I have read Kirk's book. I believe he has some very valid points. It has to do with EMF, Electromagnetic fields put off by metal. There are a lot of variables to consider though. The further north you go and the dryer the soil it's not going to transmit as much. Also, he found that better qualities of metal didn't put off a high field reading. So many may have not experienced many problems depending on where they live, soil conditions and the brand of trap, they used. He even stated it's a learned behavior not something they are born with. So, it's the older adult animals that would more than likely be the culprits.
I do believe animals can detect it and that may be the case as why some digging occurs with a trap bedded in front of a bait/lure test.
SPC, one of the things that makes the magnetic field theory hard to buy into for me is the extensive list of variables that can and do illicit the same exact response.
I don’t see how this theory could be singled out as the primary suspect amongst a lineup of known repeat offenders.
Then you have a host of conductive minerals called "Hot" rocks that will trip a metal detector just like a steel trap would.
If a coyote can indeed notice these magnetic fields, how could he isolate a handful of steel traps amongst thousands of acres of conductive mineral rocks ?
Now I understand there are places void of these conductive minerals as well. Maybe that is the caveat. It is certainly not the case here,
The area I trap is very rich in iron deposits. You cannot make a single sweep with the metal detector coil without it going off in most cases.
Maybe that along with dry conditions is why I don’t have any trouble.
Come to think of it I always thought the old theory that a coyote can detect the oxidation of the trap with his nose could be plausible.
Either way they are very interesting subjects that warrant more study.