Figured it was just a matter of time before wolverines were put on the endangered species list. Looks like it’s coming right up. Glad I caught one while it was still legal.

The simple fact of the matter is that the anti's are not trying to limit what we catch Or how many or where we can catch whatever any of the details may be They are slowly winning the effort to stop the wise use of a renewable resource The facts are not their concern They only care about stopping hunting and trapping for anything and for everyone

I see the Pork Service is trying to get Grizzly reintroduced to the Cascade range in WA. I read through the proposal and the comment period about them being delisted when the population becomes sustainable. Problem is the keep moving the goal post and they will never get delisted. Its big money to the Fish and Wildlife, game and fish and the Pork Service. They will manage them and keep them listed forever and expand the boundaries. We were lucky in the Rocky Mt states to get the wolf delisted but I dont see it happening with the Grizzly. They claimed we never had Wolverine till they started showing up on game cameras now a whole bunch of tax dollars goes to research on them.

Having lived and trapped in wolverine country, (even managed to catch a few), I can tell you that even where there are a "lot" of them, there aren't many. It will be a chip-shot for listing.

True that even in the best habitat there are not high populations even without any trapping.

It never ceases to amaze me that the AR people are too stupid to realize that certain species just simply are not densely populated.

Pete

Why are they scarce even in a natural setting away from people?
Are they killed by wolves or anything else? Is it a low prey density situation? They are known for travelling long distances to fill their gluttonous bellies.

They are not sexually mature for a couple of years. Litters are small........2-4 kits. I am sure infant mortality is an issue but no idea how much.
They, of course, need a good food source and I believe they scavenge more than they kill. They are not fast so not likely to run down medium sized prey although I'm sure they do once in a while.

They don't seem to be territorial ( school is still out on that) and that means they must travel great distances when looking for mates. Since they are never "dense" that means a reduced opportunity to breed.

Also the female dens usually in high country where there may be natural declivities in large rocks and/or deep snow where she can burrow well below the surface to an area that is out of the wind and a bit warmer than surface temperatures.

It is crucial too that mom be able to feed herself at the same time she is nursing a litter.

In some instances trapping seasons may overlap that time of the year when mom is looking for a den and caching grub for herself while the litter is too young to leave.


I hate to see them listed because that pretty much removes management opportunities. But, they sure appear to be a fragile population ....IN MOST AREAS


Gulo is no doubt the resident expert on these critters. Maybe he will weigh in with real information

The Incidental Take Permit will be interesting to navigate. Hard to make too many concessions when the probability and risk for incidental capture is so low on such a wide ranging species. The AR's will ask for everything they can to limit trapping so it'll be important to stick to numbers and facts when negotiating the permit.

Theoretically it's being listed because of climate change, loss of snowpack, blah, blah. Not a lot to work with when crafting a recovery plan, but things like trapping and snowmobiling will take the biggest hit.

Prepare for coni and snare restrictions if this passes, possibly even foothold size limits.

I think you are spot on.

Are there studies showing an estimated population? Are there also studies showing potential habitat and what a healthy population would hold, number wise? Supposedly there should be data to base a finding on. That data, if it exists, could be challenged.

Sorry, we only trust the " science" when we control.it, or it suits us

FEELLS are what's important nowadays...

Any links to what immanent listings you refer to OP?

It’s hard to get my head around them being listed due to conservation concerns in the lesser 48.

Alaska Dept. of F&G estimates 3-4 wolverine per 1,000 square kilometers. I've looked at these numbers in the past and it always made me wonder how some of you guys could connect as frequently as you do. Talk about a needle in a haystack.

It doesn't appear their numbers are threatened.

Just a guess on my part Mike but I suspect Alaska may be the only place with "real" population estimates based on track counts and sightings by professionals. Even those will be processed through a statistical program to generate an estimate.

I would also suspect that any population estimates in the L48 are derived from trail cams and hair snags. And IF the USF&WS is involved there is very little credibility or integrity.


Pretty tough to produce an estimate on "potential" population of any area. As we both know there can be pockets with a viable wolverine population and vast areas with little to none, There is an area SW of me that could possibly have the highest wolverine density I have ever heard of. What makes an area like that ? Obviously it meets most or all wolverine habitat needs. Has it always been like that ? How long will it stay like that ?

I can't see a way to impose a one-size-fits-all template over a huge landscape to generate a "potential" carrying capacity number.

So I agree with you that something like that should be challenged.......but I suspect the fix is in

While that might seem like a low density, recall that the population of people in AK is also fairly low, in terms of density.
In wolverines we have a generally low density species spread over an area 20% the size of the US.

All our critters are like that. We may have a lot of wildlife but they are spread out over a huge area.

Also wolverines are in constant motion so that 1000 square kilometer 'box' is always moving.Sometimes they overlap.....seasonally........other times there will be huge voids.

So, 1000 sq. KM equal 386 sq. miles. 3-4 wolverines in that area might be right but I also believe that gender and time of year will influence that distribution. I have caught three wolverines (all female) in one day within a half mile of each other. I have also caught three (male) wolverine on the same day within 50 yards of each other.

Both of these instances were in November. I don't think that is by any stretch a common thing. Just mention it to say there are a whole lot of variables

Most population estimates can make good indexes if they are always done the same in the same conditions. I don't use them as an exact number of animals. I've seen too many population estimates that were mathematically impossible compared to the previous estimate. Those ones I ignore.

Truth
Same with Wolves here in Minnesota