OK, I get the idea. And for leghold traps, I take it its the same for legholds? I ordered the book by the way. Anxious to read it.

On a standard leg hold highest point of the magnetic field is normally at the dog. But because the way and the mb 550 is made and materials used it may have a very low Reading. Where I live A Standard foothold Trap can have a reading five times greater or more than the average for the area. The lower the reading the better below the average. It can affect the catch by a factor of 5 to 10 times depending on the animal targeted.

So if the highest point of the magnetic field is normally at the dog, is it the same with a dogless trap (since I run a lot of Bridger dogless for coyotes -- I don't use 550's for coyotes)? Also, could you "disguise" the dog's magnetic field?

Use your magnetometer to test the trap and see. As far as disguising the trap, zager uses dead and dried lawn clippings or hay. Trappers have learned to place the dog toward the backing or lower of the trap. You also can lower the trap so that if he paws You’re more apt to catch him. My writings explain other ways.

^^^^^^^
I'm not trying to beat you up but you did all this research wrote a book and at the end of that you say a trap with higher reading MAY CATCH FEWER ANIMALS, all that and you don't know for sure? And if it may make fewer catches would it also be correct to say It may catch the same or it may catch more since we don't really know?

If your target in cats Or young animals But the brains haven’t matured. Maybe animals have never witnessed or xperience with a magnetic field before.Explanation is in detail in my book.

Some animals brains don’t mature until they are two or three years old.The animal may not have developed the abilities to detect until he’s about three years old.Depends on the animal. It is explained in my writings.

“Concentrating on “the most effective traps”, the only thing they “all” had in common was a decrease in magnetic field intensity and a larger percentage of adult animals being caught in the traps with fewer refusals.” Quote from my writings.

My thoughts were initially the same as Lazarus.....a little skeptical but also curious. Considering all the ways in which animals interact with their environment (navigation, barometric pressure, and so on) it didn't sound too far fetched. So I ordered the book. I'm still picking my way through it, but Kirk does a good job explaining things. It is not supernatural or even far-fetched.

I've seen plenty of people be eager to dismiss these findings without reading or giving a second thought. I think often times people tend to think in extremes and that in turn often inhibits them from learning. This isn't about certain traps "never catching" as we all know they do. I found it to offer some explanations that just make more sense than the old adages trappers tell each other. I always thought that animal eyesight got a little more credit than it deserved when it came to refusals.

The magnetic field concept fills in the blank for me. Like why a bottom-edge body grip will drill fur but an unblocked dryland bodygrip will be avoided. They are both squares and those animals can definitely see underwater. It also explains why my catches go up on drizzly nights, why they drop off during a full moon, and so on. I don't buy the suggestion that a beaver can't "see" my 330 in the rain. There has to be more to it.

It's not about saying something will 'never work' or 'always work', but rather to get a more accurate understanding of why something is happening. It's up to each trapper to decide how these explanations might help out on the line.

Well all my canine traps are powder coated will that make a difference? And It's not anything like that cheap looking so called powder coating on those DPs.

Does a magnet on one side of a sheet of plastic attract iron filings on the other side?

I never tested foot holds that were powder coated. It doesn’t help in cage traps, That I found. I believe it with the right coating it could help with footholds.

I know positive and negative charges attract but I don’t believe this is the same thing exactly. Sorry I couldn’t give you a better answer

I take it back. I had a friend come by and he had some new traps they were powder coated very well. They had a low test which was very good. But I did not test before they were powder coated.

Well, the baseline in my house is 29.

I moved it around my laptop on my lap. Right in front of family jewels, it went to 211. I wonder if that is good or bad???

When the microwave runs in the kitchen 30 feet away, it goes up by 10 points.

I am going to have to investigate this a lot. I notice that I have certain trap brands that do not catch as many animals. This may explain it, but I need to experiment.

[quote=Dr. Fur]Well, the baseline in my house is 29.

I moved it around my laptop on my lap. Right in front of family jewels, it went to 211. I wonder if that is good or bad??? [/quote
Not good for extended periods of time say over 30 years.

I made a pyramid trap. Pyramids is how I found so much information. Here is a video that explains why once you understand the principle. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=sBPo4FfvC3Y

Think what kind of a reading you would have gotten 15 years ago. :-)

So I went to a spot of ground in my backyard and it was pretty solid at 44. Movement to the left or right 2-3 feet yielded only small variations.

I tested 4 traps.

The first was a Painted (with direct-to-metal paint) number 3 dogless Bridger with a dog knot stake attached. It registered right at 45. Not much difference.

I then tested a painted #3 Monty round jaw dogless with a drag and long chain. It was 44. The drag actually was closer to 43 but the trap was 44. Later I got curious and put the phone right on top of the trap (about 3" distance) and moved it all around the trap. The levels went from a hight of 46 to a low of 38 on various parts of the trap, with the levers being lower than the jaw/dog area.

I also tested a bare, rusted #3 Victor LS. It tested right about 43, slightly below the previous two painted traps.

I also tested a 1.75 waxed Monty with a stake. This trap jumped to 65, which was way above anything else. Later I discovered that if I moved the trap away from the stake, the readings went down to the mid-50's. Then I zeroed in on the stake. I had recently welded a nut to the top of an old dog knot and it was still raw -- not wax or paint to it and some of the welding flux still present. The top where I had welded was the hot spot. The rest of the stake was normal. I tried burying the stake head and the reading subsided just a tiny bit. I then put an aluminum wire screen pan cover on the trap and the reading decreased a few points. The same with the other traps.

I then put the pan cover on each trap and buried it. Doing so decreased the readings slightly.