|
Post by SgtWal on Jan 1, 2006 19:12:59 GMT -6
Trappers come from many areas and can be divided into a few groups, such as fur trappers, ADC trappers, and the live market/restocking trapper. While they have different goals, all share a few common needs when trapping. And they all want the same thing from their foothold traps. Goals would be traps that hold the target animal securely. Are safe and easy to set. Fairly low priced to offset low fur costs and losses. And maybe, for some, some cross over use on other species. Then the goals split. The live market/relocation trapper needs the least possible damage to the paw. The fur and ADC trapper are less concerned about paw damage and more concerned with holding effectively. The fur trapper is willing to lose one now and then with a smaller jaw spread, while the ADC trapper isn't. And the livemarket/restocking trapper is willing to pay a little more for his equipment because he has a higher return on his animals. I feel that these differences, among others, are what is making the BMP process look flawed to many trappers. The BMP process is, or appears to be, contrary to their goals and needs. As I understand it the primary goal of the BMP was reduction of damage to the animal in the trap, with a small reduction in holding and additional equipment costs, being acceptable. Just for sake of auguement, I would like to know what the trappers on here see as their needs and goals for their equipment. Mine are pretty much covered above so let's hear yours.
wayne
|
|
|
Post by MChewk on Jan 2, 2006 5:10:10 GMT -6
Pretty much what you said Sarge....but I would not sacrifice trap size(smaller for fur trapping) just to appease public...and miss a few. I think ...since fur seasons are short and some states may not have snares and other tools to use in field I want every advantage I can utilize to catch animal. Keep in mind bobcat trappers....like using bigger traps. I also don't think BMPs purpose is to test traps to reduce damage to animal in trap.....I think it was a mandated study that was spurred by EU threat, and P.R. appeasement for edumacation.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Jan 2, 2006 14:19:12 GMT -6
Where we go? That is a good question. My take on where history has moved tow where we are today. The EU back in the early late 80s early 90s wanted to eliminate footholds on fur sold to the EU. We started to form a movement to study footholds. Instead of studying methods and what was happening we started studying traps. Traps are relatively easy to study and easier to quantify. That being done the then there was federal grant money to perform the studies that have become the BMPs as we know them. The trapper associations through Tom Krause, Craig Spores, Hartman etc. were significantly involved in the early stages of this. Over time with federal grants and staff positions etc. the biologists became more of a factor in the decision making process and the studies. The trapper associations than made a conscious decision to offer less cooperation, participate less or continue to complain about their lack of input. These may be valid points. We were then notified that the nationals drafted letters to all wildlife biology agencies that the nationals were discontinuing meaningful dialog or testing with the BMP process. They may have good reason for their actions. However after something has gone on for a decade and lots of work has been done,(good and or bad) and organizations pull out the agenda and mission does not stop. We are now in a position where we may have to fight the biologists at the state levels to keep trapping the way many trappers want to trap. That is just the opposite when in the past we utilized professional biologists to testify for us on trapping issues. There is plenty of blame to go around. There are few angels in this Hell. Our constant unwillingness to bend maybe our downfall in the long run. Mike I see your point on size say for yotes. What then constitutes a proper large trap in areas of high domestics. Those to me would have been the better discussions to have with BMPs but it did not happen that way and we may have more serious problems on our hands because we had leadership that lacked the vision to figure out how to work with biologist instead of telling them how little they know and knew about trapping. Biologists have the freedom and right to get defensive just like trappers do. We always benefited in the past when biologists had to also include in their thought process, the management of the species in total, including harvest. I would bet that a huge % of the reason we have all these trap discussions is not because biologists are searching the World for the perfect trap. It is the trap builders and modifiers who are trying to capture a market and make a buck that are offering all the gadgets. We as mechanical minded gadget businessmen are buying their products and creating networks of testimonies for and against. We have done all the anecdotal research and buying, the BMP process is just measuring to see who was more correct or wrong.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jan 2, 2006 15:51:20 GMT -6
"While the BMP process may have originally begun in response to the threatened EU ban, most participants in the process now regard BMP's as the best hope for the future of commercial trapping and view the split between the IAFWA and the NTA as placing that already tenuos future on even shakier ground". Written by Ricky Flint of the MWFP. www.mdwfp.com/Level1/wildlife.asp?subject=Furbearer
|
|
|
Post by MChewk on Jan 2, 2006 18:25:53 GMT -6
Lets be clear here...some of reasons for NTA and FTA "pulling out" was the lack of actual input they had...AND the total lack of communication the BMP folks gave. Throw in some untruthfulness directed at FTA leadership and you can see why the "pull out."
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jan 2, 2006 18:45:57 GMT -6
Yes i have heard those excuses but the bottom line remains as stated above. With the current 'experts' in charge this has happened and that is a prevailing current view. There are times when you MUST continue no matter what.
|
|
|
Post by MChewk on Jan 3, 2006 7:11:40 GMT -6
Excuses? Let me play devils advocate here...using your statement of "sometimes you must continue"...where does one draw the line? Hunter continues to get fur damage when using a certain bullet and load...should he continue to use that bullet and load? Or change? Trapper sees where he is losing animals because of poor trap designs...should he continue to use that poor trap design? Or change? An organization SAYS that they will do things AND have them done on time...deadline.....but don't follow through....continues to say these things but continues to let peolple down...you tell me?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 3, 2006 8:46:18 GMT -6
people are going to do what they are going to do. Common sense on my part, cannot change that.
BUT- when data is released that I KNOW to be misleading and KNOW to be less than the BEST techniques- I myself would be as at fault as the BMP committee (in this scenerio) in silently "approving" their data.
I cannot and will not do so.
I see that I am RIGHT every day- for example, give a coon a floating wood drag on a small creek- and you get almost 100% no chewing- stake a coon in water.... no chewing....put him at the end of a slide....no chewing and the reasons for the above are so obvious I won't even get into them.
and on the other hand- those coon staked so that they can sit on he bank- either have severe chewing or ARE GONE.
Like Duh man....
and the BMP committee tells me MY methods aren't HUMANE because I keep my coon in the water...?
toss that freakin' study- and do it right!
GIGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jan 3, 2006 15:10:57 GMT -6
"where does one draw the line?"
On issues of singular importance no line can be drawn. You front up to each and every meeting, you reply to each and every piece of correspondence by the due date or earlier, you make sure your most technically qualified people do the answering (or at least sign the correspondence and are there when presentations are made). When it is your turn to speak you give your speech even if no one is listening.
You do this each and every time and it has a numbing effect on the brain. This might happen year in and year out for twenty years. This is advocacy at its toughest. It is not the frilly stuff where you go along, present your paper and get a standing ovation. It's the type of advocacy where you present your paper and it gets pulled apart from the information provided in it to the sentence construction used in the penultimate paragraph. Oh it's great fun but only people with a true dedication to a cause are able to do it.
So the question is in this case: how important is the subject to contribute to? Very, very important in this case because I have just picked one example above where one person in one state on one official website has said the NTA has placed trapping on 'shakier ground' by not participating. That statement will be magnified and multiplied throughout other state agencies, through federal agencies and through the antis cause as being a verifable fact.
If you want to play the advocacy game above all the other things necessary to run an association you have to play it in the good times and the bad times and you know what you gain a great deal of credability by playing the tough times hard and fair than you do playing the easy ones. Advocacy in the end comes down to absolute determination in the face of overwhelming odds, the ball was badly dropped here and everyone of importance in the area knows about it.
There is a difference between what what one person does, in your example the hunter continuing to use a bullet that damages fur despite fur damage and an organisation in this case that represents, or claims to, the future of the effected community. The organisation must continue despite all the things you say happened because it HAS to or it suffers a great loss of face and this is what has happened in this case.
It is a political process and your opponents will use evry trick available to beat or marginalise you. In these situations it is the time for men ( and women) with guts to stand up and be counted not to fold their tents and skulk off into the darkness.
|
|
|
Post by MChewk on Jan 3, 2006 20:33:07 GMT -6
Akona, the opponent already has won...the BMPs are already being printed as we speak. There were no changes on the last study...just grammar and little stuff. The Fed.s just post pone things and tell us what we want to hear to settle us down...when we threaten them...meanwhile they continue to do what they THINK is right. Its all PR....I guess we'll have to trap fox when we are trapping on land with our #1 1/2s and mink in the water. The coon will be INCIDENTALS.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jan 3, 2006 21:53:55 GMT -6
In other words the NTA failed at every turn on this issue, that is what you are saying. The NTA took its bat and ball and went home.
These so called NTA experts have a lot to answer for and learn. The NTA dropped out of this process why should they be invited to participate in any other process that may occur in the future.
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Jan 4, 2006 13:55:09 GMT -6
The Fed's ? Exactly which Federal agency has been responsible for overseeing the BMP process ? And under what authority can "The Feds" act on state issues regarding the method of take for furbearers ?
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jan 4, 2006 15:45:51 GMT -6
It will make no difference if the Feds can actually legislate on the method of take of furbearers becuase in the long run the international trade in wild fur is governed by various treaties and agreements and international trade is the sole responsibility of the Feds. If for example the EU decides to ban trapped animal fur then the states have no say in the matter. It is the province of the Feds to ensure that this never happens and of course it is the Feds through the Department of Agriculture who has put up money for the BMP process.
So there might be trapping but no end market. Product with little or no market equals a disaster.
Yes trappers through their organisations were treated poorly in this process of that there is no doubt but my original remarks stand.
|
|
|
Post by SgtWal on Jan 4, 2006 16:04:23 GMT -6
Bare with me a moment guys. We seem to agree that the current BMP's have left a bad taste behind. The raccoon BMP seems to have caused a problem with the insistance that animals be held on dry, more or less, ground. Were like restrictions placed on trappers in other species studied? If not then why raccoon? I have a problem with the traps chosen for testing in all the BMPs so far. I would have liked to have seen even a baseline test of every style trap in use. Contrary to some not every trapper uses only coil springs for example. The question was what do we want. What further testing and information would we like to have before we can start to accept the BMP process. What do you think?
wayne
|
|
|
Post by MChewk on Jan 4, 2006 18:52:11 GMT -6
Akona you are not understanding what I am saying....the NTA and FTA were involved from the get go....it was the BMP folks...the Fed.s....that failed us. They would ask NTA/FTA for input and they would respond. Then the discussions would start sometimes lasting a month to a year. In the end what was decided was what the boys at the BMP wanted.
FWS... International Fish and Wildlife, APHIS, Dept of Ag and other wildlife agency are involved.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jan 4, 2006 19:18:57 GMT -6
In understand fully what you are saying BUT that is what advocacy is all about you are either in it come what may or you leave the process and then become totally marginalised.
Now whether you are getting beaten to a pulp or not in important things you MUST stay in there and work the internal and external systems. You leave and you are admitting defeat and will be treated like a loser.
I will say it again, this is the most unpleasnat part of advocacy, when the other side only pays lip service to your participation but that is life. Anything that happens with BMP's now is a smuch the responsibility of those who walked away as it is those who have taken the initiative and formed them.
|
|
|
Post by MChewk on Jan 5, 2006 4:14:47 GMT -6
That is your opinion....I do not buy it personally. The BMP folks blundered this study due to a couple reasons. First, totally unprepared for what they knew about traps and what EXPERIENCED trappers knew....Heck we started this BMP study utilizing the #2 Victor coil spring sq jaw on fox and coyotes! THE TRAP ISN"T EVEN BEING MADE ANYMORE! How can a trap be used as a starting point IF its not even being manufactured! Then there were goof ups as far as trapper mod.s made by trapper not BMP folks. Check times, etc...after a few years of botched up data they started to get it right. We had BMP leaders (experts) asking questions in meetings that showed their true knowledge. Advocacy? Call it what you want...to me it could have been a feather in the hat for trapping IF they would have let NTA/FTA have more input....but some egos by the Federal boys got in the way.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jan 5, 2006 4:38:37 GMT -6
or perhaps egos in the NTA/FTA who were unprepared for a tough struggle against the odds.
Just a different way of looking at it.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 5, 2006 7:57:40 GMT -6
I heard of a world where justice and right always win out over might....oh yeah, it was Fantasyland....
|
|
|
Post by bblwi2 on Jan 5, 2006 9:19:42 GMT -6
What you are saying then Mike is you never believed that the BMPs where a working document that would change over time. As I see it how can we be planning for the new traps of the future and how they fit in that are not made if you feel that the process would never be open to review those ones. We have had probably close to a dozen new traps or more since this process started and add mods and that skyrockets. Actually using that abandoned trap was not a bad base point to work from. That base was not going to change. What did we get out of it was a canine BMP that not many are barking hard about. What we have is a big upheaval about coons. The coon issue to me is more one of behavior, habits and the multitude of ways harvesting coons can be accomplished by fur harvesters. Meaningful dialog about the wide ranges in size, habitat and adaptability of the species may have been the best first step on coons. That did not happen so here we set trappers against science, not necessarily where we wanted to be when it is science that we claim to use to protect our rights. Somebody and probably on both sides has or have to swallow some big chunks of CROW and get back on the HORSE and work for the long term right of trapping not how I want to run my line next week or next year.
Bryce
|
|