|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 27, 2006 7:05:08 GMT -6
thing is Bob- staking it solid on concreete was ,for all practical purposes, the protocal used.
So now we have an admission, taking 2 years to wring out of you- that the coon bmps werren't the best they could be.
LOL
they were the WORST they could be, and are so flawed, so set up for special interest gtoups, that they aren't even worth the paper written on. Thank God trappers are waking up to this.
so now its even WORSE than I thoght- governemt employees had a CHICE. Howfair is that! those that think the bmps is the greatest thing since M-44s- are leading the way
no bias there!
LOL
the bmps are a joke- in my mind and in most trappers minds.
and for good reason- they ARE a joke.
because some idiot- and I mean that in all meanings of the word- doen't have a clue to coon behavior or coon trapping methods- now his idocy- leads the way in coon trap studies?
Please-
to say test traps and not methods is absolutely the stupidist thing I 'ver ever heard- and certainly not something I'd ever hear a REAL trapper state.
there is a good reason you aren't seeing the coon bmps out there with all the fanfare of the canine ones-
too bad they don't take it one step further and toss them into the round file.
Seems like the only ones supporting the bmps are the committee, the government agencies responsible for the committeee, and the gov employees that have a vested interesd in them via a paycheck.
and the repeated comment- "you got what you want, why complain" doesn't even deserve an answer.
Because if we have to explain, you wouldn't understand....
unlike gov employees that will have a job no matter what, the rest of us care about trapping as a wHOLE- not in particular individual I'm ok, screw you ways....
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 27, 2006 22:07:31 GMT -6
Such wise words from a man who had what in the outcome of the BMP's besides arm chair?
The whole testing is about testing traps period plain and simple. If it where about methods then it would be broke down to geoghraphic terrain. They would be much longer and with fine detail as to where,when and why.
Fanfair? Ho gives a rats a** about fan fair? I can tell you they do have an impact on the anti's, look at since the final drafts have come out, the greenies are using much more finesse with there anti trapping propoganda. Your state is a great example, doesn't mention anything about trap selction or trap cruelty, NO they went with using the ESA to try and outlaw trapping, loop holes and wording in a bad document. Can't be that the BMP's are all so far off now can it? If that where the case MN would have been a great place to "test" the waters with those things you fear and say can come to light about the BMP"s. Yet the anti's didn't want to enter into the scientific realm of trap testing oh no! Why? They don't have a leg to stand on that subject now that testing endorsed by many has come to light and into the public realm. They seek the gray areas, just like some trappers do? To hard to debate the "facts" SO they looked at the antiquated ESA act and trying to end trapping that way.
I'm surprised you aren't on the vocal band wagon on the ESA act Tman? After all with better insight and maybe people with more wisdom than those that wrote the ESA the law suit wouldn't be taking place correct?
to say test traps and not methods is absolutely the stupidist thing I 'ver ever heard- and certainly not something I'd ever hear a REAL trapper state.
Maybe I'm not a "real" trapper tman? I bet all those weekend guys would have seen the need or want for trap modifications years ago? I bet the guys that came up with jaw laminations, base plates, 4 coiling heck there not real trappers either? Maybe the only real trappers live in MN and the rest are just a bunch of "loose brains" who have no common sense or knowledge about anything? You maybe onto something LOL.
I guess real trappers use the factory out of the box equipment for cost savings and spend time taking an inferior trap setup and use it in many ways until they find an acceptable way to hold the game? I guess dumb trappers or fake trappers buy better quailty traps or modify those factory slam togethers and make them better equipment to work in all terrains and conditions? Yep your on to something.
unlike gov employees that will have a job no matter what, the rest of us care about trapping as a wHOLE- not in particular individual I'm ok, screw you ways....
This comment deserves NO answer sir. You NO zero about what ADC trappers do for private trappers at all and until you do find out the Facts, then you just shooting more propaganda out for those lemmings to bite onto.
Your very own words proove that the only thing you care about concerning coon BMP's is to be able to see your system in your area in bright bold wordage to make you feel better and to stroke an ego about your trapping system.
When you have facts to debate I'll return to this discussion until then all water under the bridge. Good day.
|
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Dec 28, 2006 2:17:36 GMT -6
Just think of where I stand when I get asked if the fur used was caught by 'prescribed' methods.
The easiest thing to do is make sure you get it from Canada.
Think about it 37 while you folks play with the process and fool no one.
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 28, 2006 6:37:23 GMT -6
akona you leave such an open ended question? Continue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dhat on Dec 28, 2006 9:15:34 GMT -6
tman maybe im missing something here but why would the gov guys have a bias? not sure if your talking about a bias toward supporting the bmps or a bias towards certain traps. tc37 were the guys that participated in this program paid extra on top of there salaries, if so i guess maybe thats the bias tman talks of?
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Dec 28, 2006 9:47:34 GMT -6
bias in wanting the bmps to have positive results.
WHO is sponsering the bmp process the most?
State agencies. With time AND personell.
And what to state agencies need to do with money expended?
Produce.
Investing a lot of time, manpower, effert and money into the bmp process, many states need to mkae it money well spendt - and to do that, they have a VESTED interest i nhaving bmps used and approved.
Nothing wrong with that, per se.
But now when a majority of trappers participating seem to be state, gov't men..... is onlt obvious and prudent to ask- WHAT determined WHO participated? Logic tells us Joe Smith, someone outspoken over the need, protocal, etc of the bmps- won't be #1.
Instead- how about that guy that preaches the bmps as if they were concieved in stone?
The coon bmps were terribly flawed- and the protocal was not only wrong, but biased in that- by all thats Holy- it couldn't have been set up more to induce chewing than if CHEWING would have been the goal.
Its ludicrious!
And the attitude of the canone bmp boys- is we got ours- what are you complaining aobut?
if they canine bmps would have been set up so poorly, they'd be pissing in their pants in their haste to distance themselves from them.
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 28, 2006 14:08:14 GMT -6
Dhat the answer to your question is NO, we are not double paid when doing BMP's.
WHO is sponsering the bmp process the most?
State agencies. With time AND personell.
And what to state agencies need to do with money expended?
Produce.
That is because IAFWA is made up of those agencys and that is who was choosen to do the testing and oversee it. If you do the research you would know why they where chosen to do the testing.
As far as produce, the money was ear marked from many places some state money,some fed money etc. The producing is doing the testing. The outcome doesn't make a differance, as far as the dollars used or will more be appropriated. Of course the BMP's are going to be named and also recommended as something trappers could use, why wouldn't they be? Still guidlines and not mandates.
Canada are making there findings mandates, strict rules and regs the US has not done that and leaves it up state to state, which would you rather have? I know your acting like our testing and results are such but the simple truth is they are not. Do you think Canada would go through the effort,time and money spent to say we did the test but we will just leave the results sit in a dark room and those that want to look at it can? NO they went in with the idea that what results are will become law, the US went in with finding the best traps, and then allowing states to decide the outcomes of these trap tests, but to think they shouldn't promote the results for new trappers and as a base line for trap decisions I just don't follow that logic? How would keeping a lid on it all help trappers in the eyes of the general public?
IAFWA is not about to try and make these a federal mandate, they are made up of many states with many different needs as far as trapping goes. Each state will/does look out for themselves in many issues but a unified voice gets heard louder than single voices on issues of agreement, that being the need to see trapping continue in many aspects in many states.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Dec 28, 2006 17:05:15 GMT -6
I`ve no problem with gmen doing the field work. I heard the pay scale for non w.s. employees was a by the head fee ,since the animals got turned over, i.e. no skin or hides sold. seems fair enough to me. I`ve got my opinions if the thing is a god send or a can of worms, but either way it`s a done deal now and I think honey will catch more flies than vinigar, so it behooves the private trappers to talk to your states about it. like issues of eastern vs western coyote sizes, the positives of disease control and predation control with bigger catches with some less than perfect grade traps vs the upside of very good feet but low harvest numbers. facts are facts as to which traps cause more or less damage, but how that information will be weighed against economic or predation or endangered species issues remains to be seen, and no doubt can be swayed by intelligent comment to the variuis states by the trappers of each state and the various assns. go in like a bull and demanding this and that or the whole thing be scrapped and the results will be a thank you for your comments sir , and then your comments go into the round can upon your leaving the premises. learn to play the game if you want to stay in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 28, 2006 17:50:58 GMT -6
Bob private trappers got paid by the hour 10.00+ and also mileage as well. Same with techs they recieved pay by total number of hours worked.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Dec 28, 2006 18:51:32 GMT -6
I could have done that in the off season or while stranded in indiana might be more accurate, but couldn`t have afforded it when serious trapping. in fact I don`t know that I could have worked that cheap anywhere. in fact thinking on it, I always have things to do that are worth more to me than 10 bucks and milage. but thanks for telling me, I never knew the wage scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Dec 28, 2006 21:05:40 GMT -6
If you think that the agencies involved don't have a vested interest in promoting the bmps into mandated guidelines, you are very naive.
But more to the point- I did the research and don't see why trap MANUFACTURERS had input on the type of protocol used.
Perhaps you could explain that to me?
and I do have a problem, with employees of the very agencies promoting the bmps, doing the majority of testing.
and I do have a problem also, with these same testers, being paid with tax money, going out and promoting the bmps, and also having certain traps, promoting in bmp info meetings by those making those traps.
Do you?
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 29, 2006 8:35:12 GMT -6
If you think that the agencies involved don't have a vested interest in promoting the bmps into mandated guidelines, you are very naive.
Steve you can keep making this statement all you want it doesn't make it fact. Matter of fact I know through my "experiance" that many state agencys are not looking to mandate BMP's making your statement false.
I did the research and don't see why trap MANUFACTURERS had input on the type of protocol used.
Perhaps you could explain that to me?
How many are we talking about steve 1?2? how many trap manufactures please tell me.
and I do have a problem also, with these same testers, being paid with tax money, going out and promoting the bmps, and also having certain traps, promoting in bmp info meetings by those making those traps.
Steve that remark makes no sense? If a private trapper par took in the study and was BMP supporter there is no differance? Called freedom of speech. That means then anyone paid with local,state or fed dollars shouldn't be out promoting trapping then also?
The last part don't be vague. Also any trap manufacture after having the product tested/passed can all claim in there adds that there trap passed this or that BMP. BMP info meetings cover the gambit of traps, not highlighting one type or brand over the other. If you have the facts to proove your statement lets hear them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dhat on Dec 29, 2006 8:56:08 GMT -6
steve and tc37 thanks for the responce just trying to understand everyones take on this without jumping to conclusions
|
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Dec 29, 2006 16:16:03 GMT -6
tman, spit it out plain and clear. are you insinuating that somerhow w.s. wants trappers to use less effective traps to lower the catch ? so has intentially jimmied the bmp data to lower private efforts or efficiency? and then extrapolate that over to guaranteed w.s. work? seems you are mincing around saying that but insinuating it at every opportunity. if for once trappers can get some benefit from the taxpayers, then it`s a good deal. what private guys could have done the work for 10 bucks and milage? not me for sure. I like it when w.s. is working for my benefit. in fact last summer in june I see the beavers trashed my place while I was out denning in wyoming. so there I am at 90 degrees snaring beavers and swatting skeeters and deer flies and it dawns on me I`m a tax payer! so I called the extension office and had them send out the county trapper to get the rest. man, did I feel cool or what! actually he got $50 a beaver and if I did it I got nothing and he is a good guy so I figured let him get some of the taxpayers money. this bmp deal is the same with the w.s. guys doing the field work. remember, all they did was trap animals, no more or less. I suppose if someone had a hard on they could have put the fix in on this or that, but realistically, most w.s. trappers are just like the rest of the world, doing their job best they know how with no agenda other than doing right and keeping food on the table. most folks are inherently good. lol, w.s. or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Dec 29, 2006 16:45:15 GMT -6
It would seem to me that Canada took the exercise seriously because it respected the role of the trapper both currently and as an item of historical significance within the development of the country. It viewed the efforts of the left handed lesbians running the animal 'rights' campaign in Europe as a group to be silenced by actions and went about the process of BMP's in a steady manner that met the requirements. They placed the right to trap first and everything else revolved around that.
Meanwhile in America nothing really happened other than the right to trap got somehow muddled up with which manufacturer could make a trap that could satisfy some weird ideal. Some DNR's and thier counterparts even allowed the animal 'rights' movement a chair at the table in specific events when they had no rights to be at all. Those in power believed somehow that they were a 'stakeholder' in the process. This of course is a classic error in these situations but when it is kept in house as it has been done in the USA silly excesses do occur.
Canada realised the problem and the solution, America never understood the problem or the opportunity and is still bogged down in technical misunderstandngs when the path forward is clear.
As one of my Canadian trade friends recently said to me, one day the Americans will understnd the statement that once an anti always an anti and they might one day understand that they should never be allowed at the table when a die is cast and Europe cast the die, no more was needed top be heard from them.
|
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 29, 2006 20:10:19 GMT -6
akona all your physco babble is tiring. The US did what was best for trappers of the US!!!! I can hear you and the other arm chairs if we would ahve went the way of Canada!!!! There would be a linch mobbing with such a small list to choose from. Some DNR's and thier counterparts even allowed the animal 'rights' movement a chair at the table in specific events when they had no rights to be at all. Those in power believed somehow that they were a 'stakeholder' in the process. This of course is a classic error in these situations but when it is kept in house as it has been done in the USA silly excesses do occur. Bring the facts please?  Meanwhile in America nothing really happened other than the right to trap got somehow muddled up with which manufacturer could make a trap that could satisfy some weird ideal.Akona have you even takin the time to look at the list of passing trap devices for ALL BMP"s? There are plenty of traps that passed that have been around for 30+ years some many more than that!!!!! You think these are all new inventions for the BMP"s? Trapping is not a right all though I wished it were. Canada went their way and the US went another, the end result is to keep trapping as an active method of control and recreation. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Dec 29, 2006 20:19:36 GMT -6
insinuating? I think you are a little too paranoid- I'm not insinuating anything.
All I am saying is:
1) the state agencies have a vested interest in using the bmps. to think other wise, is foolish. But since tc brought it up- please list the states that are opposed to any use of the bmps as in Matter of fact I know through my "experience" that many state agency's are not looking to mandate BMP's making your statement false.
A simple list of such states would be interesting indeed. I'm betting you that you won't list one.
2) to have agency's with a vested interest in getting the bmps also having the employees of said agency's doing the tests- is self serving.
Did it skew the results? Hard to tell with such a set up. Trappers used should have have NO connection to the agencies. My opinion and I am damn well entitled to it.
Do I think that results were skewed in the coon bmps because of the STUPID protocol- yes, I most assuredly do.
as far as trap manufactures- now its numbers you want to argue? Isn't ONE too many in this scenario?
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Dec 29, 2006 20:21:50 GMT -6
talk about babble- the US did what was best for US trappers- the jury is not even close to coming back on that-
A poll of trappers anywhere would prove the lie to that statement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Dec 29, 2006 20:49:04 GMT -6
lets put this in perspective- there are 3 issues in play here...
1) the coyote bmps. In my opinion, the coyote bmps were very well done. Input was sought from actual coyote trappers, and 2 bmps were developed. Emphasis was on chains, shock springs, jaws- all items that specifically pertain to canines. A job well done.
2) gov't employees doing the testing. Not important in the coyote....but perhaps in the coon? Who knows? I don't like prelim indications, thats for sure
3) the coon bmps. This whole thing was a disaster- from the opening statement to the protocal. Testing traps not trappers is a pc catch phrase apparently - but is a foolish statement to make- when the STRENGTH of the canine bmps is METHOD.
The coon bmps have, IMNSHO- no value, and do trappers a great disservice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Dec 29, 2006 20:50:50 GMT -6
Trapping is not a right all though I wished it were
In MN it is a right, quaranteed by the Constitution of MN.
|
|
