|
Post by DanTanner on Nov 6, 2005 4:08:57 GMT -6
The survey requesting FTA member's comments on FTA's involvement with the BMPs is now available online and will be in the next Fur Taker. Encourage members to complete the survey. I think this is a great thing as it shows the FTA is concernd what its members think. here is the link for some BMP history www.furtakersofamerica.com/bmphistory.htmand here is the link for the survey www.furtakersofamerica.com/bmpsurvey.htm
|
|
|
Post by dj88ryr on Nov 6, 2005 7:37:23 GMT -6
I have moved this very important survey to the trapping board for maximum exposure. Please show the FTA that we appreciate all that they are doing for us, and the fact that they actually WANT to hear from us trappers.
I hope everyone participates, this is a great idea and shows trappers that FTA IS interested in what their members think. Unlike the NTA who couldn't care less what their members think. FTA is fast becoming the premier trappers organization and relegating NTA to the trash heap where they belong.
|
|
|
Post by walkercoonhunter(Aaron L.) on Nov 6, 2005 20:11:37 GMT -6
just filled out my survey
|
|
|
Post by bblwi2 on Nov 7, 2005 10:59:09 GMT -6
I completed the survey the day it was posted. I just joined the FTA this summer. I would like to see the BODs BMP statement prior to this survey. I would also then like to see what and if there are changes to their position(s) based on the survey and other information the BOD and others gather.
I may not agree with the stances that are taken in all cases, but being allowed the opportunity to have input is really an empowering feeling.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by dj88ryr on Nov 7, 2005 12:20:01 GMT -6
Bryce, The FTA has been upfront with the membership on their stance about this issue. I can only think of one reason for them to go through the trouble of developing this survey, and that is to find out what their membership wants them to do. You are right, isn't it great to belong to an organization that gives everyone a chance to speak, without sending out their puppets first to tell you what they want you to say.
|
|
|
Post by bobwendt on Nov 8, 2005 9:49:30 GMT -6
puppets? try thugs.
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Nov 22, 2005 22:57:03 GMT -6
"I would like to see the BODs BMP statement prior to this survey."
Bryce, I am unsure as to what statement you are referring to. There is a link posted to a list of past history events leading up to this survey. It is my understanding that the FTA wants to be sure of the memberships desires (basically this a poll/vote of the membership)concerning this issue before continueing any further. Make no mistake........the BMP on its current course WILL AFFECT TRAPPING and wildlife mangement as you know it.
|
|
|
Post by country4us on Mar 23, 2006 7:44:22 GMT -6
The results of the FTA BMP survey are now available online at furtakersofamerica.com You may still complete the survey if you have not already done so. You can find it on the website.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi2 on Mar 23, 2006 8:59:39 GMT -6
I got my Fur Taker Mag and read the results and editorials in the Magazine. This issue of the Fur Taker is devoted to education. That is an interesting serendipity. The original intent of BMPS was education. Now there may be several that do not agree with that original or stated intention. To date the BMPs have conducted research in 35 states, utilizing 360 trappers, 45 field biologists and over 176,000 trap nights. This is a lot of information that was never collected before. Of the over 9,000 animals that were captured 92.5% were fur bearers!!! The real statement here to the non trapping public and antis is we don't catch many non targets. Domestics were 4.1% total with 1.6 canines and 2.5 % cats. To me the real value of BMPs is this type of knowledge, we don't trap domestics and animals are able to be released and recover. Of the 4.6 million spent to date 1 million is from states and the other 3.6 million is from the USDA. Note no trapper and or sporting agency funds. I have been a cautious supporter of the BMP process as I believe in the educational value of the process. The leaders of the trapping organizations have and do have many concerns and maybe rightfully so. We pay money and offer input to each of you to do what you feel is right. I have no problem with the trapping fraternity leadership to want to have input and to offer direction and make sure we have a voice and our best interests are upheld. I don't however support the wholesale bashing of a process that at no cost to us to date has prov en better than any other material that I have seen we don't catch many domestics and we can operate reasonably affectively in the modern World we live and still harvest fur. I know there are many of you who have a general mistrust of agencies and government and that is why it is so essential that you get back to the table to seek, ask , question and review. If we find you are correct there needs to be a sizable and unified approach to communicating to all trappers, if there is no real conspiracy going on we need to recognize that also and create the best scenario for trappers that we can have and also offer our harvested animals the most humane treatment available.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 23, 2006 9:56:54 GMT -6
"To me the real value of BMPs is this type of knowledge, we don't trap domestics and animals are able to be released and recover."
yet- thats not published in any bmp I've read.
and while those 9000 animals sound impressive- not all of them were target catches. Break that down to all the testing -and you get the 25, 35, animal samples per trap- and thats worthless info- might as well flip a coin.
First night I ran the #11 double jawed- Gods gift to trappers as a bmp trap- 9 out of the first 10 coon trapped in April had severe chewing damage including 2 DEAD coon. First time I've ever had that happen. Could I conclude the #11 causes death? (staked like the bmps- no entanglement, water/land access, 24 inch chain, shockspring, etc) What that shows you- is small sample mean not much.
I was absolutely shocked when I heard how few coyotes were actually captured in the WI study- and now this study is the new CR bible. Anyway you look at it- the WI study WAS and is BEING ACCEPTED as a bmp.
Not sure if you were inferring that the FTA was bashing the bmps. I read all the editorials and chicks letter- and didn't see that.
What I saw was an increasing intolerance for lack of input, for lack of accurate information- indeed, intolerance for te whole process.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi2 on Mar 23, 2006 13:02:18 GMT -6
Steve, The information I wrote in that post was given at our state WTA spring meeting by our fur bearer specialist John Olsen.
I understand all of the concern about the BMPS and the traps, lack of catches whether they are government trappers etc. etc. All that discussion is not where I need to be with my limited knowledge. What surprises me is why we are trappers are not using some of the results to help in our non trapping public relations. We would have trained biologists talking about 92% non domestic catches. No a fur bearer whether that was a mink, rat, otter, or coon in your pocket set well that is a trapper issue ,not a non trapping public issue. There seems to me to be many parts of these studies (even though most trappers feel they are poor) that can be used when addressing the public on matters such as trapping, trapping in public road ways and or on public land. The BMPs on injuries, trap scores etc. well that is legitimate areas for discussion, disagreement, study and compromise if needed and from both sides. When I read articles and statements about not being invited, not being paid attention to not listened to etc.; yes like anyone I find that disturbing. On the other hand be it NTA, FTA, SRI whom ever to not be able to maintain a presence or keep ourselves involved is a demonstration of lack of leadership ability to keep engaged, and leadership is what we ask for when we join and donate to these organizations. Steve you mentioned that you were surprised at the amount of information on body grippers on coon. Well the work on those is being done by Canada. Also the Canadians basically gave away the foothold trap by trying to comply quickly with the EU. The USA on the other hand by doing these studies and taking some time still have foothold traps and we need to recognize that even w/o trapper input we still have them. That to me means we should be able to work with those in this process to better trappers and trapping. The fact that these documents will change over time to me is the strongest selling point to not have states use them as regs. Who wants to change regs every two years? The fact that we can include new designs and inventions on a regular basis is really a good thing. I think we should be looking at the good of the BMPs , pulling that out and saying yes to that and then work on the continuous improvement issues. If trapper organizations can't get their maybe they can get together and agree on a designated spokesperson who can get there for the discussion and input.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 23, 2006 15:14:12 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 23, 2006 15:30:40 GMT -6
The BMPs on injuries, trap scores etc. well that is legitimate areas for discussion, disagreement, study and compromise if needed and from both sides
yet this is not and will not happen- which has been my contention along.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 23, 2006 15:46:42 GMT -6
Bryce hit the nail on the head! You can't be involved or make change without bellying up to the table. Those that want to bash and stick their heads in the sand and find the majority of the BMP's as "out to get trapping" and backlash as every juncture are the ones that will never see the good aspects of it all.
Your contention is not with the scores because they could be changed or modified and you still would not be happy with the outcome, unless they fit your "needs" to the tee. That is not realistic as we have been over that before, you can not change the score species to species to custom fit the "tool" as you then put value of one species over the other. It all could be said with everyone else and their outlook on the whole matter, without it having direct benefit to them their will be those that look for no other positives in this unless their is self gratification.
You do not change a grading system to achieve desired results in students, you make the students achieve to their highest potential with the grading system that is in place or you are falsely showing improvement that is not really their.
Same can be said for the BMP"s we have the score criteria and the species are then held to that score the change is with the equipment, we could set the bar some higher but would "ALL" traps still make a passing mark? If they do then what is the sense in finding out what traps truly perform at a higher level? If the Auto industry has a set of protocol for a 5 star crash test rating they don't change the protocol to fit the vehicles being tested, they have the vehicles being tested redesigned to get the 5 star rating.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Mar 23, 2006 16:09:14 GMT -6
Its obvious you have not read Fur Taker. I suggest you do so, and then you will know whats going on.
I think you over simply it a little- I'm against bad protocal, foolish injury scores- and improper methods.
DO it right- and then the results will be as least legit. Do it WRONG- as has been done- and its simply malformed data.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 23, 2006 16:42:48 GMT -6
DO it right- and then the results will be as least legit. Do it WRONG- as has been done- and its simply malformed data.
Tell me your perfect outcome for doing the BMP's RIGHT? Tell me what is not legit in the studies done? I don't oversimplify I don't live in the "gray" world and don't over analyze things until their dead.
while those 9000 animals sound impressive- not all of them were target catches. Break that down to all the testing -and you get the 25, 35, animal samples per trap- and thats worthless info- might as well flip a coin
Please explain?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 23, 2006 16:48:57 GMT -6
how many times do I have to repeat the same thing. the coom bmps are crap- they were done wrong- any coon trapper with an IQ above 20 knows that thier methods are THE NUMBER ONE REASONS RACCOON CHEW.
Why be stupid and design your protocval to get maximum chewing- without even using as a base the other methods?
I cannot be any more clearer than that.
If you want to champion a bogus study- all you do is discredit the legit studies.
More and more trappers are becoming disillusioned by the bmps - thats a fact.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 23, 2006 17:01:13 GMT -6
I'm not looking for you to have any other outlook,as the Coon BMP went wrong in your mind so you decide to badmouth the entire concept and data that has been published to date.
Again I'm all for trying new protocols for a new coon BMP, but are trappers willing to see that the traps then pass by methods and not trap type, and you can not say that the fox,coyote BMP's had any methodolgy that isn't the norm for the majority of trappers.
It is the tool that has the main focus placed upon it, not the methods the wider the varity of methods with a passing score the better the tool. Clear and simple. I can get a #3 to pass if I put it inside of a box and not allow the coon to chew, yet is the #3 a great coon trap? No the method is what changed the outcome and again then were does the #3 fall into place as a coon trap? If you want the methods changed then so be it, but it would be noted as such I'm sure. It passed under these guidlines, if trappers could live with such wording, which many would complain at that too then try and achieve that goal.
I have never stated all is perfect, but I also feel strongly that the BMP's offer trappers far more in PR and good data than it has against it by a wide margin.
Trappers are disillusioned because alot don't take the time or write emails to the very people involved in the process and want to remain statis quoe. If you read anti sentiment long enough you will belive it, factual or not unless you do your own research on any matter.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 23, 2006 17:33:52 GMT -6
I sometimes wonder if yo uhave read any of my posts. I've said so many times I'm tired of saying it- that the coyote bmps can stand or fall on their own merits.
I'm talking coon- here, there, foremost, first and always.
Please tell me how you as a coon trapper, can defend not holding coon in water? To not give them surrounding cover and overhead cover- and still expect good results. Its outlandish is what it is.
place a coyote on a 20 foot staked chain- tell me if the trpa would pass. Remember- shoulder strains, torn muscles, warts, etc are all counted.
What I call methods, you call commonsense in coyotes- but you won't extend the same thing to coon? That perhaps coon trappers might know a little bit more about coon then the bmp committee.
Their protocal shows a complete lack of knowledge of coon and coon trapping- and I don't care WHO trapped them- its the protocal that is skewed.
and thats not an opinion- thats fact.
Defend the coyote bmps-
but why insist on defending a bmp that can't pass the test of having light put upon it?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 23, 2006 18:34:15 GMT -6
OK lets try this one last time. Tell me what protocol the traps that did pass would fail under? Would not the Lil' Griz, the dbl jaw 1.5, the coon guard 1.5 all pass under any protocol a coon trapper would use?
My next point is alot of coon trappers set traps under bridges, along bank shelves, dry land trap them and they stake them solid, not caring for cover or no cover if the coon tracks say they are crossing,feeding etc there they will plant a trap. That is what I did, I trapped coons where they told me to. To say "all" coon trappers or a very high% drag coons with logs with cover close by is not what I have seen coon trappers do on a wide scale. You have places as Central Iowa that are farm fields,drainage ditches and little cover or trees to drag with they stake them solid, parts of Illinois are the same way. I'm sure people down south do the same.
I don't believe those to be involved as having a bias against the 1.5 reg jaw trap, I also don't see the people involved as being morons or know nothing about coons either.
I will bold this: I don't care on how many protocols they use on a coon BMP, but to state that the 1.5 can pass the majority of coon trapping situations you and I both know that is not factual. It is the trap and the room under the jaws and the hold of the coon that dictates the outcome just as much as protocol. So to state that either staked or dragged cover or no cover the 1.5 reg jaw gets the passing score would be false, I tend to think some would like to see a new protocol and then have the trap passed with no stipulations other than it passing. Is that honest to the testing?
I want the 1.5 to pass in some way, shape or form for the sake of the entire BMP, You also detract from traps like the Lil Griz and the dbl jaw and the coon guard traps, and if you are about holding coon in water why wouldn't you use a dbl jawed 1.5 or1.5 coon guard trap in this scenario and have the best of both worlds, staked solid little problems,dragged little problems,drowning wire no problems?
The suggestions contained in this BMP include practices, equipment, and techniques that raccoon trappers can voluntarily incorporate into their trap line. These practices will improve the welfare of trapped animals, avoid unintended captures of other animals, improve public confidence in trappers and wildlife managers, and maintain public support for trapping and wildlife management.
They also state shallow water as a plus in the coon BMP as well. I think this boils down to the 1.5 reg jaw is not a trap that can achieve passing marks over a broad area of protocol like other traps can and are designed to do, yet don't forget the words above voluntary, not mandatory.
|
|