In the other Black Widow stand thread, some people are saying that you want the beaver to kinda cross between the jaws, not over them. What’s the reasons for this?
So far I haven’t used stands, just plunked the trap down in the water with no thought about how the trap was oriented. So far I’m using MB750s so there’s no loose jaw.

Since they have a big back foot they can hit the pan while the foot is still on the jaw. When the trap fires the foot can be thrown out of it

That makes sense.

The big back foot can be thrown from the trap no matter how it is oriented at the set, but it is less likely to occur if trap is positioned with the levers pointed the same way the beaver is likely to approach. The trap then is able to clamp that long foot from the side (instead of having to flip over and grab across the top of the foot)....making a higher catch probable. Hope this makes sense...

Yep. Thanks. In the other thread it was hard to picture what’s they were saying.
If it can give you a slight advantage and it’s so simple, crazy not to.

That back foot is longer than wide and a better fit between the jaws. More likely to grab above the ankle if positioned so they come in between the jaws.

Listen to the information you receive here. I was having problems and setting the trap so the beaver steps over the jaw on approach, not good. This year I moved my trap so they would step between and that info was the best I received. No empty traps at the bottom of my drowners this year.

More back toe catches when setting the trap so the beaver has to step over the jaw.
A big beaver can pull hard and the trap jaws can slip down on the back foot,leaving a toe in your trap.
Back in the day when we trapped our beaver in DLS #4 victors you had to set so they would step between the jaws to consistenty hold beaver by the back foot.
A lot of old timers liked traps with teeth for beaver for this reason.It prevented the trap from slipping down the back foot when they stepped over the jaws.

Remember a good size beaver puts an 8” long rear pad flat on the ground. This makes all but a really big foothold - bigger than is reasonable and safe to use in most cases - less than 100%. As all the others have said, between jaws not over is better and the only way to properly set it up, but still not perfect.

What makes footholds so very valuable is that they can be completely concealed underwater. You can lose a beaver in a foothold twice, two nights in a row, and catch it the third night in another foothold - if it doesn’t leave the area completely after the second time, ha! Trapping equipment is like chess pieces, each has different advantages and disadvantages, and once you have all the pieces on the board, your skill with them is what makes the game.

And you want to target that back foot. It's a much sturdier handle to hold if you can get what I mean. Front are doable but you had best get them incapacitated as quick as possible if you do.

May have another use for the Bridger #9s. Padded jaws but they’re a beast. I tried using 750 offsets to get the best bang for the buck (wolf in winter & beaver in spring/fall, but they were getting away, the beaver 750 did the trick.

I doubt the offset makes a huge difference on how many beaver you hold. Most toenail holds will get away even with standard jaws. Not saying you won’t see any difference, but not much, and maybe not noticeable. I don’t use offsets for beaver and I don’t recommend it, but I still doubt it make a very significant difference. Now bigger traps, that will make a difference. But use tons of caution with them, and like warrior says target back feet only. I target back feet both because the back foot is tougher and because it will avoid non targets like raccoons and geese.

Exactly what I learned when I started trapping, and I still use those same traps.

Now this I don't agree with. Yes back feet are sturdier, but I would say back feet are doable, but I prefer to target the front if possible. They can pull much harder with a back foot catch, which means you need a better catch on a much larger, slick, tapered foot. If you are using a weight at the end of your drowner you need a heavier weight also, and regardless of how you are anchoring the deep end of your drowner, you need a lot deeper water to drown a beaver by the back foot.

Don't get me wrong, I'll set for the back foot if that is what the situation dictates, sometimes you don't have a good place to bed a trap for a front foot and as long as there is plenty of water I won't hesitate to set for a possible back foot catch, but in an ideal situation I will always set for the front foot.
Sometimes I claim the local beaver are lazy, that they don't want to go to the effort to build big enough dams. A lot of these little mountain streams I trap there simply isn't enough water to reliably drown a back foot catch.

Targeting beaver back feet will also help avoid otter too.

Now there is something I never thought of! That could be useful where we have a quota system here for otter. Guess you learn something new every day.

The number of tripods and one bipod that I have caught is why I got away from targeting front feet. That and the couple very near to catch and release I walked up on.

Hate it as front feet are often easier to target but I want the whole critter when I get there.

I gotta agree with ya there warrior

X3

Anyone ever catch a beaver missing a rear foot above the toes? I haven’t. But I have caught several tripods. Maybe they can’t survive a missing back foot, or it just hasn’t happened to me yet. I am fairly convinced it is rare. It must happen because I do know someone who had one happen, but I have asked several experienced beaver guys, and none have caught one that survived it, and only one has had it happen and only once in many many beaver.
But the biggest reason I target back feet is that it avoids non targets. In my world, non targets can be a very bad scene.