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.

So the bottom line on this Magnetic field thing Is Townsend traps Is trying to sell traps and Kirk D Is trying to sell books.

Ok I will use your term. How in natural EMF diffentent from the EMF created from anything from cell towers to the furnace in your house.
And everything involved that produces EMF.
Some neibhhoods have Ham radio operators. ( mainly higher Fequacy)
Some have 11 meter guys pushing 1000 watts over a CB band.
Now 5g
How does this trap in question mitigate this issue?

The way we do it is by density or reduced by redirection of admitting flow
Encapsulation
But I must say that people are crazy because even a outlet in your home emits EMF. These are mitigated using higher density metal cover no plastic

If I understand all that I think I've learned in this thread, I think we can expect the field coming off the 5g, CB, and ham antennas will keep the beavers from climbing them.

We may see woodchucks and skunks climbing them though.

Because a Woodchuck could? lol

What part of a Helmholtz coil do you not understand? Here is a technical description:
A Helmholtz pair consists of two identical circular magnetic coils that are placed symmetrically along a common axis, one on each side of the experimental area, and separated by a distance “h” equal to the radius “R”
of the coil. Each coil carries an equal electric current in the same direction.
Again, no one that I know of is electrifying traps. Well maybe hog enclosures.
And no, magnetic fields from magnets or magnetized metals are NOT projected. The field produced by a magnet exists between the poles of the magnet in a clearly defined localized space. The earth does not project its magnetic field into space, it can be visualized as a big magnet, and the magnetic field exists between the poles just like a magnet you hold in your hand, that is not projected into space, it loops between the poles. The solar wind greatly stretches it on one side and compressed it on the other side. But it is not projected, it is “swept” by an outside force (the sun).
Again, I see sloppy science.

Beav you nailed it. All About buy my stuff.

Would like to steer this back to your statement that animals can sense a disrupted magnetic field. I’ve heard a lot of anecdotal evidence about this, but nothing empirical about what uT ranges individual species can detect. Without this evidence as a base line, any observations of trap avoidance can be attributed to any number of negative stimuli, or even just the erratic nature of wildlife. Let’s help simplify this:

Townsend and/or Kirk de (please fill in any empirically derived data, or write “unknown” if applicable) the ranges of magnetic field intensities that the following wildlife can perceive:

Raccoon: xx uT to xx uT
Opossum: xx uT to xx uT
Groundhog: xx uT to xx uT
Beaver: xx uT to xx uT
Skunk: xx uT to xx uT
Red fox: xx uT to xx uT
Coyote: xx uT to xx uT

As a bonus, links to peer reviewed literature would be helpful. If you have derived your own data, I’m content to just know that you have it. We can talk about your methodology at a later point. Again, for those of us interested in hearing your persuasion that some wildlife avoid traps due to their detection of irregular magnetic field intensities as they approach a trap, we need to know that they actually perceive magnetic field intensities along this range.

Sorry magnets are smoke and mirrors
Density is the only way to mitigate EMF

I guess I'm just an old school trapper, albeit reasonably successful at that, even while not knowing about emf for my entire lifetime. In the future I guess I should take a few courses on physics to get started and then a whole lot more science courses on a lot of other stuff to be brought up to speed on what appears to have no major impact on trapping in the first place. It seems that I don't have to go looking for things, but always stumble upon all sorts of stuff. With the small world it is, I just happened to speak with a fellow yesterday who did in fact read "the book". Asked him one simple question, "what was your take away, what did you glean from your reading,?" as perhaps, having not bought the book, I might have missed something "important." There was a little hesitation, then "well, I'm not really sure," which spoke volumes. From there he went on to say there was nothing clearly defined for him to follow. Then he mentioned something about the moon and we went back to what we had been talking about. There's enough to worry about on this planet.

I had been referencing cage traps in previous posts with regards to emf, but did not mention footholds, also mentioned above. We always had great results with footholds too, never emf problems in eight years in California in the 80's. We used dirt hole sets to begin with, which got hooked now and then, happens with bait and lure sometimes. Focused on the ground, the lure combo with the traps seemed to tip off the cats at times, nothing unusual. As soon as we went to blind sets it was game on, missing ended entirely. Some recommended using 2 or 3 traps at blind sets, but we found that when narrowed properly, one trap saved time and did the job. The most memorable catch was the three toed coyote that had escaped a government trappers 3N the year before. I set but a handful of blind sets for cats that week, picked up that coyote and a half dozen cats. Bottom line, good sets connect.

Kirk and Townsend, I’m still interested in discussing the empirical evidence. I’m curious about your empirical backing. I’ll cut/paste my last two posts within this thread:

<<<Post 1>>>
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.

<<<Post 2>>>
Townsend and/or Kirk de (please fill in any empirically derived data, or write “unknown” if applicable) the ranges of magnetic field intensities that the following wildlife can perceive:

Raccoon: xx uT to xx uT
Opossum: xx uT to xx uT
Groundhog: xx uT to xx uT
Beaver: xx uT to xx uT
Skunk: xx uT to xx uT
Red fox: xx uT to xx uT
Coyote: xx uT to xx uT

As a bonus, links to peer reviewed literature would be helpful. If you have derived your own data, I’m content to just know that you have it. We can talk about your methodology at a later point. Again, for those of us interested in hearing your persuasion that some wildlife avoid traps due to their detection of irregular magnetic field intensities as they approach a trap, we need to know that they actually perceive magnetic field intensities along this range.

what results would there be using a demagnetizer on the traps showing higher emf?

I do have one more tidbit to add to this discussion.

Ferromagnetic metals (basically metals that can become magnetized) can be easily magnetized or stripped of magnetism (known as “degaussing”).

To magnetize: put them in or pass them through a magnetic field. This can be an electromagnet or a permanent magnet (like regular old hand held magnets). The advantage of using an electromagnet is that it can be built to a size that will magnetize large objects more easily.
To demagnetize:
1. Heat the metal past it’s Curie point - this temperature varies with different metals. For steel it is around 1300 degrees F. This method is not practical with galvanized coatings or springs for obvious reasons.
2. Use a device called a deguasser. An electric deguasser uses an alternating current electromagnet that reverses polarity rapidly causing the metals magnetic dipoles to be randomized. A deguasser can also be a simple magnet that is oriented to pass the metal through both sides of polarity. Navy ships are demagnetized in a huge deguasser that is a building with huge specialized electromagnets that demagnetize the whole ship to make magnetism sensing mines less effective. This is old technology from WW-II. Nothing new here. An electric deguasser can be purchased or made at home in a home-level shop - my uncle built one for his television repair business back in the 1970’s - the old tube TV’s could get a magnetic “spot” on the screen, and the deguasser fixed that. A big enough disk magnet can also be used just by passing the metal across it “sideways” (see link below). No electricity needed if the magnet is powerful enough or passed over every part of the metal.

So for any metal that can be magnetized, one can control the level of magnetism from nearly zero, to maximum for that metal. SO, one could have traps of identical manufacturing materials and design, half of them magnetized and half of them not magnetized. One could also have traps of very different materials and design that have very similar magnetic readings. How the trap is made, or who makes the trap, or whether it is a snare, body grip, foothold, or cage makes no difference - if they are all made of steel, the magnetic intensity can be changed to suit you. Magnets are easy to find, they will magnetize your metal; deguassers are available and can be built at home. You can go from maximum magnetization to least magnetic and back again all you want.

If the magnetic reading of a smart phone app passing through or over a trapping device actually affects the effectiveness of that device (which my test observations do NOT support), don’t despair, it a very controllable and changeable property of metals, and you can easily find or build a deguasser to remove magnetism if it makes you feel better. It is not a secret way to put traps together, it is a property of certain metals and is controllable.

Here is a link to a video of using a disk magnet to both magnetize and demagnetize a screwdriver. Most of you guys have phones that can support a magnetometer app and magnets laying around, let the testing begin!

https://youtu.be/_U5GM6heYA4

So, I figure ill throw this out there.

We have an account where there are lots of children, almost like a day care. They have a mouse problem. As there are little fingers all about, regular snap traps aren't a good idea and leave the possibility of lots of drama.

We set out electronic mouse traps and tin cats in areas that were food prep or where the kids were. Regular snaps in locked custodial closets, etc. We picked up mice in the closets quickly and solved that part of the problem. They were still seeing mice in the rooms with kids.. The electronic traps, which we were not having trouble with at other locations weren't catching anything. We chose electronic traps as they shut off when opened. We changed the bait. Still nothing.

They planned to shut down for a few days at Thanksgiving. We loaded them up with regular old wooden snap traps and caught 5 mice. Same baits as in the electronic traps. Same relative locations. Both were set below wall length radiators that ran down the rooms. 9ne of the mice was caught in a fully metal tin cat. We had never caught a mouse in a tin cat at this location.

Only differences is there wasn't any competing food sources from the kids dropping food and there wasn't any sort of magnetic field or a very little one with the wood trap. The tin cat catch might be due to the mice having to search harder for food.

Not scientific ananalysis and I'm not making any claims. We've had great luck with the electronic traps in the past and will continue to use them. I just found it interesting.

Is it really magnetized or static electricity?

Coming late to the party, as a retired engineer and product designer I am interested in such things; but I didn't see any answers to Mr Taylor's very valid questions especially post #2. Are there answers?

And now some of mine ... it was stated the the average uT is around 50. Also the uT is higher along structures, which we all can agree with. Now I know from my experience that animals tend to travel along the edges of buildings, not always, but most times whether for concealment or food source or whatever the reason. But yet these are areas which we all can agree have higher than average uT. So I am confused, if uT mitigation is important in traps; why is it that animals regularly uses areas of higher uT saturations to travel within? Second, if animals are being drawn to higher uT areas aren't we as trappers hurting ourselves by attempting to reduce the amount of uT developed by the structure of the trap?

Kirk de your theories are interesting, I would love to read your book sometime for its scientific content. If you would be willing to send me a copy for review I would be more than willing to cover the cost of shipping.

Mr Townsend if you would, can you specifically describe what design features mitigate the level of uT in the traps you manufacture? Or provide the specific patents to review to gleen the answer to my question . Is it the type/grade of steel, specific design features, etc. As I'll be looking at the purchase of several cage traps in the near future I would like to gather as much information as possible. Thank you gentlemen for your replies!

In my studies I have found that animals are attracted to magnetic fields-especially those given off by snares and bodygrips.
It lines up their heads /bodys on approach with the snare or bodygrip and makes them want to stick their heads thru.