|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 21, 2006 16:14:51 GMT -6
Discrepancies!!! Lets talk about the libelous language, improper restrictions, highly selective studies, non scientific scientific testing, manipulated results, lack of communication excluding manufacture and trapper input. Or simply the fact that the BMP was developed to promote fur trade with the EU while the EU has no such "BMP" process and they don't attempt to screw up the trapping methods available.
Please elaborate on the manipulated results? Also excluding manufacture as well. I beleive one of your products was tested in the most recent BMP testing to take place on cable restraints was it not?
Some maybe beleive the BMP's are to satisfy the EU, while others see them as a good tool to be used in the defense of trappers when it comes to state by state ballot voting to either keep regulated trapping or lose those rights. The BMP's are well written and have science behind them, in NO TIME in trapping history to date have we had that kind of information to be used and circulated to the general public to make informed decisions on trapping and equipment.
In the past we had nothing really to go against the anti's on the trap being inhumane issue, we had science on how trapping helps animal populations and the such but we never had nothing on the "trap" itself and what kind of outcome the "tool" presented to the species involved. We have clear answers on that issue and we also have many groups of interest on this subject as well comming together. That gives trapping alot of instant credabilty with the general public.
BMP's have been done on many fronts and have had impacts on how the general public perceives them before and after BMP's. We as trappers "NEED" to be seen as not blood thirsty renegades but as sound keepers of the wildlife and to promote trapping and show empathy for our outdoor pursuits. By having traps "endorsed" by this process is not a negative but a positive in my mind.
So many loose site of trapping rules and regs are state by state and that the states have the ability to change regs and rules on what they percieve as issues that need to be dealt with, that perception comes alot of times from the voting public and also the pressures applied on certain issues in the daily running of "most" Game Depts. The larger the majority on issues the better there chance to move certain issues through to legislators.
Trappers can't afford to be all over the board on key issues and become devided when we have such very low numbers. As the numbers drop the voice gets much quiter and then people in power start to lose the sound of that voice and then were in real trouble. WE must recruit more young people into trapping in many areas across the US and I think we also must look at single parent homes and what they percieve trapping to be and can the BMP"s help recruit young people and I guess more importantly their parent as to the acceptabilty of trapping in their minds as an outdoor pursuit they would allow and get behind their young children to particpate in?
Trapper input has been there all along or we would not have had laminated jawed traps, baseplated traps, high end traps or shock springs tested, I think no trapper input would have been reg jaw,offset and rubber jawed factory traps as the only trap types tested, afterall who invented all the other things mentioned? Not some science major or Vet but trappers themselves have been the ones to further the cause of traps that can restrain and keep damage and comfort of the animal in mind. NOT any other group!
|
|
|
Post by SgtWal on Mar 21, 2006 18:55:15 GMT -6
>>Some maybe beleive the BMP's are to satisfy the EU, while others see them as a good tool to be used in the defense of trappers when it comes to state by state ballot voting to either keep regulated trapping or lose those rights. The BMP's are well written and have science behind them, in NO TIME in trapping history to date have we had that kind of information to be used and circulated to the general public to make informed decisions on trapping and equipment. <<
Informed decision on trapping and equipment?
Ok then when it comes to the public meeting and the HSUS stands up and says " Their own BMP states that these traps scored passing scores. And if trapping must go on then only the ones that scored highest should be alowed to be used, or be possessed in this State" What do we say? How do we argue that they, the BMPs, aren't condeming all other traps as inhumane? When they call for strict fines for setting any "un-approved trap" where it might catch a specific species? We already stand on the point of losing body grips on land due to non target catches. Stronger more "Humane" quicker killing body grippers, as suggested in some groups, are not going to help. The only difference will be that Fido died in 1 minute instead of 2. The States need population control, or trapping loses its value as a managment tool. Low prices have weakened our position already. Anything that provides amunition to limit the tools available is not in our best interest.
wayne
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 21, 2006 20:08:00 GMT -6
Sgt wal: Ok then when it comes to the public meeting and the HSUS stands up and says " Their own BMP states that these traps scored passing scores. And if trapping must go on then only the ones that scored highest should be alowed to be used, or be possessed in this State"
Do you actually think HSUS or Peta will ever reconize any foothold as a humane trap to any standards? If they do I will jump for joy as that is the end of them, could you see where they would be if they state that the sterling mj600 or a modifide #3 bridger is ok by us but those not on the BMP list is what where really against? What creditbilty would they have left? Zero, nada none. They won't enter that issue because it is a lose/lose for them!
When they call for strict fines for setting any "un-approved trap" where it might catch a specific species?
Let me know when the first state enacts these guidlines as rules verbatum, as I want to be at the County attorny's office when it gets threw out of court in a matter of minutes!! Game Depts are not dumb and they won't pass laws they can not enforce, and have little chance of winning and I see BMP"s as guidlines and to take it to the degree you and others seem so sure it will head is just not practical.
The States need population control, or trapping loses its value as a managment tool. Low prices have weakened our position already. Anything that provides amunition to limit the tools available is not in our best interest.
Yes your right not only for the speices involved but for other species and in cases livestock and crop depredation as well, but again that is on the premise that BMP"s become law and that they follow them to the tee. You can look at it also as to those states that lost trapping all together what ammunition do they have? How much easier is it to protect trapping before it gets abolished by a public vote then try to regain it back?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Mar 22, 2006 10:00:33 GMT -6
When they call for strict fines for setting any "un-approved trap" where it might catch a specific species?
Let me know when the first state enacts these guidlines as rules verbatum, as I want to be at the County attorney's office when it gets threw out of court in a matter of minutes!! Game Depts are not dumb and they won't pass laws they can not enforce, and have little chance of winning and I see BMP"s as guidlines and to take it to the degree you and others seem so sure it will head is just not practical
It would be as enforcable as any game law. States and the feds routinely have equipment specs and regulations.
Many traps are already outlawed in many states.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 22, 2006 16:41:15 GMT -6
It would be as enforceable as any game law. States and the feds routinely have equipment specs and regulations.
Many traps are already outlawed in many states.
Steve your correct each state can pass laws, but they also want them clear and concise and not something that can over burden their law enforcement personnel.
I don't see states enacting the BMP's as written rule and having ALL wardens go through a trap ID course and then have it be ever changing provided testing moves forward we have tested how many different footholds, instant kill traps and cable restraints, and how many more will be added and for what species? In the fall and winter what else would a warden get done? Checking every trap and then trying to figure out now is this trap set for a coon,fox,coyote,skunk,possum,mink,muskrat,beaver,bobcat etc.
I don't see many states having alot of involvement in the BMP's if that is what their searching for as an outcome do you? Sounds like alot of man hours involved to keep a trapper honest to me. Also let alone take it to trial and have a judge/states attorney with no trapping knowledge whatsoever trying to make sense of it all and figuring out is it within the confines of the law or outside the confines of the law as written.
The majority of states and game commissions like to pass clear and to the point laws, ones that can be easy to read and be easy to prosecute. Trap check times, jaw length regs, what species and when etc, not to open up a quagmire like this would present, I would think any state that may have that idea after a few cases would be looking for a switch in a hurry.
BMP'S (guidelines and endorsments for the best tools)!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 22, 2006 17:21:12 GMT -6
I just don't think its any different now. In many places, the laws are very vague. And often open to interpretation by the individual CO.
some states have chain length requirements, some have jaw requirements, some have "number" limitations like no trap bigger than a #2.
Like anything else, its going to be when someone complains, that the wardens get involved.
Do I see massive laws being passed? Yes and no. Look at the runaway stampede being caused by WI little snare bmp. Its not much of a stretch to see more regulations coming out of the bmps- esp in states who have members directly and heavily involved with the BMPS. It wouldn't make sense- that if a state biologist, trapping liaison, etc was involved in the bmps, promoted the bmps- to not implement them in his home state.
I think we at least need to stand back- and allow what has passed, to be absorbed and to really understand the implications of the published bmps.
Read this months FTA- good column by Chick concerning the FTAs involvement and stance. Seems like a commonsensical approach to me
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 22, 2006 18:16:19 GMT -6
I see more states getting away from vague laws ALL the time as sportsman and the courts are mandating such, laws get to complicated sportsman pull away from the activity this has been proven in polling research.
Just because state game agencys take active rolls in BMP's does not mean they look at implamenting them as law! My state has taken an active roll and can assure you that that is not what is on there mind. I can tell you alot of state Game agencys came on board to become more knowledgeable on trapping matters and to see that they are done to benefit their depts, not through more rules and regs but to help keep trapping as a viable outdoor pursuit and to keep there budget on ADC in line and to see that trappers continue on as an important part in the big picture.
I don't see a run away train I see a proactive approach to keeping trapping alive and well in amny states, I have not yet to date seen a state that allows conventional snaring to switch, I have seen states have NO conventional snaring and "accept" cable restraints for their respective states.
Some don't want this to be political in any way,shape or form, I don't like it either but it is and will be as that is life. I mean by that, the public majority will have an impact on all use: lands and wildlife we can either be apart of it or fight it. I don't see any good comming to trappers by spouting about law suits against BMP"s from a few vocal minoritys and helping trapping in any manner. I just see that as a lose/lose for the long haul of trapping if you would like I could sight many ways as to why that would be bad.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 22, 2006 19:12:40 GMT -6
the bmps committees promised no snaring or bodygrip bmps- and this was a false stamtent. The trouble as seen by Thompson snares- is that antiquated descriptions of things are used, resulting in 1X19 snares being illegal in states that are rushing to legalize restaining cable devices. Lots of inconsistencies in the bmps. intresting also- is the number of coyotes actually caught nthe WI study- and now this sampling is "the bible".
For those that get FTA Furtakers magazine, quite a bit this month about bmps and the survey results. Some real good perspective.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 22, 2006 19:25:25 GMT -6
The trouble as seen by Thompson snares- is that antiquated descriptions of things are used, resulting in 1X19 snares being illegal in states that are rushing to legalize restaining cable devices. Lots of inconsistencies in the bmps. intresting also- is the number of coyotes actually caught nthe WI study- and now this sampling is "the bible".
Wrong! 1x19 cable was tested just this winter in 4 states I believe in 2 configurerations and if it does as well as other cables it will be added into the BMP's remember living documents. So he has nothing at this point to go off of and that is why I asked him if his product was not tested and it was this winter.
As far as body gripping BMP's I believe the majority was taken from the CA BMP info and not direct testing from the US. Tell me of the other antiquated descriptions in the BMP's ?
How many coyotes where caught in WI?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 23, 2006 4:51:17 GMT -6
Way under 10.
It the PRINTED language on the bmps that have already been published thats the problem.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 23, 2006 6:58:15 GMT -6
What printed language is the problem and please be specific.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 23, 2006 7:07:24 GMT -6
I'll let Dick answer that.
|
|
|
Post by sinrud on May 16, 2006 21:24:04 GMT -6
TC, To begin with I have a hard time understanding why you keep referring to 1x19 studies done in January this year and then say I have nothing to complain about! I’m talking about the last eight years where legal language made 1x19 cable illegal! Current studies would not have happened without our efforts to correct a problem existing for several years.The suggestion of 1x19 cable was brought up several times in the past and was rejected! The way studies are conducted??? Let’s take a possibility of a 1x19 cable study:(this is only hypothetical) Take 60 dozen snares made with 1x19- 3/32” dia cable. Put cam locks on 20 dozen, washer locks on 20 dozen, L locks on 10 dozen and Thompson lock on 10 dozen. Run the report and find the scores are failing. Conclude 1x19 cable is no good. What wasn’t mentioned or noted was 90% of the cam locks failed, 70% of the washer locks failed, 30% of the L locks failed and 15% of the Thompson locks failed. Does this mean 1x19 is no good for holding snares? I hardly think so! What it does indicate is neck locks make an impact on the snare function and nothing more. You can not conduct studies on cable types by such methods. This is more like a lock study. If you want specific language here’s a few samples: Oho Ed Manual: “modern snare cable is 7x7 and 7x19 multi strand cable” This was transferred to Ohio regulations as “You can not use any snare constructed of any material other than multi-strand steel cable.” This Ed Manual was passed to several states with the same results. Finally reached the BMP and the following glossary terms were produced: 1) Cable Devise:“A device designed to capture a furbearer by use of multi-strand steel cable.” 2) Non-Powered Cable Device: “A trap using multi-strand steel cable that closes when an animal passes through it without the aid of a spring or other powering device.” 3) Powered Cable Device: “A trap using multi-strand steel cable designed to catch and hold an animal with the aid of a powering device, such as springs.” 4) Snare: “A restraining device made from a cable and a locking mechanism.” 5) Snare: “A term used for cable devices, and old style snares made from other materials.” 1) This definition is completely bias, prejudicial and misleading! It allows for the word “snares” to be consistent with cable devices while it claims a “snare is not made of multi-strand cable. A cable device is defined as using multi-strand cable while it is also states snares are made of other material. 2) Cable devices have been made of 1x19 single-strand cable for over 80 years. 3) Non-powered Cable Devices have been made of 1x19 single-strand cable for over 80 years. 4) Powered Cable Devices have been made with 1x19 single-strand cable for over 80 years. 5) This simply allows the word “snare” to be used for a cable device. Every state I contacted regarding 1x19 told me “they thought 1x19 was multi-strand” or “ we accept it as multi-strand”. However they weren’t willing to correct the language. Due to our efforts and help from many organizations and trappers Ohio has finally included 1x19 into their codes, Wisconsin (I have been told) is going to include 1x19 and the BMP has included it in their BMP Trapping in the US Manual. Don’t sit there and tell me we and our customers have nothing to complain about because if we hadn’t forced the issue there would be no changes!!! I have stated before this is a multi problem with both states and BMP - they’re both guilty of improper language period. Definitions for “relaxing locks” is also a big issue - several different Definitions! A REAL problem exist with BAD’s!! BAD testing is totally faulty and there is not method of validating these devices. Let’s see now - you suspect a faulty BAD and have it pulled for testing. It fails so you assume all the BAD’s on the line are faulty? Do you take another for test? Every L.E. we contacted about this agreed there is no way to prove the device. Even wore they all say “Who knows what weight limit to use - we’re only guessing” “Pick a number”. TC - do you know how BAD’s are tested?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on May 17, 2006 9:05:35 GMT -6
And if we don't keep hammering away on the faulty coon bmps, they will become a "bible" also.
Guess some the BMP committee, and not just God...are infallible.....
|
|
|
Post by robertw on May 17, 2006 10:09:51 GMT -6
Dick, Thank you for taking the time to explain all of this AGAIN!!!!
Hopefully everyone will read your post and COMPREHEND what you said! (but I wouldn't bet on it)
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on May 17, 2006 14:30:58 GMT -6
I’m talking about the last eight years where legal language made 1x19 cable illegal! Current studies would not have happened without our efforts to correct a problem existing for several years.The suggestion of 1x19 cable was brought up several times in the past and was rejected
Made illegal where and by who? That is the question. The studys done in WI and PA where done within the state's and then the BMP committe decided to get involved in testing. This 8 year window was done where and by who? Do we have a national ban on 1x19 cable? Or is it a state to state decision? What states do not allow 1x19? Are these states that have snare laws on the books?
Oho Ed Manual: “modern snare cable is 7x7 and 7x19 multi strand cable” This was transferred to Ohio regulations as “You can not use any snare constructed of any material other than multi-strand steel cable.”
Was this a state decision or one backed through the BMP process? Was the manual out before the law? Does the law state no 1x19 cable?
Every state I contacted regarding 1x19 told me “they thought 1x19 was multi-strand” or “ we accept it as multi-strand”. However they weren’t willing to correct the language. Due to our efforts and help from many organizations and trappers Ohio has finally included 1x19 into their codes, Wisconsin (I have been told) is going to include 1x19 and the BMP has included it in their BMP Trapping in the US Manual
That is my point, I don't know of many states that allow snaring and dictait cable construction. In order to change the verbage the books must be opened up in many states leaving snaring or cable restraints open to be lost as well! If they acknowledge it as a legal cable then what is the beef? I have no use for cable restraints period. I snare and to me a snare is a tool used to dispatch coyotes,beaver,coons quickly and humanely. I don't want to restarin the coyote I want him dead! I use the cable and componants that will achieve these results and is legal to do so in many states.
I see 1x19 as a multi strand myself to mean otherswise would mean just 1 strand of wire period, and neither 7x7 or 1x19 is a single strand of wire, to me the wire in a "singel strand would be 1 solid pieace in the size. The wording maybe flawed in your mind, some say tomato others "tomato".
The point is this is more of a problem in states where "snaring" is illegal and "cable devices" are not or are the only choice. I think the states that don't allow snaring need to move ahead in that direction. Cable devices are of limited use in many,many areas. They cost time and up the cost of fur trapping with their use versus a "snare" designed to kill the intended target species.
I'm glad you could make change and maybe for the sake of some it was a good investment of time, but where dealing with states and they have the right to create their own rules and regs. I know many states don't even have cable size or content on their books and consider them all snares.
Definitions for “relaxing locks” is also a big issue - several different Definitions!
A REAL problem exist with BAD’s!! BAD testing is totally faulty and there is not method of validating these devices. Let’s see now - you suspect a faulty BAD and have it pulled for testing. It fails so you assume all the BAD’s on the line are faulty? Do you take another for test? Every L.E. we contacted about this agreed there is no way to prove the device. Even wore they all say “Who knows what weight limit to use - we’re only guessing” “Pick a number”.
TC - do you know how BAD’s are tested?
I could see the problem with locks and I know the differance between a relaxing type and a kill type. It would be nice to have some standards amongst states but would be difficult to get them to all conform to the same thing, as many states have many different needs. I see no use again for relaxing locks, I think of snaring as a tool for dispatch and that is how I have always used them. Again the states that have went the route of live restraints then they have to come up with the rules and regs for their stateand define for their people what a relaxing lock is.
Yes bads as well because your not going to get states to take up funding and time and spend 1,000's of dollars to have a way to police bads, just not realistic. They can test them in many ways and their are too many variables in it all. Cable length, the ability of the species to fight the device, how solid is the anchoring point? The size of the species caught etc. My idea would be to just go to a straight line pull with the many different bads on the market and allow the states to set their required lbs from a set length of cable and allow the use of different bad's at a predetermined weight . You can get a good tester for 700.00-800.00 in this manner. Leave it at that. If all new the playing field then they could make them to be very exact from materials, but many don't because they know to many variables in it all.
Bads are an option for some others still need to use deer stops, or one or the other. I have no problem with bads and I think the state Law people are finding out that this issue is much more than they thought it would be. Again though state by state allow them the freedom to set their weight limits but have the standard testing to be simple straight line pull. Their are many good bads that work well and release a high% of non targets, the lower the bad weight the more room there would be to a point. The Hopkins are great, the amberg release ferrals work well, the NWRC shear pins are good too. Pick a weight class that trappers and the Game Depts can live with and go on. Why make these things more complicated than need be? Because any bad that will hold a high% of coyotes, and neck caught deer,antelope etc the big majority will not survive anyhow, the real value of bads is for big game and livestock to break out from a leg catch and it is up to trappers to set snares in areas that limit or in a fashion that limit the ability of neck caught large non targets.
Snaring has come along ways in the last 20 years with better lock types, quicker kill mechanisims, better cable, and bads are all things people didn't use years ago and that is why chew out % was much greater in the past. It is up to the states Trapper Orgs and Game Depts to see how they want to perceive snaring or cable restraints in the future, but it will all boil down to the ability to use them in a manner that limits liability and keeps pressure off of the game depts. "snaring" is a great tool and cable restraints are a tool with limited value and useage IMO.
I have caught coyotes in these devices and they are a tool that needs to be looked at every 24hrs for sure and your still going to have some chew outs due to the design of keeping the critter alive versus dead.
There is no bible tman as the coon BMP's where done and have changed nothing yet have they? Cable restraints came about with a few states wanting some cable type tool and those states looking to lessen liability on there part. States have different objectives and needs and will always be the moving force behind decisions made.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on May 17, 2006 15:00:33 GMT -6
Sinrud I did my own research on the Ohio issues you brought up and 1x19 has never been illegal! As they state the cable must be multi stranded and list No types or layout of any cable except to show a picture of what I brought up the illegal wire would be that of only a single strand like 14 ga solid wire or the such. In no where could I find in codified laws for Ohio anything stating that 1x19 was not a legal material for snaring in that state! No where does it state either that 1x19 is not legal or any mention of cable type in the trappers ed manual I looked at online! It also states that multi stranded wire means" smaller diameters of wire wound together to make a larger strand. “modern snare cable is 7x7 and 7x19 multi strand cable”
Please tell me where I can find this in the Ohio manual? I was under chapter 11 of the manual dealing with snares. I will tell you I see more wrong with other parts of this stating that coons are caught around the body and showing a single strand of 14 ga wire as sufficant to attach asnares to a tree LOL.
But again state to state regs and the states have the authority to set their rules and regs for the people of that state. Why where at it why not have them allow the use of #3 size footholds on land because those that make them are being short changed on sales of size #3 traps!
|
|
|
Post by sinrud on May 17, 2006 18:39:59 GMT -6
Sinrud I did my own research on the Ohio issues you brought up and 1x19 has never been illegal! As they state the cable must be multi stranded and list No types or layout of any cable except to show a picture of what I brought up the illegal wire would be that of only a single strand like 14 ga solid wire or the such. In no where could I find in codified laws for Ohio anything stating that 1x19 was not a legal material for snaring in that state! No where does it state either that 1x19 is not legal or any mention of cable type in the trappers ed manual I looked at online! It also states that multi stranded wire means" smaller diameters of wire wound together to make a larger strand.uh
“modern snare cable is 7x7 and 7x19 multi strand cable”
Please tell me where I can find this in the Ohio manual? I was under chapter 11 of the manual dealing with snares. I will tell you I see more wrong with other parts of this stating that coons are caught around the body and showing a single strand of 14 ga wire as sufficant to attach asnares to a tree LOL.My copy of the “OHIO DNR TRAPPER EDUCATION MANUAL”. CHAPTER 11 PAGE 52 - “Modern Cable Snare” “The modern cable snare is made of multi-strand steel cable. Strands of smaller diameter wire are wound together to make a larger strand. Ohio regulations specify that multi-strand steel cable is the only material that can be used for snares” (shows a picture of 7x7 multi-strand cable only) CHAPTER 4 PAGE 17 - Traps - Live traps - snares “Snares are made of multi-strand steel cable.” PAGE 18 “While other traps can be used over and over again, a snare can be used only once. WRONG AGAIN! Many snaremen have used the same (Thompson snare) for multi catches. Recent letter from one of our customers: When I first started Trapping in ‘78 I used your snares. One advantage with your cable, I could reuse over again - Sometimes for a few seasons before cable would kink & fracture. Can you send a price list for buying cable, Example 100’ or 500’ rolls? (1 Doz Snares 2XX-72) Truly Jxxx Sxxxxxx, MN. But again state to state regs and the states have the authority to set their rules and regs for the people of that state. Why where at it why not have them allow the use of #3 size footholds on land because those that make them are being short changed on sales of size #3 traps!Can’t answer that TC. Perhaps it’s cause everyone is complaining but doing nothing? I don’t know. My concerns are with snare issues because that is my business. Believe me it isn’t just issues about cable definitions - it also deals with “relaxing lock” definitions and criteria set for BAD’s as well. (see my next post) Dick Sinrud Thompson Snares
|
|
|
Post by sinrud on May 17, 2006 18:50:23 GMT -6
The following statements in bold quotes are Toms response to some questions I presented. The non quote type are my comments etc. Tom Krause afforded me the opportunity to make suggestions / comments on the NTAs’ new Trapping Handbook for the past few weeks. This has been a golden opportunity to assist in helping prevent errors and bias knowledge which has plagued many recent publications. While Tom and I share different opinions and experiences I have found him to be exceptionally understanding and willing to adopt and work out difference in effort to create a good sound publication. Without open minded communications it is not possible to solve differences and I tip my hat to Tom, his attitude, concern and professional ethics. This post is done with Tom Krauses’ approval. Without it I would not do so as it is considered personal communications. The following statements in quotes are Toms response to some questions I presented. The non bold type are my brief noes etc. Dear Mr. Sinrud: “Concerning your deepest concern the BMPs will use this handbook copy, You can forget that. BMPs are the result of scientific testing of products with recommendations based on those trap types that pass minimum performance thresholds. The draft handbook copy appropriately recommends cable types that are either popular or have been tested successfully, and the copy also contains information the list is not all-inclusive:”“You seem to be hung up on the fact the trapping community considers 1x19 cable to be multi-strand, and you believe this cable should be called single strand in spite of the fact 19 wire filaments are involved. Considering this revised handbook will be read by novice trappers, I believe clarity is most important. I do that by describing how the various snare cables are constructed. Suggesting a cable composed of 19 wire filaments is single strand is confusing to all.” “I realize you have stated the cable manufacturing industry considers 1x19 to be single strand cable. However, the perception is single strand is like a piece of baling wire, one filament. Considering the 1x19 to be multi strand cable helps you by qualifying it under some rules as appropriate for snare cable. It does matter what people think, especially when they can count the wire filaments in a cable and regardless of what industry terminology might be. Looking at the Easter Coyote BMP materials, I see "stranded cables" in 3/32 and 1/8 inch are recommended on page 3, but in the "mechanical characteristics" of approved snares on page 10 and 11, only 3/32 and 1/8 7x7 & 7x19 are mentioned.”Clarity and accuracy is what we have been trying to achieve all along. If 1x19 is “considered” as multi strand the regulations should soy so. If it is considered why isn’t in mentioned in regs? The following is an accurate and definitive difference between all 3 cable types (1x19, 7x7, 7x19). This isn’t confusing once you understand correct terminology. Basically we will use 4 terms as follows: 1) WIRE: A single piece of extruded deductible metal such as bailing wire, tie wire, stove pipe wire etc. 2) STRAND: Consisting of a minimum of 2 wires twisted around a single straight center wire. 3) SINGLE STRAND: Consisting of one complete strand described in 2. 4) MULTI STRAND: Consisting of two or more single strands as described in 3. 1x19 contains a single straight “wire” as the center with 6 wires twisted around this single center wire. This becomes the “center core” of single strand. An additional 12 “wires” are then twisted around these in an opposite direction to complete a “single strand”. The confusion comes because even without the additional 12 wires it is also called a single strand when used for “multi strand 7x7 cable” ONLY! 7x7 “multi strand uses the “center core” of 1x19 as a center strand and then applies an additional six same strands twisted in opposite direction to create a “multi strand” cable. 7x19 “multi strand cable” is made with seven sets of 1x19 cable (of smaller diameter). If you were to separate the strands of a 7x19 cable you will end up with seven 1x19 strands (of small diameter). Almost all states (including the BMP) have recognized this problem and instituted corrective measures. Ohio changed their codes to include 1x19 and John Olsen (WI) informed me they are going to include 1x19 in their regs. The BMP has corrected the problem in their BMP Trapping in the U.S. although I don’t know if they revised their Education Manual. This is a direct result of good communication and understanding and we hope to continue this effort. “You also accuse me of statements based on "what I believe" or "what I think". Not quite right.”
“You assume the Handbook will be incorporated into the TAG structure? That is absolutely false. There is no mechanism for that, and there would never even be TAG support for such a thing.” “The value of "Dynamite Snares and Snaring" all along has been that snares may be used successfully for live-holding as well as killing devices. The fundamental truth of that has been proved over and over again with scientific research. While you assert the book is flawed because I believe 7x7 is better than 1x19 for live-holding snares, there remains no evidence to prove this. Neither do you provide me with any material to challenge the statement. Again, I support the testing of 1x19 as a live-holding snare, just be aware that a scientific test might prove the 1x19 has more failures due to deaths.” “I went back into this book I wrote about 1980 to see what I actually did say about cable types and any recommendations. I find I did not even mention 1/19 cables but did mistakenly refer to this cable type as "crucible"cables. I did say, "Don't sell the crucibles short" and "The double twisted crucible steel wires are more expensive, but do not have the memory problems of the single twists. And, they are incredibly strong, as each twist pulls against the other when under extreme pressure. Several major snare manufacturers use this type of wire, and with a little fine tuning, they are very effective." I also go on to state they are better at not being prematurely fired by wind due to less flexing, etc. So while I made a mistake thinking the 1x19 was a "crucible" cable, it was the result of not being informed properly. Still, the net effect is I promoted the 1x19 as superior for some situations including use as a killing snare. In 1980 I did not have any information to suggest the 1x19 was as effective at holding an animal alive, and I guess in 2006 we are still awaiting the results of the tests you mentioned in PA, TX and ND. Still, because the 1/19 is less flexible, it is reasonable to expect it to be more rigid in place around an animals neck, lending to increased mortality as well as increased speed to achieve mortality. In one instance that is good, the other bad.”I am only saying you made statements which are based on your experience or opinion as “scientific” fact while others have different experiences and opinions. It is my personal opinion these should be noted as “personal experience or opinion”. My proof comes from experience form thousands of trappers for over half a century. long before concerns of scientific studies, reports or compiling information was necessary. In the past 10 years scientific studies and reports are mandated for verification which makes anything prior to that considered non validated. It would be easy enough for me to challenge by making a statement based on my experience or opinion (am I correct?). “The best solution might be for you to sponsor a test so you control the information along with the opportunity to publish good results or not publish results you do not like. Essentially, that is how Canadian manufacturers control information to the public. If the BMP folks used Congressional funds to test 1x19, the results would all be available due to the Freedom of Information Act. That is the dilemma of using public funds.” “I cannot speak for the "BMP" but I can tell you the NTA has a policy of not adopting or promoting the discretional use of snares only for restraining (or killing), but to demonstrate that both methods are legitimate and preferable under certain circumstances.” “Cable sizes that are preferred by many trappers include" is not a recommendation, is not based on a lack of information, but an understanding of what is commonly occurring in the field. Table 2 is meant to be helpful. The disclaimer at the bottom of Table 2 also states cable type is only part of the equation relating to live-holding or killing effectiveness. It is my view reflecting the state of the art is helpful, important, and is not ignorant.
The draft handbook copy is more generous, liberal and lenient than it might have been without your input, so I thank you for that.” Regards, Tom Krause"Dick Sinrud Thompson Snares
|
|
|
Post by sinrud on May 17, 2006 19:09:09 GMT -6
TC, I think it's time for you to do what I have done . . . Doownload some state trapping regulations and READ-READ-READ!!! Dick Sinrud thgompson Snares
|
|