|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 5, 2006 10:16:41 GMT -6
Excellent posting and good insight!!! I see some have a feeling that this is for the long haul while others still see it for today and tomorrow outlook. Sgt wal the traps tested are based off a trappers survey done awhile back and they take the most popular traps first and test them, that only makes sense. With time and funding why would you expect traps to be first up to bat ones that are used by less than 5% of the nations trappers? The coyote BMP's both west/east have many traps to choose from and you know what you can still use your 3n's or what ever other trap you want as long as it passes your state regs.
The order of species also was takin into concideration as well and the most popular are the first tested, again only makes sense. Why start out with a skunk BMP when skunks are way down the list of target species for the majority of trappers?
Akona and others are right on, you don't take your jacks and walk away because you get mad at another player, you stay and keep playing. The NTA and FTA can walk away but as others posted it will serve no benefit to the very people paying their yearly dues, as the BMP's will go on and the National orgs will look bad to all involved and the MOST IMPORTANT PART is they will have zero say that is zero say on any of the testing or language used in the final drafts, how can that be a positive for these orgs?
WE have people on our side yet some are willing to dismiss the opportunity to work together for the betterment of ALL trappers. That is a shame. The whole process will have give and take but there can be nothing without dialog from the very people who are suppose to be looking out for all trappers by pulling back and not wanting to have input on any level because they don't get all they want.
The game dpets if good will listen to trapper input and want this input as they know the trappers have the knowledge, but there also are confines and protocol to follow as well, for many reasons stated in the past. Instead of bad mouthing the outcome because they don't fit your needs be proactive and try for change and more work to be done, if you don't then I will guarantee you won't change nothing or even have the chance to do so.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 6, 2006 7:23:50 GMT -6
but thats the point- bad science isn't science. Betterment of all trappers? Hardly.
And as far as walking away- I APPLAUD them doing so. The bmp committee committee has lost all credibility with me- and more and more trappers are seeing that perhaps the bmp process is nothing but a scam. Harsh words- but what I feel.
I see nowhere in the coon bmp protocols where any real thought was given to setting up the protocols. I get real tired of hearing about how "experienced" coon trappers determined these protocols based on their observations.
Huh? Are these guys even trapping coon? If so- must be 5 lb coon.
Its absolutely incredible to me, literally boggles my mind- that this coon bmp has been given ANY credence by ANYONE that traps more that 25 coon a year.
What I want? Throw the coon bmps on the garbage pile they deserve- write protocols that reflect real world trapping- tell the vets council to stick the Olson Scale up their pazoos, and FREAKIN START OVER using the same thought that the Coyote bmps received.
Very, very easy to see coyotes were a priority- and coon were not.
To say we are testing traps and not techniques is absurd- the entire protocols were based on techniques- wrong techniques, but techniques.
Who were there coon experts anyways? Me, I'm no coon expert, but I have trapped a minimum of 5,000 or so coon in my life. During that trapping- it didn't take long to see that on some type of set ups- coon would chew about 100% of the time.
And on other set ups, they chewed some of the time-
And on others- they chewed very little.
Now- over the years- its easy to predict if a coon would chew at a set or not.
I've explained my methods too many times to go back over here- but I'll tell you this- and you can take it to the bank....
If you want to know how to MAXIMIZE the % of coon that chew in a coon set, you would not have to experiment at all- simply set up as per the coon bmp protocol, and you will get not only the highest percentage of coon chewing, but chewing that causes maximum damage.
Its that simple, that black and white.
Now- myself and several others have told, directly to the bmp members- that certain techniques can be used that REDUCE or ELIMINATE chewing...but we get either "we are testing traps, not trappers" or...and this really burns me..."holding coon in water or cover is not humane?"
Wouldn't you think you'd get at least an "interesting...we will have to look at those methods"
That is, if the true purpose of the bmps WAS to increase animane trapping.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 6, 2006 7:28:31 GMT -6
The FTA and NTA have had, for all practical puposes ZERPO say now and since the conception of this process. To continue to pretend that its a cooperative endeavor serves no purpose and only gives the illusion that cooperation and discourse is occuring when it is not.
Blind accepotance of whatever drivel the bmps come out with- is a disservice to trappers EVERYWHERE and no matter what you trap, your rights are affected.
Face it- the bmp committeee FU big time on the coon ones. They want to regain credibility- toss them out of the window and do it right!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 6, 2006 11:46:10 GMT -6
Your not getting rid of the olsen scale and why should we? It worked well on the species so far, it is a base line to measure damage plain and simple. It has been used in the past in other trap studys, again you say dump the olsen scale but give no referance to a better system to gauge damage? Your point on NTA and FTA had zero say isn't accurate. They have had dialog and yes not all will go the way any group would like to fit there own agenda, but as I have stated in the past there will be give and take. How can you look at the coyote BMP and state trappers had no influance in that study? Everyone new the coon BMP would be the toughest challange due to many circumstances and all the groups trying to protect their agendas, that is not new news, but I will say the coon bmp isn't gone or dead, I'm sure we will hear more on it in the future, until then keep trapping and using what works best for you, no one has mandated anything yet, we loose sight in that and think because the BMPs have been ongoing that my stuff better meet the referance material, not so. To state pulling away from the table is in the best interest for trappers is not accurate, how can trappers have any influance at all without dialog and being involved in the process? I can tell you the BMP's will go on with us or with out us! I will be apart so I can at least have some impact on the outcome, however small that may be. It is like complaining about the President yet not voting in the election. If one wants to be silent on the process then be silent on the outcome as well. If you want to solve the problems you must be apart of the solution.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 6, 2006 12:54:23 GMT -6
NO NO NO NO NO - it HAS not workled well so far. Its been used on TWO species- and one it worked "well" as you say- the other its a joke.
Everyone "knew" the coon bmps would be "the biggest challenge"? Gee- then they should have thought about it some before blindly going ahead.
Please- tell me anything significant the FTA or the NTA has added to the bmp process? All I hear, is "trappers wanted this, but we were outvoted"
Silent on the process- far from it my friend- I was talking to Hamilton long before the coon bmps were finshed- as soon as I saw the ridiculus protocal used.
And continue to be silent- no way. Its a junk study and being slient implies acceptance of a bogus study.
of course the bmps will go on without us- its a runaway train with TOO MANY HAVING A VESTED INTEREST IN THEIR CONTINUANCE.
of course I'll continue trapping- but I would be lax as a trapper that knows what is right and what is wrong, to support these coon bmps. I will not.
-----------------------------------
look at it this way- on another forum, a trapper is being berated for setting fences with snares. Because, don't you know- setting at fences with snares is a rookie thing to do and will hurt all trapping because of amatuer methods like that. I have no doubt, since one of those berating that trapper has had undo influence on snaring laws in several states, that he would love to make fence snaring illegal and certainly not acceptable under ANY bmp.
Do you agree or disagree? and why?
Exactly- you'd say proper techniques trumps idocy.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jan 6, 2006 13:37:52 GMT -6
Again we seem to be talking about the strength of advocacy. Trappers through the NTA before the advent of high paid 'consultants' did a great job for the most part. When things needed to be they looked internally, listed a great number of real sources both practical and educated (the two can be mutually exclusive at times) and just got things done.
Advocates do not have to agree with what is happening in any situation they just have to put up good arguments for their side of the equation. For example if 15 points have been discussed an advocate my suggest his group agrees with 4, marginally agrees with 3 more and offer suggestions for strengthening them and oppose 8 with suggestions on how opposition to these 8 points might be overcome. Part of what occurs is the ability to disagree but to put up alternatives. It doesn't mean you win but it means you are in the game.
The other part of advocacy is the strength of your presenter(s) and the depth of your knowledge that can be presented. Now trappers have a vast amount of knowledge on the subject of trapping and there are a considerable number of trappers who are highly qualified in diverse fields. A pretty good combination all in all. Maybe not a winning one if the dice is loaded but one that could give one hell of a good showing despite the apparent odds.
However now let's look at the NTA and its main people at present.
I can see the scene now, everyone around the table and the NTA is asked to speak about who will be doing the presentations.
Well our major advocates are PEAT/SRI. Oh who are the main players in that group? Davids Wills and John Aquilino. Yes I have been doing some research on these two. John Aquilino is famous for his statement "gun owners are the new niggers of society" or words to that effect and David Wills is famous for being an animal activist for most of his life, has had some trouble with the law a few times and his major scientific endeavour was trying to explain how dead whales were really alive. This presenation is sometimes known as the zombie whale syndrome. Now are you sure you want to use this group as your major advocates as has been pushed within the NTA and suggested here.
Yes sir.
Oh okay, don't call us we'll call you.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jan 6, 2006 15:01:36 GMT -6
I'd have to say I don't want the NTA as an advocate for me- not unless the leadership is given a clean sweep and trappers are back in control.
Which works out well...because it seems like the NTA is ineffective at best, when advocating for trappers.
|
|
|
Post by MChewk on Jan 6, 2006 17:45:13 GMT -6
35, you mentioned previous studies utilized the Olsen scale...the scale was different...different points and new added body parts for this BMP...teeth etc.. IF the scale was the old Olsen things MIGHT be different. Why they decided to change/alter scale I'll never know....huge factor in scoring traps.
I'll ask this question...throwing some ideas out...how will Canadas bodygripping trap testing effect our use in USA IF BMP testing won't allow killing methods. Is there a relationship between BMP and EU? If so what is it? How will EU react when we inform them we will be utilizing Canadas info? Why not just use Canadas info on footholds for canines? Is their testing better than BMPs?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 7, 2006 7:41:56 GMT -6
I know but the basic principle is the same with the olsen scale, the thing you must remeber the other test were just looking at the feet and nothing else, the BMP's take into account any and all damage caused by the device. The final score is what it is, it could have been better and it could have been worse, give and take.
There is no relationship with the IAFWA and the EU that I know about. Canada has got a BMP that is more close to what the EU wanted to see, ours is not the same BMP for footholds. The EU wouldn't react negativly with us using the info provided by CA for body grips, their is swaping of info on both sides. All this about "effect" so many think the BMP's are law or will be law, that will be state by state case. I will tell you the EU has more to worry about than the US trappers anymore as china and other countries start to get more involved in the fur trade, they will be much more concerned with them, as they will have a far bigger impact than the US trappers for sure in years to come!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 7, 2006 8:09:07 GMT -6
I see you avoided my question on snaring- and the reason it is relevant- is because it exactly describes what happened with the coon bmps. So called experts, gave faulty info and wrote faulty protocal.
You can argue the general worth of bmp with validity- you CANNOT do the same with the coon bmps. As I said previously, reality trumps all.
The bmps no longer have ANYTHING do do with the EU. Like sewer gas, its taken on a life of its own.
lets see...seatbelts..THAT was state by state...speed limits...THAT was state by state......duck hunting laws..THAT was state by state... wolf management..THAT was state by state... its ALL state by state until some states say NO...then its Federal time. Be forewarned!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 7, 2006 13:51:15 GMT -6
Speed limits are still state by state, some are 75 mph others 65 mph and so on. Name the last year, states had migratory sole rights? Duck hunting was found out to be better off with federal control as they are a migrating species, we took a big hit in duck numbers and that is why federal control came into play, you can't have a migrating species and heavy pressure with many states have big differances in bag and possesion limits and keep viable populations om all flyaways.Also look at those who complained when steel shot was first mandated and how it would ruin duck hunting, now years later it is just an accepeted practice.
The wolf you can blame no one except those that drove them to be endangered species and then they came under the federal laws as would any other species if hunted or not, you use 2 things to try and prove your point that has nothing to do with BMP's and how they would fall under federal law. Game is managed and owned by the states not the federal government, except for a few * species. Your not going to see federal involvement of any small game or big game unless they are migratory or get classified as threatend or endangerd. Also you can't use the wolf as a fear tool against the BMP's as Wyoming is real close to getting them back as a state controled species. It will happen soon. The feds don't want all the heat the wolf issue is causing nor have to foot the bill of control so they are looking real hard at giving wyoming back that "privlage". A classic example that the states have the right to manage wildlife as they see fit when the population is viable.
The BMP's are a good thing and with all who are involved for various reasons and some good reasons on the creditabilty side, there will be no such thing as the perfect test, never has been for anything, because each one has an agenda in the outcome, it is the middle ground and doing all we can to prove our point that trapping is not cruel and inhumane and showing that through research and data, and yes it won't all be what all want, but far better than going the route trappers used to take in order to protect trapping on a state by state basis.
|
|
|
Post by SgtWal on Jan 7, 2006 18:23:18 GMT -6
To see the work done in Canada, visit the Fur Institute at www.fur.ca/index-e/index.asp. Look at the link for approved traps. I suggest you also read the International Agreement on Trapping Standards which is also a link on that page. The Agreement has a list of injuries and the standards the traps must meet. The standards look as tough or tougher than ours on some animals. As an example only 2 foothold traps passed the testing for Canadian use on Coyotes, the #3 Bridger with an additional 5/16 inches of laminations, 4 coils, and center swivels, and the stock Victor #3 Soft Catch. wayne
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 7, 2006 21:46:59 GMT -6
look at it this way- on another forum, a trapper is being berated for setting fences with snares. Because, don't you know- setting at fences with snares is a rookie thing to do and will hurt all trapping because of amatuer methods like that. I have no doubt, since one of those berating that trapper has had undo influence on snaring laws in several states, that he would love to make fence snaring illegal and certainly not acceptable under ANY bmp.
Do you agree or disagree? and why?
I really would like you to answer this. And its not a trick question- I KNOW what your answer will be and I support you in that answer. WHY? Because I know that you have developed techniques FOR snaring fences that work. If someone told YOU- that what you have learned was not true, that it was inhumane, etc...would you support that?
Me neither. Because, as you see.....reality TRUMPS so called experts.
One simply cannot support things that are false.
and going back to the state federal issues- all I mentioned is TRUE. Doesn't matter why or how the feds get what they want, they do. I simply see no argument there- its well documented in all walks of life and most would accept it as a given.
|
|
|
Post by SgtWal on Jan 8, 2006 7:32:55 GMT -6
I've seen, and have been, attacked for such posts before. A good set is a food set, be it a snare on a fence crossing or an apple on a stick. There are too many "trappers" out there who feel that only the latest fad, or newest item, is acceptable. They are all too willing to turn their backs on, or even attack, those who choose not to "keep up with the Jones's". This is another reason there is so much resistance to the BMPs, they also seem bent on closing the door on those who are happy with their equipment and methods. The trapper surveys mentioned before, like the one now in progress by Dr. Boddiker, are aimed at trappers who trapped fur last year. With the low prices of late the survey will be dominated by new comers and hobby trappers, all of whom tend to use the current fad in equipment. This twists the outcome and will effect the numbers. We are our own worst enemies when it comes to passing on the methods and techniques of those who have gone before. After all the dirt hole is just a hole in the ground and has been in use for all of 200 years as a set. But you would never know it to read many of the forums out there.
wayne
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 9, 2006 20:16:32 GMT -6
Sgt wal in all facets of life technology changes and people change with it, how many cell phone users 15 years ago compaired to today? How many computer owners compaired to today? The list goes on, traps are no different except for the fact that you can use any trap deemed practical and within your state regs.
The BMP s for the most have not changed the trap selection much at all, we are not reinventing the wheel with these studies and yes some good ideas and concepts have come from their being done, you look ar before the bmps were even thought of for traps, you had the egg trap and the duffer enclosed trap, because some people with the insight came up with solutions of coons chewing on there toes. The grizz trap is another tool of the times, yes 40 years ago no one would have thought of such a trap but as times change and the ability of state mandates to take away trapping things like BMP's and new devices have come to light, nothing wrong with that you have the right to buy and use them or stay with what you have, too many have this for gone conclusion that all these BMP's will become law in each and every state and then those that think the federal government will mandate all this data and testing. Thats fine I guess if your a doom and gloomer, I'm a conservative opptomistic that thinks the good of the BMP's will help all trappers for years to come and that the draw backs from these test and data will be used in more positive manners than negative ways.
I know alot of Game Depts see trapping as a very cost effective way to limit much damage and adds benefit to much of the wildlife and human population, alot went into these studys looking for a way to have data to back up trappers claims and to be able to use this information for the good of trapping, not more regulation and forceable equipment change, their not all blind to the aspects of what keeps trappers in the field and keeps many predatory species under control.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 10, 2006 7:20:59 GMT -6
LOL- you will not answer the question because you know exactly what I am saying.
NOW you know exactly how I feel on the coon bmps and why I am so vehment in being against them.
Where have you EVER read where I or anyone says the bmps will become law in every state? I have said the possiblity exists- the feds do what the want.
I HAVE said, and will say it again, some states ARE adopting some of bmps- and others will.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi2 on Jan 10, 2006 9:32:38 GMT -6
A what if and or Who if?/
Seeing that the BMP issue is at best an open wound to many. Let us say there would be a movement to re-initiate the involvement of the NTA,FTA and other trappers in this process. 1. Who should be at the table? 2. What would be the baseline criteria? 3 How would the new progress and be monitored? 4. What would be the stated outcomes of the process? 5.The fur is trapped in the USA, yet 90% or more is marketed to and or in foreign countries. How do we include international issues? or do we?
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by SgtWal on Jan 10, 2006 19:47:54 GMT -6
Who at the table? First I suggest several tables. Set up by regions. Like the tables say at an awards dinner, with a main speakers table and the rest. Each region would provide local reps at their table. Say from the state assn. and FTA chapters along with state F&W folks. The speakers would set the topic, say raccoons, and each region would respond with their parameters of what they need in the way of equipment. And the trap sizes and methods based on those used on the local animals. The speakers would take the input and start a set of tests to identify traps and methods that would meet the regional needs and still pass, or at least come close to the International Standards as quoted in the agreement. Each "BMP" would be a packet with an overall view and an annex for each region. Trap scores, when balanced out would reflect the averages nation wide. Then a trap that scores low against big heavy coon would be offset by scores from the smaller southern animals.
wayne
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 11, 2006 6:42:05 GMT -6
To begin with, there better be a better selection process of WHO sits at the table. Perhaps based on totals of lets say coon caughht over the past 40 years might be appropriate. Much of the coon bmp propblems is that experts, aren't.
I simply cannot believe that any coon trapper could pick up a copy of the coon bmps, not look at it and toss it in the trash. Its that flawed.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi2 on Jan 11, 2006 9:30:53 GMT -6
I don't know TC 35's total BMP history and therefore I don't want to down grade any of the process prior the current time.
Steve, and SgtWal excellent suggestions as to tables, not table and Who. Many of us have varying degrees of differences with the NTA or FTA currently and for greatly different reasons. Should we not WANT to get those two organizations back at the tables? The regional idea sounds great to me. That way we have local input, and if we disagree with higher level leaders on the national level we are not there at the initial phases. We do need to look at national and international stakeholders but we need to find away to regroup trappers into being a part of the process and outcomes. We need to be willing to take some risks. Also there needs to be some information streams out that prevent the MT thing. That is one of the things the NTA, FTA and especially affiliates need to work on in a proactive way. Why are we doing these methods here and what is the rationale for doing it that way. Also the cable restraint deal and thumbing down WI could have been avoided with better trapper leadership that was spending time on issues they can control instead of not being able to control We also need to for the sake of trappers in general get those that are on both sides of this issue at tables talking about concerns and issues in the presence of other trappers and other science staff. Trappers can put a lot of energy and experience into this process we just need have some faith in ourselves and others. What the EC of both the NTA and FTA may need to do is establish a baseline talking points or goals and outcomes vision for this process and then let that be the guidelines that the regional or whatever format works with as part of the holistic process. This process could be a way to activate a lot of trapper discussion nationally and take our thoughts away from low value fur and or leadership shortcomings.
Bryce
|
|