|
Post by trappnman on Jul 18, 2006 10:30:34 GMT -6
Settle down Wiley .
You are the only one saddling that horse so if you want to ride it, it will be solo.
A vested interest doesn't have anything to do with the collection of data and its accuracy.
Since I doubt if you took the time to read all the bmps posts over past 2 years, I can assume you are jumping into the middle of it.
Do you see anyone debating the coyote bmps? Or ever question the accuracy of the data?
What you do see being debated are the coon bmps (which TC defends as strongly as if he did them himself) and the vested interest of state personal involved in the bmps.
Did anyone question the veracity of the data? No- they did not. Thats something you decided to run with.
But vested interest in USING the bmps resulting from that data is the question.
You want to link your boat to TC, thats ok with me, but better check the baggage compartment first.
Now- did you get paid to trap coyotes for the bmps?
yes or no? By who?
If the answer is no- then discussion closed on your end. TC stated he did get paid.
If yes, you got paid by some agency that had a vested interest in the bmps- thats hard to debate.
Every state agency- sending personal at state expense to multiple bmp conferences, is going to have a vested interest in the bmps and, since the various state organizations have accountability problems in most states- $$$ spent better produce or heads will roll. Also fact.
Vested interest in promoting the bmps, in adapting and adopting the bmps, in general, get their moneys worth.
To think anything different, isn't being honest or practical. Now- with Jedi's like TC giving every nuance of every bmps his 100% backing- hes not doing the trappers any favors at all.
To endorse a bmp, it needs to be as accurate and as good as it can be- incorporating many aspects and concerns. The coyote bmps apparently accomplished that. I see nothing to upset me on the eastern bmps- and can say yes, good document.
So does that mean I'll blindly accept the coon bmps, like TC wants us to do- when its obvious that they are flawed, flawed flawed.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 18, 2006 10:32:16 GMT -6
what exactly are you debating with your facts? the fact that they FTA thought for itself rather than accept the hype?
Guilty.
I wish they would go further, and cal lthe coon bmps the pile of crap they are. And I'll stand alone on that if need be also.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 18, 2006 13:34:13 GMT -6
Tman where do you get all the vested interest stuff? Voluntary is the key as pointed out by Wiley. As far as I know NO one, zero notta, none has ever been forced to participate, private trappers as well can either be a part of the process or not. The only vested interest I see is the benefit for trapping the BMP's can/will have for "ALL" trappers period.
Now- with Jedi's like TC giving every nuance of every bmps his 100% backing-
Not true! Not 100% across the board!
Every state agency- sending personal at state expense to multiple bmp conferences, is going to have a vested interest in the bmps and, since the various state organizations have accountability problems in most states- $$$ spent better produce or heads will roll. Also fact.
ALL states attend IAFWA meetings all the time and have for years long before the BMP's, this heads will roll where do you get this from? The budget dollars used for meetings of this type pale in comparison to many other meetings attended by biologist and many,many others in many forms of state government. Not to mention not all states attend all meetings, they have input but that doesn't mean every meeting attended due to schedule conflicts and other parts of that chosen persons job. I know of no state that has a BMP biologist on staff, they have many other job duties and the BMP's and that process is a small portion of their job duties. The important part is to take part and have dialog and try to help shape the final outcome!
To endorse a bmp, it needs to be as accurate and as good as it can be- incorporating many aspects and concerns.
We have been over this alot ask 1,000 guys what your statement means and depending on "their" situation you'll get hundreds of different answers as to your endorsement policy! Are you stating that any BMP was lacking accuracy in the testing? What is the answer to as good as can be? Many aspects and concerns where brought up in the coon BMP, many lines of thought and many different ideas and protocols hashed about. Without having figures in front of me I'm willing to go out on a limb and guess that the coon BMP had more money spent on it than any other BMP to date. I know the outcome is not to your satisfaction Tman, but maybe if you where involved things may have turned out differently? Good day.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 18, 2006 13:56:18 GMT -6
I can not explain the vested interest of the agencys involved better than I have already done.
Yet I'm not allowed to disagree with things I know are false?
No.
To disqualify accepted methods as inhumane, is absurd based on WHY it was deemed so. I defy anyone to argue against this point successfully.
f'n yeah they would have been different- which is why I personally contacted the person I thought could help- and explained what I have developed- and was told SORRY - your methods- holding coon in water and setting in entanglement WERE NOT ACCEPTED PROTOCAL.
Good day you also....
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Jul 19, 2006 10:19:37 GMT -6
T'man (assumed to be responding to the issue of "bias"): "You are the only one saddling that horse so if you want to ride it, it will be solo."
T'man goes on to saddle the very horse he just claimed he wouldn't be riding: "Now- did you get paid to trap coyotes for the bmps?
yes or no? By who?
If the answer is no- then discussion closed on your end. TC stated he did get paid.
If yes, you got paid by some agency that had a vested interest in the bmps- thats hard to debate."
T'man, I already explained this. We were on the state payroll either way. If I wasn't testing bmp traps at that time of year on the state payroll, I would have probably took some vacation time and went pheasant hunting or would have been trapping problem beaver or participating in other wildlife management related issues.
I received no special pay for participating in the bmp study but I was paid by the state just like I would have been had I been doing anything else. I was going to get paid by the state either way. SD Dept. of Game, Fish, and Parks, upon our recommendation, voluntarily participated in the bmp trap study for coyotes. They took a portion of their funds and designated it to the bmp trap study with full support.
Why? Because a few of us wanted to make sure that the modified traps we used were represented fairly and we knew we could come up with the numbers to get more accurate data.
A number of the ADC trappers in this state participated in the bmp trap study and Odon Corr, a retired ADC trapper with no current "ALLEGED" wildlife agency bias, also participated on behalf of private trappers. The results were the same.
T'man: "You want to link your boat to TC, thats ok with me, but better check the baggage compartment first."
I'm not linking to anyone. It just happens that TC sees it the same way I do. He just happens to have more tact than I do. LOL! My best dogs always had a mean streak and you know what they say about people and their pets....
Seriously, most of us who participated in the COYOTE study realize the scrutiny that went into those protocals. The only protocal that I had a problem with was the distance between traps at a site. I know enough about trapped coyote behavior to know that we needed more distance between the sets at a location.
T'man: "Every state agency- sending personal at state expense to multiple bmp conferences, is going to have a vested interest in the bmps and, since the various state organizations have accountability problems in most states- $$$ spent better produce or heads will roll. Also fact."
Of for crying out loud. EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE BMP PROCESS HAS A VESTED INTEREST. The vested interest of the SD Dept of GF&P was to see that the study was done in the most accurate and meaningful way possible so the data would truly reflect the capability of the traps.
My personal vested interest was to prove that modified traps would equal the padded public pacifiers for damage and excel from an efficiency standpoint. We proved that and we biased nothing.
T'man: "Now- with Jedi's like TC giving every nuance of every bmps his 100% backing- hes not doing the trappers any favors at all."
Now with BMP blaming thumb suckers like........
Do we really need to go down those roads?
Stick to the facts as I tried to do on the other thread. I haven't seen TC state anything that is incorrect yet. You are the one who is wrong in not understanding how deaths due to hypothermia will impact the scores of a "RESTRAINING TEST".
Nobody is going to conduct a "DROWNING TEST" because what would you be testing? The paw damage is pretty well irrelevant when the animal is dead.
Instead of your relentless discrediting attempts which have fallen on deaf ears, stick to the facts.
The only issue of contention you have brought up that carries any merit is the issue of holding raccoons in water. Let's debate that on the other thread so I don't have to jump back and forth repeating myself.
Let's start, on the other thread, with the issue of water temperatures and hypothermia or start a new thread. Forget the feeble "discrediting" attempts because they're meaningless. I'll drop the bmp blamer label just as quickly. Neither serves a useful purpose.
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 19, 2006 11:57:11 GMT -6
this has all been discussed and cussed.
Did anyone ever mention the coyote trapping bmps?
no- yet both you and TC insist on comparing the two.
Since you are just arrived on this board, let me bring you up to date.
MY position is if the bmp is junk- say it is.
TC position is that ALL bmps were carved in stone by God's workers. If I understated TC's position, accept my apologies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE BMP PROCESS HAS A VESTED INTEREST
That is correct. Not sure what your point was. And lets not downplay SD vested interest. Yes, yes- done correctly, etc...but also- bottomline- when the $$$ spent have to be explained at budget time- the $$ needs to have a positive result (so to speak).
---------------------------------------------------
but since you want to debate this issues- then lets debate the issue that I am actually debating.
you often scorn those wanting to debate the shape of the table- when heres the issue- plain and clear:
the coon bmp protocol could not have been set up in manner to induce chewing more than if it had been done so on purpose
you want to debate that, you want to debate the old saw methods not traps, you want to debate any aspect on it- I'm your man.
To sum up-
1) I find the concept of bmps good 2) I find some bmps to be good 3) I find some bmps to be bad 4) and I know the difference
coyote = good
coon = bad
"When bmp's are good, they are very, very good....but when they are bad they are horrible..."
thumb sucker? a cute response to Jedi? touched a nerve I see. Even Dr Spock feels emotion. Well, well.....
sorry my friend- the drowning issue could have been easily added. I was told DIRECT by Mr Hamilton that DROWNING COON WOULD NEVER EVER BE CONSIDERED AS A DISPATCH METHOD FOR COON BY THE VETS COUNCIL
FACT.
Now- Its one thing to say that drowning cannot be considered in a restraining trap- I don't agree with that- but say its ok. BUT- it cannot be considered in a dispatch situation- because its not humane.
Well- I don't think its humane to hold a coyote 72 hours in a trap either. I think its barbaric. You hear me trying to put it into recommendations? Don't tell me HUMANE is the concern. It never was. Or the western coyote bmps would have included a 24 hour check. You know it and i know it. So back to coon. One thing I am going to make clear. Don't get condescending to me on the subject- I dare say I've spent far more time, effort and study into it than you have to date. I certainly know that hypothermia is not a desired end results (yet it is to coon trappers...must be like that 72 hour check thingy).
Did YOU know that hypothermia here, in MN, is a none concern? That in 1000s and 1000s of winter time coon held in water on a 24 hour check in winter, the number I've had dead in the water could be counted on one hand.
And I hear thats true a lot in the north- denser under wool is the answer.
But bottom line, bottom line- is the coon protocol- no entanglement, no cover, 50/50% land water access, staked solid in most tests- was totally ill advised.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 19, 2006 14:17:01 GMT -6
Tman wrote:Well- I don't think its humane to hold a coyote 72 hours in a trap either. I think its barbaric. You hear me trying to put it into recommendations? Don't tell me HUMANE is the concern. It never was. Or the western coyote bmps would have included a 24 hour check. You know it and i know it.
Tman the western coyote BMP's where on a 24 hr check. The "state" gets to decide check laws and use what works for those people of those states. Using "good" equipment makes better sense on a 72hr check and thus not barbaric. During fall and even into winter I could show you coyote feet that you couldn't tell 12 hrs from 3 days on why? equipment choices. I will add the ones in a large majority that passed the BMP's.
I think Wiley explained it well, restraining traps have nothing to do with lethal setting when testing a traps restraining value as far as catch% or damage 2 far different things, when testing traps.
TC position is that ALL bmps were carved in stone by God's workers. If I understated TC's position, accept my apologies.
Show me where I stated the above?
Why do you feel the need for approval for drowning sets? After all if the outcome wasn't to your liking it would be bashed up and down. Leave it as a non issue and the states will decide just as they have done for many years past. Drowning and asphyxiation are 2 different things, the BMP DVD shows colony traps, shows beaver slide wire sets etc and it also states no where any mention of coon drowning as not acceptable nor do they address the situation at all. They have left it up to each state.
And lets not downplay SD vested interest. Yes, yes- done correctly, etc...but also- bottom line- when the $$$ spent have to be explained at budget time- the $$ needs to have a positive result (so to speak). Then explain the vested interest to me tman? Tell me how it gets played out at budget time?
Tman:Did anyone ever mention the coyote trapping bmps?
Tman:Me? I'll read the handwriting on the wall and look at what already has happened, and predict many states will face restricted trapping and perhaps lose many traps in use today- because of the bmps. Tman wrote:To sum up-
1) I find the concept of bmps good 2) I find some bmps to be good 3) I find some bmps to be bad 4) and I know the difference
Does your usage of plural BMP"s include all in the sense of states loosing rights? How can you find the concept good, some BMP's good and yet make the statement solely on BMP"s, that trapping will become more restricted because of them and lose trapping tools because of them?
Or could it be back to what we have discussed, states make rule and reg changes and will do so for the people of the state regardless if BMP's where done or not? Or could we be left with padded jaw traps taking over state by state over the years if not for the BMP's and the data showing they are not the final answer and that through testing we have shown other types still those with a steel jaw and modified to be as acceptable damage wise and PR wise as the rubber laminated trap? That was a key selling point to those that wanted this trap type we will laminate with less than 1/8" rubber and call it a rubber jawed or padded trap.
The BMP's proved out that the rubber shows no real benefit over other modified trap types and that is a big win for "ALL" trappers in my book!
the drowning issue could have been easily added
Easily added? I think not. In a technical sense the timing to death and other factors would have not in testing been an easy thing to do. Look at Canada and how quick they moved to computer models with kill traps due to the high cost of getting raw data from trapped animals. How could we prove out drowning of coons without testing? Same with lethal snaring I doubt we will see testing done on that subject as well, I don't fear the BMP's doing away with lethal snaring I fear other factors away from that doing them in, in certain areas, again BMP or not law changes will be made in areas, just as they have been for years. Good Day!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 19, 2006 16:21:39 GMT -6
well tc, if you think different, then thats how it is for you
you continue to beat the drum for blind acceptance
I'll continue to exam each bmp.
coon bmp are total nonsense- thats my opinion.
the "experts" involved lack credibility and cajones- thats my opinion
for all the reasons listed over past 2 years on this forum..read them again, saves me time of typing.
I know, I know- you accept them blindly-
one last issue- and then I'm just going to copy and paste posts in response- you totally missed the point about the 72 hour check. I won't reiterate it here, but please re read that post- its an important concept that SHOULD make you think a little insofar as your blind acceptance stance.
And just for fun- please list 5 criticisms of the bmp in which you would be willing to list your name to publicly. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 19, 2006 18:49:08 GMT -6
After re reading it I guess I see your devils advocate stance on 72hrs? Thing is states will and have made those decisions based on many things and input from "all" involved, not 1 person gets to change rules and regs the commision and public imput are accepted and in dealing with a good and fair commision listened too.
See things don't always go against the fur trapper Tman, the state tried to pass a trap tag law here and was shot down by the SDTA, others and the final outcome of the Game Commision. State to state that is how it works.
1. To be more open with information and the process of the BMP's so more can understand what really goes on. 2. To let everyone know that the AVMA has had zero input in any of the BMP"s! 3. Allow more trapper input in the form of emails to IAFWA, that way they could read and respond or use ideas from others without a "macho pissing match" taking place. 4. The cable restraint issues could have been handled better. More questions and thought out before the testing was done, I feel it was a rushed thing and yet in the end even sinrud after talking with them got cable definitions resolved. So maybe 3 1/2 LOL. I don't accept them blindly, not blind on the subject at all. Your hard on is for the Coon BMP because it didn't turn out the way you wanted it to.
So answer this do you really see any state out lawing the 1.5 coil for coon ? Do you think the great state of Minn will take away that tool from you? Do you think the coon BMP will have any impact on your coon trapping at all? Do you see drowning of coon as being illegal because it was not fully addressed in the BMPs?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 19, 2006 19:29:38 GMT -6
Your reasons for me not accepting the coon bmp are 100% wrong.
Here are the reasons:
1) entanglement was not allowed 2) staking in the open, is bad protocal 3) drowning, while understood not for restraining traps, is not EVER in the equation 4) hypothermia is regional, not universal
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Jul 20, 2006 8:46:27 GMT -6
T'man: "this has all been discussed and cussed.
Did anyone ever mention the coyote trapping bmps?
no- yet both you and TC insist on comparing the two."
Show me where TC or I compared the coyote bmp to the coon bmp T'man. Bring it! The posts are all still there.
It is you that wants to badmouth the bmp process simply based on the raccoon results. You are the one painting with the broad brush, not me.
Case in point.....
T'man: "MY position is if the bmp is junk- say it is."
That statement is not specific to the coon bmp and your opinion that the coon bmp is junk is just that, your opinion. I disagree.
Could it have been better and considered your concerns? Possibly!
T'man: "TC position is that ALL bmps were carved in stone by God's workers. If I understated TC's position, accept my apologies."
That's bullsh*t! That's your exaggerated, discrediting opinion of TC's position.
T'man: "And lets not downplay SD vested interest. Yes, yes- done correctly, etc...but also- bottomline- when the $$$ spent have to be explained at budget time- the $$ needs to have a positive result (so to speak)."
WHAT'S YOUR POINT?
I see a "positive result" as test results that are indicative of the damage caused by the trap so we can measure them objectively. WHAT OTHER MOTIVE WOULD THERE BE?
You make implications of "VESTED INTERESTS" and you don't explain them.
Why did you ask why we were getting paid??? Hmmmm??? To try to create the "ILLUSION" of some inherant bias right? If not, explain.
Private trappers who participated were also paid for their critters. So what's your point about being paid (assuming you have one)?
T'man: "the coon bmp protocol could not have been set up in manner to induce chewing more than if it had been done so on purpose"
That is your opinion. I disagree. The NTA originally used the same argument and came up with their own protocal which was tested with the same damn results. Their issue was chain length.
What you need to get through your head is that the raccoon bmp was devised to resemble the way most raccoon are caught in RESTRAINING TRAPS in most states.
You have the luxury of looking back on the data and saying, they should have done this or they should have done that. The protocals were set up to measure trap damage the way most coon trappers trap WHEN USING RESTRAINING TRAP SETS.
The time to make changes is after you see the results of the way trapping is currently being conducted. With that said, if you are so sure that you could keep coon held in the water without death due to hypothermia and without excessive bone damage due to coons trying to get back to land, then your method would be worth testing as far as I'm concerned. Talk is cheap, I'd like to see the results. The NTA found out how cheap talk is with the "NTA Protocal". They ate crow on that deal.
T'man: "To sum up-
1) I find the concept of bmps good 2) I find some bmps to be good 3) I find some bmps to be bad 4) and I know the difference
coyote = good
coon = bad"
So why keep badmouthing the entire bmp process? That is exactly what you are implying when you don't specify the "coon bmp".
T'man: "I was told DIRECT by Mr Hamilton that DROWNING COON WOULD NEVER EVER BE CONSIDERED AS A DISPATCH METHOD FOR COON BY THE VETS COUNCIL"
To hell with the "vets council's" opinion of drowning. They don't write the book on "animane". They probably don't approve of shooting a deer with an arrow either. SCREW 'em! They've always been a critic since the AVMA took their chickensh*t anti trapping position.
I could tape record the dogs and cats in their little cages in their offices howling and yowling and become their worst critic but that's their business and trapping is mine.
I can understand their input into necropsy and devising damage scores but as far as dictating to the world what is "animane", screw 'em!
They would probably oppose hot branding calves too if so much of their work wasn't cattle with an understanding of the importance of hot branding in western rangeland.
Their expertise is in necropsy, not determining what is and what is not "animane".
T'man: "Well- I don't think its humane to hold a coyote 72 hours in a trap either. I think its barbaric. You hear me trying to put it into recommendations? Don't tell me HUMANE is the concern. It never was. Or the western coyote bmps would have included a 24 hour check. You know it and i know it."
Can you show me where the bmp's "RECOMMENDED" a 24 hour trap check??? Hmmmmm???
The 24 hour trap check was bmp protocal, not a recommendation. You can't compare a Montana Special which held a coyote in a trap for 72 hours to a padded public pacifier which held a coyote for 24 hours and call that an objective comparison of two trap types.
T'man: "So back to coon. One thing I am going to make clear. Don't get condescending to me on the subject- I dare say I've spent far more time, effort and study into it than you have to date."
That's another big assumption on your part. I was involved in many of the bmp protocal discussions from the very beginning long before you and I and Hamilton started hashing them over.
T'man: "I certainly know that hypothermia is not a desired end results (yet it is to coon trappers...must be like that 72 hour check thingy)."
Drowning has nothing to do with "RESTRAINING TRAPS". A dead animal is the worst possible score in a "RESTRAING TRAP". There is nothing to test with drowning or a killing snare. Who cares about the damage if they are dead? That's a seperate issue and you seem to want to combine them.
When you move into testing drowning or a killing snare, time to death becomes the issue just as it does with conibears.
You conspiracy theorists SEEM TO have it in your heads that because bmps did not test drowning animals and choked animals that these methods will become obsolete. That's bullsh*t! We were using relaxing snares before we started using killing systems. The bmp is nothing more than a study of restraining techniques to refer to. Nothing more, nothing less!
T'man: "Did YOU know that hypothermia here, in MN, is a none concern? That in 1000s and 1000s of winter time coon held in water on a 24 hour check in winter, the number I've had dead in the water could be counted on one hand.
And I hear thats true a lot in the north- denser under wool is the answer."
Based on that, and I have no reason not to believe you, your method should have been tested. Keep in mind that it's not indicative of conditions in the south but there is enough coon trapped in the north to warrant testing that method. If the "vets council" doesn't like it ......._____ them!
I would like to see if the discomfort of being held in the water would add to the other damage scores.
This is the only thing you have thrown out yet that has my attention.
T'man: "But bottom line, bottom line- is the coon protocol- no entanglement, no cover, 50/50% land water access, staked solid in most tests- was totally ill advised."
Bottom line, bottom line is that the coon protocol that was used is indicative of the way most raccoon are trapped in "RESTRAINING TRAPS".
That's not to say that your recommendation doesn't deserve it's day in court.
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 23, 2006 8:07:32 GMT -6
Show me where TC or I compared the coyote bmp to the coon bmp T'man. Bring it! The posts are all still there.once again, you missed the point entirely. the POINT is there are good bmps and BAD bmps. I strongly suggest you read ALL the posts over the past couple of years- then perhaps you will understand the history of tis debate, and understand that many of my references are o long past posts, and TC knows full well what I mean. T'man: "TC position is that ALL bmps were carved in stone by God's workers. If I understated TC's position, accept my apologies."
That's bullsh*t! That's your exaggerated, discrediting opinion of TC's position.nonsense- thats an exact copying of TC's position. READ the previous posts. Why did you ask why we were getting paid??? Hmmmm??? To try to create the "ILLUSION" of some inherent bias right? If not, explain. what exactly is YOUR definition of vested interest? I mentioned no bias concerning data. Or private trappers. T'man: "the coon bmp protocol could not have been set up in manner to induce chewing more than if it had been done so on purpose"
That is your opinion. I disagree. The NTA originally used the same argument and came up with their own protocol which was tested with the same damn results. Their issue was chain length.Might comes as a surprise, but the NTA being involved means nothing to me. As far as disagreeing- if you disagree that 1) giving land access to all water coon with NO cover, no entanglement, solid staked- isn't going to have a higher % of chewing than just about ANY other type of protocol- thats up to you. My coon experience says otherwise. T'man: "To sum up-
1) I find the concept of bmps good 2) I find some bmps to be good 3) I find some bmps to be bad 4) and I know the difference
coyote = good
coon = bad"
So why keep badmouthing the entire bmp process? That is exactly what you are implying when you don't specify the "coon bmp".Once again, I find it hard to believe you have read ANY other of my posts on this subject. I've stated time and time again my previous statement. Didn't think it needed, to mention it in every post. But it it makes you happy, I can make it my signature so there is no doubt i your mind. Even though I've posted it DIRECTLY to you at least 5-6 times in the last week. Can you show me where the bmp's "RECOMMENDED" a 24 hour trap check??? Hmmmmm???Are you standing firm that this was never recommended? Hmmmm? T'man: "So back to coon. One thing I am going to make clear. Don't get condescending to me on the subject- I dare say I've spent far more time, effort and study into it than you have to date."
That's another big assumption on your part. I was involved in many of the bmp protocol discussions from the very beginning long before you and I and Hamilton started hashing them over.
Then my apologies- What were your recommendations on the coon bmps? You conspiracy theorists SEEM TO have it in your heads that because bmps did not test drowning animals and choked animals that these methods will become obsolete. That's bullsh*t! We were using relaxing snares before we started using killing systems. The bmp is nothing more than a study of restraining techniques to refer to. Nothing more, nothing less!Conspiracy theorists? I missed that post. Perhaps you could highlight it for me? T'man: "Did YOU know that hypothermia here, in MN, is a none concern? That in 1000s and 1000s of winter time coon held in water on a 24 hour check in winter, the number I've had dead in the water could be counted on one hand.
And I hear thats true a lot in the north- denser under wool is the answer."
Based on that, and I have no reason not to believe you, your method should have been tested. Keep in mind that it's not indicative of conditions in the south but there is enough coon trapped in the north to warrant testing that method. If the "vets council" doesn't like it ......._____ them!Yes, it should have been. As far as the Vets , I too say F em, but unfortunately...the bmp committee doesn't have the cajones to say that. Its just like Hamilton told me " they wanted this, we had no choice" No choice? Ah...ok. I would like to see if the discomfort of being held in the water would add to the other damage scores. Just be patient. Discomfort at being restrained will be next. T'man: "But bottom line, bottom line- is the coon protocol- no entanglement, no cover, 50/50% land water access, staked solid in most tests- was totally ill advised."
Bottom line, bottom line is that the coon protocol that was used is indicative of the way most raccoon are trapped in "RESTRAINING TRAPS".Really? Where did that data come from? The coon trappers I know, use entanglement all the time. Why? Cause it works.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 23, 2006 8:12:54 GMT -6
TC- your post has bene answered so many times, I'm not going ot bother addressing your last one, except to say- you still don't understand one damn thing about the coon bmps.
and yes, I know you used to live in Iowa.
ps- the Vets council had no input? where have you been? The exact opposite is what is true.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 23, 2006 8:26:37 GMT -6
Tman your vets council is not the AVMA which I was told by Bryant White that they have had nothing to do with the BMP's as they have been asked on several occasions on some issues and had no response back from them. I clearly stated AVMA.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jul 23, 2006 9:47:15 GMT -6
I know what you stated. And since I have never mentioned the AVMA, when you made a specific point that the AVMA had NO input, I simply restated the point- and that was the vets council had major input.
And they did.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 23, 2006 13:15:16 GMT -6
Steve if I had the time or energy to research post I would as I know you clearly stated at some point the AVMA was to blame, that is the direct reason I had the talk about them with Bryant.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 23, 2006 13:31:39 GMT -6
sorry- I don't think I did. I've always made it clear it was the vets council that was advising the bmp committee (or part of it, I don't really know).
All my states are directed at this council of "experts".
If I ever did mention the AVMA, it was inadvertant.
|
|