WI must have caught up to MN on rats...proposal would now move rat trapping below 29 to a November opening..

Not in the last 35 years.

It may in the future if we ever see an overly extended period of high markets or an excess of trapping that isnt related to market forces.

It wouldnt surprise me that we lose some time on the back end some day but public tolerance of beaver seems to be less and less every day so who knows.

Can anyone answer my question about the non-resident trapping deal?

This would probably be a better question for someone like Muskrat, Fox Claw, or the Beav.

Since they have not showed up yet, I will give you an educated guess. Here are our trapping regulations:http://dnr.wi.gov/files/pdf/pubs/wm/wm0002.pdf
We only allow states that allow us to buy nonresident trapping licenses. Since MI doesn't allow us to trap, I would assume that you would not be allowed a trapping license here. Again, I would wait to hear from others though.

Remember Brian, you are only allowed to catch 1/3 of the wolves or you hurt the population. A lot of those wolves are pups and catch easily. But, you are right in that if you could maintain that same ability to fill quota in a couple days year after year, then that would be sign that you were not harvesting too many wolves. Especially, if you wanted to go down in population. A declining population should be harder to fill tags and take more effort to catch the same amount.

I thought Wisc. was the badger state?

We're obviously overpopulated. Isn't 350 the magic number? And they admit to roughly 690? Which most people in the upper half of the state will say is quite conservative. I agree with them.

It is...And they are finally looking at opening a badger season. LOL

I don't like a population number Brian...It holds us back from doing the right thing. Your bobcat permits are being held back by a dumb number so I would think you would be quick to ditch that 350.

See we have this population number on bobcat of 2500 +/- 500. Right now we appear to be on the lower end of that range so it keeps us from increasing permits even though we should. I have no idea where we are in relation to that number, but I can tell you without a doubt, we could double permits issued and not have an impact the population that would be of significance.

Lol I haven't read through all the posts but I would rather have badgers then wolves. I love to trap badgers and they have one of the most beautiful coats of all critters.

Not badgers from Wi. Their fur is really flat & just plain junk.

Brian is that just because all those Badger are caught early?

Now back to bobcat. See we used to issue lots more permits in the past and we used to have a very poor success rate. I am talking less than 20%. Over time the effort to catch/harvest one has continued to fall and our success rates have continued to increase. It has gotten to the point where we can take a brand new guy off the street and tell him he has a 60% chance of harvesting a bobcat and probably a "trophy" bobcat at that. LOL Yeah, that new bobcat study did nothing but reinforce what trappers/hunters have been saying for years. Increase permits and run a little lower success rate. The funny thing is if you did that for a few years, I bet the success rate would be right back up at 60%.

Instead we are chasing this 2500 number on bobcat. Are you sure you want to chase a numeric number on wolves?

Yep! We need a true count, so when they become harvestable again, we work to stay @ that original goal of 350, & maintain a population that is acceptable for all. Maybe more or smaller zones would help that? Idk?

Do I need to remind you we have a population goal of 13K for otter. We are way under goal and so again, how is that working for trappers? I have no idea if we are below 13K, but this I am sure. We have way too many otter in this state and need to go down. The current levels do not work.

See, if I am hearing you correctly, you want a lower population on wolves. Or should I say, the lowest population as you can. But fighting so hard for a population number you are working for the opposite. You are actually working to eliminate the option of going below. Notice how any thing that we have a numeric population goal on we artificially inflate by our actions? Think wolves will be any different? Do you really want to take away your option to go below when you have no idea what 350 will look like?

I don't know where the population level should land, but I do know we have too many currently. And surely, I would not work to eliminate an option before we really even get started.

You dont wqnt to chase an arbitrary number that can not be prove IMHO.

Justin, since when do success rates play any role in biology or is their some other nefarious reason they use that as an indicator?

Give this young lady a call and she'll provide you with the information you're looking for J. Morse.

Contact Information

Jenna Kosnicki
Assistant furbearer biologist
Bureau of Wildlife Management
608-261-6452

OK, you win. Let's just kill them all now & sort it out later. We can just start with zero again. See what kind of fictional numbers they'll come up with then.

Now you sound like fisheries on beaver. LOL

By itself, it means nothing. I think when you look at effort for success, I think it could provide value. But I guess that would also depend on your objective. You only interested in ensuring you have an sustainable population or do you have as much interest in what goes to waste?

Any single or small grouping of numbers or data will be wrong and subject to a lot of scrutiny. One of the main reasons states hire biologists and ecologists and pay for research is to gather information to be able to determine population densities, management, trends and also to have data to prevent being sued and or law suits from AR groups etc. I find it interesting that the state, (politicians) feel that the research and numbers are accurate enough to allow seasons, bag limits and also protect the state from law suits from AR groups but those numbers are not credible to trappers and those that harvest.

Maybe there needs to be a real discussion as to why most consumptive users feel they are being fed bogus information while many others are glad that the work is being done and are willing to fund the work.

Bryce