He did it!!

Well, that student I mentioned in the last post about the crazy fox day - has done it!!  His first fox is now a thing of the past.  I will not write his name here, as he is still one of my students, but may he trap throughout a long and happy life.  :)


We started by heading out to an area where he had some sets and snares out, and the fox sign was plentiful for sure - he was already in the right place.  It didn't take long and I spotted a nice cluster of spruce where we could employ one of my favorite snow sets I created while in Pilot Station - the "step-up Snowhole".  It uses an upslope to the trapper's advantage, just as a step-down-set employed by trappers everywhere, uses a down slope to get canines to commit.  Below is the finished set from a couple different angles, with some explanation:

We used an 'edge' where there was an open corridor of snow that separated a stand of spruce and some head high brush.  The fox were using this corridor as a through-way, the tracks in the snow told us.  :)  We 'roughed it up' (think 'catch circle') and made the set on a bank, using some dead spruce placed in a V as our backing.  These spruce chunks can come in handy, as the branches sticking out at all angles really help keep the canines from coming in the back or from angles you don't want them coming in from.  Just make sure to bust off anything that hinders their approach from the trap side.


Chip in a nice level bed for the trap and bed it solid, center of pan five inches out.  The trick is to place the trap and the shelf it sits on, the right distance from the hole so that the fox cannot investigate from below it (downslope) without committing, and cannot investigate without stepping up onto the pan in order to satisfy his curiosity. 


After just a few words of advice and some quick demos, I turned everything over to my student and he made the set himself.  He did it right, as two days later, he took his first fox out of this set.  :)




Congrats. Man!!! Hope to catch a lot more with you in the future!!!

Trapping....Year 30...

The writing on the back of this polaroid just says one thing...  " '83 " .    I can still picture every inch of this field in my mind's eye - back on the Schoonmakers' farm.  Many times I chased fireflies in that field, or chased Dad around with walnuts in one of our heated battles.  Not very far from that spot I had my first ever encounter with a buck, bow in hand, when I was just about twice as old as I am in this picture.  That number, 83, makes this thirty years now of digging in the dirt and snow.  From fox to coon to possums to lynx to marten...its been a heck of a journey.  There is something about trapping that gets into your blood.  Here, on the eve of opening day, here in my thirtieth year of setting steel, I am looking outside at the absolutely horrible conditions - blowing rain, ready to freeze -  and smiling with anticipation.  Because I know that no matter what, regardless of the weather, I will be out there tomorrow, making sets.  Whether those first sets of the year endure the weather and connect or not really doesn't change a thing.  Trapping is something I do, and love.  You have to love it.  If you don't, all that's left is just plain work.  It has become such a part of me that I cannot imagine going through Fall and Winter without it anymore.  After all, it's been a part of me for far longer than not.  Tight Chains to all of you setting steel tomorrow.  I'll be out there with you.

Are they extinct yet?.....

Was just browsing around on one of my old yahoo contributor articles submitted last year in the wake of the wolves' de-listing (removal from endangered species list - as if they should have been on it in the first place ) down in the lower 48, and was intrigued by a positive reader comment.

Point being - Now that the hunting and trapping seasons have been established and wolves are being harvested again.......... are they extinct yet? Umm, no. Not even close, despite the world wide web's explosive reaction to the fact that they were now legally harvestable. Just thought I'd post my article here on the blog, as a celebration of the successful-for-all-parties-involved wolf hunting and trapping now going on. (as it should be...) My original article can also still be found on the yahoo contributing writer network - just click here.

Here is my argument, though I shall spare my bibliography here: :)

Wolves' Delisting: What You May Not Know

With all the emotional debate raging on about the 'covert' delisting of the gray wolf in the lower 48, I find it worthy to call to attention some undisguised facts regarding this adept predator and the current management practices surrounding it that are taking place in North America. Though I would not venture to vindicate the process used by legislators to enact this ruling, there are some points that should be assessed without allowing government decisions to cloud the truth.

The gray wolf has never been eradicated from any state due to public hunting seasons alone. A government eradication program, spurred on and supplemented by state-offered bounties, still took the better part of a century to eradicate the wolves from each of several states in the lower 48. This cannot be categorized as a level of harvest reached with public hunting. (www.wolf.org, 2009)

The claim that public hunting can or will eradicate the wolf can thus be labeled as inflammatory and unfounded at best. Let's look at Alaska, for example. In over a century of pursuit, through public hunting and trapping seasons and government sponsored hunting programs (including the oft-contested aerial harvest), what has happened to the wolf? Alaska now boasts the highest population of wolves anywhere in the United States. That hardly sounds like eradication. What better example of harvest's effectiveness than the state with the most aggressive programs - especially when the wolves in that state are the most successful on the continent? (www.wolf.org, 2009) The fact is that in this hunting, trapping, management hotspot of the wolf's world, wolves have never in recorded history been threatened or endangered. (www.adfg.alaska.gov, 2011) Hard to argue with.

The argument that reducing wolf numbers to such levels that genetic problems and inbreeding will result in the demise of the species is unfounded. After all, let's not forget that today's present populations in the lower 48 arose from very low numbers of reintroduced individuals in the states the programs affected. Examples? In 1995, 15 wolves from Canada were reintroduced into central Idaho. 14 individuals were released into the Yellowstone area. Subsequent releases? 20 more were released into the Idaho, and 17 more into the Yellowstone re-introduction areas. (NCSEonline.org, 1997) Not a breeding pool of epic proportions, in either case. Consider also that not every member of a pack will breed, and your gene pool gets even smaller - as does also the required number of individuals necessary for perpetuation of the species. Another often heard claim is that there is no reason to kill a wolf. Any animal with fur that exists at harvestable, sustainable populations is a renewable resource. To then let surplus individuals of that species die un-utilized cannot be considered anything but a waste of a renewable resource. The fur of a wolf will provide more to a human being, in warmth, for far more years, than the brief, minimal return it will provide in nutrients to the environment. The carcass of a wolf harvested for fur is not lost to the ecosystem.

And it does not stop there. Keeping wolf populations in check allows members of those populations to better thrive, just as true as the claim that allowing wolves to keep prey animals in check benefits them. Same reasoning, - same need for control. Disease, suffering, and starvation are all large parts of unbalanced eco-systems. Management brings ecosystems into balance faster than nature, stopping negative conditions before they occur. Healthy populations are not those allowed to run amok, but rather those kept in check. Biology and historical data alone can determine a balance that is productive for all concerned. To claim that "we do not need to manage wolves" is to say two things, not one; that is, we need not either hunt them nor do we need to declare them endangered. We need to look at the evidence provided us and make up our minds.