The mouse hole,I like to use 3 in a open pattern,makes a canine move it's feet to sniff all three holes.
Just my thoughts,I'm not big on land trapping so take it as just my take?
bob

For fox I agree that the dirthole is usaully the most productive, but for coyotes it seems that a mouse hole or flat set is more productive espeacially in areas where the coyotes have been around the block a time or two and have seen their share of dirt holes. Coyotes also seem to remember not only what they see much longer than a fox but also what they smell. That is one of the reasons I like to change up odors after a few days with coyotes. never really found it neccesary for fox (red). I know nothing regarding greys.

I honestly can't decide wether a bigger or smaller dirthole is better. It usually just depends on the soil type. Soft soil gets a nice trowel dug hole and rocky hard soil usually gets a rebar reaming.

I wax my rebar stakes but it doesn't take long before that wax chips and a little rust develops on the stake. I wonder how much scent gets left behind in a reamed out dh.

Very good thread, Nightwish..I wouldn't waste my time arguing with a guy who may know how to trap but doesn't know how to be friendly.

One thing for sure is that a 3" or 4" dirthole offers better set visibility and eye appeal. The wind may have shifted and is blowing the lure's odor in the opposite direction than anticipated but one still has a good cahnce at making a catch through set visibility and eye appeal. I believe that I could trap up to a 50% harvest rate using flashy visible dirtholes if I didn't use any lure or odor attractor whatsoever.

Nightwish wrote... I dont think depth is a big deal on foxes...esp if the trap is set up right. One step is all it takes...

I probably catch a good 90% of fox, coyote and bobcat with thier first step into the dirt pattern. However, with that other 10% I do think a deep enough hole is important as those agile pawed little red fox can walk up along side of a set and stick thier skinny leg down into a dirthole and have that scent stick up and out of there with hardly any disturbance to the hole. I've seen it scores of times. Sometimes they just drop the scent stick and other times they run with it. Asa

One thing for sure is that a 3" or 4" dirthole offers better set visibility and eye appeal. The wind may have shifted and is blowing the lure's odor in the opposite direction than anticipated but one still has a good cahnce at making a catch through set visibility and eye appeal. I believe that I could trap up to a 50% harvest rate using flashy visible dirtholes if I didn't use any lure or odor attractor whatsoever.

I agre with Asa..and have often been tempted to NOT use any lure...just dog dirtholes and keep resetting. Just as an experiment. But, alas, I can't bring myself to do it...

Nightwish wrote...I agre with Asa..and have often been tempted to NOT use any lure...just dog dirtholes and keep resetting. Just as an experiment. But, alas, I can't bring myself to do it...

One could never harvest the same numbers without adding lure to the set. I have done limited experiments with dirtholes and no lure and that is where I got this 50% harvest rate idea. It is my opinion that those who do not utilize good set visibility and eye appeal along with a good lure are not harvesting at a maximum potential. Again in my opinion, those few extra wary coyotes one catches by using small mouse holes and blending in every set will never compensate for the number they missed by not utilizing good set visibility and eye appeal. Every dirthole set I make is flashy, a 3" or 4" hole made into a backing and constructed in sand, short grass, reindeer moss, pine needles, etc so nothing is obstructing the view of the set for a considerable distance. I like lots of sand for eye appeal and fresh dirt also has an odor and calling of its own, canine will investigate fresh digging. I believe this is one of the secrets to more successful trapping of any animal species. Generally speaking, I make sets in groupings and at least one set in a grouping of hole sets is a post set, flat set or a blind scent set using a completely different more subtle lure that is specifically formulated for such sets. This will take the occasional wary or educated coyote/fox that might be wise from previous experiences to flashy dirtholes and loud scents. Asa

People often think its dumb, but I leave a lot of eye appeal as well. My sets are easy to find...just look for the little dirt piles behind the sets. When i dig out the beds/holes I simple pile it behind the set, creating a backing. Its not a mile high but its enough that it cathces their eye and MINE too. When I check traps I need a reference from afar. Checking from a distance, i can see those dirtpiles.

If I think I'm off on location as well..I may dig a 3rd hole/pile and create a pile for eye appeal. This only if its not 20* and the ground is concrete...

I remember being 14 and getting my first trapping books in the mail. The one book said we should carry any extra dirt away from the set. I still can't believe I did that for quite a few years.
Nowadays I tend to incorporate that extra dirt into my sets.

Thank-you for letting me know that I'm not doing things wrong.lol

No problem Beach...it may not be cool for Yotes..but for our dumb foxes, its no biggie...

Just look at my pics...you'll see the dirt piles right there...

small dirtholes....small dirtholes for fox, bigger dirtholes for coyote

I'll have to go with Ace on this one.While I believe you can catch many on the initial approach you'll never catch them all.Anyone that thinks otherwise is just fooling themselves or possibly needs to learn to read sign a little better.



I don't know why you'd need a study in your possesion to figure this one out,but ok.I generally figure this out by the catch on the paw and the approach to the set(when visible).It also kinda goes against the one step theory,or is that now a one scratch theory??What I've found is that reds generally won't do much pawing if everthing is right unless they've had a previous bad experience.It is the greys and yotes that like to paw at things around here,especially the greys.

keep it up guy's the more you write the smarter I get.
Ain't nothin like learnin from the masters!
Thank you
bob

Nightwish,what kind of studies do you have ?the info from 1 video that phil b posted ?

I made a statement eariler in the post with a error...

Its 50 to 60% of all fox are caught by actually working the sets..as it should...by working the HOLE. The rest are caught by scratching at the pattern...

Fur trapper, i have a folder filled with severals tudies done by the US Govt and universities...esp the Iowa fox studies doen in the last 60s...amazing stuff.

Phils "study" story isnt quite how it happened...

...and has no variance on this thread.

My study is exactly accurate.

Phil, despite our past issues, I have the utmost respect for your trapping ability and drive..ambition. It is an ambition that few of us have..and you still push even at an age when many cannot or will not. I will always call you the Iron Man of fox trapping...

But why is it you so often refuse to talk or comment on deep and intelligent topics like this one? I mean, heck...no one is asking for secrets...just simple comments from someone who does well in fox trapping....whats your take on lures baits and urine?

As my fur buyer once told me. Sometimes you need to know when to play dumb. Very wise advice!

Phil and John, I'm not writing this out of disrespect,but you guys live in "the fox belt" of Pa. Where even a part time, half-arsed trapper like me could do a triple digit catch in a months time. Try coming north a few miles and see if you can pull your numbers. It won't happen. No matter what lure,bait,pee,small hole,big hole,no hole combo used.

You are right...

...and we dont even have as many as we used to...

Asa, How many sets do you put in an area, and how big of an area are we talking about?