Author Topic: BMP vs Canadian Standard Testing (Read 504 times)

Wackyquacker · « **on:** September 10, 2003, 05:49:43 PM »

In another thread it was mentioned that the Bridger #3 double laminated trap was the only steel jaw trap that passed the Candian tests. The BMP for the Eastern Coyote show a number of traps that were acceptable. What are the diffeerences between the standards of acceptibility between the two testing protocols?

WhiteMtnCur · « **Reply #1 on:** September 10, 2003, 06:09:06 PM »

http://www.trappersassociationofnovascotia.ca/traps.html

trappnman · « **Reply #2 on:** September 11, 2003, 02:47:26 AM »

The big difference WQ is that in Canada, specific traps are being tested- and only that specific trap qualifies if passed- similar traps or indeed the SAME trap with a different name wil lnot pass under that test.

Here- the suite concept is being used- that is- if a trap with certain characteristics passes, all similar traps withinbn the specifications also passes.

As you might be finding out- the Eastern coyote BMPs are something that just about ever trapper can live with. (to head off any debate here-- the BMP train already left the station) I feel very good about the results as printed. Regardless of some misunderstanding (delibrately or not) on the testing of a 1.5 softcatch by some that really don't seem to understand the concept of the testing, the results are something any coyote trapper should approve.

Comments like "why was the softcatch listed first? Is that the recommended trap that they are going to make us use? Testing trappers not traps" are, well, idiotic.

Wackyquacker · « **Reply #3 on:** September 11, 2003, 03:37:37 AM »

The BMP for the E.coy does seem livable. I do wonder about the omssion(?) of any dbl longs. However, unless Canada did not test any traps other than the #3 Bridger with mods, it would appear that there are significant differences in the protocols and / or data evaluation.

trappnman · « **Reply #4 on:** September 11, 2003, 08:16:34 AM »

I'm not up enough on the Canadian testing to comment further. I do know Marty did a lot of the testing, and stef knows what is going on also. I'll get stef to post.

WQ- Regarding dls, my understanding is the traps tested were traps suggested by the trappers in the test areas. Few if any eastern trappers used dls, thus their omission. Some dls were tested on the Western coyote BMP tests- what traps and what results I do not know- again, I'm not real familar with that study.

I have no problem with the E coyote bmps- what scares me is what might come out of the coon tests. Lets hope there is no rush to judgement here.

Wackyquacker · « **Reply #5 on:** September 11, 2003, 12:17:19 PM »

It will be interesting (that term seems to always mean bad things) to see the final out come of these studies. If all go as did the E coy. everything should work out OK. What is most problematic is the mixed bag aspect; "honest I had that #3 Bridger set for coyotes not Kit fox" (substitute any critters that fit your area). I think that pan tension may become very important in the future. In most cases small critters can be excluded, there will still be the increase in cost and effort that comes with any "improvement". :?

I just got finished bringing my entire rig up to the "new" state regs. We have had to have offset jaws for a number of years. No definition of offset was published. When I querried the top dogs at G&F they said "if you can get a bailing wire between the jaws they're offset" This year the regs read a min of 3/16". Now most of my traps were very close to 3/16 but we aren't playing gernades... I have a rather complete shop including a Mig, what about the guys that don't? Next year may be laminations and on and on and on. Once through the transition period I suppose all will be OK...and this year will have been "back in the good old days". :cry: