|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 12, 2005 15:46:05 GMT -6
Things states don't want to do? What state doesn't want people to be safe? Yes the federal government can mandate things they feel are important to americans, we all have congressional people there, they are supposed to be there to look out for the best interest of their respective state. But, you must look at the motives behind both the mandate and what are the motives of the states? Dollars on each end, some cases saving dollars others making dollars. Does the dollar come in direct competition with motive on each end? Is it moral? There are more things to concider than just true/false and each issue would have to be debated seperately.
Yes there are a few states that have adopted the BMP on cable restraints, those states decided to do so, without any federal government mandate, that is my point states can make decisions on there laws and regs, some states allow dry land conibears others do not, some allow snares, others do not, some that do not allow snaring decided to go the route of cable restraints, it is all controlled by the states. Do you think the BMP was the brain child of cable restraints? They tabbed it a BMP why who knows and it will catch on I'm sure, but these were state to state decisions. Due to circumstances in each state.
The coon BMP will be revisited at some point as each are living documents, what happens depends on alot of things, funding, what "needs" to be retested or new tools need to be looked at etc. Funding would be the biggest key I would think going into the future. There are plenty of tools that have yet to be tested and this whole program is in its ealry stages, to jump the gun and think this all rolls down hill is wrong in my opinion, things will be looked at and each state will decide what they will do in the future when it comes to the BMPs and rules and regs. It all comes down to the state and the state Game Depts, the same as it always has been, just with data to confirm talking points and issues.
Yes, I do- if they are methods and traps in common use and methods and traps that give acceptable results
I will tell you if that would happen it would change the whole outlook on what would pass and fail for all species. If you have a #3 in a primary coyote area and the coyotes are slow say you catch 10 out of that trap type durring testing and then you catch 20 skunks, I'm betting you don't see the #3 as a recommended trap on land. Then those with no trapping knowledge don't get a clear indacator of how well the #3 works for coyotes, because of the skewing from the skunks.
Each species is tested on it's own and only those species in the testing count, the goal is to find the best trap for each species, not the methods used or the ability of a trap to work on a mulitude of species, that would be asking alot from one tool. Most trappers when setting know the primary target species they are after,non targets can not be controlled in trapping so you don't bias the study by adding in non targets, depending on skill level that would change anyway.
You test the best tools for each speices and then you may have some overlap within those species as what tools can pass each on it's own. You will have some overlap that a trap size will work for a few species, but test them seperate to show for each species what acheived the highest score and so on. If not you have no real value as to what the "best" trap size is for each species.
I have respect for others, but that street clearly goes 2 ways.
|
|
|
Post by MChewk on Dec 28, 2005 7:21:55 GMT -6
Another consideration...one that might have been forgotten about...when the EU fur ban threat/BMP initiatially got going I remember discussions about the trappers in the Native American parts of Canada and Alaska. These folks rely on trapping as a culture and food clothing. What if anything was done or will be done with that situation? Talk was the government would provide traps and other equipment for them.
|
|
|
Post by SgtWal on Dec 28, 2005 20:26:36 GMT -6
>>(1) The EU negotiated two Agreements on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) in 1997. The first Agreement was with Canada and Russia; the second with the United States. Both Agreements incorporate the same standards. They were ratified by the EU Council in 1998 (Council decisions 98/142/EC and 98/487/EC). Under the Agreements, all traps must be tested against the agreed standards and, if they conform, must be certified by a designated competent authority. If they fail, they must be replaced.<<
Very few states have a DNR, or other agency, that really undestands or really cares about the fur market. And without the market trapping, as a sport, is dead. If the ban is ever put in place, the states will react by trying to save the EU market. That means the BMP's will be seen as a way to protect the market, and will be pushed to the front for codification. It will be argued, that any state that passes the BMP's should be alowed to ship fur to the EU. The process we are seeing now, in part because it is at best poorly understood, has poisened the well so to speak with many trappers. They now see the BMP's as an attack rather than a useful tool, because the BMP's don't seem to confirm their own experience. At this point I doubt the BMP's and the process will ever be useful to trappers as a whole. American trappers make so little money that most will not retool if necessary. And with mandatory trapper training, cost of equipment, and poor fur markets, if any, few new trappers will enter the trade. To be useful the BMP must be regional in nature addressing the animals and conditions trappers face in specific parts of the country. And I feel time is not on our side.
wayne
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Dec 30, 2005 9:57:55 GMT -6
To be useful the BMP must be regional in nature addressing the animals and conditions trappers face in specific parts of the country. And I feel time is not on our side.
Agreed. And this ocncern was echoed in the compiling of TWO coyote bmps.
I'm not sure exactly WHY the bmp committee was so shortsighted on coon bmps. But you summed up my feelings exactly- their handling or should I say mishandling of the coon bmps, certainly poisoned the well as far as I am concerned.
|
|
|
Post by Rally Hess on Feb 1, 2006 8:37:53 GMT -6
Steve, Without the BMP data on "Cable Restraints" what do you think the odds of them now having them as a tool would be? Granted they are not my choice to either use or manufacture, but they are using them all the same. Why weren't they considered a "legitimate tool" until now? I would contend that it was because after all the years in use, and all the fur taken with them, there was little data to show there use as a" restraining" device. The door was opened, the device was not perfect for use everywhere, but still the door was opened and data was compiled. Very good outcome to my way of thinking when you are an underdog. Bryce and Wayne, In Bryce's last post I believe he mentioned funding for further studies being the major concern as did the end of Waynes last post.This is the part of the BMP that scares me looking down the road of a "living document". It cost alot of money so far to conduct the BMP studies, where will further funding come from to continue these studies to test new or already exsisting equipment. Which to my way of thinking will be detrimental to the process. My concern is that when the funding dries up (please note that I said when and not if, like all government studies that are funded until it is no longer somebodies pet project) we will be left with a "dead document", to which we will be stuck with the equipment, tested to that point, in that region. Unless there is some dedicated funds far into the future, at some point in time, this testing will come to an end. Are we going to be asked to use the same snare/ Cable restraint on coyotes, squirrels and beaver, just because that was all that was tested and recomended? Do you foresee endless funding with testing going far into the futue? I don't. I believe the states will use what has been recomended, to justify liability to animal activist groups, rather than conduct their own studies, with state wildlife budgets being so tight. With monies dedicated into the future for testing we have no problems that can't be handled (despite the fighting amongst ourselves), but if the states have to pick up where the federal government leaves off we may well be using a "Cable Restraint" with 285# break away stop,deer stop, limit stop,inline and end swiveled , with 7x7 3/32" cable our only option. It would sure be easier to make one kind of "Cable Restraint" but it would sure limit the market for a useful mink snare.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Feb 1, 2006 11:48:43 GMT -6
would those states have gotten to use cables, however limited, without the WI study? We will never know. Certainly, the fact that NJ has full snaring in one of the most populous states, has to have some merit.
But in your second paragraph, you sum up what is going to be the downfall of bmps. I agree completely with what you said.
The mere fact that states like PA and MO, didn't bother to look for any other solutions and simply adopted what was a study done for 1 state, for their particular needs. The head guy i WI told me that he is unhappy that other states are pickling up their study in whole, rather than looking at what THEIR states need. Its not so much the imitations on the equipment, its the limitations on situations ie non entanglement. Or in limited use- as in animals allowed to be started and seasons. For heavens sakes, if the game departments wanted to provide a tool to snare coyotes, why not do it so its actually a good tool.
Some people pooh pooh the happening in Montana where a state senator introduced a bill to allow only 24 hour checks on traps, snares in that states- all done with a copy of the coyote bmps in hand. It got defeated, but we all know it just means its postponed until a later date. I firmly believe that that action was just the tip of the iceberg.
Which is why, we as trappers that know the real skinny, are diligent in opposing faulty bmps. And once again, I point the finger of shame to the coon bmps. WHY accept nonsense? WHY accept limitations that are bogus?
|
|
|
Post by Rally Hess on Feb 1, 2006 19:37:09 GMT -6
Steve, What strikes me as being odd is that two of the most populated states N.J. and Florida can only use snares, while states like Pa., Wi.,Mo.,Mi. and the farmland zone of Mn. have to do all this to get to use Cable restraints or snares in farmland zone of Mn. Meanwhile the guys in Mi. ( to include the UP) have the most restrictive use of "Cable Restraints". Yet right in the middle of all of them Il. can't get past the starting line, despite the studies. If that isn't bending over to special interests groups and politicians I don't like to trap beaver or chase the wife around the house!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 2, 2006 15:58:38 GMT -6
Sadly those special interest groups alot of the times are other groups of sportsman.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Feb 2, 2006 17:53:50 GMT -6
When sportsmen of different types have competing interests, you are going to have conflict and you are going to have to have compromise.
What irks me, is that certain groups have more power then others. It seems what some interests want, the dnr jumps through hoops to provide.
Take MN farmland snaring. The original idea was to have snaring snare the day after pheasant hunting closed, Dec 15th. This is absurd, and I proposed a letter saying so, with clearly spelled out reasons WHY it was absurd. Such as SD and IA having some of the most lenient snare laws around, and probably are the 2 states having the MOST pheasant hunters around. Concluding with, if anyone proposing the rules had actually ever HUNTED with a pheasant dog. Because if yo had, you would know that a pheasant dog is going to be within 50 yards almost always, or, if you are a pheasant hunter like me, that dog doesn't come home.
Nope said the dnr, too dangerous with pheasant hunters, no change i in the dates.
However, the pheasant groups wanted an extended season. Which is suspect to begin with, the dnr simply doe not have a grasp on the number of birds and this long season might well have been a mistake. Anyways, with the extended season, now the dnr felt there was no problem with the hunters, and proposed a Dec 1 opener. So- in 1 year, the pheasant hunters got what they wanted.
But Dec 1 is like kissing your cousin. Too late in a normal year for coon, too restrictive a loop etc for real coyote work. So, we have a tool thats for the hobby snarer, not a serious snarer.
Perhaps that will change. Perhaps we will be able to trap state lands. Perhaps...perhaps.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 2, 2006 21:25:16 GMT -6
The problem being is who has the most clout, trappers are always on the low end compaired to revenue dollars of other sportsman, has been that way for years and won't change much. You must cator to what brings in the most revenue not only to the state but to private business as well and bird hunting and big game reign supreme in most all states.
You must look at as, do you piss off a few 1,000 trappers or tens of thousands of hunters and the small business owners that makes large dollars from hunting in a short period of time.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Feb 3, 2006 7:40:38 GMT -6
Bird hunting brings in about..$13 I think in the best year here in MN. So its NOT money in the endeavor thats important, its WHO partakes in that endeavor.
I would think the point is this- with all the groups agin us, its sad when trappers LEAD movements to restrict trapping and restrict trapping rights.
Its sad when "trappers", and I use this term loosely, don't have a clue, yet they try to regulate and they ponticpate about what they have no knowledge of.
Are rights aren't inm any states being taken away by TRAPPERS or NONB TRAPPERS, they are being dilited by "hobby" trappers or parking lot trappers, who, since they trap a day or two a year, have plenty of time to imagine they speak for all trappers. Which is why, most trapping asscoitions have such a small overall % of the numbers of trappers in their state belonging.
The bmps is a good example. A little bit of coon knowledge is dangerous. And those that implemented the protocals on coon trapping, have a little bit of knowledge at best. And I'm going to let them speak for ME? Nope. I will not.
If any trapper supports the coon bmps, in my opinion, they are doing a disservice to trappers everywhere, and should be held up to account for it. Trappers that hurt trapping more than antis, are worse than antis- because at least antis have a CLEAR agenda.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 3, 2006 16:58:58 GMT -6
Tman, 13 million is I bet far more revenue generation that what trapping brings in? Also I wouldn't say hobby trappers are the ones who set up the BMP coon protocol either. They may have a different line of thought but certainly not weekend trappers.
Trappers that hurt trapping more than antis, are worse than antis- because at least antis have a CLEAR agenda.
There is a BIG differance from the BMP committe and those involved,trappers,game agencys, etc and antis, The BMP's are used to help trapping be seen in a better lite with the general public and the anti's want to abolish trapping in any form in ALL states, to think otherwise is a dangerous line of thought for trapping.
Just because one study didn't live up to "your expectations" in the current form, you state any trapper that doesn't go against the BMP is worse than an anti, is like saying ALL white people are racist, you can't generalize that wayunless you spoken to all involved and can come away with the clear understanding of all motives in this deal. Far too easy to do so, but not factual at all.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Feb 3, 2006 17:19:46 GMT -6
tc35- I meant 13 dollars- I was being sarcastic cause bird hunting here brings in about zero real dollars. Serious hunters go to SD or IA.
Now- you are confusing the issue. YOU made several statements to the effect- if you cannot support all the bmps, don't support any.
Ok then- if thats the option, I won't support any.
And please, let there be no mistake about this- It isn't that the coon bmps did not meet my expectations- its simply this:
1) the coon bmps could not have induced chewing any more than if that had been their object.
In other words- the protocol is idiotic in a coon restraining setup. I'll call a spade a spade, seems few will- the protocol was as flawed as the Packers plans of being Super bowl champs in 2006 (sorry cheeseheads...)
FLAWED big time.
So- any data coming from this protocol is also severely flawed. TC35- I like you. I respect your sincerity. I for sure respect your coyote knowledge. Please- look at this from a trapper's perspective. I promise you- that in a few simple method changes- I can get coon to chew dramatically less. I invite YOU personally, to come out with me next season and I'll prove it to you. And I no longer take anyone on my lines, so the offer is genuine and rare. Simple techniques reduce chewing- and all my methods- are absolute COUNTER to the coon protocol.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 4, 2006 18:53:00 GMT -6
Tman, the data isn't flawed it showed exactly what happens in the circumstances in which the trap was tested,are there other ways to reduce chewing using the 1.5? I believe you when you say you can reduce chewing, but is that a testament to the tool or the technique in which the tool is used?
The whole idea is to test the tool, and yes coons bring up a new set of issues with there chewing along with skunks as well. I'm sure some of the ideas brought forth were looking to test the tool and not get into technique as deeply as they may have to go, if they want the 1.5 to pass. Years ago I staked coon traps solid and used 1.5 traps, some coons chewed and some very little depnding upon what was around them cover or lack of it. If I wired off to a heavy root mass they seem more inclined to chew on the root mass and less on the foot. I see your point, I also see that other trap types can be used in the protocol that was set forth and pass the double jaw,the grizz,coon cuffs and duffers, could all be staked solid without any futher technique changes and still pass.
As I have stated if people want it to pass and can live with techniques playing a large role in the written outcome all is well, I do worry about these becomming more about techniques and less about just the "tool". To have a true test of what are the "best tools" I would rather keep the technique to a minimum or poll trappers and test the techniques in these certain situations to see what are the most preferred and widely used methods and test those. Do I feel it was a shotgun approach yes, I also feel the pressure applied in particular to this study with this trap from people who worried about the outcome and wanted that outcome in quick fashion. I also don't believe that the testing is done on this trap or that states will outlaw the 1.5 as a coon trap.
I go back to the CC #33 did not pass the coyote BMP,why I couldn't tell you as I have used them and they hold well and I see little in foot damage, but I also owned those with a larger offset, which is now closer to 3/8" than 1/4", but I also understand that the tool needed to be tested like all others and that Tom Beaudette reworked the trap and is looking for a future test of it, I don't fear loosing it as a trapping tool, I just don't have that kind of thought process, I see the cup have full with the BMP's instead of half empty. The benefits to me are worth the trouble and bickering it causes in the trapping community.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Feb 5, 2006 11:52:38 GMT -6
If I said the data was flawed, I of course did not mean it. The protocol was flawed, and the results (conclusions) of data based on false protocol, is unreliable.
I never understood why some place such an importance of "testing the trap not the trapper".
Lets say we were testing hammers. In one brand of hammer Bobs Hammers- the test went very well.. in 120 strikes with the hammer, a nail went 3/4 of the way into a board.
But Joes Hammers, didn't do so well. Cause the technique was for the testers to hit themselves, rather than the nail. So- Bobs hammers yippee, Joes hammers boo!
Bad analogy? Not at all.
The TOOL was the HAMMER.
HOW it was used, is the TECHNIQUE.
DESCRIBING how to use it, is the PROTOCOL.
If the protocol (which is in effect dictating the TECHNIQUE) is flawed, all data coming from it, while true to the protocol, is in effect useless.
So the coon bmps are flawed on two fields- the protocol itself, and the application of a universal injury scale. One that is controversial even BEFORE trappers got involved, and is no more accurate than Mr Wills treatise on dead whales feeling pain.
Since the results of the above two fields do nothing but limit the tools trappers use, its our duty to stand up and say NO- the coon bmps are crap. I will not support them until protocol and testing is done using ALL techniques and methods.
Just like techniques were an important part of dirt trapping. Depth of trap, covering, position of trap- among other things- was left to the discretion on the individual trapper.
Now 35- look at it like this. Thinking back on your coon days, you have seen a pattern and you say I do have a point with my theory. Now- imagine what results one could get if one was very aware of the theory, and tried to make EVERY set a minimum chewing set by the use of free movement restraints, heavy overhead cover, entanglement, holding in water, movable drags, etc.
Cause thats what I've done and I KNOW what my results are. And I'll tell you also, they involve many more animals tan many of those test groups of 30-50 animals.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 5, 2006 13:49:40 GMT -6
I never understood why some place such an importance of "testing the trap not the trapper".
Lets say we were testing hammers. In one brand of hammer Bobs Hammers- the test went very well.. in 120 strikes with the hammer, a nail went 3/4 of the way into a board.
But Joes Hammers, didn't do so well. Cause the technique was for the testers to hit themselves, rather than the nail. So- Bobs hammers yippee, Joes hammers boo!
Sorry I don't agree, traps come in different shapes and sizes, and to determine the best tool for each species then we need to test the tool not technique, if your analogy was correct you wouldn't have framing hammers,ball peen, claw and finishing hammers you would have one hammer all of the same size and weight no matter the job to be done.
I don't want trappers exspecially new trappers comming into the sport thinking all things must be done by the " designed requirements of those before you" people exspecially trappers like the idea of finding a system that works for them and developing their own techniques, that is how progress and intovation takes place. It also doesn't make things too clinical or text book and keeps interest longer. The tool is tested to see how it can perform under many different geographic cirucmstances as not all areas are the same. Thats why you have multiple states taking place for each tool tested.
Also 30-50 coon is not the total take but you must take that number times the number of trappers in those different areas that make up the total take for each tool tested, and I think from a couple 100 coon,coyotes,fox you can draw baseline as to the outcome of further evaluation for sure.
Just like techniques were an important part of dirt trapping. Depth of trap, covering, position of trap- among other things- was left to the discretion on the individual trapper.
I think you just made my point, they didn't state you needed 1/2" of dirt or 1" of dirt, they left that up to the trapper and the area in which he lives and traps to make that best determination and didn't "over technique" the study and show bias on that end, but rather let the trapper do his thing and keep the focus on the trap types/ "tool" much more than certain setting techniques.
Since the results of the above two fields do nothing but limit the tools trappers use, its our duty to stand up and say NO- the coon bmps are crap. I will not support them until protocol and testing is done using ALL techniques and methods.
Are you serious? Tell me the list of ALL techniques and ALL methods for each species were do we find that catalog of information? Trappers have many forms of techniques and methods to trap, has been for many years and to try and test "ALL" of something that couldn't possibly be done is asking for written guidlines of the tools to perform to there best, which I don't want to see.
Some are blind set trappers, other hole trappers, others flat set trappers, urine post trappers, and then to try and list "all techniques" and make this way more clinical than needed would be a waste of time and money, becuase doesn't matter the set type or how much covering or what that covering is, as the bottom line is the trap is tested on 24 hrs, staked solid and what damage comes from this simple procedure, as the rest won't change the outcome.
Now I did generalize the above but, in dealing with just coons, again I ask you with a enclosed trap type would the outcome vary much from that which has been tested? I say no way, because those traps deal with the very issue from the "tool" stand point.
Again I won't deny that the 1.5 in a reg jaw configuration needs to evaluated more and " I feel" it is a tool that will need to be written with setting guidlines to get a passing grade due to the make up of the tool and the coon being able to chew below the jaws, there are ways to limit it and still get it to pass with many other protocols, it would mean modifying the 1.5 and adding guards to them, to keep the coon from chewing on it's foot, but some don't want that to be part of the deal, water trappers I would think could add there own 9ga wire and weld it on and be able to set it in many different manners and still have a passing trap even the protocol that was used and "flawed".
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Feb 6, 2006 9:22:50 GMT -6
the protocol is the same- whether all traps or for all hammers.
The point is- the protocol is WRONG.
You say coyote trappers were left to judgment i how much dirt, how deep.
Agreed. Technique.
NOW- coon trappers were EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED from using techniques that they might like- holding in water, movable drags, entanglement cover, overhead cover, etc. ALL techniques and no different, no different at all then in having coyote trappers determine how much dirt to put over a trap.
What would you say, if the coyote protocol, so all things would be standard and to test traps, not trappers standardization is critical- that the protocol said 4 inches of dirt much be placed over the pan of each set trap.
You would gasp. Sure some traps would probably pass. Jake trap maybe, some others. But the efficiency rating of the traps would plummet, and certain traps (more spring power, larger jaws) would be given favor-ability over other traps.
And efficiency is 1/2 of the equation... so if individual technique can be used (and you yourself said it was in the coyote bmps) it can be used i nthe other 1/2....
Injury scores are the other 1/2. So technique SHOULD be allowed.
Now- the protocol (and I cannot stress this enough- I want to shout it everywhere) simply is set up in such a way that the end result, induces the maximum chewing in a trapped coon.
It could not have been deliberately set up more to encourage chewing than if that had been the goal. WHAT were they thinking?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Feb 6, 2006 17:06:57 GMT -6
I think the powers that be were looking for ways to get it to pass, I feel if 4 trappers from 2 states were handed the 1.5 and told set them were you like as long as there staked solid I don't think you would have had a passing score either, I think the key is to have a very controlled set of protocol, the problem being with that is trapper technique is not as free with that of the coyote BMP or fox either. You could set them were ever you liked use any bait or lure that is legal in your state and the "key" was to have them staked solid to test the tool as alot of coyote and fox trappers do, coons on the other hand would be against all other testing that being solid staked traps and you would invite dragging and seclude solid staking in order for it to pass, I think they tried hard to get the trap to pass under the main testing control that being a solid staked trap. As other "tools" were tested and passed, that being a dj, coon guard or enclosed type trap. Sets along the water the DJ had the highest rate of efficantcy as well, I also know testing 2 protocols one with cover either natural or put into place and 30" chains and the obvious one without cover, they showed not much differance between the 2 in injury scores?
I think we see it as a splitting of hairs when it comes to technique that being freedom of the trapper in all other testing and a direct method of written technique for the coon testing. Be it the 2 protocols used or 2 new ones, it is still a definded method/"technique" in order for the trap to pass, which I have stated is fine as long as those are happy with direct written guidlines for passing which would happen I would think.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Feb 6, 2006 19:44:56 GMT -6
"the key" was to have them staked solid
no chit. THATS the proiblem.
|
|