Incidental Trapping of Lynx in Idaho

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. 

"Basic Facts About Canada Lynx." Defenders of Wildlife. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Sept. 2013. http://www.defenders.org/canada-lynx/basic-facts.

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.

Canada Lynx — Lynx canadensis.  Montana Field Guide.  Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks.  Retrieved on August 21, 2013, from http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_AMAJH03010.aspx

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.

--- notice of intent http://www.wildearthguardians.org/site/DocServer/Sixty.Day.FINAL.Scanned.August.21.2012..pdf?docID=6162

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 20^th 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.