Might be a little early for that 49er, but it did catch my eye. There was a pretty big range in the recommendations for quota in the north so what would be of more value would be knowing who voted which way and why....

I'd be interested to see what you dig up on that.

Well I didn't get the vote yet, but I was able to get my hands on the supporting documents. Any interest in exploring it? I will warn you that it might turn your thread into Bobcat Logic.

Also, as a public service announcement, please remember that the Wisconsin deadline to apply for a permit for these lovely trophy species is quickly approaching. Only have until August 1 so dont wait to get those applications in.

If you want a sure thing, apply for a southern otter tag this year. Looks like this year we will be trying out the two tags for a few lucky individuals in the southern zone. And if you need help finding otter, I heard "the Beav" will offer assistance in locating those elusive animals in our southern most zone.

I was hoping for an increase in northern zone cat tags, with having Nathan's science & now having Shawn on board. Guess that will take some time. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part? A guy used to get a tag every couple years. Now it takes half your adult life. Hardly worth the effort. IMO.

Anybody know if Kendall plans on making a wolf trap for your guys size regs?

red mt, not sure. I am assuming you mean the early season smaller 7 inch max jaw spread?

Brian, I think we can get a bunch of information from the link to the meeting notes. Here are the discussion from that document"Bobcat Harvest & Season Review 2015: In 2015, there was a harvest quota of 400 bobcats: 300 in the northern zone and 100 in the southern. The total harvest is 263 by state permit holders, 46 incidentals, 6 on reservation and 50 off reservation with a total harvest of 365. 63% were taken by hunters over dogs and 31% trapped. 57% on public land and 37% private. The majority of incidental harvest was road kills with 28 reported. Majority of southern bobcats were harvested in the northernmost portion of the southern zone. The total number of carcasses handled by the DNR was one of the highest with 326 carcasses processed. Committee discussed local bobcat sightings, nuisance bobcat, decreased pregnancy rates and prey concerns.

So I think the new science probably kept the permits higher than they would be in past. We collar 25 bobcats and only 5 have been removed from the population. 2 were harvested, 2 died of natural causes, and one was a depredation cat. I interpret a depredation cat in such a small sample size as too high of population if they are causing problems. Looks like 80% are surviving which I would assume is a good thing. The problem you have is it really is only one year with data. Guessing we need a few more collars and a couple more years to really feel comfortable using the data. We don't want to rush into something only to find out we jumped to conclusions. That got us in trouble with otter, but information looks promising.

Now we add that to the quota recommendations. Looks like no one voted to increase quota. Was either maintain or lower(some wanted as low as 125) and remember that includes representation from CC, WTA, and the hound guys. Since I attended last year and watched voting, I would guess those three voted with the guy running the new studies. But that is pure speculation.

I think the troubling data is the reproduction and track surveys. Reproduction is slowing and surveys appear to show declining track counts. This brings us back to something that was discussed earlier. Wonder if it holds true for bobcat?



As this young forest initiative takes hold, I am guessing we will see some nice increases in permits. Actually, the recent increase might be the main factor that has stabilized the population some. Benefit of habitat improvement strikes again.

I talked with a friend of mine today, who lives near Arrgone. (Forest Co.) He has a logging operation & is also a hound hunter. So needless to say, he spends a lot of time in the woods. He stated that the wolf population is totally out of control. I bear hunt with he & some others in that area each year & I have to agree with him. The amount of trail cam pix we get of wolves are ridiculous. Somebody's gonna have to get them under control. Or hunters will take matters in their on hands.

The state will return to managing wolves soon enough Brian, but unless the guys are willing to listen to the science, any result they want to achieve will take twice as long. Here is why.

You want more bobcat permits. I noticed not one group voted to increase permits this year based on the meeting minutes. Not one. Maybe that was a typo, but I will remind you that the WTA sits on this committee. Did the WTA board want more permits this year? Why or why not? See, one needs to fully understand the science to vote for an increase. I have asked numerous times to get a committee together for these recommendations. Find a handful of guys that have an interest in this stuff and come up with numbers that they feel they can justify. Remember, that committee will get some tough questions and have to deal with the "quality of experience" questions when they come. Be wrong on cats this year and you pay for it for years to come. White and company talk about working very hard not to over harvest these species.

Now apply to wolves. Beating on a drum about 350 is not going to get there any faster. The state will reduce in a controlled manner. We should demand a controlled reduction, but we also need to be able to start testing some things. After all, this will help us be prepared when we need to put the breaks on this run away train.

Since we are going down, I am always looking for an avenue where we can use others to do some of the pushing to benefit us. Too long trapper have been used by other groups to help them get what they want. Time to reverse that trend.

Sure my preface was that I wasn't sure the 350 was a high enough, but don't let that distract from my message. I have suggested ideas on ways that we might be able to give more opportunities for trappers to harvest a wolf in this state while also looking out for the other stakeholders. A way to work at decreasing the population in the heart of wolf country. Remember how long the season lasted in zone 6. Now image you had a zone in the heart of wolf country that you really tried to maintain a lower population in. All these studies being done on prey/predator relationships would only be magnified by having two different population dynamics in place in the heart of wolf country. My way may very well take us to 350 or below and do it faster than the guys screaming for 350. But the difference is I wont eliminate an option before we even get started.

Justin, I sent you a PM this morning

Going to have to get into "quality of experience" if we want more tags in the north for cats.

I wished we would have used the new science to push for more tags. Here is how I figure. #1 the cats we are collaring are surviving. #2 Not sure how many cats we caught as incidentals versus the ones the state caught(but the total was 25 cats received collars), but guessing there is not much difference between the ones trappers were allowed to legally harvest (80 in the whole state) versus the ones we put collars on in the northern zone. Think about that for a second. We are allowed to keep the same number as we are incidentally catching and collaring. That is way out of line and should merit an increase in my eyes. Add in the habitat improvements, and those cats are going to be in responding to the increase in prey species.

The hound guys are like deer guys. They like artificially high population. Sure this helps with them getting larger animals, but it has it drawbacks. IMO, this hurts reproduction. As we start to increase number of tags in this state, we will start to see reproduction rates increase, we will start to see some more younger cats, and we will start to see trappers accounting for more of the harvest. Currently, trappers only accounted for 30% of the harvest. How about we push for a little more balance?

Speaking of balance, there is another animal that has exploded in recent years--the black bear. Now I am not sure which year, but I think it was like 2010 or 2011, there was talk of trying to make a push to get us a legal season to trap a bear in WI. With the deer study showing bears the number one predator for fawns, shouldn't we be utilizing that study to try and get a trapping season on bears? The deer guys, hound guys, and agricultural interests want us to push for a lower population on wolves, why not have them help us get a season on bears? Nope. Instead we are just going to continue to vilify another furbearer that we actually had a season on (until some judge blocked it). How well did that work for beaver?

Anyone have any information on why this bear trapping idea never materialized? Pulled from the WTA meeting minutes. http://www.trapperpredatorcaller.com/article-index/wisconsin-trappers-association-june-2011-report


"Cable Restraints in Nova Scotia – Mike Schmelling reported on his trip to Nova Scotia to help with their cable restraint research. It provided for 30 extra days of trapping in Nova Scotia. Wisconsin has excellent records for cable restraints and trappers from Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Ontario were instructed. They also use cable restraints/foot snares to catch black bears. Mike would like to see this promoted in Wisconsin with a possible season. It has been used to capture and release bears unharmed for years for research. The model Mike demonstrated ran about $54. Motion made by John Irwin to research the safety and feasibility of the foot snare as a viable and legal means of harvest in Wisconsin. Seconded by Richard Clark. Motion carried. It was mentioned that we need to include the Conservation Congress with this proposal."


Speaking of Conservation Congress. The Fur Harvest Committee will be meeting this weekend. http://dnr.wi.gov/About/WCC/Documents/Agenda/2016/Fur073016.pdf

Maybe someone there will be able to provide me with some direction.

Figured our main thread might need a couple links to a few past discussion items on wolves. http://www.trapperman.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/5364464/3

In this thread, Fox Claw noted that the state wouldn't have created a season on wolves if Adrian was still in charge. At that time, he might have been right. Now I find it ironic that Adrian is the same person that published this article:
http://wolf.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/swingsinmgmt.pdf

Interestingly enough, it was the basis for him to work with David Mech in their letter to the Feds to de-list wolves in the Great Lakes region.

Outdoorsmen were perplexed when Wydeven signed the letter to delist. I think in was Dean Bortz that said the action should be looked at with "optimistic caution," or something to that effect.

It was shortly after that that people realized that wolf-lovers were taking a position that supported delisting but included a "threatened status" protection. That way hunting and trapping would be banned. Such a move would also curtail the progress that congress was making on legislative action to delist.

The fact that Wydeven is using Treves research to support his position is particularly disturbing. Wydeven also takes the position to "manage the wolf population through a highly regulated system of sustainable harvest and focused depredation controls." This is code language in the AR community that supports a calculated and limited state government-run harvest. A thing they are truly against, but feel necessary to stop wider public hunting and trapping seasons.

Wydeven is not sportsmen's friend. Treves is downright scary.

"Currently, trappers only accounted for 30% of the harvest. How about we push for a little more balance?"

The balance was supposed to be taken care of. Thus the 2 different time periods. As trappers generally would use the first season & hounds men would prefer later. As a better chance of tracking snow. Remember that this took place prior to adding a southern zone.
I would rather trap the early season when the ground would be dry. Or at least a good chance. Instead of 2' of snow. For accessibility reasons.

Fox Claw, we might need to get your definition of "friend".

Brian, I finally turn back towards wolves and you put me back on cat tracks. You are confusing this hound. LOL But I will ask you this. You want more permits or do you care more about "quality of experience"? Right now we are weighted heavy for quality of experience.

Dont the two go hand in hand?

How can you have an "experience" without a permit?

49er, I had an inkling you would weight quantity a little more in your quality of experience equation. Brian wants more permits, yet he fights to decrease them at every turn under his “quality of experience”equation. He refuses to use all the levers at his disposal to get more permits. He fights for a longer season, which drives down permits. He fights against using emergency close, which hurts number of permits issued. He has avoided getting a really good understanding of the science and permit process so he can influence those that control the permits with that science and process.

You bring up an interesting point Brian on the two season, but it has one fatal flaw. They are managed the same way. They need to be managed differently if you want different results. Let’s manage the first season opposite of the hound guys. Let’s weight the variables the opposite of how they are weighted now. The problem is we will never see the true potential, because we go first. That means they will always be pushing back against us, but we can address that later.

See, I would follow the legislators lead on wolves and apply a few of the lessons to bobcat for the first season in both the north and south. I would demand tags are given out based on a 15-20% success rate and I would use the emergency close to stop harvest when we reached our quota. Going to put a little pressure on the guys to get out there and harvest the bobcat. See this benefits the trappers. How long before we have trappers pushing back to get a later start to the season? Did we see it on wolves?

See this was all used against us in the past to put us in this situation we are in now…just in reverse order. Why are we not using to reverse course? Wolves gave us a blueprint. We just need to follow it.

I guess maybe I am confused. lol. Where exactly did I push for a longer season? I'm only looking for an increase of issued permits. And by the way, I hate the split season structure we have. Once that was put into place. Tags became much more difficult to draw. Maybe when applying, one should have to request a "trapping tag" or a "hunting tag"? Do you think that the population estimates are low? I sure do. And I'm talking about wolves, cats, & otters. I very well be wrong. But unless it can be shown with hard evidence, not just numbers pulled out of thin air, then you won't change my opinion.

I agree with you 49er.

Did you not say the way wolf season was set up was a joke because they closed it so soon in many of the zones? Did you not say you didn't want them issuing 2 tags per trapper for otter because the season would close sooner? Should we walk through a real life example Brian to show you the ramifications of your choice? You want to stay with Bobcat?

The sooner that everyone looks in the mirror ad realizes the man looking back is the only one responsible for his quality of experience the better off we will all be.

Than maybe teh government agencies can actually use science.