# DNR Recommendations: Furbearer Regulation Changes for 2011



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

I posted a summary of the DNR's recommendations for changes in the MTPCA Trapping Forum. This way we can keep the discussion together. Here's the link: 

http://www.mtpca.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=399

We've got more work to do here but all in all it was positive.

Can one of the Mods make this a sticky?

John


----------



## HardWayMike (Nov 24, 2010)

Looks good John. Thanks for keeping everyone informed.


----------



## daoejo22 (May 7, 2009)

It looks pretty good, but we need to be able to keep bobcats in Oceana/Newaygo counties, way to many of them, you can't make a yote set without the possibillty of catching one. Thanks for the update.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Beaverhunter2 said:


> I posted a summary of the DNR's recommendations for changes in the MTPCA Trapping Forum. This way we can keep the discussion together. Here's the link:
> 
> http://www.mtpca.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=399
> 
> ...


Thanks. Good to see ***** and possums added to the night predator call list.


----------



## motorcityhtps (Mar 1, 2010)

I see a lot of positive changes up for review on that list. Sounds like we've got some proactive people at the helm .


----------



## ottertrapper (Jan 6, 2006)

One or the other on marten and fisher per season? So I am assuming you catch a marten your season is over or catch a fisher and it is over? Good in some areas, don't agree in others.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

ottertrapper said:


> One or the other on marten and fisher per season? So I am assuming you catch a marten your season is over or catch a fisher and it is over? Good in some areas, don't agree in others.


You're allowed incidental catches, but yeah, since you're not going for a second one of the same species, it looks like you'll have to be targeting something else and then if you catch one you have to give it to the DNR, assuming you can't release it alive.


----------



## Linda G. (Mar 28, 2002)

Do they really think they have that many otters? Or are they reacting to pressure from trout angling groups...I would question that we have enough otters to have an unlimited number of trappers take two a year...they have just started making a bit of a comeback in the last 10 years around here. 

Why lengthen the mink season? Will any trappers actually set for them that late? Is the pelt still any good that late? 

And I can understand the continued limitation on fishers, I guess, but from what I've heard from trappers in the UP, they should at least double the marten limit, if not triple it. 

I know us grouse hunters would appreciate it, bet the handful of squirrel hunters in the UP would, too.


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

My experience with otter is that in areas where they are present, they are dense.

Gone are the days when otter could bring $100 at auction. I believe the number of trappers in zone 2 that will actually take 2 otters in a season will be low.

While I don't know it for a fact, i'd be surprised if the trout groups had any input to this process.


----------



## dpweurding (Nov 9, 2009)

John,

Thank you for all your hard work! I was wondering that if some of these regulations were to be put in place, when would they become effective, this coming season? Also, when would be the next meeting, and where would it be? Thanks,

Derek


----------



## stagliano (Nov 10, 2006)

Linda G. said:


> And I can understand the continued limitation on fishers, I guess, but from what I've heard from trappers in the UP, they should at least double the marten limit, if not triple it.
> 
> I know us grouse hunters would appreciate it, bet the handful of squirrel hunters in the UP would, too.


This was my first year trapping. I was fortunate enough to have a very experienced trapper let me tag along, learn how to make sets and make some of my own. I even trapped my first Marten. It is very clear that trappers are incredibly aware of their surroundings and the game that they pursue. It is also imperative that trappers have an active role in the discussions to set regulations however, your contact with the trappers you have heard from, does not warrant the bag to be changed from up to triple the current bag. 

Marten are very habitat specific, preferring large contiguous tracts of mature forest, large amounts of woody debris and high snowfall zones. This finite habitat makes them vulnerable as a species. Because of these very specific characteristics, they do not often overlap with high quality Grouse habitat as you have suggested. They primarily subside on small mammals. 

It was with great pride that I purchased my first Fur Harvester licence this last year. I will purchase another one this year and hopefully many more years to come. I have always been interested in trapping because of the tremendous connection that trappers have with the game the pursue and the ethic of sustainable harvest. I think that these characteristics are more prevalent in the trapping community that other communities of consumptive activities. 

I believe that your suggestion of a bag limit 300% higher than the currently set regulations is not only irresponsible but misinformed.


----------



## U.P. trappermark (Jul 4, 2010)

Linda G. said:


> And I can understand the continued limitation on fishers, I guess, but from what I've heard from trappers in the UP, they should at least double the marten limit, if not triple it.
> 
> Linda, I agree with you on this. I wont even put in fisher sets due to catching about 5 martin to 1 fisher, the fisher numbers in my area are pretty low.


----------



## Northcountry (Feb 4, 2004)

U.P. trappermark said:


> Linda G. said:
> 
> 
> > Linda, I agree with you on this. I wont even put in fisher sets due to catching about 5 martin to 1 fisher, the fisher numbers in my area are pretty low.
> ...


----------



## LarryA (Jun 16, 2004)

My take on the marten and fisher is the DNR believes the population is decreasing due to the data collected from aging marten and fisher by their teeth. When you get higher numbers of older individuals harvested it is believed that indicates that the annual production is lower than it should be.


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

Wow! Lots of questions!

Linda, Grouse have been cycling forever in Michigan- with or without marten. In your experience, are the population dips deeper than they used to be? The mink season was lengthened to allow incidental mink taken during an extended muskrat season to be utilized. No smart trapper would target them in February. A muskrat would be likely worth more, but allowing the mink to be kept avoids having them thrown away. Lang and I agree on this point- otters are thick in at least some parts of the NLP and trappers do not target otter (or marten or fisher for that matter) for the money. Trappers have been asking for this for years. With their large range and the fact that they leave little sign it's hard to count otter. So the intent is to monitor the population indicators and act quickly if there seems to be a decline. BTW The trout groups were not involved in this request. This request came from the trappers consistently over the last 15 years that I know of. 

Northcountry, Do you turn in your incidentals? The bad news is- the DNR doesn't sell incidentals-they incinerate them. The sort of good news is that they do use data collected as part of the management information (so please DO turn them in!). The better news is that we are going to be working with the DNR to develop a process that will allow incidentals to help provide tanned fur to schools, funding for Trapper Education, or some other value. 

The DNR's fisher population model suggested that they have declined far more than the marten. It's interesting that fisher are the species that had a limit of 3 in part of their area and many trappers agree the population has indeed declined. This is the issue with having area specific limits on species with such low harvest numbers. If county A has a one animal limit and count B have a limit of two (or three), you know where they are going to be trapped (or at least reportedly trapped). We would have liked a combined limit of two, but the DNR's data suggested a need for a immediate reduction in the harvest. This is why the turn in of incidentals is so important. The DNR needs to know how many are being taken and get the age data for the model. We'd like to move this to a combined limit of two. Animals trapped but not reported cause the model to see this as a factor indicating decline in the population.

TTYL Beavers to put up!

John


----------



## Northcountry (Feb 4, 2004)

Beaverhunter2 said:


> Northcountry, Do you turn in your incidentals?


Of course we do, its the law so I was unaware that there was any other option. We start each season with three incidental seals that we request from our district biologist, and carry with us in the field during checks. We've never had to use more than one in any given season.

They incinerate incidentals? Talk about wanton waste of natural resources! 

LarryA, our DNR lab reports indicate that most of our fisher and marten are 0.5 or 1.5 years old. We've only had one specimen that was 2.5

-NC


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

You're right on, Northwood! Thank you!

It is the Law, but some guys still don't. The turn-in of incidental otter helped us get the recommendation for the increased limit in the Zone 2. It suggested how many were actually being taken. Even if the fur isn't currently being used, the fact that the DNR knew of the removal of the animal from the population is valuable to the mangement of the species.

We agree that incinerating the incidentals is a waste (the MTPCA and the DNR). The DNR doesn't want to see them wasted either, but also doesn't want to see there be an incentive for guys to go over the limit on purpose. I can't remember which state it is that actually allows trappers to keep their incidental otter. This was proposed in Michigan a couple FBWG meetings ago. That's kind of silly in my opinion. For all intents and purposes that's an increase to the limit for some guys. If the population can sustain that level of harvest- increase the limit. If it can't- don't. As I mentioned above, there have been a number of ideas tossed around about what to do with incidentals. This is one of the things the DNR wants to work on for the next cycle. We'll be sending out a survey to our members to see what they may want us to work on. Some of the ideas already proposed include:


NLP Bobcats- increasing the open area and equalizing access between trappers and hunters
Adding bobcats to the list of species that can be hunted at night
Reviewing the use of buckshot at night to provide an improved, reasonably-priced alternative for callers, while addressing the DNR Law Division's concerns about poaching
Reviewing the interpretation of the law regarding trapping inside push-ups and feeders
Developing a process to make effective use of incidentals while managing the concern that it could incentivize people to over-harvest
The survey will ask for their opinions/positions on these issues (and a few others) and for additional ideas. I had a draft done, but since the Furbearer Workgroup Meeting, I have to revise it (a lot!).

I'll let you know when it goes out so you can watch your mailboxes.

John


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Beaverhunter2 said:


> [*]NLP Bobcats- increasing the open area and equalizing access between trappers and hunters


Yes!


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

We're not there yet, Freepop! We do intend to push for them though- and we think there is support. 

John


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

I like the work that the MTPCA is doing on these recommendations. Thank you for all the hard work!


----------

