Fisher are now clearly making in-roads to southeast Alaska. The first was decades ago, and was surrendered. Another was taken several years later. It is hard to say if any more were taken over the next 20 years, due to the fact they were an anomoly, and were required to be surrendered.
It was determined about 8 years ago that the best way to gauge actual take was to provide a season for them in unit 1c, with an annual limit of 1.
Since then, the reported harvest has been o-4 animals annually. Sex ratio trending towards females, 60/40, or so.
The areas of take are clearly expanding, both north and south.
My very limited, short term observations indicate this could be detrimental to the historically abundant marten.
What are your thoughts and experiences?

AV My trapline is on the northern edge of the fishers range. I usually take one every other year or so, and interestingly Ive never caught a male. I've often wondered about that. What I've noticed is that I've caught more fisher since the porcupine population started its climb. We have more porcupines now that at any time in my life. Based on my experience growing up in BC I dont think fishers would effect marten numbers. Where I grew up we had lots of both. Even today friends of mine that are still actively trapping that area still see really good marten numbers and the fisher population seems about the same.

Interesting, yukon. I have a few theories, but need far more "boots on the ground" information.
Hope others chime in, too.

Just a guess AV but I suspect in your environment protein and fat are easier to come by than more interior areas. Might not be much competition at all for marten. It seems evident that it takes less to keep a marten alive than a fisher.

I can't tell you about Alaska - but Fisher and Marten have lived in the northern half of MN for my lifetime. Their range overlaps and always has to my knowledge. Having said that, both are struggling big time, and I'm not sure MN DNR understands entirely why. Generally speaking, the trend has been down, down, down for both. In MN, you can only trap two, combined. The season is six days long. Imagine that? Pretty poor chance of getting a fisher. Better for Marten. The population of both increases as you go north for the most part. Fisher, however, expand south farther than the Marten by 100-200 miles.

Seems they also like a good mixture of mature hardwoods and conifers. Hollow trees for dens and squirrels and such. The fisher are elusive with big territories - not nearly as big as a wolverine, but they seem to come through once every week or two. I have only ever seen them from the deer stand, usually on the move early in the morning, and I swear they never ever stop. Probably a lot like a wolverine in that respect. I have never laid eyes on a Marten in MN. They are mostly up in the arrowhead region of MN, but extend to north central too. I have caught one fisher before, but as you know, never a pine marten :-)

With the exception of a couple of large river systems, we don't have any hardwood stands. Even those are comprised o cottonwood, (supposedly a favorite for fisher denning sites).
It will be interesting to see how it plays out, to be sure.

I believe Joe is right on habitats. In Idaho elevation seems to define range, probably because of snow level. Just my observations.

Joe, thank you for your in-sight. And to add credence to your observations, the apparent increase in local harvest, and expansion of territory is indeed coinciding with several years of reduced snowfall, here.

I'll toss in my two cents. Only Fisher I've ever seen was where there aren't supposed to be. It ran across the Glenn hwy just shy of the Canadian border on the Alaska side. Couldn't believe what I was seeing.

For what it's worth, they are listed as a "species of concern", in B.C., yet still are open to trapping.
Maybe b.c.tomcat can chime in.

Several sightings the past few years, by 2 experienced trappers, of Fisher seen in Copper Basin, Glenallen vicinity.

My field experience , albeit limited, says its all about food, specifically a fishers favorite prey, the porcupine...as yukon points out
I caught one 12 pound male a few years ago and boy howdy was that
Thing was loaded with porky quills, 50 plus tips between the flesh and skin , had 3 big ones broke off in its throat.
It had porcupine in it's stomach.
I had several cubbies in the area loaded with deer scrap, bones, duck carcasses...one walked within 2 feet of it but was bee lining it to the creek where it smelled a juvenile porky and just made a mess of it in the snow, and ate everything except the guts and a foot bone, then continued on its way. The food is here and the accommodations aren't too shaby, i also have a hypothesis that fisher wont turn down fish, especially the salmon that seasonally return to creeks and tributaries. There is an undergrad student working with fish and game doing a research project on fisher here locally.

Is she coming back this year? Wasn't sure if it was just last year, or not.

I was talking to an older guy the other day and he mentioned someone caught a fisher way up here about 10-15 years ago.

AV from my perspective it isn't worth much....a friend of mine was at a resource meeting last week in northern BC. He said the regional biologist told them that the wolverine should be considered 'endangered.' There is no evidence to support that claim. In fact most trappers believe the wolverine population is swinging upwards. Even left leaning CBC ran an article that said as much this winter. I've been hearing about the wolverine decline for a few years now. IMO they have an agenda to move them onto the endangered species list, and facts simply dont matter....kind of like the Russian collusion hoax, tell lies long enough and before long it becomes fact.

Well, anecdotally, the wolverine pop here also appears to be on the up-swing. However, we have a recent increase in local trappers, and some are going further, and trapping areas that have been un-molested for many years, resulting in an increased harvest.
Time will tell if it is sustainable, or if it disrupts dispersal.

Yes they have been "blue listed" for as long as I can remember which I believe is unwarranted. They are simply a species which occur in low numbers over a large area similar to their larger cousin the wolverine.There is really no threat to over harvesting by trapping, on registered lines, with harvest controls (management) by the trapper. Winter snow conditions, as previously discussed is a major factor re their occurrence in any area. The greatest threat to their population is the recent large fires and vast logging ( large clear cuts) of their suitable habitat and lack of dispersal routes over these large cuts.

IMO food source is not a controlling factor as a fisher is an opportunistic predator/scavenger that will prey on a wide variety of animals including hares, grouse, fish, squirrels, birds and their eggs, berries, mice and voles and CARRION.

Hey Boco, what book is that? I want a copy.

Don't know if the book is still available but.