marten/fishers

[dcraven]

Anyone else see the marten/fisher combined limit in the new MN regulations? 2 combined... Are they truly concerned about the populations or concerned about people taking their kids/wives trapping and overharvest - or what?

[JBMasterAngler]

In northeast MN there seems to be more pine martens than ever! I think it's the fisher population they're more interested in protecting. I don't know anything about trapping, but I guess both are taken the same way. I believe the season is shorter now as well? Seems as though the pine martens are taking advantage of this. Of course, it could also be that there appears to be more red squirrels around than I could ever remember as well

[Random guy]

Just read that...unbelievable.

I really wish the State of MN would stop regulating the north with southern numbers and ideas.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

I really wish the State of MN would stop regulating the north with southern numbers and ideas.

+1. No shortage of marten/fisher in my area.

[dcraven]

Fisher numbers are much like mole hills, it seems - push them down in one area (mid north central) and they pop up in another (SW and SE portion of their range). The problem is that fisher and marten are being managed as the same critter... They are not the same animal.

There is fairly sound information (plus common sense) that as cat numbers increase, fisher numbers decrease - it is a trade off.

But I wish they wouldn't manage fishers and marten as the same animal.

DC

[Random guy]

But I wish they wouldn't manage fishers and marten as the same animal.

DC

Amen sir.

Little by little they chisel away at trapping.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

There is fairly sound information (plus common sense) that as cat numbers increase, fisher numbers decrease - it is a trade off.

Makes sense. I haven't heard any explanation for the decreased limit. We might have to join the forest zone trappers assn to get more of a voice.

[dcraven]

There was a telemetry study done on fishers that was kind of interesting - I'll have to try to find it. A number of the fishers died from apparent eagle talon injuries while they were working deer and other kill/death sites in the forest. They'd get hit by the talons and go off to die nearby. Yes - a slight change of subject... - sorry.

Yes, I may need to look in to that association...

[laker1]

Fisher numbers are much like mole hills, it seems - push them down in one area (mid north central) and they pop up in another (SW and SE portion of their range). The problem is that fisher and marten are being managed as the same critter... They are not the same animal.

There is fairly sound information (plus common sense) that as cat numbers increase, fisher numbers decrease - it is a trade off.

But I wish they wouldn't manage fishers and marten as the same animal.

DC

I wonder if they are lumped together is so many people set their trap set the same for both. So some people would be killing one or the other species trying to get their limit on the other.

Lot of trappers out last year.

[Random guy]

My curiosity peeked at both the scent station and winter track reports posted by the DNR. According to the map two sites where completed on the Red Lake Reservations and one done right on the lake (guessing the map is not accurate or factual). What bothers me is from Kelliher all the way to Baudette and across to International Falls not a single scent station or track survey!? You mean the Big Bog at 6 or 700 square miles that is crawling with moose, fisher, marten and other furbearers are not part of the study? I see a lot of holes in where and how the data is collected. Such as this statement right in the report itself:

Quote:

“Nevertheless, ongoing research has suggested that fishers, and to a lesser extent martens, may

reduce activity in January, which may have reduced detection rates this year. However, repeat

surveys are not conducted on this winter survey, so it is not currently possible to determine

whether detection rates in fact differed from the previous year”

I find it fascinating that data collection methods (not the actual numbers) would tend to produce low density numbers, statewide, right before a negative trapping or hunting regulation change...again. Now I am just a little guide and trapper with a little guide and trapper brain. I am not an educated biologist or statistician, but I can still see the holes in the milk bowl. I am sure I will receive an email from somebody looking down through their bifocals while correcting my theory on their theory.

Yet no matter what the report states Bobcat numbers are up, so high they are effecting fisher and marten numbers. Does the sportsmen get to help monitor those increased numbers and population? I would bet not; Minnesota allow reasonable increased harvest or increased opportunity? I’d rather try my luck at attaining a Sasquatch tag, after an application fee of course.

[swamptiger]

Quote:

According to the map two sites where completed on the Red Lake Reservations and one done right on the lake (guessing the map is not accurate or factual).

Might be a budget cutting strategy. You know - combine the fisher survey with a little walleye "sampling" at the same time...

[x1957x]

++++1 jonny!

[protrapper]

They manage people not the resource.

[Black Bear]

For certain I am not furbearer specialist but our bear bait piles showed significantly less game camera pics of Fishers and Martens this year than previous years. We are in the middle of NE Minnesota. Kind of concerning

[monstermoose78]

While deer hunting this year our group saw more Martin then ever before. My brother counted 7 at one time and that was just behind the cabin. I saw 4 martin in along ways away from where my brother was.

[Butter111]

what area were you in? Does anyone know how the Martin-Fisher- Cat numbers are in Aitkin Cty

[monstermoose78]

The Arrowhead