|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jun 17, 2016 16:49:33 GMT -6
What started out in 1996 has developed into many devices tested and many species having more equipment tested in the last 5 years to add more to the ongoing research and data . Many thought these would be implemented into state rules and regs they have not. They have helped greatly keep fur markets open and bring data and science to an otherwise gray area. Kudos to the Association of the fish and wildlife agencies for such a vast under taking and putting out a lot of pro trapping media over the years that is science based.
|
|
7oaks
Skinner...
Posts: 43
|
Post by 7oaks on Jul 16, 2016 20:28:32 GMT -6
good to hear it was PRO trapping media!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 2, 2016 9:33:06 GMT -6
the bmps for the most part were a waste of time and effort- and in at least one (coon) are as full of bull and nonsense as anything I've ever read.
obviously, in coon, the results were predetermined by the methods-
and anyone that tells you differently, hasn't enough coon experience to have an opinion
as far as the effect on fur prices- give me a break
|
|
tjm
Tenderfoot...
Posts: 9
|
Post by tjm on Sept 2, 2016 13:55:33 GMT -6
Not sure what exactly you object to, trapnman, all research results are determined by the researcher when the protocol is written. We test only things that we know will support our theories. Find what you look for. It's how these things are done.
I think that BMP is a waste of time and money or a fantastic investment depending on your perspective. When the EU threatened to ban our fur the feds should have told them to stick their exports where the sun wouldn't shine. Tit for tat. Don't buy our fur, we won't feed you and we won't buy what you sell.
However, they didn't; so, Canada kowtowed completely saying they would require by law only traps approved by the animal rights folks. USA, didn't bow down that much to kiss the Germans; some far thinking bodies said "oh, yeah, maybe we can be more kind to the animal we are going to kill; let's research that." EU agreed to let us research it and in the mean time not ban our fur. Research can take decades, it's still on going and so far the traps they tested have passed the 'kindness to the condemned' test. EU likely thought that research would lead to immediate restriction by law, many trappers did, I did.
As it turns out, the studies validate some traps and say others similar also get a pass. The results of the studies have been presented as suggestions rather than requirements. I'm still using the same traps. And some modifications have become fads within the trapping community and are now wide spread, indicating that trappers are kind to our victims. AR groups can see we are progressing.
So, yep, I salute AFWA. And I can still use the trap of My choice.
As to more or less market for our furs, I doubt it has much effect. Most of our EU sales before went to Greece, but only as a middleman for eventual Russian consumption.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 4, 2016 6:40:50 GMT -6
all research results are determined by the researcher when the protocol is written
that's right- GIGO
the protocol for the coon was absolutely flawed-
in fact- if I wanted to write guidelines to made as close to 100% of the coon chew- I would write it exactly as the coon bmp protocol was written.
oh, yeah, maybe we can be more kind to the animal we are going to kill; let's research that."
and that is just the point- the protocol was NOT written for coon with this in mind. Let me be clear- the coyote bmps, were obviously written with the involvement and insight of those actually trapping enough coyotes to FORM OPINIONS on results. And as a full time trapper for decades, I believe and believe others do as well, that the welfare and dispatch of animals animanely is paramount- if for no other reason than a $$$ standpoint. ALL the methods that are more animane were done by TRAPPERS, not trap makers or researchers.
so lets leave coyotes out of it- I find it to be exactly things learned and used by me every year- the proof of accuracy is in the pudding for sure.
but back to coon-
no overhead cover? no entanglement cover? no access to water? no drags? short chains?
Good God!
stake him out in the open, no access to water, no freaking nothing but a short chain out in the open in a fixed position?
and the results were.....?
drum roll...............
coon chewed too much.
well good freaking lord what a shocker!
I had multiple conversations with Dave Hamilton telling him that there WERE methods, that reduced coon chewing to almost the nil point- using standard foothold traps- traps that failed miserably in the bmps tests, yet I, and others, use the methods with almost zero chewing. but he was simply not interested- saying then we are testing the trapper, not the trap- YET- the coyote bmps, a damn good read- do EXACTLY THAT........... METHODS change results- and that's the point- or was the point DP traps?
so yes- GIGO
garbage in, garbage out
flawed protocols, can only have flawed results.
That's my beef with the coon bmps- they aren't worthy the paper they are written on.
and I've taken my methods, and wrote about them in FFG, T&PC, FTA- and have had nothing but positive results from those trying them. they aren't magic, just common sense- something lacking in the coon bmps. And I stress both the silliness of the coon bmps, and methods to eliminate chewing in my dry land coon demos
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 11, 2016 17:11:41 GMT -6
Still,on the coon deal I see LOL. Many where staying that BMP's would become mandates and laws in many states, I remember that well. None of that has happened, what has happened is a lot of good sound technical trap data has been produced, none of which we ever had prior to the BMP's. The vet council has been apart of the testing we brought more people under the trapping umbrella in a positive note, little doubt there. The pro trapping stance of a group like AFWA is a major thing and all of their publications and resources used to date has helped us get more inline on the science end of trapping and what effects traps do and do not have with real data and people to back that up.
Your protocols for coon would never hold up to the public that is fact, also there is more to the protocol than just chewing all injuries are scored not just chewing.
DP traps are an Invention that came after the BMP's and who would fault such for the inventions?
Again the point your missing is the coon BMPs of any other has yet to be forced upon any trapper in any state years and years later.
The good has been the PR and keeping markets open, that the silly EU was just trying to protect their own interest first and foremost anyhow, that was the fur farmers in their countries trying to take away a lot of wild fur going to market, they never thought about the resources and ability North Amercia has put into this and in fact back fired on them and their protocols,in their countries also having to meet standards as well.
The federal govt has pissed away a lot more money than ever spent on trap BMP's and it was time the trappers in North America come to the forefront with sound science and data and have some great PR thrown their way for a change.
Again 20 years and trappers still have freedoms and markets and we have some sound science on exactly what traps do in the field and have some great new inventions come from this entire process.
Coyote trappers have been using jaw laminations for many,many years before it was in vogue, ADC Trappers found the benefits of doing such to their traps long before they become the thing to do, yet it still needed to be tested to show the value of doing such to coyote traps. More positives for sure, in fact many tested out better than the Anti's thoughts on padded traps, they wanted us to be far less efficient and hoped many would walk away from trapping, but we have proved the modifications are better for a i al comfort and make us more efficient, they had to hate that but it is science based so they have little to stand on when it comes to those standards.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 12, 2016 19:19:36 GMT -6
yeah TC- I don't forget things just because time passed
Your protocols for coon would never hold up to the public that is fact, also there is more to the protocol than just chewing all injuries are scored not just chewing.
you have absolutely zero knowledge of what a fact is, but you use it in every other sentence like some use "trust me"-
YEs, I know all injuries were scored- and that's bullshite as well. Trap a few 1000 coon, and get back to me.
my protocol for non chewing will hold up anywhere, and I've had many, many trappers that tried them and report the same thing. So- if you haven't tried them, and you have not- then you don't know a thing, let alone any information to state it as a "fact"
the griz was out during the coon protocol
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 12, 2016 19:26:17 GMT -6
Coyote trappers have been using jaw laminations for many,many years before it was in vogue, ADC Trappers found the benefits of doing such to their traps long before they become the thing to do, yet it still needed to be tested to show the value of doing such to coyote traps. More positives for sure, in fact many tested out better than the Anti's thoughts on padded traps, they wanted us to be far less efficient and hoped many would walk away from trapping, but we have proved the modifications are better for a i al comfort and make us more efficient, they had to hate that but it is science based so they have little to stand on when it comes to those standards.
thats right- I think the protocol was well written, taking into consideration METHODS in many instances.
But the coyote one is day and night from the coon one. Dave Hamilton, Rip, had an ulterior motive in that protocol. As I've stated, as someone that has trapped coon serious for 30+ years- I could not have expressly written a coon bmp protocol that would guarantee induced chewing more than that one was. And THAT- is a fact.
I learned what causes coon to chew, and what doesn't- and its not the trap per se
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 20, 2016 20:05:13 GMT -6
The trap,is not the method it is the tool being tested.
Meaning your going to get less damage using a laminated trap,over the course of various methods versus a non laminated trap,over the same various methods. The tool being examined not the method.
What was Daves alterior motive exactly?
Sure it is the trap take a DP and how much chewing can a coon do using any method? A double jaw trap exposes less of the foot to chewing from the coon.
You must remember damage to the animal is not all scored the same, so while you may have some damage to teeth on a DP catch and trap, it is not the same as chewing on the score sheet.
I have no doubts a coon that can't get to its foot can do no chewing, but we then no longer test the trap at all in this situation we are testing methods and only methods.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 20, 2016 20:16:07 GMT -6
Scoring all Injuires is BS exactly why? That is the entire point of the testing for crying out loud. We should mitigate some damage and only count other damage the device causes? You are then crating a sliding scale for each and every device. You have no normal protocol which the device must pass in order to be BMP certified then. Imagine those talks when setting up the scoring system. Who decideds what damage counts and what doesn't?
Again you miss the entire point , test the device not the methods used. If your methods keep coon from chewing then your methods would have to be followed for the trap to pass standards, that is not what the testing is about.
Again no more time was spent testing any DEVICE than the coon BMP. Not all trappers trap the same across the country but many use the same common trap types, again testing the devices that are well,known and well used by trappers.
Bottom line the BMP's have not become law for anyone as some claimed would happen and they have added benefit to trapping over the last 20 years in a positive way for trapping and trappers.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 25, 2016 6:04:00 GMT -6
I don't care how much time was taken trying to turn crap into sugar- end of the day its still crap.
the coyote bmps used methods combined with traps.
anyone that has read them, will agree.
and anyone that has trapped coon, and gave a rat ass about reducing eliminating chewing, has learned what I've learned.
the protocol for how traps were set, was absolutely STUPID and IGNORANT. And I don't care if I hurt anyones feelings if they are reading this, and took part in developing the protocol. That protocol was absolutely ridiculus in that setting will access to land on water sets, in setting with no nearby cover, staked solid- is going to give you the absolute worse results possible for chewing and bad foot damage.
THAT is a fact, and if anyone here has a lot of coon experience and wants to debate that- lets hear you.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 25, 2016 16:35:14 GMT -6
What methods did we use in the coyote BMP's?
Cable restraints where the only ones I can recall which called for setting in A area with zero entanglement for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Sept 26, 2016 9:39:58 GMT -6
As I said, if anyone with a lot of coon experience responds, i'll be glad to debate the coon protocol with them
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Sept 30, 2016 20:26:38 GMT -6
Tman you said methods where used in the coyote BMP's exactly what, methods where used? I have done 3 of those coyote BMP's I cannot recall any set methods we had to follow?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Oct 2, 2016 7:16:59 GMT -6
if you read the bmps- and I'm not going to dig out a copy to provide you with the page and paragraph number- there are things that are not scientific but singular- that means methods.
if you disagree, I really don't care at this point.
but thank you for not trying to discuss the coon bmps anymore, you simply don't have the knowledge base on coon to do so. and that's not a slam- if you haven't trapped many coon, you haven't. I for example don't comment on fisher trapping methods.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Oct 2, 2016 19:48:01 GMT -6
I brought up the BMPs as a whole, you as always want to debate the coon BMP's as that is the only whole to even think about debating on the BMP's. I have read and re read every BMP to date, no where in the process are methods discussed what so ever.
Methods are techniques one uses the equipment in order to capture or restrain the species, the methods where open for coyotes except for all where staked solid. That would be a method versus a drag , but hard to quantify injury so all traps tested where in a staked manner which the majority use them in, never stated any negatives to drags just never tested with drags and I doubt the outcome would have been any worse for the tool tested.
You can beat on the coon BMP's all you wish, the bottom line is your trying to get a passing scores with methods only,, that is not how testing equipment goes. Any changes made from a factory trap was to effect performance of the tool not the methods in which they are set, that goes for any and all BMP's.
None have became law period, some said years back they would in fact become such. Also the AFWA has spent a lot of time and money promoting trapping as a whole, that has been a plus for all trappers and trapping. I have used much of their materials in trappers Educafion in past years. It is some of the best scientific pro trapping media out there to be had. That is fact.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Oct 3, 2016 6:38:38 GMT -6
if some one said the sun rises in the east, and New York is on the west coast- why would I debate the sun? but to you, I should then also accept that NY is on the Pacific.
the methods where open for coyotes
yes- my point exactly. Let me repeat that- YES, YES. YES. MY POINT EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!
the methods were NOT open for coon.
You just stated the facts- and still wish to argue against them.
GIGO
do you know what that means, and signifies?
Have you ever drowned a coon? if not- more proof of the pudding about no experience-
and if you have-
why man, you are going 100% against coon protocol
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Oct 3, 2016 19:30:06 GMT -6
You stated methods where used in the coyote BMP's did you not? I believe so?
Yes I Have drowned coon, but guess what? No testing protocol for drowning of raccoons. Would be a entire can of worms, what is the correct time to death? Drowning is labeled as death the only rating for death on the scale is a major failing score.
So drowning is not going against protocol as there are no defined protocols for drowning sets. If you or I choose to drowned coons that is up to us . That is a method and that was not tested for raccoons. For obvious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Oct 4, 2016 7:12:52 GMT -6
land or water- I'm guessing more coon are caught in water, than on land by an overwhelming number.
holding that coon in water is a time tested method of eliminating chewing. it was not allowed in the bmp testing protocol. Why? You tell me.
I've put 1000s of coon down slide wires, yet drowning was not approved. and the Why? of that I know- the Vet Council, who was part of the "team"- would not allow it, calling in inhumane.
overhead cover, and side cover- are absolute paramount to reducing STRESS in coon. And less stress means minimal foot or tooth damage.
Drags are also a very important tool, in achieving minimal or no injury.
Yet- none of these common trapper methods, were considered- and more importantly, were expressly forbidden.
no restrictions were placed on the coyote bmps- take the trap- and set it how you want- 2" of dirt over pan, or none- hind foot or front foot placement- no restrictions. Each trapper, could use variations as he deemed fit.
The coon bmps, made the protocol such that the most commonly used coon trap in the world, was guaranteed to not pass. duh. I hit my finger with a hammer and it hurts- I don't need to test it 10 times.
GIGO its that simple
I know- I've been there, done that. on land, on water in all weather in all seasons.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Oct 4, 2016 18:12:20 GMT -6
We are not drowning coons, nor to the majority of coyotes have the tendency to chew on their feet.
Coons early on where tested with over hanging cover they still did not pass, over head cover by itself is not going to help chewing, they tried it the traps still failed,amputation is not a good score for sure.
Holding in water? Not an option due to restrainting the coon in water itself, would not pass the vet council either. Hypothermia then becomes an issue. Before your state it does not, well yes it does as any warm blooded critter you keep in water below room the tempature is going to lower the body tempature. We are talking critters of 15-20 lbs. hours being held in the water and water temp all play into core body tempature. No way vet council would proceed with holding coons in water exclusively . Back to methods and not the trap.
|
|