coyotes- same set, or mix them up?

[trappnman]

one thing that was brought up several times in visiting with trappers at WI, was what sets do oyu make when setting for coyotes.

I've gone back and forth- and freely admit, there was a time I caught far more coyotes in flat sets than in my hole sets, so I entered a period where most of my sets WERE flats sets.

I think last year I made 2, maybe 3 flat sets, and they were in powder dry manure, where one couldn't but help but make one

but otherwise, am convinced that if the goal is to take the majority of coyotes in the quickest time, that going with a set that did appeal to the majority, the majority of the time was the way to go.

if I have sets in a row, they are cookie cutter sets in that they are all, discounting backings and slight variances due to the exact location- pretty much the same set. I do however vary lures/baits at consecutive sets

and that set is, a dirthole with a big mess surrounding it-

and if that set truly does offer the most appeal, and one is moving in out out relatively quickly, that it makes no sense to put in a lesser set- the thought being that if for whatever reason a coyote is not going to interested in my "standard" set, the chances of him working other sets (ones with less smell, no eye appeal, etc) are prety low, and no worth the effort

same as any other type of trapping- one set type usually stands out from the rest, so why not use it 100% if time and opportunity is the goal?

comments?

[trappnman]

lets expand it to all trapping- isn't there pretty much 1 set, that we repeat over and over?

sure, I can catch coon, or beaver or anything with a multitude of sets- some easyt, some timing consuming...but unless just playing around or a true ADC job- I still go back to the same sets time after time. On ADC work, I usually over trap, and thus have some different types of sets since my focus is singular on that location/animals

but for fur......... while we all do a few things different, things that might or might not matter to each others success- but that we find increases our own success- but thats just tweaking (and after time, you can only tweak so much which is why IMO the fasination with new hardware) but the set itsefl remains the same

[bogio]

I generally make each and every set the same and it is a hole set. I have a farm where I have had digging problems the last couple years. I made the one and only flat set I have made in some time there and caught this one:



Maybe there is a time to change things up but for the most part I believe you are best served with a hole type set. Just figure out how to make it in a way they are receptive to.

[primitiveman]

I couldn't disagree more...for a couple reasons. I too have a "go to" set method or two; however, by simply modifying one of those sets, it often triggers a hit on an otherwise unproductive set. Flashy sets are part of my arsenal and account for most of the pups I catch, but are used more so as a general attractant for my other sets. More times than not it is the subtle set 20 feet away that takes the dominant dogs. By only mass producing the same set over and over, sure you get a lot more steel in the ground but you're missing a lot of coyotes in my opinion.

If anything I think our techniques we've perfected over the years cause tunnel vision and lead to more missed dogs. It's the subtle differences I purposely try to put into sets that increases my numbers. Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about trying every gimmick that's out there...Lord knows there are a ton of guys out there just trying to sell bait, videos, etc....don't fall for it. All you have to do is make slight variations to a handful of proven set types; it's as simple as that.

I guarantee I can trap a location anyone has left after "catching it out" and I will be successful catching coyotes. On the other hand, the same would be true of any successful trapper putting in traps in a spot I have abandoned. Not because one is "better" than the other, but the differences in my sets versus yours will trigger different responses.

Truth is, there is no "best" setup, no magic lure/bait and no secret spot. The only secret is trapping hard and using proven methods with subtle differences to trigger coyotes that would otherwise only give a set a passing glance at best. Consistency comes from knowing your quarry and changing things up from time to time to get the wise ones to slip up.

[braveheart]

Last winter with all the wind blown snow and the freezing and thawing.I went to the bare wind blown spots threw down a big wad of sod got from over the creek banks and made flat sets.With a badger hole here and there.Had best year yet on coyotes in Jan.

[trappnman]

no there is no magic set-

but there is, based on several factors including research, things that shows us two things- one is where the set is made, and the other being the type of set made, that will appeal to the most coyotes in the shortest time.

What I have to ask- is if your flat sets are outproducing your hole sets (a question I've asked and answered for me) then WHY does that occur?

and the answer to that is simple in theory, harder in practice

and that is either you are in wrong location, or you are making a hole set that DOES NOT appeal to the most coyotes

I see pics of sets on the internet, and the question is "is this a good coyote set" and the answers always are 'great set, you should catch coyotes"

whereas to me, I see a fox set, not a coyote set.

so if a hole set is such that either a coyote doesn't work it, or works it reluctantly- then it makes sense a subtle set might outproduce those hole sets.

Research shows us things concerning innate behaviors, and how those come into play when faced with novel stimuli.

if you work against those behaviors- either in location or set construction- then your % will be lower.

slight variations, are present at every set, simply because of its exact location, and the minute differences that come into play with backing, soil type, ground conditions, etc- but the basic set, remains the same.

my opinion,that unless staying in the same location forever, like I used to do, that in a short time period, you are going to take the same amount of coyotes, over an entire line, by making the set they want to investigate, and having every trap offer that same perspective than you would running 50/50 hole sets and some other set type. Meaning you might pick up one or two over that line in the non hole sets- but then you need to consider- how many did I miss, not know were there by limiting my number of hole sets?

[primitiveman]

Tman-

When you get so wrapped up into trying to perfect a system, I believe you miss the very reason many of us trap coyotes in the first place: the challenge of getting all coyotes to slip up...not just the quick to hit ones. I compare this to fishing. I love nothing more than to follow another boat around where the guy is casting a time tested lure, fishing a hundred miles an hour catching the aggressive biters. I too do those things, but I also like to slow down, offer different presentations to see what else is out there.

There are definitely two very different philosophies here: mine is to slow down for the challenge of slipping up even the most cautious coyotes...sounds like you're more interested in turning your line into a production line simply about percentages, which to me is like chasing the wind. I've spent the past couple years reading posts about percentages and increasing those with the spot; however, at best the highest percentages out there might reach 25%. To me if the spot was that magical, then why aren't those percentages pushing 100%? I would much rather save the gas, shorten my lines to capitalize on numbers by setting more traps over less ground. At the end of the season my percentage is lower, my numbers are the same and I have burned a heck of a lot less petro.

This production line approach coupled with insane fur prices is making trapping into something I hope it never becomes. We are not much farther behind my former favorite past time.....deer hunting when it comes to commercialization. Too many people trying to commercialize trapping and sell the next best thing. For me it's about catching every coyote...not just the quick to hit ones.

[trappnman]

you need to understand, many of those locations ARE 100%, for several nights in a row.

the 25% figure quotes, is over an entire line, over the day or the length of the line

and no, i'm not close to taking that- but you are correct, thats my goal. I used to think that taking 7% was as good as it gets, cause thats what I heard from comparable trappers, and thats what I was doing as well. Even documentated that I was taking 1 coyote for every 16 trap nights- and this was often in spring and summer.

so why do I now focus on getting the highest % over a line or season? very simple- I know it can be done, and I'm going to try to do it as well.

I read this a while back-

'You know, the guy that read a study that found dead piles with lots of cows in it are more attractive to coyotes than piles with fewer cows in it?
Earth-shattering!!!!!!!!!! Ground-breaking!!!!!!"

and my thought was the joke about the roof- and that if that was the info garnered from the research, then wheeew! a clsasssic example of not seeing the forest becasue of the trees. The info that should have been gleaned from the study, was HOW TERRITORIAL OVERLAPS CHANGED BASED ON THE ATTRACTION.

or people saying they don't read the studies, too boring, etc- yet then dismiss the studies as worthless.

research, and the understanding to translate that research into practical applications, is an ongoing endeavor

and I point no fingers, just observing.......

IMO, only the very elite can take that % consistently, season after season- and yes, I want to be if not in that number, at least within shouting distance of it. Its a goal I probalby will never reach, but oh the fun in seeing it unfold......

unless one likes checking empty traps, and you would think I do sometimes, why would one NOT want to be a production trapper? production, at least in the terms we use it here, implys efficientcy, and the best way to do something.

for example- you can plant a garden, and let nature water it and weed it- and you will get some bounty, with little work...or, you can "production line" that garden for the maximum bounty.

as far as your mumbers are the same on less ground, unless you are at that magical stockyard, the only way you are going to get bigger numbers, is to be on top of more coyotes. I've been told "I ADC trap coyotes" meaning i'm concentrating on too small an area, with too many locations in that area, and too many traps- and while I was catching coyotes, I wa limited in numbers becasue of the scope of the line.

trust me, for 25 years I thought as you did- lots of traps over smaller areas, stay 3-4 weeks- and yes, I got coyotes, some years quite a few coyotes- but the less ground you run, the less of a coyote base you have to draw from. It only makes sense, that is higher numbers is a goal (and it sounds like it matters not to you as long as you are catching some coyotes) than the ONLY way, is to cover more ground

Bob Wendt, bless his little heart, once said he would rather drive 50 miles to traps that held coyotes, then drive 5 and check empty traps. And I agree.

but lets say you disagree- even so, why would you still not to want to find the exact location, close to home, where you have overlap, and where the innate behaviors lead you to having more success (higher %)?



---------

on a different note, or perhaps the same, the knowledge avialable to learn about coyotes is almost endless, thus, even though the goal is true production line trapping (ie coon, rats, mink, fox) that goal is just a distance light at the end of a tunnel, so daily, weekly and yearly there is always soemthing to experiment with, to tweak, to learn.

for example on my line last year, I made the effort to always have 1 trap, that did not yet take a coyote. possums, etc I didn't count as "used" and only if all traps at a location took coyotes, then I'd make a new set. To find out if, for me with whatever mechanical and mindset skills I have, that fresh trap mattered enough to make it worth the effort.

and for me, I clearly saw, that it did not- that repeat catches at a location, were almost to a coyote taken in the original sets. Now, if I stayed longer than 5-6 days, I might well find a different value in it.

and this year, the plan is to address more traps, at each location. because setting 2 traps, and getting a couple of doubles and a couple of singletons, while satisfying, is, IMO, costing me coyotes at that location- and no, I do not feel a different set, would take those- I missing them because full traps, ARE going to have an effect on the remaining coyotes if its repeated nightly. Those coyotes aren't SET SHY, they are LOCATION shy.

[primitiveman]

"the only way you are going to get bigger numbers, is to be on top of more coyotes"

I agree, but this does not always mean covering more ground. There's a location near me where coyotes hunters gunned down 30+ coyotes in one season in the same section of creek bottoms, which is a few hundreds yards wide and a couple miles long. Prime example of more coyotes on less acreage. Wisconsin coyotes are thick in my area, so there's no reason for me to have to do 100+ mile lines. Why do 100-150 mile lines when I can be on multiple packs within several square miles....and I know this is the case when I step out on my deck at night and hear packs open up in virtually every direction.


"and this year, the plan is to address more traps, at each location"

More of the same sets then? This is where you have me interested, but I have to admit I disagree. I do not believe there is one setup that will take all coyotes. Maybe there are times when rather than two of your setups at a location you put in six and have six coyotes the next day, and some locations you have six empty traps. In my opinion, you put in 6 traps if the location is worthy, but with different setups and you'll catch a wider variety of coyotes (alphas, betas, pups).

I am curious to hear opinions from the elite among us...is there one setup that will catch any coyote given the correct location? I do not think so, but I also do not consider myself elite. Far too often I have tracks walking by a hole only to get caught in the flat set....then I drive to another location where a coyote walks right past the flat set and is waiting for me at the dirt hole.


"Those coyotes aren't SET SHY, they are LOCATION shy."

Why is it then that I can go into a LOCATION you trapped a week after you left and catch coyotes? and vice versa.....

[trappnman]

don't misunderstand me- I don't think there is one magic set that will take every coyote walking by- but I DO believe that there is one set, that will outproduce all others, and if you put that set in the proper location in quanitively increases its productivity, you will then take a large % of those coyotes aware of your set. Enough so, that IMO I believe that its not worth the time, to design singular set types.

the answer to your question is I feel in the simple fact, in a good location, more coyotes are coming in- if Ive been there a week, I've either caught the coyotes there at the time I'm there, or put them off and in either case, the % of coyotes that were present with other coyotes in a trap, now willing to work that particular location, will diminish. I cannot do anything about the coyotes that weren't there, when I was there.

I'd hate to try to make a living following behind one of the elites- I'm thinking I'd be very, very poorly

interesting you bring up alphas, betas and subordinates- because thats the very thing I'm looking at- do all types of sets, apply to all classes, equally? for example- a scent post- the research shows me that scent marking is low or non existent in betas and pups, and varies quite a bit from season to season, and occurs mostly when territory is defended. so why then- considering the working potential of such a set, would you take the time and effort to make one, other than S & G, when you know the potential base is limited?

[bogio]

We have been told by an "elite" that not every coyote will be taken with the steel trap. It just isn't going to happen. The goal is to develop a set which appeals to and takes the highest percentage of coyotes that encounter it. This hinges not only on how it is constructed but where it is located. Makes no difference what it is if the location puts the coyote off.

What exists within or in proximity of that creek bottom system which causes the coyotes to pile up there? I don't believe that every bottom in Wisconsin is like that simply because of your population base.

[trappnman]

let me correct my above post where I said I'd increase traps "all all locations" because I didn't mean all, I meant all that warrented it based on sign and past success. and even then, never more than 3-4

I think, and I could be wrong and if so its not uncharted territory, that by doing so, I'll take more coyotes, overall, on those increased set locations, over the season.

I also have expanded as much as I can reasonably do so- it simply isn't feasable to expand in any direction, more than I have without travelling far more miles across barren ground, than I care to do but I did expand this year, with what i feel can be A type locations, so that too should give me more coyotes, indeed, will give me more coyotes.

I do want to get in more sets, but unless I am just setting sets to set, ie meaning setting 2 or more locations for same coyotes,its going to be in that 80-90 range for each loop- but thats still going to be 25-30% more traps...so, looking forward to the year

but this thread wasn't about the spot- thats been debated and you either are a believer, or you are not-
this thread was more this:

to come at it from a different angle- conceeding primativemans point

is there one set, that appeals to coyotes more than any other set would or could do? that as a %,
by far outproduces any other well made set?

is there 1 set, that you would make 100% of the time, given that you could only set 1 trap, and you have 2 nights to trap?

[bogio]

At this point, the set that I am making. I am going to try some refinements this year but they are not a radical departure from what I am doing at this time.

I disagree that this is not related to the discussions concerning the spot as I believe where it is built is equally as important as how it is built. You must have one with the other.

[musher]

Steve: What do you see in the photos that says it is a fox set and not a coyote set?

[trappnman]

the little bitty neat patterns- those small patterns are going to have as many if not more coyotes avoiding the set as working it, no backing to speak of- and while not shown in the photos, the implications of a couple of drops of lure, and a neat little pee squirt on the set

[trappnman]

no one?

is there one set, that appeals to coyotes more than any other set would or could do? that as a %,
by far outproduces any other well made set?

is there 1 set, that you would make 100% of the time, given that you could only set 1 trap, and you have 2 nights to trap?

[primitiveman]

"do all types of sets, apply to all classes, equally?"

Absolutely not, which is why I can't wrap my head around the mindset of using only one setup....not saying you're wrong, just wondering your thoughts on how to make a set I would consider a "pup set" appeal to and trigger a hit with alphas as well.

What exists within or in proximity of that creek bottom system which causes the coyotes to pile up there?

Nothing truly out of the ordinary here. The creek bottom is surrounded by small family farms, which I suppose may be an equivalent draw to a major dairy operation. I agree not every section of creek bottom is equal here, but more than not are infested in my region.


"is there one set, that appeals to coyotes more than any other set would or could do? that as a %,
by far outproduces any other well made set?"

For all coyotes.....no. For a certain class of coyotes.....possibly.

"is there 1 set, that you would make 100% of the time, given that you could only set 1 trap, and you have 2 nights to trap?"

For me, no only because my personal data shows otherwise. You still have me curious regarding your 1 set theory.

[trappnman]

"do all types of sets, apply to all classes, equally?"

I DO think one set applies to all classes. Given that there are going to be as mentioned some coyotes, you just aren't going to catch. don't get hung up on every,cause that isn't going to happen and as I stated, I'm looking at most coyotes, most of the time. and so to that end, I want a set that if a beta male comes by, or a subordinate adult, or a YOY.the set is going to be such, that the vast majority of the time hes going to work your set- now, as bogio mentioned the spot IS part and parcel of the set- that combined with the set that now you not only have the SET he will work more often, but in a location, where he will be most apt to work it.

thats what I've learned through these discussions and on the line- that the exact location is THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE MATTER

and again, i'm not say close to always in my locations, or even 50% of my locations- but that should be the goal for anyone.

like eating a perfectly baked pie- you compare every pie after that, and find some good, some not so good-but dang, that 1 pie your granny made.....

Because research shows us, and others tell us- that there ARE locations, where coyote ranges overlap- and we know what occurs in these overlaps concerning behaviors with other coyotes, and behavors of singlular coyotes.

so while not saying other sets don't work- of course they do- but remember I once believed strongy "that holes sets weren't very productive" and I'd catch by far the most coyotes out of my flat sets, indeed even getting to the point for a spell where many times I could not tell where the set was until a catch or pulled. subtle, unobtrusive sets that far out produced my hole sets. Then I started using more and more stepdown type sets, that started transforming my hole sets into producing sets- and for a few years I learned a bit more on hole sets- but still mixed them up..until after a few years....the holes were far outproducing flat sets- still the same flat sets....but a different hole set.

"pup sets vs alphas"

I do not think, despite the recent popularity of the theory, that one can make a set that would appeal to either exclusively.

That is- I don't think its possible to make a set type, and state- this was made to catch the pups, or this was made to catch the alphas. I cannot think of any set, that would appeal to a pup more so than a alpha, or visa versa nor can I think of any set that would put off one more than the other during fur season. I say fur season, because during periods when territory is held and defended, a true scent post (the mafia or such) would indeed appeal more to alpha males, than any other class. But having said that, I would also say #1 I don't care what they do when raising pups, and #2 on location, the hole set will still appeal to that alpha more so- because every alpha, does not scent mark or rather does not rescent mark close to the majority of the time.

I am curious as to your ideas of sets, that would attract one or the other.

now location......yes...I do believe someone with the knowlege, can make sets in locations that will be VISTED by alphas more....
--------------------------------

the reason I ask about 1 trap, 1 set is this- taking it as a given, that you are dealing with different age classes, different mindsets of singular coyotes........

look at it like this-

you have 1 trap, 1 or 2 nights- to catch an unknown coyote- you don't have a clue: pup, female, male, beta, alhpa, inbetween.

and knowing that one set type DOES appeal to the most, most of the time...

isn't the best chance of taking a coyote under this scenario, to make a set that appeals to ALL age and position classes, vs one that has less appeal?

[trappnman]

and then- put that set at a location where he "wants" to work it

[primitiveman]

"I am curious as to your ideas of sets, that would attract one or the other."

By no means am I saying this is an exact science...just a tendency I've noticed with my own catches. For me certain setups seem to produce mostly pups while others take the more dominant dogs. Definitely a positive correlation...not necessarily a cause/effect, but it happens too much to be written off as coincidence. Now it's just a matter of analyzing setups to find the "why"...

"and then- put that set at a location where he "wants" to work it"

See this is where we differ...I believe I can make him "want to work it"...even if he's walked by the set several times before