Help me wrap my brain around this lessening of magnetic field in a cage trap. Please I am not the only one who needs to learn this I am sure of it thank you in advance

I suspected several years ago that animals could detect the magnetic field of a trap. It wasn’t until I learned that you can turn your iPhone into a magnetometer by just getting an app. I found that some animals were avoiding my cages. I essentially then tested numerous models of traps that I made. I found certain ones had a high intensity going in and through the trap and some had a low intensity going in and through the trap. I soon realized that the traps were catching the fewest number of animals were the ones with the high intensity readings inside the trap. I had to make 100 different designs and models before I got to that point.I found the magnetometer never lied. If the animal had a certain molecules in its system he could detect a variation of the magnetic field of the earth. Essentially detecting the difference of high and low.
I found it to be true and using every device. Whether a conibear, Snare, foothold, or cage trap.What I learned Allows one to be able to test a trap before it is purchased or used to tell whether or not or how effective it will be.
I didn’t realize how big of a deal it was until I got to that point. So I wrote a book and got it copyrighted. You can go back and look at the post that I made in the last year to where you should understand the bulk of it.

Is there any way to reduce the magnetic field if it's high in a trap already. Or should I just throw it away because it has a high magnetic field inside of it. I value your opinion please let me know

If it’s a foothold how do you bed and prepare the set Will hide the projected field. If it’s a snare it also makes a difference how it is presented. The biggest factors is how it’s made and that is particularly pronounced in the use of the cage trap, A snare, and a conibear trap. This is evident because the animal has to go through or into the device. A cage trap that emits a magnetic field that is higher than that of the induction of the earth at the pan can be reduced or blocked by covering the pan with a board or grass clippings that are dry or dead. This will hide the field. If the trap has an interior swing bar that hangs down from the top or if the trap is upside down with bar extending up should be placed in water which blocks the radiating field coming off of the swing bar. I trap that uses a pan as a trigger can be placed in water that covers the pan and it will block the magnetic field and of the trap pan. Some traps with the interior pans or parts can still reduce the magnetic field inside the cage trap. That’s why it’s important to test every trap that you use. Some cage traps don’t have the limitations that others do. Some don’t have to be submerged in water to block the magnetic field or reduce the magnetic field. You have no way of knowing this unless you measure the magnetic field with a magnetometer. Even if you have a high magnetic field intensity you probably will still catch animals especially if they don’t have certain molecules in their system. Decreasing the magnetic field intensity just increases the opportunity to catch the older wiser animals.

Well I'm glad I didn't know about this 28 years ago when I started my nuisance Wildlife Control business cuz it would have freaked me out. But after thousands of animals successfully caught in cages I don't think I'll worry too much about the magnetic fields thanks for the info though have a great day

Six years ago from today an animal damage control magazine technical magazine Did a comparison between two traps. They were double door traps. One was 9 x 11 x 30 the other was 10 x 12 x 30. The editor tested the two traps in the field for 30 days. He told me one trap outperformed the other trap by 4 to 1 in actual catches. He did not post or write in his magazine when he did the article the catch ratio. He said he had no way to scientifically prove why one caught four times more than the other of the same period of time. Materials used were basically the same. Both were powder coated and both had a wire trigger.
I still have in possession a trap identical to the 10 x 12 x 30 trap that was used in the test. It has a reduced magnetic field intensity that runs from 47 micro Tesla to 15 micro Tesla here . I believe if the editor will go back and test the two traps that he probably still has he can scientifically prove the difference between one and the other. This would give a reason why one out caught the other.

To make it scientific, though, you'd need two traps exactly the same except for the magnetic fields.

I was that close. If one had a high intensity field the other one didn’t it would be obvious.

Why would it have freaked you out? Animals teach me new things all the time. Why should the theory that magnetic fields can change their behavior be any different? Is it necessary to know about magnetic fields in order to be successful? I think we could all argue we've successfully caught animals without knowledge of it, but could this knowledge help us? Maybe. But I'd argue somebody can be quite successful in this field without ever catching an animal in the first place and that sales skills are more important than tech skills.

Not exactly sure about the last post. I'm all about catching, closure, solving a problem, making a customer feel good about getting results for the money he spent. Though I don't guarantee, it sometimes works out that way as I will not always charge when an animal leaves a property. The only animals I can't catch are the ones that leave the site. As long as a customer has activity or sees animals, I will remain on the job and finish it. At times animals will disappear, but those that remain come with me as they have for the past 30 years, meaning that the cages, snares, footholds, clamshell traps etc. have been working just fine. I don't really need a third party to try to convince me of imaginary problems I simply don't experience.

All of our animals have metal in their heads. This automatically draws them into our magnetic field cages!

I guess that puts this topic to bed. Thanks Paul.

This was posted on the trapping only forum but it has merit for here.
The first 11 or 12 years that I trapped for beaver and otter I only used Victor and BMI traps. Mainly Victor. I learned when setting the traps exposed to lay a two or 3 inch diameter stick in front of the trap on each side where the animal can’t see the Outline of the trap as he aproachs. The animals would not avoid the set and I caught hundreds of beavers and otters that way each year. I shared in my trappintales video.I live in Georgia and the closest place to buy supplies was a long way away. So I bought cheaper traps when I replaced the 330s. The cheap replacements were about 1 inch shorter they were a little harder for me to set by hand. I used them as I would victors. I soon learned that the animals coming down those runs sometimes avoided my set. So for the next several years I always use Victor traps in situations like that because I thought the bigger opening was what was solving the problem.
Many years later when I started testing traps for magnetic fields I learned that the victor traps radiate it off the top just like the cheaper traps but there was a big difference. The victor trap had a reduced magnetic field going through the center of the trap. The cheaper trap made in China or Korea had a high magnetic field induction going to the center of the trap. That told me that what was happening with the cheaper trap was that the animal was seeing the higher induction of the field and avoiding to set. That further gave me a reason to understand magnetic fields in cage traps and snares. It was a very learning experience. That’s why I have confidence in what I’ve learned at least one of the ways are reasons to believe and understand.

Kirk, why are the magnetic fields different? Is it a question of allot used? Gauge of metal cage? Etc?

Yes
You can have almost a denticle looking traps But the field will be different. That’s why you need to test each trap before you use it.

I guess this should be quantified, addressed by individual species. A great deal of this basically has no relevance, probably most of it, as problems in trapping are related to the specific intelligence of the individual species and to the function of the devices used, the most important issues in trapping. Anyone after reading the above who is now thinking OMG what am I doing wrong, now I have to get all new equipment, forget it, no need to change. I test daily in the field as I have for the past 55 years. I set a trap and catch an animal, test over. Skunks, Opossum, woodchucks, armadillos and others for starters are pretty much stupid, will go into any cage any time, even the off brands. Just about everything works to some degree. There really are pretty much no issues with these animals. The only time you might have trouble is if animals have been caged and released, but even then, not always. There was a local ADC guy who released a bunch of chucks in a cemetery behind his rental home. After he moved on I got the call and caught them all, no problem. Never had even one digger as I used positive sets, no bait. If others have wised up animals by setting inferior cage traps that get sprung or that result in escapes that can be an issue also, but changing to a foothold, snare or conibear is a simple cure, perhaps even going to a wire trigger cage trap as opposed to a pan cage trap or simply going to a larger cage trap. This is pretty basic simple common sense stuff that requires no testing and works very well. Having caught nearly 1400 beaver in swim through cages in 10 years I know how effective they are and how few times beaver avoid them. Like conibears, on occasion the odd one will not enter a cage, probably because he got hit by a conibear or saw other beaver caught in conibears during the fur season. I have sometimes caught 6 or 8 beaver in cages in a couple of days then found the last one afraid to enter the cage, a simple association from seeing others caught. A different trap often makes the catch first night. I found that the traps and sets I had for otter were super effective when the ice was on, but not so good in warm weather. It wasn't the trap. It wasn't the set. It was the time of year. There was nothing wrong with what I was doing and no magic, just timing. Lots of variables to evaluate and understand and to put into proper perspective, which comes from just getting out there and doing it, experience. Red fox and coyotes just don't like cages, confinement. I've yet to see anyone show photos of a hundred caged canines and doubt that I will no matter what the cage. Anything that can be completely camouflaged or hidden is a winner with the odd educated animals. Raccoon are the wild card. Once released they can be tough. Changing from a pan to a wire trigger cage or other deice will go a long way to bring closure. There are way too few animals presenting far too few problems accompanied by far too many success stories to look for problems that don't exist. Sometimes it takes that rare commodity to succeed, common sense.

So if you get a trap shy there are nineteen reasons why its trap shy. Ok. Changing traps one way of dealing with it. OK Shape of trap, presentation, are a factor, emitting field is not a factor. OK. I understand. Personally I will keep an open mind, and prove or disprove it to myself

Everything that I’ve written can be proven scientifically.

This is a very interesting idea. How are you testing the magnetic field of the traps? What did you use for a control? Ambient temperature of the area where you were testing these traps? I have about a million questions. I'll start with these.

[quote=Cysquatch]This is a very interesting idea. How are you testing the magnetic field of the traps? What did you use for a control? Ambient temperature of the area where you were testing these traps? I have about a million questions. I'll start with these.[/quote

It is best to go back and look through the post that I made over the past year on trapperman that concern magnetic fields. Whatever information you can’t get there should be able to receive it in my book. You should be able to have enough information on what I posted to answer your questions. As far as a control user whatever, the easiest way to confirm the basics of what I said is to use a trap that has a reduced magnetic field going through the trap or use at least two traps that way and two traps that have a high intensity magnetic field going through the trap. Set the four traps at least 15 to 20 locations or beaver haven’t been trapped or some could’ve been trapped.The more animals the better. Make land sets and shallowater sets.You can make underwater sets with the same trap but water is dielectric and would hide the magnetic field to keep you from being able prove what you’re trying to prove. After 3 to 4 weeks of trapping you will despise and hate one trap over the other. You’ll get to where you don’t even want to take the trap out to see. Using a variety of different traps that have the magnetic fields as I described. This would be even better

Absolutely, pure water is dielectric, correct. The kind of water traps are set in, are far far from dielectric. I was honestly interested in how this is "proven scientifically". I was afraid my questions were going to turn into a sales pitch for your book. Thanks for your time. I'll worry more about setting on sign, and quality of my sets rather than waste time worrying about "magnetic fields"

It doesn’t matter if is completely pure, you do as I say to do the test and the results will be the same. You submerge a trap in water there will be no radiating field reading above iit at the top of the water.
You have no interest you’re just trying to create doubt.

Stand in a pool full of river water and drop a live electrical cord into it and tell me that water is dielectric, you wont because your heart will have stopped due to electrocution, hence water is a conductor.

I have plenty of interest, The fact I am challenging the validity of your testing has nothing to do with my interest. I thoroughly understand the scientific method, what you're claiming is NOT scientific fact. I'm not at all challenging your theory. I am challenging your method. It is flawed, period. Using a cellphone as a gaussmeter is a poor choice. You need a control. That would mean a trap without any magnetism, at all. I could go on. The biggest flaw is animal behavior. Not all animals will react the same to a magnetic field the same, is it species specific? Is it the weather? Is it the daylight? Too many variables. Your interest in this matter is for profit, period. I'm not criticizing that, but don't make outlandish claims of your experiences as scientifically proven.

You’re trying to compare apples to rabbits there is no comparison. Test a trap throw it in the water now touch the water above the trap you get no reading . We’re dealing in micro tesla not alternating currents. If the tests are done according to what I have stated the results will still be the same. Anyone that has read what I have written and followed it closely will understand.To create doubt it’s just hurting the industry. The ability of a trapper to catch an animal.
I have stated several times the fact that I will be attacked because some people will be affected because They don’t offer products that conform with to the information I have been giving.It’s the truth it’s just a matter time before it will be completely excepted it may take a couple years it’s just a matter of time

Hey Kirk I cannot remember your book being 200 dollars. I thought it was priced to cover expenses. 20 bucks? I would love to hear your thought on what the modern environment is doing to humans. Cannot help but think some of the irrational behavior of some people is environment related. Like defund the police? Yea rite

Can a trap be made using a swing bar that has a Reduced field going through the trap?Maybe that’s the problem. The question can be overcome by just making a trap using a swing bar that has a reduced field going through the trap. Then just test like traps.

You’re trying your best to get the post deleted please don’t delete the post. The information that I had written would hurt the industry too much to be deleted.

I understand the unit of measure you are using. I corrected misinformation in you previous post stating that water you set a trap in is dielectric, which is false. That would lead one to believe the water they are trapping in is an insulator. I am a firm believer in the scientific method. The observations you are providing are not in line with proper scientific method, they are too subjective. AGAIN I am not challenging your theory, I am questioning your method. If you are so worried about the industry, please publish all of your findings at no cost, Let them be peer reviewed and challenged, or endorsed. I know you won't. Why do I know this? You are trying to profit off of this outlandish theory.

Forget the water, just test the traps on land at the same locations and number of locations that I pointed out you’ll get the same results in the same amount of time. Just as I have stated in my writings.You are trying to get people not to read I know and understand that’s what you’re afraid of.Itis obvious.
Please don’t delete these posts.

What are you even saying? Afraid of what? Are you delusional? Clearly I'm getting nowhere arguing with a crazy person. Like I said I would be very open to this concept, just go ahead and post all of your findings in the name of science. I mean you referenced a bunch of scientific studies that a bunch of hard working scientists worked on, and its free information, return the favor. Since you are so concerned with the industry you shouldn't be worried about making money on your book and magic overpriced traps.

To sum up my efforts here all you are doing is spreading misinformation on a subject and disguising it as scientific information. I will never trust someone giving biased information that they profit from. If you are ever able to produce actual scientific evidence thay supports your theory, I will glady apologize for doubting you. Heck I'll even buy you a drink of your choice.

It’s absolutely obvious you have not read my book. You’re accusing me and blaming me for things that you never read and seen. I just hope the threads don’t get deleted. Disclose your name so that we might know who you are. Anyone has read my book in dept can tell. Was it the true story about the trap comparison that got you.You must be afraid the editor will confirm it.

This is Townsend Traps and we are manufacturing these cage traps with Kirk. I would like to explain a few points that Kirk is trying to make.
1) Kirk is NOT advocating against experience or worrying about all the other variables necessary for trapping animals. HIs resume of over 16,000 beavers, over 2500 otters, and THOUSANDS of other animals should be enough to show that he has plenty of experience with sets, and catching many different animals in different environments. Kirk has many times explained on this site and others tips and advice on trapping from set design to lures.
2) Kirk is also advocating FOR using another tool to use in trapping namely the magnetic field of your trap. Now you can call this "magic" or "crazy" all while reading this on your "magic" iPhone but that doesn't change the fact that the earth is surrounded by a magnetic field and that many animals can sense it. There are many studies that show magnetoreception in animals such as birds which is thought to be how they fly north and south. Their eye is thought to work like an attitude indicator in an airplane. Yes it does change with different animals.
3) Your "magic" iPhone can be used as a magnetometer through an App to measure your traps.
4) Maybe you have seen the HECS clothing for hunters that shield a persons electromagnetic field? If you really want to study the science you can. The traps that we manufacture act similar to the clothing but it shields the magnetic field from going into the trap. This increases the chance that the animal will go into the trap.
5) Which is the point right. Time is money and the quicker you can catch the animal you are after the quicker you can go on to the next job.

I build all my traps out of aluminum

mic dropped!

With so many real issues to deal with, I hate to see anyone get pulled into worrying about something that is of no measurable concern, wasting both money, time and effort. Those reading the above must first understand that what is being offered as a "fix" in a magic elixir stems not from a motivation to solve a problem, because the issue suggested is purely imaginary. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Like thousands of successful ADC trappers we are in contact with who simply do not have issues with refusals, misses, escapes or any major problems of any kind other than the very occasional try shy animal to deal with, life is good, setting and catching quickly and without issue. Rest assured that the motivation behind what is above is not altruistic, but simply driven by a desire to profit, not a bad thing, just business, while offering something of little value. The idea that something of this nature can be applied with a wide brush to all trapping is nothing short of way over the top. I guess if I went with the program I would have to allow someone who has had no experience trapping the same animals I trap and who is not using the traps that I use, from a distance of 1,168.9 miles away, to manufacture problems for me that I simply don't have with either the equipment or the animals and then come up with a solution to problems that don't exist. I'll pass.

Jim I am sure you are not employed by us to speak for our company or the parts we make and I would think it was rather unethical for you to try since you are a competitor. I nor Kirk have offered any magic "fix" nor have you been able to disprove the claims we have made. You have only used ad hominem arguments. Our traps have been very successful in catching multiple types of animals, which is what they are built for, as I assume yours are built for the same reason (are you not in business too?). Isn't that the problem we are both working on..... catching animals..... making a living..... providing jobs...... or do you have some other values you are working towards?

I don't know exactly the amount of magnetic field around Mr. Comstock's traps, but I'd have to say he has them set at just the right amount....I can't hardly keep the critters out of them. Thanks Jim.

I don't doubt that some animals may be able to detect fields. I recall reading about research years ago that even some humans can be effected by fields.

The question being asked is, how much of a difference does it actually make?

If a trapper is doing everything else right (animals are there, the right trap for the animal, trap is set correctly, correct bait/lure for the animal, etc.), it seems from the discussions here, is some are saying: Magnetic fields don't make enough difference to care.

And from what I can make of it, there are other experienced trappers here who are trying to protect the newbies from worrying about something that may not make much of a difference in the end. I can understand that, having similar conversations where I was an 'expert' in that field.

What would be of benefit, is to start conducting serious scientific research. This is done with double-blind tests (where the person in contact with the trapper nor the trapper have any idea what kind of fields the cages have), randomizations, strict adherence to standardizing the tests to limit conflicting variables, etc. etc.

Get good feedback before conducting the experiments so that all the effort isn't wasted by something overlooked, and do the research. Then, as tests are done, make the research public, let trappers examine the research to find weaknesses and areas for further study and continue testing.

Myself, as a new hobby trapper with limited experience, I can't say that I'm having trouble catching animals that are there. Guys with years of year-round experience are able to do things better than me.

So as I see it, even if something may make a difference, if it doesn't make enough difference, no one will care. Real numbers would help.

This is worded perfectly, thank you for this.

Many traps are very capable of catching animals. I'm sure many trappers have caught animals with a variety of brands and been very successful.

This discussion was started by a question relating to magnetic fields. They do exist and animals do sense them. The cage that Kirk designed and we manufacture has a reduced magnetic field. I have tested our traps and the magnetic field is reduced. Trappers that have our traps love them and are very successful with them (reduced magnetic field or not, they work!). We have great feedback on our product.

Those that do not think it makes a difference are basically saying "nyuh uh", "crazy", "magic", without doing any thinking or testing of their own before coming to a conclusion. How can you say if it works if you do not even have one. Seems rather convenient that the "expert" comments about trying to protect newbies is also the competitor.

I see no altruism from Mr. Comstock, only trying to denigrate a competitor with insinuations and attacks of character.

This is a business and we are in the business of selling traps just like Comstock. We stand behind our claims and science does as well.

I think Jim had a very constructive comment, I don't see any "attacks". I think he is just looking to reduce confusion for new trappers, even if it benefits him, it would also benefit plenty of other trap manufacturers. All you are doing is creating a solution to a problem you cannot quantify. To say science backs your claims is comical. Correlation does not imply causation. If you can produce solid evidence of your theory, great! Until then stop selling your product as some scientific breakthrough.

I'm sure you didn't Cysquatch. You must love when people accuse you of being greedy and trying to take advantage of people. Sounds real nice doesn't. Sounds even better when your competitor tries to cloak themselves in righteousness. I'm only trying to disparage my competitor for the sake of others..... even if i benefit from it..... Sounds fishy to me.

You and Jim seem bent to put words in mine and Kirk's mouth that we're not said. Again the problem is catching animals, why can you not get that through your head. These traps catch animals. We manufacture traps that catch animals. We are not creating any problem to solve other than that!

I'll spare myself from your business advise.

As mentioned above, an aluminum trap shouldn't attract a magnet. Either should PVC, etc.

Is the trap you offer on your website made of steel?

Taken from your website

"Townsend Traps builds the best cage trap science can design. Utilizing over 40 years of metal fabrication experience and guided by Kirk's extensive trapping experience, our trap design reduces the measurable magnetic field intensity within the traps. This reduces the animal's ability to detect the trap and increases catch percentages."

Those are some bold claims. I hope people can see through the ridiculousness. I have no stake in any of this other than to call out absolute BS snake oil salespeople.

The trap has the ability as stated. It’s just a matter time and it will be proven without a doubt. I have proved it to myself without doubt .
Let’s not talk about traps. Let’s talk about magnetic fields or just let it be let it prove itself.

The traps are made of steel correct.

What snake oil are you referring to Cysquatch? The steel trap with springs? The one that catches animals?

What is so ridiculous? You haven't said. You just "think" it isn't true so it must not be huh?

Thanks for visiting the website .

"our trap design reduces the measurable magnetic field intensity within the traps. This reduces the animal's ability to detect the trap and increases catch percentages" = Snake Oil. You are creating an "issue" and selling the "solution". No where can you prove this theory unless legitimate scientific study is done. Simple as that.

You obviously do not know what the term "snake oil" means then. The issue we are addressing is catching animals which is what this trap does. Period! There is no other "issue". So yes we are selling the "solution" to that. You can believe what you want to believe but until you actually try to use this trap, you have NO standing to say anything about how it works. YOU have no "scientific" basis to disparage our traps at all. What experience do you have with them? Sound like just a nay sayer that likes someone else's traps.

What’s your name.? What company are you trying to help.? You’re not rational. You make it sound like I’m trying to hurt somebody.
The book as completely written actually tries to extend the lives of thousands of people through information that I Produced.If you don’t believe it just clarified it yourself through a search engine
It can be verified to the recent Bayer court cases and government judgments and admissions that have been placed since my email to Bayer in july of last year.I suppose you’re going to try and tell me that I need to tell you how that goes about. It’s easy just read the book. Maybe you might be able to save or extend the life of someone near you based on information that you have received. If you don’t care about people and individuals you will come back and attack me on that one too.I would’ve never been able to come up with the second half of the book if I didn’t learn or know about the first half. Each half corroborates the other. They are spending 1,000,000,000 1/2 dollars on new research. Based on some of what I learned in the information I sent them i Believe they’re using information mentioned in my book that I told in my email.They plan to prove scientifically in a different manner the round up is safe and does not cause cancer.

Why did you pick steel to make the traps out of over other, far less magnetic materials. If magnetic fields are bad, wouldnt no magnetic field over and above the ambient magnetic field be better?

Positive ions are bad negative ions are good you designed the trap where it produces negative ions where they should be produced. In the cage trapped inside, and a snare it’s inside, and a Conibear trap it’s inside. In a foothold It matters in the direction intensity, The amount of positive ions omitted and whether or not you are able to cover the field. Can you cover the field while you make the set whether it be with grass clippings or dirt or debris. With a foothold it also matters on the amount of contact at the Trap has with the ground in the bedding of the trap. With aluminum it would restrict the type of trap that you could make.It also wouldn’t allow you to direct magnetic field where you would want it to go concerning the negative ions.

Good question EatenByLimestone. First the traps are made of carbon steel and they are not a permanent magnet like one you stick to your refrigerator so they are not adding any magnetism themselves. This cage is repelling the earth's magnetic field or redirecting it. Some cages amplify it and others redirect it. You can think about this also like a faraday cage (similar not the same). Where the cage protects the area inside from outside electromagnetic fields. A plane would be a good example of a faraday cage that would be protected from lightning. Also magnetic fields are not bad per se (since they are all around) but when there is a sharp increase in the field, similar in the way a different smell or sound may spook an animal, it has the chance that your animal may reject your set, I said MAY as I am not guaranteeing your set will get rejected.

Also there is a cost comparison and strength comparison to make vs aluminum or stainless. Making them from aluminum or stainless would needlessly raise the cost on these traps. Not that you can't make a trap from them and it work. In our calculations we chose carbon.

Interesting that the people who accuse others of personal attacks are the ones doing just that, by name and people see it. I have never engaged in personal attacks on the forums, but put forth sound reasoning, backed with experience, the reason so many have been successful doing what we do. The last time, before this magic magnetic stuff, it was "openness." Brand X accused us of having a less "open" trap, meaningless. This was the first attempt to superimpose a nebulous, fictitious, imaginary problem to the traps we are using. Now it has morphed into magnetics, as expected. If you can't make headway with something with better function or is more practical you go to the imaginary. I have followed this since August 26, 2019, waiting for the "new" problem to surface that required "a solution." Here it is. Same thing all over in a different form, but still a nothing burger.

Jim i hate to break it to you that it is not always about you. No one is accusing you of anything except when you try to put negative motives or intentions on your competition, which if i didn't know better was not attacking you but defending from your attacks. I hope people see it. I trust people can read this thread and see that a question was posed to Kirk specifically about magnetic fields and you and others want to pile on Kirk because you don't believe what he is saying. Fine don't believe you have that right, but what right you don't have is to put words in his mouth or put into question his character or integrity.

Again this isn't a new "problem". This is just a new product that is different than yours. I'm not sure if that makes you nervous. Nervous enough to try put down any attempt at competition. You say nothing burger (just a passive aggressive means of attacking) then why are you bothering. Again it is not always about you.

These traps solve the problem of catching animals which they do!

There may be this supposed Magnetic field thing but In my opinion It's not going to effect a critter that wants to get In that trap whether It's a cage trap or a body grip or a foot hold or a snare. Just set your traps on location and use a attractive bait and lure combo and forget about this magnetic field stuff.
If a man can catch 900+ coyotes in a few months In foot hold traps I don't see how this magnetic field thing has hurt his numbers.

There are many effective methods and traps that can catch animals. Very True. One can be very successful with methods that he doesn't fully understand exactly why they work just he just knows that they work. Just as i have reference before that we can use wi-fi or iPhones without knowing exactly how they work. They may seem magical but dang if they do work. This is only trying to explain how Kirk through this design that has been able to catch over 1000+ beavers per year over several years (less that 100 days per year). Several trappers with this trap have reported fantastic results as well. We are only trying to provide a good quality trap with a design that is proven to catch many, many animals. This design is patented as well. It is hard to patent "snake oil".

I understand the theory you are alluding to, I know for a fact its not scientifically proven. Plus just because you applied for a patent doesn't mean a darn thing. People patent pointless silly things all the time.

Hey Cysquatch, I did not believe when you posted this that you were not being truthful.......2 days and several posts later and you have proved my belief to be correct, you are still talking about the same subject.

Posted by Cysquatch on Aug.5, post #6955155


Apparently did not mean a darn thing, just a pointless silly statement.

Are you trying to say faraday's cage is a theory not proven. What planet do you live on? They are also in use in your microwave oven to contain the electromagnetic energy within the oven and to shield the exterior from radiation. Next post you are going to tell me gravity isn't proven either. Or it is only a theory. I'll look for the double blind test on it.

Also we actual have a patent. Not just applied but approved. Why would comstock have PATENTED big and bold on his website if it didn't mean anything.

It just seems like you want to put down something you don't understand.

Stop putting words in my mouth. You theory of animal catches being related to electromagnetic fields in traps = not scientifically proven.



I couldn't stay away, its so much fun discussing "science" with everyone!

The chronology in this is all wrong. The big catches in beaver were made two decades ago with conibears, well before emf was even a thought with most of the big beaver number taken in conibears. I'll bet I have taken more beaver in swim through cages than anyone because I don't "test" them, I use them. I introduced the wire trigger cage traps, showed a couple in Sept. 2007. The epiphany about magnetic stuff has taken place only in the past year, nothing to do with "decades of testing cages." All baloney.

I'm being to think we have started a "Dear Diary" for Jim Comstock just like Jim Acosta at CNN. Must be baloney because no one before or since Comstock has caught any beavers. Only he has made any wire trigger traps.... Baloney! This isn't about you! Are you the only voice worth listening to in the trapping world. Are you calling Kirk a liar as he has records of his catches of 16,000+ beavers, have you seen his DVDs? (I will send them to you if you want) Just because you want to put your head in the sand doesn't mean every one else has to. Oh and I believe EMF has been around forever, it didn't just start .

I was the one who had suggested double blind tests. I would expect a double-blind for this claim otherwise it's not a good test. Experimenter bias is real--expectation can create the result. And if the person dealing with the trapper knows which is a 'better' trap, that bias gets passed on, too (Same reason why most people will think a more expensive wine tastes better). Again, I'm not suggesting that the magnetism of a trap doesn't effect a catch, but to say that it does, requires a specific kind of proof.

That said, for fun, I downloaded a magnetometer app, and 'examined' two cages. Outside the cage, readings were the same, but upon entering, the reading on one was higher than the other, but once the phone was in the cage, the readings go down again. Also, readings change quite a bit whether you are centred in the opening of the cage or move to the sides or corners. Did this on traps I don't use much, but will do my own experiment with my raccoon cages as I didn't test the magnetism in those and therefore, can't be biased. Will put them side by side, bait them the same, and see what happens and report back with the results.

The Beav and Cysquash are correct, right on! Thanks for some common sense. If you stick with the fundamentals, good sets, (frequently baitless)-positive sets with nose cones, trail sets, dig-outs, the right location, the right presentation, the right bait-if baiting, camouflaging, keeping distracting odors down to a minimum and even understanding when sets are to be placed, (the optimum time of day to be setting for the best results) you won't be disappointed. I believe that I am the only voice for when to set for beaver and woodchucks, making catching a snap, while taking fewer non-targets. Complimenting setting, good equipment that is functional and consistent will assure success. In cage traps, having a trap that is rugged to prevent escapes, practical-not big and oversized and heavy, self-contained with no parts that stick up or out of the box or traps that are too complicated with extra springs and parts to foul or break are a must. Simplicity is king. Fewer is better. Having traps with the versatility to fit into tight places, small culverts or into thick brush in traps without disclaimers or limitations for weather conditions north and south, that can be set vertically, sideways, upside down etc., roll over proof, able to be covered in snow conditions to prevent freeze ups, not sensitive to firing when bumped or when animals climb on them, or a trap that can actually be thrown into deep water without firing with the sensitivity to catch small as well as large animals in locations you can't reach are all part of the big picture in the equation for great results. This is the reason why we set so few traps and for very short periods, the reason so many others have learned to do the same.

Rather than superimpose our thoughts on others or try to plant seeds of superstition, we LISTEN closely to what trappers say of their experiences and share with us and ask questions of them. If there were any measurable issues about refusals that would suggest changes were necessary or applicable they would have been made long ago, on the spot, but that is surely not the case, realized in countless testimonials attesting to positive results, minus what are apparently issues others outside of our circle are having. In reality, in trapping there are so many variables that simply can not be quantified or properly weighted with or without testing, so for that reason we deal with tangibles than apparently are woking.

Because we were able to catch 48 bobcats, along with foxes and coyotes in foothold traps in two weeks in 1984 without bait or lure of any kind and many more after that, I thought we just might be able to apply those very principles to other areas of trapping and we did.

Oh, an FYI, I am not the only one to make wire trigger traps, but the first, the originator, the inventor. This was my baby conceived many years earlier. The above are spin offs from my invention, end of story. I'm always skeptical of those who allow untruths to circulate as factual and never admit to what actually took place to set the record straight, which is what is at the core of all that has transpired since, giving credit where credit is due, which is the way I conduct my life, always without exception.

Dear Diary..... I really stuck it to Kirk and Townsend Traps. I am the only one that listens. I invented cage traps.

WOW that sounds like Al Gore, he invented the internet ya know.

The only thing we are saying is the our traps are high quality carbon steel (with stainless bolts, dog, and springs) that are versatile in many places and sets and catch animals. PERIOD. They also are designed where the magnetic field reduces when going into the trap (THIS IS A BONUS and only one aspect of the traps)

I said the other day fundamentals are important, no one disputes that or disagrees. These traps are another tool in the trappers arsenal. No one is putting down your product but you feel so inclined to do so to ours. Without ever touching one. I'm not sure if you conduct your life like this always but it seems rather arrogant to me.

You also seem bent on this imagination of trapping or cage traps begins and ends with you and that also seems rather self centered. There are many manufacturers of traps and many of them are very fine. We aspire to be a household name in the trapping world and that will take time and hard work, nothing that we are afraid of. But when a leader in the industry comes out of the gate gunning for the new kid that reeks of fear or greed. Our traps are very capable and we would put our traps quality and effectiveness next to anyone else's.

Why not build traps out of sheat goods and not wire, better yet concrete
This depending on the thickness would almost eliminate EMT
Maybe a inverted v for an opening.

My other question is what is the source of the EMT if I am outside of cell range?

So once this trap or traps have been de magnetized if that's at all possible. Will they regain the magnetic field later on? So far none of this has been explained.

Shipping would be a little much on the concrete.

The source of the earth's magnetic field is the earth, north and south poles as the earth is a giant magnet. The magnetic field called the magnetosphere. This is the space in which we and all animals live. It is all around us. This is inherently why this is important. Animals are used to a certain level and an increase in this level MAY spook certain animals as it would be different than they are used to.

As with most new science, studies are on going and new things are discovered all the time. This is a link to SCIENCE magazine. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/humans-other-animals-may-sense-earth-s-magnetic-field

Here they clearly talk about animals detecting magnetic fields. Claims we make are based on our own studies along with research, but as we keep saying that there are many variable and no trap can guarantee anything 100%. We make no claims that we can guarantee 100%. We provide a tool to support a trappers goal of catching animals.

We are not discussing EMF caused by cell towers, electrical lines etc.

The Beav. Again I have said these traps are NOT magnetized. We are talking about the magnetic field of the earth. Is is all around you. If you want to take a Physics class you can as this forum probably isn't the best place for it.

What is the difference between natural EMF and man created ?

What most people refer to as EMF is a combination of electrical field and magnetic fields (Electromagnetic field - EMF). This is why they are talked about around electrical lines or cell towers etc. People don't talk about natural EMF unless maybe a lightning strike or something.

The natural magnetic field is caused by the earth, north and south poles. The earths magnetic field is everywhere.

You can create magnets but those fields do not radiate very far. Even the EMF field from your cell phone probably don't travel over a few inches.

I have to call bs on,that it is sent over the air
What about wifi?

What are you calling bs on? And by what basis. Cell tower and electrical lines AND wifi radiate EMF fields (Through the air). The earth has a north MAGNETIC pole and a south MAGNETIC pole. Just google earth magnetic field and you will see a picture. If you want to take a physics class please sign up to take one but if you don't have any knowledge or expertise in the area i'm sorry but your BS reader just doesn't count.

So, let me get this straight, "a magnetic field MAY effect an animal," and conversely, it MAY not, which means this could all be about nothing or perhaps very little as a number of trappers have noted, nothing to crazy over or cause worry. If an animal can detect a field, who says he won't go into a cage anyway? Just saying. Also, if the magnetic field does effect an animal, that effect might not be necessarily be a negative, but could in fact be a positive? I guess if I still had my Ovaltine Decoder Ring I'd be set. With so few negative experiences using cages over 30 years, where most of the negativity was attributable to issues stemming from wised up animals due to ill fated attempts by clients trying to rectify their own wildlife problems while using cage traps before I arrived, the emf "problem" could be quite small, if it exists at all. I have changed equipment and methods many times over the years when I tried new stuff that turned out to be better, but I figured it out myself. Didn't have to be told. With beaver I began with Victor Conibears, did some Montgomery 600 Magnums for a season, went to BMI Magnums, then to Belisle Magnums, then Belisle 660 Magnums, then Belisle 660 Self Supporting Magnums, with snares along the way and footholds in-between and finally to swim through cages, now with no reason to change, while using the other equipment besides Hancocks and Baileys to fill in now and again. I still find it hard to believe that there are ADC guys who use conibears for beaver, but still don't use magnums, a trap with no equal.

DESPERATE PEOPLE MAKE ACCUSATORY LONG POSTS.

we have been doing EMF, I call it EMT remediation for the past 6 years. People are worried about the effects that can couse cancer . with 5 g coming they are even more worried.
" If" Gravitational pull is a factor then setting a trap a different angle "could" mitigate this. think about the old rabbit ears on your tv.
The only way to mitigate is though density
Go to the back of any concrete tilt up structure and try to use you cell phone.......

I will add that transmission and frequency may be different in some eyes.
FCC has regulated power levels
we no longer hold a 4 watt phone to are head
but he hold a higher frequency lower wattage phone to the same place
cb are legal to everyone 400 800 and hire bands are regulated
why is that

This thread has gone in so many directions and on a number of tangents. Let’s try to bring the discussion back down to Earth (in the region of the magnetosphere, perhaps). Some questions and points (mainly for Kirk/Townsend, but others are welcome to chime in):

1. There are a number of factors that encourage or impede a wild animal from entering a non-positive trap: trap size, odor, bait presentation, trap placement, lure draw, animal intelligence, animal trapping history, etc. Considering these factors, where would you place magnetic field detection within the ranking?
2. When considering rural versus urban environments, an urban environment will have a much higher density of metal structures that wildlife encounter (e.g., sewer grates, window panes, gable vents, structural scaffolding, etc.). These would have their own magnetic field disruption characteristics. My speculation is that urban wildlife encounter these on a regular basis and therefore would have a diminished aversion to traveling through/into these environments. It would become white-noise to them. In your studies, how did urban trap denial compare to rural?
3. You quoted magnetic field trap readings in the 15 to 47 mT range. What are the scientifically established thresholds that each trapped species can detect, and how do those compare to a standard trap and a Townsend trap?

Perhaps these questions will get us talking about the evidence, since so many people seem interested in the science.

Wow this post gotten quite interesting since I've started it. One thing I have noticed Jim's been a real professional in this conversation

Sure has been a wild ride lately, as it has off and on for a number of years now, nothing new, just the date. Thank you very much for your comments Wiley. I really appreciate that you noticed what was going on and mentioned it as I try to keep my comments about issues, not personalities, while supplying what I can to support what I believe to be true through experiences from the past 55 years. I'll put in a wise crack once in a while to offset what gets too serious. What is difficult, it seems that if I dare to disagree or when others do too, some will take it personally and then call me out by name, insert digs, nothing gained. All this is way past my pay grade and I'm probably not the only one who feels this way. If you want to talk about a better functioning more versatile device, a new set or super lure, I'm in, but this stuff... There will never be an accurate way to affix a relative value to what is suggested because there are far more variables than have even been touched on, probably hundreds. Never will be able to sort it our or make sense of it all and produce anything useful from it with dozens of different animals from the dumb to the intelligent, dozens of environments, dozens of situations, dozens of cage traps, dozens of foothold and snares to name but a few. Just too much to separate out one issue from all the rest, put a value on it and come up with something definitive and consistent that makes sense across the board I would say.

Well put Joe.

Joe great questions.

1) All of these factors you mentioned are important (along with others such as outside temperature, water temperature, etc.) . And with each one, it can play more of a factor at times than others. Trappers use a variety of methods to reduce the detection of their traps. Magnetic fields can also play a part within your trapping strategy. One example is that the direction of the earth's magnetic field is not quite true north to south but actually a few degrees west of true north (Magnetic North) and if you are able to orient your cage in this direction the fields inside the cage will usually reduce more than an east to west orientation, which in turn further reduces the animals detection . That isn't always practical but you can begin to see that using a magnetic field reduction strategy doesn't have to be a separate strategy but an addition to your existing strategy.
2) Our traps do well in both urban and rural environments. For instance we have caught red fox, coon, and possum right behind our shop and I am in the city. As far as structures go most are grounded by code for one and secondly the fields that radiate from these things like my metal shop only extend a foot or two away and then the readings go back to nominal. So even in an urban environment the magnetic field isn't saturated by buildings.
3) Depending on where you live the magnetic field intensity outside is close to 50 uT. So this is an animals normal. I just went to one of our traps and the intensity reduces through the trap all the way to the wire triggers to about 25 uT. 50% reduction. Once the animal gets to our triggers less than 1.4 seconds later he is trapped. The point is to eliminate any reason for the animal to reject your trap and let the trap do it's job.

Well this was discussed a while back and at that time I slapped a powerful neodymium magnet (or two) on every single one of my cage traps. Now all of my cages make the iPhone Tesla app go CWAZY!
No change that I notice, other than off the scale readings of the iPhone app. Still catching critters in them same as before. Cameras show no more hesitation or avoidance than before the magnets.
I shared some other observations in that earlier thread, specifically that I tried repelling beaver with BIG magnets at dams and culverts. Camera video showed no difference in beaver activity, one beaver even carried a big magnet on dry land and deposited it on a pile of mud and sticks and rocks on top of a culvert pipe and covered it with more mud like any old rock.
These are just my personal observations, I offer them for consideration and interpretation . They are not controlled experiments, but they have me leaning more and more toward being skeptical of the suggestion that magnetism of trapping devices makes any difference one way or the other. Those who feel it makes a difference, (Or those who don’t) grab some magnets and trail cam shooting video and your iPhone with Tesla app and make some observations. Fair warning though, in the end I found it to be a waste of my time.

Loosanarrow, I'm sorry you wasted your time because your experiment is not at all what we are talking about. Yes your app will go nuts if you put it over a magnet just as it designed to do. We are trying to reduce that intensity not increase it. The trap itself is not magnetized. Again the point it to reduce rejections of your trap which is ONE of the benefits of our traps. The others being carbon steel construction, stainless steel springs and a closure rate of less than 1.4 seconds when tripped, very versatile and is able to be used in many many ways (Even if you don't believe in magnetic fields), you will get your animal.

I would just add that if your beaver took the magnetic and covered it with mud it sounds like it was bothering him and he found a useful way to shield himself from it.

I used to work the carnival. What is being passed off as knowledge is an "alibi" joint, nothing more. The magnets lit up the app, but didn't bother the beaver, simple. It was pointed out that increased magnetics did not result in refusals, which means there would be no reason to decrease it or worry about it in the first place. Both odor and a visuals that are out of the ordinary to the animal, out in the open, are far more detrimental to catching. I would suggest that this "versatile" trap being advertised is far less than what it is. Doors that stick up 3 feet, a trap that can not be put into a 2 foot culvert or even a 30 inch culvert, can't even be hidden in shallow water, like a foot deep and can be readily viewed by both man and beast and are not the hot set up by any stretch in any kind of trapping, ADC or fur trapping. Try a monster trap like that in freezing conditions, nope, frozen solid. I don't want anyone knowing what I am doing when I am trapping, not that there is anything to hide that is inappropriate, but antis are out there everywhere looking for trouble. Don't need the hassle. I like to slip in quietly trap under water and under the radar, out of sight, using traps in an out of the way spot with lure where people can walk by and never have a clue about what is going on right beside them. Additionally, setting a "come steal me" trap with high doors sticking up like a flag in the open with a live beaver is a second no-no. Like a conibear or a foothold on a slide, I want a beaver in a cage that is deceased and out of sight so as not to draw attention, a big plus. Having a large beaver banging around in a cage trap on land or in shallow water making waves for all to see, not good.

Well said Mr. Comstock.

1.4 seconds is a long close time.

EatenByLimestone you can see the video on our website on how quick our trap is. It is better than 1.4 seconds but I am a little gun shy at Comstock stoking lies about our product and then having his chorus of "yes Jim" follow up. Jim you must not have read loosanarrow post, the magnetic bothered the beaver so much he buried it.

Jim our trap has as much a chance of freezing solid as yours, heck you haven't even seen or touched our trap.

Check out these videos put out by people that are reviewing HECS suits with similar technology to see how animals react. https://shootingmystery.com/hecs-hunting-suit-really-work/. https://www.outdoorapprentice.com/hecs-suit-review/

Jim we get you don't like Kirk and have no understanding of science so please stop talking about our product. The comment about you being professional about made me snort coffee through my nose. All you have done through this entire thread is bash our product and business without providing one shred of intellectual evidence about what we are doing. If you wanted a real conversation (to which i am not convinced you did), then it could have gone in an entirely different direction. You began with character defamation alluding to us selling untruths (without providing any evidence) and attacking our motives (You don't know me from Adam). I'm not sure how I could have taken you any different. If you don't believe or don't care, why are you bothering. The truth lies somewhere around you don't like competition and for some reason it bothers you for Kirk to be in business.

We make a very versitle (our trap can work on land and doesn't have to be underneath the water), robust, quick trap (with reduced magnetic field) that are very successful in catching animals. PERIOD!

I have seen the traps in question or close facsimiles thereof, all the same except for extra parts, for the better part of ten years, very limited in scope and function, the reason I do build them or use them in any of my ADC work. I rarely if ever have requests for them. When I explain the limited nature of a device, not the limited nature of an individual or company, I am just stating fact about the mechanics, period. Chop a hole in the ice and place a tall g door trap, like the one in question, in 16 inches of water for beaver, FROZEN SOLID. What is so darned difficult to understand about a tall trap that is 3 feet tall freezing in shallow water? We have ice here, you don't. I know ice very well. A 12 inch tall trap will work in 16 inches of water under ice. I do it all the time. A tall trap won't. This is not personal, just factual. There are more versatile traps that will work right side up and upside down as well as sideways. Fact. A g door trap will not. A powered door trap made as a rectangle then becomes a trap of two sizes to work in both wide and narrow runs. A g door trap will not. Maybe someone could supply a photo of a 3 foot tall trap in a 2 foot high tube. Under brush a g door trap can get hung up and foul in sticks and leaves. What I point out are merely comparisons between devices that allow everyone to understand obvious differences. I did build one g door trap a number of years ago that is unique, but to date I have not used it or seen the need for it.

I never got a response.....

1 can alignment of a trap within the polarity create a lower reading?
2 is density a factor in mitigation?
3 are we only worried about natural accruing EMF?
4 how is you trap CONSTRUCTION mitigating this?

We don't know if the beaver was collecting rocks or the magnet was bothering him. To suggest that it was the magnetism, is misleading. And this is also the reason properly conducted experiments need to be done, otherwise non-related events can easily be called evidence.

No one is doubting that the traps catch animals. Obviously they are. How much better, is the question.

[/quote]

We don't know if the beaver was collecting rocks or the magnet was bothering him. To suggest that it was the magnetism, is misleading. And this is also the reason properly conducted experiments need to be done, otherwise non-related events can easily be called evidence.

No one is doubting that the traps catch animals. Obviously they are. How much better, is the question.[/quote]

Wait, did I suggest that it was the magnetism “bothering” the beaver? If I did, let me clarify.

The beaver was clearly bothered by water leaking through the customers culvert pipe. The beaver plugged that culvert. The magnet was beside the culvert (one of several I placed under video surveillance). After the beaver plugged the culvert, it apparently decided to drag sticks, mud, and rocks on top of the culvert to further bury the offending pipe. One of the items the beaver carried up and deposited was a several pound neodymium magnet that the beaver carried up, placed on the mound, and then the beaver went down and gathered more sticks, rocks, and mud, dragged it all up and continued to bury the pipe. It did not treat the magnet any different than any of the rocks it brought up. It appeared to be just another rock to the beaver. The magnetic field of the magnet did not seem to affect the beaver at all.

All of that said, I do agree that to settle the matter would take carefully designed and executed blind observations with controls. But all of THAT said, I’m not doing them. I’ve seen enough. Strong magnetic fields have failed to have an observable effect on beaver activity in my limited, simple observations. Take that or leave it, I don’t really care. I’m just sharing some of my observations. They may mean nothing relevant to trapping, you decide.

I have advanced traps. Good traps. If Kirk can make them better, he will. He is intense. You cannot see hydro, but you do not stick a knife in a wall outlet

I asked plenty of questions, and it all lead to "you can buy my book" its just a sales pitch

I use my g door trap in every way you mention. His trap on its side is the almost the same size as your beaver trap . Not all of Kirk's traps are g doors anyway. Its like you are just grasping at straws trying to knock the traps that are better than yours. I have run them both, side by side in an unbiased setting to get an idea of which one to purchase.

Vinke,
I replied with plenty of information to this.
Alignment of a trap along the lines on the earth's magnetic field (Mag N to Mag S) will result in lower readings. We are not talking about EMF. Look up faraday cage.

Cysquatch,
I guess you give away all of your work for free, don't charge any customers?

Loosanarrow,
I agree with your experiment you cannot say one way or the other. So it was misleading to say for sure that magnet didn't affect the beaver.

Jim,
First it was magic, then elixir, then is wasn't altruism, then snake oil. I call it slander. Even in a passive aggressive way. I guess you just forgot all of those posts.

If you want to use our traps good (you'll be glad you did). I know that when some trappers start using them they will be their trap of choice.

Thanks AirportTrapper! Well said.

Urbancoon and loosanarrow are on target. Noteworthy, not only is the new team in this thread selling a book promoting the idea that magnetism is something of a real and major concern for cage trappers, but conveniently they are also selling a cage trap to go along with the book that solves a problem of their creation that appears at this point to be non existent or is of little consequence, like loosanarrow and others have said. Interesting, the book sellers in a recent post omitted what was at the heart of loosanarrow's post, leaving out what was most important. (just watching a doe and fawn in the front yard, hope they stay out of the garden) loosanarrow clearly stated, with regard to the increased magnetism created from the addition of neodymium magnets to his cage traps, which were recorded on his phone, in his limited testing, "No change that I notice...Still catching critters in them same as before," which flies in the face of what is being advanced as indisputable science. When an animal is faced with a decision to enter a large, an out of place, foreign, metal box, i.e. a cage trap, and does not, I guess you'd have to be an animal mind reader to know if it was stale bait, bait the animal didn't like, the idea of seeing and entering something unnatural or some sort of invisible, odorless, magnetic field that was the primary deterrent. From loosanarrow's brief experiment it looks like the latter was not the issue. Additionally, we have found over the years that most people looking at new products are persuaded most by third parties, independent people who use new products, like the products and share their experiences. Sure, I'm more than a little passionate about anything to do with trapping and happy to share my own experiences with what I have created or how we use our cage traps, but I often say, "don't listen to me, listen to those who are using the products to see what they say," which takes a lot of time to establish.

I listen to and pay attention to less than 5 % of posters on here. Those posters have given me years of experience,and shortened my learning curve. Airport trapper is one I listen to. Tks to them for their contribution.

I agree Kermit. This is not my first choice in sites for picking up new and helpful information. And I don't think we have to worry about Mr. Comstock selling his product. We have 50 or more Comstock double doors and they always seem to be set some place when you need one!

My apologies for not being clear, loosanarrow. I should have included TownsendTraps message where he suggested that the beaver was bothered by the magnet, and therefore buried it. I was just pointing out that the beaver deposited it onto a pile of rocks, which doesn't mean the beaver was bothered by the magnet as the beaver was already creating a pile.

I was not implying that you were suggesting that the beaver was bothered by it.

What I was trying to demonstrate is how bias works: It is easy to see evidence for things where no real evidence exists. You mentioned that the beaver buried the magnet, and someone tries to make it evidence that the beaver was bothered by the magnetism when it could have been something completely different.

Again, apologies for being unclear.

No worries urbancoon. I really have no dog in this fight, I’ve just been testing magnets in a few ways around beaver and other water animals for a few years now for reasons unrelated to trap avoidance, and thought some of my observations might help folks sort this topic out a bit.
I really am surprised by the posts trying to call my observations into question. When I started seeing these magnetic field posts, I thought “huh, that does not fit at all with what I’ve seen on video!”
Guess my observations aren’t good for sales or something. I understand that’s a bummer for some, but it is what it is.

I went into my exploration of magnets hoping to come up with a magnetic device to REPEL animals. I wish magnetic fields would have some observable effect, but I have seen no evidence of any magnets (even some POWERFUL ONES!) affecting any animals behavior.

Then when Kirk said in a previous thread “you are testing magnets, not trapping devices”, I thought “huh, he’s right!” - so I did that by downloading the app he recommended and then adding magnets to cage traps so that app clearly indicated a STRONG increase in magnetic field going through the trap. Folks, take it or leave it, believe it or don’t believe it, I don’t care - but I can’t detect any difference in how the animals are reacting.

Have all of Kirk's traps been constructed to EMF lowering standards? Before your post I was only aware of the trap he's actively referencing on this thread.

I have been reading and not talking. and I have been setting cages every day and taking readings a lot with different traps and different positions. Both my wife and I are hitting the work hard. with raccoons skunks Squirrels and ground hogs, I am not seeing where these animals reject the cage no matter what the reading is. our rejection is trap shy, not trap smart. on trap smart we let the trap sit there or play with them and they will go in at some point..My wife alone has well over a hundred ground hogs in 6 to 7 weeks plus, I don't know how many coon and skunks. Me I am getting a 80 to 85 percent catch rate no matter what the readings. But I will say I may be correcting the rejection by my baiting strategies and trap position/ placement. As stated earlier many trappers may have learned to over come the field rejection with out really knowing they was doing it. My snares for ground hogs have high readings but no rejections. I will be testing the cages and snares this fall in the true field conditions away from buildings and man made structures that would normally have higher readings. Thus the animals are use to the high readings, (Example horses and cattle around electric fences) where the animals out in the fields and forest away from man made or natural materials that will have high readings the animals are not around and may back off.. I am never one to just say it doesn't work or not real till I have exhausted every little possibility to make it work. I can't set foot traps so I can not add anything to that discussion. Jim one real experiment that can be done and done by you is since you are a true blind setter with cages, taking the readings of a un-baited blind set cage both with both doors open and one door open and see what real time results are with catch rates with your traps..

The animals you named are least likely to respond to a magnetic field intensity. Skunks maybe but they are not definitely named in the studies that I’ve seen to be able to see your magnetic field intensity.Do your testing on beaver and otter on land and you’ll find a different results.

Almost all of my traps manufactured after 2014 had a low intensity reading .Especially the double door traps whether they be gillotine or lock bar doors

Traps I actually manufactured in Georgia.

Thanks for taking the time to answer each of my questions. However, generally your responses did not address what each question raised. I’ll clarify my questions, as I’m interested in gleaning from your years of accumulating scientific evidence.
1. Where would you rank magnetic field aversion amongst all the other factors that may impede or encourage a wild animal from entering a non-positive trap set? I gave as examples trap size, odor, bait presentation, trap placement, lure draw, animal intelligence, and animal trapping history. If aversion to the magnetic field is higher than all of these, then I and others are missing out on a huge opportunity to improve our catch rate. If it is last in the ranking, then we probably don’t need to spend much time thinking about it except when that rare individual leaves us scratching our heads. Maybe there is nuance in your answer, such as Species A is much more trap shy than Species B due to its greater sensitivity to magnetic fields. This is where you can speak from all the data you have collected over the years. Your answer didn’t address how magnetic field sensitivity ranks within the other factors, but mainly stated that magnetic fields are one of many variables, and how to lower its effect.
2. How does trap aversion due to magnetic field detection compare between urban and rural environments? I’m glad that your traps do well in both urban and rural environments, and I’ve found that my traps do well in both urban and rural environments. However, my question is focused on animal behavior, and the tendency of most animals to quickly deprioritize negative stimuli. For example, people think leaving a light on at night will scare a raccoon away for good. But what so often happens is the raccoon takes notice of the light, perhaps temporarily adjusts its course, but soon ignores the light and resumes its prior activities. I envision urban wildlife having a similar reaction to increases in magnetic field intensities as they are in an environment that has a lot more metal. My hypothesis is that in rural settings the aversion would be statistically greater, since they encounter fewer spikes in magnetic fields, and a trap would really stand out to them. Pulling from your years of monitoring trap magnetic field readings in both rural and urban settings, I imagine you can speak to how trap aversion differs between these environments.
3. What species perceive magnetic fields at this 50 uT threshold? I’m not sure that you previously listed which wildlife you have empirically confirmed detect magnetic fields, but this seems important for at least two reasons: (1) any species that has no perception of magnetic fields will not avoid traps for this reason, and we do not need to factor this in while setting a trap, and (2) if you wish to validate your hypothesis that some animals avoid traps due to detecting elevated magnetic field intensities, then you’ll want to have a baseline intensity for each species you test the traps on. For example, “Peer-reviewed Journal X tested Species A under controlled conditions and determined they can sense magnetic fields of from 75 uT down to 45 uT, but did not respond to any below.” Maybe this data exists independently, or maybe scientists have never been interested in knowing this information, but it would certainly help validate your claims if it was known what range of intensities each species can detect. For example, if an animal’s perception of magnetic field intensity quickly drops off slightly below 50 uT, then thinking that you need to drop the intensity inside the trap to 25 uT is incorrect. But if their perception extends down to 25 uT, then maybe it does make a difference. You may not know this information, so I’m not trying to beat you up on this one, but it would greatly help either validate or negate your hypothesis that lowering the magnetic field intensity helps reduce trap aversion.

Cheers.

Low magnetic field intensity is very important in rank right up there when you’re dealing with red fox coyotes, beaver, otter, and free roaming dogs. In my testing I got so sick and tired of using the traps that have a high intensity for the testing.I had to just make myself use them. That was cage traps and exposed Body grip traps.
As far as an urban setting comparison I’ll give you this one. I have a fellow that owns four traps like we are making now. He’s a nuisance trapper from Oklahoma. He’s has told me several times with the local nuisance trappers are constantly asking him how he catches the red Fox so easily. He says it’s the traps . I have gotten several locations in the past when I’ve got as many as 10 to 12 beavers over 14 day period of time on land crossovers at one location in one trap.I’m certain that it’s the magnetic field intensity reduction. Sometimes it’s a lot easier to set a trap on land then to get down in the water because of the situation. I’m not saying they won’t avoid sometimes but it’s very few times , Very few if the set is done properly.I doubt if 95% of the trappers out there would even know or notice Avoidance.

If skunks and woodchucks aren't bothered by magnetic fields I'm good to go. That's 98% of what we're hired to catch.

I didn’t say they weren’t bothered they’re less likely to be bothered. A high intensity field will disrupt the molecules around the trap causing the trap to emit more of an odor.
The animal can notice the trap because of that disruption.

In the south we have a lot of fire ants. A high intensity field from a trap will create or Cause the fire ants to produce a pheromone that pheromone causes more ants to come to the trap.That in itself is a real problem

You know all of this reminds me of a study done by a college student in the Adirondacks on Syracuse University property Huntington Preserve on beaver some time back. I rode along. He was trying to determine how beaver responded to castor, which beaver were attracted to what castor. I could have provided the answer before he began, but I just watched. He wanted to know if both large and small male and female beaver responded to male or female castor from both large and small beaver. I donated some castor to the cause. He ran around catching beaver for some time. I caught up with him when it was over. As a lay trapper, not a scientist, it seemed obvious to me that it really made no difference, but I remained silent. In the end he said all castor attracted all beaver, which was exactly what I could have told him before he began.

This discussion is on a parallel. I don't have fire ants and most of the country does not either. I trap a bunch of woodchucks among other things every year. A blanket statement about magnetism is made across the board concerning all animals from a guy who has no woodchucks in his area and does not trap them and yet attempts to tell those of us who have no issues trapping them that somehow he knows that we do have problems. I am not missing chucks, not happening. I remember using our double door traps at one location where they had 5 chucks. Set 6 traps I believe. Had all 5 next morning in hours. This year Noble Armstrong beat my record, set 7 of our traps and had all 7 chucks in hours. I had a chuck job in a horse barn where they had been for more than a year. The owner had done the bait and wait thing the previous year. Caught one young chuck in an entire summer. I walked into the barn, saw a chuck, then set the hole. Walked out back, saw chuck number 2, set that hole. Came back in, already had #1 in 10 minutes. Was looking to set more traps when trap #2 went off, had that one, 2 in 15 minutes. Set 4 more around the edge inside the barn. Got the call 4 hours later, 4 more. Finished the job in 6 hours, 6 chucks. We have educated so many ADC trapper as to the effectiveness of double door cages with nose cones at den sites like you would a conibear. Having guys who had dreaded trapping chucks now say "they call me the woodchuck King," is rewarding on all levels.

Have no idea why anyone would want to trap beaver on land with a conibear or cage as there is always a way in the water with conibears and cages. I found that beaver can swim. After 55 years in the water with conibears my testing indicated that they worked, so I duplicated that with cages 10 years ago, that worked too. I'm not stubborn enough to keep doing something over and over again that does not work to make a point. We find out new things from those in the field doing it on a daily basis. I was on the phone just yesterday with a Louisiana trapper who got 2 of our beaver traps a few years ago to appease do gooders, as a show that they were doing something to live trap beaver, with no expectations, to just set the traps and say "see, we tried." Funny thing happened, they worked, and worked far better than expected and now they use these cages as a first choice, not because they have to but because they worked that well. One of their guys was a foothold man, but he decided to make a dam break, for the fun of it setting 3 of our beaver swim through traps side by side. Next day, 3 for 3. After delving into it deeper I found that catching multiples for these guys was not rare but common, even 3 for 3's. I have done it with castor 3 for 3 and also in streams where I "cover the water." Point being, if there was ever a problem with what I and hundreds of others have been doing for years using thousands of our cage traps, I can assure you we would not continue with failures. I have stacks of testimonials attesting to what we and others are experiencing. Since conibears are but 10 inches high, cage traps for beaver do not have to be tall. A 12 inch trap is plenty high. If there were any magnetic interferences as suggested by the sales team, which I doubt, they are of such an insignificant level as to be meaningless.

After 10 years at this cage thing I guess I could go on indefinitely with examples of success minus the implied failures suggested by others that just aren't there. The list is endless. What it comes down to is all this talk is just that, talk to promote sales. I will dare to say "the emperor has no clothes."

Kirk, are saying that fire ant respond to this magnetic field for box traps or for all traps?

It’s a high intensity field. Like in our well box at the well. They also get our air-conditioning unit electric box. Anything that projects as a field of intensity will cause ants to release the pheromone.

Your building a tall or leaning tower Jim ,When people find out it’s going to come crashing down.

Kirk, with all due respect, you did not answer my question. Do fire ants respond (it sounds like your saying they get drawn towards traps) to box traps or all traps that emit this field that you are talking about?

If the intensity is there for the strength of the field is there it could be foothold or DP traps Or something else That projects the field.

I think they’re also reacting to the molecular brake down caused by the positive ions on the bait in the trap.

How does EMT differ from EMF?
Feqanciy submitted from city environment is what ADC trappers are dealing with

One of my issues here is what I will call “sloppy science” and poorly understood fundamentals.
Again as I stated in another earlier thread - a magnet has no electromagnetic field, and EMF is not created by a stationary magnet. They are not even measured the same - EMF is measured in units of Newtons per Couloumb (or Volts per Meter depending on the unit system being used), magnetic field produced by magnetic objects (like a regular old magnet or piece of magnetized steel) is measured in Gauss or Teslas. And EMF can be affected (attenuated, reflected, etc) by all kinds of stuff, while a magnetic field from a magnetized object is typically affected ONLY by certain metals. Ions, which Kirk mentions in an earlier thread are yet another completely different phenomenon. THESE THINGS ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE! Although they can affect each other in certain specific ways. All of this is well understood science and it has been so twisted and convoluted in these discussions (mostly by Kirk as I read back through) that I just can’t make sense of it in light of my understanding of physics. A magnet HAS NO PROJECTED FIELD! A magnet does not make ions. A magnet does not repel or attract ions, although MOVING ions can be deflected by very powerful magnets. So we are dealing with very specialized physics here, and it is therefore easy to just talk about it incorrectly and very few people will even know. Clearly Kirk is using these things interchangeably or does not understand the differences, which is concerning to me. A magnet has a magnetic field, measured in Gauss or Teslas (just different systems like metric vs standard American measures), and it does not go very far (typically a few feet at most) while EMF can project long distance and be reflected.

Ants do indeed react to ELECTRICAL devices. They DO NOT react to magnetic objects. I doubt anyone is electrifying traps, so that means nothing to us.

My other issue as has been pointed out in this thread, is that I have not seen results of a repeatable experimental process with controls. Good solid scientific experiments must be repeatable, so that anyone doing the procedure gets the same results. Since I did not have a clearly outlined procedure, I made my own by just making my traps very magnetic with a greatly increased magnetic field as measured by my iPhone Tesla app (Kirk’s suggested method of measuring). I did not find any difference in how animals reacted to them. Now it’s worth noting that I was comparing very high magnetic field traps to traps that I have been using for years with whatever magnetic field they have had, that is to say they are not REDUCED field necessarily - they are just whatever they have been before, compared to greatly increased magnetic field. If I was having trouble catching critters in them, I guess it would concern me more, but they were catching fine for years, and they caught fine with greatly increased magnetic field too.

So in summary, I find the loose use of terminology confusing and concerning, and results of my own experiments are not supporting what Kirk and Townsend are saying. And as yet I see no clearly defined experimental procedure to replicate.

Loosanarrow I think you just dropped the mic and put this to rest. I know one thing this is the first I've heard of the magnetic issue with traps. I've never had a problem catching the animals I've got over my lifetime in almost 50 years of fur trapping an 27 years in control work. Magnets I love them for hanging stuff on my fridge. And as I said before Jim you've been nothing but professional in this whole thread

I have mentioned over and over we are not talking about EMF. We have not claimed anything about EMF except that is not what we are talking about. That has been mentioned by others, Vinke an EMT comes to your house when you call the ambulance, EMF is electromagnetic fields caused by electrical current that creates a magnetic field. Magnets do have a projected magnetic field (not electrical but magnetic). How do you guys think a compass works (and it's not an app). So the ONLY magnet we are talking about is the EARTH! Which very much so has a projected magnetic field. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field. You can go to the intensity map to see what it normally is in your neck of the woods. It has a direction as well. And it CAN be redirected or mitigated which is why you are able to measure different intensity reading in your traps. The Earth is largely protected from the solar wind, a stream of energetic charged particles emanating from the sun, by its magnetic field, which deflects most of the charged particles.

Here is a study about altered magnetic fields affecting ants.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225507

Magnetic can repel ions and is the basis for much of magnetic therapy.

Just because you make your traps magnetic doesn't prove or disprove anything as I am guessing your experiment isn't very controlled.

I'm sure that confusion has also been added to by the most professional Jim Comstock and his band, but there can be no denying there is a magnetic field all over the earth, animals can sense it, certain traps can amply or reduce, trappers have been successful catching animals since the dawn of time and continually improving, our traps which are very successful catching animals are in the long line advancements in the trapping industry.