|
Post by bogio on Sept 2, 2012 19:17:45 GMT -6
Skin everything same day caught. Wash every coon and coyote after skinning, ring out, snap and hang in front of a fan. In the freezer next morning. Any remaining moisture freeze dries out.
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Sept 2, 2012 19:03:27 GMT -6
Never drug coyotes so have no informed opinion concerning them. Have very few problems catching in remakes staked solid.
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Aug 31, 2012 15:00:26 GMT -6
First off....... what thought process leads someone to think,"You know, I think the vaginal secretions of a rhesus monkey might be attractive to coyotes. I going to test them!" Who does the collection work? Low man on the ladder?
This study among other things seems to indicate that the testing of attractants/baits in the summertime is an effort in futility in terms of proving effectiveness for winter/spring work. My own trapping has shown me that even the span of a month in the winter can show quite a difference in coyote receptiveness to particular attractants/baits.
Did this research lead to superior synthetics that out shined/replaced the commercially available biologically based attractors?
1080, what did testing on free rangers show?
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Aug 23, 2012 10:29:18 GMT -6
I guess you have answered these questions! do you think that if a coyote smells your lure (whether 2 blocks away, or at the set), he automatically walks over to it and sticks his nose into the hole?
do you think all lures are universal- or do you think certain lures and odors provide more intensity at the set?thanks for the pics they sum up exactly the point we were talking about through much of these coyote discussions. and that is that the goal isn't to have a coyote aware of your lures(set) but to have a coyote be aware of them in a location where his innate behaviors allow him to to approach and work the set the highest % of te time. the pics go right back to what I mentioned in snow earlier about coyotes walking right by your set, never hardly breaking stride, yet down the road that same coyote veers right towards an identical set and there he is- My thoughts exactly. The proof is in the pudding and Seldom served it up in toto.
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Aug 17, 2012 16:13:42 GMT -6
No, I know about the hay bale location. I was asking about the other photo where it looks like you set up by a lagoon of some sort. Is the lagoon itself the interest spot or is there something else there?
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Aug 17, 2012 13:47:09 GMT -6
You've talked about the hay bale location before and what is there. What is the main draw in your top photo? Looks like a lagoon there? Was it an existing location you've set in the past or one you selected in the search for THE SPOT and if so did it pan out?
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Aug 17, 2012 8:44:57 GMT -6
Interesting.
Reinforces my original reasoning for simply repeating the same set over and over. My set, as I make it, has been working. I'm thinking now that multiple lures in conjunction with bait needs to be tried. At this time I'm using specific single lures in combination with specific baits that seem to compliment it each other. These change as the winter progresses with some combos that worked early petering out while others that were lackluster early coming on productionwise late season.
Are you saying that "THE SPOT" often seems to occur in what golfers would refer to as "the rough"?
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Aug 16, 2012 23:34:20 GMT -6
Top left is one fine looker there TC. I don't use snares so just keep hammering along as the snow/freeze comes. Easier to keep existing sets going than build from scratch but if you want to stay on fresh animals you don the safety glasses and start chopping. With 4 to 6 sets on one location, will they all be hole sets of similar construction? Will each be lured/baited differently?
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Aug 16, 2012 11:30:48 GMT -6
I am very repetious with my set construction, each set lookng very similar to the one before it. I will try varying that somewhat with the coming season to see if I've been putting some animals "off", different strokes you know. That said, I think there is an advantage to developing one set and remaking it over and over. I too believe in heavy lure application, large bait amounts, and lots of urine.
My sets became "coyote sets" when I made the leap to #3 size traps. Digging tools evolved to a pulaski and tile spade, patterns got bigger, holes got bigger and deeper. Drill and augers doing most of the hole digging now.
I differ on the backings as I generally don't have much of one. I going to experiment some with that also. I too consider a large backing to be more of a stop or blockage than a guide. Can definitely see that eliminating 180 degrees of approach to be advantageous although I don't see much apparent obvious signs of back dooring to my sets.
I wonder sometimes if what we see in the snow is an accurate indication of what is happening during open ground conditions. I have no doubt that more coyotes are passing me by than riding in the truck with me. However, with snow cover the entire dynamic of the set changes. You lose most if not all of the visual associated with it and the research shows how important that aspect is. Much of our guiding involves the use of the eyes in combination with the nose to properly line them up. If it's all smooth and white, what do you have? If the hole is blown full, how well is the lure and bait getting out? I realize that in many situations snow is all we have to observe their movements in relationship to our offerings but is it the same?
Tman, with multiple lure offerings are you spacing them similar to your flat sets to give it some triangulation?
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Aug 10, 2012 11:20:46 GMT -6
Dug in the archives to find the study Seldom mentioned: www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/96pubs/96-108.pdfSomething else that I found that was of great interest was this post from 1080: " I HAVE seen penned coyotes at the research facility,and been shown by the Foremost researchers, past or present,critical behavior by coyotes under a myriad of conditions. Things that when applied to trapping..IE.approach to objects,angle of approach to stimuli,wind,etc,etc are FAR MORE useful in many regards to the actual setting. Where to set,what is pertinent to a set in regards to acceptance has been more valuable to me than much of what I have read in field study for general behavior in certain conditions across the country.
What you learn are certain things are innate and consistant.How you present a set,and WHERE is of utmost importance."I read that and realized it was quite similiar in message to an article Major Boddicker has in the current American Trapper. He talks of an extensive study which concluded that the most effecient setting technique involved 2 traps set in an equalateral triangle configuration to the attractant. He cites that the study showed that things such as wind direction/animal approach angle/attractant presentation/behavioral triggers are of the utmost importance. I then recalled a conversation with Tom Miranda at convention where he stated that his walk thru set was based on a study involving 2 traps set in a triangle with the attractant. He reversed the principle to use 2 attractant positions in a triangle with a single trap to reduce equipment use.
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Aug 9, 2012 21:58:03 GMT -6
That picture showing the circle on the hard pan reminds me of my catch circles in January.
Are both animals caught in close proximity to the carcass you spoke of?
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Aug 4, 2012 6:42:28 GMT -6
You can only skin an animal once but you can skin a trapper over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Jul 31, 2012 21:04:52 GMT -6
I started out dirt trapping coon in dirt holes with #1 B&L ls. Angled hole with a trowel, chop up a bed with a hoe, bed trap and go. Worked fairly well.
Decided to try fox, bought 1 1/2 coils and built the same set. Didn't work as well for fox. Lots of dancing around with no commital. Caught some but....you know. Experimented around and started making a hole with no visible pattern. Very tight bed, packed hard and blended back to invisible. Labor intensive but caught more fox and my first coyotes. Progressed into walk thrus and step downs, catch was increasing but because of 1 1/2 size traps and the small patterns that went with them, coyotes did a lot of standing back and looking.
When I made the jump to the #3 Montys and started buildng sets to fit them, things started happening! I've made adjustments as time has past, arriving at the set I'm using presently.
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Jul 31, 2012 20:37:57 GMT -6
Use what fits the area your setting best has been my deal and at times in certain soils almost impossible to dig a hole. Flat sets 60%+ and rest hole type sets. Walk throughs most of the time unless I have a great backing then the walk through isn't needed. I do use a loose jaw guard at almost ALL sets and my pan is the lowest point on the pattern. Not step down low but the lowest point. After watching Jc Conners videos I was surpised at how close my setting techniques mirroed what he has done and the ideology behind it as well. His blind set video is well worth the investment and has really helped at times as well. I like at times to add varity and a good trench set along a trail/ slow up spot is great. Will you go into the first line a little deeper? Are you just referring to the soil type dictates the set or do you feel different locations call for different sets? You have referred to sets in past posts as natural. I've wondered if you meant the construction technique/blend job or what fits the set location you've picked.
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Jul 30, 2012 20:07:11 GMT -6
What does the majority use? Or is there a majority?
I once used a pretty even mix of flats and holes. Once in a while tried some posts. The studies have kicked them out of the running for good. Most writers advocate mixing it up. Some of the old wolfers just used one set. Many were flat set men.
I've switched to all hole sets, except at one location. They all look basicly the same. Hole changes size or shape but the basic construction stays the same. My own version of a Robbins style dirt hole. Rarely have much of a backing. Not a huge pattern but good sized with the approach blended to avoid a hard edge. Generally spray them down with urine.
I'm considering bringing more flats into the mix. Possibly there are animals resistant to hole sets. Wondered how you all looked at/approached this.
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Jul 27, 2012 11:36:04 GMT -6
Steve,
I don't remember all the details so will start from the beginning.
Does your sand road have or lead to a biggest,smelliest, most intrigueing attraction point?
After 2 relatively unproductive years setting the text book locations, what led you to and made you decide to set the big bale location? If the bales were not there, do you feel it still would have been the spot?
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Jul 27, 2012 6:09:07 GMT -6
Thank you seldom and 1080,
Those responses cleared up a question which has been causing me considerable cerebral discomfort.
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Jul 26, 2012 21:52:07 GMT -6
Seldom,
What leads you to trap the coyotes in your example at the three individiual stall outs as opposed to a common stall out at the hunting area? Is it due to it being a working pit and as such to much activity to deal with?
ChrisM,
In working the dead cows with multiple groups of coyotes, if trapping them, do you use an individual group approach or set on them as a single combined group?
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Jul 26, 2012 9:53:15 GMT -6
Is too much emphasis being given to simply identifying stall out areas? While they are an important part of setting/determining the coyotes state of mind, are all stall out locations equal in regards to being the spot? I'm assuming stall outs occur throughout a coyotes range, the ones that concern us most are those that lay in overlap areas, correct? If sign reading is used to identify a stall out, what is used to seperate the good from the even better? Shear volume of sign?
|
|
|
Post by bogio on Jul 24, 2012 23:22:07 GMT -6
Straight up!
|
|