|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jul 27, 2006 19:53:48 GMT -6
am I correct in thinking you would set 1 trap, then go a specific distance away and set another? No gang setting?
|
|
|
Post by BK on Jul 27, 2006 20:00:07 GMT -6
There are a lot of things that come into play here as far as repeat catches in BE sets Steve. One would be the price of muskrats. ;D I don't doubt any of Seldom's data where he's trapping,..... but it dosen't apply where I'm trapping. I have one 40 yd section of bank on a river that's a gimmee for 3 mink every year (I hope to show Fishadict when he comes to visit). I've taken like 37 mink there since Ken Smyth came out with his book. Perhaps 60% of the sets I make when trapping close to home are very close to the same. I flex to meet the conditions,......... some banks change, perhaps there is a trap set too close, or I was ripped off at the location. Then I just move DOWN stream a ways.
|
|
|
Post by seldom on Jul 27, 2006 20:06:09 GMT -6
Hi Steve, The Project uses the word territory instead of loop or travel loop but we’re talking the same thing as you.
Two of the past three years I’ve been working with a pre-doctorate student as she’s doing the Great-Horned Owl part of the project. I’m on the riverbanks and floodplain everyday starting the first of February as the owls are mating up and we’re hanging nests or cleaning out old nests. I’ve observed very little mink sign on the rivers, which coincides with the rest of my observations and sample taking.
I totally agree with the SPOT or “best-of-the-best” but aren’t we missing something here? You mention taking 6 mink or 1 mink from a SPOT. The reason there is a difference between taking 6 or 1 has to do with population density, more so then set location because we’ve already ascertained, as we should, we have the SPOT so the odds of catching any mink traveling through should be caught.
It was determined after the three years of the mink study part of the project, using three different data gathering studies and their calculations, plus my mink catch data that there was on average, 1 mink per .9 mile of liner bank/floodplain along this river system.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jul 27, 2006 20:13:53 GMT -6
Actually Seldom- while of ocurse it is population, its also peciose location. Precise menaing a smal lsectio nof stream.
I've noticed this several times, most dramactically on one creek. I used to set up 1 stretch for 6-7 years. Never took a mink, just coon and an occasional rat and beaver.
Went downstream less than 150 yards, found THE spot (rip rap bank, overgrown, undercut) and over past 5-6 years have taken 5-6 mink there like clockwork, plus 10-12 rats.
On most of my streams, there are locations that out produce similar locations close by, same streams.
Keep in mind, all my locations are small trout stream, limestone creeks.
|
|
|
Post by seldom on Jul 27, 2006 20:18:32 GMT -6
Steve, Yes it is possible in some locations that I can find BE SPOTs for up to 4 traps in say a 50 yd stretch. By far the norm though is I try to find a SPOT that allows me to use 2 traps within 6'-10' of each other before the bank opens back up. Each pic is an example of 2 traps being set. Whether it's a BE or a foothold SPOT, the SPOT is where you and I both anticipate making the catch and it should be as such.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Gappa on Jul 27, 2006 20:25:36 GMT -6
so- one of your points was never brought up- the low amount of mink caught by conventional trappers. Do you attribute this to simply not setting for mink?
|
|
|
Post by seldom on Jul 27, 2006 20:29:15 GMT -6
Steve, Yes I understand that nice water you've got and it's similar to what I se when going out to visit my stepdaughter near Reading PA. We have that type of habitat and water starting just 30 miles north of here but it's not what this valley has by a long shot. In fact, take another look at Ken's book and you'll notice similar water as what you're talking about in his pics. Also, it's known and I think he mentioned that his mink, beaver, & otter lines don't start within an hours drive of here. There's a reason for that :-)
|
|
|
Post by seldom on Jul 27, 2006 20:43:14 GMT -6
Regarding the low numbers of mink caught, yes & no. The trappers on the Refuge are rat & coon trapping with mink being caught strictly as incidentals.
When I first started focusing primarily on mink prior to my working on the MSU Project, I talked with some of the old trappers that are no longer trapping about the mink population. Several of these fellas came from large families that trapped everything and not alway n the up and up. The story was always the same- no mink! I talked with on former buyer and serious trapper and he said he caught and bought very few mink from this valley and that nobody trapped mink here seriously because of low numbers. So there is some local history and really that's one reason why the mink is a classic and much sought after study animal on this Project when working with dioxins in the environment.
For the past four years as I'm scouting in the huckleberry bogs and beaverflowages (my fur lines) during the summer drought, I'm seeing less and less mink sign each year and I can find no reason for the lack of numbers since I haven't been able to trap the areas for three years and nobody else has.
|
|
|
Post by fishadict on Jul 27, 2006 22:40:08 GMT -6
Seldom - Thank you. I was trying to equate territory to range and that was why it was not making sense to me.
Do the fish in the river test positive for dioxin? Has the study also looked at the reproductive success of the mink with the samples you have collected?
Steve - I never did get any additional studies on range per the thread several months ago.
fa
|
|
|
Post by seldom on Jul 28, 2006 5:59:18 GMT -6
Yes, the fish test positive for the specific dioxin this project is focusing on and there's tons of data on them. The professor I work for says that this particular study is the first of it’s kind by encompassing the entire river’s food-web chain (insects through deer but no otter, beaver, or coon) within the floodplain. The mink is/was the most important sample for many reasons. Their prey, their liver, their lower jaw, etc. Of course, some of the pre-doctorate students will argue that their study species such as the live trapping of the owls, herons, Kingfishers, wood ducks, etc. are the most important but not so according to the lab pathologist.J
As far as I know all females are checked for scaring during the necropsies. It was important that our sampling included females so I’m assuming for that reason. There was concern that I was taking too few females each year and they'd liked to have them be a bigger percentage of the quota.
They tried to get me to come downstate to help with each season’s necropsies but I declined. By the end of each season’s mink sampling I’d need a break from the extensive documentation and having students with me constantly. They always wanted to do the lab work when I had a few weeks left to play with my fur lines. ;D
|
|
Griz
Demoman...
Posts: 240
|
Post by Griz on Jul 28, 2006 10:47:41 GMT -6
This is one of the most ineresting mink threads that I have ever read.
This study sets up an interesting mink study in possibly a unique mink situation. Let me see if I understand the situation. A primary set location was set up the first year every 1/2 mi or so along the streams, with secondary set locations located in between primary set locations. Most of the area was rated as marginal mink habitat and had a low mink population. NO mink were caught in primary sets the second year because ALL mink were caught in secondary sets.
If we have a low mink population in marginal mink habitat, we could have a low (maybe very low or none for a given year) reproduction rate (not documented in what has been said so far), which would mean few (no) individuals to disperse into surrounding areas.
Thus, to catch ALL mink the second year in secondary set locations and NO mink in primary set locations the second year implies that individual mink territories (travel loops) are less than 1/2 mile (the distance between primary set locations). This would be true if we assume all mink present at the primary location were caught the first year, all mink stayed in there original locations, and no mink were born and dispersed. This is also supported by seeing no sign at primary set locations while seeing sign at secondary set locations. The study calculations resulted in 1 mink per 0.9 mile.
This data leads me in a direction that challenges much of what I thought I knew about mink travel loop size. Are travel loops of mink in the 20 mile range rare and carried out by a few "roaming" mink (possibly males during breeding season) or a myth? Are travel loop sizes for all mink more along the sizes that I have seen reported for female mink (1/2 - 3/4 mile of stream)? What am I missing?
At his point, I don't care what I see on my streams. I am trying to understand what is happening on the study stream. Only when I understand what is occuring on the study stream and translate that to my streams by accounting for differences between my stream's ecosystem and the study stream ecosytem, can I understand my streams.
|
|
|
Post by seldom on Jul 28, 2006 12:05:17 GMT -6
Yes, you've pretty well got it Griz. Because of the need to catch mink more so then for my personal use, while scouting the 1st year I rated BE set locations as Primary (1st locations to set) and secondaries (supporting locations if needed). I had to do serious pre planning because of so many property owners were involved. The 1st year the Primaries all performed to and beyond my expectations and those of the Project. My professor almost wet himself a couple of times when he was with me. ;D So, I had no reason to set any of the secondaries. The 2nd year when the grantee required us to repeat our performance in the same section of river as the previous year. Understand, all of the behind the scenes players here have as much and probably more resources for determining mink numbers then I do and that's why I had to repeat the catch. Sorry to say, there were apparently some Doubting Thomas-es" within the powers-to-be that I'd actually caught the quota where we said we did. I'd already observed that my Primaries were in trouble but my 1st year secondaries showed about the same amount of sign. No primaries caught a mink the 2nd year and our quota was filled on the secondaries. I will say this, if prey is easy for obtain, if you can get three squares right out your front door, do you run across town just for the heck of it when you are kind of on the bottom of the food chain? Remember, the necropsies showed far and away more fish matter in the stomachs then mammal (voles much higher then rats). Don't feel bad, it's challenged my thoughts as well but I really think it goes back to the fact that my local can be and is different then yours and yours is different from somebdy elses. One size doesn't fit all.
|
|
Griz
Demoman...
Posts: 240
|
Post by Griz on Jul 28, 2006 13:11:49 GMT -6
I am not trying to say that one size fits all; quite the contrary. If the study you worked on showed that mink territories are only 1/2 to 3/4 mile in marginal habitat and applying your anology of running accross town to get what is in your front yard, it would seem reasonable to concluded that mink territories could be 1/2 to 3/4 mile or less in really good habitat. There would be no reason to have a territory larger than that unless food became short or the population was high and individual mink can't stand neighbors.
|
|
|
Post by seldom on Jul 28, 2006 13:48:01 GMT -6
:-/No, no, I never thought you meant the contrary, I was just using the "one size doesn't fit all" as a mindset that can some people can fall into and not pretaining to your thoughts and ideas.
|
|
Griz
Demoman...
Posts: 240
|
Post by Griz on Jul 28, 2006 14:21:57 GMT -6
Seldom, we agree completely. There are those that not only think that one size fits all, they look for the silver bullet that will work everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by trappnman on Jul 28, 2006 14:24:55 GMT -6
all the assumptions on territory are just that. Unless mink are radio monitored, who knows?
Based on a few things like a toe left in a trap and then where I caught that toeless mink, leads me to think male mink have large terriotories (based on running linear feet).
I know for a fact, that male mink certainly travel and hunt 7-10 linear miles away from any known (and I'd know) water.
I believe females and YOY have very small territories- most of my doubles are YOY.
|
|
|
Post by lumberjack on Jul 28, 2006 14:51:43 GMT -6
Trappnman if I understand you correctly, You are saying you can go 7-10 miles in a straight line and not hit a watershed in Minnesota ? I always thought that place was called land o lakes for a reason. Ive only been there twice and was amazed at the layout of the roads and the water trapline a guy could do. Here in Pa you can be in a valley one minute and 2000 ft in another, but I can always hit some type of drainage usually within a mile. Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of linear ?
|
|
|
Post by seldom on Jul 28, 2006 15:06:37 GMT -6
:)You're right Griz, there's no silver bullet that I've found either but there's "the devil in the details"! ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by seldom on Jul 28, 2006 16:17:52 GMT -6
Those that have been following along with this thread have heard quite a bit about mink habitat and habitat suitability indexing. There's a pretty decent read published by the USF&WS I'd suggest it to those who would like to learn more about mink.
It's "Biological Report 82(10.127) November 1986 revised.' It's title is "Habitat Suitability Index Models: Mink" and I copied it off the web a couple years ago.
|
|
|
Post by fishadict on Jul 28, 2006 20:55:48 GMT -6
As I read pieces of this study, I thought I read that distances between sets were predetermined. So, territories are only inferred by the fact that primary locations did not catch mink in year two, but secondary locations did. I think this study was designed to collect mink for contaminants, not to determine territories or ranges. Is that correct? Seldom, do you also have references on mink ranges? I was unable to get them from wildlife managers that I asked.
fa
|
|