|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 10, 2006 15:45:56 GMT -6
Imagine that!!! There was dialog and compromise from the BMP committee on an issue? Who would have thought LOL The manual was done up and off to the designers and printers and finalized before 1x19 was even tested. I would not be surprised to see an update in the future to the manual incorporating 1x19 into the language.
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Apr 21, 2006 6:42:45 GMT -6
"Imagine that!!! There was dialog and compromise from the BMP committee on an issue"
Only after more than a year of correspondence to the IAFWA , State Wildlife Directors and state Governors, the threat of a possible lawsuit by a manufacturer that was being discriminated against and an a lot of intense effort put forth by several individuals.
What about the losses suffered by the manufacturers that were discriminated against by this biased process/ wording?
Do you suppose some of this could have been avoided by including the advice of professional trappers and an national association respresenting trappers?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 21, 2006 7:44:17 GMT -6
First IAFWA would not be afraid of a lawsuit, there was dialog and change because people took the time to stay the course and also some didn't have preconcieved notions or outcomes in mind.
What about the losses suffered by the manufacturers that were discriminated against by this biased process/ wording?
Prove that statement? Talk is cheap and to say sales are effected by this is without fact or merit. We hear the same blah,blah about traps, they state the brand,size and type tested because that is what was used in the testing, they also state they don't recommend brands and as long as they have the same dimensions as what is tested they are listed as a BMP qualifying trap!
No one has made the BMP's law and no one has stated brand x is better than brand z. The issue with cable is simply that the 1x19 had not been tested out and recommended as of the writing of the manual. Again manuals are subject to change and the BMP committe said they will have an addendum to the manual about 1x19 cable. That is change in a poi=sitive manner no matter how you slice it.
Do you suppose some of this could have been avoided by including the advice of professional trappers and an national association respresenting trappers?
A big YES I DO I also suppose that those with the ax to grind over the whole process would stay the course and keep dialog open and not close off their minds and write what has been written would have helped the relationship as well don't you suppose?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Apr 21, 2006 7:56:29 GMT -6
why does talking about the facts, make one have ax to grind?
Nor afraid of a lawsuit? Ok. Seems like thats what prompted this big change of heart. AS Robert points out- if the bmp committee would havel istend TO BEGIN with, the problem would not have occured.
Same thing with the coon- they didn't listen because their "experts" know best.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 21, 2006 8:17:45 GMT -6
Problem being tman they are not all facts! I could copy and paste from the FTA website and then you could list all the factual information they tend not to state on the site? They did a poll to see where their membership stood so they could see what line they should take the hard line or a softer one, if they had conviction then why not publicy state there root cause either for or against and back it with facts instead of leading it with open door answers?
In 1999 they where deeply concerned with the direction the BMP was taking? What was that concern? The few they list have yet to come to light or bear anything on the final outcomes of the BMP's done to this point. How long was Dave hastib=ngs on the Eastern Coyote BMP committe before they decided to take him off because of token involvement? Then wrote in the fur taker FTA's non support of the process. The very BMP you and others stated you have no problem with and turned out well.
They then wrote about how boarding the BMP bus "might be" dangerous is that fact or an opinion? It may be just as dangerous to follow the statis quoe and keep doing what was failing state by state in the past as well. It goes on and on with opinion. I have no problem if FTA wants to be anti BMP or pro BMP or in the middle but to be at the table and their voice heard would be the best for the membership reguardless. Instead they state over and over how they pull back and don't want to be mentioned with any of it, then claim they are not a part of the process who's fault would that be? Read the very end and it is all opinion and no facts.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Apr 21, 2006 9:04:43 GMT -6
So now its a FTA thing? Very well.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Apr 21, 2006 16:48:50 GMT -6
Hmmm, am I seeing another rewrite of history here?
The process and involvement of all parties in this has been interesting to say the least and perhaps some balance should be brought into the discussion if finger pointing is to start.
Progress has and is being made lately and that in the overall scheme of things is good.
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Apr 21, 2006 20:12:04 GMT -6
RW:"What about the losses suffered by the manufacturers that were discriminated against by this biased process/ wording?"
Trappincoyotes37;" Prove that statement? Talk is cheap and to say sales are effected by this is without fact or merit."
You sir are full of $h!t. Wisconsin Cable restraint Data adopted into the BMPs has been adopted into regulations in several states. 1x19 cable was not evaluated in these studies or the resulting data (and improper wording regarding "multi strand" cable) (was finally evaluated this winter I am told) despite repeated request by professional trappers. As everyone is aware there IS A MANUFACTURER WHO ONLY MARKETS 1X19 PRODUCTS that has been denied a chance to compete in a fair market place. This company has suffered (and continues) because of the improper wording used (multi-strand) and adopted into regulations and trapper ed material in some states.
If you would like further proof about sales being adversely affected because of this wording there is a manufacturer that posts here occasionally that can furnish you with the $ figures.
All of this is bad but..... THE WORST PART is that trappers have been forced to make do with substandard equipment endangering their own sport (possible media night mare)every time a coyote is shot by a hunter wearing a "multi strand" necklace because it chewed through the "multi strand" cable like it was a cotton rope!
BTW, How many of you guys actually used 7x19 regularly (prior to the studies conducted) for live catching coyotes?
Ever wonder why the most popular braid of cable that has been on the market the longest was not evaluated from the beginning?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 22, 2006 8:16:27 GMT -6
No Tman read my post I stated the FTA can take whatever stance they want my reference was to those that wonder why the FTA isn't at the BMP table as Mr Sinrud wrote to state that the FTA has been a willing partner and left out in the cold is wrong and misleading, they have made choices as an org as do others orgs on many issues. I point out the beliefs of the FTA and that some of what they perceive is not truth. If they want to be anti BMP or post the negatives in their minds great, but to have some state they are willing and have had no animosity towards the BMP's is not telling the whole truth. If they want to prejudge the process long before results where in thats fine too, just don't portray them as the black sheep and having no say because of other factors. I stated" The FTA should be at the table even if there beliefs differ" to have a voice no matter how small they think that voice is!
Wisconsin Cable restraint Data adopted into the BMPs has been adopted into regulations in several states. 1x19 cable was not evaluated in these studies or the resulting data (and improper wording regarding "multi strand" cable) (was finally evaluated this winter I am told) despite repeated request by professional trappers. As everyone is aware there IS A MANUFACTURER WHO ONLY MARKETS 1X19 PRODUCTS that has been denied a chance to compete in a fair market place. This company has suffered (and continues) because of the improper wording used (multi-strand) and adopted into regulations and trapper ed material in some states.
You want to cast blame go to the Wis DNR as that was a state decision and did this type of testing long before the IAFWA did! Same with MI, and PA. To state a loss of sales when WI or PA had NO snaring before the issue how? You are correct 1x19 was tested this past winter in 4 states in 3 different configurations. I would like to see proof of suffering that is BMP related please, as many states allow 1x19 cable and various locks with this type of cable. Wy,IA.SD.MT are just a few and I would venture to guess if you have asked many professional trappers they make their own snares, because it is cheaper, they can make up what they want, and how they want it. Various reasons for lack of sales and I would like to see proof of the BMP process as the #1 reason for lack of sales. 1x19 was tested and the results not yet known but the 1x19 cable will be added to the trappers ed manual under the cable wording section!
THE WORST PART is that trappers have been forced to make do with substandard equipment endangering their own sport (possible media night mare)every time a coyote is shot by a hunter wearing a "multi strand" necklace because it chewed through the "multi strand" cable like it was a cotton rope!
I agree they will have many chew out unless staying with a 24 hr check. Those states that adopt the cable restraints do so for various reasons the majority are PR and lack of accountability. They are another tool, the first choice NO not for me, but another alternative for states looking for better PR and less riding on their backs. Not all states will mandate cable restraints I can assure you of that. States with strong Game Dept's and strong trappers assoc will still see the many benefits to snaring and entanglement.
I don't live trap so can not comment on that aspect, I'll PM you the rest of my thoughts. Good Day
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 22, 2006 8:39:07 GMT -6
Hmmm, am I seeing another rewrite of history here?
The process and involvement of all parties in this has been interesting to say the least and perhaps some balance should be brought into the discussion if finger pointing is to start.
Progress has and is being made lately and that in the overall scheme of things is good.
Akona excellent insite on this!!! I see it as a positive too, just those that are anti BMP can't let go for their Bias clouds the strides made on the BMP process.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Apr 23, 2006 6:37:32 GMT -6
By the same token, those that think the sun shines out of the bmp committees bunghole, need to stop clapping for every bogus bmp and every inadequete or just plain stupid statemnt they come out with.
Bias lives on both sides of the fence- and I can honestly say I've never talked to anyone or seen anyone write supporting the bmps like you do 150%.
Thats becasue ALL other bmp supporters I talk to, make mention that the bmp made mistakes and NEEDS to correct those mistakes.
Your attitude is they made mistakes, but such is life... live with them and be thankful tey took the time to make mistakes.
I have no bias against gov trappers, but I really think your stance on bmps is 100% because you ARE a govt trapper.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 23, 2006 11:27:16 GMT -6
I have no bias against gov trappers, but I really think your stance on bmps is 100% because you ARE a govt trapper.
Tell me why you think that? Why not just let things run there course? I guess if I would really care about the future of fur trapping I would be spreading the same bias as you and others correct or not? Look at my post and tell me I haven't mentioned that things could be different in some aspects.
Ah they are correcting mistakes are they not?
I also will this fall be puting on a trapping clinic that will be 2 days and will be for young kids and young adults who have more interest in trapping and some if it will cover the BMP's and some will not. I care about the future of trapping in all shapes and forms not from one aspect or another.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Apr 24, 2006 7:58:40 GMT -6
I guess if I would really care about the future of fur trapping
so you don't?
Correcting mistakes? Under a very real lawsuit threat, they changed some wording on the snare issue.
Are you aware of other corrections that the genral public is not? Unless you do, I see nothing where they corrected their....mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 25, 2006 14:39:25 GMT -6
Tman ever hear of sarcasm? That was my reference to NOT caring about fur trappers. I do care and I do share both time and knowledge with anyone who wants either.
Correcting mistakes? Under a very real lawsuit threat, they changed some wording on the snare issue. First: who cares as long as changes where made? They changed the wording on the snare issue because good points were brought up and the changes made! Those who brought them up where validated by the changes! Secondly: The lawsuit was not a real threat as this would have NO means been a slam dunk and would ate up alot of time and money from both sides, and the BIGGER reason it would have given trapping yet another black eye! The paper would have went something like: Trappers protest and sue IAFWA BMP Humane Trapping committee over wording involved with snaring issues, how would that have looked for the general public to see us fight amongst ourselves? The Antis would have been smiling and rolling in their seats.
You don't want to validate the changes because it doesn't fit your bias, I can understand that but it was real and did happen and it is a good thing for both sides! I know your beef is with the coon BMP/ drowning issues but time will tell on that these items, the point though to think lawsuits are the way to go on these matters is foolish and will do nothing for trapping but a black eye.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Apr 25, 2006 14:57:54 GMT -6
I have often wondered why government trappers are so concerned about the rules for 'ordinary' trappers.
To me there seems to be an almost unsolvable conflict of interest between the two groups in certain matters.
The ones employed by the government work under certain protects not afforded to other trappers and no matter what happens they will have sort of job to carry out and the government will ensure they have 'legal' trapping equipment. In any case it is probable that certain exemptions will apply in their equipment if push comes to shove on BMP's.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 25, 2006 15:24:00 GMT -6
I have often wondered why government trappers are so concerned about the rules for 'ordinary' trappers.
To me there seems to be an almost unsolvable conflict of interest between the two groups in certain matters.
I know you can delve deeper so why not do that? The gist of your posting is?
The ones employed by the government work under certain protects not afforded to other trappers and no matter what happens they will have sort of job to carry out and the government will ensure they have 'legal' trapping equipment. In any case it is probable that certain exemptions will apply in their equipment if push comes to shove on BMP's.
Do you see push coming to shove in states with alot of livestock and a strong backing of trappers both government and private by landowners? "IF" is the million dollar word as it doesn't state "It will" only a possibility and 50/50 at best in any if scenario.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Apr 25, 2006 16:33:30 GMT -6
My statement is perfectly clear and needs no further explanation.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 25, 2006 18:07:04 GMT -6
OK then I'll go off what you where implying to the best of my ability. Government trappers, "most" started out as fur trappers and gained knowledge and experience from years in the field. They care about the future of trapping period! So many want to pit this thing that Gov trappers are against private trappers not the case in "most" circumstances. They have no problem with fur trappers and know come spring/summer when livestock depredation needs to be done that the private fur trapper is busy working another job and in this day and age not cost effective and "alot" don't have the knowledge to solve the problem in a hurray. I can tell you summer beaver trapping is no picnic.
Their is room for both and both are needed and in states where you have alot of ADC men, you have in this day and age very few people going for beaver and coyotes for fur. Trapping isn't what it used to be and you had much in the way of maintains trapping when we had the fur boom, the last 15 years or so you have little in the way of trapping compared to the past. Just because ADC trappers are afforded "looser" regs does not mean they don't care about fur trapping as they started and gained alot from those years and is something they want to protect.
ADC trappers have looser regs because they are dealing with livestock killing coyotes and time is of the essence, whatever can save livestock in the most efficient manner. Fur trappers are out to catch fur and it doesn't matter what coyote as long as it is a coyote, try and find people who will go 50 miles each way to summer trap beaver? Some try it and then say no way to much time and money spent in cleaning out all the beaver. With no value to them.
I don't know how some can claim that the BMP's will become standard law for ALL states and for ALL trappers. State by state is how it has always worked, we don't have a standard for anything in trapping each state controls their own destiny. The states with alot of pressure "may" adopt some or all of the BMP"s due to PR and what the public perceives but their alternative could very well be a TOTAL trapping ban as we have seen in states. Others will go about their business as before with little pressure from the general public and will decide how best to manage their predators and fur bearers in their states.
The greatest asset the BMP's have for ALL trappers is creditability that what we use now has been proven out in testing. Guidelines not mandates is the issue behind the BMP"s. I heard the same thing when the Feds mandated Steel shot the end of waterfowl hunting is near! My father when states started to enact Blaze Orange for deer hunting the end of deer hunting is near! Now we have the BMP's and they will be helpful to trappers all over the US in small ways and big .
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Apr 26, 2006 7:19:21 GMT -6
First: who cares as long as changes where made?
I care. Changes made because they were ill advised and corrected only by threat of lawsuit is a lot different from understanding a problem, and correcting it before/without lawsuits.
Are the other "mistakes" also being corrected?
Your strawman says " don't know how some can claim that the BMP's will become standard law for ALL states and for ALL trappers"..
Who said that and where?
All I ever said, and ever saw anyo ne else say- is that changes are being madei n states becuase of the BMPS. Other states have tried, and wil lcontinue to do so.
What I don't understand, is how some (you) think that NONE of the bmps will become law- when the opposite is true. They already ARE.
And whats scary...is that the rest of the "mistakes"...since there is no threat of a lawsuit concerning them----will be allowed to stand and MAY, EVENTUALLY...become laws.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 26, 2006 14:58:55 GMT -6
Tman there has been statements on this site that have claimed the feds can cut funding and make the BMP's as law nationwide. I have stated that won't happen and others want to think doom and gloom and think that may just happen. Just reaching for more to scare others with No knowledge of the process and what it is all about.
The if a lawsuit is the main motivation of change in your mind, get others to back your stance and threaten more of the same, you may just get what you want.
The laws in which you are referring too? Would that be cable restraints in states that had no snaring of any kind before they passed their own state version of a BMP? The cable restraints where put into place state by state before the IAFWA ever thought of testing cable restraints and the IAFWA where the ones to test out other locks and cable types I might add as well. Without knowing the outcome of the data collected on 1x19 and cam locks it may just be that the IAFWA cable restraints my just turn out more liberal than those states that did their own testing!
I also got out on a limb and say, that if BMP's where state by state: things could be much different in some states to the negative as those with pressure for more stringent guidelines may have been worse off if all BMP's where left state to state instead of a national coalition which we have now, but some wouldn't care as it doesn't effect them.
|
|