Please observe our rules: No profanity. No flaming. No commercial messages. No personal messages please.

Trap Line Archives
 
Traps and Equipment Archives
 
Trap Line Home   Trap Line Forum   Trap Line Help   Trap Line Photo   Old Hollow Blog   Archives
Page 2 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 >
Topic Options
#8413 - 03/27/06 11:23 AM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
Hal Online   content
Moderator

Registered: 07/17/00
Posts: 9914
Loc: Blue Creek, Ohio, USA
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?

quest -- Hal
_________________________
Endeavor to persevere.

Top
#8414 - 03/27/06 12:57 PM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
Mike Marchewka Offline
Member

Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 152
Loc: Crystal Lake,Illinois
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.

Top
#8415 - 03/27/06 03:32 PM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
archer01 Offline
Member

Registered: 03/25/05
Posts: 340
Loc: N.E. Penna.
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 ?

Top
#8416 - 03/27/06 03:51 PM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
Hal Online   content
Moderator

Registered: 07/17/00
Posts: 9914
Loc: Blue Creek, Ohio, USA
"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. smile )

smile -- Hal
_________________________
Endeavor to persevere.

Top
#8417 - 03/27/06 04:02 PM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
Hal Online   content
Moderator

Registered: 07/17/00
Posts: 9914
Loc: Blue Creek, Ohio, USA
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.)

smile -- Hal
_________________________
Endeavor to persevere.

Top
#8418 - 03/27/06 04:13 PM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
Mike Marchewka Offline
Member

Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 152
Loc: Crystal Lake,Illinois
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.

Top
#8419 - 03/27/06 05:18 PM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
Buzzard.. Offline
Member

Registered: 02/26/03
Posts: 859
Loc: North Carolina
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.

Top
#8420 - 03/27/06 08:22 PM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
WACKYQUACKER Offline
Member

Registered: 04/03/02
Posts: 683
Loc: CORRALES, NM
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

Top
#8421 - 03/28/06 04:47 AM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
scrapper Offline
Member

Registered: 11/16/01
Posts: 55
Loc: Pennsylvania

Top
#8422 - 03/28/06 07:55 AM Re: Break-Away S-hooks and 180? Locks
Mike Marchewka Offline
Member

Registered: 01/31/02
Posts: 152
Loc: Crystal Lake,Illinois
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?

Top
Page 2 of 10 < 1 2 3 4 ... 9 10 >

Moderator:  Archive 

 
Sullivan's Line - Trapping Books, Videos, and Other Products for the Trapper.
 
Design and Production by Sullivan Promotions
Copyright 2000-2017  Sullivan's Scents and Supplies - All rights reserved.