|
Post by robertw on Jul 11, 2006 17:52:54 GMT -6
"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" So? Whats the big deal? The association apparently had a problem with how the BMPs were conducted at that time. So what? How can any association be asked to endorse a program until those concerns are addressed? I set through the NTA BOD meeting in Mansfiled Ohio and saw the NTA BOD vote two very similar resolutions concerning problems they had with the BMP testing. None of this means that ANY Association has "Abstained" from the process or voluntarily withdrawn from participating or furnishing input "IF" allowed. BTW, My server is going to be doing an upgrade on our internet service and may be down for 36-48 hours...So you may have to do with out my input for the short term....It DOES NOT MEAN I AM ABSTAINING!
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 11, 2006 18:43:52 GMT -6
None of this means that ANY Association has "Abstained" from the process or voluntarily withdrawn from participating or furnishing input "IF" allowed.
Robert are you kidding me for real? The FTA has all but shut the door on effective communication with the BMP process, how can anyone read the FTA page on BMP's and think different? Yeh they don't want 100% closure as they want the door to swing both ways but only when they feel it as needed for their benefit, and then play to the band any other time. I see it as your either looking for a solution and being active in the process or your not no wishy washy middle of the road fence riding.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jul 11, 2006 18:49:11 GMT -6
The question is simple: Would the FTA receive a fair and reasonable hearing if they participated? Has history any to say on this issue?
Sitting in the middle at present might be the safest course of action.
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 11, 2006 20:25:31 GMT -6
The question is simple: Would the FTA receive a fair and reasonable hearing if they participated? Has history any to say on this issue?Compaired to who? Fair and reasonable can "ONLY" be accomplished with participation.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jul 11, 2006 21:52:18 GMT -6
If the conditions of participation are such that they are inequitable then participation becomes moot and observance may be the best option.
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Jul 12, 2006 7:07:23 GMT -6
Robert,
Why would you think you should have more input in the process that you voted not to support?? FTA took that position before they even knew the outcome of the BMP process.
Voting "not to support" bmps is a vote to "not be a part of" ("abstain from") the process. Why the hell would anyone want to participate in something that they have already agreed not to support??? Where's the logic in that?
FTA Translation: "We were upset to be shut out of a process that we voted not to support". LOL!
I'm amazed that FTA was not totally removed from the process since they voted not to support what they wanted to be a part of.
Only the FTA would come up with a position like that.
BMP blamers................sheeeesh!
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by robertw on Jul 12, 2006 7:33:22 GMT -6
Wiley, Just because an organization doesn't support an issue or process as it is currently being conducted does not mean that they are not still trying to correct the issue or participate in the process.
Why are you kicking the FTA for this? As I stated above I set through the NTA BOD meeting in Mansfield and saw two such measures voted on and and passed.
At the time all of this happened (from what I observed) there was a pretty good group consensus between both organizations concerning how things were being done.
BTW, Chris McCalister was at that BOD meeting in Ohio and can probably give you the specific wording of those two motions. I also seem to remember him voting for both of them as well but...I'm just working off of memory but both motions passed as unanimous.
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Jul 12, 2006 8:34:57 GMT -6
The FTA took a position of opposing the entire process. That's quite different than the NTA's position of opposing certain aspects of how the process was being conducted.
Why am I kicking the FTA for this? Because I get sick of their bmp blaming attitudes. The FTA shot themselves in the foot when they voted to oppose the process. They need to be kicked for taking that self defeating position.
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jul 12, 2006 14:35:07 GMT -6
Wiley,
If you have ever directly fought the antis on any matter this is a more they make frequently, oppose the whole process, remain as participants frequently contribute nothing but their absolute opposition expect and often receive full assistance for their negativity.
I see no reason in this case why the FTA stance is any different, just another organisation using this set of tactics. Their are many times in the final washup when this tactic is extremely difficult for an even handed investigation into any matter to counter
|
|
|
Post by trappincoyotes39 on Jul 12, 2006 18:19:53 GMT -6
akona the problem is FTA is for trappers and trapping and to sit and want it both ways to either save face or members is wrong! Have a backbone and stick with either for or against and either be a part or stay out of it, don't be an arm chair quarter back or back seat driver as neither is acceptable to the majority. If the FTA truly wanted to be apart of the process they could participate and be counted or stay away and keep quit on the subject, to cry fowl because they didn't get the exact outcome or perceived outcome they wanted as an Org is absurd. The IAFWA has been chosen to run the BMP process with help from other orgs and the FTA is another org to contribute if they see fit, but to bad mouth and then complain because lack of involvement "by there own doing" is again absurd.
Why do so many see gray areas? You have them because alot of the times those that can won't commit.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jul 12, 2006 18:35:09 GMT -6
Perhaps it is best to say we agree to disagree on this subject. Having looked at what others have done in the past on this subject selecting one group out of the bunch for such criticism is hypocritical.
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Jul 17, 2006 6:49:28 GMT -6
akona20: "Having looked at what others have done in the past on this subject selecting one group out of the bunch for such criticism is hypocritical." No, the hypocrisy lies in voting to oppose an entire process than bitching when your input is not as highly regarded as you think it should be. One group out of a bunch took that position while another kept a dog in the fight.
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jul 17, 2006 10:10:20 GMT -6
Somewhere I will have to find Ricky Flynt's article (MWFP) on BMP's.
I am remmebering that he put a different slant on things about the NTA that is.
No big deal just a memory of him not being poasitive about the NTA; involvement or lack of it. Maybe he got it wrong or my memory of the article is incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jul 18, 2006 6:14:38 GMT -6
THe FTA took the correct stance in my opinon.
Those that blindly follow whatever pap the BMP tossed out there as gospel...are just...blind.
and those that constantly promote the bad bmps- even though its garbage- are doing trapping and trappers no favors.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jul 18, 2006 6:17:07 GMT -6
red herrings, red herrings, red herrings- what a joke.
Can't argue the bmps on their merits- so, argue whatever red herring catches your fancy.
TC35- how much money they paying you or have paid you to participate in bmp tests, etc?
Any trapper that approves the coon bmps- is a fool.
And thats as bold a statement as I can make and I stand behind it 100%.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jul 18, 2006 6:20:22 GMT -6
Tman:Yet you will try to force those concepts down our throats
looks like you are first in line right in front of Hamilton.
Tell me- what POSITIVE input has the NTA had? All I see- is so negative (I was told it was the NTA input that was used in the coon bmps) that I wish they would have had the balls to tel lthe bmps to wait a minuyte,...but that didn't happen, did it?
THe bmps are being shoved down our throats and to think otherwise, isn't thinking.
Or reading.
Or listening.
Cause its happening.
|
|
|
Post by Wiley on Jul 18, 2006 9:24:10 GMT -6
T'man: "Tell me- what POSITIVE input has the NTA had? All I see- is so negative (I was told it was the NTA input that was used in the coon bmps) that I wish they would have had the balls to tel lthe bmps to wait a minuyte,...but that didn't happen, did it?"
The NTA had huge issues with the coon testing results. Some claimed chain length was the issue, some claimed keeping coons in the water was the issue, some claimed other factors. NTA had the opportunity to test their PROPOSED raccoon protocol in hopes that the results would be different. THEY WEREN'T!
Raccoons chew their toes in 1 1/2 coils in restraining situations.
If you had the silver bullet, you should have stepped up to the plate and volunteered your time in the coon trap testing to give the 1 1/2 coil a better chance. You opted to throw grenades after the fact.
Don't delete this T'man. It's a fact! Remember, one's friends talk to their face while their enemies talk behind their back. If you had the "silver bullet" to make the coon bmp more trapper friendly, you should have participated.
My species was the coyote and I did everything I could to make sure the traps we use were represented fairly. We proved what we have been stating all along about laminated traps. I realize the raccoon was a tougher nut to crack but you'd have a hard time passing the "red faced test" by claiming that raccoons in 1 1/2 coils in restraining situations will not chew their toes.
~SH~
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 18, 2006 10:13:58 GMT -6
I did Wiley, I did.
I was told entanglement, holding coon in water, etc- was inhumane so not on the table.
So no grenades Wiley- genuine apallment at bogus tests and protocol- and I offered my thoughts LONG BEFORE THIS WAS ALL A DONE DEAL.
Since I haven't yet bestowed the status of Gods onto the BMP committee, I find it within my rights to tell them that their version of "humane" is based on the Bambieesque version offered and rammed through by the Vets Council.
As far as the NTA experts doing this or that- thats neither here nor there.
Obviously they aren't that expert if they didn't find that holding coon in water on short chains eliminated chewing.
Any dollar amount. Hold a coon in six inches of water on 2 inches of chain. No chewing. Fact. And this is both PRACTICAL and easy to do, if your aim is to eliminate coon chewing. and there are similar ways that work as well.
The argument was never that THIS DIDN'T ELIMINATE chewing, the argument was that IT WASN'T HUMANE.
And thats an argument I'll make for myself, not based on what the Vets council crammed down our throats.
I'm just a poor dumb fur trapper, but even I can understand basic animal traits, and work with them rather than work against them.
The biggest misconception and the biggest thing constantly paraded out there by the Jedi's is that the bmps test traps not methods.
and this is a silly a statement as I have ever read.
When you DEFINE protocol, when you make MANDATORY certain setting conditions, when you FORBID common practices...my friends, you are testing methods.
In the case of the coon bmps- the protocol could not have been designed, could not have been more defined to one end- as to have coon chew the maximum amount of time.
Now- you can accept those type of protocols and that kind of results, or you can say wait a minute...
me- I'll say wait a minute.
The bmp committee DID have plenty of input- they choose to ignore it.
Simple inability to comprehend the real world, or another reason- the choice is yours.
|
|
|
Post by blakcoyote on Jul 19, 2006 1:14:25 GMT -6
My species was the coyote and I did everything I could to make sure the traps we use were represented fairly. We proved what we have been stating all along about laminated traps. ~SH~ It's not that hard to do,it isnt surprising many traps faired well for coyotes,just for the simple fact that coyotes are pretty tough. But when dealing with other critters like coon or the grayfox,other factors besides just the trap start to play a role such as the trapping conditions,the animals nature,tall grass,no grass,water,no water,etc.And not taking these things all in or the previous ways to do it right,into consideration and basing it all on the trap is retarded.It just slays me that methods that have been developed by trappers in years past don't meet protocol.Most of how we do things is because it worked well in the past,trappers are'nt stupid,if it dont work,there not going to do it,they'll find a better way.Now it seems if it's not PC,it's not right.I mean what the hecks wrong with holding a coon in water,there use to it. Pretty much.
|
|
|
Post by akona20 on Jul 19, 2006 4:31:44 GMT -6
So what would be wrong with accepting the Fur Institute of Canada's trap recommendations as a starting point and perhaps moving outwards from there given that AIHTS is a necessity there from 2007.
I am not suggesting that at present it needs to be mandatory as it will be in canada but surely that is a starting point.
|
|