Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Yard Guy wrote

....

May be so;

No maybe about it.

You're taking that away from the rest of the sentence it was modifying
to infer a totally different meaning from what I said...

Certainly it's know what attracts skeeters to live critters; what's not
so clear is that the artificially-generated attempts are effective.

....
Higher than what ? If they capture anything,
they must be working better than no device at all.

Than the other devices in the test, obviously...

Particularly, they weren't effective for anything even
remotely approaching the acreage coverage claims iirc...

Different matter entirely.

But still a portion of the test and how effective they are for practical
use. So what if even if they were 100% effective in a small radius--you
going to limit your position into that area? The devices are typically
advertised as covering sizable fractions of an acre.

There are likely newer studies available; others are welcome to pursue
it. Seems like it was LSU extension maybe(???) that had some of the
most extensive that I saw previously but I'm not certain of that any longer....

Sounds like you are comprehensively garbling what they actually said.

No; the conclusions were they were no more effective than other traps
tested w/o the CO2 attractants...

As they say, "you can look it up"...

--