 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | ||
- An error has occurred, which probably means the feed is down. Try again later.
Review of Rattlin’ Chains: Trapping Small Country
Canis latrans Français : Un coyote en Arizona (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Coyotes
Darin Freeborough. 2010. Rattlin’ Chains: Trapping Small Country Coyotes. Animalistics Outdoors. DVD. Approx. 120 min. $34.95 plus S&H.
In Rattlin’ Chains, Darin Freeborough demonstrates some of his advanced coyote sets. Readers should be familiar with Mr. Freeborough as this is the third video reviewed in this magazine.
The video concentrates on early or late season sets using the foothold. If you are looking for tips on handling snow and freezing conditions, choose one of Freeborough’s other videos. There is nothing in the video about using snares or calling.
The beauty of this video is its attention to simplicity. Freeborough’s trap of choice, at least in this edition, is the Montana #3 anchored with a bullet cable stake. Freeborough does not spend much time discussing trapping location. He simply reminds viewers of the fundamentals, namely key in on trails (particularly intersections) and consider where coyotes are hunting. Instead, Freeborough demonstrates no less than 5 lethal sets for coyotes, including the flat set, post hole remake, grassy dirt hole set, and others.
I found it interesting that Freeborough paid little attention to debates about the positioning of the dog. I got the distinct impression that he didn’t think it mattered much. He did point out that how the coyote stepped on the trap in relation to the dog did affect how high it would get caught on the foot. He said if the coyote stepped into the trap in a motion away from the dog then the coyote’s foot would slide down and therefore be caught higher on the foot. If it stepped toward the dog, the foot wouldn’t slide as much and it would get caught lower on the foot.
Freeborough also discusses two ancillary topics to help fill out the video. The first is his demonstration of a favorite bobcat set. With bobcat prices being so high, this set may be worth the price of the video on its own. The second is his demonstration of “Full Metal Jacket” trap dip. He argued that this product was easy to use and a lot safer than boiling and waxing traps.
The visual and audio quality of the DVD were very good. Though the background music at times didn’t quite match the tempo of the video, the sound generally helped the video to move along. Regardless, Freeborough is a natural-born actor and his happy disposition is a joy to watch. His love of the camera and trapping is evident throughout the film. He regularly reminds viewers to take a kid into the outdoors so that our sport will continue.
The DVD can be purchased for $34.95 plus ($3.00 standard shipping and handling) either online at http://coyotevideos.net or by sending a check payable to Darin’s Nuisance Control and mailed to Darin Freeborough 20 McKinley Ave. Warren, PA 16365 Phone 814-730-6104 e-mail coyotevideos@gmail.com
About the Author
Stephen M. Vantassel is a certified wildlife control operator who helps individuals, businesses, and agencies resolve wildlife damage issues through training, writing, expert witness, and research. His latest book is the Wildlife Damage Inspection Handbook, 3rd edition. He can be contacted at wildlifecontrolconsultant at gmail dot com.
If you would like your publication, video, or product reviewed, please contact the author at the e-mail above.
Copyright
All postings are the property of Stephen M. Vantassel and Wildlife Control Consultant, LLC. Text (not images) may be reprinted in non-profit publications provided that the author and website URL is included. If images wish to be used, explicit and written permission must be obtained from Wildlife Control Consultant, LLC.
Reporters and USDA-Wildlife Services
Logo for the United States Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, part of the Department of Agriculture. For more information, see the PDF usage guide. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
A recent article by Tom Knudson entitled ”Davis cuts ties with Wildlife Services over coyote killings” in the The Sacramento Bee 7/19-2012 Page 1A exemplifies a number of weaknesses in media reporting about the USDA-Wildlife Services. Some of these problems are understandable in that Wildlife Services didn’t respond to the reporters request for an interview. But one would have to ask “What good would it have done?” I think this way because of the lopsided and somewhat silly information contained in his article.
What the Reporter Did Right
Mr. Knudson did properly report the Davis City Council’s anger over Wildlife Services killing of some coyotes. He also, I assume, correctly and accurately reported comments from interested parties. I believe this should be acknowledged.
What the Reporter Did Wrong
Where Mr. Knudson failed was his neglect of presenting opposing views to counterbalance the litany of opinions against the actions of Wildlife Services (WS). Why he didn’t take the time to do a simple Google Search (one assumes reporters know how to do this) and find someone who doesn’t cry every time a coyote dies is simply perplexing and suggests that he has a bias (see below)
To be clear, I don’t believe objective reporting is really possible unless the news is just descriptive. But since reporting is also evaluative, reporters should endeavor to either explain their bias or find someone who can articulate the opposing view.
Problem #1. The Council’s “Ignorance”
I had to smile upon reading about the outrage of the Council members when they learned that Wildlife Services killed animals. Is that like the shock when one learns that a drunk driver just pulled away from a bar? Why the reporter didn’t ask “Why didn’t the Council know? is unknown.
Problem #2. Bald Bias
I quote Mr. Knudson ”Earlier this year, a series of articles in The Bee reported the agency’s predator control activities across the West are often excessive, indiscriminate, out of sync with science and carried out with little or no public input.”
Problem #3. Public Opinion
Problem #4. Counterfactuals
About the Author
Stephen M. Vantassel is a certified wildlife control operator who helps individuals, businesses, and agencies resolve wildlife damage issues through training, writing, expert witness, and research. His latest book is the Wildlife Damage Inspection Handbook, 3rd edition. He can be contacted at stephenvantassel at Hotmail dot com.
Copyright
All postings are the property of Stephen M. Vantassel and Wildlife Control Consultant, LLC. Text may be reprinted in non-profit publications provided that the author and website URL is included.
How Animal Rights Activists Fail to Give you All the Facts
A critique of the MSPCA AHES news release 8/4/98
Canis latrans Français : Un coyote en Arizona (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
This is just another attempt by Wildlife Control Consultant, LLC to give the full story on various animal damage control issues. We at Wildlife Control Consultant, LLC are frustrated by the lack of research and comprehensiveness of the media. While it is easy to beat up on the media, after all their reporters are overworked, deadlines are too short and underpaid. This is why Wildlife Control Consultant, LLC created this page. We want to provide information in a form that is easy for reporters to digest. If you need more information let us know.The facts that are undisputed by both sides:
In late July 1998, a boy on the Cape was recently mauled by a coyote. The boy survived and the coyote was shot. Testing revealed that the coyote was not rabid.
This is a press release as published by the MSPCA/AHES 8/4/98 WDC has attempted to faithfully reproduce the press release. Aspects that have not been reproduced relate to letter head design. WCC welcomes comments that would correct any error in our reproduction.
e-mail stephenvantassel@hotmail.com All correspondence becomes property of Wildlife Control Consultant, LLC.
Our comments will be listed in red/italics/bold and interspersed through the report. The reader will see that the issue is more complex than the MSPCA and other AR groups would have the public believe.
MSPCA Sets Record Straight on Coyotes and Trapping
Boston-In response to the recent coyote attack on Cape Cod, the MSPCA stresses the importance of dealing with human-wildlife interactions humanely and wisely.
“The incident on the Cape is the first in the state,” says Carter Luke, MSPCA Vice President for Humane Services. “Coyotes normally avoid people, but as both human and wildlife populations continue to grow, the potential for conflict will increase.”
To prevent problems with wildlife the MSPCA urges people to: These comments are almost identical to the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife recommendations see coyote page.
- Never feed a wild animal.
- Avoid any contact with wildlife.
- Keep trash securely covered or indoors.
- Feed pets inside or supervise outdoor feedings, and keep the area clean.
- Keep cats and dogs indoors, especially at night, or stay outside with them.
The MSPCA is disappointed with the Mass. Division of Fisheries and Wildlife’s response to the coyote incident. Dr. Rob Deblinger, Assistant Director of Wildlife for the Division, said in a Boston Globe interview that his office”is hampered in dealing with coyote complaints” because of the ban on cruel traps, passed in November 1996 by 64% of the voters in the state. This comment is true as trapping is one method of controlling coyotes. As for the 64 percent of the voters this comment is irrelevant as most voters didn’t have a clue of what they voted for. See my information on mole trapping. This statement also assumes that “cruel traps were banned” and that the traps banned were in fact cruel. Both interpretations are untenable. One need only ask what evidence does the MSPCA have to suggest that footholds are cruel (they were banned) and glue boards are not cruel (they were not banned). One needs to ask why conibears, which were to be set completely in water or inside or under a house, were banned? Please visit other pages to see how animal activists regularly mistate the facts regarding the humaneness or cruelty of traps. Information can be found elsewhere on WildlifeControlConsultant.com.
“This is the Division’s latest attempt to mislead the public about the trapping law,” says Luke. “The Division of Fisheries and Wildlife has been deceiving the public in an attempt to further its political agenda to repeal the law.” What is the MSPCA’s political agenda? As an agency that doesn’t pay taxes it isn’t beholden to the interests of those who pay the bills in this state. Instead it is beholden to special interests who get a tax break to push for laws that make other people’s expenses increase.
“During a spring 1997 discussion, George Darey, the Chairman of the Fisheries and Wildlife Board, admitted that coyote populations in our state have never been controlled by trapping,” Luke recalls. What the MSPCA fails to mention here is that prior to question 1 coyotes haven’t’ attacked people (at least as far as we have record). It would seem that there may be a relationship between the impact of question 1 and this attack. While coyotes have not been controlled (in the sense that their populations were strictly regulated by trapping), trapping and hunting does keep coyote fear of humans high. It can also reduce the localized concentration of coyote populations, like the Cape Cod Area.. As I have stated elsewhere, the removal of some animals does not necessarily eliminate risk of attack but it does reduce that risk.
In an effort to set the record straight, the MSPCA provides these facts:
- Trapping on land was illegal between 1974 and 1995. Only two seasons of coyote trapping have taken place in the last 24 years. (The MSPCA statement here is patently false. They forgot to mention that there was a coyote trapping season in 1989 when a judge ruled that the soft catch trap was not a steel jaw foothold and therefore was not subject to the restrictions of the steel jaw foothold. The AR activists forced an injunction on the issue on October 31, 1989 on the eve of the trapping season. However, some trappers were out trapping during that season. (Source Sue Langlois Mass Wildlife Fur Bearer Biologist 8/4/98 by phone) You may also be interested to know that the State Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that the padded jaw foothold did meet the state’s humane criteria of a trap that captured wildlife without injury. Obviously, what AR groups couldn’t convince the court they had to appeal to the citizens who didn’t have access to all the information.
- The law allows the use of leg-hold traps if there is a threat to public health or safety. What they don’t mention is how hard it has been to get permission to leg-hold trap. When will the MSPCA say it is okay?This criteria also makes someone the victim. Someone must suffer damage before permission to use footholds can be invoked. Do you want to be the one who has to suffer before permission is granted. The Division of Fisheries and Wildlife seeks to have a policy that prevents potential problems rather than simply responding to them.
- Trapping nuisance coyotes in residential neighborhoods is dangerous because traps may harm children, domestic pets, and non-target animals as well as the intended animals. This statement is not as true as they assert. They fail to mention that footholds are not dangerous to children. Just think about how many people have been injured by footholds during the years when they were legal to use. The police who shot the coyote was also taking risks with children and property. You may scoff at this criticism but accidents do happen with even trained shooters.
To coexist with wildlife, follow the simple and effective humane guidelines listed above. The advice is simple and effective but for how long? News reporters should remember what trapping bans did in Los Angeles CA. For more information, contact Kara Holmquist at the MSPCA at 617-522-7400. 350 South Huntington Ave. Boston, MA 02130 617 522 7400 fax : 617-522-4885
About the Author
Stephen M. Vantassel’s comments are in red. He welcomes opportunities to debate the claims of animal rights activists and animal protectionists regarding the role of trapping and wildlife damage management. He can be contacted at stephenvantasselAThotmailDOTcom
Book Review: Tracking Wolves
Cover of Tracking Wolves
James C Halfpenny and Tracy D. Furman. 2010. Tracking Wolves: The Basics. Charleston, SC: A Naturalist’s World. 38 pages.
Dr. Halfpenny is a nationally known naturalist and animal tracker who has trained hundreds, if not thousands, of people in the art and science of tracking. I had the pleasure of attending one of his tracking courses in Wisconsin in December of 2010 and would recommend his training to others.
Tracking Wolves is Halfpenny’s latest work and details the necessary information to identify wolf (Canis lupus) tracks and sign. The book is succinctly written. The authors don’t waste paper or reader’s time with flowery introductions or excessive details. The text begins with a quick checklist of how to distinguish wolf versus dog sign and then moves quickly into a summary of wolf biology. It is critical for readers to understand that track identification requires understanding the tracks in their situational context. Trappers know this intuitively, but Dr. Halfpenny and Ms. Furman detail it explicitly. The text explains the fundamentals of how to measure tracks accurately for failure to do this properly will result in excessive identification errors. The authors provide measurement ranges of tracks for male/female, pups, yearlings, and adults. In addition to track information, the authors explain how to understand and recognize various gait patterns left by walking, trotting, loping, and galloping.
The middle of the book delves into understanding wolf urination patterns as well as identifying their scat. Easy to understand descriptions are provided to help readers distinguish wolf scat from that left by coyote, gray fox, and red fox. Predation sign is also briefly reviewed. The book concludes with several pages on differentiating coyote and dog tracks from wolf.
As noted earlier, the authors bring a great deal of technical skill and background to this book. I believe that everyone interested in identifying wildlife tracks should read the book, or one of Halfpenny’s other books, if only to understand how to measure tracks properly. The book is fully illustrated with plenty of images (some in color) and informative diagrams to illustrate tracking concepts. My only negative comment concerns where the authors found their coyote measurements. Since eastern coyotes are 10 pounds larger than their Western counterparts, knowing whether Halfpenny’s measurements included eastern coyotes is critical to the relevance of the information for eastern readers. Nevertheless, trappers and naturalists living in wolf country would benefit from this text.
Purchasing a Copy
Tracking Wolves can be purchased for $9.95 plus S &H online at http://www.tracknature.com or by calling (406) 848-9458. Please note that A Naturalist’s World is in Mountain time as their address is PO Box 989. Gardiner, MT 59030.
About the Reviewer
Stephen M Vantassel reviews publications for the Fur Taker, the official magazine for the Fur Takers of America. He also has published dozens of articles on wildlife damage management topics and two books. The Wildlife Damage Inspection Handbook has recently been revised (2012).
You can contact him at stephenvantassel(at)hotmail(dot)com
14th Wildlife Damage Management Conference
April 18-21, 2011
Lied Lodge & Conference Center
Nebraska City, NE
http://www.liedlodge.org
| Sponsored by the Wildlife Damage Management Working Group of the Wildlife Society |
Invitation to Attend and Participate
Please let us extend to you a cordial invitation to attend and participate in the 14th Wildlife Damage Management Conference in beautiful Nebraska City, NE.
This conference, now guided by The Wildlife Society, is the descendant of the former Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop (1973) and the Eastern Wildlife Damage Management Conference (1983) and will be held in the spring of odd-numbered years.
Who Should Attend?
In the past, conference participants have varied greatly in both experiences and professions. Different as they may seem, they all are brought together for a common goal of finding solutions to human-wildlife conflicts.
Past participants have included….
Animal Control Personnel
Extension Specialists and Agents
Natural Resource Managers
Public Health Biologists
Researchers
State and Federal Wildlife Mangers
Structural Pest Control Operators
Students
Wildlife Control Operators
Topic sessions will include the following subjects…
- Human Dimensions of Wildlife Damage Management
- Feral Swine
- Large Carnivores
- Wildlife Diseases
- Invasive Diseases
- Bird Airstrikes
- Urban Coyotes
The Wildlife Society is also offering certification credits for attendees, and many techniques and research results will be presented.
Call for Abstracts
We hope to have a record-setting WDM Conference this year, but we need your help!
Manuscripts or posters are not limited to the subjects listed above. Other submissions on contemporary wildlife damage management topics will be gladly accepted and reviewed also.
Abstract Guidelines
On a single page, submit a presentation title, author’s name(s), and affiliation(s) followed by a single-paragraph Abstract/Summary . Following the abstract, identify the contact person by name, mailing address, telephone, and email address. Please indicate if this is a student presentation. Your presentation may describe work currently in progress.
Format the page as follows:
- Software: MS Word
- Margins: 1” all around
- Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt.
- Spacing: Single
- Justification: Left
- Word Limit: 300
Please email your submission to the address below as an attachment to an email message. The subject line should read, “2011 WDM Abstract.”
Email Abstract to:
Robert Pierce
Univ. of Missouri
Phone (573) 882-4337
PierceR@missouri.edu
You will be asked to submit a manuscript for the Conference Proceedings, and your presentation should not have been published elsewhere.
Poster Presentations
Poster presentations are encouraged, particularly from graduate and undergraduate students. If you wish to submit a poster for the Conference, please submit an Abstract/Summary as indicated previously and request the guidelines for poster preparation.
A limited number of scholarships will be available for students and agency employees.
For details contact:
Scott Hygnstrom Shygnstrom1@unl.edu
Commercial Exhibits
Space will be available at the Conference site for the exhibition of commercial producs and services. If you are a potential exhibitor and wish for more information, contact:
Stephen Vantassel
Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln
414 Hardin Hall
Lincoln, NE 68583-0974
phone: 402-472-8961
svantassel2@unl.edu
Field Trip
We’ll be taking an all-day field trip to the Offutt Air Force Base, Fontenelle Forest & Henry Doorly Zoo to see and discuss issues of wildlife damage management on Monday the 18th. Limit 50.
Registration Deadline Date April 3, 2011: A background check will be required. Contact shygnstrom1@unl.edu for details.
Conference Schedule
Monday: April 18, 2011
Morning: Field Trip
Evening: Welcome Reception
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Morning: Opening Plenary Session
Afternoon: Special Topics
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Morning: Concurrent Sessions
Afternoon: Urban Coyotes
Evening: Conference Banquet and Speaker
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Urban Coyote Damage Management Workshop
Workshop-Urban Coyote Management
We will host an all-day workshop that addresses hands-on techniques for dealing with urban coyotes, including habitat modification, trapping, shooting, public relations , and the press.
Limit: 40 People.
Contact svantassel2@unl.edu for details.
Important Dates:
Abstracts due February 15, 2011
Paper acceptance notice on or around February 28, 2011
Hotel Registrations due March 28, 2011. Hotel 800-546-5433 “Wildlife Damage Management Working Group.”
Conference registration Deadline April 3, 2011.
Conference Registration Online 402-472-3471 MC/Visa accepted.
Student and one-day registrations available.
ADDITIONAL INFO
For more information visit our website. Registration details will be available soon.
http://wildlifedamagegroup.unl.edu/meetings.html