BEAVER SWIM THROUGH CAGE TRAPS SET UPSIDE DOWN IN AND UNDER WATER
I know there are some who may not understand the the virtues of setting a cage trap trap upside down in water, but there are many, making this trap and method of setting second to none when it comes to cage traps.
A power door cage trap set upside will actually lift and push and animal into the trap as he swims forward, far superior to any guillotine door or gravity door ring or drop down door trap. The power door firing up from the bottom works in tandem with the forward momentum of the swimming animal, propelling him into the trap as the door closes and locks.
A second advantage to the door coming up from the bottom is that as the door closes the animal's feet are located on a moving surface, the door, as it lifts the animal into the trap, meaning the animal can get no purchase to push himself back out of the trap as the doors are closing. In conventional traps where the door comes down from the top, the animal has all four feet planted on firm ground, giving him the ability to brace and back out. This can't happen in a power door coming up from the bottom.
Because the triggering mechanism is on the bottom when the traps are set upside down, these traps can be set in freezing conditions, even when a portion of the trap is left out of water and able to freeze in, yet still function. When the traps are set in a dam break, with the upper door closed in a hole in the dam, water leaking through the trap, while the lower end of the trap is submerged, even if the exposed portion partially freezes in, the trigger and lower door will function flawlessly to make the catch.
Though traps can be left exposed and still take beaver readily, at times traps may require camo in the form of grass, logs, mud, brush etc. When camo is applied to any trap with the mechanism on top, and/ or external components, care must be taken so that it is never placed in a manner that will interfere with the trigger action. Cover can jam a trap a trap constructed in this manner quite easily, resulting in a misfire, no fire and lost animals. The swim through trap set upside down with the trigger on the bottom can be camoed with any sort of cover without worry since all of the trigger components are out of the way on the bottom. Even pushed into the mud, the trigger will still work as it should.
When adding camo, grass can be stuffed into the wires, logs laid on top of the trap, while mud and brush packed on top will have no effect on the mechanism, function or working ability of the trap.
By setting a trap upside down any debris that could hinder a drop down door will rest beneath the door. These traps are stable enough to be thrown into the water without firing and yet sensitive enough to take muskrats with regularity. When the trap is positioned on the bottom upside down, any potentially door clogging debris can be readily seen and removed. Conversely, when drop down doors traps are placed, there is always the potential for a door to get hung up on an unseen snag on the bottom.
When these cage traps are set upside down and placed on the surface, suspended with wire, floated or on stakes, with the top of the cage just out of water, a beaver may stop and inspect the cage, but he is already over the door and in a sense partially into the trap and less likely to refuse. Protruding doors from the top are far more visible and may act as a deterrent. By Jim Comstock
After an increase in reports of negative encounters with coyotes in metro Denver, scientists from Colorado State University’s Warner College of Natural Resources are conducting research to understand how human thoughts and behavior affect coyote conflict in urban areas. The study is being led by researchers from CSU’s Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources and is part of a comprehensive research initiative that is integrating biological and social science information, including data on reported encounters, coyote behavior and habitat monitoring, management response and public perceptions, to help develop more effective strategies for minimizing conflicts between people and coyotes.
The researchers have collected online and mail-back surveys from more than 4,000 metro Denver residents since December 2012. The surveys were designed to assess public attitudes and experiences related to coyotes in selected neighborhoods that have seen varying levels of human-coyote conflict. A separate survey of more than 30 coyote managers was also conducted to provide details on how reports of human-coyote conflict are being handled by various jurisdictions in the area. Findings from both survey efforts are being analyzed and mapped to better understand underlying factors and patterns that may contribute to incidents such as coyote attacks on pets and aggression toward people.
“The goal is to provide a more complete picture of the on-the-ground reality of coyote management in metro Denver. When, where, and how people interact with wildlife such as coyotes in urban environments is driven by both ecological and social factors,” says Andrew Don Carlos, a research associate in the Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources at CSU. “Habitat and prey are important determinants of how coyotes use the landscape. We have a lot of both in metro Denver, so it’s no surprise that they’ve taken up residence in our parks, open spaces, and sometimes even backyards. People’s actions, especially those related to outdoor food attractants and pets, can increase the potential for problems to occur.”
Preliminary results from Adams County, one of the primary sponsors of the project, suggest that a large portion of residents are experiencing regular interactions with coyotes in their neighborhoods. More than 80 percent of survey respondents in the western part of the county and within the cities of Westminster, Thornton, and Northglenn said that they had observed a coyote near their home in the past three years.
However, proximity of people and coyotes doesn’t always lead to conflict. Fewer than 10 percent of respondents said that they had been approached by a coyote, and fewer than 5 percent reported problems between coyotes and pets. No human attacks were reported.
Attitudes toward coyotes were generally mixed in the Adams County survey areas. About half of survey respondents thought having coyotes around was a good thing, while a third expressed negative reactions toward coyotes. The rest were somewhere in the middle. Overall, public interest was very high, with nearly 90 percent of those surveyed in Adams County indicating that they were at least somewhat interested in the issue of coyotes near their home.
“Coyotes are the largest predatory mammal that most urban residents will encounter, and their presence in the neighborhood tends to get a lot of attention. In these types of situations, a solid understanding of public attitudes and behaviors becomes an important piece of the puzzle,” said Tara Teel, an associate professor in CSU’s Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources and one of the study’s principal investigators. “Effective urban coyote management will always involve the public to some degree, and getting a sense for where residents are at on the issue is an important first step for managers.”
The survey findings will also help determine the effectiveness of current public outreach and education campaigns aimed at reducing human-coyote conflict, and will help develop more targeted education initiatives in the future. Results of the coyote manager survey indicated that providing educational information to the public was the most common component of coyote management across metro Denver jurisdictions. Ensuring that residents are getting the right messages about how to remove coyote attractants, protect their pets, and keep coyotes from losing their natural wariness of humans is critical for long-term management success.
The CSU researchers plan to have complete survey results for the entire Denver metro area prepared by the end of summer 2013. The findings will be incorporated with other data from the larger project, including information on coyote incident reports, coyote behavior, coyote habitat, and urban development, to create a model aimed at enhancing scientific knowledge about urban coyote management issues and trends.
In addition to CSU’s Department of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, primary partners on the comprehensive coyote conflict research initiative include the City of Aurora’s Urban Coyote Safety and Awareness Program spearheaded by Mary Ann Bonnell, the USDA National Wildlife Research Center represented by Research Wildlife Biologist Stewart Breck, and CSU’s Department of Fish, Wildlife and Conservation Biology represented by Professor Kevin Crooks.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife, along with several metro Denver city and county offices, have also assisted the project by providing coyote incident reports, funding, and other logistical support. In 2012 the initiative was recognized through an award for excellence in community outreach and public education by the Denver Regional Council of Governments.
“This is truly a collaborative project that approaches human-coyote conflict management in a very comprehensive way,” said City of Aurora Senior Natural Resource Specialist, Mary Ann Bonnell. “By working across jurisdictions and combining scientific research and citizen engagement, we can develop more targeted, informed and effective campaigns that can reduce and/or avoid urban coyote conflict in most cases. That is our goal.”
