|
Post by trappnman on Mar 28, 2005 15:19:50 GMT -6
Restraining traps- sorry, not for me. I suite trap.
what are the success rates for traps- foothold now, real traps- that passed?
|
|
|
Post by Hamilton on Mar 28, 2005 15:41:02 GMT -6
"talk to most trappers- "I'm killing it in the morning- so what?"
This is precisely why the public is fighting over trapping.
Trappers, please don't take this personally, but comments like this is part of the reason why trappers have little credibility when it comes to the question of who the public trusts to gain credible information about trapping.
Our stated Goal of BMPs: To maintain the regulated use of trapping as a safe, efficient and acceptable means of managing and harvesting wildlife for the benefits it provides, while ensuring the welfare of wildlife.
"Acceptable".... we're not talking about "acceptable" to trappers, we are talking about "acceptable" to the public. Like it or not, we only trap with the permission of the public.
Using trapper opinion about the welfare of wildlife in traps isn't going to turn the tide of public opinion about the nature of traps and their impact on animals. Here's what one Human Dimensions researcher had to say about credibility of trappers in the view of the public:
The good news about trappers: “Trappers were unusual in their exceptional degree of knowledge, affection and concern for wildlife and natural habitats…. This protectionist concern was certainly encouraging and suggested a group particularly sensitive about its land stewardship responsibilities.” Kellert, 1981
The Bad News about Trappers:
“On the other hand, a pronounced lack of empathetic appreciation for ethical objections concerning animal exploitation almost inevitably assured that conflict and misunderstanding would occur between trappers and various persons with strong humane and animal welfare interests.” Kellert, 1981
When asked about who had the most credibility about trapping, the public ranked trappers just below Animal Rights Organizations like PETA (trappers had <10%- PETA had 12%); On the other hand, these same people ranked State Fish and Wildlife Agencies at the top of the list. (state fish and wildlife agencies had over 60%).
That is why we need BMPs, and that is why we are training our staffs about the need for trapping as a wildlife management tool, about BMPs, and how to communicate effectively with the public about trapping issues.
One of the most important keys to effective communication is to gain credibility, and that requires shared values. If you don't demonstrate that you share some of their values, they will never listen to you or give much confidence to what you have to say.
You don't acknowledge shared values with a public that is naturally concerned about animal welfare by saying ""I'm killing it in the morning- so what?"
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 28, 2005 16:51:48 GMT -6
as a trapper- I have few shared values with the antis- and the general public.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 28, 2005 17:23:15 GMT -6
as a trapper- I have few shared values with the antis- and the general public.
Please explain?
Trapping is a privlage and not a right, we live were a democracy rules. As outdoorsman we don't share alot of values with anti's or the general public, but empathy better be on your list or hunters and trappers will always be fighting an uphill battle, with alot more to lose than gain. You are part of the general public you just happen to trap! We are small in numbers and that makes us a minority! No one is saying to fold tman to make things appear any different, in fact the BMP's have showed we can trap critters and be as humane as we can be, while still using the foothold trap. What more could you ask for? WE have proven through science that our traps can/will perform to standards, set by all involved. That is showing empathy and that will go along ways toward helping us educate the middle (general public). If you think we can continue on as we have in the past and keep trapping rights in many states I think your looking at this through rose colored glasses my man. WE been there done that and it has done nothing, but have more questioning our motives and thought process, like it or not tman, the general non trapping public holds our rights as trappers in there hands, should any state decide to have a state bill against trapping, you best have good sound facts, scientific evidance, and show some empathy towards the critters we pursue, no one has stated not to tell the story as it is, but do it with not comming off as someone who doesn't care about the critter, and the statement you made :talk to most trappers- "I'm killing it in the morning- so what?" Won't get you much support against any anti trapping bill that may come your way! WE all kill our intended quarry nothing wrong with stating such, and no one is saying hide that or be ashamed, just do it in a positive light not negative, that meaning the way the non trapping public can justify in there minds that death is part of the overall betterment of the population. Many,many more word choices to be had than your quote, that could mean more people on our side than the anti's. The study has been done, who the public trust most and least when dealing with the trapping issue, I have posted it, Hamilton has done the same, we either change that study through good communication, allow our state biologist to do it for us, or face loosing more states to the antis', which one of those 3 choices do you pick? Your one hard headed individual I'll give you that ;D
|
|
|
Post by Hamilton on Mar 28, 2005 17:23:39 GMT -6
Who cares about sharing values with the "Anti-trappers" ... Animal Rights folks... but you had better care about the values of the general public (shared or not ... you need to have someone on your side that communicates to them, with credibility). THAT is your future.
If not, say goodby to regulated trapping as you know it.
And a comment about "Government Trappers" .... we need them, but not at the same time loosing the public that is allowed to trap.... (ie fur trappers). We do not want to become Europe. We are now down to about 145,000 trappers in the United States ... we need to do everything we can to maintain the service they provide.... hence, BMPs.
The general public and their attitudes and actions.... ballot initiatives or through your DNR regulations ....determine if you trap or not.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 28, 2005 18:51:48 GMT -6
Curious- do you see many referendums and legislative changes being brought by "the general puiblic"? Or is it being done by the organised by the anti groups? The same groups that want to end fishing? Will the bmps help there?
actually- in MN trapping is a RIGHT not a privlage- at least according to our state constitution.
Because I don't agree with the coon bmps- I don't concern myself with the welfare of animals? A pretty broad statement.
Tell me how suite trapping incorporates the welfare of animals.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 28, 2005 19:57:31 GMT -6
Curious- do you see many referendums and legislative changes being brought by "the general puiblic"? Yes anyone is part of the general public, next when it is brought up by the anti's still apart of the general public, those that you see as the general public are the ones who vote yeh or neh!!!!! Without many more yeh's you loose!!!! Ask the general public of Arizona, Colorado, Mass, Washington state, they the GENERAL PUBLIC VOTED TO OUTLAW TRAPPING!!! If you think that all votes aginst trapping where done strictly by anti's in these states your dead wrong, because studys show only 8-10% are true anti's!
actually- in MN trapping is a RIGHT not a privlage- at least according to our state constitution. Really? Don't you think there could be an amendment to your state constitution by public vote?
Because I don't agree with the coon bmps- I don't concern myself with the welfare of animals? A pretty broad statement. Not saying that, going off of your quote, "who cares they will be dead by morning anyway? Ask 100 people what they think of that quote, the so called middle of the mix general public, see if they convey animal welfare with that statement?
Tell me how suite trapping incorporates the welfare of animals.
If you mean a mixed bag, there isn't much that can be done if a fox makes it's way into your coyote trap, nore no way to say a coon makes it into your mink,coyote or fox trap, but we are showing we are using equipment for the intended target species, that takes animal welfare into mind, again showing empathy thats key! By using the best equipment we show we care about animal welfare.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 28, 2005 20:31:52 GMT -6
Dave- I'm bowing out of this one- we are just going round and round. You are trying to convince me black is white- so to speak- and when the data contradicts my own results- I have a hard time accepting the data.
Feel free to continue to post about the bmps-
why not start a poll- see what the trappers here really think/ 1) I will accept only the bmps standard of animals welfare or 2) I will, as a legal trapper, access my own standards.
tc- our PUBLIC passed in a couple years ago with well over 70% in favor.
What will be, will be...cya
|
|
|
Post by Jarhead620 on Mar 29, 2005 7:21:51 GMT -6
I've got to run now, but when I get back I'll throw out my take on BMP's.
We may not like all the results, but I'll defend the science with anyone. The protocols TESTED TRAPS, NOT TRAPPERS, despite all the misguided statements to the contrary.
More later.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 29, 2005 7:28:44 GMT -6
tested traps- not techniques? not so- why do you think that? Read Hamiltons posts-
are you say "trap setting protocal" is DIFFERENT then "techniques"?
the real point is that only CERTAIN techniques were tested.
and I'll debate THAT with anyone.
suite trapping: I've read many, many times- that coyote trappers catch a lot of coon (and other incidentals) in their coyote sets. I too find this to be true.
but "they" say- well, I'm trying for coyotes....also meaning "I could give a crap about the coon- let the chips or toes fall where they may"?
sugar coat things all you want- THATS the reality.
I'd sure like to debate that also.
any "suite" trapping approval is NOT looking out for the welfare of the other animals. What does that say to the public?
True "looking out for the welfare" would be only setting a trap that would be animane to the smallest or most vulnerable anmals out there.
And in coyotes- this would be skunks, possums and coon- ALL suffering major damage when taken in coyote traps. Too bad, huh? You are after coyotes.
So lets not be TOO santimonious.
Most coyote trappers that trap with skunks, possums and coon using APPROVED coyote traps do more damage to the incidentals than any coon trapper does to coon. IMNSHO, of course.
Suite trapping- is only a cop out to appease trappers.
|
|
|
Post by Edge on Mar 29, 2005 9:56:39 GMT -6
**Ask the general public of Arizona, Colorado, Mass, Washington state, they the GENERAL PUBLIC VOTED TO OUTLAW TRAPPING!!! If you think that all votes aginst trapping where done strictly by anti's in these states your dead wrong,**
WTF.
Rather than spewing bullchit,why not ACTUALLY READ THE NUMBERS OF VOTES CAST......then compare that to the number of liscensed trappers in each state,PARTICULARLY the ones who didnt bother to become aware that their rights were about to be infringed upon.
TRAPPERS are wholly responsible for losing trapping rights,period;not by action,but by INACTION.
As minors we could be considered victims,as adults we are volunteers.
Edge
Edited to appease the syntax crew and those easily distracted.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 29, 2005 10:03:26 GMT -6
The soccer moms are as against killing bambi as they are trapping- bmps won't matter a hoot.
and a soccer mom- in this case a man who is a state legislator in Montana- tried to use the the bmps to further restrict trapping rights.
|
|
|
Post by Edge on Mar 29, 2005 10:29:15 GMT -6
TMan,for some unknown reason we are agreeing on this issue...............
**in this case a man who is a state legislator in Montana- tried to use the the bmps to further restrict trapping rights.**
Absopreciselyeffinlutely.
And we have YET,once the BMP's ARE established,to see the counter BMP's from all the bunny hugging left wing flits....I mean if we adopt ONE study as Gospel...we adopt them all,right?
And I dont think for a MINUTE that hsus or peta will have a moments trouble in finding an all too accomodating "professional" trapper to do *their* study.
Edge
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 29, 2005 11:02:43 GMT -6
i DID see a blue moon last night.....
|
|
|
Post by FWS on Mar 29, 2005 11:12:22 GMT -6
Have you ever fought a ballot initiative ?
|
|
|
Post by Edge on Mar 29, 2005 11:21:15 GMT -6
**i DID see a blue moon last night....**.
I always wondered if it was *actually * blue.......or just a fiugre of speech.......
FWS;Rather than detracting from the thread;I will edit my response;the answers you seek can be found within the AZTrappers Assoc tho.
Edge
|
|
|
Post by Edge on Mar 29, 2005 11:24:47 GMT -6
**Have you ever fought a ballot initiative ? **
You already know the answer to that.......it was discussed ad nauseum a few months back.
Edge
|
|
|
Post by Jarhead620 on Mar 29, 2005 18:53:56 GMT -6
Steve, I was the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service representative to the ISO Trap Standards Committee and also to a committee that dealt with the EU issue at the US Trade Representatives Office during the early 90's. After I retired from the Service in early 1993 I was reappointed as the NTA's representative to the ISO Committee, a position which I still hold, although the Committee has been pretty much inactive for several years. I was involved in that capacity and as a member of the NTA EC during the negotiations over the threatened EU fur ban. Though some will argue the point, I agree with you that the EU proposal was the impetus that accelerated the BMP process. I do not consider myself a BMP expert though because I have not kept up with process since I concluded my final term as Conservation Director in 2000.
I have made one statement since the BMP testing began and no one has or can convince me otherwise. That is, the 1.5 coilspring will never achieve any reasonably acceptable injury score on coon regardless of the protocol or technique used, and without regard to who the trapper is. This is primarily because coons are able to chew on their feet below the jaws of this trap. Some have argued that the coon causes this damage, not the trap. This is a useless point though because self mutilation by coons is trap induced and therefore must be included in arriving at the injury score. I have yet to see a coon sitting on a log chewing on his foot, unless it had a trap attached to it. I believe you disagree with me on this, but it is my opinion and it is strongly held.
Larry
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 30, 2005 7:51:12 GMT -6
That is, the 1.5 coilspring will never achieve any reasonably acceptable injury score on coon regardless of the protocol or technique used, and without regard to who the trapper is. This is primarily because coons are able to chew on their feet below the jaws of this trap.
I agree- with some provisions.
1) by following old school techniques and refusing to use other methods- you are correct.
2) testing trappers not traps- while it has a nice ring to it- is a misleading statement at best.
It's meant to sound scientific- that controls are in place to make the results above reproach. Yet- what is "a protocol"
I'd really like this definition as its key to my arguement.
As far as a coon ALWAYS chewing...let me ask a simple quesion...
and I'd like all it's implications thought about....
What would happen, if you put a 1.5 coil on a coons foot...and walked him around by a chain.
Would he chew?
If you think yes- then this discussion has no place to go.
but if you said- "of ocurse the answer is obvious- the coon would have no time or inclination to chew"...we have a basis for discussion of other methods.
|
|
|
Post by Jarhead620 on Mar 30, 2005 10:17:38 GMT -6
Steve, I believe that the BMP protocols tested the traps, not trappers, in regard to injuries. The NTA retest of 1.5 coils for coon yielded virtually the same injury scores as the tests devised by the Furbearer Resources Technical Workgroup. This was despite the NTA's prior contention that if they removed certain variables the injury scores would drop significantly.
Certain standardized techniques may lower scores to a small degree, but the standard 1.5 coil will never score below 55 points or any level that could reasonably be considered to be acceptable and credible.
I know you have caught a lot more coons than I have, but I've caught enough of them over the last 60 years to convince me that I'm correct in this evaluation.
I don't know if leading a coon around with a trap on his foot would keep him from chewing indefinately or not. I've never tried that, so you've got me there, LOL.
Larry
|
|