the Olson Scale

[trappnman]

Does anyone have any knowledge of this study? In particular where it was conducted, when it was conducted, what animals were used in the tests and how were the tests conducted.

in other words- whats the science behind the 55 threshold limit?

and even more interesting to know- just for S & G- WHO is behind the science.

I have conducted an extensive search on the internet (and I'm no rookie at internet searches) and cannot find a thing.

I've directly asked this specific question multiple times on other threads- and can get no answer of any kind.

Any help will be deeply appreciated. Links, publications, etc.

If I turn up misisng, check for reports of black helicopters....

[Jarhead620]

Steve,
I've requested details on the Olsen injury scale from Tom Krause. Tom is the Chairman of the ISO Trap Standards Committee. We used this scale during the early days of the work of this Committee, but I can't remember how the scale was derived. Dave Hamilton would also be familiar with it, I believe. I'll post whatever I find out.

Larry

[trappnman]

Thank you Larry!

I was hoping Dave would provide some insight, but no answer on the many times I've directly asked- maybe just too busy.

[Hamilton]

Hang on gang ... working on a response ... hope to post it by the end of the day, or in the morning.

Many, many details, and want to get it right.

[Hamilton]

The Olsen Scale- This is from a paper published in 1986, and although not the first paper to quantify injuries to animals in traps, it became the standard for a couple of trap research projects of national importance.

The paper is called “Injuries to Coyotes Caught in Padded and Unpadded Steel Foothold Traps”, written by Glenn Olsen (DVM), Sam Linhart, Robert Holmes (DVM), Gary Dasch, and Clyde Male. It was published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin (14:219-223, 1986).

Coyotes were trapped by Gary Dasch and Clyde Male in southern Texas and eastern Colorado during the fall and winter of 1983-84 in the Victor 3 NR, the most common coyote control trap being used at that time. Coyotes were also captured with the relatively-new Victor No. 3 Soft-Catch trap, and two other padded double long-spring traps.

The results from those comparisons aren’t the significance of the research; the numerical scale that was developed in order to compare injuries of coyotes taken in different types of traps was the significant contribution.

This scale was slightly modified in 1988 in a paper by Glenn Olsen, Greg (Robert) Linscombe, Vernon Wright, and Robert Holmes, called “Reducing Injuries to Terrestrial Furbearers by Using Padded Foothold Traps” (Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:303-307).

This is the well-known 9-state study of trap injuries. Again, the lasting significance was the numerical scale that they modified and improved, and statements made about the significance of the injuries…. Qualitative statements were very limited, for sure “Scores for limb injury >50 points indicate serious damage, and those >125 are considered severe damage (on a point scale from 0 to 400 points). Reduction in serious or severe injuries should be 1 goal of any new trap.”<br>
Both studies showed significant reduction of the severity of injuries using padded traps, although for raccoons, the difference was only slight.

Here’s the Olsen Scale from 1986:

Injury Description Points Scored

Apparently normal 0
Edematous swelling and hemorrhage 5
Cutaneous laceration (<2 cm long) 5
Cutaneous laceration (>2 cm long) 10
Tendon and ligament laceration 20
Joint subluxation 30
Joint luxation 50
Compression fracture above or below
carpus or tarsus 30
Simple fracture at or below carpus or tarsus 50
Compound fracture at or below
carpus or tarsus 75
Simple fracture above carpus or tarsus 100
Compound fracture above carpus or tarsus 200
Amputation 400

Here’s the Revised Olsen Scale from 1988:

Injury Description Points Scored

Apparently normal 0
Edematous swelling and hemorrhage 5
Cutaneous laceration (<2 cm long) 5
Cutaneous laceration (>2 cm long) 10
Tendon and ligament laceration 20
Joint subluxation 30
Joint luxation 50
Compression fracture above or below
carpus or tarsus 30
Simple fracture at or below carpus or tarsus 50
Compound fracture at or below
carpus or tarsus 75
Simple fracture above carpus or tarsus 100
Compound fracture above carpus or tarsus 200
Amputation of digits
1 digit 50
2 digits 100
3 digits 150
4-5 digits 200
Amputation above digits 400

Beginning in 1986, a large effort was undertaken to define International Humane Trap Standards though the ISO. ISO (the International Organization for Standardization) is a worldwide federation of national standards bodies (ISO member bodies). The work of preparing International Standards is normally carried out through ISO technical committees; in this case, Technical Committee ISO/TC 191. The effort included many countries, went on for many years, and has a history that is hard to believe. By 1993, TC 191 had 15 countries, including the U. S. and several EU countries. In 1994, Animal Rights activists replaced scientist is some countries, and TC 191 became a quagmire. Sometime, I’ll post a short history of that work …makes for some interesting discussion.

The bottom line is, in the end, TC/191 did eventually pass an international standard, called ISO 10990-5; Animal (mammal) traps- Part 5: Methods for testing restraining traps. This happened in 1999, but the draft standards had been in place since about 1995, and that is the scoring system we adopted in the BMP program.

The ISO document is about 21 pages long, and most of it deals with protocol and ways of measurement, etc….

Although the Olsen scale wasn’t even referenced in the final document, many of the attributes of the system adopted have similarity to the Olsen scale.

Here’s Annex C (Informative)

Trauma Scale- Example 1

Pathological observations Score (points)
Mild Injuries
Claw loss 2
Oedematous swelling of haemorrhage 5 (max 15)
Minor cutaneous laceration 5
Minor subcutaneous soft tissue maceration of erosion (contusion) 10
Major cutaneous laceration, except on foot pads or tongue 10
Minor periosteal abrasion 10

Moderate trauma

Severance of minor tendon or ligament (each) 25
Amputation of one digit 25
Permanent tooth fracture exposing pulp cavity 30
Major subcutaneous soft-tissue maceration or erosion 30
Major laceration on foot pads or tongue 30
Severe joint haemorrage 30
Joint luxation at or below the carpus or tarsus 30
Major periosteal abrasion 30
Simple rib fracture 30
Eye lacerations 30
Minor skeletal muscle degeneration 30

Moderately Severe trauma

Simple fracture at or below the carpus or tarsus 50
Compression fracture 50
Comminuted rib fracture 50
Amputation of two digits 50
Major skeletal muscle degeneration 55
Limb ischemia 55

Severe trauma

Amputation of three or more digits 100
Any fracture or joint luxation on limb above the carpus or tarsus 100
Any amputation above the digits 100
Spinal cord injury 100
Severe internal organ damage (internal bleeding) 100
Compound or comminuted fracture at or below the carpus or tarsus 100
Severance of major tendon or ligament 100
Compound rib fractures 100
Ocular injury resulting in blindness of an eye 100
Myocardial degeneration 100
Death 100

There it is…. ISO did not make any threshold recommendations. Such judgements are left to the parties using this part of ISO 10990.

I'll check in tomorrow to discuss this with you. Catchya later.

[trappnman]

Thank you Dave!

So- the tests were done on coyotes.

"By 1993, TC 191 had 15 countries, including the U. S. and several EU countries. In 1994, Animal Rights activists replaced scientist is some countries, and TC 191 became a quagmire. Sometime, I’ll post a short history of that work …makes for some interesting discussion.

The bottom line is, in the end, TC/191 did eventually pass an international standard, called ISO 10990-5; Animal (mammal) traps- Part 5: Methods for testing restraining traps. This happened in 1999, but the draft standards had been in place since about 1995, and that is the scoring system we adopted in the BMP program

how many countries out of the 15 had animals activists leading the way? How much influence did they have on the final outcome?

[Hamilton]

Trappnman asked: " in other words- whats the science behind the 55 threshold limit?"

I assume you mean the BMP threshold, which is based on average cummulative trauma scores for an individual species captured in each trap type, using the ISO scale, not the Olsen scale.

The Olsen scale was based on a 400 point system, and the ISO scale is based on a 100 point scale, but due to the cummulative nature, scores can go up into the 300 or so point level for an individual animal. Average scores, for example, for raccoons in the 1 1/2 coil spring are among the highest measured for any species in any trap type where we have adequates samples, and they sometimes averaged over 100 points in some studies.

By changing the point system from 400 point scale to a 100 point scale changes some of the relationships between the injuries, based on their magnitude of damage. However, there are very few injuries on the Olsen scale over 100, so its not a big impact.

The threshold is the most critical question, and there is no way an agreed-upon threshold was going to make it through the ISO process.... so a measurement tool is what we ended up with.

The 55 threshold limit was agreed upon by the Fur Resources Technical Working Group, with input from many people. One can argue that this "threshold" is simply subjective. That is true. ANY threshold is somewhat subjective.

Some of us on the FRTWG argued against using ANY threshold to determine BMPs, and instead, we could simply publish the performance measurements, in a graphic way, maybe using symbols, sort of like a consumer report. Then trappers and agencies could view the data or symbols, and make selections based on their needs ... symbols would show relative performace in 5 areas- Animal Welfare, Efficiency, Selectivity, Practicality, and Safety.

This idea appeals to me, but I was in the minority, and after a couple of years debate, we settled in at the 55 point threshold. ... and the other criteria.

Remember, that for animal welfare, we have a two-step criteria, and it must meet both the 55 point cumulative score, and no less than 70% of the sample can have only mild or moderate injuries (no moderately severe or severe injuries).

55 points on the ISO scale is similar to the 50 point threshold proposed by Olsen et al and their scale.

55 points is also the break-point between moderate injuries and moderately-severe injuries.

55 points was arrived at during three different workshops for furbearer biologist that represented each state. Vets and trappers were consulted, trap experts from the NTA weighed in, and in the end, this threshold was selected as the BMP standard.

On another topic, even though the potential injury list on the ISO scale includes some 34 different injuries, only a few of these are regularly seen in the necropsies.

Tongue injuries ... I don't think we've ever seen one. Internal injuries are very rare (maybe never), as are eye lacerations, rib fractures, and dead animals in traps (exception is raccoons in water, due to hyperthermia).

We made a decision to not include the raccoons that died of hyperthermia in our analysis, although some disagree.

I will end here for awhile ... in another post, I'll try to put some perspective on the ISO process, how the EU Fur Regulation came into play, and the impact of the Animal Rights representation at these meetings.

[Hamilton]

Back to ISO for a second .... Trappnman asked about the impact of the Animal Rights folks who replaced scientists for some countries .... most of these were EU countries, England most notably, but others as well ... Denmark, The Netherlands, Belgium I think .... some South American countries.... I'll have to dig some of those details up from my files ... long forgotten some of those painful memories....

Their impact was highly significant to the process.... first of all, they did not want to improve trapping, they wanted to ban trapping. Naturally, they wanted absolutely NO injury of any kind in restraining traps, and wanted INSTANT DEATH in the killing traps- both of which are impossible.

We debated the word "Humane" for days on end, and in the end, it was removed.

I’ll back up a little for those who may not be aware of all that took place in those days.

One of the most unfortunate developments in the efforts to arrive at an acceptable International Humane Trap Standard was the initiation of the European Union’s Fur Regulation (banning the importation of fur from any of 13 listed furbearers- 12 were North American). This was passed by the European Commission in 1991, called EEC Regulation 3254/91. This had its roots in the EU Parliament, from Animal Rights Organizations in Europe … Lynx and the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW). They put incredible pressure on the EU Parliament, who thought this was a good idea, because it would garner them much public attention … like the Seal War did for them in the 1970s. With no cost to them, because in their minds, this was win/win. Get the animal rights folks off of their back, and get favorable public attention at the same time.

The EU Fur Regulation initially had two major effects: 1) Banned the use of all leghold traps (jaw type0 in all member countries in the EU, and 2) Ban the import of fur and fur products derived from a list of wild species from countries continuing to allow the use of jaw-type leghold traps.

As a result of intense lobbying by both Canadian government officials and the International Fur Trade Federation, the regulation was modified to recognize that an international effort was underway that would define “humane trapping” and the regulation would permit continued trade in furs from those countries whose trapping practices met internationally agreed upon humane trapping standards.

This is what happened … the ISO trap standards development was seen as the solution to the second option in the Regulation- import would be allowed, all Canada and others had to do was to adopt International Humane Trap Standards….. a logical approach for most countries involved with ISO TC 191 because it did not pre-judge which traps may be more humane nor did it set different levels of humaneness based upon either the reasons for trapping or the species being trapped.

Unfortunately, in 1992, some anti-fur groups, believing that no trap or trapping in general could be considered humane, realized that an ISO standard just might achieve the unthinkable- a system for measuring the relative degrees of humaneness in different traps. By late 1993, these groups were participating in TC/191 process with the objective of ensuring its failure. They wanted to ensure that a standard did not “institutionalize cruelty” by endorsing any traps as humane (except of course those that did no injury or killed instantly- none meet this standard).

In 1994, the membership at the technical meetings had changed dramatically; in some countries (EU primarily), scientists and biologists had been replaced or had been stifled by activists and the process of scientific discovery was no longer the driving force … “humane” was dropped from the language…. And then the EU Commission stated that if it didn’t include the name “Humane Trap Standards” then it would not meet their regulation…. In late 1995, it became obvious that the draft technical standards would not pass a final vote of the countries, so the decision was made to develop only a standard method for trap testing, without performance thresholds, and this effort finally was finished in 1999 with the ISO document referenced above.

Did the Animal Rights representatives influence the scores attributed to the list of injuries? I can’t really say for sure…. Not much. But they certainly held unrealistic ideals about how trapping can be accomplished, and the nature of the injuries. Their presence no doubt added to the list of potential injuries …. Those that are never seen on a trap line, for instance, came from European representatives.

I’d like to forget most of that period …. Extremely frustrating….. the NTA served as the Administrator of the United States technical committee (ANSI), and Tom Krause did one outstanding job of seeing that things were done fairly, and objectively as was possible, considering that we also had members on our committee that were Animal Rights Activists, who wanted nothing less than either no standard at all, or one that no traps would meet. Tom sacrificed personally in the effort … in court cases and hearings…. So did NTA.

In the end, Europe made a binding agreement with Canada and Russia, and the US made an “understanding” with Europe that is non-binding. While Europe says they have banned the use of leghold traps in their member states, I bought one 2 blocks from the EU Parliament building in 1996. To this day, they have not legally ratified the agreement, although there are efforts to do it now…. and it might just yet blow up yet again.

If you want the longer version of this whole episode, I’ll gladly send you a copy of a paper that we published back in 1998 called “The European Union’s Wild Fur Regulation: A Battle of Politics, Cultures, Animal Rights, International Trade and North America’s Wildlife Policy”. Coauthors were Dave Hamilton, Brain Roberts, Greg Linscombe, Neal Jotham, Howard Noseworthy, and James Stone. It was published in the Transactions of the Sixty-third North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. If you want a copy, contact me at [e-mail]

[trappnman]

legally ratified the agreement, although there are efforts to do it now

Excellent report dave- I'd order a copy from you- but think you most likely summed it up well.

However- I like to know more aobtu the statement o ntop.

Who is trying? How?

If successful- what will it mean.

also - If at least 1/2 of the countries i nvolved were riddled with animal activists, and several other countries had a vested interest (fur farms) in limiting/ending the wild fur trade- I'm thinking that with a majority vote on issues- the very least they could do would be to delay things, the worst is stack the deck with unrealistic goals.

And I think that what happened-

[Jarhead620]

Here's some more background info that I received from Tom Krause:

Larry: Been on vacation, just now looking at a few million emails. The
Olson Scale was originally devised by Glenn Olson. It was what we used when
FBU and John Kern did our our trap study that was completed in 1993 or 94.
The rest of the world did not agree with the Olson Scale in 94, that was
the ISO blowup in Ottawa. In 95 at the ISO meeting we sponsored in Denver,
a international work group was established to essentially tweak the Olson
Scale. That occurred at two meetings, one in Holland, the other in New
Zealand. Values were added and adjusted at those meetings to the form that
was finally agreed to in 1999. Importantly, there has always been some
discussion the scale isn't perfect and may be improved. Cathy Liss was
always concerned there were no measurements of stress, pain, fear or other
psychological measurements included. Most points were not belabored due to
the fact the scales were only informative and not normative, or in other
words did not set thresholds. The 55 points set by the BMP folks is
arbitrary but established at that point because 55 points also happens to
be the same rate as "severe" injury. The ISO Scale is quite a bit more
refined and enlarged over the Olson Scale, which really was the first scale
that appeared in the research literature. There really are three ISO
scales, one has simply points assigned to injuries (such as the Olson
Scale), the second classified injuries as mild, moderate, moderately
severe, and severe. The last scale asssigns how many of the lesser traumas
add up into a class entitled Mild, Moderate, Moderately Severe, or Severe.
Again, all three are informative only. Tom

[trappnman]

Importantly, there has always been some
discussion the scale isn't perfect and may be improved. Cathy Liss was
always concerned there were no measurements of stress, pain, fear or other
psychological measurements included. Most points were not belabored due to
the fact the scales were only informative and not normative, or in other
words did not set thresholds. The 55 points set by the BMP folks is
arbitrary but established at that point because 55 points also happens to
be the same rate as "severe" injury.

Point, set and match.

[Jarhead620]

Point, set and match.

No, Steve, the last set is still at deuce, LOL.

[trappnman]

LOL


I have to say, that I am not surprised on one hand that this is the makeup of the threshold and points system- yet on the oher hand am shocked that this is the makeup of the threshold points system.

To read this- Most points were not belabored due to
the fact the scales were only INFORMATIVE AND NOT NORMATIVE, or in other words DID NOT set thresholds.

then to realize that our entire bmp results were based on this "hard science" (or so we were led to believe) that in reality was not..is disturbing.

and the arguements that over and over made it sound like the "55" threshold was set in stone and could not be changed- was a sham.

we was duped!

[Hamilton]

Steve, I don't follow your statement ..."We was duped" ... please explain .... all along we have said that the 55 point threshold was set by the BMP folks.

Why the surprise? Thanks.

[trappnman]

Arbitrary means, to most people "selected at random and without reason".

to find out that the thresholds were 1) based on a scale (Olson) that was never meant to set thresholds and 2) was selected aribtrarily- did come as a surprise to me.

With the stout defense put up over "55" - one would have thought that there was a lot more science backing it up then there was. Not you- but others have alluded to the "55" threshold as being #11 on the tablets.

What I would still like to know is this:

1) what animals were tested

2) How

3) for what purpose.

since the only science involved in determining the 55 was based on this scale- it would behoove one to have a little more info on it. It seems apparent, from Tom Krauses remarks, that the Olson scale was never meant to be used in the way that the bmps determined to use it.

and since that seems to be the case- I see no valid arguement for determinng the threshold at "55"- and certainly no arguement for casting it in stone for all time.

I can also readily see that the numbers assigned to each injury- as well as classifications of mild, severe, etc-were also done in an arbitrary manner.

Once again- WHO assigned these values and WHY becomes of the utmost importance.

as to why I was duped- I thought, based on bmp arguements, that there was more real value to the ISO scales and the Olson scale than reality shows.

[Hamilton]

Hi Steve ... I think you might be a little confused by what Tom (via Larry) posted above.

You said ... "1) based on a scale (Olson) that was never meant to set thresholds and 2) was selected aribtrarily-"

When Tom said ... " Most points were not belabored due to the fact the scales were only informative and not normative, or in other words did not set thresholds. " ... this doesn't imply ... cannot be used to set thresholds.... the difference here is that due to the infusion of the Animal Rights activists to the makeup of the ISO TC/191, everyone knew (or hoped) that we'd never agree to the thresholds proposed, no matter where they were established.

Ultimately, establishing an International Threshold (International Humane Trap Standard) was the goal of the original formation of ISO TC/191, and at one point in about 1993, the goal was in sight. I can't speculate where it would have ended up on the ISO scale had the Animal Rights folks not got involved.... it would be pure speculation. One of the problems, was that there were not many published studies (or even unpublished data) to help guide the selection of a threshold at that time ... now, we have tons of data.

However, I would agree that it is hard or perhaps impossible to set a 100% objective standard, i.e. that being a standard being set irrespective of how modern traps perform, but based totally on the impacts of any trap on the animal (pain, suffering, injury, etc.).

The 55 was selected by a group of furbearer biologists, using data from trap studies on coyotes and raccoons, and looking at data from red foxes, bobcats, and a host of other species.... however, raccoon and coyote data was relied upon the most during those discussions.

Tom said ..."The 55 points set by the BMP folks is
arbitrary but established at that point because 55 points also happens to be the same rate as "severe" injury.

He meant "Moderately severe injuries" are included in the 55 points of trauma.

I would argue that this threshold isn't completely "Arbitrary".... i.e .... they are not random and without merit.

They are somewhat subjective. And the points attributed to each injury isn't completely objective in the sense that a claw loss scoring 2 points isn't necessarily 2% of the pain suffered compared to the amputation of 3 digits.... but in a relative sense, these scores reflect the best efforts of veterinarian pathologists and biologists to put together some method of comparison.

They are subjective, but not random.

They are based on experience (several years of trap research work by those most influential to the process), data using the ISO scoring system on quite a few trap types, careful consideration, input from NTA and other trapping experts, etc .... so they are not "arbitrary".

Set in stone?

I wouldn't say they are forever set in stone .... but I bet there won't be changes during the first edition of the BMPs.

[trappnman]

moderately severe?

trapping experts? NTA? veternarians? Wildlife biologists?

so- opinion.

Which is what I have stted all along- that the whole shebang is opinion- NOT sceince.

My opinion that 70 would be a good threshold has as much merit as 55.

and thats...arbitrary.

[trappincoyotes39]

The scale my be opinon, but doesn't make the rest opinon, it is all science!!! No different than humans and when an ER doctor ask you on a sclae of 1-10 how is the pain? One persons 10 might be the next guys 5 or 6, how many millions would you like to spend to get 100% scientific on the scale?
As stated doesn't mean it can't be used as a baseline and then let the science of the necocropys, tell you exactly what damage is done, and then use the baseline score to give you a pass/ fail.
Tman what science is behind a letter grading A-F? None ,but it was a nationaly agreed upon grading scale, no different than the BMP's it was a number agreed upon. Doesn't make the findings or actual damage showed not scientific, that is the meat of the issue.

[Hamilton]

Hi Steve- this discussion may seem a matter of semantics, but different words do have subtle but meaningful differences ....your definition of "Arbitrary" .... means, to most people "selected at random and without reason". I agree with that definition.

My word, "subjective" .... means... "modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background."

vs "objective" This would be ideal, that the threshold was arrived at by purely objective means.... "limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum."

I countered with "more subjective" ... or "not totally objective" because the choice of using 55 points is not random, nor without reason..... it was somewhat subjective.

If I said, pick a number between 0 and 100, and you blindly picked 70, then that would be arbitrary. But I bet your choice of 70 was selected because you think 55 is way too low.

You might argue that you like 70 better, and that is your opinion. That is fine, and I don't argue that you choice is arbitrary, because it isn't. You have seen the scores, and if you want the 1 1/2 coil spring to become a BMP trap, then you had better be advocating a score closer to 100 than to 55. Of course, dead raccoons score 100, so that wouldn't work very well would it?

The difficulty facing the group working on BMPs was to arrive at some criteria that would separate traps into two groups .... BMP traps and Non-BMP traps.

After long, long debate, and several different attempts, we came up with BMP criteria that everyone in the process agreed to.

It was an agreed upon threshold, based on the opinions of experienced professionals, trying hard to be objective, but realizing that when you pick a spot on the scale, everyone is influenced some by their experience and background.

How do you do it Objectively, using science?

Science doesn't provide decision criteria .... those are chosen by the users. I know of no plausable study design that would prove that 55 is a good threshold, but 60 points isn't.

I think all on the committee would say that a trap that scores 70 points is a long way from what we invision as a BMP trap..... 60 is close, and it would be difficult to live with 45 .....

Remember Steve, these are BMPs ..... Best Management Practices ..... not, "OK Management Practices" .... or ... just "Our Trapping Practices".

You can keep using what ever traps you choose to use, as long as your state fish and wildlife agency allows you to.... as long as your state fish and wildlife agency allows you to, or as long as the citizens in your state support your DNR.

BMPs are meant to show-case what we say to the public when we are asked .... "what steps have you all taken to see what effects traps have on the animals you catch, or what do you recommend to trappers who are just starting out?"

In other words, "how are you responding to our claim that trapping is inhumane?"

We are asked all the time ... "Are you responding to our concern about animal welfare? How?"

BMPs are not perfect.... and the 55 point threshold was chosen. ... but not arbitrarily nor without looking at data.

[trappnman]

TC- you have a very loose definition of "scientific". I think you are under the misconception that using the term, makes it so. A-F is as arbitrary a scale as you can find- and thats your model? LOL - more and more schools are going to other systems for the simple reason A-F is so aribitrary.

Dave- how are the bmps being showcased to the public? How are they helping us with the soccer moms?

I've seen zero mention of them in any state paper here, non on my national non trapping magazines, zip on radio and TV- in short- no mention of them insofar as the public goes in gaining awareness- in fact, I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of non interent, non convention trappers know zilch about them- let alone the public. heck- the majority of the public doesn't even know the govenor of teir state.

.One could come up with a strong case that the bmps are politically motivated for one reaon only- to appease the EU.

"modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background" and "it was somewhat subjective"


I'll accept that definition- cause bottom line- it comes down to opinion.