# On a mission to becoming less ignorant



## Kaidonni (Jan 7, 2011)

Hello to everyone on the forums. I'd like to introduce myself by saying that I have come here to be educated, I'm not a trapper myself. A long time ago, I used to be into what the animal rights movement had to say about various issues, but in 2009 I decided to start looking up about things for myself. I didn't trust reading one side of a story, what I wanted were the facts. I wasn't happy with the idea that people opposed to something could provide an unbiased, truthful argument (well, people opposed to various issues throughout the world are certainly capable of that, but it's still better to be safe than sorry and not treat the first thing you read at face value). Since then, my views have changed considerably. My worries were put to rest as I found people who hunted, trapped, fur farmed, docked tails, etc, also cared about animal welfare, and weren't the evil, cruel animal abusers I'd read about. I now support things I once found disgusting, and for the same reason I opposed those things - the animal welfare element (ironic, eh? There are other reasons too, mainly down to the scientific and objective reasoning of many activities, including the wildlife management arguments).

I've read about a lot, although it is partly owing to me being obsessive compulsive - I dread not knowing the facts about situations I might want an opinion on, so much that there is always something else to read up on. It does get ridiculous, as it reaches the point when I read an article for the millionth time to make darn sure I read a specific word. It doesn't matter that I was happy with what the article had to say the first time round, I still go back again and again to make certain. Not very nice. And like I said, there's always something else (I just don't reward myself, I continue obsessing and slating myself for being ignorant). I have looked up about trapping before, countless times, but I still go back when some concern occurs to me, even if I've read up about that very thing before. I'm trying to change a few of my methods, as it has gone too far, with me revisiting issues already put to rest just because I forgot something (nevermind I had to be happy with what I read months before when my worries were put to rest!). So, I've decided to actually ask about something and not trawl the internet for a million more years.

I'd like to be educated a little more about snares by the people in these forums. My main worry I'd like to reveal is about 'entanglement,' and how humane it is or isn't (what with the choking/asphyxiation thing). While I've already read up about snares in part (not much, but then it was enough to make me happy), when I checked something silly the other day, I came across the word 'entanglement,' and my OCD made me just want to know what it was and not think one negative thought against it without knowing anything for sure. My first instinct is to worry that it's cruel and that maybe it'd be better to capture the animal alive and dispatch it another way (but I don't want to go thinking something that isn't cruel is, so I don't want to trust this first instinct). I'd like to know all the facts as regards entanglement from trappers themselves, as in this case, I don't think a search through Google would turn up much. It's what words to use ('entanglement' is such a generic term, it could refer to almost anything), and then for some searches I've been hit by a wall of animal rights-oriented sites, and I don't wanna touch those with a 20-foot barge pole (I've given up some searches because I can tell what most of the hits are just from the summary by Google). Also, what is the general opinion on/feeling towards entanglement, both here and in the trapping community at large? I admit I'm a bit uncomfortable about the entanglement thing, but I'd rather know for sure than sit here worrying/not knowing.

I do know that snares aren't always lethal, and don't need to be lethal either, that they can be set up for a live capture, and the animal can either be dispatched or released (unharmed) when the trapper checks the trap. I would also like to add that I already know a little about entanglement as far as animals like otters, muskrat, mink, and beavers go, what with the whole carbon dioxide narcosis thing (these animals don't breath or gasp for air underwater, and their air passages constrict when underwater, meaning they won't 'wet' drown). Didn't really find much on it, though, although I figure it's the whole carbion dioxide narcosis thing and not wet drowning that makes it humane (I've read carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are used to humanely euthanise animals in shelters and in fur farms).

I hope I didn't offend anyone. I sincerely want to be educated, and have my worries put to rest (if that last part is at all possible - I'll probably worry about this exact same thing in years to come, after 'conveniently' forgetting one or two bits of information).

Thank you.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have not done much trapping, but I want to give you a couple of things to think about. First natural death for animals is normally not as humane as death caused by hunters and trappers. Most often their death is by starvation, disease, or predators. I often scratch my head that the animal rights people think wolves are gods, but hunters are bad. I have never met a hunter who has eaten an elk calf as it was being born and the mother was helpless.

Your evidently not nearly as ignorant as the animal rights people. Let me give you an example of animal rights ignorance. As a federal biologist I found myself working with salamanders for a short time. When I wanted to save specimens I put them in 95% ethanol which killed them almost instantly. Animal rights people like to dictate to government which has no guts at all and usually knuckle under to these knuckle heads. Soon an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) came down from above on how I was supposed to kill (euthanize) these animals. I was first to put them in a 10% solution of ethanol for 1/2 hour before putting them in the 95% solution. I guess the idea was they would be intoxicated and not feel the pain of the 95% solution. OK, now try to imagine you have no eyelids and can not shut your eyes. You must also imagine that your skin is permeable to solutions in your environment. Now can you imagine spending 1/2 hour in 10% alcohol without being able to close your eyes. If your skin was permeable it would feel like alcohol on an open cut. Now ask yourself would you rather spend two seconds in 95% or 1/2 hour in 10% then into the 95% in the end anyway. If you think about it there is little they could have done to make it more inhumane.

When reason is replaced with emotion there is usually little good that comes of it. Animal rights people are people with small brains and big mouths.


----------



## xdeano (Jan 14, 2005)

wow that's some story there Plainsman. I believe every bit of it though.

entanglement is largely used to dispatch animals quicker, it does work very well. Cable devices are very humane in my view, they're quick and efficient. With new advances in construction of cable devices such as "kill springs", non-relaxing locks, pop-off buttons and cable designs they have come quite a ways in the last 20 years. Kill springs are made to keep pressure on the lock, allowing the lock to not relax and by doing so allowing the animal to breath. The whole idea of killing an animal faster appeals to a lot of trappers, less fur damage, fewer suffering animals, fewer animals lost to chew outs.

pop-off buttons are designed to release from the cable allowing the lock to slid freely, releasing the animal. They are designed to allow larger animals, "non-target" animals, to free themselves if they were to go through a cab;e device. Such animals would be deer, elk, cattle, etc. Most states have a regulation at which these release buttons have to come off at. It's a pretty slick deal actually.

There are cable restraints that do allow for an animal to be restrained and not killed. These devices are used by a lot of guys in urban areas to pick up coyotes, fox, stray dogs. It allows for fast humane capture of animals. Another very slick deal in my opinion. 
http://www.collarum.com/

xdeano


----------



## Kaidonni (Jan 7, 2011)

Plainsman said:


> I have not done much trapping, but I want to give you a couple of things to think about. First natural death for animals is normally not as humane as death caused by hunters and trappers. Most often their death is by starvation, disease, or predators. I often scratch my head that the animal rights people think wolves are gods, but hunters are bad. I have never met a hunter who has eaten an elk calf as it was being born and the mother was helpless.


I'm glad you've never met a hunter like that too, since as I think I'd have a little more to worry about than how snares are employed :lol:.

EDIT: I decided to cut out a large chunk of this post because I found myself rambling, and really only agreeing with you anyway. I was going to go on about the Burns Inquiry into hunting with dogs in England, and how informative it was on the concept of avoidable/unavoidable suffering. But, like I said, I found myself rambling, so...


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Since the advent of modern snare designs utilizing cam-locks (non-relaxing positive locking) and a "kill spring" to impart even more pressure into a closed loop, "entaglement" is less of a requirement.

Back in the old days, most locks had some degree of "play" in them either way. They didnt lock onto the cable as surely as the new designs do. Also, debris in the lock could cause further slippage (water, frost, the animals hair). This would sometimes cause the lock to "back off", somewhat relaxing the loops grip on the animals neck, this could prolong death and increase struggle. Thus the need for "entaglement". If the animal was wrapped up tightly to something (say a tree), than there was no extra cable for the loop to relax to.

The new snare designs out there today are some of the most efficient, "ethical" there are. Cam-locks allow zero back travel on the cable, so once that loop closes, there is no opening it back up unless you have an opposable thumb (and even than its sometimes hard). Release requirements (most states have them) allow non-target animals such as deer and livestock to escape. Advancements in set locations and methods also eliminate non-target catches.

Its important to remember that "ethical" or "painless" deaths are a rarity in the world. However, responsible hunters and trappers often go to great length to ensure the animals they harvest are taken in as humane a fashion as possible. I dont think there is a such thing as a "painless" death, but we can do everything we can to reduce the amount of stress/pain that the animals we harvest experiences in its final moments. There is an amount of panic and pain in just about any death, whether it be drowning, heart attack, cancer, or being killed by an animal higher up the food chain. We as humans in a more advanced, industrial nation are often removed from this reality due to the degree of modern medicine we have. Go back 100 years, and many people died a much more painful death than they do now.

Most trappers I know go to great lengths to ensure the animals they catch are as "comfortable" as possible in their last moments.

Another thing the "anti" groups often leave out, is the fact that hunters, trappers, and sportsmen and women contribute more money and effort towards habitat restoration, and animal conservation than any of the "anti" groups ever will. We do this to save the very animals we may later kill. Responsible hunting/trapping is one of the most important management tools in our arsenal for managing and perpetuating wildlife species.

I commend you for not blindly believing the propaganda set forth by anti-groups, doing your own research and educating yourself on the subject. I wish more people would put forth that effort.


----------



## Kaidonni (Jan 7, 2011)

I only really ever started educating myself because of my OCD, though, and it has reached a point where, maybe, I should just calm down and relax. I'm partly grateful for what it has taught me, but I never rest either...

Still, I appreciate the replies, keep 'em coming. If all my research has taught me one thing, it is to try to remain as objective as possible. The main problem is that it's very hard for a Human, especially one in the modern day with all this medicine and safe and easy living, to actually imagine certain things realistically. I think Humans have a habit of blowing things out of proportion, especially having read the Burns Inquiry. I don't face situations on par with what many wild animals experience, so indeed I would probably suffer in those situations where their bodies could easily cope with the stresses. It is what their biology has specifically adapted to (any negative reactions, such as suffering, to a majority of situations might have stopped evolution in it's tracks, as I can't imagine it would do a majority of life forms any good for their biological systems to be pushed to such extremes).


----------

