Maybe we need to define which trend data 49er first. Might make it easier to explore.

Is it the word "Quality" or the word "experience" that scares you so? I'll try to be more "sensitive" to your "displeasures" in the future.

Thanks Clark.
Boco; Do the marten seem to favor the same habitat in Canada? Boreal forest over other timber?

Marten in some areas prefer alders for some reason which doesnt make sense as no denning trees ect, but possibly was just one study. Usually Marten have young in hollow tree up high and after a time bring young down to some hole or stump in ground.
When Wisc did Marten study and my trapping partner and myself made marten boxes and marten release pens all i asked was of the DNR to let us know when they had marten so my trapping partner could see one. The DNR never contact us so partner never saw a marten. This after us donating all the material for boxes and cages for nothing.... still i like marten even if the DNR shafted my partner in just not letting him see a marten.

Well maybe they didn't catch any Or not very many.

They are going to the alders to feed since that's where the food Is. Marten are a lost cause and we will probably never have a sustainable population here In WI.

It was you that made the comment that the fisher were preying on the marten.

When I trapped that one year In Canada we always looked for those sections of heavy black spruce stands when we set for marten. Well at least as I can remember those were the preferred areas.

In my area marten prefer the coniferous forest with good overhead cover and lots of coarse woody debris on the forest floor,so they can hunt and move around under the snow when it gets cold and the snow gets deep.This is the older 60+ year old growth.This is core marten habitat.Juvenile marten dispersing usually stick to corridors with good overhead cover like timbered drainages that run thru burns,clearcuts etc,and connect core marten habitat.

Wolves use this kind of bush too.

Most agree that there are too many wolves in WI far too many as stated many times here and lets say that is true, then the non harvest data collected early when the population was very low, low density and wide separation of packs and lone wolves is not really good data to use as trends when the populations are 2, 3 4 or 5 fold those early numbers. Species behave considerably different when in higher density situations and also where expansion of range is more forced than a choice.

Bryce

Bryce, When was the big wolf reintro? Early 90's? Do u know the numbers that were released then? And how many existed prior to that?
When I was deer hunting with my dad near Sprague, Wi. before I was old enough to carry a gun. I'm thinking around '75? We seen wolves then. Also a couple years later near Bear Bluff Wi., on Deer Island Rd. We saw wolf tracks. So obviosly we had them then. Why did we need more?

In '05, when I caught that incidental marten in a fisher set. A biologist from Rhinelander was in the process of catching & collaring them then. Of course the I got was expired in a 160. So it was collected by him. That was NE of Eagle River, 8-10 mi.

This document has some historical estimates on wolf populations in the state. Now sure it goes back to 75, but can provide a little color. I think page 16 Brian.
http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Wildlifehabitat/wolf/documents/PostDelistMonitor2015.pdf

Below is your marten plan Brian. Looks like you were not the only one that caught an incidental marten.

http://dnr.wi.gov/files/PDF/pubs/ER/ER0697.pdf

No I don't have info regarding what occurred in the early 1990s as to wolves. My posts mostly reflect on numbers posters use on these threads. It would make sense to me that wolf numbers (wolves never 100 percent left WI) would not sky rocket with the deer population increases in the northern wooded habitat. I can only speculate but I am guessing that a number like 350 mature wolves at low density time periods was considered a reasonable goal by many based on habitat, food and territorial behavior etc. What may not have been as accurately accessed was the rapid response of the wolves when offered great habitat and very abundant and easy to procure food sources. When you add to that a growing bobcat population and a bear population that was about 50% or more over estimated goals and winters that impact prey species more than predators early on and a rapid decline in browse habitat and high quota numbers and that is all targeted at one species then things can change rapidly and they have. The ecosystem of Wisconsin and nature is telling us or the wolves that we can have and handle many more wolves, it is the political and social aspect that is saying no and politics and social attitudes make Mother Nature look like a never changing entity by comparison.

Bryce

Do the wolves eat the white ones? If so, send my way.



Just another example of shortsighted deer hunters.

It is the unintended side effects of people want ot enhance their quality of experience. It's why you wisconsin guys are having a hard time drawing bear permits, cat permits, otter permit.

Your quality of experience should only be accomplished through individual effort and hard work, not some psuedo-science that is tailored to meet the fashion of the day.

I'm sure the wolf is not racist. They'll eat deer of all color & age. Even those white mutations. But I do believe that if the wolf population continues to grow with no regulated harvest, there's gonna be increased
incidents of wolves attacking humans. If their numbers aren't increasing, then why are sightings becoming so regular?
The answer to that, is they are becoming quite bold & less afraid of human presence. Just as the coyote has over the years.

Tell me if I am being too simplistic with my reasoning. I'd wager Boco most likely doesnt have an idea what the marten population in Ontario overall is but I'll bet he can tell me what his line can handle based on the trends of what is harvesting comparing male/female ratio and adult to young of year. I'll bet you white 17 could as well.

I'd wager JB in Nevada could say the same about cat harvest using the trend data. Your Wisconsin biologist like to think they can count wolves with in a plus minus 12 but I'm here to tell you aint nobody that good.

Handitrapper, some of that reasoning led to the map below.



This caused some issues with the deer hunters because they could not look long term. Only wanted to look short term.

Come on 49er. Our wolf estimation is dead balls accurate! We count tracks crossing the roads during the winter. That's why our beaver & otter counts are so good. Fly around in an airplane to look @ otter tracks in the winter. Never mind the cast amount of incidentals bing caught. Oh wait....... That's just the ones that get turned in.

Are we only going to use this data to maintain a robust population that is expanding?

If they had ground crews and collars for otter like they do for wolves, our otter situation wouldn't be in the mess that it is in today. We have much bigger issues with beaver than to worry about the survey they did

Why would you?