|
Post by Steve Gappa on Dec 31, 2006 8:07:47 GMT -6
throwing stones is honest when stones deserve to be thrown-
being a constant cheerleader for bmps that hurt trapping and trappers by being false to the point of uselessness is just foolish.
I can see why you don't want to debate- indeed, you haven't been debating all along in that you avoid the issues by trying to bring in everything including the kitchen sink.
here are the issues-
1) coyote bmps good...
2) coon bmps bad because: a) The concept of canine vs coon seemed to be lost to the committee. There idea was one size fits all. Unscientific and no basis in logic, it was reportedly rammed home via the Vets Council. The committee should have started with the commonsense preamble discussing the coon habits. THEN, a new scale should have been implemented. One size does not fir all.
This committee purports to be this studious, scientific committee- a high school class could have done better. Duh...are coyotes the same as coon? any studies to show us? No? different...duh....lets use same criteria on both...ok joe..lets go...
b) extremely bad protocol writing. Bad to the extreme in that they were heavily slanted toward providing the maximum amount of chewing possible. In other words- the use of this protocol exclusively gave the ONLY end result it could.
c) one member of this committee, that discussed and then wrote this protocol- had a vested interest, whether expressed or realized- in the bmps producing the results they did. I point no finger toward dishonesty- indeed, he is a nice man- but judges recluse themselves for a reason.
d) arbitrary and totally random concepts of discomfort were used. Holding coon in water is inanimane and painful? Come on- who are you kidding?
e) alternative methods, methods that considerably reduce/eliminate chewing- that could have been looked at, that could have be tested- and could have BEEN INCLUDED in the bmps as an alternative to modified traps... were EXPRESSLY rejected.
f) there are also questions to be asked concerning data and certain techs. I have heard rumors that results were disproportionate. Unsubstantiated, but more smoke.
Everyday on my coon line- I see the lies of the coon protocols and the test results.
I'll be damned if I'll promote or back the COON bmps -and I still challenge ANY so called coon expert on my points and methods.
and- for the eleventhhundrethedth time- I like bmps- when done well, when including all the options, etc. I have and will continue to support them.
But to support a bogus study- is doing trappers every a big disservice.
and one last time....let me see if I can wrap my mind around this...I said they wouldn't discuss drowning...you scream Thats False!... they DID discuss it...and they decided not to discuss or test it...
LOL.. thats telling me!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Dec 31, 2006 8:39:39 GMT -6
being a constant cheerleader for bmps that hurt trapping and trappers by being false and tainted to the point of uselessness is just foolish and is doing what the people that sign your paycheck want you to do.
WRONG 100% voluntary and no one tells us how to think or react to the BMP's. Many guys wanted nothing to do with testing cable restraints, I did it because I wanted first hand knowledge of the use of this tool and how it would apply in what I do and also for fur trapping.
By doing so we had a voice in the outcome of this!!!! We also gained the knowledge that these have little value in states with longer than 24 hr checks, and now people who make the rules and regs have access to this knowledge as well and also with talking with the very people who used them, they have a clearer picture as what way to go with them, if they ever get presented to the table. Many things can be voluntary or useable.
This is first hand knowledge and not getting it from an outside source to give them a whirl. That information is valueable, along with much of the other information that comes from the BMP"s.
Lastly I never stated the coon BMP's where 100%, find it if you can. I don't think they where a disaster either. Last time I'll make this point if you want coon chewing to be a very low instance in any circumstance then you use the tools that can make that happen reguardless of where you put that trap or what "method" you use. Or drowned them, as you don't need to test a trap that kills and how would you and be fair to other restraining traps?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Dec 31, 2006 8:58:37 GMT -6
I listed the points of debate. Up to you if you want to debate them.
The coon bmps are so flawed by their basics design and protocal that they are 100% useless in being able to draw any conclusions and no trapper should do trapping an injustice by supporting them.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Dec 31, 2006 9:02:52 GMT -6
if you understand nothing else in this debate- listen to this.
I am PRO bmps if done the correct way.
I am ANTI any bmp done wrong.
Distinguish the two- because all you are doing by equating the do, is eroding support from the good ones.
Trappers aren't, and Wills and the BOD was wrong here...dumb- and when you defend a bad bmp as vigorously as a good bmp- they begin to mistrust your motives and message.
There is no defending the coon bmps. If you want to debate each of the points I've listed as my issues, bring it on.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Dec 31, 2006 17:16:23 GMT -6
37 makes a number of assertions in a previous post and I will answer some of them.
1. That the EU move against wild fur trapping is seen by the fur cage industry in the EU as a positive step in their favour. It is hard to argue against this statement but essentially the bland statement is false. The antis in the EU who pushed for the trade legislation have an equal hatred for the caged fur industry so 37's statement is another one of those look good feel good statements that really have no substance.
2. That the EU legislation was somehow aimed at nuisance animal control in North America and somehow any nuisance animal control would be stopped by it. This is patently untrue. The legislation given by its very substance and nature is aimed at the trade in wild fur. The trapping of nuisance animals is for that country to decide regardless of what the EU or anyone else can say. What the legislation does do if it is ever enforced given the tardiness in the USA about its correct implementation the role of the paid government trapper and the animal nuisance control trapper (for money) is absolutely entrenched and assurred. These two types of trappers are ensured of business on an expanded scale should the legislation ever be invoked. Hmmm you might say.
3. There is a recent thread running in 37's comments about there being more traps in America then in Canada and the diversness of this and general trapping in America requires a different approach to that taken by Canada. I strongly disagree with this point. The key is to save trapping not necessarily trap manufacturers as such. It is somewhat a chicken and egg argument but it comes down to the fact that trapping is needed and traps are required. But without trapping you don't require traps. So you make sure trapping exists and then work through the traps that fit the requirements and expand from there. So we have a philosophical argument here as well. I will maintain that the short term sacrifice of a number of trap manufacturers is the route to be taken rather than by tardiness and false application leaving trapping itself open to sacrifice.
Yes canada did the correct thing, it put trapping ahead of trap manufacturers and moved outwards from there.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 3, 2007 7:05:41 GMT -6
So you telling me the EU ban on imported fur was to appease the anti's as the main objective?
We have control of controlling our wild animals through nusiance trapping, but the EU and EU antis just don't like trapping for fur? The EU wants to bolster it's own fur resources and the anti's don't want any trapping period, doesn't matter nusiance or not. So I have a hard time with your "biased" statements.
The BMP's are not about "saving" trap manufactures, it is about testing the "best" traps and those that meet the criteria set forth by the commitee.
Akona tell me what the true differance is between the injury scale used by the US and Canada? One meets EU standards the other doesn't, although the EU agreed with our injury standard for the time being. The main point is it is a relative number they have come up with and also what the US has used for relating injury scores. The EU wanted a higher bar to limit choice and also limit trapper participation in fur trapping that simple. Majority of gov trappers start as fur trappers. Without one it is hard to be effective at the other. Also many states have private ADC and anyone can enter into this busines type, as you see it growing in urban areas yearly.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 3, 2007 8:10:02 GMT -6
The BMP's are not about "saving" trap manufactures, it is about testing the "best" traps and those that meet the criteria set forth by the commitee.
Good stoke of luck then that at least one if not more trap manufactors sat on the committee and wrote protocol.
I see you haven't the.... information .....to debate the points I broughht up- and you keep saying over and over you aren't going to post on the bmps anymore (I guess because you have no info to debate with) yet you merrily hang your hat on any red herring to swim by.
The coon bmps reek, stink, are decayed and deserve to be buried with any other garbage.
I've yet to see anyone that can successfully debate differently. Let me clarify that...anyone that actually traps coon.....
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 3, 2007 15:55:02 GMT -6
a) The concept of canine vs coon seemed to be lost to the committee. There idea was one size fits all. Unscientific and no basis in logic, it was reportedly rammed home via the Vets Council. The committee should have started with the commonsense preamble discussing the coon habits. THEN, a new scale should have been implemented. One size does not fir all.So you want a more relaxed injury scale for coons because they chew? I could see that some what, but your still getting the same outcome, those traps with the ability to limit or stop chewing are going to rank higher than those that will allow chewing correct? So are we not just loosing up the scale for the sake of trap types? The very thing akona is saying we are doing wrong correct? So instead of looking for trap aleternatives to chewing you want the scale changed to allow traps we know from past use can/will lead to chewing a chance to pass because of the coons tendancys? Correct? Again I will state and you seem not to want to address this point, it would not matter one bit what protocol you wanted to use those traps that limit/ stop chewing due to design would still have the very best testing scores correct or not? So in effect you want this to be biased because the coon has a tendancy to chew it's toes and also the fact that certain trap types and holds in these these traps will lead to chewing that the scoring system should be changed to allow for chewing correct? Meaning not counting near as severe as the scores we have in place now correct? How does that fit into the BMP"s? Best practices and best tools? Explain that to me? When you have traps that 1. Can limit or prevent chewing 2. Can be used by many different experiance levels with very close outcomes 3. Have the ability to drowned said coons when then no testing is needed as you can't test a restraining trap on a dead critter. 4. Have the ability as YOU use to create a mechanisim to help limit chewing through other means other than a physical alteration of the trap? Yet we still need to lower the scoreing system for coons? On top of all the rest mentioned? I'm willing to bet under any protocol I can have a better score with an enclosed foor trap or a trap with a jaw guard of proper design over any unmodified 1.5 reg jaw coilspring when given out to any 5 random trappers of different experiance groups? Right or wrong? WE can test them any way you want Steve, any protocol, any set procedure and the results will still favor those traps that limit or stop chewing? Am I off on this or not? We can not control the speices 100% of the time except death, the rest can be manipulated some but to what point and where? c) one member of this committee, that discussed and then wrote this protocol- had a vested interest, whether expressed or realized- in the bmps producing the results they did. I point no finger toward dishonesty- indeed, he is a nice man- but judges recluse themselves for a reason. You just did state dishonesty with the line producing the results they did!!!!! Do you know for a fact the results had any direct impact from RT? Yes or NO? Or was it from a group of people? d) arbitrary and totally random concepts of discomfort were used. Holding coon in water is inanimane and painful? Come on- who are you kidding? Until we can talk with the animals, walk with the animals it's going to be arbitrary is it not? You say ,Tomato I say "tom"A"to. Tell me who stated painful to you? The main worry was death which is a very negative score correct? e) alternative methods, methods that considerably reduce/eliminate chewing- that could have been looked at, that could have be tested- and could have BEEN INCLUDED in the bmps as an alternative to modified traps... were EXPRESSLY rejected.As stated above any trap that can limit/stop chewing is going to fair better under any protocol used. I have no problem with methods if you want them written into the BMP"s as such. Why do you hate modified coons traps, but yet use modified coyote traps? The same could be said on any trap study standard trap versus modifed? Look at what traps had the best injury scores for coyotes? Also the best catch % f) there are also questions to be asked concerning data and certain techs. I have heard rumors that results were disproportionateWithout facts why bring it up? Everyday on my coon line- I see the lies of the coon protocols and the test results.I can say the same only opposite on my coyote trapping, I see the advantages of larger jawed,modified coyote traps for comfort and holding ability. We all have different conditions and ideals. Does that make your methods/ traps lies? and one last time....let me see if I can wrap my mind around this...I said they wouldn't discuss drowning...you scream Thats False!... they DID discuss it...and they decided not to discuss or test it... You made the comment that drownding would never be addressed in the BMP"s, they are and where with wording go read it. The point of testing it is mute, restraining traps are tested not "methods" used for death in a restraining trap! We could spend a ton of cash on it what DO you feel is acceptable to death on a drownding wire? 60 seconds, 3 mins, 5 mins, etc, etc. The point is very clear they spoke to drownding and mentioned it as a method to use.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jan 3, 2007 15:57:45 GMT -6
37 some of us fight the real fight. Here is just one article written by the antis about BMP's and the EU. You play your games, some of us will fight the idiots who run the antis campaign without blinkered ideas. www.api4animals.org/articles?p=971&more=1
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 3, 2007 16:49:24 GMT -6
oh my goodness, it seems like TC has disappeared and I'm debating my old friend Wiley. In any case- at last a reasoned response so I'll seriously address your points. So you want a more relaxed injury scale for coons because they chew? I could see that some what, but your still getting the same outcome, those traps with the ability to limit or stop chewing are going to rank higher than those that will allow chewing correct?Yes, I do indeed want a modified injury scale. No way is a coyote chewing off a toe equal to a coon doing the same thing. A coyote does not chew his toe for ONE reason- his toe has feeling in it. A coyote will chew the chain, the trap, the dog, sticks around him, etc- but not the toe. A coon will chew that same toe, because of the shape and physical characteristics of the digits- chews on the trap- makes it shiny as a sand blaster, the surrounding vegetation and the NUMBED toes. Recognize and publicize this fact- don't tap dance around it. So are we not just loosing up the scale for the sake of trap types? The very thing akona is saying we are doing wrong correct? So instead of looking for trap alternatives to chewing you want the scale changed to allow traps we know from past use can/will lead to chewing a chance to pass because of the coons tendency's? Correct?False. I want the scale changed to reflect the differences between coyote and coon- as well as bobcat, skunk and possum. I also want the scale to give lesser importance to lesser injuries- in other words, a broken tooth from chewing on the trap- something a coon will do more in a chewing frenzy induced by this very biased protocol- isn't a "TRAP" problem... its a PROTOCOL problem.. I also think its the height of ineffecticentcy to ignore METHOD alternatives to reduce chewing. Again I will state and you seem not to want to address this point, it would not matter one bit what protocol you wanted to use those traps that limit/ stop chewing due to design would still have the very best testing scores correct or not?I'll address it all day- you have never raised the issue before. I dis agree with your statement. I state that given alternative methods, that the chewing rates would be no more that non chewing type traps. My results show this to be true. Guess the bmps will never know because they wouldn't consider them. Protocol suggesting concealment trapping, long chains, entanglement, etc- would have been an interesting test. One we were cheated out of- because so called experts...and I didn't call them experts, I believe that the committee and you yourself did...NTA experts I believe was used.... say cover and entanglement produces lost and damaged coon and to those experts- I respectively say you are full of sh*t. So in effect you want this to be biased because the coon has a tendency to chew it's toes and also the fact that certain trap types and holds in these these traps will lead to chewing that the scoring system should be changed to allow for chewing correct? Meaning not counting near as severe as the scores we have in place now correct?this question Nis redundant and has been answered. How does that fit into the BMP"s? Best practices and best tools? Explain that to me? When you have traps that 1. Can limit or prevent chewing 2. Can be used by many different experience levels with very close outcomes 3. Have the ability to drowned said coons when then no testing is needed as you can't test a restraining trap on a dead critter. 4. Have the ability as YOU use to create a mechanism to help limit chewing through other means other than a physical alteration of the trap? Yet we still need to lower the scoring system for coons? On top of all the rest mentioned?the scoring system is a joke, and a red herring in effect. You can argue if you wish - that a scale developed by a Swedish group for entirely different basis called the Olson scale should be the criteria for bmp tests i nAmercia. I'll present the issue that the scale was not intended for such purposes, and WAS NOT developed with any scientific of rational thought. It was entirely arbitrary. A major problem of the bmps was letting the vets council ram this through. But even so- my main issue isn't the scale- its the protocol I'm willing to bet under any protocol I can have a better score with an enclosed foot trap or a trap with a jaw guard of proper design over any unmodified 1.5 reg jaw coilspring when given out to any 5 random trappers of different experience groups? Right or wrong?I'd say put your money where your mouth is. I've taught many trappers my methods- and you have read their results. I am willing to bet I can take 5 trappers, and teach them my methods- and have their test results qualify a lock, stock 1.5 trap. WE can test them any way you want Steve, any protocol, any set procedure and the results will still favor those traps that limit or stop chewing? Am I off on this or not? We can not control the species 100% of the time except death, the rest can be manipulated some but to what point and where?My methods already limits and stops chewing. There are 2 ways to limit chewing- modified traps with piss poor setting methods- that although they stress the coon out to the max, by some mechanical device the coon is kept from chewing- even with numb wrist many of these traps cause. With proper methods- you reduce or eliminate the STRESS a trapped coon has- and by giving him othe outlets- the self chewing is eliminated or reduced considerably. And reduced and eliminated enough- so that conventional traps WOULD pass- even under he non scientific Olson scale. ) one member of this committee, that discussed and then wrote this protocol- had a vested interest, whether expressed or realized- in the bmps producing the results they did. I point no finger toward dishonesty- indeed, he is a nice man- but judges recluse themselves for a reason.
You just did state dishonesty with the line producing the results they did!!!!! Do you know for a fact the results had any direct impact from RT? Yes or NO? Or was it from a group of people?I said I didn't know. Please don't skim. A little knowledge and all that.... the word from a reliable source, is that some lines had disproportionate top of the scale scores. I'd like to see the info. As far as writing protocol- don't even go there. To write a protocol with these, simplified, as the main points 1) no side cover 2) n water access 3) no entanglement 4) staked sets... the end results is coon chewing like a mother. And then we are surprised that all but some micky mouse #11 failed. Good grief man- think. I also said, there are good legal reasons why judges recluse themselves. And there are. d) arbitrary and totally random concepts of discomfort were used. Holding coon in water is inanimane and painful? Come on- who are you kidding?
Until we can talk with the animals, walk with the animals it's going to be arbitrary is it not? You say ,Tomato I say "tom"A"to. Tell me who stated painful to you? The main worry was death which is a very negative score correct?Yes- arbitrary is a good word. The Olson scale is arbitrary, and so is the concept of holding in water. And lets not forget drowning- the coon bmp committee will NEVER recommend it or allow any real discussion on it (yes, I know now about discussing not to discuss it) Where does it say the main worry is death. What is does say- is that the protocol INSISTED on 50% access to land. And if those itty bitty southern coon can't take a night in water- then, as should have been done- make 2 coon bmps just like 2 coyote. I hold coon in water all the time in MN winters, with NEVER a death. And all who trap similar conditions say the same.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 3, 2007 17:53:13 GMT -6
Validation of Trap Scoring SystemSCWDS Briefs, In February 1991, SCWDS Director Dr. Victor Nettles participated in a working seminar held inMadison, Wisconsin, to validate the injury rating scale commonly used to compare different legholdtraps and other restraining devices. The meeting was coordinated by Mr. Neal Jotham of the FurInstitute of Canada and Dr. Fred Gilbert, Chairman of both the U.S. Technical Committee and theWorking Group that are developing restraining trap standards for the International Organization forStandardization. The purpose of the seminar was for 6 veterinarians with extensive trap injury evaluation experience toindependently examine and score legs from over 130 furbearers. The scoring system used was initiallydeveloped by Dr. Nettles in 1979 and later improved by Dr. Glen Olsen of the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService's Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Today, the scoring system is known in the literature as theOlsen Scale. As part of the seminar, discussions were held on ways to improve the Olsen Scale tomake it as objective as possible. Dr. Gilbert's Working Group has envisioned that the leg scoring system will be used to evaluaterestraining traps, and only those that perform within a yet-to-be-defined score will qualify for theinternational standard. Since the parameters in the scoring system rank trap injuries as to how theywould affect the animal upon release, it is likely that only devices producing scores indicative of nodamage or easily resolvable injuries will be considered acceptable. Other considerations such as trapefficiency also will be included in the overall trap standard. The formulation of these standards most certainly will stimulate objections from people with dramatically different views on trapping; however,use of this approach is an opportunity to reduce trap injuries while maintaining the use of restraining traps to harvest fur, control wildlife crop damage and predation, monitor wildlife health, and relocate and restore certain wildlife species.
If you read Steve your info on the olsen scale comming from Sweden ?
Also are you going to train every coon trapper in the US on your methods and how they adapt to all areas of coon trapping?
To state that a 16 year old who buys a modified coon trap will have the same results when set under coon trapping conditions as a reg 1.5 is largely false and I would love to see those test results!
We where both 16 at one time trapping coons and I'm betting your feet don't look like they do today?
Where does it say the main worry is death. What is does say- is that the protocol INSISTED on 50% access to land. And if those itty bitty southern coon can't take a night in water- then, as should have been done- make 2 coon bmps just like 2 coyote.
That was the main concern! Please point to where the concern was undue pain to that same coon?
I have no issue with 2 BMP's for coon at all!
With proper methods- you reduce or eliminate the STRESS a trapped coon has- and by giving him othe outlets- the self chewing is eliminated or reduced considerably. And reduced and eliminated enough- so that conventional traps WOULD pass- even under he non scientific Olson scale.
Thats as arbitrary as a staement gets! What is coon stress and how do they react, point to that science? A missing toe or toes is just that missing. I take it you have never coon trapped in any other area except yours? Much of south Iowa and Central Iowa is void of cover except grassy swales and I feel your "methods" are specific to your area, again we then would need to break those coon BMP"s down futher under the microscope. Not much outlet to a picked bean/corn field along an irrigation ditch. With little cover except some grass at best.
You can teach your methods if they can be applied in other areas fine and dandy, but to give the "guise" that these methods could be used anywhere and everywhere with the same results would have to be proven through testing, otherwise were back to using a basic fool proof trap for any and all conditions correct?
A bobcat acts alot like a coyote in a trap, they don't chew and they don't fight near like a coyote so to state they need there own score holds no water. The highest majority of traps passed for bobcat.
A major problem of the bmps was letting the vets council ram this through.
Draft your scoring system for all to see then.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 3, 2007 18:51:24 GMT -6
If you read Steve your info on the olsen scale coming from Sweden ?
A joke son, a joke....
Also are you going to train every coon trapper in the US on your methods and how they adapt to all areas of coon trapping?
Why not? I've shown hundreds in demos and more on this forum. It not rocket science- is simple methods.
To state that a 16 year old who buys a modified coon trap will have the same results when set under coon trapping conditions as a reg 1.5 is largely false and I would love to see those test results!
Who stated that? If yo did, I missed it. All I can say is this- give me that 16 year old boy with a fresh mind- and I'll make him more of a coo expert in an afternoon than those writing the protocol.
We where both 16 at one time trapping coons and I'm betting your feet don't look like they do today?
Of course not- I learned methods that reduce/eliminate chewing by studying WHY coon chew and attempt to cure the underlying cause of that- fear at being restrained i the open, no concealment, nothing to react to EXCEPT the trap. All things that any expert should know, and they should also know- that making sets in deep cover, by offering free range of movement, etc- relieves stress and gives alternate reactions vis a vis chewing. . Where does it say the main worry is death. What is does say- is that the protocol INSISTED on 50% access to land. And if those itty bitty southern coon can't take a night in water- then, as should have been done- make 2 coon bmps just like 2 coyote.
That was the main concern! Please point to where the concern was undue pain to that same coon?
I said DISCOMFORT- not pain. I was told directly by Dave Hamilton via a phone call eons ago, that HOLDING COON IN WATER WAS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMITTEE AS BEING INHUMANE
Now- yo tell me what other conclusions can be drawn?
I have no issue with 2 BMP's for coon at all!
Good! Its taken a long time to get to this point.
With proper methods- you reduce or eliminate the STRESS a trapped coon has- and by giving him other outlets- the self chewing is eliminated or reduced considerably. And reduced and eliminated enough- so that conventional traps WOULD pass- even under he non scientific Olson scale.
Thats as arbitrary as a statement gets! What is coon stress and how do they react, point to that science? A missing toe or toes is just that missing. I take it you have never coon trapped in any other area except yours? Much of south Iowa and Central Iowa is void of cover except grassy Wales and I feel your "methods" are specific to your area, again we then would need to break those coon BMP"s down further under the microscope. Not much outlet to a picked bean/corn field along an irrigation ditch. With little cover except some grass at best.
I trap a fair amount of swales. You use drags for coyotes? Use them for coon. Use long chains. No branches? use a truck tire- excellent drag and set btw). Grassy swales with water? stake solid in water- those Iowa coon aren't going to die overnight.
And lets be real- 99.99% of those Iowa boys trapping grassy swales are snaring or conibearing.
in any case, not arbitrary at all if any student of behavior and nature.
Please give me your reasons why coon chew- and I'll bet you anything- that all are caused by stress.
You can teach your methods if they can be applied in other areas fine and dandy, but to give the "guise" that these methods could be used anywhere and everywhere with the same results would have to be proven through testing, otherwise were back to using a basic fool proof trap for any and all conditions correct?
If there is cover and coon, my methods will work anywhere.
As I said- its not rocket science. Reduce stress- by overhead cover, by brushy cover, by freedom of movement, by having bushes and branches to "fight" with, to allowing the coon to MOVE (make progress), by having give in your anchoring systems... and in most cases a combo of most of these- and a coon doesn't have the same inclination to chew.
and thats just a fact.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jan 3, 2007 18:54:31 GMT -6
A major problem of the bmps was letting the vets council ram this through.
Draft your scoring system for all to see then.
I was told, again by Dave Hamilton- that the wildlife people proposed a different scoring syatem but were rejected. I'll gladly accept the non vets scale.
Will you?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jan 4, 2007 7:28:23 GMT -6
a coon is a dog is a child is a bobcat or some such?
Read what you wrote:
A bobcat acts alot like a coyote in a trap, they don't chew and they don't fight near like a coyote so to state they need there own score holds no water. The highest majority of traps passed for bobcat.
Lets see... a bobcat acts like a coyote- but they don't fight like a coyote and they don't chew like a coyote..
Oh..ok--- then....let me think here....then they actually are 180 from a coyote.... and not like a coyote at all...
The highest majority of traps passed for bobcat.
Lets see...they don't chew, and they don't fight.....
DUH...
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 4, 2007 14:18:20 GMT -6
In the fact that the high majority of either don't chew! No need for a special scoring per specie as the bobcat doesn't abuse itself! Yet you think each specie should have it's own score?
Coons chew because they can get to their foot! They don't like to be restrained and not out in the open! If you don't allow them to get to there feet they can't chew it. AS YOU DO with keeping there foot under water until arrival, does that take away the "stress"? Or is it not stressed once he can't reach the foot? Female coyotes in the summer are the same way, fight much harder than majority of coyotes and you will see the most broken teeth and lung marks from a nursing "bitch" coyote.
Do you really want to start giving wild animals emotional traits? Stress? ADD? Post partum depression?
Or is it the need of concealment that has been bred into there survival instincts? Do domestic dogs once leash broken fight the chain or react like there wild cousins? Why wouldn't the dog on a leash be stressed?
Also 99.99% of Iowa coon trappers do not use snares or coni bears in these irrigation ditches!!! I know many guys that use foot traps to take coon,mink and rats with in these areas. Something that is hard to do with snares or coon size conibears. The idea of them packing wood drags sufficent for coons or tires just isn't making a proficent coon line when many run 50-60 sets before and after work or 1-2 weeks of vacation. A few will worry about feet and others don't they stake solid and move on down the line. You must remember time is of the essance in thse areas once frozen then they move to denning trees with snares and conibears, but to hit them fast and efficent foot traps early season is the way the guys I know do it in Iowa. Coons season doesn't start until the first sat of November and not knowing the weather you need to be fast and efficent in these areas to make the catches.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jan 4, 2007 14:43:39 GMT -6
Yet you think each specie should have it's own score?
A child is a dog is a pig is a coyote?
the bmp committee wanted a different scale- but were voted down.
Coons chew because they can get to their foot! They don't like to be restrained and not out in the open! If you don't allow them to get to there feet they can't chew it.
Coon chew becasue they can get to their foot? Ok- but doesn't a coon, coyote, cat, otter, titmouse and squirrell have equal opportuity to access teir foot?
Of course- so your point isn't really a point.
They don't like to be restrained and not out in the open! If you don't allow them to get to there feet they can't chew it
If you don't trap them, they don't chew. or break teeth, or rub welts in their bodies in cages.
But we do and they do.
But you did inadvertently hit on the key issue- one I've been preaching from day one- coon indeed don't like being restrained in the open.... yet we write the protocol to expressing use that method only?
Wonder if there is any solution to that.....?
Hmmmn...
thinking....
thinking....
Jeepers, I'm stumped....
Wait a minute- doesn't that Gappa guy have a system that uses the coons own actions to reduce/eliminate chewing?
make up your mind- either you are land trapping coon in swales- or trapping coon, mink and rats with in these areas
I've given you the solution to both scenerios.
And please- tell me some of these big boys trapping grassy swales for coon with footholds? I know a lot of Iowa trappers- and don't know any that run more than a few traps in grassy swales with footholds for coon. So- name names.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 4, 2007 15:23:57 GMT -6
A coyote does not have the best opportunity to it's foot, with the jaws and long snout it would be much harder for them to get at there foot than a coon correct? We see more damage in chewing on coons as the jaws get bigger correct? You don't see the same foot damage of a coon in a 1.5 as you do a #3 correct? Deeper hold, more space, more access to the foot with the mouth design of a coon. Toe caught coons have little chewing because they don't have the room to chew correct?
But you did inadvertently hit on the key issue- one I've been preaching from day one- coon indeed don't like being restrained in the open.... yet we write the protocol to expressing use that method only?
2 BMP's are then needed because not everyone who traps coons has your terrain plain and simple. How many trappers in the midwest drag coyotes? Compaired to the west? Different terrain dictaits different methods, using alot of drags on coyotes in the mid west would not be productive due to open fields and more time spent looking for coyotes.
No species we trap likes to be restrained out in the open. Thats why we have catch circles.
So now the guys I know in Iowa that catch coons as I described need to be a big named trapper? To have any merit? They have nothing to sell and don't catch 1,000 coons a season so I guess there not on your list?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jan 4, 2007 17:03:59 GMT -6
A coyote can and often does chew on the pan, the dog, the chain....but can't reach its foot.
Now you are on the red herring trail- travel it alone...
Regarding Iowa foothold in swale trappers- no big numbers needed- simply anyone that traps more than say 25 coon with footholds in dry swales.
should be no problem listing dozs of names, right?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jan 4, 2007 17:10:24 GMT -6
Do you really want to start giving wild animals emotional traits? Stress? ADD? Post partum depression?
I thought you were a better naturaist than you actually are if you don't understand stress in animals. My apologies. It won't happen again.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jan 4, 2007 17:36:37 GMT -6
The dog and chain are exterior parts of a trap! The pan takes a beating more from thrashing than get ripped off by teeth, but if it can get outside the jaws mainly high toe catches it can be bit off. Or chewed on from the outside of the jaws where it attaches by the pan bolt. Same with shock springs, that is their downfall tooth chipping on occasion again exterior part of the trap.
Stress is something humans get as an emotion, anything linked to an animal that dies or has injurys can be linked back to medical reasons for death or that injury!
We can get stressed and depressed over large bills, lost loved ones, etc an emotional feeling. When a coyotes dies in 90+ heat we call it stressed but the medical facts are there as to why it died!! A coyote with bad mange is called "stressed" but the mange is the over riding factor and I doubt the coyote sits around "stressing" over the mange. Your telling me the coon is stressed or bumbed out it is in a trap? The doe that just had her little one shot by a shotgun gets stressed? Give me a break!
It is an instinct of survival, if they felt stress and had the mental capacity then they would know better not to fight the trap for risk of dying from heat exhaustion. If it was stress then they would feel it be it in cover or out there still in the darn trap correct? And would chew.
Definition I even gave the "looser" one.
Stress can be defined as the sum of physical and mental responses to an unacceptable disparity between real or imagined personal experience and personal expectations. By this definition, stress is a response which includes both physical and mental components.
Mental responses to stress include adaptive (good) stress, anxiety, and depression. Where stress enhances function (physical or mental) it may be considered good stress. However, if stress persists and is of excessive degree, it eventually leads to a need for resolution, which may lead either to anxious (escape) or depressive (withdrawal) behavior.
One may further appreciate from that definition that stress may derive from imagined experiences such as frightening movies. Further, the fulcrum of stress response is the presence of disparity between experience (real or imagined) and personal expectations. A person living in a fashion consistent with personally-accepted expectations has no stress even if the conditions might be interpreted as adverse from some outside perspective — rural people may live in comparative poverty, and yet be unstressed if there is sufficiency according to their expectations. Finally, when there is chronic disparity between experience and expectations, stress may be relieved by acceptance. However, since acceptance is rarely complete except in children, stress resolution by this approach is also rarely complete. It has been said that stress is often a reaction to a crisis of predictability, that the mind is solely an instrument of prediction, and that the body may be divided into a vegetative process and an integrative process.
From Hans Seyle MD reconized stress expert:Stress is with us all the time. It comes from mental or emotional activity, as well as physical activity. It is unique and personal to each of us. So personal, in fact, that what may be relaxing to one person may be stressful to another. For example, if you are an executive who likes to keep busy all the time, "taking it easy" at the beach on a beautiful day may feel extremely frustrating, nonproductive and upsetting. You may be emotionally distressed from "doing nothing."
Too much emotional stress can cause physical illness, such as high blood pressure, ulcers or even heart disease. Physical stress from work or exercise is not likely to cause such ailments.
The important issue is learning how our bodies respond to these demands. When stress becomes prolonged or particularly frustrating, it can become harmful - causing distress or "bad stress." Recognizing the early signs of distress and then doing something about them can make an important difference in the quality of your life and may actually influence your survival.
Stress and Disease
Because the stress response couples physiological and emotional responses, it seems probable that stress can translate frustration into physical illness, but the precise mechanisms by which this occurs are not known. In some situations, as with tension headaches or upset stomachs, the connections appear fairly clear. On the other hand, both headaches and bellyaches can occur with no emotional provocation whatsoever.
The chain of causation is even less clear when it comes to more chronic and serious conditions, such as heart disease, hypertension, diabetes and cancer. The list of diseases linked to stress is almost endless, and includes asthma, allergies, rheumatoid arthritis, ulcers, ulcerative colitis and migraine headaches, among many others.
An important distinction that needs to be made. Any of these chronic illnesses can be made harder to bear by a stress-laden situation or an emotionally inadequate response on the part of the patient. On the other hand, it is no longer possible to credit older theories that specific emotional experiences or reactions actually cause these various diseases. On the whole, it seems most likely that stress plays a non-specific role in disease by throwing off the body's natural ability to heal itself.
|
|