I remember seeing these propane-powered mosquito traps at local big-box
hardware stores a few years ago, but I don't think I've seen any of them
lately. They retailed for around $300 and up to $450 if I remember
correctly. Some brand names include Skeeter Vac and Mosquito Magnet.

The premis is that they gave off a carbon-monoxide (or co2?) scent (by
burning propane) which would attract mosquitoes into a one-way bag where
they'd die. Some of the claims were that one unit was good for about an
acre of coverage.

The reviews on Amazon are mixed. Some claim it catches everything but
mosquitoes, some claim it works great on them. Many don't like the
ongoing cost of replacing sticky paper.

Some employ some combination (or all?) of these methods: heat, co2,
octenol, lactic acid, suction, blinking lights, sticky paper.

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

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...

--

Good luck in your search. Like you, I've seen comments from those that swear
by them and swear at them. I do think that the science behind this is sound.
I did find that the comments seemed better for those that used a combination
of heat, co2, and attractant.


"Yard Guy" wrote in message ...
I remember seeing these propane-powered mosquito traps at local big-box
hardware stores a few years ago, but I don't think I've seen any of them
lately. They retailed for around $300 and up to $450 if I remember
correctly. Some brand names include Skeeter Vac and Mosquito Magnet.

The premis is that they gave off a carbon-monoxide (or co2?) scent (by
burning propane) which would attract mosquitoes into a one-way bag where
they'd die. Some of the claims were that one unit was good for about an
acre of coverage.

The reviews on Amazon are mixed. Some claim it catches everything but
mosquitoes, some claim it works great on them. Many don't like the
ongoing cost of replacing sticky paper.

Some employ some combination (or all?) of these methods: heat, co2,
octenol, lactic acid, suction, blinking lights, sticky paper.

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

"Yard Guy" wrote in message ...
I remember seeing these propane-powered mosquito traps at local big-box
hardware stores a few years ago, but I don't think I've seen any of them
lately. They retailed for around $300 and up to $450 if I remember
correctly. Some brand names include Skeeter Vac and Mosquito Magnet.

The premis is that they gave off a carbon-monoxide (or co2?) scent (by
burning propane) which would attract mosquitoes into a one-way bag where
they'd die. Some of the claims were that one unit was good for about an
acre of coverage.

The reviews on Amazon are mixed. Some claim it catches everything but
mosquitoes, some claim it works great on them. Many don't like the
ongoing cost of replacing sticky paper.

Some employ some combination (or all?) of these methods: heat, co2,
octenol, lactic acid, suction, blinking lights, sticky paper.

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

I'd be one that swears by them! We have the Liberty Plus model and it works
awesome! On year 3 now without a single problem. Our backyard is essentially
moquito free while our neighbors 2 houses away have them all over the place.
Every tank tank (3 weeks) I empty the net and there must be about 1000 dead
females in there. If it were to break down and be non-repairable I would
without question replace it with the same model without hesitation.
-Brian

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.

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; as noted the testing results I remember seeing didn't
demonstrate significantly higher preferential capture rates for the
devices. Particularly, they weren't effective for anything even
remotely approaching the acreage coverage claims iirc...

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....

--

"Brian V" wrote in message
...

"Yard Guy" wrote in message
...
I remember seeing these propane-powered mosquito traps at local big-box
hardware stores a few years ago, but I don't think I've seen any of them
lately. They retailed for around $300 and up to $450 if I remember
correctly. Some brand names include Skeeter Vac and Mosquito Magnet.

The premis is that they gave off a carbon-monoxide (or co2?) scent (by
burning propane) which would attract mosquitoes into a one-way bag where
they'd die. Some of the claims were that one unit was good for about an
acre of coverage.

The reviews on Amazon are mixed. Some claim it catches everything but
mosquitoes, some claim it works great on them. Many don't like the
ongoing cost of replacing sticky paper.

Some employ some combination (or all?) of these methods: heat, co2,
octenol, lactic acid, suction, blinking lights, sticky paper.

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

I'd be one that swears by them! We have the Liberty Plus model and it
works awesome! On year 3 now without a single problem. Our backyard is
essentially moquito free while our neighbors 2 houses away have them all
over the place. Every tank tank (3 weeks) I empty the net and there must
be about 1000 dead females in there. If it were to break down and be
non-repairable I would without question replace it with the same model
without hesitation.
-Brian

I, on the other hand, have a Mosquito Magnet Defender which is a smaller
model rated for 1/2 acre, I believe. Although we have lots and lots of
mosquitoes, the unit collects maybe 10 to 15 mosquitoes a night, but does
not do much to control the little *******s. I tried placing the unit in
several locations in my yard and finally found the place that it works best
in, but 15 mosquitos does not really do much to reduce the population. I set
the unit out in the early spring when the *******s first start, but they
just keep coming. The Summers here on Long Island, NY are hot and humid, and
they just thrive here. After having the unit for about 5 years, and the
original mfr replacing the 1st Defender unit on warranty in year one, I have
to say that at least in my case, the unit was a waste of 300 dollars to buy
it, a waste of 20 pounds of propane every three weeks, plus the Octanol
attractant also needed. I have mine running right now, but I keep hoping for
better results in vain. I am glad your unit works well for you Brian. I
have a friend who swears by his too, but if I am doing something wrong, I
don't know what it is. It works, but so does swatting them. Ouch! A thousand
mosquitos a month seems like a small number to me considering how many I
actually can see flying around in the evening all over my yard.

By the way, there is a web site that gives instructions on repairing these
units (the Defender, anyway) http://gra.midco.net/jmanley/#Defender

RP

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.

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.

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

Different matter entirely.

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.

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"...

--

"Van Chocstraw" wrote in message
Get a good electric bug zapper. Mine is caked with mosquitoes, black flies
and minges every morning. Any small flying insect attracted by ultra
violet even small moths and beetles. Some take a while to cook and smoke a
little. It's fun to watch. The tiny flies get zapped when they are 3
abreast in the zapper. Sometimes I blow it out at midnight and again in
the morning. I use an electric leaf blower. Bugs are pretty stupid.

I used one for a couple of years and like yours, it would be loaded with
bugs. The problem, however, is that it attracted more bugs than when I had
nothing and it was still a net gain on my screen door in spite of those
killed away from the house where the zapper was hung. I'd never have one
again. . It may work better in more urban areas, especially if a few
neighbors have them too.

On Aug 15, 10:42*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"Van Chocstraw" wrote in message
Get a good electric bug zapper. Mine is caked with mosquitoes, black flies
and minges every morning. Any small flying insect attracted by ultra
violet even small moths and beetles. Some take a while to cook and smoke a
little. It's fun to watch. The tiny flies get zapped when they are 3
abreast in the zapper. Sometimes I blow it out at midnight and again in
the morning. I use an electric leaf blower. Bugs are pretty stupid.

I used one for a couple of years and *like yours, it would be loaded with
bugs. *The problem, however, is that it attracted more bugs than when I had
nothing and it was still a net gain on my screen door in spite of those
killed away from the house where the zapper was hung. *I'd never have one
again. *. *It may work better in more urban areas, especially if a few
neighbors have them too.

That is pretty much my story too. I took one camping and it attracted
more than it killed. Having the extra propane bottle did come in
handy . They are good for emptying out the bugs in a controlled space
like a
screened porch.

Jimmie

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.

Rod Speed wrote:
....

You're lying.

FOAD, dickhead...

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.

Not w/o the same generating mechanism, no...there's more than just CO2
and the odors aren't all that simple to generate.

....

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

But it also means the CO2-baited traps ain't worth the extra expense
which I presumed anybody w/ the least amount of intelligence would
realize is all that was said....

....

Field trials for commercially available and experimental mosquito
traps variously baited with light, carbon dioxide, octenol, or
combinations of these were evaluated ...The total number of
mosquitoes and number of each species captured during the test were
compared using 8 × 8 and 5 x 5 Latin square designs based on trap
location. ... Traps baited with octenol captured significantly fewer
Cx. pipiens than those not baited with octenol. Likewise, no Cx.
orientalis were captured in octenol-baited traps. Host-seeking
activity showed a similar bimodal pattern for all species captured.
... Significantly greater numbers of mosquitoes were captured with
mosquito traps using counterflow technology when compared to standard
light and carbon dioxide-baited traps.

IOW, just a fan to suck the critters in and trap 'em was more effective
than the expensive, fancy traps.

--

dpb wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
...

You're lying.

FOAD, dickhead...

Go and **** yourself, ****wit child.

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.

Not w/o the same generating mechanism, no...

Wrong, as always.

there's more than just CO2

It is however the primary thing that attracts mosquitos.

and the odors aren't all that simple to generate.

They aint that hard either.

...

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

But it also means the CO2-baited traps ain't worth the extra expense

Nothing like your previous claim.

which I presumed anybody w/ the least amount of intelligence would realize is all that was said....

Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

Field trials for commercially available and experimental mosquito
traps variously baited with light, carbon dioxide, octenol, or
combinations of these were evaluated ...The total number of
mosquitoes and number of each species captured during the test were
compared using 8 × 8 and 5 x 5 Latin square designs based on trap
location. ... Traps baited with octenol captured significantly fewer
Cx. pipiens than those not baited with octenol. Likewise, no Cx.
orientalis were captured in octenol-baited traps.

Pity we happened to be discussing PROPANE POWERED traps.

Host-seeking activity showed a similar bimodal pattern for all species captured. ... Significantly greater numbers of
mosquitoes were captured with mosquito traps using counterflow technology when compared to standard light and carbon
dioxide-baited traps.

No reason why the propane powered traps cant have counterflow as well, ****wit child.

IOW, just a fan to suck the critters in and trap 'em was more effective than the expensive, fancy traps.

That is nothing even remotely resembling anything like what they actually concluded, ****wit child.

AND that particular study didnt even use the sort of mosquito traps that are used
in a domestic environment ANYWAY, they were SCIENTIFIC mosquito traps.

Try again.

Rod Speed wrote:
dpb wrote:
Rod Speed wrote:
...

You're lying.

FOAD, dickhead...

Go and **** yourself, ****wit child.

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.

Not w/o the same generating mechanism, no...

Wrong, as always.

there's more than just CO2

It is however the primary thing that attracts mosquitos.

and the odors aren't all that simple to generate.

They aint that hard either.

...

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

But it also means the CO2-baited traps ain't worth the extra expense

Nothing like your previous claim.

which I presumed anybody w/ the least amount of intelligence would
realize is all that was said....

Never ever could bullshit and lie its way out of a wet paper bag.

Field trials for commercially available and experimental mosquito
traps variously baited with light, carbon dioxide, octenol, or
combinations of these were evaluated ...The total number of
mosquitoes and number of each species captured during the test were
compared using 8 × 8 and 5 x 5 Latin square designs based on trap
location. ... Traps baited with octenol captured significantly fewer
Cx. pipiens than those not baited with octenol. Likewise, no Cx.
orientalis were captured in octenol-baited traps.

Pity we happened to be discussing PROPANE POWERED traps.

Host-seeking activity showed a similar bimodal pattern for all
species captured. ... Significantly greater numbers of mosquitoes
were captured with mosquito traps using counterflow technology when
compared to standard light and carbon dioxide-baited traps.

No reason why the propane powered traps cant have counterflow as
well, ****wit child.

IOW, just a fan to suck the critters in and trap 'em was more
effective than the expensive, fancy traps.

That is nothing even remotely resembling anything like what they actually concluded, ****wit child.

They ACTUALLY said that its the traps that have counterflow IN ADDITION
TO chemical and CO2 luring that work the best, which is hardly surprising.
http://apt.allenpress.com/perlserv/?....3.CO%3B2&ct=1

Try again.