|
Post by robertw on Apr 26, 2006 16:11:33 GMT -6
Wiley, You beat around the bush with your political talk and BS....You have not addressed the fact that the most popular canine snare cable (1x19) was endanger of being left totally out of the BMPs, the fact that some manufacturers were denied the right to compete in a fair market place because of improper wording or the fact that Trappers were / are being forced to use substandard cable for cable restraints because of improper wording.
How about cable restraints being adopted into a "National BMP" for red fox. Ever wonder about the sample size in the study? I think that nearly any snare device of moderate length with no entanglement will pass on fox for a cable restraint....but with a sample size this small will it pass muster in the scientific community?
Ever think about a Public Relations Job / occupation? You could sell ice to an eskimo because yours wasn't cold!
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Apr 26, 2006 16:13:06 GMT -6
BTW, What about salt water tidal trappers being denied stainless steel cable for their cable restraints?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 26, 2006 17:10:17 GMT -6
the fact that some manufacturers were denied the right to compete in a fair market place because of improper wording or the fact that Trappers were / are being forced to use substandard cable for cable restraints because of improper wording.
Who was denied what? Since when have the BMP's denied anyone to sell anything in a fair market place? The IAFWA cable restraint is different than what WI,PA and MI has passed each state by state regs! Why not call them states an raise your complaint about unfair marketing practices in those states then? Thye performed the testing and passed those laws NOT IAFWA.
BTW, What about salt water tidal trappers being denied stainless steel cable for their cable restraints?
Since when has anything been done in tidal waters as far as any BMP goes? I don't know much about this kind of trapping but are there alot of salt water coyote and fox snaremen? That is a serious question by the way. No species outside of canines has been tested with cable restraints or snaring. Also what state because the BMP's have been done has made S.S. cable illegal because it was not addressed in the BMP"s? Again who is being denied anything? These are not laws and the trapper manual can be changed and fitted on a state by state need. What tital water snareman has switched cable types because of the information from the BMP"s and then why?
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Apr 26, 2006 18:13:47 GMT -6
37, Given the nature of the debate at present in that it is going backwards and forwards with little real progress perhaps If we could get back to the fundamental question on BMP's and I ask it of you:
Why are BMP's even being discussed?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Apr 26, 2006 19:17:34 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.
They can. If they want to, they will. Wheres the mistruth here?
They have done it countless of times on other issues.
They could do it tomorrow.
Better case scenerio- ask yourself WHAT is going to become of the bmps? Its been an expensive, time consuming effort particpated in by many states. Does it sound logical to write these bmps, and toss them in a drawer to gather dust?
Or is another scenerio, more logical.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 27, 2006 13:37:02 GMT -6
Tman wrote: 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 any one ne else say- is that changes are being made in n states because of the BMPS. Other states have tried, and Will continue to do so.
Tman then wrote:They can. If they want to, they will. Wheres the mis truth here?
They have done it countless of times on other issues.
They could do it tomorrow.
I'm trying to figure this out either these comments where made or were not? Also yes the Federal Government could do alot of things, but what is the reality of any of it coming to light? Instead some fear monger others into an opinion that doesn't have alot of historical facts to back it up when it pertains to this matter.
Better case scenario- ask yourself WHAT is going to become of the bmps? Its been an expensive, time consuming effort participated in by many states. Does it sound logical to write these bmps, and toss them in a drawer to gather dust?
I know many states will use them as guidelines and recommend to trappers the benefits of the information. A ton of data was collected, data that is positive for trappers. Time and money have no bearing how much time and money has the government used on many things without them seeing the light of day? You think because time and money was spent that it will lead to states regulating trappers with BMP's to the tee?
It will not gather dust and will be out there for the public to see both written form and TV format as well. The data is their for states to use how they see fit and just because a state took an active role does not mean strict regulation is to follow. The whole concept goes much larger than just the writing and testing of the BMP"s it goes into education and public awareness of trapping and the positive roles trappers play in the year 2006 and beyond.
If this was all to be followed up with to the tee regs why would anyone use words like guidelines and recommendations? If a state wants to enact them as regs they would do so. Same with the trappers ed manual they could have made it up as a written in stone document, this is the way it will be period, they did not do this instead they left it as a manual to be used as something that will change state to state regs to regs in each respective state. The ability to add to or delete sections that do not pertain to each state. The major focal point of this manual is trapper ethics and how the BMP's can be used to trapping advantages and not the other way around. Some want to see the glass half full and others want this to be doom and gloom to point fingers and see the glass as leaking and going empty. The facts SO FAR don't prove that theory out nor do the very people that work in IAFWA and the professional message they want to and are portraying trapping to be. It is factual and honest and cuts to the chase of trapping plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Apr 27, 2006 16:47:56 GMT -6
You think because time and money was spent that it will lead to states regulating trappers with BMP's to the tee?
Yes, I honestly do. I think a lot of states and a lot of state personal- put a lot of time and money into the bmps. In many of these states- because time and $$$ were utilized in the project- to justfy its worth, they are inclined to support and recommend it.
The DNRs are political in many if not most states- and like any political arm- those that get the funding are those that can show "results" of their work, time (publish or perish).
A state dnr- strapped for funding like most are- isn't going to spend $$$ and send personel if they get no results.
This is just the way it works.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 27, 2006 16:45:50 GMT -6
Tman I think your misinformed, as I have stated in the past you seem to think that ALOT of time is being demanded of the states it is not alot of time nor funding compaired to many other avenues of a states Game Dept. I can tell you many states are involved and will not mandate BMP's. Many states have alot of time into hunters ed and alot isn't mandated and states curve their regs for the balance of the whole.
Please define ALOT both time and money so we are on the same page.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Apr 27, 2006 18:08:19 GMT -6
TC- I know, for example, that a state like MN, sends its furbearer biologist to bmp meetings on a regular basis. This costs the DNR money- money it doesn't "have"...that is...lots of projects, few $$$.
I know John Erb personally- and I give this recommendation of few men- he's a 100% standup trapper and biologist.... I've run lines with him and would do it again.
He's a busy man. He has more projects then time. Time away from his "normal" duties, puts a stain on things, to a degree.
So- time is invested, money is spent- on travel expenses, whatever.
This gives the states, such as MN, a vested interest in using what they are investing in.
This is simple logic, and I can't believe you can dispute my reasoning.
What can be disputed- is how much will be guidelines and how much law. You say 100% guidelines.
I say- hope you are right. BUT...I see cracks in the wall already.
Is it just an anomoly...or a trend?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Apr 27, 2006 18:52:28 GMT -6
Tman I'll answer by saying all states get federal dollars for some projects.
|
|
|
Post by sinrud on Apr 30, 2006 7:59:13 GMT -6
To begin with, The BMP is very concerned about a law suite. If not then why did we receive a call from the IAFWA In-House Attorney requesting a phone conference regarding the letters we sent? Secondly, our business has suffered losses due to inappropriate language and regulations. While several states have legalized snaring in the past several years our sales have declined in respect to the private trapping sector. This is not because we make an inferior product! Thirdly, the FTA is not against the CONCEPT of the BMP. they are opposed to the way the BMP conducts its’ activities in several areas. I believe this is true with the majority of trappers. This is not just a BMP problem - it’s a problem with many state agencies as well! In our attempt to find out what was happening to our business we contacted various state agencies for information. We discovered the Ohio Trapper Education manual contained improper language (Modern snares are made of multi strand steel cable). This was inserted into regulation. The Ohio Game Department informed us “We thought 1x19 was multi strand and accept it”. This language was presented, and accepted, to and by several other states and we were given similar responses. We began writing articles supplying correct information about the definitions and construction of cable types. After understanding the error we were told they would not change the language even though it was incorrect. The result is while 1x19 has been “considered” acceptable it is not considered legal in language and Trapper Education programs exclude it. This language ended up in the hands of the BMP and was adopted into their Trapper Education Manual where they went to considerable length to implicate the unacceptability of 1x19 cable in their glossary terms. We informed them of the problem before the final draft of the BMP T.E. Manual but they refused to amend the errors. The State Agencies and the BMP work hand in hand. The State Agencies create regulations while the BMP creates recommendations. Many State Agents hold membership with the IAFWA/BMP. The BMP adopt regulations - uses them and create new recommendations based on those combined with “new studies”. These results are passed back to states as recommendations which are usually adopted into regulation changes. We were informed in February the state of Ohio has amended their “CODES” for snare cable to include 1x19 cable - GOOD FOR OHIO!!! This shows good responsibility. The BMP also addressed this in the “BMP Trapping in the US” publication. However they did not correct the improper language into their “Education Manual” even after they had ample time to do so. This is irresponsible. As I understand, the concept and purpose of the BMP is to improve Game Management - not to reinvent the wheel. For the BMP to conduct studies on a very small selection of equipment or approach someone to “make something” to study and make recommendations accordingly is extremely bias and prejudice. Good Game Management practices are developed by creating good METHODS of game control NOT redesigning equipment. Equipment design is up to the manufacturers and snare makers. This is their business! These entities are responsible, and capable, for developing equipment which performs to methods and expectations of desired results. We are aware of at least one other company which has been denied consideration recently. This company had to beg and plead just to have their product looked at! Meanwhile his competitor is doing very well since he was on a committee involved with “study recommendations”. p.s. Just because someone has a different opinion or information does not mean you should cal them an idiot, jerk, As$*&*e or full of sh*%!
|
|