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

What's the verdict on these things? Are they effective?

I've seen no independent testing results that indicated they're more
effective than alternatives tested--which is pretty much why they're
not particularly widespread; it appears that most of the glowing
testimonials are either sponsored "research" (read advertising hype)
or self-justification of the $$ spent to avoid admitting have been suckered.

It's been a while since I looked but google found several studies a
while back from various land-grant universities, etc., that
concluded they're of minimal help if any...

That can only be because some werent that well designed.

Its been known for a long time now what attracts mosquitos.

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...

You're lying.

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

Corse its perfectly possible to provide the CO2, heat and
odours etc that are the same as what live humans produce.

as noted the testing results I remember seeing didn't demonstrate significantly higher preferential capture rates
for the devices.

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...

That means that those other devices are perfectly viable mosquito traps, stupid.

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.

Wrong on that last.

So what if even if they were 100% effective in a small radius--you going to limit your position into that area?

You havent established that they only work over a small area.

The devices are typically advertised as covering sizable fractions of an acre.

Irrelevant if you dont need as much as that.

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;

Yep.

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

Easy to claim. Have fun actually substantiating that claim.

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

As they say,

YOU made that claim about what they purportedly said.

YOU get to demonstrate that any actually said what you claim they said.

THATS how it works.