Nafa subtly suggests........

[thorsmightyhammer]

Because government agencies have to have a reason to exist and leach of the system lol.

Seriously though, we know that some species are susceptible to harvest and they need managing.

I suppose that most animals are susceptible to an unregulated harvest but I think there are bigger factors right now other than harvest.

Now harvest in a stressed environment is another matter all together.

But is the answer to always regulate and reduce or is it to fix the real problem of the matter.

[blackhammer]

Mar 25, 2014 6:32:14 GMT -6 trappnman said:

a question for all- if harvest (as one factor) has no effect on populations- why do we have ANY limits or seasons?

Who on this thread even SUGGESTED harvest has NO EFFECT. Good grief. There are other factors that are more important. In the case of beaver I believe I mentioned killing them has an adversre effect but much of the killing isn't done by fur trappers. The beaver is an animal that can be overharvested more so than a muskrat or raccooon or mink . That has been proven. Coyotes by fur trapping I don't think it is likely. Now spending thousands of dollars on a smaller area they sure can be controlled but if it isn't a steady year after year deal there just throwing their money away.

[trappnman]

I think that even a quick rereading of the posts in this thread, certainly suggests that trapping harvest, has no effect on populations.

but my original question was simple- in times of low populations, should we shorten seasons, or would doing that have no effect on rebounding populations?

[blackhammer]

Mar 25, 2014 8:55:47 GMT -6 trappnman said:

I think that even a quick rereading of the posts in this thread, certainly suggests that trapping harvest, has no effect on populations.

but my original question was simple- in times of low populations, should we shorten seasons, or would doing that have no effect on rebounding populations?

Depends on the animal, the weather, the fur market, disease. Look at red fox do you thinking closing the season on them would make their numbers much higher? In Houston county I doubt we have a handful of canine trappers but no fox. Would shortening the coon season because of distemper really be wise. The thing about all of a sudden thinking lets knock a couple months of the season. Number  onethe DNR is not going to change season lengths every year and once there shortened they stay that way for a while. Last year coon numbers were down so let's say the season now closes Dec31. All of a sudden next fall the prices are low, which I think they will be and coon numbers better than expected, which is also possible. Then we have good numbers and us serious trappers with half as long season. For the most part in most situations everyone is better with the seasons we have. Around here you could stockpile rats all you want. A flood comes through or disease and no rats. I trap them hard and they bounce back really good if mother nature cooperates. Like I said about beaver you don't trap them down here in season about August, Sept the killing and dam busting starts. With beaver near the Mississippi or bigger rivers a guy as a good feeder system to repopulate.  To me a beaver pond is about the best and coolest thing out there for wildlife and trappers.

[rionueces]

Seasons and limits are one of the only ways that government entities can attempt to control the populations of predator species. Other factors such as habitat loss, land fragmentation, disease etc. are mostly out of their control.

[blackhammer]

Mar 25, 2014 12:11:17 GMT -6 rionueces said:

Seasons and limits are one of the only ways that government entities can attempt to control the populations of predator species. Other factors such as habitat loss, land fragmentation, disease etc. are mostly out of their control.

Really I didn't know that . I give up.

[rionueces]

Well I wasn't responding to your question....

[trappnman]

I argue that an old beaver pond, is a benefit to wildlife, but that a new beaver pond, causes more harm than good the first few years.

I'm not talking a fluctuating season, up and down on the whims of the dnr or any organization- thought I was pretty clear about that, so if anyone should give up, its me-

I'm talking about when populations are at close to record lows- or at least, lows occurring during the past 50 years

so that rather than taking years to rebound, it happens I na season or two-

you know, very similar to MN closing the deer season 100%, in 1972 (I think, maybe 73)when the deer population got hit hard by consecutive hard winters- the season was closed to allow the remaining deer population to get that extra little bump.

distemper on coon has been going on for several years here, and a terrible winter last year combined with the same, has knocked many species down, where the populations could use maybe some extra help.

[northof50]

northern Minn was frozen solid last spring season till the end of April
my last spring beaver did not sell, and the small went for 1-3$ each....and weasels went for 3$
freezer time here it comes
If this cold weather continues on the prairies there will not be a spring rat season

[trappnman]

18 inches in some places around fargo yesterday and last night- eastern Dakotas got hammered again as well-

sounds like we could get a spring storm thurs , hope they are wrong and its al lrain

[RdFx]

Well last night here at 2 am it was 44 degrees, now at 0930 am its 29 degrees , foggy and damp winds, go figure....no rain , no snow YET!

[trappincoyotes39]

Harvest of fur bearers by itself has minimal impact unless prices get really high or interest is at a very hi level. many areas continue with seasons because they have been historically in place and add to it the AR people do not need any more news fodder. SD for sample has no closed season on many species like red fox,coyotes,coons, badgers ,skunk and opossum. Many years spent there and I could never see where trappers had much impact overall on any of these species. Numbers falling mainly an issue of disease and not becuase no closed seasons on the above species.

LPC collars are not the most effective tool by any means. In fact if you look at the report from Texas it will show you that. Cost and time involved over all far better tools than the use of LPC's. Also keep,in mind this is a generalized report and yes I agree in areas of many western states where livestock protection is critical to rancher and farmers being solvent you can achieve very high market rates with the sue of many control tools, but your still suppressing numbers not doing eradication work by any means. For if one stops the control effort for a brief window in time coyote numbers will bounce back rather quickly. You oh also have other factors on top of predator control in time as well like mange, parvo ,rabies that all have an effect on overall numbers and livestock loss rates as well. A bigger picture to look at for sure.

Predator control when run properly and with a multitude of tools over a area of size can be very beneficial to livestock and wildlife I agree and the science is their to prove that.

I would never lump wolves and their dynamics though in with coyotes when it comes to predator control success as wolves and coyotes two totally different species and far different dynamics in their life cycles.

[RdFx]

When i first mentioned that NAFA suggested to lay off bvrs this spring i didn't know for sure who said it. I was informed today it is the head manager for the NAFA facility at Stoughton Wi.. I only remember his first name. Brian.

[jim]

Brian Macmillan

[bblwi]

We seem to think that human harvest of fur bearers has no consequence on populations and we use coyotes and coons as prime examples which are two of the most adaptable and human adaptable species we have. We exterminated most weasel family members from the lower 48 in a hundred years. We want to blame predators and weather for the demise of our deer herd in WI not even suggesting that 300K of antlerless harvest has an impact short or long term. Our continued denial of our influence on many species is like or denial of a changing climate and if we have any influence in speeding that process up or changing the patterns of weather.
A rapidly changing human population growth and a rapid increase in consumptive use does not have to be a tragic event for our globe but to feel that we have little impact or little control is not going to help maintain the resources that we have, if maintaining our current resources is the goal for many.

Bryce

[RdFx]

Thanks Jim

[trappincoyotes39]

Bryce of course some species can be over harvested but many don't Because of many factors. You think we trapped weasels to low numbers? or how about other factors being a major cause? One doesn't usually find one thing that brings down numbers in many species. Plenty of wildlife has adapted to more human presence besides coyotes and coons, look at red fox and how they have adapted to close proximity of humans many others as well.

deer good luck with that balancing act. You have multiple forces that suppress numbers human influence, predation disease are all major factors but the human factor put in place for a reason trying to keep all happy with such a popular species and one that can cause millions in damage is a tough one. It will be on going for many years to come. EHD, insurance companies wanting larger harvest, hunters wanting better buck to doe ratios for better hunting all will make deer numbers ebb and flow. few wildlife species maintain stable numbers over a longer period of time. Tolerable levels and healthy levels at times can be two far different things depending on species. You have about zero,predator control outside of western states where open range sheep and cattle production take place. The other areas of the US are nothing more than a feel good lack attempt to show being of help from many state game depts.

[rwh]

IMO, seasons only limit/extend trapper/hunter access, and have little or no effect on big picture populations. Seasons are a reactive response to public perception, while weather and habitat loss or improvement, effect populations.
Put a trapper in a month before calveing or nesting time and they can have an effect on production numbers and total predation. Put them in after the predation and they are reactive and the predation has already had an effect on production.
Remove a colony of beaver from a roadside pond, whom have already flooded the roadway, and saturated the roadbed, and you have a reactive response. Have the trapper remove beaver from that flowage and reduce overal numbers in that flowage and the rate of incidence reduces.