|
Post by trappnman on Mar 27, 2006 14:12:18 GMT -6
They also state shallow water as a plus in the coon BMP as well.
You know thats not even remotely true. What is stated is setting traps in shallow water improves SELECTIVITY.
Tman when you used the #11 offset did it have dbl jaws? Did you use a pan stop? Did you use shock springs? If you answer NO to all above questions did you test the same trap as the BMP with the same protocol?
a resounding yes to all. except for the pan stop- and a pan stop on a #1 is silly.
NO where does it state that the trap must have land access either
it doesn't state it either way-
But that omission doesn't hide the fact that a PROTOCOL was used. I've asked you many times to read the past posts here or talk to Hamilton so you actually understand the protocol used. You obviously DO NOT.
No but the video does show a coon in such a manner!
so what? the TESTS were not done so.
The public perceives drowning as more time consuming and not as humane You have no basis for saying that- you cannot back it up in any way or means. You just pulled it out of the air.
The truth is THE VETS COUNCIL opposes drowning and doesn't think is "humane".
Once again, I suggest you talk to Hamilton and you can clear up the misconceptions you have- and then perhaps you will understand the real issues.
A few pieces of corn in a pile of $hit doesn't see me looking for my fork....
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 27, 2006 14:47:25 GMT -6
Tman I know the coon protocol, one with cover and one without cover. The point is the FINAL draft does not in negative way state anything about land access, that is the bottom line. I see the additional information as a plus because without that wording you would have one more gripe, it states that by setting the trap in shallow water it does improve selectivity to catch coons. It does not state that while you may increase selectivity you "MUST" allow access to land for the coon.
The "real" issues are the flavor of the day LOL!
Tman, common sense would tell you people are not going to be in a majority for drowning, I don't need a report to tell me that! Peoples main concern is what empathy for the animal be it Fido or a coyote, the general public wants to see that they are treated as best as we can treat them until their demise, good god man look at the livestock industry and the changes they have made when it comes to euthanizing food for the table. How long do you suppose drowning chickens at Tyson's would last in the public eye? Do I need a report to tell me that the public would not perceive that as a good thing? NO
I know the facts and I know that as I wrote you need to be cautious and really think things Through before running half cocked on the BMP's as all the data and science could be lost if we lose the trust of the general public on this matter.
Why not leave it up to the states as it has been for years? You think of law enactment so you want all outcomes resolved ASAP, again you must loose that mentality before you can ever see what good the BMP's could do for future trappers! Again voluntary not mandatory. How can you have an outcome on something not tested? I'm done on this thread gets old talking to the wall. Good Day.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 27, 2006 14:56:16 GMT -6
The point is the FINAL draft does not in negative way state anything about land access, that is the bottom line
this means nothing.
absolutely nothing.
Not even CLOSE to the bototm line...
ALL THE TESTS WERE MADE WITH MANDATORY LAND ACCESS.
THATS THE BOTTOM LINE
Another bottom line, the public doesn't even think of drowning in relation to trapping. So to say the "public" is against a quick, "HUMANE" death, is absurd.
I find it odd that if anyone questions idiotic protocol, they are going off half cocked...
I think the bmps already did that on coon.
In any case, I shall speak out against the coon bmp protocol at every opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 27, 2006 15:27:45 GMT -6
Tman it goes back to what Bryce was saying, why bring it into the forefront of public domain unless you can test it and back it with science? that is the half cocked I outlined, why bring up drowning if we can not back it with science, just because you say it is humane doesn't play into all peoples ideals of being such! That was the Tyson example! Good day!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 27, 2006 17:29:51 GMT -6
The point is the FINAL draft does not in negative way state anything about land access, that is the bottom line
this means nothing.
absolutely nothing.
Not even CLOSE to the bototm line...
ALL THE TESTS WERE MADE WITH MANDATORY LAND ACCESS.
THATS THE BOTTOM LINE
Another bottom line, the public doesn't even think of drowning in relation to trapping. So to say the "public" is against a quick, "HUMANE" death, is absurd.
I find it odd that if anyone questions idiotic protocol, they are going off half cocked...
I think the bmps already did that on coon.
In any case, I shall speak out against the coon bmp protocol at every opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by dj88ryr on Mar 27, 2006 19:26:49 GMT -6
How long do you suppose drowning chickens at Tyson's would last in the public eye? Tyson prepares food for our table, in most cases trapping is not doing that, at least for anybody other than the trapper, you are comparing apples to oranges, further proving that you can arrive at any outcome if you have enough money or hire the scientists.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 28, 2006 7:05:10 GMT -6
Tyson prepares food for our table, in most cases trapping is not doing that, at least for anybody other than the trapper, you are comparing apples to oranges, further proving that you can arrive at any outcome if you have enough money or hire the scientists.
Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist you are! It doesn't matter food for the table or hunting or trapping it is called public perception and what the public perceives as humane versus inhumane. With testing or without it is a judgment call and is very hard to nail down a definitive answer too.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 28, 2006 7:29:51 GMT -6
No one is thinking there is any conspiracy. Thats a thought YOU brought to the table.
I don't think the bmp committee wanted to fail traps..
I do however think they went off halfcocked, took too much pressure from the Vets council, I do think the original protocol was stupid- no other word for it-
and by USING that protocol, good traps were failed.
message to bmp committee: knock knock puddin head- coon AREN'T coyotes.
--------------------------------------------------
You leap to the defense by saying "the protocol wasn't spelled out in the bmps"
so what?
IT WAS USED.
if it wasn't so freaking sad, it would be hilarious- the fact that for water trapping the solution is so simple- and to think its "inhumane!" silly is as silly does.
I'll guarantee you- and I'll bet the farm on it- that if you make your coon sets so that the coon is IN 3-4 inches of water, with no land access:
YOU WILL HAVE ALMOST IF NOT, 100% NON CHEWING
Yet that method- was never tested...worse yet- IT WAS EXPRESSLY DENIED.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 28, 2006 16:06:43 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 28, 2006 17:16:43 GMT -6
the truth has prevailed!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 28, 2006 17:20:43 GMT -6
YOU ARE THE "TRUTH" TMAN!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 28, 2006 17:36:24 GMT -6
I gave you many points to debate- you refused to debate any of them.
You cannot argue that the protocol used was to eliminate all water restraint. Thats a fact.
Since you cannot argue that point- you resort to sarcasm.
Cool.
The TRUTH is self evident to any coon trapper that knows how to trap coon. DROWNING might not be universal- but holding coon in water IS.
And we ain't even touching on how land sets without entanglement is simply not knowing coon habits.
How- under any criteria, can you say this coon bmp was thought out, well planned?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 28, 2006 20:51:21 GMT -6
You say the protocol is bad, but let's look at it with coons you have so many things that weigh into it, you can stake coon in water and out, you can drag coons, you can tangle stake coons, drown coons. You then look at all the very different habitat across the US you have woodlots,creeks, rivers, drainage ditches, dry bridges, culverts, etc. You have areas with ample cover,areas with NO cover. You claim to have the silver bullet to fit all coon trapping with your methods and to reduce chewing to a passing grade over all variables sounds like quite the feat for the 1.5 due to it's make up and all conditions, everywere. Yet I aksed you with No answer would all the traps that passed the current protocol fail in any protocol? Answer Yes or NO.
I am not the creator of the 2 protocols used one with cover and one without, yes it was a tough test but unless they decide to have regional coon BMP's to address your concerns which would be needed to have your protocol tested or change Voluntary to mandatory you can do as you see fit correct?
Again it comes back to the idea of not loosing creditabilty with the general public and also there was science and data involved, allbeit not what you would like for your area but the results under the toughest of protocols your words, proved out that the traps that passed to be the top lot under a very tough protocol.
You stated also that pan stops on a #1 where not needed, have you tested pan stops? They made a differance in the protocol used and the end result, there fore you did not test them as stated in the BMP correct?
I remember years ago many,many people saw NO benefit from jaw laminations and base plating yes they where the ones who turned out never too have tried them as well.
Dryland coons precent the same issues and problems because they can be found over a very fast array of habitat and conditions. Again more of a regional system would be needed.
This would take alot of time,money and paper work to be run as you see fit. Again you have the mind set of Mandatory or as written regs, but the BMP Final draft writers went out of their way with coon BMP to label it as a voluntary action even more so than any other BMP final draft.
There will be no perfect system when dealing with coons to keep all people happy without a ton of work period, if you think no one else has thought of this well I don't know what to tell you. The coon presents some of the biggest problems in testing like this will ever see, I don't think anyone doubts this due to their nature and the many areas of contrast they can be found.
I feel that by this testing we have something that shows even under the rigours of the protocol we had traps that passed and yet understanding that this is far from being done to label this as a voluntary choice among trappers until the time of further testing and new ideals being brought to the table was the way to go. There will be no perfect system for all areas and for the trap, you make the point that the coon can chew.
To you it is not a matter of switching traps but a matter of finding out how to keep the coons mouth from getting to it's foot. You do that with methods that work for you in your area, others will do it with a differently designed trap to have the same outcome a dead coon.
Good Day!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 29, 2006 8:27:50 GMT -6
yes, I've tested pan stops- and on a #1- its a waste of time and effort. Trap a bunch of coon with them- and YOU tell me if they are worth it.
And shock springs on coon traps- Zero effect on chewing- at least with that wonderful coon trap the #11 offset double jaw.
Funny how they could impose that coon HAD to have land access- and THAT method is ok- but they cannot use RESTRAINED in WATER...cause thats a method.
LOL
This would take a lot of time,money and paper work to be run as you see fit.
Worse argument in the world- they had the time and money to do it WRONG- now we need to suck it up?
Sorry- not me.
the bmps are getting what they deserve-
until traps are tested with protocols that trappers actually USE- the results are bogus.
Please tell me WHY anyone would make a water coon set- and then give that coon land access- 50% land access by the way. 18 inch chain PLUS a shock spring.
This is what you seem not to understand. It isn't if the protocol was a little wrong, a little out of sync with trappers- no- the problem is that the protocols are as wrong as they possibly could be.
the surprise isn't that most traps failed- the surprise is that ANY trap passed.
and I flat out guarantee you- production coon trappers are not using #11 offset djs and #1 dj, offsets on coon.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 29, 2006 14:39:33 GMT -6
Worse argument in the world- they had the time and money to do it WRONG- now we need to suck it up?
Not an agrument but the truth as it is! Their is only so much a year budgeted for BMP testing how much would you like dropped at one time on the coon BMP? I'll find out what BMP has used the most spendatures on singel testing? When it states it as voluntary. How many testing periods should be used for the Coon study at one time? What about other species? They get lost because of the coon BMP? You act once again that this is it for coon testing, that this is the final product to live with for years to come? You act like this is mandatory, which I point to again voluntary, is it your pride as a coon trapper that hinders your judgement?
and I flat out guarantee you- production coon trappers are not using #11 offset djs and #1 dj, offsets on coon.
Funny you did not mention the 1.5 dbl jaw or 1.5 coon guard trap in your list because they both passed as well? Also the #1 was basicly tested and passed for the SE US where coon sizes are smaller so what bearing does it have on you?
Tell me why the 1.5 dbl jaw or 1.5 coon guard trap that can be used under many facets and limit chewing due to design listed above would not work for you as a semi aqautic coon trap or a full water situation coon trap?
Again I will state for the last time as you are on the left and I'm on the right on this BMP issue, you try and avoid chewing with a trap that" ALLOWS" chewing thru methods that work for you in "your" area and others decide to change the trap design and allows them many more methods and techniques to keep coons from chewing. Are you stating those that have the choice of using a dbl jaw or coon guard trap are in the wrong or using this trap at a disadvantge to what you use?
I believe you stated that the grizz is a trap that can't be used under alot of conditions? Yet for those that use them for "their" conditions they take 100's of coons with them, choices Tman you still have yours and so do others, Voluntary and living documentation remember those words.
I'm sorry if you think the BMP bank should have been broken for the Coon BMP" blow the whole shot at once" but other testing remains to be done as well. Bad mouth them all you want and I'll speak to the positives on the BMP's. We will agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by dj88ryr on Mar 29, 2006 19:54:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 30, 2006 7:42:03 GMT -6
The bmps were at a crossroads... they could either:
1) determine WHY a coon is chewing, and stop the action BEFORE it starts...
or
2) set up a STUPID STUPID STUPID protocol that ensures MAXIMUM chewing
Hmmn...what do do...
lets go with @.
and thats what they did.
So now- because of STUPIDITY, we have to live twit the bogus results of these tests.
Cause all the money was spent? Yet i the same breath, you say the bmps are an outgoing, live science?
Pick one buddy, pick one.
To accept something because its paid for - is STUPID if it doesn't meet your needs (coon trappers needs based on the REALITY of the trapline, not the fantasy of the vets council.)
know any big coon trappers that use coon guards?
Another feel good gimmick.
you want to defend bmps?- to regain any credibility, turn to the coyote ones.
The coon bmps are going down the tube fast- and rightfully so.
Ill conceived, poorly planned out, STUPID protocol- yeah, money well spent.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 30, 2006 8:05:19 GMT -6
1) determine WHY a coon is chewing, and stop the action BEFORE it starts... See you think protocol is the "ONLY" way to do this and you are dead wrong! The trap design can also accomplish this as well! BMP "BEST" "BEST" means exactly that to look for the best capturing devices, you clearly state you must thru protocol keep the coon from getting to it's foot or what happens Tman? Chewing correct, trap design changes make it so a coon can get to it's foot and not have the chewing!
Again choices tman and you slid right by that and went back to the same ol', same ol'.
DJ nice impute into the conversation of the BMP's.
Good luck to you both!
|
|
|
Post by dj88ryr on Mar 30, 2006 14:16:43 GMT -6
DJ nice impute into the conversation of the BMP's. I THINK YOU MEANT INPUT.... Anyway, If there is one thing I have learned and absorbed as I age it is that you can NOT discuss opposing views with a KOOLAID drinker. I am enjoying the show though, Steve will have your breakfast in a debate....and has.... ;D
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 30, 2006 17:11:29 GMT -6
You keep being the cheerleader then DJ and this debate is to educate those on the BMP's and not see them as some choose with only a negative eye and that maybe their is more than one way to accomplish things besides these ideals of a few and wanting only protocol and not "best" trapping devices being tested out.
The eating my breakfast is your opinion and I would think being the cheerleader you are bias ay best. Give us that cheer DJ Tman, Tman he's our man if can't live in the world of gray no one can!!! LOL Have a great day!
|
|