Talk:Trapping/Archive 1

Merge
Should not this page be merged with Animal trap somehow? They seem to cover more or less the same subject... P.S. 12:57, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No mention of people accidentally being caught in traps
I visited the article to find out about people getting caught in jaw traps (or leg-hold traps in modern times). Either nobody put info down yet, or perhaps it doesn't happen often enough? It'd be nice to see what precautions (if any) might be visible around such traps for people to beware.


 * Maybe that is because it doesnt happen, unless you are crawling around sticking your head in snares. The image of the mountain man stepping into his own bear trap was an improbable possibility perpetuated by Hollywood movies, but that type of trap was banned very early on. --Bugguyak 22:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not true because the human foot is bigger than all modern foothold traps, and even is this did happen the springs can be easily depressed to release the trap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnnr602 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't happen. Traps are not big enough and if by freak accident a foot/hand does get caught, they are very easy to undo, both snares and foot holds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.212.233 (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob98133 Stop Defacing This Article
This is the most bias article that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. There is incorrect, misplaced, and misleading information in this article and every time someone who actually knows what they are talking about edits it you revert it back. It is clear that you have no practicle knowledge of trapping. And I am tried of you reverting everyone's edits as point of view, when you are doing all you can to plaster this article with your point of view I also suspect due to the amount of edits you have made to this article that you work for PETA and it is your job to sway Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnnr602 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is filled with animal rights views
It's very distracting and not informative at all.

"Trap", "trapping" and "fur trade" are conceptually and historically distinct terms and shoudl not be merged. "Trap", as a noun or verb, has a wide application in current affairs, and not solely in the context of "leghold traps". Conversely, "fur trade" or "fur trapping" refers to an historic human activity that may or may not be associated with the particular type or form of trap used. It pertains to an entire field of interaction between natives and traders or between business owners and free trappers. There is simply no reason to consider merging these topics.

Links to Websites
A link to my site (www.mywildplace.com) as removed citing it was a commercial site. A link to www.australianoutdoors.com is still listed and is a commercial site. The link to my discussion board had one banner on it. In the discussion board, only one banner is visible, on the home page three banners are visible. www.australianoutdoors.com has at least 5 banners and ads on the linked page. Please allow me to readd my link, or please remove the link to www.australianoutdoors.com as it is a commercial site.

Anonymous removal of sourced information
Over the past fe wmonths, an anonymnous IP address has four times removed the same information from the page, and I have restored it. Could I suggest the talk page as an appropriate place to discuss any concerns? MikeHobday 07:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Animal gnaws its own leg off to escape trap -- myth or not?
I have heard from childhood that a muskrat caught in a leghold trap might gnaw its own leg off to escape the trap.

This page, by animal rights activists, suggests that it happens: http://www.insolidaritywithanimals.com/news/decfur2004.php

This blog has a note near the bottom saying it's a myth: http://blogs.lib.uwaterloo.ca/cpgray/2007/06/13/thoughts-to-come-back-to/

The note on the blog seems plausible. I don't suppose that an animal would use the trap as a tourniquet and gnaw beneath the jaws of the trap. Wouldn't the animal bleed to death if it gnawed its leg off? Gnawing a limb off seems like it would take some time. I presume that the rate of blood loss would cause the animal to die in the process of gnawing its leg off. If not, the animal might not make it far from the trap before collapsing due to blood loss from the end of a completely severed limb. One observing only a leg in the trap might not have to look far to find the rest of the animal.

Can someone shed some light on what is the truth here?

This makes no sense because because the animal would bleed to death before it could chew its leg off, if a single leg is left in a trap, It is most likely the result of predation.

If it is actually a myth, then a statement similar to the one on the blog linked above might be useful in the article.

Ac44ck 20:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a trapping term called "wring off" that means the animal has chewed off its foot to escape. While this is hard to believe, I do not think that it is a myth. Many trapped animals have broken jaws and teeth from biting the traps. I think a trapped animal is terrified and in excrutiating pain, so even though it may not make sense to chew off a limb, it is still done.Bob98133 18:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not a myth. Frequency of wring off varies but it is so common in raccoons (there are severl experimental papers on this) that there are specially designed EGG traps that stop them from being able to reach their trapped paw.Ratinabox (talk) 21:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Animals in foot-hold traps (they are not legholds, as today's traps are smaller and sturdier, and don't reach very high up the animals paw) probably experience a shock and initial discomfort as the trap springs, but "excrutiating pain" is an imagined fabrication born of ignorance. See this You Tube demonstration where the trapper puts his hand in a trap to show how it doesn't hurt. Swivels are now used on chains so the animal can pivot his leg/body any way he wants to without contorting, because the trap moves with him. Anti-shock springs can be attached to lessen impact shock, forged-jaws add more surface area, reducing pressure, I can go on and on. Often times animals are found asleep in leg-hold traps! Also, especially in areas that are very cold, off-set jaw traps (where space is left in-between where the jaws come together) keep the blood flowing very well to the extremity. (A theory is that some animals, in the past, chewed on their own trapped limb because it lost circulation and feeling.) This theory might have held true back in the days of toothed-jaw trapping, but they are long-gone. Modern jaws, even without the off-set don't cut off circulation, it's like a hand grasping your wrist so that you can't tug and escape, but not harder than that, so the circulation theory is moot. My theory on the extremely rare occurrence of foot-mutilation, is that sick animals mutilated because they were deranged from illness. Many sick animals find their way into traps, from manged animals, to the rabid, to those with distemper. Often you can't tell if an animal is sick, unless it displays unusual behavior or you autopsy it's brain. It's my opinion that *some* animal rights individuals stage leg-chewing for the camera for propaganda videos/photos. My guess is poison or some caustic, burning solution is applied to the traps. (I must add that poison is not done in the animal-trapping trade, except perhaps in Australia with the case of Dingos.) Perhaps the activists themselves don't create the videos, but sicko snuff filmmakers do and sell the "evidence" of cruelty to the unwitting activists. I'm convinced that the "Ice Storm" is one such staged, snuff video on YouTube. If you want to know the truth about modern trapping this is the video to see.

As for muskrats, I've never heard of them mutilating. Most muskrats are either caught in "colony" live-trap cages, or are caught in drowning rigs. Drowning rigs are considered more human than foot-hold trapping a muskrat, due to the fact that with foot-holds they are immobile and helpless, and passing herons will often spear a muskrat in their beaks. Same bad situation for numerous other predators that would come upon them. Tsarevna 16:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the animal would bleed to death before finishing its leg-chewing bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.185.98 (talk) 00:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please supply reliable references for your beliefs, or else they are simply opinions, not encyclopedic content. Bob98133 (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Non target catch
There are several references to this article [ http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/vertebrates/snares/pdf/iwgs-report.pdf] concerning snare use and non-target catch. One reference qoutes it as saying that "even users of snares accept that over 40% of animals caught are non-target animals". The actual qoute is: "Whilst the capture rate of non-targets can be reduced through good field craft, it may be difficult in some environments to reduce the over all proportion of non-target animals caught in snares to below about 40%." (page 8, para. 6) That is far different than what is written. I propose that since the Independent Working Group Report concerns snares in the UK only, it should be reworded to reflect this fact. Further, the wording: "users of snares accept that" should be changed to "a UK report indicates that non-target catches may be as high as 40% in some environments".Bugguyak 11:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Your suggested changes make sense and seem quite reasonable. Thanks. Bob98133 13:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The report was co-authored by all the main groups who promote the use of snares, and this admission about the problems of snares should be reported as such rather than hiding this through use of the words "a report". Additionally, your suggested change reverses the proportion of non target captures from over 40% to under 40%, a highly misleading change. MikeHobday 21:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The UK report actually says below about 40%, not over 40%. My main problem with the report is it pertains to the UK, not users of snares everywhere. Bugguyak 21:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You raise a number of concerns:
 * 1. You say "The UK report actually says below about 40%, not over 40%." In fact it says, as you report above, "it may be difficult in some environments to reduce the over all proportion of non-target animals caught in snares to below about 40%." If it is difficult to reduce non target captures to below 40%, that means that they can often be over 40% inthese environments.
 * 2. You say (in your edit on the article page, but not here) "Not all users state this". But the report was signed up to by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the National Gamekeepers Organisation and the Union of COuntry Sports Workers. That make such an admission more significant than just calling it "a report." MikeHobday 07:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So perhaps we could say, "UK users of snares accept that, in some environments ...."? MikeHobday 09:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you that is acceptable. Though I find it difficult to believe that all users of snares in the UK have such high non-target catches. The report even says that with the use of rabbit stops, the problem with non-target catches of brown hares by fox researchers was eliminated. The exact wording of the report is: "Whilst the capture rate of non-targets can be reduced through good field craft, it may be difficult in some environments to reduce the over all proportion of non-target animals caught in snares to below about 40%" I find that the statement is cumbersome and leads to more questions, such as what environments? Are they talking about in urban areas with lots of dogs and cats roaming around? If so, why are snares being used in the city in the first place? Bugguyak 13:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Using only US data non-target catches are rarely reported except by the most careful research and conservation studies, in which case the range is 0-67% and the average might not be very far from 40% given that the research average is around 30% and commercial hunters tend to use older, less selective trap types.Ratinabox (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think one study, in one, tiny nation, should be mentioned in the article. Trapping is done all over the world, on every continent except Antarctica, and we are supposed to use data from an island to represent the facts worldwide? I don't think it's good policy. Find data from many different countries, corroborate it, THEN post some sort of conclusion. Until then, I recommend removal of the debated statistics.

On the subject of urban environments, snares can be set to not-kill. They might be useful in capturing a roaming dog that is cage-trap wary and hides from humans. If it is known where he hangs out, near a garbage bin, etc, a snare might do the trick. Snares don't have to be hidden or disguised because animals equate them with just another vine or rope or barrier to step through. They can't imagine that it has a mechanical configuration to tighten. Same goes for foxes, badgers, raccoons, or exotic escaped animals in urban environments. Many animals, like foxes, just won't enter a cage trap, so snares become a viable option.Tsarevna 16:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My sentiments exactly. A UK report is just that, a report from the UK. It does not pertain to snares worldwide. So much regional information can be cited on non-target catches on both sides of the arguement that my feelings are that they could all be thrown out. Therefore in the interests of fairness, I will add some information from this Michigan trapping survey  that shows snare non-target catches were significantly less than that mentioned in the UK report.Bugguyak 18:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So snares are different in Michigan compared to the tiny UK? MikeHobday 19:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the numbers of non-target catches, Yes. Bugguyak 19:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC) The Michigan survey says +-3% but I concede the 10% figure over 8%. Bugguyak 19:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've asked on forums if anyone could tell me how to use a rabbit-stop (as mentioned in UK study,) nobody in the US (on that forum) had even heard of them. -Tsarevna 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Tsarevna, Here is a description of deer stops and break away locks as required in one US state (Ohio)http://www.sullivansline.com/tline/Education/OSG2p7-11.pdf I think that rabbit stops are a UK specific term. Bugguyak 23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a new type of spring-loaded snare that the makers claim to be canine-specific. It's called the CollarumTM. This new trap has the potential to bring non-target catches down close to zero. See video demonstration.It was made to comply with the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards signed in 1995 by the European Economic Community, Canada, and Russia. The website states that is canine-specific because "the trigger requires a pull action rather than the push/depress mechanism normally employed by traps...The Collarum™ is designed to capture canines (coyote, fox, dog, wolf, etc.) by throwing a cable loop over their head and around the neck. The end of the capture loop is anchored in the ground and the canine is held like a dog on a chain." The Collarum has many different models; lethal/non-lethal models, coyote models, dog models...This special, new trigger type might just prove that new trapping technologies improve trapped animal comfort, and all that is needed to prompt such inventions are new regulations. It's a new product, I don't want to mention a specific brand (and possibly promote it commercially) in the wiki article until it has been used by trappers extensively and proven. - Tsarevna 03:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The collarum has been around for quite a while (it was patented in 1997) and I have been using them since 2003. They are very effective and reduce the non-target catch very well, but not 100%. I have accidentally caught felines and carrion eating birds with them. They do make the claim that they are humane and live up to that very well, but I had many canines break teeth by biting on the cables and mechanism which is a serious concern by the American Veterinary Standards. One big drawback is that they are difficult and time consuming to set and are expensive. $80 or more each. Bugguyak 23:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes animals *will* gnaw of toes and feet it traps, esepcially racoons. (Proulx G, Onderka A, Cole P, et al. Injuries and behavior of raccoons (procyon lotor) captured in the soft catch and EGG traps in simulated natural environments. J of Wildl Disease 1993;29:447-452. -- International Association for Fish and Wildlife Agencies. Assessment of three restraining traps and two protocols to capture raccoons in the Midwest in 2002-2003, October 2003. -- Kamler J, Richardson C, Gipson P. Comparison of standard and modified soft catch traps for capturing coyotes, bobcats, and raccoons. Proceedings of the Wildlife Damage Management Conference 9:77-84.)
 * The statement that non-target animals are released unharmed is not correct (Shivik JA, Martin DJ, Pipas MJ, et al. Initial comparison: jaws, cables, and cage traps to capture coyotes. Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for USDA National Wildlife Research Center Staff Publications.

Seddon PJ, Van Heezik Y, Maloney RM. Short- and medium-term evaluation of foot-hold trap injuries in two species of fox in Saudi Arabia. In: Proulx G [ed] Mammal Trapping. Sherwood Park Alberta: Alpha Wildlife Research and Management Ltd. p 67-78.)Ratinabox (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Muskrats do not generally self-mutilate, but they do experience wring-off. They have delicate joints, especially in their wrists. If caught in a foothold and not dispatched quickly (typically done through drowning) they will roll and twist with the trap on their foot and eventually may break their wrist. Once this happens and the bones become separated from the rest of their arm it is not difficult for them to tear small amount of skin remaining and escape. This was the reason for the development of the "stoploss" foot hold trap. It has an extra spring and bar that fires with the trap and acts like a splint that keeps the muskrat's leg straight, preventing wring-off. Consequently, it is also effective at preventing self-mutilation in raccoons, though likely for different reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.69.234.122 (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Snares
Shouldn't snares be moved into their own article and expanded upon to include the art of snaring - there is an enormous amount of technical detail which is certainly encylopedic. Anyone object? 218.111.211.151 14:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No objections here, however I think in most laymen’s eyes snaring and trapping are similar enough to be one and the same to them. Also, good luck keeping it technical. I find that political, ethical and animal rights bias creep into every trapping related article on wikipedia tainting the information. Bugguyak 16:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Support this, and will try to assist. MikeHobday 17:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed a couple of images such as the old duke toothed trap no longer used by trappers and the image of a house cat in a snare and replaced them with less provocative ones open for discussion.Bugguyak (talk) 14:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly agree that a fox snare is more pertinent (though think the cat photo would be suitable to illustrate the bycatch issue in a much longer article). It's a particularly poor photo, however, and indistinguishable at first glance from a fox sitting in the snow. I can't see the merit in a photo where it's hard to see the snare itself. MikeHobday (talk) 16:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree now that you mention it the snare is invisible. I will attempt to find a better one. Perhaps the cat in the snare may be more pertainent in the unwanted catch section? Bugguyak (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why does the article say that snares are made from galvanized aircraft cable? snares are made from any type of cordage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.130.62.234 (talk) 16:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They can be made from any cordage, but commercial snares are made from cable. Bugguyak (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even rabbit snares? MikeHobday (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a large rabbit snaring practice in the US, I assume that it may be a UK thing to snare rabbits. But information I find on the web (all England sites BTW) say that rabbit snares are made of wire. Bugguyak (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Brass wire rather than cable - 6-8 strands wound together. Not sure I would call it cable, though your edit to the article seems good. MikeHobday (talk) 08:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Mammoth trap example found, citation help?
I found a mammoth trap example. It's in the book "Early Man" copyright 1965, Time Inc. (Time-Life book.) On page 148, there's a drawing of a mammoth (an adult, judging by the tusks) standing inside something that looks like an enclosure. From the book "In a cave at Font de Gaume near Le Eyzies, there are several drawings of traps or enclosures with animals suggestively shown caught in them, including a magnificent picture of a mammoth in what seems to be a pitfall."

(However the wiki article states that 200,000 years ago mammoths were trapped, but this painting was done by Cro-Magnon man (who came later than that) and the paintings have been dated at only 28,000 to 10,000 BC, according to the book.)

How can I cite this book? No ISBN, but Library of Congress catalogue card number 65-20165. Author F. Clark Howell, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Chicago.

-Tsarevna 04:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous edits by 68.239.10.126
The sources you cite do NOT support the conclusions you draw. For example, the 18 page pdf you cite that you claim says no species was ever extirpated (http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dfw/dfwpdf/dfw_beaver_water_flow_devices.pdf] does not say this. In fact, it says that wolves were extirpated - exactly the opposite of what you claim. Also, citations from the National Trappers Association are suspect since they are a users group. Their factsheet does NOT cite research, as you claim, but rebuts HSUS arguments. Using the manufacturer of a snare as a source for claiming a snare is the most humane also doesn't fly - http://www.collarum.com/. Why don't you try to find real sources to support your arguments? Otherwise they will be reverted as POV. ThanksBob98133 17:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your arguement that citations from the NTA are suspect leads me to the conclusion that HSUS citations are suspect as well, so lets remove both special interest groups citations from the article. Both beaver and wolves were extirpated from certain locales, that is the definition of extirpation (local extinction) but still present in other areas of their historical range. Wolves and beaver were trapped and or hunted to local extinction in areas of the lower 48 states. Through conservation and re-introduction they are both now present in their historical range. Here is a source for the initial evaluation of three types of traps including the Collarum to determine injury in order to qualify for the international humane standards. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0091-7648(200023)28%3A3%3C606%3APEONCR%3E2.0.CO%3B2-8 Bugguyak 19:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Removed the above disputed statement as well as one unsourced statement in the same section and added predator control for protection of endangered species. Bugguyak 14:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Chinese references
I checked the chinese references and neither one turned up anything in relation to animal trapping. I fail to see how an internal link to the Wiki article on the Chinese Language contributes to Animal Trapping. Neither source is verifiable as per wiki rules. Please change the references to include a usable source as per section 3 "how to cite sources" WP:REF. Also see Citation_templates for examples of how to cite books. --Bugguyak (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The manual of style does not cover foreign language citations. It does not apply. I have given the name of the book, and the section the sentence belongs. That is how Chinese sources are cited. I see you failed to contact WikiProject China to verify the information. You say you looked it up yourself and could not turn up anything about animal trapping. It's obvious you don't know Chinese. I typed “Zhuangzi fox leopard trap” into google and found all of these English references (minus the Wikipedia link). I also typed "不免于网罗机辟之患" into google and found all of these Chinese references. What possible method could you have used to look up the info? Whatever the method, it is horribly flawed. I have found an English language citation for the material. (see here). Next time, don’t be so lazy and actually make an effort.


 * You obviously have never looked at any Chinese related articles before either. As per the Manual of Style (Use of Chinese Language), templates are used to signify that the language viewed by the reader is Chinese. Once activated, the link leads back to the Chinese language article. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for correcting the link and thoroughly explaining your point of view with civility and assuming good faith. Bugguyak (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do what I can. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

connibear traps
I removed some content from this section becasue it clearly conflicted with the new reference that I added. If one of these traps decapitated a 3 year old dog, then even a skilled trapper cannot remove the unwanted animals unharmed! The way this text currently reads, it is simply a POV endorsement of the traps with the only cited reference being the National Trappers - an advocacy group for trapping. I will rewrite this, I'll even keep in conflicting information, but it should be noted that the existing text is inaccurate.Bob98133 (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Body gripping traps clearly do kill dogs at least occassionally: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/us/30traps.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=us&oref=slogin And trapping incorrect body parts, expecially of non-target animals, is common enough that most of these traps don't meet current international standards Ratinabox (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could add that material to the Unwanted catch section of this article?Bob98133 (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a reference to an animal chewing off a leg in the conibear trap paragragh when the section is about a body gripping trap? If the trap grips the body or as is stated above kills by decapitation, how can the animal chew on its leg to escape? Bugguyak (talk) 21:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the clue is that the trap "is designed to kill the trapped animal quickly." HSUS is saying that this doesn't always happen so legs or other body parts get caught in the trap. I've seen those spring mouse-traps hit mice from head to tail, as well as on the legs, so I imagine the same thing would hold true for this larger version. A snap-trap is also a pretty crude machine. Anyhow a lot of things don't work the way they're designed to! Bob98133 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Bob, you don't need an education to use a mousetrap. For conibears, you need a fur-taker's license in most of the 50 states.  The snap mouse trap was invented what, 100-200 years ago?  The conibear is a new trap that came about in the 1950's, developed as a trap that would be humane.  The Association for the Protection of Furbearers, a group attempting to ban the leg hold trap, funded the conibear's research and development.  http://icwdm.org/education/studentresources.asp  Groups that wanted humane kills supported the conibear, groups that have extremist views, like the HSUS, that want to ban all of trapping and hunting, are going to be against any type of animal trap used for the purpose of harvest.  The conibear works however you program it to work.  The "programming" is the adjustment of it's trigger sensitivity, the location you choose to place it in, and whether or not you use bait, and what kind.  All the complexities of using the trap require extensive book study or apprentice-type training.  See my post below for a glimpse of what I speak about.  The HSUS, and other members of anti-trapping organizations get their information from videos that are staged and set up to show conibears in situations they are not intended for, for maxiumum snuff value.  The uneducated public doesn't have any information of their own to realize the videos are set up.  For example, squirrels are not typically trapped with 110 or 120 (small) conibears because squirrel physiology makes them resistant to a quick kill with this trap.  So 110's are not typically used on squirrels, rather, on mink and marten where they are humane.  So, snuff filmakers go out to get footage of squirrels, not mink, not marten, caught in 110's, because they know it will produce dramatic, horrifying footage.  (A good question would be, couldn't a squirrel get caught in a marten trap?  Technically it's possible, but highly unlikely.  Because they are vegetarians, and you bait a marten trap with meat!) Conibears are not crude machines, they are simple yet sophisticated, and, unlike a mouse trap, they are not one-size-fits-all ready-out-of-the-box units.   You need a license to operate!  Think of the carnage we'd have on roads if people could just buy a car and drive it off the lot without any training! People would scream to ban cars in no time.  Tsarevna (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tsarevna - you make a lot of unsupported POV statements in your comment - staged videos, uneducated public, squirrels are vegetarians (wiki article thinks they're omnivores),connibears are sophisticated traps, where do you need a license to buy or use a conibear trap on private property, a "fur-taker's license" - what's that? If you add to this article, or create one for Conibear traps, you will have to reference your additions with reliable references. In this case, for the question of humaneness, the HSUS is a reliable source. The section you point to is balanced since it also quotes the National Trappers.Bob98133 (talk) 12:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as the HSUS comment is balanced with the National Trapper's comment, I think the referenced "controversy" should stay in.Bob98133 (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Bugguyak (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

New article?

 * The idea behind the conibear is the same principle as the old Victor mouse trap. Instead of having a wooden board for the killing bar to snap against, picture that wooden board removed, but another killing bar coming up from beneath.  The bars meet, closing on the neck of the prey.  Since there is no wooden board, but space in between the bars, when they are in the "set" or "open" position, they form a square, with the bars standing vertically.  (Although rare, round conibears do exist, forming a circle.) The animal triggers the conibear by attempting to pass through the square.  This is why conibears are frequently set at the entrances to underwater dens, at breaks in beaver dams (where legal,) and in the water near known animal slides (where they exit the water.)  Bait is not needed.  Two small wires hang down into the open square, and when the animal's nose touches the wires, which act as a trigger, the trap closes, making the two bars meet horizontally.  Whether or not the trap closes on the back of the neck, as intended, for a nearly instantaneous death, depends on a few factors.  The main factor is the size of the trap, and the second is the sensitivity of the trigger.  The trapper's knowledge of animal behavior, and skill at tracking and "reading sign" (such as noticing and identifying scat) are what keeps unwanted catches to a minimum.   For example, if a trapper comes upon a beaver lodge, and sees scat that is green with fish scales in it nearby, and notices a distinct lack of freshly chewed limbs, he/she knows that river otter, not beaver, are dwelling on this stretch of water.  So, the trapper then uses 220 size conibears (larger 330's are usually for beaver,) and he/she adjusts the trigger to react at the slightest touch.  This is because otter move quicker on land and in the water, than beaver.  If the trigger were to be slower (needing more pressure to be set off) than the otter might have moved his body further into the trap by the time it goes off, resulting in a un-ideal catch with the bars dropping back nearer the shoulders, or on the ribcage.  No matter where the bars meet, be it on torso or neck, the trap kills when it grips the body.  When struck on the neck, the bars pinch off blood circulation to the brain, resulting in unconsciousness in seconds.  The blow is also hard enough to knock most creatures senseless, many never know what hit them.  Ribcage catches, when they occur, take only as long to kill as oxygen deprivation does.  The strong springs on conibears would not allow for the intake of breath, and would drive existing air from the lungs.  This is probably a quicker death prey animals receive than those caught by constricting snakes.  Many, if not most states require conibears of sizes large enough to kill beavers to be set in water to avoid pet deaths.  220's, those large enough to kill raccoons and small dogs, are often restricted to being set off the ground, in trees or on platforms, when baited, such as in a bucket set.  Bucket sets are just that, buckets, with fish or bait in the back, laying on their sides, with a conibear guarding the entrance.  This set excludes the suspicious foxes and coyotes, but dogs are sometimes attracted to them.  Most trappers only bucket-set deep wilderness locations, but on rare occasions a dog will be killed by a conibear, usually a bucket set on the ground.  The dog's deaths are usually as a result of the owner's failure to release the animal in time.  A belt, rope or even fishing line can be used to release a dog, if done quickly.  Decapitation, indeed even cuts are not possible with conibear traps, as they are not sharp in any way.  Occasionally trappers fail to use safety devices when setting the traps, and join "the Conibear Club."  The injuries to human hands and arms are usually great pain, black fingernails, and injured pride.  Pretty much the same injuries a person sustains with a mousetrap, but it can be to arms and not just fingers.  Animals caught by their extremities are very rare, as they see conibears as they would sticks and vines in their path. Something to push out of their way as they pass.  Conibears quickly turn a rust color and blend in with the environment.  There is no incentive for an animal to stick out his paw or tail and touch the wire triggers of a conibear trap.  When I am able to gather more references, I shall try to incorporate this information into the existing article, or else write a new article on the conibear.  There are so many different ways to use this device that it deserves an article of it's own.  Tsarevna (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever. If you want to write an article about conibear traps please provide references that are reliable and can be reviewed. For example, blaming the trapper for not releasing a dog quickly enough sort of slides over the fact that the dog was caught in a trap not designed for dogs. The trapper's negligence might contribute to the dog's injuries, but the trap caused them. Things like "injured pride" are of no concern or value whatsoever since they can not be measured or verified. How do you know how animals see conibear traps? There couldn't possibly be a reference for that comment. Trappers claim that conibear traps can not injure a human, yet you speak of "great pain" caused by a trap accident. Stick to the facts and drop the opinions and you may have a good article. Bob98133 (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Harvesting or killing animals
Do hunters harvest animals or kill them? To me, crops are harvested and animals killed. I don't see how "kill" is an inappropriately emotionally loaded word. MikeHobday (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Farmers kill their crops when they harvest them don't they? Harvest is certainly used to denote the animals killed by hunters and trappers. Much the same way that "take" is also used in the same context. Harvest is even used to define the removal of human organs for transplanting as here: and fish are also harvested as defined here: and this glossary defines harvest to include animals: as well as here specific to hunting:  Bugguyak (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They all seem good references, perhaps this is a difference between British and American English? I doubt any significant British sources talk about killing pests as "harvesting." If so, I think that "harvest" is not the best word to use to describe the activity. MikeHobday (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good point that. Harvest would not typically be used to describe pest control in the American vernacular either, except where the fur is harvested from the animal. Whilst it is a small point, I think it is an important one to make, since 'kill' implies that trappers indiscriminately pillage wildlife for no other purpose while 'harvest' denotes the taking of animals for a specific purpose such as fur harvest. Bugguyak (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that "kill" has the same negative connotations this side of the Atlantic, but accept what you say. How about "dispatch"? Or do you have other suggestions? MikeHobday (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In usage here Dispatch is synonymous with prompt or efficient and is seldom used to mean kill. I say leave it as is, I really don't see the problem with harvest. Maybe others can chime in. Bugguyak (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have changed this back to kill since the reference cited in support of it does not use the word "harvest" but does refer to "killing and taking". Sorry, I didn't see this discussion prior to making change, but unless someone wants to find another reference it does not seem right to use a word not supported by the reference.Bob98133 (talk) 20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to this citation?: because that is a reference to the Scottish Executive decision not the usage of kill or harvest, however I will add the references for the verbage. Bugguyak (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To me, the issue isn't whether "harvest" is used - clearly it is a term in use in America. My concern is whether "harvest" is misleading by virtue of being unused in other areas of the world. MikeHobday (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a UK article referring to the usage of "harvest" of animals: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/16/footandmouth.anushkaasthana Bugguyak (talk) 20:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You can find dozens of articles that refer to harvesting of trapped animals, HOWEVER, the reference from which this content comes does NOT use that term - either because it is uncommon or for some other reason. The Wiki article on harvesting does NOT mention trapped animals. ALSO, the two links you stuck in which are the definitions of harvesting violate WP:EL Section 4 #14. Please revert your edit to indicate what the reference says and delete your definition links. I do not want to keep reverting your edits and get into an edit war with you but you seem very determined to use harvest. What's the difference when it obviously makes the article less understandable?Bob98133 (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I claim victory :-) The use of the word "harvest" in the Guardian article you link to is " 'livestock farmers' harvest' when major markets and shows take place". i.e. it is not directly to do with killing. MikeHobday (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * First you say harvest is only used for crops not animals, then I show you definitions that say harvest IS used to describe killing animals. Then you say it must be regional. So when I show you an article that has harvest in the title referring to animals from your own region, you reject that too. And the reference for harvest in the Gaurdian article does refer to taking animals to slaughter. Since the point of the article is that Livestock farmers (who grow animals) can take their 'harvest' (read: animals) to market (read: slaughter). Bugguyak (talk) 15:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Market read "sale", but happy to see what others think. MikeHobday (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Second paragragh of the article: "Debby Reynolds, the chief veterinary officer, announced that from midnight farmers in England were once again allowed to take livestock directly to slaughter, ending a restriction that has been costing the industry £7m each day." Bugguyak (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Hunting group
The NYT article says: "The group, formed last year in response to the dog trappings, is in the early stages of planning a voter initiative that would ban trapping on public lands." If this group were anti-trapping they would want to ban trapping, not just use on public lands. Their main conern is not trapping but pets getting caught in traps. It is projecting motives onto this group to claim that they are anti-hunting when they do not say so. The "anti-trapping" should be removed or a reference has to be provided that this group is anti-trapping.

Re: time frame for animals trapped - agreed, I mis-read that. It is clear from the article that they collected the stories in 4 months, but it is unclear whether all the incidents happened in this time frame.Bob98133 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly, anyone that wants to BAN anything is by definition is opposed to it. Hence, the term "anti-trapping" is apropos for this group.  The article stated that this group wants to BAN trapping on public lands.  This isn't any sort of judgment call on my part.  It is *prima facie*--based on what the article clearly states.  And please note that the source is The New York Times, which has a good reputation for their fact checking. I'm not trying to inject POV here.  Also note that I did NOT DELETE your paragraph, I just made two clarifications.  Also note that I did NOT DELETE your other paraagraph about the Topeka incident.  For the accidental death of ONE cat to be noteworthy enough to make it into an encyclopedic article on trapping is really pushing it but I'm the reasonable and un-biased type.  I like to see both sides of every issue.  Nonconfrontationally Yours, -- Trasel (talk) 01:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are not going to give the appearance of POV in the section you would also have to include ALL groups opposed to traps. I can think of several right of the bat: Ban Cruel Traps, Defenders of Wildlife, Animal Protection Institute to name of few. Bugguyak (talk) 02:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Bugguyak that including only this one source could appear POV, so perhaps it should just get pulled? I have no problem withthat. However, I do not agree that the group is anti-trapping. ARe M.A.D.D. anti-drinking just because they want to pass laws banning drunk driving? I don't think so - they have no objection to drinking in bars or in private, just while driving. This group is campaigning against traps on public property where pets might roam - they are not asking for a total ban on trapping anywhere, nor do they say that traps are bad, just that they are bad for pets. Assuming that this group is anti-trapping is easy to do, but I really don't think it's justified by what this article says.Bob98133 (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Its easy to rationalize that one group opposed to traps on public lands or opposed to certain types of traps does not want to ban all trapping, however I tend to agree that Footloose fits the definition of an Anti-trapping group, just like the NRA would call a group that opposes certain types of firearms as an Anti-gun group. You cannot mention one group, no matter how narrow their focus and not mention all groups without the appearance of POV. Bugguyak (talk) 12:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Like I say, I understand that this generalization takes place, but I wasn't rationalizing, just reading the news article which stated that the group is considering a ban of trapping on public lands. They probably are against all trapping, we just don't have enough information to say (I didn't find a website for this group). So my feeling is that we shouldn't use other peoples' or groups' defintion for an encyclopedic article but should just stick to the facts. Is an offroad vehicle club that opposes their use on public lands an anti-off-road-vehicle group or just a group that wants public lands used some other way? I think it's POV to characterize them as holding a POV any broader or more encompassing than their stated views. I'm OK with this ph staying as it is, with anti-trapping included - or being rewritten for clarity and discussed if need be.Bob98133 (talk) 12:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

dramatically - substantially
Thanks, Bugguyak, for pointing out the differnce, which is more than 4 times the rate! I don't really think that dramatically is the right word to use though, just because what might be a dramatic change to one person might not be to another. I think that substantially is less value-packed, but in this case probably doesn't make the difference as apparent as it should. Maybe the numbers should be included, with ref, or saying something along the lines of "more than 4 times higher" or something like that to show how dramatic the increase was. It might be better, too, if this were two five-year periods being compared, instead of 10 years v. 5 years, since attacks may have been on the increase, or habitat encroachment may have occured or whatever. Bob98133 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey Bob, I see that you used 'dramatic' yourself (bolded it for you, in case you missed it), so why is it too value-packed? But I agree that "4 times higher" would be useful. Bugguyak (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This use of statistics is showing a WP:POV for or against spring traps. The report is for radically different sets of years and "The safe environment provided by a wildlife-loving general public, who rarely display aggression toward coyotes, is also thought to be a major contributing factor. ". The report refers to both trapping and shooting as well as removing the offending animals. It also talks about attacks on pets and humans. The way that the ban on the foothold/leghold (and the trap does NOT know the difference nor the size or species of animal), is juxtaposed by "a number of issues have arisen" of an increase in beavers and a increase in attacks on pets and humans by coyotes is WP:SYNTH as
 * the beaver claim is unsupported that this is an "issue" (to me an "issue" is one that means that it was unexpected and adverse and AFAIK beavers are good) and that
 * Beavers kill trees, dam rivers and streams, some fish species need running water, stagnant water in beaver ponds breed mosquitoes, property damage caused by beavers clogging run off channels and culverts account for many millions of dollars of damage, so not all aspects of beavers are good, no. Bugguyak (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * the only report for coyotes mentions trapping in conjunction with other policies so WP:WEIGHT applies.
 * What is the only report for coyotes specifically that you mention here? Bugguyak (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the whole of that issue paragraph is WP:POV and needs to be culled.
 * The balance of the article is against trapping, so no it is not POV. Bugguyak (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also suggest we add back in Leghold where we use Foothold as Steel Jaw Traps are or were interchangeably known by those names as well as what I know them by i.e. Gin traps. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Semantics, but they hold the animals foot and thus are called footholds, Gin Traps are UK centric, and have nothing to do with gin now do they? Bugguyak (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not interrupt my text with yours without correctly tagging where the interruption is (see Talk_page_guidelines on using interruption tags). Given my text was not long then I don't see why you need to interrupt at all. Simply reply to what I say.
 * Facts are that foothold traps are also called leghold and also called gin traps in some other countries and not just the UK but also New Zealand. I suggest we title the section as "Steel Jaw Trap" and then add text in the section that says that they are also known as foothold, leghold or gin traps. The word "gin" I believe comes from a contraction of 'engine. I have a few but they are illegal to use.
 * Given beavers are native to the US then show us who says it is an issue that their population has grown (actually wouldn't this be "recovered" ?). Now, cane toads in Australia are an issue given they are non-native but beaver are not clearly a problem (issue) unless we can show studies that say this. Ttiotsw (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How about doing a search and learn something since you seem like such a pedant? But here are a few off the top of the search engine for you and why don't you see WP:DONTBITE or go have a nice cup of WP: TEA or something? Bugguyak (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publications/PDF/FSA-9085.pdf
 * http://www.ianrpubs.unl.edu/epublic/pages/publicationD.jsp?publicationId=47
 * http://icwdm.org/wildlife/beavers.asp
 * http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/nreos/wild/wildlife/wdc/beavers.html
 * http://www.extension.org/pages/Beaver_Damage_Assessment

I wonder if these fiures are better sited in a more general section about traps rather than being specific to one sort of trap? MikeHobday (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

very very biased
jesus, whoever wrote this article has severe problems with all forms of trapping. i think it needs a complete re-write —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.208.181 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why ever would you think that wikipedia would be neutral? Bugguyak (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it is one of the rules for using this website.


 * If you believe that everyone follows the rules here, then you are very naive indeed. Just look at this edit for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_trapping&action=historysubmit&diff=362938488&oldid=362922554

Why would one remove the good uses of trapping from this article, if they are not biased?

use of traps
68.250.189.63 - The reference is pretty clear that it is the International Association that is doing the research, even though the article is on the Association page. Where did you get that number - that 10 BMPs are finished? It's not in the reference you used, unless I'm missing it. I agree there's no need to have that they are an industry group as long as the quote about their purpose stays in - I guess my version was overkill. Good edits. Bob98133 (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Very biased.
Most of this was definitely by animal rights folks. It can be much improved by containing only information that cites scientific research and/or is the opinion of experts most familiar to this topic. That is, only information that is credible and supported by evidence. Much of the information in this article is the OPINION of animal rights folks. This information does not cite scientific research because there often is no evidence to support their opinion. In addition, the language that is chosen is often meant to be suggestive. For example, the third paragraph in the use of traps section uses the words "claim" and "believe" to refer to the opinion of "some" wildlife biologists. In fact, the majority of wildlife biologists support trapping and their "claims" and "beliefs" are backed up by facts as well as their professional experience with animals and trapping. These folks are the experts in this field. Their opinions are based on science and should not be regarded simply as claims. When I have the time, I will reword and add citations from real scientific research to show its support. This article needs a lot of help. Very sad to see this biased information. TTR123 (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's very biased. Perhaps it's been rewritten by pro-trapping people and a balance has shifted the other way? An article that plays down the possibility of reports such as this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/7853900.stm and only comments on the problem with beaver population explosion in US states that have banned the use of leg traps is very one sided. That both cats were injured and one had to be destroyed is fact, not OPINION. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.98.168 (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

POV edits
I have reverted several recent changes by TTR 123. They are less clear and less encyclopedic than the previous text. Including phrases like "in fact" are not at all necessary if the material is referenced. The last sentence added has no reference and appears to be opinion. ("While these trappers and their actions typically receive a great deal of public attention, they are only a small minority and not representative of trappers as a whole.")This would certainly need a reference. I agree with TTR that this sentence - "Despite regulations, trappers sometimes leave traps unattended for long periods of time and trap animals out of season, leading to fines..." - would be more accurate if it read "Despite regulations, SOME trappers sometimes leave traps..." since obviously not all trappers do this. Bob98133 (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Drowning rig inaccuracy
Not all foot hold set are rigged to be drowning sets, as the article appears to state. This was reverted by Bob98133 as POV Which it is obviously is not.

Changes reversed immediately!!
Wow! I made some improvements and Bob98133 reverted them back within 2 minutes!!!! Apparently he does agree that a position statement on trapping made by a group a professional wildlife conservationists (actually the largest group of professional wildlife conservationists) is relevant. Why are you afraid of the opinion of wildlife experts Bob? Bob stated that my changes were less clear, but offered no explanation of why they were less clear. He only stated that he did not like the phase "in fact", yet he changed the ENTIRE section. In addition, he agreed that the statement "Despite regulations, trappers sometimes leave traps unattended for long periods of time and trap animals out of season, leading to fines..." - would be more accurate if it read "Despite regulations, SOME trappers sometimes leave traps..." since obviously not all trappers do this. But, he then changed the sentence back to the original form in order to reflect his bias, EVEN THOUGH HE AGREED IT IS BIASED. Very, very sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TTR123 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't mean to make you sad. Thank you for your compliment about speedy reversal. Can you please document these:


 * "Although trapping is considered cruel by some people, it is supported by most wildlife biologists." Do you have a survey of wildlife biologists? This sounds more like opinion to me.


 * You reference the Wildlife Society, but instead of writing about their point of view, you repeat "they state", "they also state". If the reference states something, write about what they say. If you're gong to say "they state" follow it with a direct quotation from them. Who says they are the largest group of professional conservationalists? Where? In the world?


 * While these trappers and their actions typically receive a great deal of public attention, they are only a small minority and not representative of trappers as a whole. (How big is a small minority? Is it bigger than a big minority? How much is "a great deal" of public attention. I haven't seen any public attention to this? What does "typically" mean in the context you use? Can you document that the attention these incidents receive is typical?


 * I reverted your change that I agreed with since I expected you to go in and change it, or alter my version to something possibly agreeable to both of us. Consider it motivation. You made so many non-encyclopedic, POV changes that it was easier to revert all of them than go through and alter them. The previous version had been acceptible to editors of this article for some time, so as the editor changing accepted text, it is up to you to justify your changes, and I try to do the same. Bob98133 (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I will work on citations. That will obviously take some time. Additionally, you are asking me to cite some general statements that shouldn't need to be referenced or are impossible to reference because of the type of statement they are. I can easily add direct quotations from the Wildlife Society. I think they actually were direct (or nearly so) quotes, I just did not put the quotation marks around them. Also, the original statement did not claim the Wildlife Society to be the largest group of conservationists, I only mentioned that in the previous post. Your excuse for reverting an edit to create a more biased statement is not a very good one. We do want to make this as accurate and unbiased as possible, don't we? TTR123 (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. The problem with general statements is that they can't be referenced, so are probably best avoided. Not everyone is going to agree with a general statement. So instead of saying "most wildlife biologists say..." you could say "many wildlife biologists say..." That is a general statement that most editors would agree is OK. It would be better to have a solid figure, but as we agree, it's not easy to find those types of statistics. My objection is that by saying "most" you added a POV, probably not intentionally, by giving the unwarranted impression that someone asked them all and this is what they said. I agree that it probably is most, but that really would have to be referenced, and not from a trapper website or an animal rights website, both of which have POVs. The bit about all trappers failing to check traps is similarly POV. Sorry, I didn't mean to jump all over your edits and should have explained myself earlier. Bob98133 (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the response. TTR123 (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Revisions/reversions by 65.184...& Gnnr602
There was a lot of discussion among editors to arrive at the existing text, which has also been referenced. If you disagree with the text and want to make changes throughout the article and they are reverted, please leave the article at its agreed upon version and discuss your changes. As well, please supply editing summaries to justify your sweeping changes, as well as references. The goal is to have a balanced article. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your goal and/or job is not to balance this article. You have filled this article with your point of view, and have swayed this article to cater to animal rights activists. One example of where this article is in accurate is where animals chewing of their legs to escape leg hold traps are discussed in the section on body gripping traps. Another is when the article indicates that all leg hold traps are rigged to be drowning sets. This is a common sense fact and should not need citation, but if I need to I will get citation. In fact there needs to be a section on kinds of trap sets. And I do not need anyones permission or input before I edit this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnnr602 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but all changes to a controversial article such as this need references. Your common sense and my common sense don't seem to agree. You are changing text but leaving the existing refrence. Does the reference support your changes? Bob98133 (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing deceptive about it
If editor Gnnr602 was claiming that my edits of this article were intentionally deceptive, he is wrong. I was simply replacing a fact tag with referenced material.

I deleted "A single leg left in a foothold trap is most likely the result of the animal being preyed upon by another animal." There is no reference in the article that supports this. That's why it was deleted. I will again delete it until it can be referenced.

This info that is allegedly referenced to the Montana Trappers Association does NOT appear on that page. In addition, some of the info on that page is so blatantly wrong that its use as a source is questionable. For example, the page states: "Wild animals never bite themselves where they can feel pain." . That is nonsense as any zoo keeper will tell you. Animals intentionally self-mutilate all the time when they are stressed, like when a part of their body is clamped in a trap. The page is an advocacy web site that does not cite any sources, so is no better than a PETA web site as source. Bob98133 (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting article, definition w/o discussion
I have reverted edits by user 91.176.14.197. There are far too many changes without any explanation of why, including changing the definition. Please discuss a major rewrite of a controversial article prior to making changes. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision
Returned revison http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_trapping&oldid=295355733 Placed image back, will explain more and add references. Working on some extra images —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.175.118 (talk) 11:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you can not change the definition of the topic without discussion. Saying that you will discuss this is not satisfactory. There is a discussion going on, so do not revert this until concensus is reached. What kind of nonsense is it saying that trapping means catching dead animals? Answers.com is a bullshit web site and not a valid reference. Use source material. Bob98133 (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Its no nonsense, look in the article; some traps are designed to kill the animal inmediatelly; the main focus is that the entire animal is caught; meaning that the body can be used (eg for eating, fur, ...) If the article is approved; use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_trapping&oldid=295356357 instead of revision noted above
 * So, they use traps to trap dead animals? So, it's possible to not catch the entire animal? Only catch its ears, or legs? The point of an encyclopedia is to have clear, coherent, verifyable info - your changes to date have not reflected this. Answers.com is not a reliable source - please use the orignal source (where they go their answer)Bob98133 (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL, That's not what I meant; hunting doesnt always means the animals are retrieved. Eg in pest control hunting (and hunting "for pleasure"), it is possible that animals are simply left on the spot. Btw, the definition present now is not a good one either. For example, the trading of furs isnt animal trapping (unless you carry a living animal on your back and keep it entangled ;) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.175.118 (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Body gripping & foothold
On the body gripping traps we only find 1 discussed trap: namely a neck gripping trap. Can some other traps (eg non-lethal ones) be added ? The foothold trap should be described as a body gripping trap. Also, it should be noted that foothold traps not always bite the leg; eg traps like (springed) handcuffs (offcourse for the feet) should probably exist too ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.175.118 (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please sign your talk items by adding 4 ~s at the end. Please stop adding unreferenced material to this article. If you are going to add something, please also add a refernce for it or it may be speedily deleted. Bob98133 (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Images
The promised images have arrived. These are the links (add ]] at the end:

[[Image:Dead weight net trap.JPG|thumb|right|150px [[Image:Deadfall or cage trap.JPG|thumb|right|150px [[Image:Deadweight-closing trapping pit.JPG|thumb|right|150px [[Image:Springing branch spear trap.JPG|thumb|right|150px [[Image:Swinging log dead weight trap.JPG|thumb|right|150px [[Image:Swinging_log_dead_weight_trap.JPG|thumb|right|150px [[Image:Tripwire-activated bows.JPG|thumb|right|150px [[Image:Tripwire-opening_trapping_pit.JPG|thumb|right|150px

You can add them in this article and the other corresponding articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.175.118 (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How much food and fur?
The article, in the Animal trapping section, states that "Trapping is done [...] [m]ostly [...] for food or fur but sometimes it is done for wildlife management or pest control." I have to wonder about the veracity of this statement on its face. It seems clear to me that many, many more rats, mice and pigeons are killed in any given year in the protection of homes, properties, grain stores, etc, than could ever be harvested for fur, food or wildilfe management. Is it correct to say that it's "mostly" for food and fur? Does anyone know of any reference to what the relevant numbers might be? Contributions/142.140.230.53 (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The animals you mention (rats, mice and pigeons) are trapped for pest control. This article, perhaps wrongly, focuses on larger furbearing animals. As matter of fact it was once titled Fur Trapping way back when. Bugguyak (talk) 11:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but the article says, essentially, that "Trapping is done mostly for food or fur but sometimes for pest control." Regardless of what the focus of the article is, I maintain that this is an incorrect statement. It doesn't say that "Aside from pest control, trapping is done mostly...". BTW, it also doesn't say anywhere in the lede to the article that the focus of the article will be things other than pest control. Perhaps that should be in there? What is says now is that trapping is done for a and b and c and d, with d being pest control. Maybe the article needs to be renamed "Fur trapping" since, when talking about "Animal trapping", much more than fur is implicated. People trap turtles for food and roaches for pest control. They trap birds for banding and fish for eating. Animal trapping is not the correct name for this article if it's going to be an article about fur trapping. 142.140.230.53 (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I would support renaming the article back to Fur Trapping. Bugguyak (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree to change back to Fur trapping. Bob98133 (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - all forms of trapping are equivalent, or at least appropriate for comparison. MikeHobday (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mike - maybe there is some way to clarify the focus of this which is what the proposed name change is trying to do, I think. Would you agree if the article remains Animal Trapping, but separate sections are set up for Fur, Subsistence, Food, Pest Control or whatever other sections seemed appropriate? It isn't exactly the article name that I find odd, just that it seems to focus almost exclusively on fur. Bob98133 (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually that is a very good compromise. Focusing strictly on fur trapping may be more appropriate for a subsection since there are already several sections that focus on pest control. For example the use of glue traps which are never used by fur trappers since the glue would damage the fur lowering the value. Bugguyak (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Introduction
I have edited the intro to conform to WP:LEDE and for general copy. I moved the reference to general use trapping forward because that concept includes and would have preceded trapping specifically for fur (and does so in the article). I removed the reference to trapping by animals since that's clearly a separate topic. ENeville (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge Sherman Trap
Sherman Trap is only one paragraph long. This article already covers different types of traps, adding an additional paragraph on a different type of trap would seem logical.


 * It's OK w/me but only if there is some reference to support that this Sherman trap actually exists. Without the reference, I'd say no; and that the Sherman trap article should be deleted. Bob98133 (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please look at the following link to a general search of the terms "sherman trap" on Google Scholar: . Please also refer to a general search of Google Books:  for a similar example.  The trap is a widely cited and used design, applied (almost) specifically to scientific field studies. TeamZissou (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article was nominated by 7mike5000, a user with whom I've started a Wikiquette alert due to actions by this user elsewhere (WQA found here: Wikiquette_alerts ). The article was one of my first back in 2006 and therefore wasn't done well, but it's been there for 4 years, and it is significant in that the Sherman trap is used and mentioned in the majority of small mammal studies and ecological surveys involving small mammals. My hasty links to sources added to that article in light of this are to demonstrate this trap's unique place in its own article just like the Pitfall trap, Mousetrap and Malaise trap. Given the timing and his comments on my talk page about this article, 7mike5000's nomination to move this article would seem to be motivated by our recent conflict. TeamZissou (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This nomination to merge is currently part of a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. TeamZissou (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * User TeamZ - were you planning to dispute this on many pages or did you want to add a section about this trap with references? I don't understand why you are bringing up the Sherman Trap article here. Whether or not that should be deleted should be done on the talk page for that article. Bob98133 (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Earliest form of hunting?
The article states that trapping is one of the earliest forms of hunting - this would rather defy logic, as humans surely evolved to hunt even before the invention of tools, and traps are a rather delicate and intricate type of tool, much more so than a simple club or spear. Jellyfish dave (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)


 * No evidence of that at this point. Kortoso (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Needs mention of trap line
From the standpoint of a commercial trapper's area of operation, and in terms of the technical aspect of using traps, this article leaves out an important point of information, re: the trap line. Trap lines are relied upon by trappers, and loctions of trap lines are regulated by gov't agencies.

From http://www.montanatrappers.org/history/fur-obtained.htm

"Trapping

"Most fur trapping takes place during the winter, when furs are thickest, longest, and shiniest. Each trapper sets a series of traps called a trap line along riverbanks and at other spots that the animals visit frequently. In most cases, the traps kill the animals almost immediately.

"Government conservation programs regulate fur trapping in every state except Hawaii, which has no fur-bearing animals, and in every Canadian province. Each state and province issues trapping licenses and determines when and where trapping may take place. Regulations also set limits on the number of animals that may be trapped." Joel Russ (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed "For Perfume"
Removed changes done by Bistips on 04:28, 30 January 2012: "Beaver castors are used in many perfumes as a sticky substance, as a former trapper of fifteen years we were paid by the gov of Ontario to harvest the castors of beavers and were paid from 10-40 dollars each when we sold our goods to the Northern Ontario Fur Trappers Association."

Removed this because it sounded too much like a tale, and a bit of a lack of sources...

If anyone can find any source for this, knock yourself out and add it again. --91.149.58.191 (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * He’s talking about the beaver castor glands and castoreum, the resinoid extract resulting from the dried and alcohol tinctured beaver castor which is used in some of the great perfumes. —Stephen (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, think I misread it a bit. Oh and great that you rewrote it.--91.149.58.191 (talk) 07:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)