Government Trappers

Are any of you guys government trappers? If so, where can I find more information on it? (The job requirements, salary, etc, etc, etc.) Googled it and found nothing!

I'd bet today's "gubmint trappers" are college educated.

Probably need 4 years of college for a $ 35-40,000.00 a year job

Google USDA Wildlife Services. At the bottom of the page is a map, click your state and it shows contact info.

Yep. Some states start under 30

The real money is in the private sector. Even this high school drop out can do it.

USA Jobs is the Federal jobs website. You can look by department and search that way. They’re not listed as trappers it’s listed as program manager-wildlife under the US Dept of Agriculture if I remember correctly. Yes, college in the field of wildlife management is a requirement, again if I remember correctly. 35-38k is an average salary. Last one I saw posted was out in Arizona somewhere but it closed a couple weeks ago.

Also make sure you check eligibility requirements, which are different than qualifications. Many of those jobs are not open to the public. Sometimes you have to already be in the federal system and transfer, or a veteran, or have prior volunteer experience with a federal agency in order to be eligible.

Montana 25k last time I was contacted

Only one I ever met worked for Fish and Wildlife on a refuge. Chatted with him about 15 minutes one day about red wolves and coyotes in Eastern NC. Young guy. Probably a biologist.

The department of agriculture has a team of trappers as well.

I think APHIS is what people call the Federal trappers. I don't ever see them around. I'm not sure who/what determines when they are called in.

AuthorTrapper,

Let's chat soon.

Blessings!
Mark

Yes, government ADC work shifted from the USFWS to APHIS during the Reagan Administration.

Something to think about: trapping is a blast until you HAVE to do it. Then it stops being fun.Just understanding trapping isn’t enough In today’s world. The federal government gives precedent to those with experience and a degree. Sure, there are exceptions, but the possibility of being passed over for a job, because someone with less trapping experience but a masters degree in wildlife manage is a real possibility.

They stole my contract

When they offered me a job, we sat down and crunched the numbers and figured I was making 2x the money even after expenses, 401k, insurance, etc so declined.
However it is a good gig for retired game wardens it turns out.

Newt is correct, they have been known to get contracts under suspicious circumstances.

I went to church with our APHIS trapper and he actually sent me lots of private landowner business since he stayed covered up with DOT biz.

They have to cover many counties so often “longline “ daily.

Not me. I was usually home by 3 or even noon sometime.

John could you briefly cover some of the benefits...truck traps health care that they offered?

USDA.com
Texas A&M job board

Alot of that going on. They sure don't like competition either.... and always leave some for seed it seems. I'm tired of cleaning up the last one or two beaver after they leave.

Among many other criminal and fraudulent acts.

Kirk DeKalb has a good one he could tell you about.

Mark Dotson formerly of AAllAnimal Control has another one.

I have a few, as well.

Anyone who has trapped for a living for any length of time will not only lose work to WS but will discover they've been unfairly treated by their own government.

Nevada has some state trappers but it sure doesn't pay much

I could tell you a few stories about WS.

Yes sir!

Mike they supply all gear including truck with trailer and 4 wheeler.
Since the APHIS state purchaser and I met at convention and trapper ed class he had me build a dozen drowning rods with 2 t-stakes per rod for all 20 Fed trappers in NC.

Their health care was only $50 less than what I had from the local independent insurance guy in town.

I started shopping in other states, since leaving NC was what we really wanted and found the salaries varied greatly too.

Thanks John...the salaries really caught my eye. Alot of hard word for 15 bucks an hour....you’d think health care dentist and eyes would be a BETTER part of the package?

Are you still doing fox removal on the north slope in Alaska, Beav?

The son In law and the boys went for a drive up to Dead Horse the other day saw at lest 20 fox along the way. Some silvers and some cross fox but most were of the red fox color.

Be a long way to kill fox. LOL

I know a WS trapper that his total beaver catch for the year was 75. You call that hard work LOL

If you can hit 75 and then take the rest of the year off sign me.

I know a WS trapper that his total beaver catch for the year was 75. You call that hard work LOL

Must not have alot of beaver problems, either not alot to start with OR he's kept them beat back to the
point there isn't many in the location's he has to manage anymore.

Pretty sure whoever it is/was does ALOT of other work beside just beaver issue's.


But don't let me ruin your story.

Nothing like a bunch of trappers complaining on the internet about other trappers!

Here we go

Wildlife Services USDA/APHIS (Government) trappers are in some cases, the only form of predator control a lot of western ranchers have against predators. I've always worked private or county predator programs, but I've worked with, and bordered with plenty of good, hard working guys over the years. They work for low pay, and take care of a lot of producers usually. I don't know much about eastern beaver work, but I DO know something about coyotes. There are some very gifted WS Trappers out there, I assure you.

Not bashing anyone just curious about their pay and benefits. Hope you guys have a good day.

Our local guy avg 1-3/day (almost as much as me) on top of goose removal and shooting deer off airport runways. I know he wasn’t a slouch.

Plus the amount of forms and reports he had to do , took another hr once home.

I was one for 28 years, 14 years as a trapper and 14 years as gunner out of a super cub. Trapping wages in Texas are Terrible,I think starting wages are around 25k a year. The gunning position I had was much better as it is a federal job.

I just started back with wildlife services this year. Im glad to be back. Pay sucks. But we live simple. All you need here in texas is a high school diploma. Author trapper if you need any help hollar at me

Warning! This post is going to be lengthy so if you don't want to read about the pros and cons of being a state and Federal trapper, skip over this post.

Government and state trapper jobs are not what they once were in many states. These jobs are under constant pressure both internally and externally by those with limited to no actual predator control experience to change the manner in which predator control is conducted. Unfortunately, many of these managers wrongly believe they have a better understanding of these issues than the guys/gals in the field with experience simply because they have a degree in wildlife management. The history of the SD Animal Damage Control program has proven the damage that inexperienced management can cause to what once was considered a highly efficient and cost effective program.

I would look long and hard at the entire program and the management structure that guides it before you make any hard fast employment decisions. Employee turnover in recent years, in contrast to previous years under better management, is proof positive that these jobs are not what they once were.

Here is a little of what I have seen in 25 years of being a state trapper in SD and 4 years as a county trapper in WY. For the record, I started trapping fox in 1972, coyotes shortly after that, and became a SD state trapper in 1986.

What is my motive you may ask? First to inform potential employees what they might be facing regarding state and federal predator control jobs and to state the facts of what happens to a predator control program when it is mismanaged by the inexperienced. I understand that this is political in nature but I believe it is important for trappers considering these jobs to understand what they might be getting into. I will choose my words carefully and refrain from any personal attacks on individuals (attacking the message and the actions taken and not the messenger) so I ask for a degree of levity as there is a lot of research that went into gathering this information.

First let me start out by stating that I was forced to resign from SD in 2011 for voicing public opposition to a plan by the GFP Administration to reprioritize the ADC program away from predator and nuisance animal control towards other Department duties that the Administration deemed more important. It is also important to point out the decision to reprioritize the duties of the predator control program in 2009 was contrary to state statutes mandating predator control services. The recent actions by our current Governor to try to correct this problem is proof of the damage caused by an inexperienced GFP Administration and regional management structure who placed their own personal agendas ahead of state mandated responsibilities. Absent in all of this is specific goals and objectives for the program driven by the informed consent of the livestock producers and citizens of this state.

Now before you accuse me of "sour grapes" or being a "disgruntled former employee" (those who can't debate discredit) which has been stated by those defending an inadequate predator control program, I will present the facts and the sources for that information to prove what happens to a predator control program when the management falls into the wrong hands. I absolutely welcome any fact checks and questions to the contrary in regards to what I am about to present. You can make up your own minds whether this is "sour grapes" or a genuine concern for the livestock producers and the need for improvement in providing quality predator control service.

Let's start with a little history so you know how the program has changed over the years. When I started out we had 17 to 18 full time "state trappers" in the state with a state director and two field supervisors. Years later it was decided to place the predator control program under the Regional structure (4 Regions in the state) due to funding issues at the time. This placed the management of the predator and nuisance animal control program in the hands of those with no predator control experience and different priorities. To assist with the budget situation, we were given a directive to work 15% non ADC duties (other department duties) which was not a problem for most of us as long as predator control remained a priority. I was part of the decision to Regionalize the program but not without insisting on a person at the top with predator control experience with the authority to guide the entire process. We all knew the potential problem that could occur if the management of the predator control program fell into the wrong inexperienced hands and that is just what happened. This state director position at the helm never happened and we watched as the bricks of the program continued to crumble and fall from that point on based on reprioritization of duties.

In 2009, a new GFP Administration took this a step further when they decided to merge the predator control program with the Wildlife Damage Management Program, which covered deer, elk, goose, and turkey depredation, into an all encompassing Wildlife Damage Management Program. They also reduced predator control services statewide by 32%. There was not a public or livestock producer input process into this decision. The GFP administration made the decision and they started changing their stories to justify it ("it's about funding", "it's not about funding it's about reprioritization" (when livestock producers came up with ideas to improve funding), "this decision was justified based on a reduction in complaints"). Typical of their deceptive antics, they just kept throwing crap against the wall to see what would stick. It has now been discovered that this was a cleverly disguised effort by that GFP Administration to phase the predator and nuisance animal control side of the program out while expanding the wildlife damage side of the program. Reprioritization was the truthful justification.

During the restructuring of the ADC program in 2009, employees were basically forced to choose between providing quality predator and nuisance animal control service or supporting a system that was guaranteed to provide poor quality service. Most tried to keep their disgust to themselves and "ride for the brand" while being placed in the position of watching the quality of service they could provide erode away. I chose to voice public opposition and rally support against their decision and it cost me my job. Despite the price I paid, I wouldn't do anything any different today. You either believe in what you are doing or you don't. I knew I couldn't work for a management structure that was clueless in running an effective predator control program.

Currently, there is 28 Wildlife Damage Specialist positions in the state being supervised by a bloated management structure consisting of 17 positions of management above these 28 WDMs positions. Within this management structure, only 1 person has adequate predator and nuisance animal control field experience. Every problem begins and ends with this management structure which desperately needs to be changed. Who would have thought that experience would carry such little value?

In fairness, I also have to state that it was not the fault of some of these managers that their jobs entailed management of a program they had no experience in. This was due to decisions that were made at the Administrative level of GFP. There is lots of good men and women that occupy these management positions they just don't have the experience they need in predator control to fully understand those issues.

So what is the proof of mismanagement you ask?

In 2009, in Region 1, which is basically the western 1/3 of SD, during the 32% reduction in predator control services they created 4 trapper districts where there were 7 trapper districts historically. This area included the counties of Butte, Harding, Meade, and Perkins Counties which were the historic sheep producing counties in western SD. Due to the coyote population explosion and corresponding livestock losses that occurred, within 3 years they had to reinstate 8 trapper districts but by then the damage was already done. Coyote populations had increased 400% in these counties between 2009 and 2015 (proven by WS aerial hunting records) and livestock losses increased accordingly (according to USDA statistics and landowner contacts). These 4 counties lost 30% of their sheep production in years of high lamb and wool prices (according to county livestock statistics) primarily due to this 400% increase in coyote population levels.

As an example, in Harding County, for 30 years coyote populations were kept below .5 coyotes killed per hour of aerial hunting. Between 2009 and 2015, coyote populations had reached the point of saturation where the same plane was now killing over 5 coyotes per hour. That constitutes a 1000% increase in coyote population levels due to mismanagement. As further proof, calf kills which were unheard of in Harding County are now a result of this excessive coyote population. Sheep numbers declined accordingly as one sheep producer claimed "predator control in Harding County is the best it's been in years". One can only conclude that this attitude was driven by the self serving idea that the less sheep producers there were in the county, the more service would be available for the ones that remained. Meanwhile the reduction in sheep contributed to a loss of predator control revenue for the local predator control district.

It is important to point out that the success of a predator control program is based on reducing coyote populations in historic problem areas to the point where lamb losses per producer are below 5%. This requires timely and seasonal removal of coyote pairs and dens in historic problem areas and keeping coyote populations at a point where, even with exceptional ground crews, the plane is averaging less than a coyote per hour.

Because of the effective predator control program we had in Southern Campbell County WY, we kept lamb losses below 2.6% on 29,000 mostly range lambing sheep based on a 3 year survey of the producers themselves. We took over 60% of our coyotes on the ground and kept the coyote population near an average of 1 coyote killed per hour of aerial hunting with an exceptionally talented aerial hunting pilot. This county program was run by a predator board that was "all in" on livestock protection by killing coyotes. Best years of my life.

There will always be cutthroat critics that say "gee how did the coyote population get so out of control" if you kill a lot of coyotes or "is that all you killed" if you keep their populations low enough. The only measure of success you have that matters is livestock numbers and low coyote populations. Show me a man that takes lots of coyote dens and I will show you a man that didn't OR COULDN'T (due to workload and resources available) kill enough bred females.

The coyote population and corresponding livestock loss situation would have gotten far worse than it did in SD if not for the stellar aerial hunting program provided by Wildlife Services, which was not under GFP mismanagement. Despite their excellent service and efficiency, Wildlife Services simply had too much ground to cover with a single plane at the time. Since then they hired another full time pilot and had numerous contracts with private pilots but again, the damage was already done with a dramatic increase in coyote numbers and a decrease of ground efforts.

According to USDA statistics (survey conducted every 5 years) , calf losses in the state were kept below 2600 head for 20 years. Between 2010 and 2015, calf losses in the state increased 110% to 5770 calves killed by coyotes. This directly corresponds to the decrease in timely predator control services in historic problem areas which had previously prevented many of those losses.

Next, historically the ADC program in SD took 51% of their coyotes on the ground for over 25 years. Since the era of mismanagement, ground take of coyotes in contrast to aerial take has declined to 34% with 28 employees per FY "19" GFP report. It is widely known that quality predator control services, where livestock losses are kept to a minimum, are provided by a near equal level of ground and aerial coyote take. The best ADC men I know, based on their workload and livestock losses, will take between 50% and 70% of their coyotes on the ground relative to an average of 45 hours of aerial hunting time (70 hours of flight time including ferry time). One individual actually reached 80% of the coyotes taken on the ground. That is a level of performance that will not be duplicated for some time. Ironically, that guy lost his job too.

Yes I know about the variables involved here with aerial success as well as the limiting factors such as standing crops, timbered areas, rough broken terrain,
pilot and gunner efficiency, ground crew effectiveness, etc. I am talking about average aerial hunting conditions in western SD and NE WY. The plane is a very important tool but is only half of the equation in a successful predator control program. The highest level of performance is realized when aerial hunting and ground efforts are close to equal. Unfortunately, inexperienced management doesn't realize this fact either. Imperative February through April removal of coyote pairs in historic problem areas is best performed by a combination of ground methods and aerial hunting. If they can be killed by the plane, they can be killed on the ground, period.

According to the same County by Count FY "19" SD ADC program report, there was 25 coyotes or less taken on the ground in 37 of the 65 counties in the state receiving service. Try defending that! Is it any wonder why these reports were discontinued after 2010? Prior to 2010, both quarterly and annual reports were sent to various livestock organizations and county commissioners, who are paying for 20% of the program, which contained coyotes and fox taken and by what methods, number of complaints, livestock losses, resources allocated, resources committed, beaver complaints, beaver taken, etc. etc.

Interestingly, in recent years a detailed COUNTY BY COUNTY report with this same information was requested by the SD Sheep Growers Association. This request was denied by GFP (they knew it would expose the results of mismanagement). The SDSGA then took the issue to the state hearing examiner's office (State equivalent of a Federal FOIA) and GFP was forced to provide the information. When the information was received, it was obvious why the previous request had been denied. These reports showed how service quality had declined, how livestock losses had increased, and created justification for a program the Administration wanted to get rid of despite state statutes mandating predator control services.

Now it is imperative to understand there is a number of highly dedicated professional predator control service providers in this state both in the experienced and newly hired categories. This is not a reflection on "MOST" of them, it is a reflection on the mismanagement of the program that reprioritized these employees towards other duties they felt were more important. It is a reflection of the mismanagement that hired wildlife biology degrees over trapping experience and agriculture backgrounds. It is a reflection of the mismanagement that did not have the experience required to train these guys properly and show them the most efficient and cost effective means of providing predator control services and what tools to use in what situations.

There was a law on the books that stated that the GFP Secretary, Secretary of Agriculture, and the Animal Damage Control Supervisor would meet annually to "develop program priorities". It was called the Animal Damage Control Policy Review Committee. A number of livestock producers introduced a bill to expand this committee to include many of the livestock organizations in the state. The idea was to hold GFP accountable to those who were paying the bill. This bill passed the House Ag and Natural Resource Committee with flying colors but was amended on the Senate floor to read "policy ADVISORY committee" and the words "develop program priorities" were changed to "PROVIDE RECOMMENDATOINS". What does that tell you about accountability and transparency of the SD ADC program? CONTROL THE NARRATIVE!

When giving presentations to this committee, they only present the information they believe is favorable to the program such as complaints worked, dollars spent, total coyotes killed, etc. rather than far more important information such as livestock losses, complaint trends, and air to ground coyote take. Certainly no measure of how efficiently complaints are being handled. We even found that they had included contract aerial hunting coyote take and permitted aerial hunting
coyote take in the GFP take category (ground take implied) to inflate the ground numbers. Wildlife Services aerial coyote taken and predator district aerial hunting coyote take were correctly separated.

This past year the Wildlife Damage Management Program was reviewed by the Wildlife Management Institute. The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI) Review committee consisted of 3 or 4 retired or nearly retired wildlife managers from different states with very limited to no actual predator control field experience. We wanted the program to be reviewed by someone from USDA/APHIS/WILDLIFE SERVICES with predator control experience and were highly suspicious of the potential outcome of the review by the WMI for that reason. After all, how many contracts do you think they would get if they gave many bad reviews?

We provided the WMI with USDA livestock loss data, Wildlife Services aerial hunting data, the decline in livestock inventories from county courthouse statistics, comparisons between the old and new programs such as customer satisfaction surveys of the old program that showed an 82% response with 91% customer satisfaction. They didn't reference any of it in their final review. They basically rubber stamped what GFP provided them and gave them a decent review despite the fact that WMI admitted that GFP had no stated goals or objectives for the program. How can you give a good review to a program with no stated goals or objectives and no way to measure it due to a lack of accurate reports?? You tell me! CONTROL THE NARRATIVE!!

Another vivid example of mismanagement is in employee turnover. The counties of Harding and Perkins in NW SD had 3 different trappers in those counties for over 28 years. After the era of mismanagement started in 2009, there has been 12 different trappers in those same 3 counties.

What is the solution? Simple, the program needs to be managed by an experienced management structure rather than a management structure consisting of biologists and conservation officers with no predator control experience, different priorities, and different agendas. Should be common sense but it's not.

As I said at the beginning, state and federal ADC programs are not what they once were. Again, I welcome any questions or challenges to any of the information I have provided. Many of us knew what would happen to the coyote population in this state and the corresponding livestock losses that would occur before it happened as a result from the era of mismanagement that started in 2009.

Hope this gives you some insight into what a government or state trapper job might entail.


Scott Huber

It's been a long time since I heard your name. You must be retired with that huge Government check coming In every month. LOL

Question, are these calves and sheep being raised by the government on government land for government purposes?
Or are they private businesses enjoying a government subsidy?

Ha, someone mentioned Wiley E on another thread and now here he is, LOL.

Mr. Scott Huber was also known as WileyE on here. He was a valuable asset through the informative posts he made. I hope to see him post more in the future.

Great to see you on here Scott.

Hello Paul! Thanks! Love the flag.

Hey Beav glad to see you still kicking up dust!

Warrior: "Question, are these calves and sheep being raised by the government on government land for government purposes?
Or are they private businesses enjoying a government subsidy?"

This is private livestock killed by public wildlife some of which are coming from public lands.

We can debate forever whether the government should be involved in predator control or not but one thing is for certain, in most cases fur trapping in the winter months, as some see as a viable alternative to predator control programs, has absolutely no impact on whether or not calf killing will occur on a particular ranch the following spring or lamb killing the following summer.

We go back into the same areas year after year and remove coyote pairs that showed up after the prime fur season. Livestock protection is about killing coyote pairs in February, March, April before they den and in the denning months of May, June, and July. I might also add that there is always a side benefit to livestock protection with deer and antelope in areas of suppressed deer and antelope populations which is also a public benefit. In addition the removal of problem coyotes in historic problem areas during the spring and summer is a better alternative to whole scale coyote population reduction. Broad scale coyote population reduction would not be cost effective in most situations which leaves many areas, outside of heavy sheep production areas, with a healthy population of coyotes for fur hunters and callers the following winter.

Most states in the west have county and federal predator control programs.

Which leads to a question for you, does the public have a responsibility to alleviate the damage caused by the public's wildlife when it impacts private livestock? How about considering that the public took away the livestock producer's ability to do that when they banned compound 1080 and promised them a professional, accountable government program in exchange?? Promises forgotten?

I have heard many times how some believe ranchers should learn to solve their own problems, That argument only holds water if you also expect every rancher to become a plumber, electrician, carpenter, concrete guy, mechanic, welder, and any other specialized occupation he chooses to pay for while he is busy calving. Even if they had the desire to learn to call, trap, snare, etc. coyotes, which some have, they don't have the time during calving and lambing. In fact, I had two friends who were both very accomplished coyote callers who requested my service when they were calving because they were busy calving.

If you don't think the counties, state, or Government should be involved in predator control, then they shouldn't be involved in determining how ranchers can kill coyotes either. Ranchers didn't need much help when they could use compound 1080 but it was banned because of secondary poisoning related to strychnine. The Federal government stepping in to save ranchers from themselves.

In SD, predator control is funded by county funds generated from a tax on livestock, matching funds from GFP, and less than a 1/3 in Federal funds towards an aerial hunting program.

In WY there is brand tax of $1 per head on cattle and sheep and there is also additional county and state funding. The county program had by far the best service and highest level of accountability between the two programs and trappers were not bound by a 40 hour work week like they are in state and Federal programs. Absolutely no comparison from a service and program efficiency standpoint.

Another reason county, state, and the Federal Government is involved in predator control programs is due to the accountability that is supposed to accompany the program and the vetting of employees. Yes, I know what I just wrote in my lengthy novel to the contrary but there is still more accountability than the private sector particularly when working with laws pertaining to aerial hunting.

Have a good one Warrior!



~SH~

Good read scott , alot of good points forsure.

In case you were wondering Huber Goober i still have my buckey beaver award, found it 10 years ago when we were moving, lol.

Very informative and interesting. Thank you for taking the time to share this with us Scott.

All valid points however the rancher can always call a plumber, electrician or trapper. The private sector is growing to meet multiple needs in the ADC world.

J Twappah, glad to see you are still out and about too. You know I can't even remember why you won the coveted "Bucky Beaver Badge" but I am sure it was well deserved. Haha! Good to hear from you 2.

~SH~

In re-reading my original post, there is something I forgot to mention that is extremely important for readers to understand. I realize there is lots of opinions on whether or not county, state, and federal trapping programs should exist (animal rights activists, perceived competition by private sector, etc.). If the majority of the public opposed these programs after careful debate (as if that ever happens) and decided to change the laws, I would accept that as that is how I believe these things should be handled. I wouldn't like it but I would accept it.

That is a huge contrast from what happened in SD GFP by an Administration and inexperienced management structure that placed their own personal anti predator control agendas ahead of state mandated responsibilities then tried to cover up the damage those decisions created. In addition, that same management structure still falsely believes that they are better equipped to run a predator control program with biologists than experienced predator control men and/or women.

That is what I cannot stomach.


~SH~

Well said, Scott

Your insight to this topic is one of the reasons why I asked you to do a demo at Coyote Days!

Having both you, and Chris McAllister, be part of the program this year is a huge plus.

See you soon!

We in nm are seeing the same sitchuation that you described instead of exrienced trappers biologists and students Are getting the positions andcauseing problems. Its becomeing a big mess

The landowner has that option to call a private trapper if they desire to do so and many have gone that route in certain areas. Just because WS may be an available option in the area the landowner still makes his own choice. WS can't just fly around and shoot coyotes from a plane or do ground work anywhere they please.

In my area ws will work a ranch till they fire the rancher more less quite.
I hate doing coyote a.d.c. work , but not wanting to lose the biggest ranch i trap i say yes.
It's just too time consuming for me in the spring and early summer.
My hat's off to trappers that do it for a living whether it be a.d.c. private or wildlife service.

silkyplainscoyot: "The landowner has that option to call a private trapper if they desire to do so and many have gone that route in certain areas. Just because WS may be an available option in the area the landowner still makes his own choice. WS can't just fly around and shoot coyotes from a plane or do ground work anywhere they please."

That is correct and as the quality of service from a state or Federal trapper declines, due to mismanagement, you will see more and more work going to the private sector. For a private trapper, as with a Federal or State Trapper, there is still a responsibility to produce. Some private trappers are serious about it and will do their best to provide quality service but there is just as many would be looking at this as a possible opportunity to gain access to private ground the following winter for fur or access for hunting. Those types usually do more harm than good.

Larry Bowden wrote an excellent post a while back on developing landowner relations on a year round basis. I couldn't agree with him more on that. Being willing to throw a few calves at branding or learn to fix some fence can go a long ways in accessing private ground during the fur season. Helping resolve calf kills that are not being resolved by another entity could be one of those opportunities. With that said, the private trapper is going to have to produce results to gain possible access the following winter for fur trapping.

Lamb killing requires a lot more effort and knowledge than addressing calf kills because you can't leave any loose ends behind with sheep. With calf kills you get in and hammer them hard just before or during the problem and it is usually short lived once you break up the family groups.

Good point Silky!


~SH~

I WISH more landowner's would call private people! Was several scattered about that helped take up the slack but seems alot of them
quit, cut back, something as call's seem to be getting more and more the past few years. Plus now we're over ran with feral swine which
is a whole other monster of it's own.

... hey Jtrap ... What are you talking about? ... them pigs smarter than you ?

.... try something other than a 330 for the big ones

Thanks for that thoughtful contribution.

..... you know where to find me if you ever need anymore tips partner

Man that was a long read lol. But a good one. Lots of good points.