This is incorrect.
Elimination of anything hurts the web.
predators on the landscape are essential for a healthy ecosystem.
Mans role is to keep the boom and bust cycles implemented by mother nature on a flatter sine curve.
Often predators like fisher will also help to check other (sometimes more prolific and/or destructive) predatory species.

When I was a kid and for many decades before that small game hunters routinely killed any predator in direct competition with them; hawks, owls, feral cats, foxes, etc.

We kept the predator numbers low and as a result the small game population thrived. Fast forward 50 years, hawks and owls are protected, coyotes have moved in, low prices for furbearers have caused a great decrease in the amount being trapped and some of the predators that had previously been eliminated have been re-introduced. As a result, small game numbers are an all time low.

And before someone chimes in and says it’s all about the habitat, I agree, to a certain extent that we have lost a lot of habitat with clean farming techniques and various other reasons. But, in my opinion, loss of habitat is only a minor factor. The huge increase in the predator population is the primary reason we no longer have a breeding population of pheasants in this state, you almost never see rabbits like you used to and the muskrat population is at an all-time low. Same goes for almost all other small game species.

Agree with Lugnut. We would go out after school and get rabbit limits couple times a week. Every creek, farm pond, swamp etc. was loaded w/rats.

My question would be to the guys that are so concerned about the small game/grouse/ and turkey populations . Have you targeted coon possum or skunk on your line. The real egg eaters!

It would take a concerted effort by every trapper in the state to reduce those numbers. And that’s never going to happen while fur prices are so low. Also, we sell less than 50,000 fur-bearer licenses a year. Compare that to over one million hunting license in sold prior to the creation of the separate fur-bearer license. And back then everybody killed predators at every opportunity. Many, if not most, who bought hunting licenses trapped too.

As a trapper I don’t get why some trappers would not want the marten. I happen to believe the biologist research and fully support the reintroduction of marten. They eat small rodents and eat raspberries and beech. They are not known to be the predator that some say.We pay these biologists. Let them do their research.

There is your answer-way overhunted.
Nothing to do with natural predators.

We have tons of predators on the land here and are polluted with grouse rabbits etc.
Not many humans overhunting just trappers keeping predators and other species at healthy levels.

For me, it is not a matter of not wanting marten.

It's not wanting the trapping restrictions that would be introduced
along with the stocking of marten.

For instance, in New York State's northern zone,
whether it is suitable Adirondack marten habitat or not,
trappers are prohibited from using body grips
with bait & lure once the marten season closes which
also eliminates land sets for mink and raccoon.

Besides, I doubt PA has very much realistically suitable habitat
where marten populations could survive, multiply, and expand.

PA would no doubt get their marten stock from New York State but yet we are still
saddled with a short, limited, early trapping season and tiny bag limit.

If we can afford to give away marten to PA,
New York State can sustain a more liberal
marten trapping season,
so there is that also.

w

Back in the 50s, 60s and early 70s when Pennsylvania sold a million hunting licenses we were a Mecca for ringneck pheasants, had an over abundance of cottontail rabbits and every ditch that held water held muskrats. We also had predator numbers under control. Hawks, owls, foxes and feral cats were shot on sight. Most guys that hunted also trapped because fur prices were high. So the egg eater populations marathon man talks about were kept low.


Today we have half as many hunters and most of them don’t hunt small game. We have about a tenth of the trappers and probably five times the number of predators. Wild ringneck pheasants no longer exist in this state, rabbits are scarce, muskrats scarcer.

You would’ve had to experience the heyday of pheasant and rabbit hunting in the state to know what I’m talking about, it was incredible. I don’t believe it was over hunting that caused the decline. There has always been a two pheasant a day limit in Pennsylvania and and a four rabbit a day limit. Most guys, at least the ones I know of, observed those limits.

Good accurate reply lug.

Boco, I know nothing of marten or Canada.
But want to ask if raptors are protected there?

I think I’m going to drink a few beers and comment on the nonsense I’m reading on this thread…

This is interesting. Do you have a link to any stomach content studies on martens from nearby states? I found the one PA did on fishers about ten years ago very interesting.

Here is a link to it.

Diets of fishers and evidence of intraspecific consumption

I don't have a link to any studies .I have listened to multiple PA biologists give stats on fisher and they have said 11% or less of bird matter in their stomachs.The subject is marten and my experience with them beyond catching a few in Northern Maine and hunting and fishing up there for 30 years or more is they have an abundant turkey,grouse and rabbit population. And have a limit of 25 fisher and 25 marten. They can co exist in good numbers.Other states have had some success with reintroducing marten.I'll be dead and gone before I could harvest one here but fully support the PGC in their effort.I am sorry but I dont see a down side.

Hey why we're at it, bring back the dire wolf, saber toothed tiger, mastodon, elk, woods buffalo, horse and buggy and get rid of the larger part of the population. Tear up most of the highways, tear down at least a third of the buildings, all of the shopping centers. It was pretty good back in the 40s and 50s.

Garry-

I am not in favor of the marten reintroduction, however both fisher and marten are NOT a serious threat to wild turkeys.

That's what the PA Stomach Content Study on fishers indicated.

Todd, I'm going to drink a few beers and wait for your reply!

They're all too full with the feet of other fishers to eat turkeys!

Interesting paper Lugnut, thanks!

Waiting for the Pa political science explanation.

From what I read the stock was coming from Montana