|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 29, 2006 21:21:04 GMT -6
South Dakota and North Dakota are 2 you won't see BMP's mandated in I would bet. Another would be Wyoming and if Iowa can keep as good a furbearer Biologist as Ron Andrews around they would be another. He helped see Iowa have there first otter trapping season, the thing is states that have good people on board will use the BMP's to the trappers advantage, those with people who really don't care about trapping would/could use them in other ways, without them the end result would be loss of trapping if the pressure mandated it to happen. Even those not familar with trapping and in a state agency benefit from the BMP's as it shows them trapping is a good, viable tool and a great form of recreation for many states. We have been over this before the "trapping matters" workshops where excellent as a resource for those not as familar with trapping to gain honest knowledge on trapping. So you would rather have Canadas rules? Yes or NO. 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 sureOne not important the other has more importance? Becuase of the outcome? I don't know the break down of trappers in the coon BMP's. In MN it is a right, quaranteed by the Constitution of MN. What? Federal laws superseed state laws! Why do you think the anti's went with the ESA as their way to try and end trapping? If you had a gurantee then there would be no need for a lawsuit correct? Why didn't they just bring the case that you try and pass as crediable for them here? The BMP's and the ways they could manipulate that into a win? Science cancels out rhetoric, the majority of the time. Exspecially the weak stance the antis' have. As far as RT and his owning a trap resource, he has been instramental in many ways that benefit trappers in many, many states. I have never heard him state anything about his trap or that it was the best one out there for coons. He has put in amny hours for trappers, he is a trapper himself and I wouldn't see him trying to sway his trap over all other methods of trapping coons in bogus testing to see his trap gain more favor. Looks good on paper but what crediable evidance do you have he has done such? What method did you have in the coyote BMP"s. All things you mentioned where trap modifications, nothing else. you stated: Emphasis was on chains, shock springs, jaws- all items that specifically pertain to canines. A job well done.How would that be any different than mods to a 1.5 for coon trapping?
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Dec 30, 2006 0:10:35 GMT -6
I note your comments 37. One day you miht just see the light. That will possibly happen when you are doing a post mortem on how USA trappers lost the right to market wild fur because of the BMP issue.
Some of us will know who to blame but I am sure the alibis are already being constructed by the 'experts'.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 30, 2006 8:50:27 GMT -6
Akona I'm not worried about the US marketing fur, as we have the bulk of wild fur of anywhere in the world. "If" we would ever loose trapping or fur harvesting it would not be because of the BMP"s or not having them "strict" enough. If the EU has it's way the bullseye on the target will be a moving one, because they don't want to compete with wild fur period. Be it from the US or Canada. There market power is shrinking and they and others will be going through the Asian country's to buy fur. A big portion of BMP's is to educate the general public and to have proof that our tools meet a criteria for animal comfort and have practical use. Done for the US citizens and combat anti's.
So now the BMP's are going to cost the US it's fur market, along with being riddled with bias. Thats good LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm done as this just gets crazier and crazier the more posting that takes place, from the conspiracy crowd.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 30, 2006 9:29:53 GMT -6
What is crazy is how you debate- by taking things out of context, by confusing issues- yet yo then proclaim to understand the bmps and all the agencies involved.
Lets look at your recent post:
you said: What method did you have in the coyote BMP"s. All things you mentioned where trap modifications, nothing else.
you stated:Emphasis was on chains, shock springs, jaws- all items that specifically pertain to canines. A job well done.
Where did I ever say, indicate or suggest that the statement I actually made (in its entirety) anything about methods?
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.
I just don't see it- do you? therefore- to take part of the above statement, on equipment- and try to turn that around to saying I used those examples as METHODS- is just untrue.
A fabrication. So how can I debate fabrications o nwhat I say?
can't and won't.
Now- as far as methods- yo asked this before- its still on this board- look it up- and since I KNOW yo won't do that- then at least look up the word "method" and then please, open up the eastern bmps and READ.
back to your inaccuracies:
you said
Why do you think the anti's went with the ESA as their way to try and end trapping? If you had a guarantee then there would be no need for a lawsuit correct?
These are two complete, unrelated issues here. I hesitated in posting that in MN it WAS a right- and did so only in response to your post, where categorically you stated trapping WAS NOT a right.
And in this- you are once again 100% wrong.
The lawsuit is a separate issue, not based on any constitutional law. Even if the lawsuit is lost- trapping will STILL be a right in MN.
Fact. Two complete separate concepts and issues
back to your post:
you said:
South Dakota and North Dakota are 2 you won't see BMP's mandated in I would bet. Another would be Wyoming and if Iowa
When we see how inaccurate your facts are on many things, pardon me if I don't take your "hunch" on these states.
What I asked for, and you couldn't provide (trick question- I knew damn well you couldn't) is to show me some statements from state higher ups- saying they felt the bmps had no place in their states and they would not support the bmp results. Saying that although they send their personall, spend their money- they see no use for thse bmps in their state.
---------------------------------------------
when a coon protocol is being written, and a major player in formulating it is one that owns the rights to, and travels around promoting a coon specific alternate trap- its suspect and never should have happened. I don't care if hes God's gift to trapping. these protocols were to determine CHEWING rates and incidents- and HOW the protocol was formulated and WHAT it allows and doesn't allow- is 1000% germane to the results.
FACT!
With the protocol being so firmly rigid in scope, to be set up so that excessive chewing is the ONLY outcome that CAN occur- any trapper who doesn't stop and stay wait a minute is doing a big disservice to themselves and trapping. Because brother the attitude that you have posted several times "you got what you wanted why worry" makes me puke!
and the fact that the coon bmp committee HAD input from myself and others- HAD the chance to see what innovative METHOD trappers (read that as THINKING trappers) were doing- but no...
they knew it all...After all, they had "experts"..... and the "experts" say don't set in cover, don't use drags, don't do this, don't do that.
boom, boom boom goes that tune....
and the vets councils pipes in...tweet, tweet, tweet...
holding in water is not humane...after all, we are vets, we can take an arbitrary injury scale developed for completely unrelated use and bastardize it and put in our Bambi emotions,,,and yep...holding coon in water is not humane...
and so goes that little marching band, complete with cheerleaders.
Conspiracy--starting to think so- at the very least- rotten to the core.
Without knowing any names- those experts either are poles away from that, or their knowledge and expertise is so limited in scope to be myopic.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 30, 2006 10:12:24 GMT -6
You wrote: 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.
Read your last line carefully, you are bolding strength/method are you not?
We can debate your idea of method over mine all day long and get no where. I see a trap mod as something that makes the tool performance better, I see methods as set types, anchoring, lures used etc. Doesn't matter what "method" one uses as the trap should perform the same with any"method" used when you have that, then you modified the trap to work at the highest level under any method a trapper wishes to use, in any geograhpical area.
saying they felt the bmps had no place in their states and they would not support the bmp results. Saying that although they send their personall, spend their money- they see no use for thse bmps in their state.
So your stating any state that sees a benefit to the BMP's is against trapping? Or will use that information to enact the BMP's as a mandate? The BMP's have a place in ANY and ALL states as the information is there to use as a referance, NEVER before has any game agency had this type of information at hand!!!! Tell me what they had before the BMP's? They had nothing to confront the anti's on in the realm of humane issues and trap selectivity before the BMP's where created.
when a coon protocol is being written, and a major player in formulating it is one that owns the rights to, and travels around promoting a coon specific alternate trap- its suspect and never should have happened. I don't care if hes God's gift to trapping.
Thats just another peace of dirt under the nail your trying to use. If you have proof of manipulation on his part then bring it. Until then no facts= speculation.
I only brought up the ESA thing because you stated it is a right, may look good on paper but what good is a right if over written and no trapping takes place in geoghapical areas of a state, one that can be moved with dispersal of a species?
Good game depts, that care about trapping will use the BMP's for the betterment of trapping, the IAFWA will use this as a good PR tool for trappers, which they have and are doing at the national level. Sadly some trapper orgs will do the statis quo wait for a problem to arrise and then try to combat it after the horses left the barn, at least they will have this data to use in there fight to keep trapping as an acceptable method and form of recreation, that was agreed upon by different walks of life.
The "don't worry" was a sole referance to Bob and the softy on coyotes.
and HOW the protocol was formulated and WHAT it allows and doesn't allow- is 1000% germane to the results.
That will always be until we can sit down and have a talk with mr coon or mr coyote on relative pain and give him/her a 1-10 pain scale and give us there answers!
Good Day.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 30, 2006 10:54:18 GMT -6
Read your last line carefully, you are bolding strength/method are you not?
Why yes I did. What does that have to do with a separate paragraph where I talked about chains, etc?
Both statements are true- and neither is exclusive to the other...
Thats just another peace of dirt under the nail your trying to use. If you have proof of manipulation on his part then bring it. Until then no facts= speculation.
I wish I could spell it out better for you.
Cause heres the thing- it doesn't matter one bit WHAT his intentions were.
WHAT DOES MATTER- is that the ptotocols were set up in such a way, when they did not have to be- for MAXIMUM chewing.
and what does matter- is in what was sure to be known ot be a controversial issue- did such a situation occur.
And because it did occur- we aren't suppose to comment on it> Give me a break.
your stating any state that sees a benefit to the BMP's is against trapping
Why would I say anything so stupid? Why are you once again, trying to put words in my mouth. Once again- you made a preposterous statement concerning states and bmps- and I asked you to back it up and you cannot.
Rather than just accepting you got caught in an exagerration that has no basis in fact, yo utry to debate...well, I don't know what...I guess asking me foolish things like am I stating any state that sees a benefit to the BMP's is against trapping
If you want to debate- stay to the issues and quote me in context or not at all..
as far as relative pain- the Olson scale is Anti propaganda, and the vets council served it up on a plate and you licked it clean.
please Bmp Jedi- tell me how much pain a coon is in being restrained in water.....
give the vets council a call- or Dave...I'm sure they can explain it to oyu.....
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 30, 2006 10:55:23 GMT -6
The "don't worry" was a sole referance to Bob and the softy on coyotes.
in this specific case perhaps- but you have used the same words on several occasions to me directly-
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 30, 2006 10:56:46 GMT -6
sigh...
and HOW the protocol was formulated and WHAT it allows and doesn't allow- is 1000% germane to the results.
That will always be until we can sit down and have a talk with mr coon or mr coyote on relative pain and give him/her a 1-10 pain scale and give us there answers!
one has ABSOLUTELY nothing do do with the other.
in any way, shape or form!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 30, 2006 15:46:01 GMT -6
The olsen scale in it's form was not done by the vets council, it has past limited trap testing to it dating back to the 80's in DWRC testing. The number could be debated until the end of time, you can not nor will you make everyone happy with a scale of any sorts, you come up with one and I'm betting many other facets outside of just trapping related animal injury will jump on it!!!!
Many states did not particpate in testing, call ask those why they did not, maybe you'll find your answer in those states.
please Bmp Jedi- tell me how much pain a coon is in being restrained in water..... I'll give that answer when you can tell me what pain they have sitting on land? Death is a big negative and is sitting in water 100% everywere?
I believe you also stated in the past that drownding would never be addressed and it was, no testing due to many factors but was addressed and is seen as something the BMP's talk too and see as acceptable.
Again you fly by the points you made about chain types, jaws and shock springs on the coyote BMP's but don't want to address postive trap mods to coon traps? Jaw guards,double jaws and things that will reduce chewing in the tool itself.
Trap mods work for coyotes but not coons? These test where never set up for mutli specie trapping the only animals kept for scoring are the species tested, I know you want to be able to mutli speicie with the 1.5 and thats all fine and well, but the testing was never set up for that.
I'm done you and I just keep hashing out the same arguments.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Dec 30, 2006 15:55:56 GMT -6
Hmmm 37 it has become obvious that you have absolutely no idea what happens in trade negotiations and what effect these decisions reached can have.
Perhaps it is time for you to try and understand.
|
|
Rod17
Demoman...
Posts: 229
|
Post by Rod17 on Dec 30, 2006 17:02:57 GMT -6
Akona, you have made references in seveal posts that you possess some unique inside knowledge of the world of international trade.
Please, share with us what exactly you do, so we can understand your credentials and, then, enlighten us abut the effects of BMP on international trade. I think it would be a helpful adjunct of the discussion. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 30, 2006 17:19:32 GMT -6
we keep hashng out the same arguemnts- becasue you are argueing things that aren't i ncontention. Your whole last post for example has nothing to do with any of the points I've brought up. Your conclusions are faulty to the extreme. Thats the problem in being a Jedi- you lump everything togther into one round ball- not relaizing that there are many separate issues- and to ignore them brings the whole into doubt.
for example your mods nonsense- where did that come from?
somewhere out of SD- because I never said it. Once again, you see A and B and leap to Z-
I'll debate you all day on this- becasue its fun to see you backtracking, changing direction and debating the shape of the table rather than any real debate. But with the position you choose to defend against all odds and with 100% clarity- I can see why you never answer any direct questions.
Stay the course...stay the course...
and tell me how that works out for you down the road.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Dec 30, 2006 17:24:39 GMT -6
I could pick your posts apart all day with stuff like this- but heres a prine example- you say:
but don't want to address postive trap mods to coon traps?
Now please- tell me
1) where I ever said that in any shape form or way- ANYWHERE at ANY time or where I EVER state SUCH?
Pure fabrication on your part.
and 2) what the heck does it have to do with this discussion here and the points I've brought up? A typical tc37 red herring.
please..I await your response with bated breath....
PS- I find the following sadly absurd:
believe you also stated in the past that drownding would never be addressed and it was, no testing due to many factors
LOL- it was discussed not to be discussed...therefore...it was discussed..
come on.....do even you not find that to be hilarious?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 30, 2006 17:32:22 GMT -6
Akona I'm not a worldly man, no re do I need to be to see the writing on the wall. There is NO, I repeat No negotiations when it comes to the EU, they mandated things to prevent us and Canada from selling wild fur into there markets of ranch fur.
It won't matter as alot and I mean alot of wild fur won't come through the EU country's but China and Japan will be able to buy and sell the goods at a cheaper market price than the EU, making it an area that if you want good quality at a lower price you will be talking to the Asian markets in the future, the demand for wild fur will be there, and those that wish to make a profit will do so going through Asian markets and not the EU. They have alot more to worry about than the US as we are a supplier and the Asians will be the power house of wild fur buying in the near future. Their finishing cost aren't something anyone in the EU can compete with and the market will still ebb and flow with world wide demand for wild versus ranch raised.
We don't have many fur farms left in the US compared to 30+ years ago, but what we do have the majority of country's do not, that is an abundance of wild species and some that are very specific to the North American continent and you can only hammer a geographic region so hard before you have to let other players in.
The EU doesn't have the clout they once did when they where by far the major player in fur, china dresses out the majority of fur for the world due to low labor cost and are becoming the major player for the market of fur. The Russian country's are all about low cost, durable fur goods and will be shopping like the wal mart shoppers in the US, who ever will be selling the goods cheapest will receive the business, furriers will be doing the same.
Trapping in the US is not only for recreation it also plays into disease supression, livestock loss, and depredation to other wildlife, what many don't understand is trapping will be around for many years fur market or not, if the fur would all become worhtless then you still have monatary gain from private sector and public doing the population reduction and limiting of damage to people and there interest. Doesn't matter the species take your pick. A good fur market makes it a cheaper endevour for states and federal government to acheive the balance, but the fur makert is not the sole driving force behind the US motives of why trapping is a good thing for all citizens.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Dec 30, 2006 17:50:48 GMT -6
Hmm, and when China or the rest of Asia wants to sell their finished product to the EU as part of their marketing process and the wild fur has been caught in America and it has not been caught using the broadly mandated BMP's what will happen?
|
|
Rod17
Demoman...
Posts: 229
|
Post by Rod17 on Dec 30, 2006 17:59:57 GMT -6
Akona, see my previous post.
If the EU and other markets require the US to develop a BMP process in order to sell our furs, and we dont, then what happens? Unless there are some loop holes that no one has discussed, seems that BMPs are a neccessary evil.
So Akona, whats the answer as far as international trade is concerned?
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Dec 30, 2006 18:26:34 GMT -6
Follow Canada's example.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 30, 2006 19:53:11 GMT -6
Sorry akona the US is not going to hog tie themselves into the EU beck and call. If the EU consumers demand wild fur they have zero choice but to work with China, remember china has alot of pull when it comes to price of goods, No one can match their labor cost and rules of doing business.
What good does it do the EU when No one wants over priced easy to get ranch fur and they all want North American fur? Look at what levis jeans did in asia years back? People where selling them on the black market used and I mean used for 20.00 a pair. Country's aren't stupid, if consumer demand is there they will have no choice but to turn a profit or take heat from the consumer. The wealthy will always get what they want from one source or the other. Only bolstering that very sought after item or items.
You follow Canadas example as the right way and when the EU sees they have a very conforming nation as such, they know they can push the limit alittle bit further when they get in a bind.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Dec 30, 2006 20:46:50 GMT -6
37 you are confusing brand labelling with core product.
A good label gains a premium at times despite being of inferior quality, part of the marketing aura. I have two Rolex Dayona watches, one real and one fake. The fake one keeps better time.
However perhaps it was time in the marketing of minor products such as wild fur that the USA does listen to what the EU is saying. After all many countries have to listen to what America says.
The simple proposition is that the EU will at some time place a ban on wild fur that has not been trapped using suitable BMP's. Now I don't care whther the finished prodcut is made in China, Thailand or Swaziland for that matter if you decide to import into the EU fur in any form that is not properly 'certified' action will be taken against you at either a personal or corporate level. Try bringing a banned product into Australia either for business or as a toursit and see how badly your hip pocket is hit.
The reality is there if America refuses to do things rapidly and correctly. As i have said, America should follow Canada's lead in this area before it is too late.
Thank you for your advice on conditions in China and their pricing policies. I have a rudimentary knowledge of business in China. lol
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 30, 2006 23:45:41 GMT -6
You see the EU uses humane as a guise to end imports of fur and even if one was to follow the Canada model you have zero for a guarantee, except the fact that once they switch to what "they" feel as accepted traps there will be no turning back to what was.
Their window of traps is far to small for US standards and also because you have less doesn't make them the only traps that would pass. The scale could be a moving target very easy, the EU isn't for the US and trap standards as much as protecting there fur farms.
As I stated fur or no fur Americans need the right to protect health and human concerns as well and we would be doing a disservice to our people by going down a road that doesn't allow us to control our wild animal populations effectively and with practical tools. The reason we have a wider window on trap testing.
1) where I ever said that in any shape form or way- ANYWHERE at ANY time or where I EVER state SUCH?
Pure fabrication on your part.
You never made comments about the 1.5 double jaw?
I'll debate you all day on this- because its fun to see you backtracking, changing direction and debating the shape of the table rather than any real debate. But with the position you choose to defend against all odds and with 100% clarity- I can see why you never answer any direct questions.
so goes the days of our lives.
believe you also stated in the past that drowning would never be addressed and it was, no testing due to many factors
LOL- it was discussed not to be discussed...therefore...it was discussed..
come on.....do even you not find that to be hilarious?
You used to use the drowning issue until the latest BMP's came out then you tried to state by "gray area" they never stated 100% positive that drowning was acceptable, I remember it well. You had a hard time finding it in the BMP's as I recall. You stated Dave told you it never would be addressed and stuck by it and used that as your own herring bait LOL.
Look you have all the insight on BMP's and know the exact course of this whole process, so I'll allow you to carry on with what you know to be fact or so claimed. Gets old.
Between you, Robert throwing stones and sinrud you guys have it all figured out.
No more posting on BMP matters from me, anyone want more info pm me or contact your state rep or the heads at IAFWA as those will be facts and not hearsay or conspiracy theroys.
|
|