Why do trappers make vague statements like "... that would make trapping ineffective for some species"?
Post date: Apr 2, 2012 5:25:01 AM
- They're not looking at the alternatives.
- For instance, neither the meat bait nor the body-gripping traps that endanger dogs are required to trap raccoons.
- For instance, fishers, martens, and raccoons are good climbers, so it's not necessary to trap them at ground level where dogs are in danger.
- For instance, bobcats are more reliably caught by leg-hold traps than by the body-gripping traps that kill dogs (but of course, there's extra work required to check leg-hold traps every day, as described below).
- They're avoiding the extra work.
- Trappers' main complaint is that it's extra work to check their traps every day.
- In Minnesota, a trap or snare that generally restrains rather than kills must be checked every day.
- Body-gripping traps generally kill, so the Minnesota requirement is that they need only be checked every three days.
- They're very convincing.
- They make better sound bytes from pithy expressions based on long experience.
- Their opponents talk too long, and bore their audiences with too many details that are too hard to sort out.