Post by FWS on Feb 17, 2008 7:50:38 GMT -6
Missing muskrats
Many noticing a decline in number of critters
By Tom Venesky
The Times Leader
Feb. 17, 2008
Ask Nick Wyshinski if there are fewer muskrats today, and he answers without hesitation.
“Without a doubt,” he said.
If anybody, Wyshinski should know. For more than 50 years he has been buying furs and selling trapping supplies from his shop in Berwick. Wyshinski has dealt with trappers his entire life, and he knows what they are, or aren’t, seeing on their traplines.
“About seven years ago an old-time trapper from Nescopeck was the first one to mention to me that there’s something wrong with the muskrat population,” Wyshinski said. “I didn’t believe him because at that time the muskrats were coming into the shop pretty good.”
Today, that isn’t the case. Wyshinski said he’s buying one-fourth the amount of muskrats compared to years ago. While he admitted part of the reason is there are more places for trappers to sell their furs today, a decline in the local muskrat population is partly to blame.
It’s a decline that Wyshinski said is occurring throughout the state.
“There are many theories as to why it’s happening, but nobody knows for sure,” he said.
Annual harvest estimates from the Pennsylvania Game Commission back up claims of fewer muskrats. Since records were kept beginning in 1990, trappers took an average of 149,381 muskrats each season from 1990 to 1998. From 1999 to 2006, the average dropped to 89,889.
During the same time period the number of trappers targeting muskrats also dropped, but the fact that neighboring states are seeing population declines is evidence the drop is not related to a decrease in trapping pressure.
“It’s been declining for a number of years,” said Game Commission spokesman Jerry Feaser. “It started along the Maryland border in the 1980s and moved north. The population decrease has also been seen in surrounding states.”
Feaser said the agency is looking to partner with other states to conduct a study on declining muskrat populations, but nothing has been finalized. The cause could be related to a myriad of issues, Feaser said, citing changes in agricultural practices and even improvements in water quality as possible factors.
Game Commission biologist Tom Hardisky agreed with Wyshinski that there are only theories, not concrete reasons, behind the muskrat decline. He said the decrease is being seen in populations throughout the northeastern United States, and the characteristics of the decline suggest the reasons are environmental.
Hardisky mentioned improvements in water quality as one possible factor worth a closer look.
“The years when we had lots of muskrats, raw sewage was going right into our creeks,” he said. “That acted as fertilizer for aquatic plants and growth of the vegetation along banks was incredibly high. Plus, we had a lot of earthen (stream) banks.”
That lush growth meant abundant food for muskrats. The thick vegetation on the earthen banks provided valuable cover for the burrowing furbearers.
Today, efforts to clean up raw sewage outflows have removed a significant portion of those nutrients from the state’s waterways. Flood control measures have replaced earthen banks with stone – a material not conducive for a muskrat looking to dig a burrow. Where the habitat is poor, predators are prone to be more successful.
“It seems like everything you do benefits one animal and hurts another,” Hardisky said, referring to the improvements in water quality.
Other possible factors for the population decrease are a rise in mink populations -- mink is a prime muskrat predator -- or the spread of a parasite.
Despite the decline, trappers can still take muskrats during a set season, usually from mid-November to early January. Feaser said trappers are very conscious of furbearer populations and “self-regulate” their trapping activity to avoid over-harvesting a species. Hardisky suggested a possible option to manage muskrats by watersheds and establish seasons unique for those areas.
“One thing we do know is we’re not going to lose the population through trapping,” he said.
If trapping pressure is going to be considered a possible factor for the muskrat drop, Wyshinski said it should be ruled out immediately.
“Trapping won’t hurt the population because trappers usually catch male muskrats – they tend to travel. The females stay in the huts,” he said.
“About seven years ago an old-time trapper from Nescopeck was the first one to mention to me that there’s something wrong with the muskrat population.”
Many noticing a decline in number of critters
By Tom Venesky
The Times Leader
Feb. 17, 2008
Ask Nick Wyshinski if there are fewer muskrats today, and he answers without hesitation.
“Without a doubt,” he said.
If anybody, Wyshinski should know. For more than 50 years he has been buying furs and selling trapping supplies from his shop in Berwick. Wyshinski has dealt with trappers his entire life, and he knows what they are, or aren’t, seeing on their traplines.
“About seven years ago an old-time trapper from Nescopeck was the first one to mention to me that there’s something wrong with the muskrat population,” Wyshinski said. “I didn’t believe him because at that time the muskrats were coming into the shop pretty good.”
Today, that isn’t the case. Wyshinski said he’s buying one-fourth the amount of muskrats compared to years ago. While he admitted part of the reason is there are more places for trappers to sell their furs today, a decline in the local muskrat population is partly to blame.
It’s a decline that Wyshinski said is occurring throughout the state.
“There are many theories as to why it’s happening, but nobody knows for sure,” he said.
Annual harvest estimates from the Pennsylvania Game Commission back up claims of fewer muskrats. Since records were kept beginning in 1990, trappers took an average of 149,381 muskrats each season from 1990 to 1998. From 1999 to 2006, the average dropped to 89,889.
During the same time period the number of trappers targeting muskrats also dropped, but the fact that neighboring states are seeing population declines is evidence the drop is not related to a decrease in trapping pressure.
“It’s been declining for a number of years,” said Game Commission spokesman Jerry Feaser. “It started along the Maryland border in the 1980s and moved north. The population decrease has also been seen in surrounding states.”
Feaser said the agency is looking to partner with other states to conduct a study on declining muskrat populations, but nothing has been finalized. The cause could be related to a myriad of issues, Feaser said, citing changes in agricultural practices and even improvements in water quality as possible factors.
Game Commission biologist Tom Hardisky agreed with Wyshinski that there are only theories, not concrete reasons, behind the muskrat decline. He said the decrease is being seen in populations throughout the northeastern United States, and the characteristics of the decline suggest the reasons are environmental.
Hardisky mentioned improvements in water quality as one possible factor worth a closer look.
“The years when we had lots of muskrats, raw sewage was going right into our creeks,” he said. “That acted as fertilizer for aquatic plants and growth of the vegetation along banks was incredibly high. Plus, we had a lot of earthen (stream) banks.”
That lush growth meant abundant food for muskrats. The thick vegetation on the earthen banks provided valuable cover for the burrowing furbearers.
Today, efforts to clean up raw sewage outflows have removed a significant portion of those nutrients from the state’s waterways. Flood control measures have replaced earthen banks with stone – a material not conducive for a muskrat looking to dig a burrow. Where the habitat is poor, predators are prone to be more successful.
“It seems like everything you do benefits one animal and hurts another,” Hardisky said, referring to the improvements in water quality.
Other possible factors for the population decrease are a rise in mink populations -- mink is a prime muskrat predator -- or the spread of a parasite.
Despite the decline, trappers can still take muskrats during a set season, usually from mid-November to early January. Feaser said trappers are very conscious of furbearer populations and “self-regulate” their trapping activity to avoid over-harvesting a species. Hardisky suggested a possible option to manage muskrats by watersheds and establish seasons unique for those areas.
“One thing we do know is we’re not going to lose the population through trapping,” he said.
If trapping pressure is going to be considered a possible factor for the muskrat drop, Wyshinski said it should be ruled out immediately.
“Trapping won’t hurt the population because trappers usually catch male muskrats – they tend to travel. The females stay in the huts,” he said.
“About seven years ago an old-time trapper from Nescopeck was the first one to mention to me that there’s something wrong with the muskrat population.”
