDITABILTY FOR TRAPPERS LOST FOR ALONG TIME!!!!
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 25, 2005 8:33:16 GMT -6
Post by coyoteman37 on Nov 25, 2005 8:33:16 GMT -6
why is it that folkes out west can catch with a #3 no dammage to the paw I also can do the same, yet the #3 that is supposed to have passed this bmp are not legal in many states? also sometime back the nta got out of the bmp process why?
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 25, 2005 8:42:29 GMT -6
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 25, 2005 8:42:29 GMT -6
37, the #3 is a great trap when modified does little damage, I'll agree with you 100% excellent coyote trap no matter were you live! Some states are not in the loop when it comes to trapping and bowed because of pressure or some biologist thinking the smaller the trap the better. Dog hunters, some who know little about trapping had some influance in some states as well. The beauty of the BMP shows that the #3 is one of the best coyote traps to use as far as damge and capture efficantcy, so if you had people willing to go back to their Game Commisions with this info they might get the use of the #3 back! It has been proven out in testing!!! Before testing what good sound information was availble to show the Game Commisioners or the public at public hearings? It is up to the state and the people involved in there states to make change
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 25, 2005 9:24:27 GMT -6
Post by robertw on Nov 25, 2005 9:24:27 GMT -6
Trappincoyotes35 "Robert, I can give you a confirmed case of a dog being killed in a 220 a year ago in Iowa, their was alot of hype over this even though the trapper was not in the wrong and I wrote en editoral on the subject to the local newspaper. Again it is what the general public perceives and what heat the DNR is willing to take, so far the IA DNR has stood strong and has not changed their regs on dry land 220's. Right or wrong, we are under the microscope and alot of city dwellers don't see ol' rufus as a feral or rouge, they see them as someones dear pet and trappers get the short end of the stick, sad but true. Tougher pet laws would help, but again with HSUS and the likes and just what people perceive makes a big differance" You apparently missed what was said above in my posting. Robert W "Arguably, maybe a dog somewhere ( ) has been killed in a 160 conibear (sure the possibility does exist, but is it a real problem?) but from conversations with several Furbearer Biologist I have been unable to locate a confirmed / reported case to substantiate the need for these devices on this size trap." If no "Furbearer" Biologist is aware of a reported incedent of a dog being killed in a 160 conibear and if it has not happened in the test conducted then WHERE IS THE SCIENCE, THE LOGIC OR THE NEED TO RECOMEND DOG PROOF ENCLOSURE SETS NATION WIDE IN A TRAPPER EDUCATION MAUNUAL? You also missed this question posted above. If the BMPs are so honest and if their science / protocol is sound why is it that no information appears concerning the detrimental affects on efficiency of these traps when using these "Dog proof" devices? It appears that there is no regard to how much these BMPS are going to impair the harvest of these animals by the few individuals still trapping when implemented as state wildlife regulations.
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 25, 2005 9:59:58 GMT -6
Post by trappnman on Nov 25, 2005 9:59:58 GMT -6
why do you doubt? Seriously- if you would like, I can give you phone numbers of some of my farmers- ask them what does the most damage to corn. $$ amount now. Those big bare patches in corn fields? not deer. Coon. and the same is true across the coon belt in the corn belt.
Listen to what I say- I've said this MANY times- how you can be unaware of my saying this is beyond me- the coyote bmps are fine. They listen to real coyote trappers, used the traps and methods they recommended, and the tests went as planned.
Because 1 bottle of unlabeled liquid doesn't kill me, am I to assume I can drink every unlabeled bottle out there? Obscure point- no. Point is that accepting 1 study as being accurate in no way blinds me to the inaccuracies of there.
Once again- those thresholds- that Olsen Scale that was modified and adapted- was never meant for anything but parlor games. they have no scientific basis in fact- yet some, and you are obviously one of them, think because the vet council endorsed them- that we had to accept them. Simply say...no.
look at what you stated Vets came upon this scale, taking all the different lacerations and breaks and other damage to an animal and gave it an injury score based on the severity of that damage!!!!
Hey- I agree- they "came across" it. Because it has no validity in science. It simple does not. Yet..
and take time to understand this point...YET...
the future of coon trapping as we know it- is based on this arbitrary scale that the vets "came across"
TRAPPERS never agreed to this- so since the vets council- as a whole, as anti trapping group as there is- wants this scale- its a done deal. Bull.
Those in charge duped us, lead us down the wrong path- and much like the NTA debacle-- people..excuse me TRAPPERS told them from the beginning the protocol was flawed- and now thats its a done deal- are we to accept it- knowing the protocol is bogus, and calling the Scale bogus would be kind... no. Not I. Not 2 years ago, not last year, not today and not tomorrow.
In every talk I give, in every demo I give- I'll give my opinion of the fallacies contained in the coon bmps- and them go on to explain the correct way to reduce chewing..and water...as COON trappers know everywhere- is part of the mix.
Don't forget that there was quite a push in the early days- to NOT have the same thresholds. This push was done by some of those participating from the game depts. But..they were in turn told NO...by the vets council once again.
You have said that if TRAPPERS (those dumb trappers) conducted the tests- they'd have no validity. Yet- at the same time- you accept the tests- dominated in protocol/posting/etc by the very people that voted against trapping- as gospel.
Funny- the SD boys spend all their time on prairie dogs, beavers, ewtc...I've been told by SEVERAL if it was just coyotes, they would be out of a job. How many sheep ranches are there in the united states-? darn few in the overall scheme of things. We have sheep here also- I have 7-8 farmers that have sheep, some a lot. Those that take care of their sheep, seem to do better. Like many have said- ranchers complain bitterly about loosing $25,000, $50,000 or more to coyotes each year- and I am sure thats what they claim on taxes- yet won't pay some one $5000-$10000 a year to solve the problem? LOL not much of a real problem then, is there. but in any case- my point is that COYOTES cause much less $$$ damage to landowners...BY FAR...than many other species. Are you debating this point?
and as far as the game dept- do you read say the twin cities papers- or probably any state capital paper- dept heads and commissioners fall like flies in every new administration. Wasting money on bogus p[programs gets no one kudos. Working for the "man" is nothing but a cover your ass game- take all credit, accept no blame..or bye bye. If you think those participating in this program do not have a vested interest- so be it. They do.
Where would we be if no trappers involved.? for God sakes man- haven't you been current on how the bmps just give lip service to FTA and nta participation but listens not at all? Its common info. Read your Fur Taker magazine. Trappers were NOT involved in any real, meaningful way. We could sit at the table..but ssssh...the big guys are talking.
If they would have been, the coon protocol would have been 180 degrees different. And please- for their sakes- don't bring up any names of "big" time coon men that participated in the studies cause if they signed off on these protocols- then they are fools and not, in my opinion, coon trappers at all.
The vet council has controlled this process from the beginning.
Olsen Scale- bah humbug- its arbitrary at best, has no rhyme nor reason to it- and those trappers you were so proud of that participated- they had no input o this. Much as every step don the way, the vets council members and the others- and I call them antis cause in my opinion they are- overruled every move to make the coon protocol fit coon- what a bizarre concept hey- coon aren't coyotes?
hmmn...where have I read a dog is a pig is a boy....?
at a trappers meeting...noooooo.... him..seems like its related to HSUS....as are the freaking vets council!! (by this I mean that most all vets, and certainly those on the vets council that voted to END all trapping (lucky that vote meant squat) endorse and support the HSUS-
So protocal...
drowning? oh no says the vets council. We can't have that...
Hold in water? Oh no says the vets council. That would be creul...
Trap coon in cover? Oh heavens no says the vets council. We cannot approve....
try methods that are championed as WORKABLE? no..lets not take the chance that the traps trappers actually USE for coon- would pass.
Lets not take the chance that the most used trap in the world- the trap that is usable for multi species- could pass.
Hey...one trap at a time...bye bye. Next step is like Canada- no trapping coon on land in footholds- not HUMANE don't cha know... Cause by gosh, this bmp showed...and this is one fact of the study- coon held i the open, with no cover, with nothing to occupy his time- chew like the dickens. And dumb trappers (once again, that sounds familiar) are to stupid to incorporate a few simple methods- to reduce and/or eliminate chewing.
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 25, 2005 11:55:39 GMT -6
Post by SgtWal on Nov 25, 2005 11:55:39 GMT -6
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 25, 2005 12:37:37 GMT -6
Post by trappnman on Nov 25, 2005 12:37:37 GMT -6
Interesting report- total field crop damage (in 2001) $619 million, livestock and poultry $178 million and fruits and nuts $146 million. So none livestock losses equaled $765 million and livestock losses $178 million-
My only criticism of the report- is the damage reported can be "perceived damage"..that is, if they didn't know, they guessed.
I see this all the time... damage from one animal is often attributed to another- in my area- deer get blamed for a lot of turkey and coon damage.
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 25, 2005 15:46:31 GMT -6
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 25, 2005 15:46:31 GMT -6
Tman did you read the report on field crops deer had a much higher % than coon by a long shot!!! I'm not saying you don't have coon damage but your talking in your little part of the world and NOT Nation wide as far as losses!!! How many coon complaints does one who lives out west and does ADC work get??? Darn few mostly coyotes and beaver!!!! Why there are not many coons in the western US compaired to the midwest and east coast states! Again South Dakota you use as an example, the eastern side of the state trappers don't do prairie dogs because there are none!!! They do beaver by a wide margin, then coyotes and then coons, west river more coyote work, less beaver work than the eastern side of the state and prairie dog control! The open range sheep operations start for the majority at the river and then west, there are still plenty of sheep in the US!!! Again I point out a producer is far less tolerant on dead livestock overall than coons and beavers and the damage they do! That is a fact! 1-2 dead lambs and your getting a phone call, a coon messing up some corn or a beaver chewing on a few trees can wait far longer than the dead livestock! That is what I meant by perception of damage, I get most of my beaver calls in the fall when the ranchers have time to drive around and look, otherwise the majority of spring and summer is coyote control, there too busy calving and lambing to drive the creeks looking for beaver, they percieve that as less important than the coyotes!!!!
The olsen scale was used by others in testing traps long before the BMP!!!!!! Why can't you grasp that!!! Then why is the coyote BMP and the scale used just perfect same Olsen scale Tman, yet a bogus crock when dealing with coons?
Our Dept head has been on for many years and through many governors and so look at Iowa I beleive Mr Bishop stayed on for many years as well! Again not a one of them loose sleep over the outcome of the BMP"s.
Boy you like to stretch things Tman, now were at the point of dry land coon trapping outlawed??? What state and when did this take place? I have zero problem with drowing coons for the last time I'll tell you this!!! It is all not going to fall the way of the trappers, not when you have the makeup of the committe involved!!!
It's like the UN some say we should be their others say no way, what is right? Please tell me? A corrupt group of people yet we should stay involved because what other nations may think, do we stay in the UN or leave after all the bs that went down over the Iraq food for oil scandel? Your going to have good and bad, the really bad is if all trapper groups and all trappers puleed away from the entire BMP process, I can gurantee you things would be far worse for sure!!!!
As far as the USDA reports on damage, alot of this comes from the state people directly involved with WDC programs and they know coon damage from turkey and deer damage. My whole point on that matter is you try to link the damage you have in "your area" as being the damage all see across the board and it is just not so! Deer,beaver and coyotes are the hot topic species in far wider region!
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 25, 2005 16:41:56 GMT -6
Post by trappnman on Nov 25, 2005 16:41:56 GMT -6
did you read where I said CORN?
the coon damage was probably 100% corn- whereas deer was beans, hay, melons, corn, oats, wheat, etc.
Enough of these side issues- the only reason I brought it up other animals was that the only reason COYOTES got 2 bmps was money and politics. Plain and simple. And your own words- confirms that. thank you!
lets keep in mind the real issue- the coon bmps were and are junk- no real coon trapper approves of them or supports them. Give me names if you disagree with this.
why cannot you grasp the FACT that you have offered NO scientific basis for the establishment of the Olson scale with those thresholds. Don't feel bad, it can't be done.
You SAYING its sceintific, doesn't make it so- anymore than the arbitrary way it was established makes it so. Its nonsense then and its nonsense now. Prove me wrong.
Where did I say dryland coon trapping was outlawed? Its important to read what I posted, and not read INTO what I post what you THINK I said. Go back and re read my posts- and please, point out where I made this statement. LOL- talk about stretching things.
Where do you get that the damage was observed by "officials"? I didn't see that and I read the complete report. More of a real life scenerio- the FARMER or RANCHER reported the damage- and the "offical" wrote it down. And Like I said- I have no doubt the figures are VERY inflated for many of those reporting it. No one ever had a $20 stereo stolen....
but so what?
The coon bmps are still based on STUPID protocals-
also- could give a rats ass if a rancher running 10,000 sheep on public land loses some to coyotes. Tough titty. Let them boo hoo and cry and have taxes pay to solve their problem rather then paying their own way.
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 25, 2005 16:54:48 GMT -6
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 25, 2005 16:54:48 GMT -6
Where did I say dryland coon trapping was outlawed? Its important to read what I posted, and not read INTO what I post what you THINK I said. Go back and re read my posts- and please, point out where I made this statement. LOL- talk about stretching things. Hey...one trap at a time...bye bye. Next step is like Canada- no trapping coon on land in footholds- not HUMANE don't cha know... Cause by gosh, this bmp showed.also- could give a rats ass if a rancher running 10,000 sheep on public land loses some to coyotes. Tough titty. Let them boo hoo and cry and have taxes pay to solve their problem rather then paying their own way. First off they pay a head tax on all livestock, secondly they all pay a fee/lease on BLM ground or the such! It is my job to care about there loss that is how I get paid!!!!!! See you don't understand that livestock dollar loss will always be lower because if it hit the marks of the other species, their would be less livestock producers and less livestock going to market raising your price retail as well!!!!! You feel the same about all the crop subsidies given to the farmers you trap on tman? Where do you get that the damage was observed by "officials"? I didn't see that and I read the complete report. More of a real life scenerio- the FARMER or RANCHER reported the damage- and the "offical" wrote it down. And Like I said- I have no doubt the figures are VERY inflated for many of those reporting it. No one ever had a $20 stereo stolen....Most of it somes from the AHPIS guys in eahc state on the ground they respond to complaints and most keep accurate records of damage that gets turned into USDA every quater I do mine, so it is not inflated we go market price on livestock and a dollar value on trees, which I might add is much lower than actual replacement cost!!! It is not an annual questionair given out to landowners!!!! My producers KNOW coyote kills for the most part and I record what I deem as coyote killed and I report the loss of trees and crops to beaver,coons, whatever not the producer!!!! It would do them NO good to cry wolf and make up alot of false killings or damage and they don't on the majority do so!!!! There is NO state rembursement for livestock loss, so why inflate it?
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 25, 2005 18:15:21 GMT -6
Post by trappnman on Nov 25, 2005 18:15:21 GMT -6
tax loss...
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 26, 2005 8:20:11 GMT -6
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 26, 2005 8:20:11 GMT -6
wil work for a few years but not year after year, would be a great red flag for an audit!!!
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 26, 2005 18:28:27 GMT -6
Post by trappnman on Nov 26, 2005 18:28:27 GMT -6
not really...you lose 50 lambs- coyotes got em'!
btw- in MN, I'm pretty sure livestock losses from wolves are reinbursed- for sure crop damge from deer, turkeys can be- although since its a %...pennies on the dollar...yo uneed large losses to make it worth while.
|
|
|
bmp
Nov 27, 2005 12:17:12 GMT -6
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Nov 27, 2005 12:17:12 GMT -6
Guys claiming losses of 20,000+ is for sure going to be looked by the IRS, and what % is the loss comapired to what goes to market is another key aspect to be looked at! Most producers won't accept 7% loss each lambing season with any kind of decent attitude! Some die each year from natural causes open range weather plays a big part in lamb losess, also what kind of stewart of their flock are they plays into it. I have a few producers that I work hard year round, that the last 2 years 1 guy has taken 120% and 105% to market, these are the guys that really appricate your working the coyote hard, exspecially with 115.00-120.00 market lambs! Most of the time you try and keep the loss under 3-4% if they call you at the right times.
|
|