|
Post by trappnman on Mar 23, 2006 19:02:17 GMT -6
TC- the fact that few other trappers care enough to reduce chewing by using correct methods, is sad but really not the point.
Good point- holding coon in shallow water- we all do it- a lot.. Not allowed under the coon bmps.
heres a question on coyotes- wouldn't a #1 longspring pass 100% in all areas with all trappers?
as far as the #11 OFFSET trap that passed- don't know if they would be qualified as a moron or not for thinking such a trap is an effcient coon trap- perhaps so.
So your point then is obviously- make the worst possible protocal, then the few traps that pass- will work anywhere and in every condition? Gee, even the coyote bmps didn't go that far.
And I thought the goal was to get animane traps and methods- not to fail as many traps as possible.
|
|
|
Post by foxtrapperwoman on Mar 23, 2006 21:50:00 GMT -6
An offset #11? he he he thats crazy!
The only traps I have ever had a coon in without toe chewing are the lil griz and #1 northwoods coils. A few exceptions in bigger traps like a 1.5 have occurred, a coon not chewing at its paw at all! But mostly ALL chewed!
The worst I ever saw and steve feel free to delete this portion of the post later if you think the wrong eyes are here, was a few cases of coons chewing their leg above the lil griz! 2 were bad too. I asked the maker ( gary?) about this and he said it could be that my area has real scrappy coons, scrappier than other regions. The best ever is coons in drowning sets, down the slider and no fuss no muss.
|
|
|
Post by bblwi on Mar 23, 2006 22:00:29 GMT -6
thanks for the comments and replies. The intent of my posts are not to demonstrate knowledge, approval, disapproval or best outcomes. I am basically thinking out loud or "communicating" if you will my thoughts. It is my hope that continual dialog will help others in positions of authority, power etc. to find ways to bring all the stakeholders back to some common ground.
I spend time here relating to trappers. Who are the key persons to contact in on the other side of the table that may be willing to some constructive criticism as to why BMPS are so rudely welcomed by many trappers and most associations.
Bryce
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 24, 2006 13:44:39 GMT -6
Good point- holding coon in shallow water- we all do it- a lot.. Not allowed under the coon bmps. Tman did you even read the coon BMP? It states setting in shallow water as a plus!!!!! You need to read it all not just bits and peaces.
heres a question on coyotes- wouldn't a #1 long spring pass 100% in all areas with all trappers?
NO! Because it would never make it through the efficiency scoring!
So your point then is obviously- make the worst possible protocol, then the few traps that pass- will work anywhere and in every condition? Gee, even the coyote bmps didn't go that far.
No not my point at all, you miss it each time! The traps that hold coons or any other critter well with the least amount of damage over a broad set of protocol is going to shake out in testing as the best traps! Leave out all the tools? How many foothold traps besides the reg jaw 1.5 was left out? remember living documents and the fact that they state it as voluntary, you can leave out things not tested yet can't you?
And I thought the goal was to get animane traps and methods- not to fail as many traps as possible.
As many traps as possible, please let me know the list as you state: many traps that failed ,that were tested? It is the goal, you think the USDA and state Game agency's are in this to outlaw or restrict away trapping? Please tell me the "facts" you have to support this? Outside of the 1.5 not passing tell me as a whole on the BMP's process in the testing done to date were all the failing traps are, tell me where the out of line testing is, what BMP can I find this in?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 24, 2006 14:16:54 GMT -6
Good point- holding coon in shallow water- we all do it- a lot.. Not allowed under the coon bmps. Tman did you even read the coon BMP? It states setting in shallow water as a plus!!!!! You need to read it all not just bits and peaces.
Sorry- I was specifically told by Dave Hamilton that coon could not be held in water, that it wasn't "humane" according to the vet council, and ALL coon sets are allowed free access to land.
Thats just a fact.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 24, 2006 15:21:43 GMT -6
That may have been at the time but did you read the coon BMP in it's final draft? It states that it would be benfical to selectivity in trapping coons. So does that mean their was some give and take from the BMP Committe? You mean they actually moved on something benefical to coon trappers? Imagine that.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 24, 2006 15:43:54 GMT -6
tell me exactly what you are reading- what page and paragraph.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 24, 2006 15:55:18 GMT -6
Look under additional information on all foot traps it states special consideration. These traps can be set in shallow water to improve selectability.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 24, 2006 19:05:06 GMT -6
shallow water with no land access---un-ah..don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 25, 2006 6:35:42 GMT -6
Tman your unbelievable!!! You see shallow water then you want to inject your own bias! You got it in for the BMP's and me. Where does it state anything about land access? You offer your own slant again to make it look worse than it is! Is says nothing about land access, but does state shallow water, you don't want to see that as a plus because that maybe something positive from this BMP.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Mar 25, 2006 7:07:39 GMT -6
I aqm going o nwhaty Dave Hamilton told- if oy uare saying he lied to me- than say that.
Dave told me that COON COULD NOT BE HELD 100% IN THE WATER AND THAT THEY HAD TO HAVE LAND ACCESS AND THEY HAD TO HAVE ENOUGH CHAIN TO REST ON LAND
FURTHERMORE- THIS IS HOW THE TESTS WERE RUN-
if now the bmp is changing that- then the only right thing to do - WOULD BE TO HAVE THEIR NEW ADVICE ACTUALLY USED IN THE TESTS.
But alsa- that won't happen.
UNLESS DAVE HAMILTON lied to me- this is how the data was taken- in traps where ALL allowed land access.
Are you saying this is false?
Don't take offense- if you try to defend something that is lame and inaccurate- you are going to be called on it.
The coon bmps aren't worth the paper they are written on.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Mar 25, 2006 7:09:39 GMT -6
never denied they were SET in shallow water- I didn't think, although with the coon bmp reasoning wouldn't be surprised- that the traps were set in 2 feet of water.
WHERE the traps is SET- means nothing- ITS HOW THE TRAP IS ANCHORED and in what type of habitat it is set.
|
|
|
Post by SgtWal on Mar 25, 2006 8:13:47 GMT -6
Doesn't selectivity mean that the trap was set in water to reduce non target catches? How does this relate to injury?
wayne
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 25, 2006 12:17:42 GMT -6
I can answer part of that.
I was told that it was a matter of hypothermia deaths in the coon held in water. Dave told me that in Missouri tests, they had 10% deaths.
Here- I have had 2 dead coons- both in #11 and both i April- both little coon with not much belly fur.
In many, many years of trapping coon on water here in MN during Dec and January- I've never lost a coon due to death by hypothermia. Just never happened.
and I'll guarantee you this- you hold any coon in 4 inches of water- and he will NOT chew - and a plain simple 1.5 coil passes with flying colors.
Too bad MO coon are so weak furred they cannot survive a night in the water- up here its different.
TC- note this: METHODS were added to the protocals. Other METHODS could have been also.
You have western and eastern coyote bmps- but want to lump in 8 lb southern coon with 30 lb northerns? Day and night, day and night.
So rather then test the trap with different methods in different areas- they rammed through the methods that worked in THEIR areas.
I defy anyone to prove to me with any type of bogus hokey witchcraft that holding a coon in water is inanaime or even inhumane- if you go that route- ALL restraining traps are at risk.
Just like I brought up last week- in drowning time...CAN you count the time restrained on the wire BEFORE the coon goes under water.
Careful here- this is a "have you stopped beating your wife" kind of question.
You answer YES- that time should be counted- then once again, you are defining STRESS as being RESTRAINED as a negative factor.
And we don't want that box opened.
Keep in mind that the vet council WANTED to include stress, but so far has not been able to...
If you answer NO- that restraining time isn't counted and just time under water is counted, as common sense dictates- then a coon drowns very fast- faster than a rat and certainly a beaver...
so a condumdrum...... if a coons actual drowning time is less than a beavers or a rats- how then can it be acceptable for those 2- and not the coon.
An issue the bmp council should have discussed and resolved.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 26, 2006 7:46:03 GMT -6
Tman I don't care what Dave told you in conversation, things change and it did it states shallow water as being more selective correct? To add any more into it is misleading and bias on your part, it states nowhere in the BMP land acess or trap must be staked on ground and access granted. You read what you want into it and add bias to help support yout thought process.
Where doyou get all this vet council and reffering to the AVMA? They where asked input on a few items 2 years or more ago and have not given back any thoughts on any questions asked.
In a small scale sense their was "local" testing as the #1 coilspring only passed down south because there coons have smaller feet.
Again you can't prove you theory that what Dave told you couldn't have changed, because it did after I pointed it out to you, shallow water is addressed and not in a negative and not underscored with a specific amount of water either. until you can prove this or have it rewritten to state your bias to once again foil the BMP you have nothing on this subject line.
WE can debate different protocols and that is great as I stated many times I hope they do more testing with the 1.5 reg jaw and find away to get it to pass then your bias will have to pick on something new in the BMP's correct?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 26, 2006 10:19:45 GMT -6
here is the only fact that matters- ALL the test results were with land access.
do you deny that?
Please- print out the exact wording where you now say the bmp recommends that traps be set in water with no land access.
I asked the exact page and paragraph you were referring to. But you failed to provide it. once again- please show me exactly what you are quoting.
I think the reason you do not- is it does not exist with your implications. Show me I'm wrong.
Because THATS all thats important- coulda beens, shoulda dones- they didn't!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 26, 2006 10:24:54 GMT -6
I've raised many coon bmp issues- you have refused to really give any answer except we should trust the bmps.sorry- Im long past the stage where "cause I said so " was proof.
I've asked you many times- do you think that staking a coon in shallow water with MANDATORY ACCESS TO LAND, with NO INTANGELEMENT with NO OVERHEAD cover... is the way to test coo ntraps.
A simple yes or no.
No rhetoric, no cheerleading- poiunt blank..
Is that HOW YOU would decide to test chewing in coon traps?
Yes or no.
I say absolutely, postitively NO!
That yo ucould not have drawn up a more inane proposal- and thats the basis for te coon bmps.
And you wonder why I call them hogwash- GIGO.
So please- yes or no..
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 27, 2006 10:47:15 GMT -6
here is the only fact that matters- ALL the test results were with land access.
do you deny that? NO!
Please- print out the exact wording where you now say the bmp recommends that traps be set in water with no land access.
Please print out where it states that as being mandatory! Also print out as you stated that water access is out of the question! Also print out where it states the definition of "shallow". Also read that is clearly states as VOLUNTARY not MANDATORY!
I asked the exact page and paragraph you were referring to. But you failed to provide it. once again- please show me exactly what you are quoting.
Print it out and read it all carefully instead of glancing over it! Look under pages 5,6, and 7 and look under the sub title Additional information anyone can look this up and find that shallow water is listed as an acceptable means to improve selectivity!!!! No where does ti state depth,land access or any of the such, if you would like it worded that exactly, I'm sure it could get done, but wait that would feed into your bias on the coon BMP a then wouldn't it.
They want this to be able to change and not be set in stone, that is the wording if they try new protocols and new devices, it would be easier to have addendum's to the original final draft than to state all you wish to condemn them, and no need to add that information into the final draft. They may try these very traps in new situations and they get them to perform well, then it is matter of adding to rather than needing to rewrite totally.
You anti BMP' guys are funny you don't want them enacted as law, yet you want them worded as such? I bet when alot of the Anti BMP crowd seen the words shallow water improves selectivity and the word as a voluntary approach to coon trapping that took some wind from your conspiracy sails LOL!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Mar 27, 2006 11:27:26 GMT -6
Exactly what I thought- which is why you can't provide any tangible proof to what you said- or rather, what you hang your hat on- this statement traps may be set in shallow water to IMPROVE SELECTIVITY
That's apples and wheelbarrows....not even close enough to the point to be called apples and oranges....
I saw that first read, but thought you had found different info. That throw away line is only common sense.
I do notice that the published report leaves out the protocol- I guess if they left it out, people would forget about how flawed it was.
But keep in mind- the traps that failed- failed through flawed protocol.
What on God green earth does this have to do with anything?
So the bmps in their wisdom, said to set coon traps in shallow water and you will reduce non target catches. Hip hip hooray! yes, thats true.
But it is also true- that it has nothing to do with the fact that the coon traps were set so LAND ACCESS WAS ASSURED. NOWHERE in the coon bmps does it even MENTION- holding coon WITHOUT land access. I suggest you talk to Dave or read the original protocol.
the FACT is that the coon tests were NEVER done with 100% water access- in other words- not only setting in shallow water (duh) but HOLDING them in that same shallow water.
Big difference.
Address THAT issue please- you won't because you know I'm right- its the major part of the coon bmp protocol.
And once again, its the SAME issue you have been avoiding from the get go.
GIGO
as a side issue- why is death ok on bodygrips- but not on drowning sets. After all, drowning sets AREN'T restraining sets anymore than 220s.
Another convenient inconsistency.
Don't you understand, that to defend inaccurate and bogus bmps, under the umbrella that ALL bmps are good no matter how flawed, you do a disservice to the bmps that actually ARE worthwhile?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Mar 27, 2006 13:33:10 GMT -6
as far as the #11 OFFSET trap that passed- don't know if they would be qualified as a moron or not for thinking such a trap is an efficient coon trap- perhaps so.
Tman when you used the #11 offset did it have dbl jaws? Did you use a pan stop? Did you use shock springs? If you answer NO to all above questions did you test the same trap as the BMP with the same protocol? Seems hypocritical of you to make such a statement, yet you claim the same thing with the 1.5 reg jaw and the BMP committee? Could they not call your methods the same as it has yet to be tested to them? Test the #11 in the same fashion they did and let us know results with pictures please! Living documents subject to change as new ideals and tools come up!
NOWHERE in the coon bmps does it even MENTION- holding coon WITHOUT land access. I suggest you talk to Dave or read the original protocol.
Tman which came first the chicken or the egg? NO where does it state that the trap must have land access either! They did not mandate it in the final draft! They stated shallow water access improves selectivity They also mention in the brand new Trapper Ed manual and the Trapper ED DVD that slide wires and tangle stakes are methods to be used for water species. They also show a coon in water in a trap in this video and they also show dispatching of a coon in a trap with a .22cal pistol as being humane as well.
the FACT is that the coon tests were NEVER done with 100% water access- in other words- not only setting in shallow water (duh) but HOLDING them in that same shallow water.
No but the video does show a coon in such a manner!
as a side issue- why is death OK on body grips- but not on drowning sets. After all, drowning sets AREN'T restraining sets anymore than 220s.
Another convenient inconsistency.
They talk about water species becoming to asphyxiation and how that is acceptable to alot of people, yet drowning is another issue. The public perceives drowning as more time consuming and not as humane. Look at states with the death penalty, we no longer do be headings or 10 person firing squads why is that? The person is dying so why limit the type of death? Public perception thats why! They know the person is going to die but they want them to die as humane as possible, wrong as trappers/hunters know it to be,the public garners the same feelings in taking an animals life in alot of cases, they know death is imminent to the animal they want it to be as humane as possible.
If we could prove time of death with drowning and keep it inside of an acceptable time table, I think drowning would not be an issue, that said, the cost of testing and just the near mention to some of this practice is something as this point."Best" left to the states and I feel far better about it at this point to do so. The reason you wonder? BMP stands for best management practice and if it can't be tested through science with a high degree then don't label it as such. As it would tarnish the BMP"s and the science behind it at this "point"! You can not be inconsistent with something that has yet to be fully addressed and tested can you?
the FACT is that the coon tests were NEVER done with 100% water access- in other words- not only setting in shallow water (duh) but HOLDING them in that same shallow water.
The REAL fact is the testing is not all done that I know of, coon BMP's are not never to be dealt with again that I am aware of, so read the above again carefully and you will get your answer! Living documents subject to change and more testing! Your bias can't get past that point! You want this to be the "end all" to shout to the roof tops I have been jilted in this done deal. You can't test all things at one time, when much more has yet to be untested.
As my final side note on this Tman, can you tell me who is out to get the 1.5 reg jaw trap? Name or name the organization set out to get this trap outlawed in dealing with BMP's? Also why would they go after the 1.5 reg jaw with such passion as you seem to think with flawed protocol, even when they have not tested all areas as of yet, like my test offering you do with the #11 in their tested configuration, yet they seem to have passed a 1.5 with nothing more than a dbl jaw or some 9GA wire being added to the trap? Why would they allow that to pass and give credit to it? Why not try to do away with any configuration of the 1.5? Who are these people so hell bent to see the 1.5 be gone from trapping sheds all over the US?
|
|