Why was that original 350 number used? More than likely because that's what science & research showed sustainable as habitat & prey species could allow. So why were their numbers allowed to increase? To double that number or likely more? Why reintroduce such a dominant predator with no way of controlling overpopulation because of federal protection

It was a poor plan to begin with. The whole thing stinks

I would love to dig into this Bryce, but I wonder if we do it in the other thread. As someone that walked away from the otter conversation nearly 20 years ago, only to submit a resolution this past yearthat would increase the permit fee so we would have a funding mechanism for water furbearers, I think I can see both sides. I have been on both sides.

You want to increase the cost of our app fee now? And you think I'm the one stirring the pot? The app fee for tagged species is too high now. Especially for cats & bears, which takes way to long to draw.

Yep Brian. Like the bureaucracy needs to be fed any more.

I tend to agree. Sometimes you have to take a step back before going forward. That might be a whole other conversation. I might put in a resolution on fisher to increase that permit fee as well if our state continues to show good stewardship of those funds.


On a side note, the DNR will be holding a chat on bobcat in October. The details are as follows:


Online bobcat chat rescheduled to Oct. 13 at noon
Published by Central Office September 6, 2016

Contact(s): Shawn Rossler, DNR furbearer Ecologist, 608-267-9428; Nathan Roberts, DNR carnivore and furbearer research scientist, 715-490-9345

MADISON - Join Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources experts for an online chat about bobcats in Wisconsin that has been rescheduled to Thursday, Oct. 13 at noon.

Please note that a previous news release listed the chat date as Sept. 15.

Visit dnr.wi.gov and search keyword "chat" to submit questions and view responses from DNR experts. Here, you can also view past chats and sign up to receive email notifications. For more information regarding bobcats in Wisconsin, visit dnr.wi.gov and search keyword "furbearers."

Anybody have a good question they would like asked?

Ask them what their projected timeline (once delisted) is for returning the population back to its original goal of 350.

Sorry Brian. The chat is on bobcat so not sure if they still take questions on wolves;)

Here's a question, is it the over population of Bobcats that has ran our Fisher out of Northern Price County? There are way to many bobcats it this area, I can only vouch for northern Price since I don't get far from home, I gave up applying for fisher tags, because the last time I had a tag I killed 3 bobcats and released 3 more and never caught a fisher. I have released them form cable restraints, and even drown one in a mink set.

Hey, I don't want to get rid of the wolves because up here you can blame any problem on one four things, Obama, Isis, Climate Change or Wolves

I don't want to get rid of the wolves either. Just want them brought back to a sustainable level (350). Which was the goal when reintroduction took place.

Justin, Since this was on the wolf thread, guess that's what I thought was the subject.

There is that 350 number again. Why are you so rigid in wanting that number?

What is that number going to get you? Last I checked, every permit animal is at bottom of range or below goal and it significantly reduces are ability to increase permits. What could be of such great value that youyou are willing to follow the same path?

Do you think it is the Bobcats forcing the Fisher out through food competition? That's the best or most believable answer I have gotten from the wildlife folks. I don't know how they estimate Bobcat populations but there seems to be a lot of cats around here. I know everybody does not turn in all incidental catches, it's easier to toss them. I do all mine because I know it goes to trappers ED. Same with otter, it's easier to let them float away. I hope they don't count on incidental catch numbers too heavily.

I believe that the question is why was the 350 number used in the first place? Because that's probably what a sustainable population should be. Based on habitat and food source. Wolves continue to move south, right? Is that because there is more abundant food source? Or because of overpopulation & dispersal? Are those wolves going to be able to coexist with higher human populations as they move this way? Or is there going to increased conflicts? I believe all of the above.

Line Jumper; I don't know the true answer to your question. May be competition for the same food source more of an issue than the cats preying on the fisher. I used to trap them in Vilas Co. 10 years ago. It was hard to keep them out of your sets. The numbers certainly aren't there like they once were. I'm in N. Rock Co., and I know of a handful that have been caught in the last couple years only 60 miles north of me. And I don't think the cats are far behind.

So they shouldn't have the ability to update to more accurate information or adjust based on new variables?

We live in a changing world. I prefer we adjust as time goes on. Otter, bobcat, and fisher trappers are going to be mad if you hold them to the same standard as wolves. Your numeric population goal its killing or harvest. Yet, you want to create another one?

I will throw some stuff up on otter later on estimated population and habitat.

Changing?

Sure they can change. And things always do. Whether good or bad. Nathan said @ the membership meeting that the estimated population was around 800. That's more than double of the original goal. I've never heard or read where anyone said our habitat could sustain a population higher than 350. Have you? Why do you think the deer populations are so low above hwy 64 & 8? Why are all those nothern DMUs buck only? Do you think lack of browse or harsh winters attributed to that? Maybe some? But deer seem to be able to adapt to different food sources. So I don't believe that's the big culprit here. Depredation would be much more logical. IMO.

I know you're gonna say I need to "look at the big picture." But I feel I am. The wolves are eating us out of house & home. Plain and simple. There is a reason why we wiped them out the first time.

Line Jumper, guessing it is not helping, but not sure how much is a driving factor. The fisher almost seem to be migrating based on the occurrence across multiple states. As far as incidentals on bobcat, trappers are only hurting themselves if they are not turning in the incidentals. Our new chain of command is aggressively working to transfer incidental into the resource bucket by increasing quota to lower incidentals and increase legal harvest. The hound guys tried to use incidental bobcat to increase harvest, but there is just not the same level turned in compared to otter and the majority are road killed bobcats. Only fitting that this change in mindset on otter was driven because the DNR was allowed to change their habitat figures on otter.

Nimzy, isn’t everything always changing? Some in short cycles and some things long term. Keep the water too high for too long and what happens to a marsh? Keep it too low for too long and what happens? Any different when a guy gets out of the water?

Bobcat were found that they underestimated viable habitat based on how close they were living to people and the density in which they were living in the habitat. More habitat, more target species, higher sustainable quota. They go together. When they figured the habitat for otter, they must have used the same guys that came up with the 350 for wolves. They severely underestimate the sustainable habitat for otter and thus the maximum sustainable harvest is kept lower. This leads to extreme waste.

If I am betting, this is why someone wanted to go after incidentals so bad on otter. He started to realize the true number. He listened to trappers talking about otter showing up in places they were just not in the past. Not only were they living in that habitat that was not counted, they were thriving. So he redid this total habitat model and thus your sustainable harvest was much higher. Now when things showed signs of impacting population, he could re-calibrate the model to know just how many otter he was losing based on this new habitat number. He compared that number to what he had coming in the form of incidentals and legal harvest and the gap was large. So now we are working to correct by increasing quota on otter.

But yet, Brian wants to hold them to this old faulty science. Doesn’t want them the ability to adapt and change with the changes happening across the landscape. Brian, notice how much of the state is not surveyed for wolves? Guess how much less would be surveyed if we held the state to the same habitat index they used to come up with the 350? Going out on a limb here, but I bet you lose a minimum of 30% of your wolf population estimate if we force them to go back to suitable wolf habitat. Lucky for you, they went against your wishes and adjusted their science to match the new information that they had at their disposal.

As more habitat is improved through things like the young forest initiative, timber harvest, and food plots, the carrying capacity of the land changes. Our biggest issue right now on bobcat is the reproduction rates. I think when we had our last big increase on cats, we were testing to see if reproduction rates would increase as we increased harvest. We had picked a number that we thought we would get a reaction on. But we didn’t get the reaction, partly driven by not harvesting as many cats as we thought they would get(which in my mind could have been predicted). So we try to pause and hold before going on. The only problem is many of our wildlife management folks are afraid of their own shadow and are quick to reduce harvest. This hurts actually testing some things.

I think it was Bryce that said trappers are quick to get sidetracked before letting things play out. Looks like that is a trait that is shared by other groups beside trappers.

Trappers are probably quick to side track because they get old and die before things "play" out.

I'm waiting for a nr trapping season and the trappers in Wisconsin are waiting for chicken little biologists to increase their harvest.

Practically every state around WI a more liberal attitude when it comes to cats and otter yet Wisconsin seems to think they are special and they need to study it to death.

Luckily for the trappers of Wisconsin they will most likely see improvements before I do

49er, I think some of that work needs to be done if we want to get aggressive with harvest and still win a lawsuit. Get it peer reviewed and published. Plus, those benefits would go outside of WI.

But trappers share some of this blame on these species as they have allowed too much quality of experience to get baked in. I would love nothing more than to shorten the first bobcat season by a month minimum. Increase permit to a 10% success rate and shut down the season when we reached the quota for that period. I bet we would actually create some bobcat trappers because they would get a tag every year or two versus waiting 10+ years for one. Guys would actually avoid before season started because those cats would now have a value later. Hound hunters would not like me because I would ensure the first season is not leaving quota on cats unfilled before they get out there.

Brian won't let me because he thinks the way wolves is set up is bad and is a bad experience, but maybe he will reconsider once he uses up his 10+ points and needs to start accumulating towards his next bobcat. The guys in the north refuse to budge on the front end of the season because they value the front end of the season for some reason but refuse to account for the limited resource as reference with the complaining that came when the wolf season was delayed by a couple weeks. Not sure how MN catches 4-5X our number of cats when they are starting around Thanksgiving and lack the hunting pressure. LOL

Last, but not least, it would ensure we had even more collars on cats to show they were surviving the increasing pressure we are going to apply in the future. Not only do we need more collars on cats in the north, we also now need to get some in the south. So glad that study was expanded into the southern zone. That way if I can't get trappers to start pushing together, at least the science guy will get us some more tags.