Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks

Recently on here we had a thread called "Can you build me a better cable restraint?" , started by Archer01. The lament was that he had lost 3 out of 5 coyotes he caught in Pennsylvania "Cable Restraints". That's unacceptable by any standard, so I asked him if he could send me a few samples of the snares he was using. He did, and subsequently I've made some discoveries that may explain the high failure rate.

(Please note: All the testing described below was done using a static pull with the snares cinched around a 2.4" outside diameter pipe. I sincerely hope that someday this can be adopted as a standard by all BAD manufacturers and we can all get on the same page with this.)

For starters, different locks can exhibit different break away strengths even with the same BAD (Break Away Device). Usually the difference is not significant. The goal here, in most instances, is to keep the trapper legal. In other words, even though there is a difference in locks, as long as the strongest combination does not exceed the state limit, the trapper should be okay.

Most of you know, I prefer a lighter break-away than most states mandate. I make and sell a 280# break away s-hook. The design of this is to release virtually all leg snared deer, and retain most coyotes. Devices with higher ratings, have the potential to hold more deer. Some coyotes may defeat the 280# system, but not many. With that said, I wouldn't want to go too much below a 280# system with a coyote snare. You'll start losing too many coyotes.

I had to be judicious about testing the few snares Archer sent me, because I didn't have many samples. But? on the first two tests, the snares broke out a 240 pounds.

Now, the first thing that ran through my mind was someone was selling "weak" BADs. Or, maybe these BADs weren't even tested anywhere. Remember as long as the BAD is below state maximum, the trapper is legal. But when it gets too low, the trapper starts losing too many coyotes -- legal or not.

Maybe I have been remiss, but I never tested my BAD on a reverse bend washer lock. I don't want to digress too badly here, but this lock has been one of the most obscure locks in the business. How it got randomly selected, and tested, and adopted as the "holy grail" of relaxing locks remains a mystery. (I wish someone could tell me why the 90? washer lock, which is probably the most common lock in use toda, was not selected as the lock to be tested.)

At any rate, I got some of my 280# s-hooks, installed them in the typical manner on these locks, and tested. Guess what, they broke at 240 pounds. There is something about that lock that gives it a higher leverage advantage to defeat the BAD. (The way the holes lie in parallel planes I suspect has something to do with it.)

I'm not giving away any trade secrets here but there are three main factors in determining the release point of an s-hook style bad, the hardness of the wire, the diameter of the wire, and the radius of the bend in the s-hook.

I found that by reducing the radius of the bend, I could make my s-hook function in the prescribed range (280 - 300 pounds) on this 180? lock. It's really pretty simple to do, once you figure it out. I took a pair of vice grips with smooth tipped jaws, and with the pliers locked, used the adjusting screw to pinch them down on various sized drill bits. Then, I would install the s-hook on the lock, and pinch it closed with the vice grips, thusly adjusted.





The setting it takes, to make the system fail at just under 300 pounds, is 11/32". That smashes the s-hook to just a little bit smaller radius than I supply it with. Please be advised that tiny fractions here are very critical. Using the vice grips set at 21/64" gave a system in excess of 325 pounds, putting it over the maximum for several states.

I have got wind, from other sources, that a number of these "cable restraint" devices had been releasing a lot of coyotes. I'm not going to mention any names or brands here, but I have seen them advertised as including a 285# rated s-hook (or j-hook) BAD. It now seems possible, to me, that a device that ordinarily shows a 280 pound break away strength, my be failing at a considerably lower strength when used with these 180? locks. Thus the high number of escaped coyotes.

I know that I carry on a lot about the overly restrictive, and in many instances silly, snaring regulations that some states have instituted recently. But I also realize that does little to help the trappers who have to work under those restrictions.

The original thread asked: "Can you build me a better cable restraint?" I don't know about "better" but I can build you a cable restraint that will perform closer to expectation. Starting next season, I will be offering "Cable Restraint" snares that will meet legal requirements, and have been tested to be sure the break-away strength is not so low as to make them ineffective on coyotes.

I may also add a note to my 280# Break-Away S-hooks advising how to install them on 180? locks. This would be helpful to those folks trying to make their own "cable restraints" or those who just prefer this lock.

I'd be glad to entertain any of your comments or questions.

-- Hal

My question is of an offshoot of your posting; what would be the issue / problem with a State requiring a BAD which "could resaonably be expected to release leg snared large animals"? Since there is no standard of testing and most snares are home made this sort of wording may cause fewer problems. I can see little difference, absent a stated testing protocal to judge the functio of the device.

Good info Hal!
I wonder what the BMP boys will do with BADS and snares? Or will they even touch it? Seems like a valuable PR tool..like CRs.
What are your findings/feelings on the bads ferrules ends like on the Amberg? Any feedback? Seems to me it would an easier system to apply.
Thoughts?

Something the CRs do is virtually limit/handcuff a trapper where to make a set. It severely limits the functionality of snaring.
Imagine finding a hot trail for a coyote snare only to spend 10 minutes clipping branches away to prevent entanglement. GRRRR...not smart.

Thanks Hal for looking into this and making some for sale for next year. I have suspected something was not right and noted this on my survey sent to the PGC.I also lost a coyote and stoped using CRs after that till I'M satisfied with the equiptment.I will be placing an order this fall.

Again Thanks
Tom

Wacky:I wish you were kidding

Frankly, I couldn’t much get behind a regulation premised on some manifestation of “reasonable”. To me that would be akin to trying to define some type of jaw spread regulation on “reasonable”.

In the first place that leaves too much discretion in the hands of trappers, especially those of questionable ethics. And, too much discretion on the part of the C.O., who gets to write you the ticket. Eventually, this winds up at the judicial branch for an interpretation of what is reasonable, and at that stage somebody is going to want numbers. Might as well get it out of the way and save the trouble.

Also, what would you do for beginning trappers? How would you steer them towards reasonable? How about manufacturers? I can see that now. The label reads: These snares are rated New Mexico Reasonable.

”I can see little difference, absent a stated testing protocol...”

Alas, I fear you are correct. In fact we touched on this in the thread we did a year ago on Testing Break Aways. And I think Jim hit on this in the “Can you make a better cable restraint thread.” (I hope he reads this and comments too.)

I don’t advocate breaking the law, but right now everything that goes on here with the tests I’ve run and recommending what trappers should use, serves no better purpose than to keep folks within the “spirit” of the law. These regulations are “meant” to yield snares that, as Tom said: “could reasonably be expected to release leg snared large animals".

So far, I don’t know of anyone who has specifically been cited for using a BAD that is too strong. That may or may not be coincidental. However, some individual might want to pursue this and take this to court. In this case we will assume that the upper limit is stated in the regulations. If that individual is properly represented, I believe the question might be brought before the judge as to how the determination is, or might be, made that the device in question is over the limit.

I am at the point now, where I almost wish someone would do this. Bring the DNR into court and ask them “You’ve given us this number, how do we measure this?” I guarantee you there would be a lot of embarrassed bureaucrats.

I have actually argued this in another arena. The solution that was proposed in this situation was to label BADs as “manufacturer rated”. Well, lah-dee-daa, take that to court too, if you wish!! I’m sure some judge would get a chuckle out of that if there is an advocate present to point out that there is no agreed standardization among manufacturers. (For the right price, I’ll devise you a test that will make your BAD pass. I’ll bring the mountain to Mohammad.)

So back to the spirit of the law, and what trappers themselves want to achieve. I’ve told you how I’ve tested these things. And this test has been used previously in other jurisdictions to test snares. Using this type of test, a BAD that breaks at 350 pounds will hold virtually all coyotes and a few smaller deer and deer sized animals too. One that breaks at around 280 pounds will release virtually all deer, and hold most coyotes. Choices should be made accordingly.

-- Hal

Mike:

I’ve never tried the ferrules, but I do know this. The swager for these things is going to cost in excess of $20.00. It’s a one time purchase so that’s not too bad. Now the ferrules themselves are going to be in excess of $2.00 per dozen.

The ferrules are a one time use deal. You crimp the ferrule onto the snare cable. The cable in a snare is good for one catch. When you replace the cable, you must apply a new ferrule.

My s-hooks are going to sell for $2.95 per dozen next season. (Reduced price.) You put the s-hook on the lock, not the cable. You can reuse lock with the s-hook attached to build a new snare. In fact you can reuse the lock/s-hook combination time and time again until something happens (as in you tangle with a large animal) and the s-hook opens up.

Like I said, I haven’t tested the swaged ferrules, and I probably won’t. I do want to see trappers provided with accurate information, and I really would like to see standardization in this testing, but I am not compelled to test other people’s devices for them.

-- Hal

I wish I'd made book on the answer I would recieve and I can't disagree. However, there are those out there that would prefer to fashion their own equipment all that is needed to accomplish this is a "test". I guess the best thing to do is just keep holding the deer, elk, cattle, horses and sheep until we get a standardized test or lose snaring (I am kidding here). I should note , in NM we still snare.

Disclaimer: I have never tested a BAD. I purchase (now and forever more) BADs only from the most reliable source I know.

I will offer this information as it may be of comparative value. I use only snares equiped with dispatch springs. I use many locks specifically designed and tested for a spring and release ferrule. I also use many camlocks equiped with "S" BADs and springs. A few years ago I got very cautious and configured some of my cams with "S" BADs and secured the spring with a release ferrule...a double release if you will...something would give. To date, I have never had a "S" bad release a coyote. I have had release ferrules on locks designed specifically for such devices fail on three coyotes. On Cams equiped with both the release ferrule and "S" BAD the "s" BAD has always been the point of release for large animals.

I think this all goes back to the original post on this thread; you must use BADs designed (tested) for the specific lock / snare configuration if you expect them to work as you predict.

Hal and Wacky your last two posts could enlighten any snare/CR user. Hal in regards to your comments about..." not know anyone that has been cited for using BAD that has been too strong....legal..court.." Heck how would they test the BAD....AND... Who would test the BAD? I realize DWRC tested some BADS years ago...but alot has changed since then. Like discussion on how valid the testing procedure was! There are too many indiscrepencies involved! As you showed us being off by 1/32 can make a difference in several poundsof break away! This would be a lawyers delight.
Wacky I've had several BADS open up while snaring down South...all were lock attached BADS. I never had a cable end ferrule fail. Interestingly I had two 275 lb DWRC pins fail while checking the same group of snares one year...farther down this same trail I snared a huge coydog...40lb.s plus! Now I can't be sure this animal was the same as the one that came in contact with one of my snares but I would like to believe it was!! lol

(Please note: All the testing described below was done using a static pull with the snares cinched around a 2.4" outside diameter pipe.

You putting this in makes me wonder, Would a larger or smaller pipe make a difference? I know nothing about physics.
I hope arkansas never trys bads, We are famous for 40 lds coyotes and 50 lbs deer.

Arkansas reg's specify "braided cable". Now try to find braided cable, dang near impossible.

News Flash: I just now received the paper "An Evaluation of Breakaway Snares for Use in Coyote Control" [Phillips, R. L., F. S. Blom, and R. E. Johnson. 1990. An evaluation of breakaway snares for use in coyote control. Pages 255-259 in L. R. Davis and R. E. Marsh, eds., Proceedings Fourteenth Vertebrate Pest Conference
(March 6-8, 1990, Sacramento, CA)] These were the tests done at the Denver Wildlife Research Center in 1990. The only thing I had wrong was the diameter of the pipe. In the Denver test it was 3" not 2.4". I'll do some retesting at a later date.)


And "Evaluation of 3 Types of Snares for Capturing Coyotes" (Phillips, R. L. 1996. Evaluation of 3 types of snares for capturing coyotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(1): 107-110). This field study was done 1992-1994.

Tom: "…those out there that would prefer to fashion their own equipment…"

Yes, there are folks who may want to be inventive. We don't want to stifle innovation. HOWEVER, Pennsylvania regulations require a "commercially produced" BAD. So PA trappers are not allowed to make their own BADs. (This regulation may be in the same vein as the Maximum Loop stop. Evidently the Pennsylvania Game Commission considers PA trappers too untrustworthy and too dumb to make these determinations.)

Mike: Actually the difference I quoted above was 1/64 of an inch not 1/32. That may be cause for glee in a lawyer, but those with a scientific background would be unimpressed. In this case 1/64" represents a 5% difference and it yields roughly a 5% difference in break away strength. Believe me, in this application, fractions of a millimeter make a difference. Thusly, you can come up with a range of BADs, of various strength

"I realize DWRC tested some BADS years ago...but alot has changed since then."

Exactly what has changed? Coyotes are still coyotes, and deer are still deer. The main thing that has "changed" is that more and more states are allowing snares, and more and more states are requiring BADs.

"Like discussion on how valid the testing procedure was!"

I've read that material. I can see no invalidity in the testing procedure. They hooked some coyotes, deer, and livestock up to a testing machine, via a snare cable, to see how much pressure they could exert. They used two different lengths 11 feet and 4.5 feet. Obviously there was less force with the 4.5' of cable. (FYI the figures for neck snared coyotes were 302 lbs and 192 lbs respectively).

The snares in question were tested for break away by cinching them around a 3" dia. steel pipe. While no mention is made giving a reason for this choice, I will assume that a 3" diameter is roughly representative of a coyote's neck.

The field component of this comes later (Phillips, R. L. 1996. Evaluation of 3 types of snares for capturing coyotes. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24(1): 107-110) Three snares were used. Tested by the above means their BA was: 118 kg (260 lbs), 123 kg (271 lbs) and 154 kg (339 lbs)

The "capture rate" for these devices was 89%, 97%, and 87% respectively. However, the majority of the escapes were from "chew outs". As far as the BAD releasing the numbers are 11, 1 and 1, respectively. Now bear in mind there was no effort to set these snares I a non-lethal manner. You might consider the capture rate to be lower in a non-lethal application, because of more chew outs but not necessarily through release of the BAD.

As for leg snared deer, the release rate was approximately 73%, 100%, and 70% respectively. (Note: the 260 lb device with 100% release rate was the Amberg, but only 8 deer total were leg snared in that device.) Keep in mind that this study was done throughout the year over a 2 year period, by people doing "control" work. While no mention is made, I think it is safe to assume that some of these deer were in fact fawns, and just not big enough to break out. There is a quote that says: "Phillips et al. (1990) demonstrated that coyotes and deer fawns (<34 kg) generate a similar force on the snare. Hence it will be difficult to design a breakaway system that holds all coyotes and releases all deer."

The "deer" in question here were western mule deer. For our purposes, fur trappers will primarily be using snares during the fall and winter, when "fawns" are not a great problem. Still, there can be some very small whitetail deer around during the fall. So, I basically agree with the quote above.

Where is the concern with this test?

-- Hal

The word "changes" might be better substituted for differences. I was refering to the NEWER BADS that are now available. The Gregarson, Luceros BAD, and The Kelly (amberg) were tested at DWRC. There are now more available, and alot more knowledge from using the BADS since the 90s. Still though the testing procedures ARE different...you stated a range of 4.5 ft and 11 ft. Several different length of snares with BADS are being used today by trappers from a short 4 foot coon snare to an 7 ft coyote snare.
You stated 3 inch diameter pipe used for protocol...you used a different one...differences and more knowledge learned....changes/differences.
Different species and weights of captured deer...could be different in some areas where deer grow bigger.
The biggest changes/differences I think are of some concern is the total number of coyotes that are being captured by top coyote snaremen like Marty Senneker of Canada. Talk about a sample size... alot of differences in the 90s to today.

Hal, I see you did your homework. I knew something was wrong. I have lots more to test if you want them.. I won't be using them, as is..
I was going to wait and see, then rebuild or use them for parts......

Knowing that the 180 Rev. Bend lock reduces the Bads break away point, wouldn't we have to use a higher than 325#, "illegal", bad to make it work out to about a 280 - 300# bad on this perticular lock ?

"Still though the testing procedures ARE different…"

Hold on here. Who said the testing procedures are different? Who decided to make the testing procedures different? Cite your source.

I grant you (and I have stated this above) that I had the wrong diameter of pipe. The 3 inch pipe will make some difference, but I don't know how significant it will be. I will retest this at some time. Since I'm the only one who appears to be willing to do this, you'll have to wait until I get around to it. In the interim, if you would like to undertake this, it is not beyond anyone's ability. If you've got a come-along, and a bathroom scale you can see how much weight it would take to defeat a BAD on a 2.4 inch pipe then test the exact same configuration on a 3 inch pipe.

Personally, I think the originators of this study did a remarkably good job of bracketing the needs of the trappers, in testing a snare length of 11 feet and 4.5 feet. In case you missed it above, the figures for neck snared coyotes were 302 lbs and 192 lbs respectively. This should tell you not to use a 200 lb BAD on an 11 foot snare.

Yes, we have a lot of new BADs on the market. But there is a procedure for testing them. It is perfectly detailed, and documented, in the literature above. Again, I would like to know who has come up with the different testing procedure you have noted, and where, in the literature, this different procedure is documented.

Again, coyotes are still coyotes and deer are still deer. I personally don't believe these critters have undergone any significant physical change since the 1990s. The test for the strength of a BAD that was established in 1990 is still quite valid today. It gives everyone an opportunity to make a direct comparison of different devices. If mine tests at 280 lbs, and yours tests at 280 lbs, the trapper can be assured that they will perform in a similar manner in the field, no matter which one he chooses.

The trapper, and wildlife departments for that matter, cannot gain the same degree of confidence if our two different devices were tested using two different procedures.

Again, if you can cite me a documented source for a different procedure for testing break away devices, I will be more that happy to take a look at it.

(Note: This is a classic example why, in academia, it is very important to have your work published. )

-- Hal

Archer: Yes. If I were going to recommend a BAD for your application, I would recommend you buy the maximum allowable device, as you said 325 pounds. This is then going to break out in the 280 -300 lb range. (For the information of others, the Wisconsin regulations, which are similar, call for a 285 lb device, so you would still be in the ball park in that application.)

I've got some more experimenting and testing to do when I get a chance, but as I delineated above, you can modify my 280 BAD to work in your application. Don’t destroy the snares you have, just replace the s-hook with one of mine as described above. (I don't mean to be blatantly commercial here, but I can't tell you how to modify any one else's BAD to make it work, only my own, so that's the only one I can recommend.)

-- Hal

Hal, wasn't there a post either on your site or perhaps Dobbins regarding testing procedures of snare testing...think it was on here. Maybe I'm wrong in my assumption but I thought the discussion in length was about the type of testing...static vs more of a flexible scenario..one that emulate a coyote pulling against an flexible anchor??? Chris M., Snareman and a few others chimed in... Discussion was about is/was static testing reliable/realistic.
I was refering to that.
And no, I will allow you to continue to be the OFFICIAL B.A.D. TESTER.

Rather interesting and very much over my head......Im glad I dont have to deal w/ this stuff in the water.

Dryland snaring will never be acceptable here in NC.

Carry on......Im listenin but dont have anything to add.

I think the reference to new testing relates to the dynamic testing device. It seems to me, that this type of testing is very nice and very unnecessary. It doesn’t make any difference what poundage by which test so long as the large animals are released and coyotes are held. What is needed is simply a standard testing procedure that is useful. I really don't care if you say it is a 600 lb or 60 lb BAD so long as they function as indicated above. I t would be very nice if the procedure to be adopted relies on inexpensive and readily available supplies so the inventive types can insure they are within legal limits

Good post Wacky...you said it better than I could. Buzz what does your state allow for snaring now...thought some of your beaver snaring pic.s were on dryland ...possibly just anchored in water?

Please do not take this thread off track.

-- Hal

I didn't know what the proper pipe diameter was for testing .But I did do 6 pull tests on the amberg style crimp on and I had results that were very consistant. But up to fourty pounds below what they were supose to give at.One went at 170# I also used a static pull tester . The inside of the ferrels were severly abrased 360degrees so I know that the crimp was good and the tips of the tool were togeather every time.

Well, what size pipe did you use? Measure the diameter of it.

-- Hal

Scrapper: To get the 90° bend, fasten one half of the s-hook in a vice. Then hold the part that sticks above the jaws tightly with a pair of pliers (vice grips will work even better) and twist it to 90°. I'm sure you have the old style, and they can be a little harder to do. In fact, I never advertised that you could twist them. The new style are a little bit different and a little easier to twist into a j-hook configuration.

"…when you close them, they are tight on the washer"

On some washer style locks, the hole is drilled too far from the edge. You can barely get the hook closed and when you do, the BAD is bound against the edge of the lock. I don't have an cure for that, and I can't tell you exactly how it effects performance.


-- Hal

Ya'll know how I feel about'm.

Was it last year ? we went around and around about how to test a BAD.

When a coyotes neck is as hard as a steel pipe. And he just powers into the snare,with steady preasure.
AND NOT
Hitting the end of a 12 foot snare with all the speed he can get.
But the deer all have to weight the same too. Than just walk NOT run.
THAT'S when you can test a BAD and tell how it's gona work.

Newt: Yes, I know how you feel about BADs, and since we go back a long way, I’m gonna be as nice as I can here. (Also, if you don’t quit ranting and raving, you’re gonna get on the “loony list” with a certain other snare manufacturer I know. )

I know you don’t like BADs. I don’t know exactly why, other than it makes snares somewhat more difficult to manufacture. I’ll agree with that, but it is not illegal or immoral to charge an increased price for these snares. We do, however, owe it to our customers to assure them of what they are getting and what performance they can expect. Don’t you agree.

BADs are effective tools for releasing large animals in snares. That is their genesis. I have people buy BADs from me, and use them in areas where they are not mandated by law. But more and more states are making them mandatory. To rail against them will not stop more places from adopting them and will not make those states that have adopted them rescind their decision. And to add confusion, simply for the sake of confusion does nothing to help resolve the real questions that should be answered about these devices.

Why do you want a “steady pull” out of the coyotes? The kinetic energy generated by a moving (accelerating) coyote will always be greater than the energy created by a coyote standing in one place, just pulling on the snare. You probably will remember this from your physics class if you think about it.

Why on god’s earth would you want to waste time testing a procedure that produces less than maximum energy? It is more important to determine the maximum energy the coyote might exert against the BAD. If you have a good reason for demanding this less than maximum test, I will be glad to hear it.

Now, you said “coyotes neck as hard as steel”. I’m going to have to assume here that you have never examined the documents I’ve quoted here. I believe it would benefit you to do so. Several animals were tested, coyotes, cattle, sheep, and deer. These were actual real live animals, with actual blood, bone and tissue. The lunge forces were for coyotes (real live flesh and blood coyotes) were measured with two different lengths of tethers 11 feet and 4.5 feet. That’s how the determined that a neck-snared (real live flesh and blood neck) could exert 302 lbs of force on an 11 foot snare. They also tested real live deer and cattle to see what kind of force they could exert.

Now we know what energies an animal (flesh and blood) can exert, what we need to know next is at what strength a given BAD will break. To determine this were going to wrap the snare around a steel pipe and break it. Unless I miss my guess, you want this snare to be wrapped around a “soft” medium. Well then, can you suggest a medium, one that will give unyielding consistence, one that I, you, and anyone else can readily pick up around the shop? One that will squeeze down to a consistent diameter, each and every time it is used, in each and every situation?

As far as I can see, from the documentation the tests that have been promulgated and have been conducted are reasonable and give reasonable results. And I can reproduce them in my shop, with a few simple tools. So can you.

But so far Newt, my friend, all you’ve really done is complain. Wouldn’t it be better to do something that would be to the benefit of your customers, my customers, and all the other folks who are trying to use these BADs and wade through all the vague inaccuracies that surrounds the system for measuring them?

Just exactly what do you want? You seem to be dancing around a bunch of vague notions. Tell me exactly what kind of test you want and just exactly how you want to conduct it. The only requirement is that those of us who have an interest in this be able to reproduce your test in our shops using equipment that is readily available to us.

Newt, my friend, at the risk of jeopardizing our friendship, it really is time to $hit or get off the pot. Tell me exactly what you want.

The ball is in your court.

-- Hal

Thanks Hal. It must be the washers.
Mike

Hal, No offance taken.
I guess that I just dont know what "kinetic" engery is.
I thought it was when you have a steady pull. Like hook'n something up to a come-a-long,and crank'n it.
Guess Kinetic engery is like when you drop something.With slack in the rope, that you got it tyed to. Like hang'n somebody.
What I nead is a better grip on the english langage.I had to go to summer school just for english to graduate.Always said that I can talk better than I can write.
I'll try to stay out of these tecknal debates .And just answer about what I know.Build'n snares,catch'n and kill'n fur.I'll leave all the tecknal test'n up to you other guys.Then when you come up with something better I'll buy it, and use it.

I am assuming then, that you are off the pot.

I most certainly defer to your expertise in using a snare.

What I need to know is, would it be acceptable to you if we rated BAD systems by using a static pull on a 3" pipe? Don't get too wound up with the actual numbers. What I'm getting at there is if I, and John Doe, and Joe Blow each had a device, and they were all rated at say 350 pounds by this method, would you rest assured that:

A.) Each of these devices would perform in a similar manner as far as holding coyotes and releasing larger animals, and

B.) A rating, by this method, of 350 pounds is going to hold very nearly all the coyotes that are taken on a snare of less than 10 feet in length.

That's is the question I pose to you.

-- Hal

While you folks are at it you could do some testing with these "S" BADS and dispatch springs...some of us can still snare with the new falutin thingys. If I knew of an "s" BAD that was tested on a camlock with a spring I'd buy them. Until then I'll just keep buying from the same single source that I bought from at last years convention.

Hal I looked all around ,through and in my desk I can't find my pull tests. (My area looks like the back of my pickup on pulling day.) I will try to do some more tests and get the results posted .

sorry

Thanks. I'm glad someone besides me takes an interest in this. If you can, try to use a 3" pipe. And let us know what kind of lock and BAD it is.

-- Hal

Ok. I agree to that.
The idea of a BAD is not what I am against.If I had a ADC job in a cow pasture I sure would have one on my snares.True we nead a standard way of testing them.

Guess I'm just against the whole Cable Restraint "thing".Which dont belong on this thread.
Not the BAD'S

I think we just made progress.

Yes, the "cable restraint" regulations, promulgated in a few states recently is a whole 'nuther deal, an not the topic for this thread.

This started out as investigation on how certain BADs performed on 180° locks, but much as I expected, it turned in to a more general discussion about testing BADs, which is okay.

-- Hal

I can't find any three inch pipe. If I send you some snares will you test them for me? They will have BADs produced and sold by a very reliable source! Oh, and I don't have a bathroom scales.

Go to the plumbing store and buy a 2-1/2 I.D. steel pipe nipple, they come in various lengths, make sure you don't get one that is completely threaded. (The O.D. on this will be 2-7/8 that's close enough for "shop" purposes) Go to the department store and buy yourself a bathroom scale.

And/or, send your snares, along with a crisp $20 bill, and we'll see what we can do.

-- Hal

I'm following this thread with great interest, and am able to picture a test on BADs. What I don't underestand is how do you measure a 'pulling' weight by using a bathroom scale that you have to stand on? Frank.

You weigh the load you are trying to pick up. Start with a low weigh and keep adding known amounts of weight to your load until finally the BAD fails. Add up the weights and you know at what point the BAD failed.

-- Hal

Ok were going to use a 3" OD pipe and a static pull.
When I played around with this I used total failure of the BAD as the point where I recorded a measurement.In other words when everthing came apart.
The criteria to identify failure of the system also need to be standardised to keep everyone on the same page

Yes, total failure is the point at which you record the weight involved. I thought that was a given -- I may be guilty of making assumptions.

Here is the procedure I follow. I have a come-along hanging from a beam in the ceiling of my shop. I cinch the snare around the pipe and hook the other end to the come-along. With the come-along, I pick up a weight that I am certain will not defeat the bad. In the case of the 280 bad this is about 240 pounds. I set the load down, and add another weight. (Ideally you want to add weight in about 10 lb increments.) I attempt to pick the load up again. Set down - add weight - pick up. And continue this sequence until, upon trying to raise the load, the snare comes completely in two dropping the load.

Note: Work the come-along slowly and carefully. Trying to go fast, or "jerking" the handle of the come-along will cause premature failure of the BAD, and give inaccurate readings. Jerking the handle or jerking the load introduces an un-measurable kinetic energy component. (The difficulty in measuring kinetic energies is one important reason for standardizing on the static pull test.)

The way "official" testing is done, (as in getting certified in ND), 12 snares are defeated, and the average of the 12 tests is taken.

"Almost" doesn't count, at least with a s-hook type bad. I have caught animals that had the hook partially opened up. And I have and many similar reports. However, if you decide to do these tests, and you observe that the BAD is beginning to "defeat", you can be fairly well assured that a few more pounds is going to cause total failure.

PLEASE USE PROPER SAFETY CONDISERATIONS. Sometimes these BADs can defeat violently and go flying off into space. Please wear eye protection. Also, make absolutely sure you know where your feet are. Dropping 200 or 300 pounds on your toes will result in an unpleasant experience.

-- Hal

Do you replace the BAD after each test weight ? If not, what are the chances that the bad's are weakened to some degree each time you pick up a weight ?

Holy smoke! I am making assumptions. Thank you Keith.

These BADs, once they are defeated, are not reusable. They can never be reformed to "factory fresh" condition thus they need to be replaced if and when they are defeated. Which, in the case of testing them is each and every time. Also during testing a new lock must be used for every test.

I don't know about other devices, but when a s-hook defeats, it abrades the hole in the lock and "rounds" it out a little bit, so to speak. If a new BAD is placed on this "rounded out" lock, it will break at a slightly lower poundage because the "rounded out" lock will slip out of the BAD a little easier.

So, to get an accurate reading, a new BAD installed on a new lock should be used for each test.

-- Hal

Here is the set up I used when testing.A recording 50lb scale.Your everyday hanging scale but this one has a little slide that "records" the weight applied to it.An 8'lever,a piece of 2X2 oak.And some misc. bits and pieces
A fulcrum point was established 1' from the end where the snare was attached.The fastening for the scale was 7' from the fulcrum.Giveing a 7:1 ratio.Pull down on the scale till everything lets go record the # and do it again.
It was an interesting exercise as I did try some different configurations of BAD's to see what makes them work.As Hal stated before small differences make for big changes.


EDIT..Just read the above posts.I did not use locks when I was doing this just a piece of 3/32 cable with loops on the ends.I was testing BAD's not locks and didn't realise that there would be a large difference attributed to changeing the lock.Well we know better now

Ric has the better set up.

Actually, I am working on revising mine too, because it is a little time consuming. However it still remains a valid testing procedure for anybody who wants to replicate these tests.

As far as testing without a lock -- we can do that pretty readily with a s-hook bad. But some of these other types of BADs, like the crimp on ferrules will require that the device be installed on a lock or a lock-like device. But even with testing the s-hook bad, it has been my experience that the lock side of the BAD is the first to fail. Also as noted above in this discussion, some lock behave differently with the same BAD. (Point in case is the 180° lock that was the original focus of this thread.) Also some BADs are part of the lock like the DWR cam lock mentioned previously in this thread. That is a cam-lock with an aluminum shear pin.

I welcome discussion on this point.

-- Hal

Ok I might be asking a question that might have already been answered....BUT one must ask...Do we know IF any other BAD manufacturers besides the one Hal has already mention(Denver Wildlife Research info)has done a regulated tests?

Mike: Excellent observation. This is the whole crux of the matter. It is fair not only to ask if these devices are tested, but how these devices are tested. Like I've said several times before, if I were to change my testing methodology, I could get a different reading for the s-hook that I sell as 280# now.

In this thread, Break Away Device Tests I showed that if I substituted a 7" pipe this 280 BAD would fail somewhere below 185 pounds. So suppose just for the sake of argument, some jurisdiction mandated a 200 limit on their BADs. Should I just break out the 7 inch pipe, retest my 280s and say, "Here ya go!" There is both an honesty and a reliability factor going on here.

I'll go you one even better. Although I haven't tried this, I'll bet I could take a 350 pound device, measured at 3" on a static pull. And by using a big enough pipe, make it fail at 285 pounds or below. Then I could sell it in the 285# states.

At this stage of the game, I do not think it is safe to make any assumptions.

And the truth is, this is never going to be resolved unless the trappers who use these devices, the F&G departments who mandate them, and the retailers who sell them, begin to demand some accountability in this area.

-- Hal

Thanks Hal. What do you know about North Dakotas BAD reg.s? Do you sell many BADs out to those snaremen?

It's the only state I know of that requires certification. However, the only requirement is that the device be below 350 pounds. So everything between 10 pounds and 350 pounds gets lumped together.

I have been in contact with the fellow that does the testing. While he was conducting a static pull test, there was some confusion on his part as to what diameter round bar he was supposed to use. (In deference to him, this was sort of dumped in his lap, and he wasn't given much history on this testing procedure.) His bar was too small. I just contacted him the other day when I got those documents I have been quoting. Since that seems to be the only documented procedure, he said henceforth, he would be testing with a 3" bar.

I truly hope this will provide one more step in standardizing this procedure.

-- Hal

I'm not certain but I don't think Buzzard's question was answered. If you repeatedly lift a near terminal weight with the same "S" does the stress accumulate to weaken the "S"...sort of like reverse work hardening? Rics set up would elliminate this question and the need for me to buy a bathroom scale.

Hal, when you are testing these, what are you considering a failure, When the s hook completly leaves the lock or when the s hook just starts to open? If it's when they completely open, I can see the need for a new lock each time.
Now respectively, if the circumfrence of the pipe changes, so does the breking point of the s hook. To be fair and honest with these tests, wouldn't each state have to mandate that the breaking pressure be set at the stop limit set by that state?
Mike

Wacky what you described would become an issue if the bad was repeatedly stessed too close to its limits.Metal fatigue/work hardening should not have any effect if the loads are well below the limits the bad can handle.Knowing Hal I would bet that he is not cranking on that come-along handle any more than necessary,limiting the working of the wire in a bad being tested to point where it does not effect the outcome.

Scrapper as stated before,failure is complete failure when every thing comes apart.Also it has been noted that small changes make large differences in the readings obtained.Remember we are tryin to achive a standard here.To do so componets in the test need to be as similar as practicly possible.For the tests to be repeatable and verifyable.Others must be able to obtain the same componets.It would be good to know if a worn lock releases at a different rateing but it won't help set a standard.

Deer stops and bad's on the same snare are redundent.Let's not entertain someones ignorance by jumping through hoops devised by them.

All we want is a Standardised Test,that by definition means the same procedures and protolcols are used

Wacky what you described would become an issue if the bad was repeatedly stessed too close to its limits.Metal fatigue/work hardening should not have any effect if the loads are well below the limits the bad can handle

Ric,

I would disagree w/ that statement, metal can and does "stretch" to some degree . Are these BADS all made out of the same type of metal ?

There is a vast difference between 12L14 and 1144 steels, 12L14 would stretch much easier than 1144 and would be all but invisable to the naked eye.

I'm sure metal fatigue is not an issue here.

Yes, sometimes a BAD does start to open up during a test, and I have to set the load down to apply more weight. But I do not try to return the BAD to it's original configuration. I leave it "as is", half stretched out and pick up the next load with added weight. There is no "reversal" here, it is just a continuation of the failure.

Frankly, I don't see how this could have any more than a negligible effect on the test.

And let me reiterate -- a new bad and new lock is used for each test.

"Are these BADS all made out of the same type of metal ? "
Keith: You really should try to make clear and concise statements if you are going to participate in this discussion.

If you mean, was I using a different metal in each bad I made and tested… For god's sake, no!! (I would be insulted for someone even to propose that I was that stupid, careless, or carefree.) If you mean can different BADs be made with different metals, yes they can and are. Again, if we have a standardized test we can tell how the BAD performs no matter what is it made of.

-- Hal

I leave it "as is", half stretched out and pick up the next load with added weight. There is no "reversal" here, it is just a continuation of the failure.

If this is the case, your testing does NOT test a new BAD and therefore does NOT give an accurate account of failure. A new bad should be used everytime you pick up a weight to insure proper testing.

You really should try to make clear and concise statements if you are going to participate in this discussion.

I merely asked a simple question, it is quite apparent you know little of metalurgy or you wouldnt have flown off the handle. Bottomline, if you are attemting to "standardize" a testing method, you had better be dam sure the equipment you are testing is "standardized"to begin with. The question:

"Are these BADS all made out of the same type of metal ? "

Do you know for a fact that the components used to make your s hooks are consistant? Do they all come from the same manufacteror ? I would hope so because if not your testing is in vain.

The two types of metals I mentioned above are entirely different and used evryday in your own home.You would not recognize a difference in either of them . In the manufacturing buisness , different metals are used for different things, but in smaller processes the components may or maynot be of importance .

You really should try to make clear and concise statements if you are going to participate in this discussion.

I believe I will pass on this conversation from here on out, apparently my knowledge of metals is either not wanted or cared for in this thread.

Just re-read this again....I promise this will be my last reply.

If you mean can different BADs be made with different metals, yes they can and are. Again, if we have a standardized test we can tell how the BAD performs no matter what is it made of.

Your BADS could easly be made out of both 12L14 and 1144 steels.

12L14 is soft for cutting purposes, the shafts that are on your washer and dryer timers are made of 12L14.

1144 is stress and fatigue proof steel, it is made into the motor shafts of electric appliance motors.

If your bads are made of these two different metals, your testing will be fruitless as there tensle strenghs are different.

Ok, Im done......have a nice day

Don't run off yet. You started this and by god for the sake of accuracy here, you'll finish it.

The BADs I am testing are all made of the same metal -- thousands and thousands of them.

But for the sake of argument here, lets say that some were made of one type of metal and some were made of another.

"If your bads are made of these two different metals, your testing will be fruitless as there tensle strenghs are different."

Let's labor under the assumption that while I truly can not identify the two qualities of metals you've mentioned above, I am capable of using calipers to, at least, determine the s-hooks were of the same diameter wire, and had the same bend radius. I hope you can grant me that.

Now if the tensile strengths were significantly different, then the two different "unidentifiable" BADs should yield remarkably different failure points. I would, upon testing a quantity of them, end up with data showing that some were very high and or some were very low, at which point I would have to throw them out the batch because I would not be able to separate them by visual examination.

However, these BADs are made from wire. Can you please enlighten me as to what wire manufacturer would, in the middle of a run, switch the types of steel they were using. (I believe that would be the manufacturer who would not stay in business long, and probably wouldn't be of great concern to us.) And or, can you tell me of a concern in the business of manufacturing small s-hooks who would, in the middle of a run, switch the type of wire they were using, without notifying their customers. (Again, a manufacturer that will not be in business very long.)

The prospect of having "mixed" metals in the same batch of BADs is, in my opinion, too farfetched to entertain.

As for testing a bad incrementally until it fails I said : "Frankly, I don't see how this could have any more than a negligible effect on the test."

I'll stick by that statement. In the final analysis, these BADs should be tested under laboratory conditions using something like a universal testing machine. But these machines are very expensive. The tests we are performing in our shops do not have the same degree of accuracy. However, they are close enough to give us a very good idea of how these things perform. Testing a BAD incrementally until it fails is within the limits of accuracy of our homemade testing systems.

(For everyone's information -- My homemade tests have been more that 90% accurate when compared, ultimately, to the tests done on a UMT. That's pretty gol darn good for a shop test.)

Keith: Your knowledge of metallurgy is in fact quite welcome here, but this thing is confusing enough without introducing unrealistic scenarios.

-- Hal

The BADs I am testing are all made of the same metal -- thousands and thousands of them.

Are you not pushing for a standardized method of testing ? If so, will you be supplying all the s hooks to everyone to do their testing ? If you dont know the content of the metal in the s hooks you are using , how can you stardize anything when you dont know what anyone else is using for their test?

Your ideas are great but to insure proper testing thru out the snaring community, the product itself must be standardized also.

Yes, I will stand by that statement also.

Your knowledge of metallurgy is in fact quite welcome here, but this thing is confusing enough without introducing unrealistic scenarios.


What in pray tell is so unrealistic as you, Rally Hess, and Slimey Newt using the same diameter of s hook but from different manufacterors and differnt tensil strengths ?

What about your other buddy does he even understand the concept

I'm not anymore confused than usual. However, I find Ric's method more acceptable, in addition to not having to buy a bathroon scale it seems to be much faster and would eliminate the negilable differences inherant to the "reloading" of the BADs. So, Hal, as soon as you get geared up to use Ric's method I'll send you some snares to test for me and I'll forgive my standard $20 consultant fee. Maybe Ric could provide a schematic for us, I mean you to follow in construction of his Rube Goldberg tester.

As I’ve watched this debate swing into metallurgy and testing standards I’d suggest that the ASTM International Standards might help clarify much of the conjecture here. That’s why the ASTM Standards exists is to help solve exactly the questions being posed.

All a person should need is the ASTM material specification number from the s-hook manufacturer in order to find out the metallurgy of the wire. This should be fairly easy to do, in fact, he may even have a copy of the mill test report on file but doubtful. While you’ll find out the mean chemical composition you’ll also find out and the % of chemical variance (+/-) allowed the manufacturer/mill. I don’t know about wire but with piping and plate material the variable can be as much as 14% if I remember correctly.

In addition, since s-hooks are made for many purposes other then BAD’s and carry a load rating, the ASTM Standards may very well supply a standard testing criteria for them as well. That may help with the testing part of the problem

Heck, my career department only had a few of the ASTM books and they only pertained to my field of expertise so if there were any other questions, I had to run all over the dang plant to different engineering offices trying to find who had the book I needed. Now the whole shebang appears to be available on the web!

There ya go Hal..........

Post Preview
Hal, Do your S hooks fail on the lock side or on the cable side
or both?

Also I would consider a Bad Failure at the point where either the lock or the cable can easily slide off the S-hook.
Any opening wide enough that would release the animal, during its constant pulling and jerking back and forth. which will put slack in the line to free it.

My BADs were not straightened out, but bent open only maybe half way....like a question mark. They failed

No coyote in the world is strong enough to Fail a BAD on one pull, It is the overnight banging away at it that slowly makes it fail. Therefore I think Hals method is closer to real
than Ric's.....

Testing in this arena is like a fine Cgar; if it satisfies its good. I see no need to closely mimic in situ conditions so long as the tests and nomenclature can be related to a functional BAD.

Archer your comment about...BADS failing "on constant pulling" on the cable/lock...I disagree. IF the BAD is a lighter break away poundage say a REAL 150 lb.er like some are advertising...on a longer snare I am betting a coyote could conceivably break out quickly. NOT ever time mind you as some coyotes temperment are different. Some are fighters to the end some very docile.
Also the s-hook BADS I have open up BUT STILL kill/hold coyote were partially opened...in some cases they were opened up enough to allow cable to slip through...but didn't. Others I have fail were WIDE open ...stretched down clearly failed...due to deer AND coyotes. I will state here that I have never had a ferrule BAD release/fail yet. But have had the shear pin type BADS fail.

Let’s try to clarify this in regards to materials.

Nowhere have I said I wanted to standardize the materials in Break Away Devices. No, no. What I am seeking is a standardized test for determining the strength that anybody’s BAD works at. It doesn’t matter if the device is made of steel, copper, aluminum, titanium or whatever. So please don’t get fixated on steel.

These devices don’t even have to work in the same manner. Look at what is out there now. The are s-hooks that open up, ferrules that slide off the cable, and there is a cam-lock that shears the axel when it reaches a certain poundage. Different ways and different materials to achieve the same effect.

Think of this as something on the order of fishing lines. Aren’t there several different types of material for making fishing lines? But still if you by 100 pound test line, you can expect it to be good up to 100 pounds, no matter what it is made out of, or who you bought it from.

That’s what we are trying to achieve here. It is, however, a little more complicated than snapping a piece of fishing line in two. The snare is going to be around a coyotes neck, and the cable isn’t going to break. This would be more on the order of the fish hook straightening out (but please don’t carry that analogy too far.)

We need a standardized test. So that, as in the case of fishing line, we can by a 100 pound BAD from any manufacturer, made from any material, and know that by some standard of measure is does break a 100 pounds.

-- Hal

Ric, I agree that we need to have a standard for testing Bads, but I don't feel I was being redundant with Bads and deer stops. I'm in a state where I have to have both. If I'm reading all this correct, the larger the diameter, the less it take to open. Thus if they come up with a standard of anything less than 2 1/2", I'm at a disadvantage right off the bat. And from what I have heard from our first season using these devices on yotes, we need all the advantages we can get.
Mike

That is a good point to be made in regards to standardizing a certain size pipe for testing BADs.

But, as Ric pointed out, deer stops in combination with BADs is redundant. One or the other will do. If you have the deer stop, you really don’t need the BAD and vice versa. This is just one more example of silliness in some of these snaring regulations that have been recently promulgated.

But, testing on a 3 inch pipe would cover this contingency, silly or not.

-- Hal

I will ask another "redundancy question"...like Scrapper mentioned he has requirements set by law...well here in Illinois we don't have snares on land. All of my land snaring has been out of state. Question Hal...will a deer stop set for a 2 1/2 inch opening (to theorhetically allow a deer hoof/leg to slide out...yeah right!) break out at similar poundages? I feel this info could possible prevent/aid states when setting up REDUNDANT scenarios like deer stop and BAD requirements?

A deer stop is permanently affixed to the cable. Deer stops don’t break out, and aren’t supposed to break out. In fact, if a deer stop “broke out” the snare would close down smaller, and that’s what a deer stop is meant to avoid.

-- Hal

That's understood...I am asking will a deer stop change the break out poundages of a BAD? I am guessing that it will...IF a stop is positioned at different points on the cable. For instance in my state it must be positioned at 2 1/2 inches...other guys I have talked to position it differently.

Hal,I have been reading this from the start and find this thread very interesting, while I agree with you on a lot that has been said I do disagree with if you have a deer stop you don't need a bad and viceversa. If you have a bad you probably don't need a deer stop but if you have a deer stop that is another sory. Deer stops don't release neck snared deer.

When snaring it is the absolute obligation of the snaresman to hang his equipment in such a way and manner to avoid non-targets; on that we must all agree. The BADs and deer stops are not and should not be considered fail safe systems. They provide additional layers of protection against the un-avoidable co-incidental encounter they are not license to string cable in any manner or fashion. This being re-stated, neck snaring of deer is not the focus of these devices.
Precautions should / must be taken to avoid these situations like the plague.

On another point, I have this Noonam cartoon image of my dear friend cranking on a come-a-long while looking over his shoulder to listen to his sweeties words just as the BAD fails. The next scene is him on crutches. Since I have such great affection for this fellow I do not like the image. On the other wall is another little buddy with a pulley aided, lever system rigged in such a manner that when the BAD fails the lever gives but a bit, the scale returns to zero leaving a slide indicator at the precise poundage of failure. My little buddy has a large grin on his face while my other friend hops around the room in pain trying to remember what tonnage he had applied just prior to his injury.

Given the discussion to this point, it should be clear to all that the exactness of whatever test we are discussing is not at issue, reproducibility, ease of use, cost, availability and above all standardization are what is critical.

"Deer stops don't release neck snared deer."

Again we face misconceptions that can leave trappers with a false sense of security.

BADs don't release neck snared deer either.

Read carefully what Tom said above: "...neck snaring of deer is not the focus of these devices. Precautions should / must be taken to avoid these situations like the plague."

-- Hal

Just a hair off topic here, but
Hal, you think bads and stops are silly, what about deer stops on our beaver snares here in PA?
Mike

Same here Scrapper...Illinois has the same law. Except there is no mention of BAD. AND we must have a swivel on the END of the cable. Now I ask you who are the experts..the DNR or the experienced trappers in the field? Hal any response to my previous post...regarding deer stops.

Mike, I don't see how it makes a difference. If a deer is neck snared, then it is not going to pull the loop down to a 2 1/2" diameter as its neck is far larger than that. If it is leg snared, then the stop should work as intentended and allow the deer to pull its foot free even if the BAD does not open.

RO

Riverotter, I suppose it could happen that way...I agree neck snared deer with a deer stop are going to die. BUT I think a neck snared deer with a light BAD...MIGHT have a better chance to break out.
BUT that is not my question...I am asking does a snare with a deer stop on it change the break out poundage compared to one that doesn't have a stop? It sounds like 'I'm beating this horse' BUT if Illinois trappers have knowledge of this fact it might help us with future legilation....Thanks ahead of time.

”Hal, you think bads and stops are silly...”

Hold on. I don’t necessarily think that BADs or deer stops are a bad idea. But, requiring both on the same snare is foolish, particularly if those snares are required to employ a sub 300 lb bad. In Ohio, we are required to have one or the other but not both.

Mike: If the test calls for a mandrel that is larger than the diameter mandated by the deer stop, I don’t think the stop will have any influence on the BAD. In other words, a stop diameter of 2.5 inches tested on a 3 inch mandrel is going to have no effect on the failure of the BAD.

I suspect you want to know what happens with a BAD if and when a lock bottoms out on a deer stop. I can’t answer that. If you're thinking about legislation, for goodness sake don’t ask for a deer stop diameter larger than 2.5 inches. If you do you’ll have small critters getting out of your snares.

As for a BAD that will release neck snared deer – I’m sorry to say that if you get a bad that light, you can forget about snaring coyotes.

-- Hal

Thanks Hal...you are probably right...on the BAD.

What I have read above, for the most part, accurately describes non-lethal situations; or so it seems. In lethal snaring particularly with dispatch springs the whole world seems to change. Coyotes are reportedly held with very light BADS on long snares when dispatch springs of the correct poundage are employed. When the coyote is dead the BAD is safe. I do not believe this is anything more than a result of incorporating a spring in -line with the end of the snare. Addition of this spring apparently changes the dynamics of the BAD and standard 280s are way more than what is required to hold a coyote. I do wish I had used some of these new, should I call them, ultra-light BADs but I have not and my post is truly hearsay...but I heard it from some very good snaresman if that has any bearing on things. Now, I could get some real good first hand information if a friend or two of mine would stick a spring on a snare or two and see if the BAD releases at the same poundage.

OK this is Gawd speakin’ and ain’t none of y’all better to try to throw a beeg sheet over my head unless you are higher than I am . . . . .

Buzzard is correct.

That is depending on the definition of the test and the universe you wish to address.

With me so far? Hal and the Wacky dude should be . . . . (Hal was a Chem mjr afterawl)

I’ll presume Hal assumes, as he has provided no proof otherwise, that the steel from which his break away devices are mfg is the same from lot to lot.

Now why shooooooould that be the case?

It certainly isn’t when one is buying high dollar music wire.

If one isn’t buying truckload quantities (at least 40,000 lbs), the smaller the order – as in the trapping industry-, over a period of time, order to order AND intra-order, the more likely one is to purchase the results of “sweeping the floor” . To put it in terms trappers can identify with: Over time you get sloppy seconds, backwash, leftovers . . . it all looks the same and weighs the same but it ain’t the same and hain’t no astm father-hater can ever change that FACT.

Now, more to the point of my good friend Buzzard (did anybody know there was a abattoir in Ohio called Buzzards ?) Different metals, whether they differ inter or intra-manufacturer, will have different rates of failure as the result of the accumulation of sub-critical stresses.

So what Buzzard said, and what got lost in the haze (and that looked like a purple haze from Blue Creek), is if’n you want a test that gives replicable results between the various types of steel and mfgs and all the possible combinations of those two sets for a specific event is you gotta put a NEW Break Away Device (BAD) in the testing mechanism every time you test until you reach failure to determine the mean, or median, of first time exposure failures.

Now if you want to determine the mean, or median, of exposure failures greater than first time, with the exposure stresses varying randomly as they would in the field, well good luck. Cuz then you have 2 more sets to introduce to the existing two, the number of pre-failure stresses and the different stress levels, i.e. small coyote, large female coyote, large female coyote immediately post-parturition, small deer etc&etc; as can be seen all the possible combinations that would need to be tested for anything other than first time exposure failures increases at a rate greater than the spread of STDs in an impoverished third world, war torn, drought stricken, famine ridden country with 2/3rds of its population between the ages of 12 and 21.

But I digress with the preceding paragraph. Nobody in the FWS community really cares about good science they just care about using the FWS acronym. The wife-studies-project is out-of-town at a conference this weekend and I’m bored.

Don’t get too close . . . .

RE:" However, these BADs are made from wire. Can you please enlighten me as to what wire manufacturer would, in the middle of a run, switch the types of steel they were using. (I believe that would be the manufacturer who would not stay in business long, and probably wouldn't be of great concern to us.) And or, can you tell me of a concern in the business of manufacturing small s-hooks who would, in the middle of a run, switch the type of wire they were using, without notifying their customers. (Again, a manufacturer that will not be in business very long.)

The prospect of having "mixed" metals in the same batch of BADs is, in my opinion, too farfetched to entertain.

I missed this little gem first scan.

First off

different mfg using different steel types is a state of nature that this commentary doesn’t recognize.

Second off

the mfg doesn’t have to change types of steel in the middle of a run, all that needs happen is the lot changes, steel still meets the same specs but lot has changed, now you have to shut down machine or line to recalibrate due to change in physicals.

Or same steel spec/grade from a different mfg - - - -oh yea babe that’s what I’m talking about, a friggin’ nightmare on the floor; all because some guy graduated from Wendy’s burger flippin’ school that got a job in purchasing is trying to prove he is smarter than a ‘possum.

Ain’t nobody ought be allowed in purchasing until they they have designed sumthin and then had make more than 2 of them in a row that worked.

But anyway.

Different mfg using different steel types is a state nature that this commentary doesn’t recognize.

Again with the assumptions.On my part this time.I certainly don't have Jerry's expertise in working with metal but did a little research on the subject a while back.It amazed me that the acceptable tollerances for the composition and working properties of "common"(everyday?)steels were so large.With the steel products utilised in the hardware we are interested in the specifications are painted with a wide brush.

But this is one of the reasons a standardised test is important.Allowing for materials with different properties to be used for the same product and too verify the same level of performance.

Jerry said: "steel still meets the same specs but lot has changed,".

As long as the steel meets the same specifications, I guess I'll have to live with that. I have no hope in prevailing to get the specifications for steel changed. (Right now, I will be content to get some specificaitons for measuring these BADs established )

"all that needs happen is the lot changes…"

I can understand that. And I can make an analogy to ammunition. Ammunition can change from lot to lot. If you are a bench rest shooter, the small variance between lots can make a difference if you are trying to punch a tiny hole in a piece of paper. If you're just hunting rabbits, it's really not that critical.

If there are ready and reliable methods for circumventing these discrepancies, in practical application for the trapping community, I will gladly entertain them.

Otherwise I would purpose to test at least 12 BADs taken at random from a batch, and let the strength of those BADs be taken on the average.

And of course I am open to viable alternative solutions. The only thing I am opposed to, is letting this issue dangle in the wind.

-- Hal

suggestion........or question.

Have you tested s hooks made from different manufacterors and of diffent metals w/ the same load weight ?

Sometimes (quite often ) I don't follow your questions.

Testing with a single load, or weight, doesn’t give a very clear picture. Let's take an example. I'll test with a 280 lb weight. Sample A picks up the weight every time. All I know is sample A has a BA of greater than 280# -- it could be 500# for all I know. Sample B never picks up the weight. All I know is sample B is less than 280# -- it might be 50# for all I know.

Wouldn't it be better to, using a standardized test, just test these other BADs, and determine where, within a reasonable degree of accuracy, they actually do break?

Now, with that said, why should I bear the responsibility of doing research and development for other manufacturers?

It's really not fair of you to ask if I tested someone else's device.

But it is quite within the realm of reason to ask them if they tested their device, and ask them how they tested it.

If there is another angle to this question, please clarify.

-- Hal

Now, with that said, why should I bear the responsibility of doing research and development for other manufacturers?

Why ?? Simply because you have stepped forward in a quest to make everything revolving around BAD's easy to understand and standardized.

I applaud your efforts , to me you are on the right tract.....you just need to be tweeked a bit . As a outsider to the rules and regulations you are trying to simplify, I find myself questioning you for the ignorance of the trapping community. Remember, I have a knack about that........most of my comments need a disclaimer, "they are not neccesarily the beliefs of the poster"

Im just punchin holes in your theory, nothing more and nothing less.

Deer stop/BAD ?
"If" Im was snaring with cattle around I sure would want a BAD.
BUT
Who is going to spend the money to build the testing lab. Then eat, or charge the expences of everything else to test. Something that the Retail market world wide "might"(just a guess) only be $10,000.00
Example
The Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS). Up in Canada charges a trap manfacture.$2,500.00 for each species to run a test on their Computer Simulation Models (CSMs). This is for just 1 new trap stile. And It could cost more than $50,000.00 Useing live animal. Per New trap stile ,Per animal species.
You ant gona see me up there with a BAD in my hand to be tested. There just AINT NO MONEY in it.

This thread has run its course, Im done as I dont have anything to give that I havent already.

I dont use any of the additives so my take is redundant and useless as far as help goes.

Go kill something......even if its a fish to eat .

:rolleyes: Sometimes I think I'm just talkin' to myself.

Newt: God bless you! Now we're on the right track.

We don't need no stinkin' test facility. And we don't need no thousands of dollars worth of nothin'. Buddy, if you really did want to develop some type of your own bad. You could do all the development and research, in the shop with a few tools. Like I said, a comealong, a scale and a few chains. The only thing special you might have to come up with is a 3 inch round bar to cinch the snare around. If you can get a piece of 2.5 inc steel water pipe, that is about 2.9" OD, and will give you some pretty accurate results.

All it will cost you is your time. When you are done. You could pay a small cost to get them tested "officially". You're going to be pretty sure of the results anyway. Have at it! In a industry as small as this one, we can't afford to stifle innovation. Including making innovation too expensive to pursue. Anybody can play here. You don't need money, just ambition.

Look, this test is so simple, anybody can do it. And there is documentation to show how this test evolved and how it relates to capturing coyotes and releasing large animals. I don't see how it can get much better than that -- a simple test that gives representative results.

And while the focus here has sort of been on the commercial aspects, the hobbyist could just as well use a test like this to make his own BADs and still be within his state’s laws.

Also, using these BADs has brought up a lot of questions. Collectively, maybe we can solve some of these problems, if we can all get on the same page. If I say I tested a system that broke at 240 pounds. The next guy could make an alteration and test, it and we could compare apples to apples because we used the same test.

-- Hal

Been pondering more BAD stuff...I started snaring using washer and sure locks. Later I read Dan Dezarn's book and used Gregarson's locks.
I found them difficult to work with, mostly because I didn't know much about snaring and I was used to the other locks.
Gregarson claimed these locks would "tear out" if an ungulate was caught by the leg. Later, he had his locks tested and the results were published.
Hal I would love for you to attempt to tear one of these locks out. The construction of the material is similar to a thin piece of sheet metal...pretty strong. The wording "saw out" was mentioned by some top snaremen as how this BAD system works. As the cable would cut through the thin metal of the lock when the captured animal attempts to free itself. Is there any application here to s-hook BAD systems...

I have experienced the gregerson lock on deer first hand while I was snaring deer on purpose.

I was ignorant enough not to know what was suppose to happen and it did perfectly w/ a neck snared deer. The lock failed and I had a live one on my hands.

While a bit off topic, cam locks, even tho they are relaxing locks so to speak "kill" quite well w/ neck snared deer.

"Gregarson? had his locks tested and the results were published."
Gregerson locks were tested in the 1990 study. The mean breaking strength was 339 pounds.

"the cable would cut through the thin metal of the lock when the captured animal attempts to free itself. Is there any application here to s-hook BAD systems" I don't see how. It is an entirely different system.

"Hal I would love for you to attempt to tear one of these locks out.." Heck, I'll bet you would. I'll bet you'd love to have me mow your lawn too. You seem to be as interested in this as anyone, in fact more so. Again I invite you or anyone else to undertake some of this on your own.

Frankly, I'm not going to do anymore of this until I get a different system set up. Something on the order of what Ric has. But that doesn't mean the tests I have used are invalid, the testing system is just a little slow.

But before this thread ends, maybe I should delineate a simple testing system, and how anybody can do this test at home.



For starters, you'll need a some sort of a scale, a bathroom scale will do. You'll also need a comealong to pick up the weights, and you'll obviously need a place to hang the comealong. I hang mine from a beam in the ceiling.

My original set up employed concrete blocks and a couple pieces of pipe to hold them. Set the blocks up endways and run a piece of pipe through them. I used two rows of block with two pipes. Then I used a piece of chain to capture the ends of the pipes sticking out of the blocks. For the pulling mandrel, I used a piece of pipe about 12 inches long. (If you want to replicate the 1990 DWR tests, get a piece of 2.5" inside diameter pipe, this will be about 2.9" outside diameter.) I would capture one end of the pipes sticking out of the blocks, run the chain through the hollow of the pulling pipe, and then capture the other end of the pipes sticking out of the blocks..

You need to weigh everything below the comealong, the blocks, the pipes, the chains, the pull pipe, -- everything. Do this incrementally and add up your total. It is best to start with a weight below the expected breaking point of the BAD. Unhook the chain, thread a snare on the pull pipe, then rehook the chain.

Working the handle of the comealong slowly, pick up the load. (Don't jerk or bounce the load.) All you need to do is clear the load from the floor a fraction of an inch. If the BAD doesn't let go. Set the load back down carefully.

Next you will need some items of known weight to add to the load. I used bricks there's so many different kinds that I can't give you an approximate weight for one brick, but to speed up the process of doing this test, add weight in 10 pound increments. If your bricks weigh approximately 5 pounds, add them to the load two at a time.

Eventually, the BAD will fail. At this point you can weigh the total additional weight you have added to the pile and come up with a total weight number for that trail. Don't rely on just one trial. There can be variances in these things. You should do at least ten trials and take an average.

Note, that you should always use a new lock, and new BAD for each trail. The hole on a lock tends to distort once it has been subject to a BAD failure. And BADs should never be considered to be re-usable.

BE CAREFUL! BE SAFE!
These BADs can fail violently, with pieces being propelled away from the snare with some force. Please wear some form of eye protection. Also be mindful that a load this heavy could very quickly smash your toes. I circumvent this by standing on a ladder to work the comealong. I stand on the first step of the ladder, and my feet are thusly off the floor.

-- Hal

Come now, you stand on the ladder so you can reach the come-a-long handle...the safety aspect was serendipidous.

In fact it wasn't. At first I positioned the comealong so I could reach it from the floor. But to use it, you have to lean out over the pile of weights. This puts your toes very close to the load. A couple of times watching a 300 pound pile of blocks crash to the floor, inches from my toes, was enough to scare me.

I drug the ladder in, moved the comealong higher, and got my feet off the floor. Actually it's easier to work the comealong off a ladder because you can snuggle the ladder right up next to the load, and you can safely stand closer to the load with your feet up on a the ladder.

-- Hal

Hal , Thanks for letting us see the diagram of your testing devise. Crude but eficient.
I believe most of us following this thread would love to see you
go on and finish your quest.
What is your plan from here?
We will support you all the way.

I have my own plan. I will, over the summer make sometype of tester. I'll probably wait and see what your new one looks like.

After I find out all the facts and new news on any changes for next year . I will buy, or build and play with several different BAD's I'd like to try a bunch of them, . Then put them to the tester to see which one I like the best. I will build my own better Pa. cable restraint and remain within the law.......

My hope is to get manufacturers and retailers to subscribe to this test when rating their BADs. That way, we will all be on the same page, and the customer will be better able to determine the effectiveness and efficiency of the device he buys, no matter who he buys it from.

Also, individual inventors and experimenters will have basis from which to conduct test. Maybe we will see some more innovations in this field.

Part of making this happen will be that customers demand verification of the devices retailers are selling. Ask how the device is rated or tested. If they can't answer your question, maybe embarrassment alone will spur on desire for standardization in determining the strength of BADs.

It will be very important that there be a single standardized testing procedure. If some manufacturers refuse to comply, it would not be unwarranted to assume that their products would not measure up to a standardized test.

-- Hal

Hal, Please do not view this post as a negative thing but rather as constructive criticism. While I am not a Professional Engineer as defined by most criteria, I have been, until my retirement, involved in engineering and testing of electrical devices and many of the procedures and requirements are similar.
Your stated goal of getting all manufacturers and retailers of BADs to use this, or at last some standardized test is reasonable.
Your methodology seems to be on target, yet a few of your procedures are questionable. Any test that refers to the use of a bathroom scale for determining weight is going to be called into question, adding weights in 10 pound increments or an additional concrete block is also going to be suspect. I don't know what the potential market is for cable restraints utilizing BADs might be, or what the requirements for those BADs is in the various states requiring them, but I must assume it is a fairly small market. If that is in fact the case, standardized testing by some independent laboratory could well be cost prohibitive. Having said that, it might well be the only thing to save a manufacturer the cost of some fairly expensive litigation at both the state and federal level. Testing any device without having a standardized, calibrated test set up traceable to the U.S. Bureau of standards or a State agency may be hazardous to your pocket book. Underwriters Laboratories, and other testing institutions, already have in place test set ups that can measure to great accuracy the very things you are trying to test, they are costly, yet their label on your device may be invaluable. My only other comment would be to keep meticulous records of eeverything you do as you develop your procedures and test set up. Good luck to you in your efforts to get standards set, you may possibly be able to influence some common sense approach to this and other related issues.

Thanks for your input, but you may have missed this quote above.

"All it will cost you is your time. When you are done. You could pay a small cost to get them tested "officially"."

All the aforementioned was premised on an individual of limited means being able to do research and development on break-away devices with materials commonly available which would yield reasonably accurate results.

You seem to perceive of testing these things in the same manner as Newt did above. Some complicated, elaborate, and expensive procedure. Even done under even under controlled "laboratory" conditions -- it is not. You put a 3-inch diameter rod in a jig in a universal testing machine, cinch a BAD snare around it, pull until the BAD fails, and record the reading. Do that 12 times, and you an a North Dakota "officially sanctioned" certification. The current cost is $60.00.

I think there may be some confusion here between the terms "testing" and "certification". I propose that an individual do all his "testing" (in the form of research and development) at home. If you perform these "homemade" test carefully, your accuracy will be within 10%. When you are satisfied you have a reliable device, for a few bucks you can have it certified -- that is if you want to put it on the market.

Seriously, thanks for your concern. You are correct, any test calling for a bathroom scale and a comealong is probably not going to be approved by Underwriter's Laboratory. But it is good enough for the home shop, and will get you close enough that, if you want you can take it to a laboratory, pay a small fee for a certified test run, and market the device on the results.

-- Hal

RE:" Having said that, it might well be the only thing to save a manufacturer the cost of some fairly expensive litigation at both the state and federal level.”

Bingo.

That’s where I was going with this when I had time to get back here.

Should a BAD be involved in an incident where there are financial damages (and I can think of several I won’t post in public) there will be a liability issue.

Who will be held liable?

The purchaser and user?

The retailer?

The mfg?

Even if the BAD is not the prime causal factor a good lawyer is going to look at the process in place to warrant the assertions made by the mfg. That will include not only the testing but the quality control process, both of which appear substandard.

It is not about the BAD being good enough or hunting rabbits vs punching holes in paper, it is about convincing a jury.

I remember Richard Butera telling me stories about Victor and 330s and the consequences of the trap performing as it was SUPPOSED to.

It will be even worse for a device that doesn’t perform as it is supposed to or where a lawyer can paint a scenario that implies it couldn’t reliably perform as it was supposed to based on negligence of the mfg. And from [what] I learned from the lawyers the processes described herein are negligent.

I wouldn’t touch mfg and selling BADs with a lawyers hands.

Hope everyone had a Happy Meaningful Easter.

Dated for search.