|
Post by bblwi on May 2, 2006 21:18:52 GMT -6
We can not roll back time but, Let us say that the IAFWA (spelling)? and other agencies with the 4 million plus or minus dollars would have conducted all of the research as they have done, using basically the same procedure and coming up with the injury scores and the rough breakdown on each of the traps that were in the research.
ONCE the research was done they would then have gone to state and or affiliate leaders of say the affiliates of the NTA and FTA and said here are our research results and findings. we want you to choose X number of trappers that use a specific trap or traps that were in the research study and they would use the methods they typically use to harvest fur. The data could have been collected and then cross referenced with and to the baseline original research. From the combination of the two my thoughts lean toward a better accepted and prov en BMP process. Any thoughts or insights any of you may have will help me see the good, bad and ugly of my thoughts.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by MRussell on May 2, 2006 22:24:32 GMT -6
Bryce , That seems too common sense to me. Have you got something else more far fetched to pitch ?
Why are the end user groups across the board given the end around in most all testing procedures? Your idea is a great one. I am sure things would be better if it were done that way.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on May 3, 2006 4:16:10 GMT -6
Hmmm bb,
The proposal you put forward is of course very sound.
I have my views but perhaps they are left until another time but I will say the NTA and FTA but especially the NTA have forgotten their greatest resource and that is the trappers themselves.
And we all know that, just to appease the 'brains' there are a few of them with enough qualifications to carry the day on any 'smart' debate. If that single point had not been forgoten a few years ago things would have been very different.
|
|
|
Post by sRc on May 14, 2006 13:20:50 GMT -6
Bryce, this is a cool discussion. I like the idea but do you think it would be more like a true experimental design if you randomly selected the trappers from the groups you mentioned, then, randomly assigned them to use specific devices.? That way, you reduce the possibilities of skewing the results by selection bias--selecting trappers with experience could mean that they have methods (even if they are not aware of them) that would allow for more or less favorable outomces with regard to using that particular device.
src
|
|