|
Post by Lonny Mattison on Feb 26, 2015 9:31:47 GMT -5
Go to other hunting web sites and most of those people do not want fisher around.
|
|
|
Post by k9goodtimes on Feb 26, 2015 9:36:17 GMT -5
John, as far as the population in the northern zone I made a mistake in referring to what I have read here about the perceived decline in populations. My mistake as I'm not normally travelling north the thruway to trap. Photographers is the answer to your question Austin from what I read in the plan. LOL One more thing, Their estimation of Between 4 and 6 Fisher per 10 square miles in my area is totally laughable, and more than likely, probably ten times their estimate! Every ridge in Otsego and Chenango county has it's own population of Fisher, you just may need to get off the road to find it. I also believe the southern fisher have adapted to a totally different environment here than in the Adirondacks and they have no need to travel great distances for food. Which make most of the studies cited in this plan irrelevant and outdated due the Fishers RECENT (20 years) expansion into this area, an area unlike any in the prior research cited in this plan. I agree. I went snowshoeing last weekend. I covered less than 3 miles and cut 2 sets of Fisher track. Perhaps same one going into and coming out of the same gully, fringed by large pines, and there wasn't a single set of squirrel or rabbit track to be seen. They have prey abundance here, no need to fight for territory or move away.
|
|
tmc
#2 Newhouse
Posts: 2,447
|
Post by tmc on Feb 26, 2015 11:37:44 GMT -5
oopps.. I wasn't done yet. I also feel it is unwise for the DEC to paint this subject with such a broad brush. There are obviously two different dynamics to this subject. One is the decreasing population in northern NY and an exploding population in some pockets in southern NY. Think about this for just a minute: Who said the fisher population is decreasing in northern NY ? There are NO science based studies to prove that the population of fisher in the Adirondacks is declining. The only argument presented is that less fisher have been harvested from the Adirondack WMUs for a few consecutive seasons. Does that harvest data automatically prove, beyond doubt, that there is a significant decrease in the Adirondack fisher population? I think not. As correctly stated above, NY is not PA, NH, MN, WI, ME or anywhere else. Are some of these studies in other states relevant? Yes. Are they all relevant? No. Of the ones relevant, are they 100% relevant? Not necessarily. This is NY. There have been studies done in NY that are not cited in this plan. Why? Because the findings of those studies do not support some of the "facts" used to justify some parts of this plan. What's shamefully hypocritical is the fact that they utilize results, data and findings from other, not necessarily similar or even adjacent, States to fortify their awkwardly tenuous wannabe findings for Fisher management, but ignore strong, sound, time-proven data from those same States when it comes to cable restraints. As the old saying goes, "Only in New York..."
|
|
paintedpaw
Retired NYSDEC Lake George Ranger
Posts: 691
|
Post by paintedpaw on Feb 26, 2015 11:44:11 GMT -5
Thank you Jim.If they did not have any catch limits when they opened the Catskill season and the season length was the same as in the Adirondacks why are quotas and a limited season necessary in the new units now? That Catskill population thrived and now constitutes 30% of the state catch. Just like bounties, quotas do not work. There is no provision for accidental catches, and they certainly will happen in and after that nine day season. What is a trapper to do? How many traps does one set out with a quota of one? What is a trapper supposed to do if he catches more than one? Throw it on the ground and leave it? So much for DEC's collection of biological data. How many trappers will keep an accidental fisher? I would. It boils down to breaking the law and utilizing that resource or simply wasting it. This policy will only make dishonest trappers out of honest ones. Without an accidental catch provision it will be a mess.Also DEC must adopt a sunset clause provision. If this plan is allowed to stand do you really think you will ever go back to longer seasons? A snowball in Hell stands a better chance! Also I most seriously challenge the TPUE theory as being very flawed. Textbook math simply does not apply with all of the variables that can happen with fisher take and trapper effort.As I've said before there are numerous other faults with the plan, certainly enough to scrap the entire plan and start over
|
|
|
Post by silverfox on Feb 26, 2015 12:09:44 GMT -5
just another example of what i feel are false claims of population decline, on my 40 acres of which about 35 is pasture, and 5 a sugar maple lot, we see fisher running our pastures regularly year round, and it has increased even with my trapping of a few each season, my German Short hair has scuffled with them on more than one occasion, my wife even mistook one for a stray cat crossing one of our fields and was calling to it (she is familiar with what a fisher looks like but could only see a dark haired low profile critter slinking thru the grass during daylight) is it possible that they have adapted to a robust food source in areas traditionally void of what one considers "prime fisher habitat" (rhetorical) theres no effort for them with the plethora of mice, nesting birds, fowl, and the abundance of active woodchuck dens to raid (just to name a few) of the 3 incidental fisher i caught this season (was not targeting fisher in these sets) all 3 were in dirt hole sets along hedgerows between large AG fields set for fox, certainly goes against traditional "fisher habitat" locations (and ironically i only caught one fisher in my sets set specifically for fisher in dense pine wooded areas that one would normally target them)....population decline (to some extent) seems IMO to be being used as a catalyst to convince folks that more strict guidelines need be em placed, if more intense sound and effective fisher management is in fact needed, im all for it, but im not even remotely convinced thats currently the case
|
|
traps82
#3 Newhouse
Hope is always alive
Posts: 3,208
|
Post by traps82 on Feb 26, 2015 15:14:28 GMT -5
just another example of what i feel are false claims of population decline, on my 40 acres of which about 35 is pasture, and 5 a sugar maple lot, we see fisher running our pastures regularly year round, and it has increased even with my trapping of a few each season, my German Short hair has scuffled with them on more than one occasion, my wife even mistook one for a stray cat crossing one of our fields and was calling to it (she is familiar with what a fisher looks like but could only see a dark haired low profile critter slinking thru the grass during daylight) is it possible that they have adapted to a robust food source in areas traditionally void of what one considers "prime fisher habitat" (rhetorical) theres no effort for them with the plethora of mice, nesting birds, fowl, and the abundance of active woodchuck dens to raid (just to name a few) of the 3 incidental fisher i caught this season (was not targeting fisher in these sets) all 3 were in dirt hole sets along hedgerows between large AG fields set for fox, certainly goes against traditional "fisher habitat" locations (and ironically i only caught one fisher in my sets set specifically for fisher in dense pine wooded areas that one would normally target them)....population decline (to some extent) seems IMO to be being used as a catalyst to convince folks that more strict guidelines need be em placed, if more intense sound and effective fisher management is in fact needed, im all for it, but im not even remotely convinced thats currently the case Keep your eyes open for them after the snow goes away.. I watched on for about 45 minutes or so hunting a field- Hit every woodchuck hole there was
|
|
|
Post by whartonrattrapper on Feb 27, 2015 9:25:41 GMT -5
Wharton, why do you feel the predator prey relationships are not covered in this plan? To be fair there has been a lot of study already on that subject with attention specific to turkeys. Will fisher kill and eat turkeys? sure, they will, but Powell's work in NH does not suggest fisher will decimate a turkey population. You can probably find that paper online...I am more familiar with Coulter's work in Maine, but it was long ago.... here's something else that bothers me, from NY's current plan; More recently, there is evidence that fisher have continued to expand their populations across central and western New York. The source of this expansion may be animals dispersing from the Adirondacks, Tug Hill, and Catskill regions, as well as northern Pennsylvania. The NYSDEC, in partnership with the New York Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, has initiated research to determine fisher occupancy in central and western New York, as well as to develop density estimates through noninvasive capture-recapture techniques. This study may also help determine the “front” of fisher expansion in western New York, and identify landscape features that facilitate or limit movements and range expansion From PA's review of there restocking; Pennsylvania Fisher Reintroduction Projecta Thomas S. Hardisky (editor), Pennsylvania Game Commission, Bureau of Wildlife Management, 2001 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17110-9797. Abstract: Fishers (Martes pennanti) disappeared from Pennsylvania during the early 1900s because of extensive timber harvest and unregulated trapping. To restore fisher populations to northern Pennsylvania, we partnered with university researchers to initiate a fisher reintroduction project in 1994. Dr. Thomas L. Serfass of Penn State University/Frostburg State University headed the fisher reintroduction effort. Dr. Serfass and his research team evaluated habitat conditions to select appropriate release sites, conducted public information campaigns to gain support for the project, applied principles of conservation genetics in selecting sources of fishers, and held fishers captive for a 10-14 day veterinary evaluation to ensure released individuals were healthy and well-conditioned. During 1994-98, 190 fishers were released among five sites in northern Pennsylvania. Initial radio-telemetry studies conducted at three of the reintroduction sites indicated relatively high first year survival and a tendency of individuals to remain in the general vicinity of release areas. Subsequent track-plate surveys, snow-track surveys, remote camera surveillance, highway mortality carcass examination, sighting and sign reports, and accidental captures during trapping seasons indicated fishers were persisting at all reintroduction sites. Although this investigation suggests that reintroduced fishers are likely to establish self-sustaining populations, long-term monitoring is recommended to verify continued fisher population sustainability and range expansion. _And there's more....
|
|
|
Post by whartonrattrapper on Feb 27, 2015 9:30:12 GMT -5
mproved wildlife and forest management techniques have enabled wildlife agencies in other states to successfully reestablish fisher populations (Weckwerth and Wright 1968, Brander and Books 1973, Berg 1982). For example, fishers were successfully reintroduced into southeastern New York and West Virginia (Pack and Cromer 1981, Wallace and Henry 1985). Because of modern forestry practices implemented by the Bureau of Forestry, industry, and private landowners, Pennsylvania again supports large expanses of forested habitats. Consequently, there is potential to reestablish fisher populations to portions of the Commonwealth. Based on successful fisher reintroductions in surrounding states and improved habitat conditions, we are convinced that our restoration efforts will result in fisher populations being restored to portions of their former range in Pennsylvania.
So NYDEC says they came from PA and PA says the DEC stocked them.
I cant help but think the reason for the limit of 1 per is because the DEC doesn't want to ruffle PA's feathers. It's the only SANE reason I can think of.
|
|
|
Post by newfox1 on Feb 27, 2015 9:31:14 GMT -5
if the fisher rely on deer carcass as a large part of there food,the 5-6 years of mild winters in the northern zone should have been taken into consideration for the decline in numbers.last year,and this year have been typical winters with I'm sure more winter kill than the previous warm winters.how about a study to see if the numbers increase after a more typical weather pattern.maybe papa bear,and paintedpaw and some of you other serious fisher guys have kept some records and could make some corelations.?
|
|
|
Post by mole on Feb 27, 2015 15:19:28 GMT -5
If a Quota was to be set there would with out a doubt be no more body traps on dry land what so ever. Foot traps only.
|
|
|
Post by bill1960 on Feb 27, 2015 15:46:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by papabear on Feb 27, 2015 16:10:27 GMT -5
Dear Friends,
For DEC to present this plan using a high percentage of Trapper supplied data, and to imply that trapping is the leading cause to decline of the the Northern NY fisher population, and the presentation of this draft with apparent disregard of input from JTI & NYSTA isnt sitting to well at this point. WE HAVE BEEN HAD & LIED TOO!!!!
BELIEVE THIS....if we allow DEC to shorten the Northern Zone fisher season it will lead to more restrictive regulations for all land furbearers starting in 2015 and eventually a season limit on fisher across the entire state..........remember the DEC feels strongly that seasons should run concurrent.
Please take a minute and go back to page 4 of this thread read or reread my post of this fisher plan as I typed it out.... I think it holds merit as opposed going in with a kick down the door and shove their draft up there a$$ mentality......Please understand, im not one bit bashful or afraid to argue or fight, but I think in this case it would like showing up to a knife fight and they pull out a gun.
Regards
|
|
traps82
#3 Newhouse
Hope is always alive
Posts: 3,208
|
Post by traps82 on Feb 27, 2015 16:19:15 GMT -5
mproved wildlife and forest management techniques have enabled wildlife agencies in other states to successfully reestablish fisher populations (Weckwerth and Wright 1968, Brander and Books 1973, Berg 1982). For example, fishers were successfully reintroduced into southeastern New York and West Virginia (Pack and Cromer 1981, Wallace and Henry 1985). Because of modern forestry practices implemented by the Bureau of Forestry, industry, and private landowners, Pennsylvania again supports large expanses of forested habitats. Consequently, there is potential to reestablish fisher populations to portions of the Commonwealth. Based on successful fisher reintroductions in surrounding states and improved habitat conditions, we are convinced that our restoration efforts will result in fisher populations being restored to portions of their former range in Pennsylvania. So NYDEC says they came from PA and PA says the DEC stocked them. I cant help but think the reason for the limit of 1 per is because the DEC doesn't want to ruffle PA's feathers. It's the only SANE reason I can think of. This is probably one of the most powerful, damning posts on this entire fisher study! Some may or may not remember that I caught a radio collared fisher in Feb of 2010 in Renns County. Wayne helped put me in contact with the grad student (SUNY Albany) who was doing the study. He knew right where I got it and I knew right where he let it go. It did not go far. Movebank.org has plots from that study under "Suburban Coyotes". To the NE of that (yotes) study
|
|
|
Post by johnrockwood on Feb 27, 2015 19:03:36 GMT -5
Southeastern NY was a reintroduction effort.
Pennsylvania was a reintroduction effort.
Some of the expansion of fisher populations in south central NY and along the PA border to the western end of NY is attributed to the spreading of the fisher from PA to NY. I do not think it is printed in the plan anywhere that the fisher in the Catskills and southeastern NY came from PA.
I would not at all be surprised that there was much concern in regard to PA's 1 fisher limit and that was part of the decision to implement the same limit along the common border between NY and PA. However, NY trappers will have almost twice as many days to capture their one fisher as what the PA trappers have.
Remember the Cornell Surveys?
What date do you prefer for the starting date of land trapping seasons? You thought that was only for fox, coyotes, and maybe coon right?
And............the now infamous "Question #7" on the last survey. Remember that one? Remember all the discussion, right here on this board, about the far reaching implications of answering these questions without a LOT of thought?
First, you have to pick one of the supplied answers. Maybe none of them would be your true choice, but you feel you have to pick one even if you aren't really committed to that particular answer. Maybe you aren't even sure you are qualified to answer, so you just pick one that sounds "ok". Then, you are not allowed to qualify your answers to those questions because they are read by a computer and all you can do is fill in a circle. What happens next.............................well..........................read the parts of the plan where that data is cited. Is that what you really meant?
|
|
|
Post by papabear on Mar 3, 2015 18:36:52 GMT -5
Dear Friends, If you haven't already done so, Please take a few minutes and send in your comments regarding the fisher plan! ........wildlife@dec.ny.gov........type "Fisher Plan" in the subject box.........
Thank you and Regards
|
|
|
Post by papabear on Mar 20, 2015 6:46:20 GMT -5
Dear Friends, If you haven't already done so, Please take a few minutes and send in your comments regarding the fisher plan! ........wildlife@dec.ny.gov........type "Fisher Plan" in the subject box......... Thank you and Regards
|
|
|
Post by johnrockwood on Mar 21, 2015 9:14:31 GMT -5
Today is the LAST day to respond so PLEASE sit down and send your comments to the DEC. This is extremely important to the future of trapping in NY. The possible implementation of bag limits on furbearers WILL affect YOUR trapping in the future, even if you do not trap fisher! This is just a beginning; fisher first, then other furbearers to follow. Other parts of this plan are just as detrimental to our future. PLEASE do something to help your future - comment on this plan today if you have not already done so!
|
|