|
Post by trappnman on Jul 8, 2006 10:33:30 GMT -6
no it is not panic!
What it is, is being aware of how the bmps are, despite all your predictions to the contrary, influencing state laws.
And this is just a trickle in the dike.
Progressive trappers- ask WHY the bmps have taken the direction they have. WHO benefits?
And when you know that, you'll know the future.
Do trappers benefit? Sometimes.
Do the State agencys benefit from using their own work- yuppers.
Its naive to think that with the time and money spent by the satates, to not expect them to get a return on the dollar.
I'm not anti BMP- but I'm damn sure anti bogus bmps and wouldn't say "thanks sir, give me another" until the bmps start LISTENIG to trappers...not hust paying lip service to such.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 8, 2006 12:14:15 GMT -6
Tman you keep coming back to this money issue? What in the he** does that have to do with anything? How much do you think each state pays into the BMP process? How much of any states budget gets used? Is it a high enough portion to play lip service to the people of the state,that they need to enact BMP"s as the general rule of thumb? Nope IMHO.
Funny many said, long before the BMP"s that the padded pacifier would mean the end to the use of the steel jawed trap as we know it? Yet after the BMP's it has been proved out that the steel jawed trap can be and in cases far better than a padded trap? To bad we didn't have the BMP's then we could have blamed the padded jaw trap's creation and use on them as well LOL!
Is there concern for ever tighting state regs on trapping YES! Each state and the people of those states need to be active and use the voice of their trappers and trapper orgs, to form a good relationship with the Game Dept's and work together, are the BMP's the cause of all this? Highly doubt it, nor do I think the BMP's are the highest determining factor for state reg changes.
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Jul 8, 2006 13:29:13 GMT -6
RW: "You need only read the wording of the snare proposals to recognize them as coming from the BMPs."That is nothing more than an "ILLUSION OF PROOF". You don't know where that wording comes from. It could have came from another states regulations THAT COULD JUST AS EASILY HAVE INFLUENCED THE BMP PROCESS. YOU DON'T KNOW so you speculate so you can blame BMPs with your fellow BMP blamers. RW: "Then if you want further proof maybe you should talk to some of the Montana Trappers on where this stuff came from, (I have!)."Talk is cheap! Evidence is proof, not talk! RW: "The Montana Trappers are being force fed regulations that THEY DO NOT WANT and will be detrimental to their harvest! How can any one support this?"WHO SAID ANYONE WAS SUPPORTING THE REGULATIONS ROBERT? ? WHERE DID THAT COME FROM??? "RED HERRING"! The issue here is not whether anyone who is not a BMP blamer is in support of these regulations ("either for us or against us"), the issue here is whether or not those regulations originated from the BMP process as you claim. Again, WHERE IS YOUR PROOF THAT THESE REGULATIONS ORIGINATED FROM THE BMP PROCESS? An "ILLUSION OF PROOF" is not proof. Even if they did originate from the BMP process, they could have just as easily originated from any damn trap or snare study ever done. Common sense would tell you that bmp "RECOMMENDATIONS" were not original concepts. So what's your point anyway??? BAN ALL TRAP RESEARCH FOR FEAR THAT SOME MAY NOT TURN OUT THE WAY YOU WANTED AND MIGHT INFLUENCE FUTURE REGULATIONS??? Trap research was going to occur whether trappers liked it or not and with or with out our input. This particular trap research was driven by wildlife management agencies WHICH IS A HELL OF A LOT BETTER THAN A BUNCH OF "BUNNY HUGGERS". By our involvement, we were able to shape the process as opposed to Monday morning quarterbacks lobbing grenades at the off colored smoke they didn't like that was left by the train. Shaping the process is not endorsing it, shaping the process is simply INFLUENCING THE INEVITABLE. BMP trap research was going to occur, PERIOD! Like I said, why bitch now when your fellow FTA BMP blamers voted to abstain from the process then bitched about not having more input? Real foresight there Robert! Set your emotions on this issue aside and start using some logic and look at the facts. FACTS: 1. BMP's EXIST 2. TRAP RESEARCH WILL CONTINUE TO OCCUR. 3. BMPS ARE BETTER FOR TRAPPERS WITH THEIR INPUT THAN WITHOUT 4. "ATTEMPTS AT" FURTHER REGULATION OF TRAPPING WILL CONTINUE TO OCCUR WITH OR WITHOUT BMPS. 5. TRAPPERS WILL FIGHT AGAINST THOSE REGULATIONS THAT ARE TOO RESTRICTIVE WITH OR WITHOUT BMPS. 6. BMPS WILL BE USED TO INFLUENCE TRAPPING REGULATIONS TO BOTH THE BENEFIT AND THE DETRIMENT OF TRAPPING. Those cards are on the table and all the bitching and blaming in the world won't change THOSE FACTS! Too "matter of fact" for you? ~SH~
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 8, 2006 18:14:46 GMT -6
I agree with all you said wiley- but #6 is where the hangup is. I believe that statement to be 100% true. And weighed more on 1 side than the other. I think you have an awful distortion of the FTA view, but thats up to you. Given the bmps out now- the CABLE bmps- and you can argue this all you want, it is a bmp that is being adopted in whole by other states and the absolutely absurd coon bmp- the bmp committee is 50/50 at best. Input was tried many times, and by me personally to Hamiliton included- all to a deaf ear. When all input is met by: "not humane" (holding in water) "not humane" (drowning) "not humane" (to set entanglement) it just gets silly and one quickly realizes- no input is needed or wanted. Time ot fighht it outside the closed loop. And don't dare say "testing traps not trappers" cause thats the biggest fallacy of all. When you spell out certain criteria, when you limit or disallow things- my friend- its methods. Now- in Montana- its a FACT that last year, the BMPS were DIRECTLY introduced into the state legislature (in published form) in regards to eliminating multiple day checks. It was defeated. Now- this year...bmps unrelated? Esp. when the wording is almost word for word bmp language? Come on now-
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 8, 2006 19:00:59 GMT -6
Tman what is "almost" word for word?
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 8, 2006 19:35:18 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jul 8, 2006 23:07:30 GMT -6
Wiley if you won't believe people like John Graham who are dealing with this in Montana as proof / fact/ carved in stone and if you can not recognize the same wording as used in the BMPs then you really need to wake up.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 9, 2006 6:46:09 GMT -6
An "ILLUSION OF PROOF" is not proof
yet "common sense" is?
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 9, 2006 6:55:08 GMT -6
As I thought
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 9, 2006 8:04:58 GMT -6
Good! glad we cleared that up for you.
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Jul 10, 2006 7:33:14 GMT -6
RW: "Wiley if you won't believe people like John Graham who are dealing with this in Montana as proof / fact/ carved in stone and if you can not recognize the same wording as used in the BMPs then you really need to wake up."
You're the one who needs to wake up Robert. As if bmp blaming is going to have any impact on future trapping regulations.
Admit it, John Graham said what bmp blamers like you wanted to believe so you sunk your teeth into it and accepted it as fact without a stitch of proof.
You don't know where the regulation wording originated, it could just as easily have originated from another state's regulations which were incorporated into the bmp process. Bmp protocols are hardly "original concepts".
Only a bmp blamer would find satisfaction in lobbing grenades at the off colored smoke of a train that has long since passed.
T'man: "I think you have an awful distortion of the FTA view, but thats up to you."
Then perhaps we should clear this up right now T'man.
1. Did FTA vote to abstain from the BMP process?
a. Yes they did b. No they did not c. I don't know whether they did or did not
2. Did FTA leaders criticize the bmp process for not including them after voting to abstain from the process?
a. Yes they did b. No they did not c. I don't know whether they did or did not.
Honest answers to those questions will certainly reveal whether or not my views are distorted.
Would you say Dave Hastings relentless bmp bashing (read conspiracy theories) is representative of FTA views on the issue? yes or no?
T'man: "Given the bmps out now- the CABLE bmps- and you can argue this all you want, it is a bmp that is being adopted in whole by other states and the absolutely absurd coon bmp- the bmp committee is 50/50 at best."
Where is your proof that the cable bmp is being adopted in whole by other states?
Bring it!
T'man: "Now- in Montana- its a FACT that last year, the BMPS were DIRECTLY introduced into the state legislature (in published form) in regards to eliminating multiple day checks."
Ridiculous!
The bmp made no recommendations about a 24 hour check. The 24 hour check was simply a NECESSARY protocol in order to objectively compare one trap to another. You can't compare a trap from an animal that was held for 72 hours to a trap that held an animal for 24 hours. Talk about injecting bias.
Don't be a bmp blamer T'man, that's such an easy, non "thought provoking" road to take.
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 10, 2006 9:26:25 GMT -6
PA, MO to name 2. Word for word exact copies down to the dotted i's and ts? no- but significant wording was used and the sources were named. Proof enough for me.
I think Dave Hastings is right on.
Not a basher- but also don't believe that the bmps are the best we can do nor contain gospel.
The coon bmp for example- is, to be blunt- crap.
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jul 10, 2006 22:00:29 GMT -6
Wiley, I will answer your questions but first....Answer one of mine.
Where do you get this information from?
Wiley; ". Did FTA vote to abstain from the BMP process?"
Wiley; "2. Did FTA leaders criticize the bmp process for not including them after voting to abstain from the process?"
I'm looking for the name of the individual or a specific reference in print that told you the FTA "Abstained" from anything.
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Jul 10, 2006 22:35:55 GMT -6
RW: "I'm looking for the name of the individual or a specific reference in print that told you the FTA "Abstained" from anything."
So you think you can divert from the FTA's position by your inability to find the word "ABSTAIN" in a resolution? LOL! I didn't say "ABSTAIN" was the FTA's official wording did I? I said that was the position they took. They voted to "NOT BE A PART OF" the bmp process. Like that wording better?
Classic "RED HERRING"!
I don't give a damn how you word it Robert, FTA's intent was clear, FTA voted not to be a part of the BMP process, then bitched about not being included. Classic blamers!
Would you like to place a wager on it? If I am going to go back and get the exact wording, it's going to be worth my time to do so.
Dave Hastings is not right on Steve, Dave Hastings is another BMP conspiracy theorist that tells other bmp conspiracy theorists what they want to hear. Facts be damned. Anyone can be a conspiracy theorist. Conspiring on the motives behind bmps doesn't require any depth.
Show me where bmps were used to regulate trapping and I'll show you were bmps were used to help trapping. I can find a whole lot more that is positive about bmps for trapping than negative but the conspiring minds abound.
BEWARE OF THE CONSPIRING MIND!!!
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by Hamilton on Jul 10, 2006 23:20:53 GMT -6
OK- I'll jump in .. . The Montana cable restraint regulation proposal is likely based on many of the recent cable restraint regulations written in Wisc. Missouri, and Pennsylvania.... if it was based on BMPs, someone didn't do their homework. This might seem to be a minor point, but the BMP for trapping coyotes in the western states does NOT include cable restraints... see for yourself: www.iafwa.org/Furbearer/BMP_Western_Coyote_2006.pdfTo clear up more misinformation, Missouri's cable restraint regulations were not based on the BMPs for eastern coyotes- we here in Missouri wrote them- and they are based in-part on the cable restraint research in Wisconsin- in part on the Wisconsin Cable Restraint regulations, and based a whole lot on Missouri cable restraint testing, input from Missouri Trappers, Missouri hound hunters, Missouri small game hunters who use dogs, and discussions with the Missouri Regulations Committee.... and most importantly for our discussions tonight... they were written with LOTS of input from one of the members on this here forum.... drum roll please.... The infamous Robert Waddell!! Yes Robert, stand up and take a bow. Robert Waddell pushed these regulations (CABLE RESTRAINTS) in Missouri harder than anyone else. Yep- Robert- you can run but you can't hide :-) I bet you are embarrased- I would be if I was you. Robert can explain to you why we needed 12 inch loops for coyotes and the bottom of the loop should be about 12 inches from the ground. He can explain the theory behind "no entanglement". We put all of this information in our MANDATORY Cable Restraint training class and manual. Our regulations deal with the specifications of the cable, the lock (relaxing lock- right Robert?). Robert pushed for a MANDATORY cable restraint class here too. OK- My point is that Robert is trying to pose as someone he is not. Cable restraints are good for Robert while he is in Missouri. He makes fun of them when he is riding into the sunset- out west- ... where he also makes fun of BMPs. Sorry Robert- can't stand it any longer. A couple other points- Missouri, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania had no snaring (legally) prior to the research work in Wisc, and the promise of BMPs to endorse them. Snares have a very bad reputation in the Midwest and parts of the east because they can and do kill dogs. We sold Cable Restraints in Missouri- not on the BMPs- because they were not done yet- but on the hope that BMPs would include this very important tool- they are important to trappers in Missouri - even Waddell- due to the number of dogs you are going to catch- and hopefully release alive and unharmed. Same in Wisc and PA. Did the BMPs become similar to Wisconsin, Missouri, and PA's cable restraint programs? Maybe so. Bottom line- even though the BMPs did not yet endorse cable restraints, it was only the hope and the promise that they would soon do so, and that turned the tide so that Robert and other trappers in Missouri, Wisc and PA can use cable. Funny how that worked, isn't it Robert? Montana isn't Missouri- and I can't say whether or not allowing some to use cable restraints in Montana is good or not.... but they aren't in the same situation- NO dogs- No people either for that matter. So what is good in Missouri and Wisc and PA isn't necessarily good in Montana. That is why it is our job as biologists and trappers to make sure that the decision- makers have ALL the information necessary to make a good decision- not just a trendy thing to do. BMPs in the west do not endorse cable restraints- so whatever is motivating Montana FWP -who knows- but it isn't the western BMP for coyotes. Lethal snaring is important in Montana with the big country and long lines... is some trapper decides to use a relaxing lock on his cable restraint (not a snare), he better get there the next morning if he wants to keep the coyote- so I think I understand some of John Graham's concern- we shouldn't be mixing relaxing locks on snares that are meant to be killing devices and expect the same results.... nor should we endorse a cable restraint system on a 3-4 day check and expect favorable results either. Oh, and one more thing... the whole quote from John Graham and his reference to BMPs.... "The BMP will probably effect trapping in Montana more than I ever thought it would, and in some ways that isn't all bad, but this state is very unique in alot of ways, and what works here might not be accepted other places, and vice-versa." Exactly- BMPs were not meant to become regulations- so that every state had to have the same regulations- sea to sea- no way. They are meant to be trapper education- a menu of available techniques that have met certain criteria- and each state is free to use them or not, or pick and choose which ones fit and which ones do not. By the way, the reference to "12 inches below the loop ..... in snow" ... isn't from any BMP either.... maybe Wisconsin's regulations, but not BMPs. Just because some overzealous Commissioner (or politician) is looking for a quick fix to solve some perceived nasty problem, doesn't condem BMPs either. Looks like folks in Montana might need some more information- so get your pens and papers out and fire away. You too Robert- but try to remember where you live, and what it is that you have said and done and wrote while you were here in Missouri. See you on Thursday!
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 11, 2006 6:15:16 GMT -6
cable restraint research is a bmp- Your committtee doesn't have a copyright on them.
But it does have a vested interest. A BIG vested interest.
After the coon bmps, the process has lost much of its credibility with me. What the bmp committee considers "inhumane"- is nonsense. And the protocal is absurd.
Yet you will try to force those concepts down our throats.
I know oy uwould love ot see all your bmps accepted without question, without any regard for actuallites- but those days are long past.
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jul 11, 2006 8:08:53 GMT -6
Yes I worked hard at help getting "Cable Restraints" legalized here in Missouri.
To accomplish this we used data from the Wisconsin study.
We have also acknowledged some of the shortcomings of this data as it affected our use here in Missouri and are adjusting our regs accordingly.
We also adjusted our wording considerably in the regulations here in Missouri from what Wisconsin regulations were. An example is that we ALLOW 1x19 cable, we also do not limit the trapper to only a reverse bend washer lock.
All of the above is a "Positive thing", at least in my mind.
The problem lies in the Cable Restraints being included in a NATIONAL BUMP. The current data (with Necropsy's) was collected in ONE state.
Is there any other tool / trap recommended in the BMPs that was tested in only one state? (There may be but I'm not aware of them.)
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Jul 11, 2006 8:36:09 GMT -6
Robert,
Be your own man. Just because the FTA conspiracy theorists dislike bmps doesn't mean you have to. At least give credit where credit is due when you yourself used the Wisconsin data for your own benefit.
Why try to hide behind a populist blamer's opinion now?
I don't give a damn what anyone thinks of the stand I have taken on BMPs. Facts are facts. I am not driven by some compelling desire to find a "scapegoat" to blame for further regulations or the need to be accepted by the bmp blaming camp.
One of the dumbest moves I have ever seen a group of trappers make was the FTA's position of voting to not be a part of the bmp process then turn around and bitch about not being included. I don't care who knows that I feel that way, it's the damn truth.
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jul 11, 2006 9:43:44 GMT -6
Wiley;"One of the dumbest moves I have ever seen a group of trappers make was the FTA's position of voting to not be a part of the bmp process then turn around and bitch about not being included. I don't care who knows that I feel that way, it's the damn truth."
Scott, why do you think I asked you where you got this information from?
I am not aware of any such vote, and I just got off the phone with two more people asking the same question....No one knows of any such vote (that I have talked to).
The only thing that I can come up with as a possibility for your confusion on this would be the vote of "Non Support" for the way the BMPs were being conducted at that time. (I was told maybe 98?)
If you can help me reference in any way where you are getting this information believe me I will investigate it!
To my knowledge (only speaking as an individual) the FTA has continuously tried to be involved in (and shape) this process.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 11, 2006 14:56:48 GMT -6
The problem lies in the Cable Restraints being included in a NATIONAL BUMP. The current data (with Necropsy's) was collected in ONE state.
Is there any other tool / trap recommended in the BMPs that was tested in only one state? (There may be but I'm not aware of them.)
What is a national BMP? All data from 1 state? What state did all of the Cable restraint data come from?
We also adjusted our wording considerably in the regulations here in Missouri from what Wisconsin regulations were. An example is that we ALLOW 1x19 cable, we also do not limit the trapper to only a reverse bend washer lock.
1x19 will be added to the BMP as acceptable cable correct? What other locks can be used or are used?
Tman:Yet you will try to force those concepts down our throats
Who is forcing things down your throat? Name that person or persons?
Some have zero cable use due to the negative attitudes some have against it's use and other special interest groups, the thing to do is work together to solve the issue,STATE by STATE! Snaring is accepted more in areas of less domestics just as larger jaw spread traps have been, guess what long before any BMP. Many eastern states limited jaw spread due to domestic issues correct? Why don't we hear who is to blame for these regs? Because it was done state by state and I'm betting you could find adoption from 1 state to the other on this and other regs, provided it fits the need of the people of that state.
You will always have some that want to over regulate many issues dealing with wildlife, the thing to have is a good game commission and ones that are connected to the land and have an interest in the best outcomes, sadly some states have good commissioners and some deal with more of the bad.
Go to the website and tell me the FTA is looking to improve or have input in a process that will take place with them or with out them? Negativity breeds negativity
At the FTA convention in Utah, in 1999, the FTA was concerned with BMP directions and details, and passed a "Vote of Non-Support," In July of 1999
In the October 2000 issue of the Fur Taker, that "Non-Support" stance was published for all members to read.
|
|