This past summer I worked with the Idaho Conservation League in
Sandpoint, Idaho! I accomplished a life goal of seeing a bear in the
wild, met some truly kind people, and enjoyed researching incidental
trapping of lynx, wolverine, and fisher. The following is a report on
incidental trapping of lynx in Idaho that I wrote near the end of my
internship. I'm also including a picture from one of my hikes in Idaho,
just because it was so beautiful there!
Incidental Trapping of Lynx in Idaho
Incidental Capture in
the Past 12 Years
Three lynx individuals have reportedly been incidentally trapped
in the past twelve years in Idaho, and all three incidents have occurred within
the last three trapping seasons. In the 2011-2012 trapping season, a purebred
male lynx (Report IDFG sample 2012-R7 hair and scat 2_8_12 attachment) was
trapped in the Salmon region of Lemhi County and released alive (lynx salmon
region attachment). During the 2012-2013 trapping season, a juvenile female
lynx was trapped, injured by the trap, and shot by mistake in the Purcell
Mountains. The taken lynx is the only verified female lynx in the Purcell
Mountains in the last 3 years (lynx panhandle region attachment). Then, in the
2013-2014 trapping season, a female lynx was incidentally trapped and released
alive in Idaho Panhandle’s West Cabinet Mountains. The lynx was uninjured and
given a satellite tracking collar by a Fish and Game biologist who was able to
help with the examination and release of the animal (Lucid, 2014). In every
incident, the trapper who incidentally caught the lynx had been trapping for
bobcat (lynx salmon region attachment; lynx panhandle region attachment; Lucid,
2014).
Table
1. Summary of known incidentally
trapped lynx in Idaho since 2002, including the season, month, location,
target animal, trap type, sex, and fate.
|
Season
|
Month
|
Location
|
Target Animal
|
Trap Type
|
Sex
|
Fate
|
2011-2012
|
January
|
South
Fork of Williams Creek (Lemhi County)
|
Bobcat
|
#3 Long
Spring Trap with Offset Jaws
|
Male
|
This lynx was observed in a legally
set trap, targeting bobcat. The animal was reported to Fish and Game and
ultimately released alive. It was the first verified lynx sighting in the
area since 1983.
|
2012-2013
|
December
|
Purcell
Mountains (Boundary County)
|
Bobcat
|
#2
Victor Foothold Trap
|
Female
|
The trapper mistakenly identified this
animal as a bobcat. After shooting it, the trapper discovered that the animal
was a lynx and reported the incident to IDFG.
|
2013-2014
|
January
|
Cabinet
Mountains (Boundary County)
|
Bobcat
|
#2
Victor Foothold Trap
|
Female
|
This lynx was incidentally trapped and
reported to IDFG. The animal was collared and released alive, unharmed.
|
Why Incidental Capture
of Individual Lynx Can Be a Problem
Losing even a couple individual lynx can be problematic for
the population of Canada lynx in the United States. There are
believed to be less than 100 lynx in the mid-high elevation forests in Idaho
(First Canada Lynx…, 2012) and because of this, are considered a, “species of
greatest conservation need” (lynx salmon region attachment). Aside from Idaho,
lynx can only also be found in Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming, Washington, and
Colorado (after being reintroduced) (Basic Facts…, 2013). Partially
because populations of lynx in the United States are so limited, Canada lynx
are listed as ‘threatened’ under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (lynx
salmon region attachment).
In addition to having low population numbers, removing a
couple individuals from a lynx population can be detrimental because lynx
naturally live in low densities (notice of intent). On average,
lynx have population densities of between 2 and 9 individuals per 100 square
kilometers (Canada lynx…, 2013). To put this number in perspective, 100 square
kilometers is equal to about 24, 710 acres and the total area of Disneyland in
Los Angeles as of 2009, including 3 Disneyland hotels, Disney’s California
Adventure and Disneyland Park is only 510 acres (Filippatos, 2009). Removing
2/9 individuals in an area this large can make it very difficult for lynx in
the local population to find a mate. Should a female lynx reproduce, she will
only have 3 to 4 kits once every 1 or 2 years, and those kits will need to stay
with their mother for at least a year (Canada lynx…, 2013). If a mother lynx is
incidentally taken early on in her kits lives, her kits will most likely die.
A lynx that is incidentally trapped and
then released alive may also end up having negative impacts on lynx population
numbers. Foothold traps have been shown to cause injury to coyotes and wolves,
and are similarly able to injure lynx. Traps can harm the teeth, gum, tongues,
and especially feet and legs of trapped animals (Zemlicka et al., 1997). Lynx
caught in body-gripping traps, “endure physiological and psychological trauma,
dehydration, and exposure as well as injuries to bone and tissue” (Trapping in
Lynx Country…2012). A released lynx can also die of frostbite. If a lynx is
left for 3 days in the snow, their foot could freeze. This animal would still
be able to run off, but may not survive for long (Professional Trapper, 2014). These
injuries and the stress that results from being trapped can prevent a lynx from
properly caring for itself or its young after being released, and can result in
indirect lynx mortality (Trapping in Lynx Country…, 2012).
Incidentally
trapping 3 lynx individuals within a 12-year time-span, 2 of which were
released alive, does not indicate a major problem for Idaho if the number of
reported incidents are not a dramatic underestimate of the true total. It is
interesting, however, that every incident occurred within the past 3 years.
Removing 1 lynx in a year, if it becomes a pattern, would be incredibly
problematic. It is unclear whether these incidents represent an increase in
incidental trapping, if trappers are better reporting the animals they
incidentally trap, or if the 3 incidents simply represent a random spike in the
data set. In any case, it is reasonable to believe that incidental capture of
lynx may increase. The number of trapping licenses sold by Idaho doubled
between 2001 and 2008 (United States, 2011). The opening of a wolf trapping
season will increase the overall number of trappers in Idaho and if bobcat pelt
prices increase, that would create an incentive for more bobcat trapping as
well. As lynx are easy to trap (notice of intent; Washington Department of
Wildlife, 1993), and they are known to be incidentally trapped in traps meant
for bobcats and coyotes (notice of intent), an increase in wolf and bobcat
trappers will increase the probability and incidence of incidentally captured
lynx. Moreover, wolf traps are larger than bobcat traps and are much more
likely to break the legs of an incidentally trapped lynx according to the
executive director of Alliance for the Wild Rockies (Byron, 2012).
Idaho needs to maintain its limited
number of lynx incidents, lest it experience the incidental capture levels of
its neighbor, Montana. Montana’s population of lynx is larger and a 2001 study
showed that 35% of all lynx mortality in the studied area were caused by
illegal trapping and shooting of lynx. 3 lynx died after being incidentally
captured in the winter of 2001 alone. Almost half of the lynx who’ve been
incidentally captured in Montana since 2000 died as a result of being trapped
(notice of intent).
Despite the risk of incidental capture,
it should be noted that incidental capture is not always considered a negative
event. The latest lynx to be captured was collared and will contribute to a
better understanding of lynx behavior.
What
Can Be Done
There are several known ways of
reducing incidental taking of lynx. Some of these ways are put forth by Idaho
Fish and Game (IDFG) in their hunting and trapper seasons publication. The
publication shows trappers how to distinguish a lynx from a bobcat as well as
how to distinguish each animal’s tracks. It recommends bobcat trappers place
traps on the edges of open areas as lynx prefer to stay in covered habitat and
to avoid placing traps where lynx tracks are found. It reminds trappers that
selecting the proper size foothold traps can also reduce incidental capture of
lynx. (A Number 2 coilspring or Number 1.75 coilspring trap has a small enough
trap jaw spread to avoid trapping a lynx but is still effective at trapping
coyotes, foxes, and bobcats.) The publication also notes that padded jaw traps
can minimize injury of captured animals and advises trappers to carry
catchpoles to release unintended captures (Idaho Fish and Game, 2013). Trapper
education like this is very valuable, and there is some funding to provide for
it. Incidentally killed animals turned into Fish & Game are sold and the
money from their sale goes toward trapper education “and associated activities”
(Idaho, 2004, p. 5). Unfortunately, however, trapper education is not required for trappers in Idaho, with
the exception of those trapping for wolves (Idaho, 2004). This policy differs
from other states like Washington (Trapper Education…,2013) and Maine where
trapper education for first-time trappers is
required (Jakubas and Ritchie, 2008). Perhaps the first step toward reducing
incidental capture of lynx and other protected animals is to require trappers
in Idaho to pass a trapper education exam prior to being issued a trapping
license. At this point, it’s unclear whether or not trappers are voluntarily
reading IDFG’s pamphlets and benefitting from their knowledge.
In addition to the step Idaho has taken
with its educational publications to reduce incidental capture of lynx, there
are further steps Idaho should pursue. Legally, anyone who incidentally takes
an animal protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 must have an
incidental take permit. In order to apply for an incidental take permit,
Section 10(a) 2(a) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) states that a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) must
first be approved. The HCP must include an assessment of the likely impact of
incidental take, a plan to minimize and mitigate negative impacts, and a proven
funding source with which to implement the plan. In addition, the HCP must
include alternative plans the applying agency has considered and the reasons
why those plans were ultimately rejected (Endangered Species Act, 1973). IDFG
should follow Maine’s lead and create a lynx HCP in compliance with the ESA to
ensure that incidental take of lynx is minimized in the future as well as to
prevent having a lawsuit filed against them. A lawsuit is currently being filed
against the state of Montana for not showing “due care” to prevent incidental
injury to lynx as required by the ESA (Byron, 2012) and specifically, for not
having incidental take permits (Zuckerman, 2013). A similar lawsuit was won by
environmental groups against the state of Minnesota (notice of intent).
When asked if IDFG had an incidental
take permit for its trapping program, IDFG responded with a Section 6
Cooperative Agreement. This agreement covers take of endangered species when
incidentally taken during work for conservation programs. An Idaho Fish and
Game official confirmed that this agreement does not substitute for an
Incidental Take Permit.
IDFG should make regulations specific
to lynx sensitive areas as part of its HCP. The lynx that was incidentally
taken in the 2012-2013 trapping season was taken just outside an area
designated as critical habitat for lynx (Buley, 2013). In defense of this
designated critical habitat, it may be worthwhile to note that last year when
Multi-Species Baseline Initiative set up cameras along paths in the Purcell and
Selkirk mountains, every lynx image they obtained in the Purcells came from within
critical habitat area for lynx as designated by U.S. Fish & Wildlife
(Lucid, 2012). Having lynx taken just outside the borders of critical habitat
greatly reduces the effectiveness of having critical habitat and is
unacceptable. One category of area-specific regulations that can be pursued
focuses on how traps are set. In Maine, for example, trappers using a conibear
trap with an opening larger than 4 inches in lynx territory are required to set
the trap at the end of a leaning pole, with a small diameter, which leans at an
angle 45 degrees or more to a tree. The pole must be less than 4 inches in
diameter and the trap must be at least 4 feet above ground. Animals like
martens will climb leaning poles like these to traps, but the small poles will
deter larger animals like wolverine and lynx. Area specific regulations like
this are not unusual. In Wisconsin, land sets for all furbearers are prohibited
in special fisher wildlife management areas (Kucera, 1998).
As IDFG mentioned in its hunting and
trapping pamphlet, what traps trappers choose to set can also make a big
difference in reducing incidental injury and taking. As previously mentioned, using
the smallest traps possible for the target species can reduce the probability
of injuring an incidentally caught animal. Padded-jaw traps and traps with
laminated and offset jaws can reduce injury (Hiller and White, 2013; Idaho Fish
and Game, 2013). These types of padded traps are required in California (Lewis
and Zielinski, 1996), and IDFG should consider making these types of traps a
requirement as well, at least in areas around critical habitat for protected
species like lynx. Body-gripping traps are designed to instantly kill the
animals trapped in them and are illegal in Washington and California (U.S. Fish
& Wildlife Service, 2012). A lynx that walks head-first into a conibear
trap, will most likely die (Jakubas and Ritchie, 2008). These types of traps
and lethal snares should be illegal in lynx-sensitive areas. In areas adjacent
to lynx-sensitive areas, lynx exclusion devices should be used in conjunction
with body-gripping traps.
Gear alterations and additions are
another way to reduce injury of incidentally captured animals. Tranquilizer
trap devices (TTDs) have been shown to reduce struggling and injuries in the
foot, leg, and mouth of animals compared to traps without tranquilizers (Zemlicka
et al., 1997; American Veterinary…, 2013), by about 47% (Zemlicka et al., 1997).
It is important to note, however, that since TTDs immobilize an animal, they
make that animal more susceptible to predators. A coyote could kill a trapped,
unconscious lynx (Professional Trapper, 2014). Devices that emit a signal once
a trap closes can allow trappers to more quickly release, euthanize, or take
trapped animals. This may reduce injury and mortality due to anxious exertion
and predation (American Veterinary…, 2013) if trappers can afford them.
These
recommendations will not only aid in lynx recovery, but animal welfare in
general. Incidental trapping injures or kills millions of animals every year in
the U.S. and a professional trapper has estimated that at least 2 non-target
animals are caught for each target animal (notice of intent). In this past
trapping season, in the Northern Rockies alone, moose, elk, deer, dogs, and
even one U.S. Park official were incidentally caught in traps (Zuckerman,
2013). By being careful about where, how, and what traps are set these
incidents can be reduced, improving the welfare of these animals and trapper efficiency.
Idaho
should also consider implementing a quota on bobcat harvest. Montana has one,
and while a bobcat quota hasn’t been previously deemed necessary in Idaho, that
conclusion likely did not take into consideration the externality of incidental
capture of lynx, fisher, and other animals in bobcat traps. Both lynx and
fisher are protected species who are known to be caught in bobcat traps (notice
of intent; Coulter, 1960; Lewis and Stinson, 1998; Lewis and Zielinski, 1996),
and a quota on bobcat harvest would reduce the number of bobcat traps these
protected animals could accidentally be caught in.
Ideally, Idaho would also institute a
rule mandating trappers check their foothold traps every 24 hours to reduce
injury, suffering, and mortality of non-target animals. Animals injured in
traps have a better chance of surviving if they receive help or are released
quickly (Fish and Game Biologist, 2014; Professional Trapper, 2014). This will
be a difficult rule to apply, however, for two main reasons. Requiring trappers
to check their traps more often will be unpopular with trappers, and a
difficult rule to pass politically because it requires trappers to spend more
of their time and money. The second reason is that the rule will be almost
impossible to enforce. There is no good way to monitor when a trapper checks
his traps. Thousands of traps are set all over Idaho, and each trap would
essentially need to be babysat to ensure that trappers who are not frequently
checking their traps are punished. Some trappers do not check their traps every
3 days as it is. Long line trappers have hundreds of traps each, and it would
be impossible for them to check every single one every 3 days (Professional
Trapper, 2014). If trappers actually checked their foothold traps every 24
hours, the number of total foothold traps set will likely decrease
automatically. Trappers can only drive so far, to check so many traps each day,
limiting the number of traps, trappers are able to set (Professional Trapper,
2014). A requirement to check foothold traps every 24 hours already exists in
Maine (Jakubas, 2008).
In applying for an incidental take
permit, a state must show they have funding to implement their habitat
conservation plans. Part of this funding may already exist in the current funds
available to trappers who bring in an incidentally captured fisher or lynx for
a reward. One way to use funds to enforce new regulations under an HCP would be
to provide a reward for trappers who report seeing violations of the new
trapping regulations while out trapping themselves. For example, a trapper who
goes to set a bobcat trap and sees a conibear trap large enough for a lynx with
bait on the ground instead of on a leaning pole, should have an incentive to
call a Fish & Game official and file a report. If, let’s say, a Fish &
Game official comes to investigate the report and indeed finds a violation of
current regulation, that official should be able to provide a worthwhile
monetary reward for the trapper who initially called him with the report. The
trapper in violation of regulation would be fined, and perhaps a portion of the
money earned from that fine would go to the man who reported him. Park rangers
can only do so much enforcement of trapping regulation and trappers can trust
themselves not to report their own violations of regulation. There needs to be
some real fear of consequence, an expected cost for violating regulation, in
order for trappers to comply with trapping law. This is a situation where the
collective action problem may come in the government’s favor (it is unlikely
that all trappers will be able to ban together and agree to never report each
other with financial incentives on the line. Each trapper will always have
cause to worry that, even with such an agreement, someone walking by would find
a trap in violation and want to anonymously collect a cash prize for their
find). A system similar to this is in place in North Dakota. In this program,
called R.A.P., rewards for reports of wildlife violations range from $100 to
$1,000 depending on the seriousness of the reported crime. The funds for these
rewards come from private donations (Furbearer Hunting…,2012).
Part of the legislation necessary for a
system like this to work is imposing a large enough fine for breaking new state
trapping laws. The fine needs to be high enough to create a substantial
incentive not to break the law, even with a low probability of being caught,
and also high enough for the fine to provide funding for IDFG and the anonymous
people who report true regulation violations to IDFG officials.
In addition to new regulations for
better trapping practices, Maine has a 24/7 widely publicized hotline where
trappers can call if they incidentally capture a lynx during trapping season.
When they call, Fish and Game biologists are sent to aid in the release of the
trapped lynx, asses the animal’s injuries, transport the animal to a
veterinarian if necessary or collar the animal for study. If a staff biologist
cannot make it to the capture site, one will guide the trapper through the
release process over the phone. This hotline is funded partially through
revenue made from selling hunting and trapping licenses and partially through
federally matched dollars from the Pittman-Robertson Act (Jakubas and Ritchie,
2008). The latest lynx to be incidentally captured was collared and released
safely because the trappers who caught the lynx were able to contact a Fish and
Game biologist to aid them on site. This example proves the value of having
such a hotline, and IDFG may want to consider a special phone line for lynx and
other species that are more often incidentally captured, such as fishers.
Collecting more information on lynx and
incidental capture in general is an important supplementary step for IDFG to
better care for its protected species. The state of Idaho cannot truly reduce
incidental capture of any animal unless it knows how much is happening and the
circumstances in which it’s happening. Current Commission rules state that,
“any trapper who captures and kills a non-target species…must notify the
Department…within 72 hours…for Department personnel to retrieve the animal”
(Idaho, 2004, p. 4). IDFG will pay $10 for each incidentally caught lynx or
wolverine (Idaho, 2004; Idaho, 2005; Idaho, 2006; Idaho, 2007; Idaho, 2008;
Idaho, 2009; Idaho, 2010; Idaho, 2011). Trappers are also required to mention any incidental captures
in an annual trapping report card. Currently, most data regarding incidental
capture of animals comes from these report cards. Besides a desire to abide by
the law, however, there is no real incentive for trappers to mention their
incidental captures in their reports, if they fill out a report at all. In
fact, compliance with this particular law varies widely (Lewis and Stinson,
1998). In the 2003-2004 trapping season, about 20% of licensed trappers did not
turn in a report card at all (Idaho, 2004).
Beside the lack of incentive to abide
by Commission rules, there is actually incentive not to report incidental capture of a species protected by the ESA
if a trapper mistakenly kills it. The man who incidentally killed a lynx in the
2012-2013 trapping season was honest about his mistake, and was fined in
addition to his court costs for his crime (Buley, 2013). If trappers know they can
be fined and taken to court for incidentally taking a lynx, they have personal
motivation to withhold information about any incidents when they accidentally
kill a listed species. The distinction between when a trapper will be rewarded
for turning in a lynx and when he will be fined is also presented unclearly to
the public, making it more unlikely for a trapper to report an incidentally
trapped lynx he finds already dead in a trap as well.
As previously stated, a trapper is
legally required to notify IDFG within 72 hours if he incidentally kills a
non-target catch. If a trapper incidentally traps and then releases a
non-target capture alive, however, then the trapper only has to report this
incident on his trapping report card by the end of the season. This presents a
problem as the released animal may be injured and likely to die as a result of
being incidentally trapped. It’s unlikely that a trapper be able to discern the
full extent of an incidentally trapped animal’s injuries, especially when
internal injuries have occurred (Lewis and Zielinski, 1996). Whether or not a
trapper reports an animal that is released alive, however, similar to whether
or not a trapper checks his traps every 3 days as required by law (Idaho Fish
and Game, 2013), is a much harder habit to monitor and regulation of the habit
would be difficult to enforce. Lewis and Zielinski suggested in 1996 that
trappers should be rewarded for specific information regarding incidentally
captured animals including photographs. This would include photographs of
incidentally caught animals that are released alive. The problem with this is
that it would require a reward large enough to incentivize sending in the
necessary documentation for the reward without being so large that it become
profitable to catch a lynx that is later released alive. Maine’s Department of
Inland Fisheries and Wildlife uses positive reinforcement to help with this
problem. Each time a trapper reports incidentally capturing an animal like a
lynx, they are sent a letter appreciating them for their cooperation and their
contribution to the good reputation of Maine’s trapping program (Jakubas and
Ritchie, 2008). This would be a good start for Idaho’s information incentive
problem.
Conclusion
Only 3 lynx have been incidentally captured
in Idaho in the past 12 years, but the rate of incidental capture may increase.
Idaho Fish and Game would be smart to write a Habitat Conservation Plan for
lynx requiring best trapping practices in order to ensure its population of
lynx remains strong. Creating such a plan would benefit the welfare of many
animals in Idaho as well as prevent a lawsuit over the fact that Idaho does not
currently have an incidental take permit for its trapping program.
Bibliography
Attachments:
“lynx
panhandle region” Attachment—sent
by IDFG to ICL
“lynx
salmon region” Attachment—sent by
IDFG to ICL
“Report IDFG
sample 2012-R7 hair and scat 2_8_12” Attachment—sent by IDFG to ICL
“Trapper
Non-Target By Season and County 5-13-13” Attachment—sent by IDFG to ICL
American Veterinary Medical
Association's Animal Welfare Division. " Welfare Implications of
Leghold Trap Use in Conservation and Research." AVMA.org. American Veterinary Medical Association, 2013. Web. 17
July 2013.
Banci, Vivian 1994. Chapter
5: Wolverine. In: Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Buskirk, Steven
W.; Lyon, L. Jack; Zielinski, William J., tech. eds. The scientific basis for
conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in
the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range
Experiment Station. p. 99-127.
Buley, Bill. "'Threatened' Lynx
Trapped, Shot." Coeur D'Alene Press. N.p., 18 Jan. 2013. Web. 27
June 2013.
Byron, Eve. "Groups Say Wolf Traps
Theaten Lynx, File Notice They May Sue the State." Missoulian.
Missoulian.com, 22 Aug. 2012. Web. 27 June 2013.
Cole, Ken. "State Public Records
Request Shows Widespread Capture and Mortality of Non-Target Animals Related to
Idaho Wolf Trapping During 2011/2012 Trapping Season." The Wildlife
News. N.p., 14 Feb. 2013. Web. 16 Aug. 2013.
Cushman,
Samuel, Kevin McKelvey, and Michael Swhwartz. Case Study 6.1: DNA Survey for Fishers in Northern Idaho. N.p.:
n.p., n.d. Print.
Coulter, Malcolm W. "The status
and distribution of fisher in Maine." Journal of Mammalogy 41.1 (1960): 1-9.
Defenders
of Wildlife, Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Bitterroot, and
Friends of the Clearwater. Petition for a
Rule to Designate Fishers (Martes Pennanti) in the U.S. Norhtern Rocky
Mountains a Distinct Population Segment and Add Them to the List of Endangered
or Threatened Wildlife Protected by the Federal Endangered Species Act.
N.p.: n.p., 2009. Print.
“Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Threatened Status for the Distinct Population Segment of the North
American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States; Proposed Rule,”
78 Federal Register 23 (4 February
2013), pp. 7864-7890.
Endangered Species Act of 1973, United
States Code § 35-1531. Print.
Filippatos, Tasia. "Walt Disney
Parks and Resorts Fact Sheet." Disney. Walt Disney Parks and
Resorts Worldwide, May 2009. Web. 5 Sept. 2013.
<http://corporate.disney.go.com/news/parks_resorts/Walt%20Disney%20Parks%20and%20Resorts%20Fact%20Sheet%20UPDATED%205-18-09.pdf>.
"First Canada Lynx in 15 Years
Found in Idaho." NBC News. NBCNews.com, 21 Jan. 2012. Web. 20 Aug.
2013.
<http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/01/10284202-first-canada-lynx-in-15-years-found-in-idaho?lite>.
"Furbearer Hunting and Trapping Guide." Nd.gov. The State of North Dakota, 2012.
Web. 26 Feb. 2014.
<http://gf.nd.gov/regulations-hunting-fishing-etc/furbearer-hunting-and-trapping-guide>.
Hatler,
David F., Michael Badry, and Alison M.M. Beal. "Fisher." Env.gov.bc.ca.
Habitat Conservation
Trust Fund, May 2003. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
<http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEQQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.env.gov.bc.ca%2Ffw%2Fwildlife%2Ftrapping%2Fdocs%2Ffisher.pdf&ei=SiEQU6PAFZaxoQSu24GgDw&usg=AFQjCNH_ykpGqyBm2sAtlXNi4V4HoRuZGw&sig2=wjwevCZ1_0UKyzmqWZwRlA>.
Hiller, T. L., and H. B. White. 2013.
How to avoid incidental take of wolverine during regulated trapping activities.
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC, USA.
Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project
W-170-R-28 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Gina Patton and Summer Crea. Ed.
Don Kemner. Boise, ID: n.p., 2004. Print.
Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project
W-170-R-29 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Gina Patton and Summer Crea. Ed.
Don Kemner. Boise, ID: n.p., 2005. Print.
Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project
W-170-R-30 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Summer Crea. Ed. Don Kemner.
Boise, ID: n.p., 2006. Print.
Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project
W-170-R-31 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Summer Crea. Ed. Don Kemner.
Boise, ID: n.p., 2007. Print.
Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project
W-170-R-32 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Summer Crea. Ed. Don Kemner.
Boise, ID: n.p., 2008. Print.
Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project
W-170-R-33 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Summer Crea. Ed. Craig White.
Boise, ID: n.p., 2009. Print.
Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project
W-170-R-34 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Summer Crea. Ed. Craig White.
Boise, ID: n.p., 2010. Print.
Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Project
W-170-R-35 Progress Report: Furbearer. By Summer Crea. Ed. Craig White.
Boise, ID: n.p., 2011. Print.
Idaho Fish and Game. "Furbearer
Trapping and Hunting Seasons by Region." Fishandgame.idaho.gov.
Idaho Fish and Game, n.d. Web. 5 Sept. 2013.
Idaho Fish and Game. "Wolverine:
Gulo Gulo." Idaho Fish and Game. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Aug. 2013.
<http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwis/cwcs/pdf/Wolverine.pdf>.
Idaho Fish and Game Biologist. Telephone Interview. 25 Feb. 2014.
Idaho
Legislature. "TITLE 36 FISH AND GAME CHAPTER 11 PROTECTION OF ANIMALS AND
BIRDS." Idaho Legislature. Idaho Legislature, 2013. Web. 04 Sept.
2013. <http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title36/T36CH11SECT36-1101.htm>.
Jakubas,
Walter J., and Sandy Ritchie. DRAFT Incidental Take Plan for Maine’s
Trapping Program. 13 Aug. 2008. Proposed Incidental Take Plan from Maine
Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service. Augusta, ME.
Kucera, Thomas E. American marten,
fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. Vol. 254.
DIANE Publishing, 1998.
Lewis, Jeffrey C., and William J.
Zielinski. "Historical harvest and incidental capture of fishers in
California." (1996).
Lewis, Jeffrey C., and Derek W.
Stinson. Washington State status report for the fisher. Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Management Program, 1998.
Lucid, Michael. "Lynx Captured in West Cabinet
Mountains." Idaho Fish and Game.
N.p., 4 Feb. 2014. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.
<https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/content/post/lynx-captured-west-cabinet-mountains>.
Lucid, Michael. "Summer Trail
Cameras Capture Images of Lynx and Other Species." Idaho Fish and Game.
Idaho Fish and Game, 12 Sept. 2012. Web. 04 Sept. 2013.
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania Game
Commission. Bureau of Wildlife Management. Status and Management of Fisher
(Martes Pennanti) in Pennsylvania 2008-2017. By Dr. Matthew J. Lovallo.
Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania Game Commission, 2008. Print.
Proulx, G., et al. "Post-release
movements of translocated fishers." Martens, sables, and fishers:
biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York
(1994): 197-203.
Professional
Trapper. Telephone interview. 13 Jan. 2014.
Roady,
Laura. "Wolverine Proposed for Listing despite Numbers Increase." Bonners
Ferry Herald Online. Bonners Ferry Herald, 12 Apr. 2013. Web. 03 July 2013
Schwartz,
Michael K. “Ancient DNA Confirms Native Rocky Mountain Fisher (Martes pennanti)
Avoided Early 20th Century Extinction.” Journal of Mammalogy: August 2007, Vol. 88, No. 4, pp. 921-925.
The
Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the
Bitterroot, Western Watersheds Project, and Friends of the Wild Swan. Petition to List the Northern Rockies
Distinct Population Segment of Fisher As Threatened or Endangered Under the
Endangered Species Act. N.p.: n.p., 2013. Print.
"Trapper
Education Class Schedule & Information." Washington Department of
Fish & Wildlife. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, 2013.
Web. 05 Sept. 2013.
<http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/huntered/classes/trapping.php>.
"Trapping in Lynx Country
Jeopardizes Recovery Efforts." WildEarth Guardians. N.p., 21 Aug.
2012. Web. 27 June 2013.
<http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7913&news_iv_ctrl=1194>.
United
States. Department of the Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List a
Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher in Its United States Northern Rocky
Mountain Range as Endangered or Threatened with Critical Habitat; Proposed Rule.
126th ed. Vol. 76. N.p.: n.p., 2011. Print. Federal Register.
United
States. Department of Agriculture. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Biological Assessment for Wildlife Damage
Management Activities in Idaho: Analysis of Potential Impacts on Threatened and
Endangered Species. Boise: n.p., 2013. Print.
USDA:
APHIS. Table G.
Animals Taken by
Component/Method Type and Fate by Wildlife Services in Idaho - FY2010.
Rep.
N.p.: n.p., n.d. Web. 17 July 2013.
<http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/prog_data/2010_prog_data/PDR_G/Basic_Tables_PDR_G/StateTables/Table_G_State_Level-ID.pdf>.
U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form.
16 Apr. 2012. Form to give Martes pennanti (fisher) priority for listing under
the Endangered Species Act.
Washington
Department of Wildlife. 1993. Status of the North American lynx (Lynx
canadensis) in Washington: Unpubl. Rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia.
Zemlicka, Doris E.; Sahr, D. Pete;
Savarie, Peter J.; Knowlton, Frederick F.; Blom, F. Sherman; and Belant,
Jerrold L.,"DEVELOPMENT AND REGISTRATION OF A PRACTICAL TRANQUILIZER TRAP
DEVICE (TTD) FOR FOOT-HOLDTRAPS" (1997). Great Plains Wildlife Damage
Control Workshop Proceedings. Paper 387.
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/gpwdcwp/387
Zuckerman, Laura. "Groups Sue
Montana over Trapping of Imperiled Lynx." Reuters. Thomson Reuters,
21 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 June 2013.
