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.