BMP's: Prescriptive or Descriptive?

[akona20]

In watching various forms of this discussion develop I have become more and more interested in the various 'technical' discussions on what are in fact a very minor part to the whole problem or perhaps I should say solution.

Quite a few years ago many so called 'industry standards' were highly prescriptive in that they discussed everything down to the last detail in highly technical terms. This did a number of things of course. One was to entrench certain suppliers of specific products in an industry and they could operate free from any real new competition becuase there product was the standard because it was in the standard. Another effect of this was to stifle new product development in certain areas and technical abilities fell short of the rest of the world.

It was then decided to introduce said 'standards' as descriptive standards rather then prescriptive standards. It was always acknowledged that certain minimum specifications had to be met specifically in the areas of health and safety but as to how the final product looked, was delivered or actually worked was up to the supplier. When we started on this there were tales of woe on how the world would come to shuddering halt in a very short space of time and how such a lowering of standards whould kill millions of people and these were just two of the calmer arguments put forward. However standards progressed and so has society.

With the BMP's I am seeing prescriptive issues hotly debated when they really mean almost nothing. In reality if BMP's ever become a necessity and that is more likely than not no matter what 'standards' are in place the antis will oppose them. Unlike trappers and many others who recognise a responsible way to do things the antis response is nothing short of complete ban to beachieved by any methods available, lies innuendo etc are all par for the course.

So part of theri plan is of course to concentrate at the level where BMP's are to generally decided at that is at state level. We have a group of highly conscientious people doing all sorts of weird and wonderful tests to bring in a standard that is never going to accepted by one side. In fact that side should have absolutely no input into the whole procedure at any stage, before or after. However our diligent state boys will play and argue and test and manipulate the figures and have other parties 'assist' them with their testing and really all for nothing.

1. Make the BMP's a broadly descriptive document recognising good genral practice.
2. Let the manufacturers of the products used advise whether or not they conform to the descriptive standard.
3. Let it be on the heads of those who disagree that a product meets the standard produce test evidence (qaunatified and qualified) to show that their assertion that a product does not meet standard is in fact based on some sort of proof rather than rabid ramblings.
4. The assertions are then examined over time by experts in the are concerned and somehow a complaining anti doesn't make expert.

Of course we can go on and on ad infinitum about how this swivel works or how we describe wire and get nowhere other than more arguing fast.

[trappnman]

the trouble is, prescriptive or descriptive- the protocol on at least one of the bmps was so ill advised, so inaccurate- to render the entire end result moot.

Since I have no input into the BMP process, and the FTA has no input into the BMP process , and the NTA, according to those that post here "provided the "experts" responsible for the bogus protocol- all I can do is speak out at every opportunity I can against them.

I do 4-5 dryland coon demos each year at conventions, and I spend at least 15 minutes discussing how bogus, how STUPID the coon bmps are.

Its the least I can do.....

[trappincoyotes39]

akona:We have a group of highly conscientious people doing all sorts of weird and wonderful tests to bring in a standard that is never going to accepted by one side. In fact that side should have absolutely no input into the whole procedure at any stage, before or after.

The BMP's are not or ever where to try and convince the antis that trapping is humane. The BMP's are for education state to state and to educate the general public (voters) that what trappers use and how they use the tools makes them very acceptable and humane. The data can support these claims. Also the AVMA was asked on occasion for input and they have never gotten back to anyone on the BMP committee on any subject.

In fact that side should have absolutely no input into the whole procedure at any stage, before or after.

If you have all one sided data and documentation and signing off as such you just waste time and dollars. As it is to easy for the opposing side to claim bias because they were not involved in any way,shape or form and that Pro trapping biased the outcome to best suit their needs. Creditability can only come from people of all sides and agreeing to final outcomes. The people in the middle (the voters) would take this as much more objective and fair than having one side or the other do all testing and reaching final outcomes.
Read the survey that was done the general public trust the least trappers and anti radicals on fur trapping matters and trust the Game Dept's and biologist with lending the most credence on these matters. We can change this by working with the other groups and proving our point with data and documents, then the antis have nothing except propaganda and words.

[akona20]

"then the antis have nothing but propaganda and words"

Frankly that is they ever have howver by the current process of bowing in their direction they have been given a chance at more than this.

In broad terms the BMP's are a reaction to the possibility that European trade in fur might be stopped unless they are brought in. The situation is complicated by the fact that trade is a federal issue and trapping is a state issue. Be that as it may there has been a correctly perceived necessity to do something about it.

Trapping is a minority pursuit. This is a simple but true statement. The act of trapping effects very few people outside trapping itself and the flow of produce from it. So the path of the BMP's seemed simple. Engage the states because it is their domain noting the federal trade area, use the resources of the state departments involved either individualy as separate states or jointly as an overall approach, involve trappers especially those of high experience and perhaps qualification by wildlife science or vet degrees and the manufacturers of trapping equipment. Various trapping organisations at a state level could be involved. That is the complete involvement necessary.

So when I read that the general public trust trappers and anti fur radicals the least I must hold up my hand and ask why on earth such a survey was ever contemplated. There was no need for it other than to play to the antis. The antis and for that matter the general public have no play in the whole process. The fact they have been brought in to it shows bias and the fact that trapping people believe they should be brought into is cause for concern.

[trappincoyotes39]

Trapping is a minority pursuit. This is a simple but true statement. The act of trapping effects very few people outside trapping itself and the flow of produce from it.

Akona that is changing all the time, WI just got approval to trap Wolves that where causing damage to livestock and pets, the more association the general public has with the positives of trapping and how it benefits them directly in situations such as wolves,Mt lions,beavers,coyotes etc the better off all trappers are. The old saying, "I don't care until it effects me directly" well more people are finding out the direct impacts these species have on their family's,livestock and pets.

use the resources of the state departments involved either individually as separate states or jointly as an overall approach, involve trappers especially those of high experience and perhaps qualification by wildlife science or vet degrees and the manufacturers of trapping equipment.

With all respect this is being done in some areas. Those that want to participate and step up on this matter have done so.

So when I read that the general public trust trappers and anti fur radicals the least I must hold up my hand and ask why on earth such a survey was ever contemplated. There was no need for it other than to play to the antis. The antis and for that matter the general public have no play in the whole process. The fact they have been brought in to it shows bias and the fact that trapping people believe they should be brought into is cause for concern.

Again with respect NO WAY! This survey was needed to find out the views of the voting public in order to get them on the side of trapping more than just the middle. Ballot voting is how the Antis have been taking away trapping rights state by state, we must educate those in the middle the 80% and get them out the very information than can sway or change their thoughts on the whole matter. The HSUS just tried to get the 2/3Rd's rule in Utah taken away for ballot votes passing, why? They wanted to introduce trapping bans and harsher hunting items and put it to the people of Utah. They new with the way Utah structured this deal that it would be tough to get 2/3Rd's voting approval than just 51%. Lucky for the trappers and hunters in Utah they didn't get that changed as of yet they may take it to even a higher court. They where claiming the will of the people is not being heard on wildlife issues with needing a 2/3rd vote to pass things, and thought their first amendment rights where being negated. If more states went with a 2/3Rd's majority on ballot votes I would feel alot more at ease.
The voting public holds the cards to many outcomes in many states look at Maine will they loose the right to trap bear from this very nature? The BMP's and all the other aspects that go into the final product above and beyond the protocols and testing is of benefit for trappers as we have the Game Dept's on our side in many states and also getting those with opposing views signing off on final documents gives credence to our cause as well with the general public, then add in the education and trapping data on injury and efficientcy it lends it self as good information for the general public.

[akona20]

With respect one of the absolute KEY methods that the antis use to highlight an issue is to become involved in such things as process and ballots on 'ideals'.

The smart move when queried by the antis on what was happening with BMP's in any state would be to advise them that a stanadrd process was taking place which they were not a party to, full stop no further comment.

The abuse of the democratic process in terms of effecting minority interests is a well known anti tactic, just as the use of such methods of convincing groups to poll public opinion on similar minority interests. A tactic nothing more and one that has worked again in this case.

[trappincoyotes39]

First *I don't believe HSUS was invited to the table or was Peta or the likes. Some want this to seem that the far radical have a seat at the BMP table they don't.

The smart move when queried by the antis on what was happening with BMP's in any state would be to advise them that a standard process was taking place which they were not a party to, full stop no further comment.

As others have mentioned being federally funded you can not keep the information private if requested for it. I don't think the anti's care so much about the BMP's, unless others can think of some press releases and them addressing it? It would make no sense for them to bring it up much as the data is factual and the information is their to disprove alot of the rhetoric. I'm talking the hard line Anti's.

The abuse of the democratic process in terms of effecting minority interests is a well known anti tactic, just as the use of such methods of convincing groups to poll public opinion on similar minority interests. A tactic nothing more and one that has worked again in this case.

The problem is it has worked in other states WA,CO, AZ,Mass and others. They have the $$$ to target certain states they feel they can get the majority vote and then it is all down hill from there. Their coffers are much deeper than that of trapping orgs, the only way IMHO we can defeat them is with up front open honest policy's and to disprove their ideals that trapping Mame's or is not selective. We have data to support our side they have no hard data on anything, but they do have deep$$$ to try and get their ideals out on the public air waves and sway that all important 80% undecided state by state.

Having the wildlife biologist and state game agency's going to bat and being seen as pro trapping because the data supports what trappers have laid claim to is very powerful to many of that 80%. WE need to get that out as best as we can with limited funding and the states will play a roll and have so far with this.

[trappnman]

I think the chances of bmps influencing ANY referendum or public vote is exactly zero.

I can't even begin to see how the existance of bmps, even say every manjack trapper out there supported them 100% would have changed a single thing.

What would have changed things, would have been to have every use group in the states opposing this. Regarding money, in MN, several big chains, Fleet Farm for one, put a big effort into advertizing FOR our trapping, hunting, fishing rights including unlimited bumper stickers and yard signs.

[trappincoyotes39]

I think the chances of bmps influencing ANY referendum or public vote is exactly zero.

Thats your opinion tman. I think it goes deeper than just the BMP data and results. The IAFWA is a group with alot of clout in DC and uses it to help all user groups including trappers. I think the ability for them to be involved and get state Game Dept's involved and talking about the benefits from trapping at a middle ground is excellent for trappers. Some states will do better at getting the word out on trapping than others of course.

I use all materials when I give trapping talks at schools or to other user groups and all hand outs as well. I always ask at the end what they thought of the information and they leave with more respect for trapping and trappers due to the information presented and keeping it factual and to the point. Many like the idea it comes from a middle group and not directly from trappers.

We don't want other user groups apposing pro trapping information, in fact we need them to also help support trapping. The BMPs are part of the solution not the whole solution. The more middle of the ground groups we can get to support trapping the better off we will be with middle Americans.



Regarding money, in MN, several big chains, Fleet Farm for one, put a big effort into advertising FOR our trapping, hunting, fishing rights including unlimited bumper stickers and yard signs

Thats a great thing they are doing and I commend them, in fact I used to buy traps at Runnings Farm and Fleet in Platteville,WI when I was a kid. How many people from the twin cities venture into Fleet farms though? Also signage is of limited value as it portrays a message from one side or the other and doesn't give any information as to why? Signs get monist's look at Wall Drug signs LOL. If a person has an anti abortion sign on their car or front lawn it tells me only they are anti abortion, without any facts as to why they tend to think in that way, soon we forget about signs.

[trappnman]

Our amendment passed with 78%. I think the Twin city folk more than voted our way- since in MN- most of those city folks hunt or fish.

Fleet Farm is THE PLACE to buy any fishing gear. Only tourists shop Cabella type stores seriously.

as far as Thats your opinion tman

Nor really- you think a bmp would have had any value i nreal life terms? Tell me how.

Trapping wasn't banned by legislatours... who may be influenced by a biologist reading a bmp study- but by the average joe?

Not a chance. Therefore, I still think the chances of bmps influencing ANY referendum or public vote is exactly zero.

[trappincoyotes39]

I'll tell you how, you take a state that has a public vote on trapping either to keep it or loose it. The anti agenda comes out with media advertisement against trapping claiming cruelty and non selectiveness of trappers, that is their ploy mainly.

The majority in the middle see the issue as should the animals be treated in this manner or not? Bambi ideals makes them seem more human like. The IAFWA can come out with facts about how trapping meaning the foothold trap has been used by biologist to relocate and help other endangered species come back from trapping predators. They can also give information on the BMP's and how they help selectivity and how studies have "proven" that these traps are not inhumane but have been used for many relocation efforts with little ill effect to species. The game Dept's in the state can help with information as well.The hours of research have proved them to be a useful tool and in alot of cases the best tool and most cost effective manner to reduce conflicts.
Marketing the message is very key when a state vote comes up and believe me this group has some top notch people when it comes to portraying a message to the public, the hows and whys and the best ways to go about changing some minds on this issue. In fact one of their top Media people and the group they used for info is from your state tman.

Here are the findings from 2004. 1). The public cares deeply about wildlife resources.2). The public does not take lightly the killing of animals.3) The public is highly uninformed about trapping.

Survey results what purpose does the public find most acceptable for trapping? 90% Relocation for restoration
87% population control
60% For food use
42% make money from furs
33% fur clothing
32% Recreation
By looking at that polling who has done a better job in the past getting out their message? trappers or Anti groups?

Next survey asked was: what techniques make trapping most acceptable? 90% No accidental Catches
73% Quick and painless
72% Tested for humaneness
70% Regulated
Again looking at this who in the past has done a better job with marketing their views? Trappers or Anti groups?

So some of the key points for us are Trapping causes no species to become endangered, trapping is highly regulated,trapping is managed through scientific means and is looked after by trained wildlife experts ensuring the welfare of animals. Trappers are and can be very selective with tool usage and education. We must listen as well as speak to groups of people. The more we know about middle Americans the better off we can be and to have groups backing trapping like IAFWA and their support backing us in my mind goes much further than the NTA FTA or some state org going about things status quo, the polls show that isn't working in 2004 or beyond. We need outside help and outside presence backing trapping from many groups the more, the better and if nothing else the BMP"s show our concern for animal welfare to a much larger degree than any time in the past.
If people can see you truly care and show concern for the very concerns they have and communicate it as a common goal you have a much better chance at succeeding, than saying "just leave us the hell alone to do our thing because we have done it for the last 300 years do you want to see me snap a trap on my hand? will that convince you we aren"t a cruel group?" Once you dismiss there concerns your going to turn off alot of people in a heck of a hurry and that sadly is what trappers as awhole have done in the past. The old saying "you reap what you sow"

[trappnman]

Trouble is- those that you against trapping, vote with their heart., BMPs would and do mean diddly.

Now- legislatively...thats another story.

I had a good dialog going with Paul Wellstone. 1) he was opposed to the EU fur ban on fair trade issues 2) he wasn't against trapping per se, he was against "cruel trapping".


I made the case of the bmps, showing "humane use"..and he was more than interested.

I received his last letter on the subject a week after his death.

In case like Paul- an intellectual, that understood logic and not emotion on such issues, the bmps were a good tool.

To the soccer moms, its pissing in the wind.

[akona20]

Trapping as such has absolutely nothing to do with the general public so why are they being polled?

To give an excuse for those in power to fall back on the harshest possible measures due to 'public' pressure.

[trappincoyotes39]

NO akona polled to see how to best present information to the public. You need to know what thoughts and ideals people have before you build a game plan that has any merit at all.

Tman some vote with their hearts because in some cases they don't have or had reliable factual,well presented information. A judgement call on the street is different than letting people know facts and figures as to why.

[trappnman]

Do you think that in the states that lost trapping- many that the NTA, according to them, worked hard at to keep- didn't use "facts and figures"?

with 150,000 trappers (and this is over rated), we never will win against the general public WITHOUT the support of other consumptive groups.

BMPS- yo uthink the average Joe wil ltake the time to 1) listen 2) undertand?

And where does this exposure come from?

Full page ads in all the newspapers? A commentary on TV reading the bmps?

Where? in practical terms?

My opinion, based on sound observations, is that the bmps mean NOTHING and never wil mnean aNYTRHING to Joe Public.

Perhaps..perhaps they MIGHT make a difference in a legislature.

[trappincoyotes39]

Do you think that in the states that lost trapping- many that the NTA, according to them, worked hard at to keep- didn't use "facts and figures"?

with 150,000 trappers (and this is over rated), we never will win against the general public WITHOUT the support of other consumptive groups.

BMPS- yo think the average Joe will take the time to 1) listen 2) understand?

And where does this exposure come from?


The problem with the trapping groups like NTA and FTA are they are not really pro active about trapping. They have fires that build and they try to put them out. They have forgotten about Joe public always have and the Anti groups caught onto this and that is why public referendum voting has become what it has in the world of trapping.

The IAFWA is a well respected group for wildlife and fishery's and if we can associate with them and have them drive out part of the message in a pro active approach I see that as a plus for all trappers. They have the DC ties and also work with all state game agencies and can help get the message out state by state that trapping matters and so do trappers, we have been swept under the rug by many and now we have an allies that will help support our cause because they see the science behind it. Any press that is kind to trappers is a plus exspecially that information that comes from outside the true trapping ranks.
I agree 100% we need more consumptive groups we need more Delta waterfowl who are still doing predator control studies and how that benefits many species of water fowl and shore birds through their own research and gets press releases on the benefits of trapping. I wish DU had more of a back bone and joined the ranks but they worry about contributions from outside of the sportsman groups and don't want to stick their necks out even though they are supposed to be a champion for waterfowl issues?
The average Joe will listen and we aren't against the 80% our goal is to inform that 80% as best as we can and get the majority to see why trapping not only helps them but wildlife as well, people take a bigger stake in things that effect them directly and we can educate them how trapping does effect everyone with positive results. It is the ability of many to outreach and get the message out, but it also matters how the message is given out not everyone makes a good salesman. The IAFWA is here to help and the education manual and the media tools they have are excellent aside from the BMP printed documents. State Game agencies will be more important and be helpful in the message that trapping is something we need in our state and here is the benefits to all and why. The latest Hunt Safe manual has more trapping info in it than ever before. I wish more trappers would contact their local hunt safe instructors and ask to be given 1-4 hrs of time for the trapping related issues in the manual, many people go through hunt safe nation wide and that is a great way to get to apportion of that 80% undecided if they ever set a trap or not the education has been given and that helps us years down the road. The thing with trappers ed you get people interested in trapping and that is great, but if given time in a group like hunt safe you reach many more people that can be given the facts that make up that undecided portion of the Joe public. Most hunt safe instructors have parents stay and listen and again that information gets out to even more people.
The more people we can get talking about the benefits of trapping the better, the more educated people are the better decisions they can make. BMP's and the other media tools will mean nothing if we don't get the information out to them. Print ads,TV ads are all good but face to face and people retain more of that. WE can not forget about Joe public, because they will get their information from somewhere and why not let it be from our side we have facts to back our claim, and they will listen if given the chance. They hold the key to some peoples future in trapping.

[akona20]

In summary isn't 37 saying that the Working CRU is a needed part of the 'system' to ensure the proper message is disseminated at ALL levels.

[trappnman]

Yes, a very clear case was indeed presented.