We surveyed furtakers after the 2022 hunting and trapping seasons to estimate participant numbers, effort, and furbearer harvests. In 2022, 27,055 people purchased a fur harvester license, a nearly 3% increase from 2021. About 12,387 license buyers hunted or trapped furbearers in 2022, similar to the number in 2021. Of these, 28% were trappers (7,698), 28% were hunters (7,707), and 11% (3,018) both trapped and hunted. The estimated number of active furtakers in 2022 didn't differ significantly from 2021. Changes in hunting and trapping effort and harvest between 2021 and 2022 generally mirrored changes in furtaker numbers, though most changes were not significant. Notable changes included a 52% increase in otter harvest and a 28% decrease in the combined bobcat harvest from hunters and trappers. Hunters mainly targeted coyotes, bobcats, and raccoons, while trappers focused on raccoons, coyotes, beavers, and muskrats. In 2022, coyote and beaver harvests were close to historical highs, while bobcat, opossum, otter, and raccoon (by trappers) harvests were near historical averages. However, harvests of badgers, fishers, gray foxes, minks, muskrats, raccoons (by hunters), red foxes, skunks, and weasels were near historical lows. Trends in harvest per furtaker and harvest per days of effort were examined to account for changing furtaker and furbearer numbers over time. The average number of opossums, skunks, foxes, and fishers caught per days of effort has generally decreased since the mid-1980s, indicating potential decreases in their abundance.
Return to Table of contentsThe Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has the authority and responsibility to protect and manage wildlife resources in Michigan, while the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) has the authority to regulate the taking of game (Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Public Act 451 of 1994). To accomplish its statutory responsibility, the DNR uses various management tools, including harvest surveys. The primary objectives of these surveys are to estimate harvests and furtaker participation. The information gathered from these surveys, along with mandatory registration and other indices, is utilized to monitor furbearer populations and help establish harvest regulations.
The primary furbearing animals harvested for their pelts in Michigan during recent years have been badger (Taxidea taxus), beaver (Castor canadensis), bobcat (Lynx rufus), coyote (Canis latrans), fisher (Martes pennanti), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), marten (Martes americana), mink (Mustela vison), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), river otter (Lontra canadensis), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and weasels (Mustela spp.) (Frawley 2023a). In 2022, coyote, opossum, weasels, and skunks could be taken year-round with a fur harvester license. In addition, Michigan residents could hunt coyotes without a fur harvester license, if they had a base license. The remaining furbearers could be harvested during fall, winter, and/or spring depending on the species, by a person possessing a fur harvester license (Table 1). Residents of Michigan who are eight years or older can get free kill tags for marten, fisher, bobcat, and otter. However, nonresidents could not hunt or trap bobcat, or trap badger, fisher, marten, or otter.
Landowners or their designees could take raccoons, coyotes, and skunks throughout the year on their property without a license if these animals were doing or about to do damage. In addition, a mentored youth license allowed hunters aged 9 and younger to hunt small game, turkey, deer, and hunt or trap furbearers, and fish for all species with a mentor at least 21 years of age. It is important to note that the survey only estimates the harvest of furbearers by people who have a fur harvester license. Thus, hunters and trappers taking furbearers on their own private land without a license or those taking furbearers with a base license or a mentored youth hunting license are not included in the survey.
Return to Table of contentsFollowing the 2022 furbearer hunting and trapping seasons, a questionnaire (Appendix A) was mailed to a random sample of 5,100 individuals drawn from the 27,055 licensed fur harvesters. The license types included Fur Harvester, Senior Fur Harvester, Lifetime Fur Harvester, and Apprentice Fur Harvester (a person over 9 years old who did not have a hunter safety certificate), but mentored youth licenses were excluded from the sample. This level of sampling was chosen to produce statewide estimates with a margin of error of less than 20% for the most commonly pursued species. All licensees had an equal chance of being included in the random sample.
Once the sample was selected, licensees were grouped into one of four strata based on their residence. These strata included residents of the Upper Peninsula (UP), Northern Lower Peninsula (NLP), Southern Lower Peninsula (SLP), and nonresidents (Figure 1). The questionnaire asked people to report whether they pursued furbearers, the number of days spent afield, and whether they harvested any furbearing animals.
Estimates were calculated using a stratified random sampling design (Cochran 1977). Through stratification, furtakers were divided into similar groups (strata) based on their county of residence. Residents of the Upper Peninsula (UP), Northern Lower Peninsula (NLP), Southern Lower Peninsula (SLP), and nonresidents and licensees with unknown residency were placed in separate strata (Figure 1). The total sample included 643 people from the UP stratum (out of a total of 3,369), 1,206 people from the NLP stratum (out of 6,384), 3,134 from the SLP stratum (out of 16,702), and 117 people from the nonresident and unknown residency stratum (out of 600). Estimates were derived for each group separately. The statewide estimate was then determined by combining the group estimates so that the influence of each group matched the proportion of its members in the statewide population of furtakers. The primary reason for using a stratified sampling design was to produce more precise estimates. Having adequate precision means that similar estimates should be obtained if this survey were repeated.
When a sample is taken instead of surveying the entire population, the estimates may differ from the true population values. This is because of the sampling error which varies depending on the particular sample selected. To measure this variability, the 95% confidence limit (CL) is used. The CL can be added and subtracted from the estimate to calculate the 95% confidence interval, which is a measure of precision associated with the estimate. It implies that the true value would be within this interval 95 times out of 100.
The estimates made by the survey may also have been affected by nonsampling error. This error can occur due to various reasons such as not including a segment of the survey population, inability to collect data from all units in the sample, errors made by respondents, mistakes made in data collection or processing, and the inability or unwillingness of respondents to provide data. It is very difficult to measure this error. Thus, estimates were not adjusted for nonsampling error. Furthermore, harvest estimates did not include animals taken legally outside the open season (e.g., nuisance animals).
Statistical tests are commonly used to determine if the differences among estimates are more than what can be expected by chance. To determine if the estimates differ, the overlap of 95% confidence intervals is used. If the intervals don't overlap, it means that the difference between the means is larger than what would be expected 95 out of 100 times (P < 0.05) if the study was repeated (Payton et al., 2003).
Estimates of events that occur infrequently are difficult to estimate precisely using common sampling designs (Cochran 1977). Relatively few furtakers harvest river otter, bobcat, badger, fisher, and marten; thus, some estimates associated with these species should be viewed cautiously. More precise harvest estimates were obtained for these species through tallying registration reports. All furtakers harvesting a river otter, bobcat, fisher, or marten were required to present these animals at a DNR office for registration. Prior to 2003, furtakers were also required to register badger; however, this requirement was eliminated in 2003.
In recent years, all licensed trappers in Michigan who wanted to harvest bobcat, fisher, marten, and otter were required to obtain a free kill tag from the DNR. The list of people who obtained these tags provided a complete record of furtakers pursuing these species across the state. Using these lists, the DNR could design separate harvest surveys specifically for these species, providing more precise estimates (with narrower confidence intervals) than previous surveys of all trappers. Separate surveys were conducted to estimate furtaker participation, harvest, and effort for bobcat (Frawley 2023b), fisher and marten (Frawley 2023c), and otter (Frawley 2023d) seasons during recent years.
The main goals of the furbearer harvest survey were to estimate the number of animals harvested, the number of participating fur takers, and the overall trapping and hunting effort. However, the survey also provided an opportunity to gather information about management issues. Questions were added to the questionnaire to determine furtakers satisfaction with furbearer numbers, animals harvested, and overall hunting or trapping experience. Additionally, trappers were asked if they had unintentionally captured any bobcats in traps set for other species.
Return to Table of contentsThe initial questionnaires were mailed in early May 2023. Non-respondents received up to two follow-up questionnaires. Due to changes in residence, 96 questionnaires were undeliverable. In total, 2,024 people returned the questionnaires, resulting in an adjusted response rate of 40% (Table 2).
In 2022, fur harvester licenses were purchased by 27,055 people (Figure 2, Table 2). The number of license buyers in 2022 was 3% greater than in 2021. Most license buyers were men (96%), with an average age of 48 years (Figure 3). About 3.1% of the license buyers (820) were younger than 17 years of age. The analysis did not include furtakers younger than 10 years old who used a mentored youth license.
In 2022, the number of people buying fur harvester licenses decreased by about 5% compared to 10 years ago (28,425 licenses were purchased in 2012). There was an increase in the number of license buyers aged 24–42 and those over 59 years old (Figure 4). However, fewer licenses were bought by most age groups between 41–58 and those under 24 when compared to 2012. The rise in older license buyers likely reflects the aging baby boomer generation and increased life expectancies. In contrast, the decrease in license buyers under 20 indicates lower participation rates among the youngest age groups.
In 2022, approximately 46% of fur harvester license buyers actively hunted or trapped furbearers (Table 3). This number of active fur trappers and hunters was not significantly different from 2021. About 28% of license buyers participated in trapping, while 28% hunted furbearers. The most commonly hunted species were coyotes, bobcats, and raccoons. For trappers, the most frequently targeted animals were raccoons, beavers, coyotes, and muskrats (Table 4). When combining both hunters and trappers, coyotes and raccoons were the most popular furbearers pursued.
The changes in the number of fur trappers and hunters have generally followed the trends in fur prices (e.g., Dhuey 2018, Rees 2015, Conlee and Johnston 2018, Evelsizer 2018). Historically, the peaks in the number of fur trappers and hunters closely corresponded to periods when pelt prices were high for species like muskrats, raccoons, and red foxes (Evelsizer 2018, Conlee and Johnston 2018). Between 1999 and 2011, more people hunted furbearing animals than trapped them. However, since 2012, the number of hunters and trappers has been nearly equal (Figure 5).
Compared to 2021, there were no significant differences in the number of trappers targeting any furbearing species (Table 4). Changes in hunting and trapping effort, as well as the harvest numbers between 2021 and 2022, generally followed the trends in the number of fur trappers and hunters, although most of these differences were not statistically significant (Table 4). The only notable changes were a 52% increase in otter harvest and a 28% decrease in the combined bobcat harvest from hunters and trappers.
In 2022, the harvests of coyotes (by hunters) and beavers were near the high end of their historical ranges. The harvests for bobcats, coyotes (by trappers) fisher, opossums, otters, and raccoons (by trappers) were close to their respective historical averages. However, the harvests of badgers, gray foxes, minks, muskrats, raccoons (by hunters), red foxes, skunks, and weasels were near the low end of their historical ranges (Figures 6–8). Factors like the number of active trappers and hunters, wildlife populations, regulations, weather, habitat conditions, and fur prices can influence harvest trends. Hence, any interpretations should be made cautiously.
We analyzed trends in harvest per furtaker (Figures 9 and 10) and animals harvested per days of effort (Figures 11 and 12). These measures aim to account for changes in the number of fur trappers and furbearer populations over time. However, interpreting these trends remains complex due to various factors (Poole and Mowat 2001). Estimating the number of active fur trappers and their efforts in capturing animals can be challenging. Fur trappers may underestimate their efforts for non-target species unless those animals are caught, potentially leading to an underestimation of effort for those species.
The average number of raccoons and opossums caught per trapper increased from the 1950s to the 1990s but has declined since the late 1990s (Figures 9 and 10). Similarly, the fox harvests by both trappers and hunters, as well as the number of foxes caught per day of effort, have decreased since the 1990s (Figures 11 and 12). These trends suggest that raccoon and opossum populations likely grew from the 1950s to the 1990s, while their populations, along with foxes, may have declined since the 1990s. The rapid increase in raccoon and opossum harvests from the 1970s to the 1990s, followed by a decrease, could also be linked to fluctuating fur prices, as well as abundance.
The trends in increasing raccoon populations and declining fox numbers are not unique to Michigan. Many other Midwestern states have reported similar patterns since the 1950s (e.g., Gehrt et al. 2002, Conlee and Johnston 2018, Evelsizer 2018). The decline in red fox numbers is largely attributed to increased competition from growing coyote and bobcat populations (Sovada et al. 1995, Conlee and Johnston 2018, Evelsizer 2018). Gray fox populations may have also been impacted by the distemper virus associated with raccoons or other factors not yet understood (Conlee and Johnston 2018).
The average number of fishers harvested per trapper (Figure 9) and the number caught per day of effort (Figure 11) have declined over the last twenty years. Frawley (2023c) also reported an increase in trapper effort required for each registered fisher harvest during the past decade. Both the declining average fisher harvest per trapper and the increasing effort per registered fisher suggest that fisher populations may have declined over the last twenty years. Using trapper effort data and age-at-harvest information, researchers reported a 70% decline in fisher abundance in the Upper Peninsula (Clawson 2010). In 2011, the seasonal harvest limit for fishers in the western Upper Peninsula was lowered from three to one, likely contributing to the recent decline in fishers harvested per trapper (Frawley 2019c).
The mean number of bobcats harvested per trapper (Figure 9) and the number of bobcats caught per day (Figure 11) has declined during the last twenty years. In 2004, the seasonal bobcat harvest limit was lowered from three to two. Additionally, the length of the hunting and trapping seasons for bobcats in the Upper Peninsula was reduced in 2009. These regulatory changes likely contributed to the decline in the average bobcat harvest per hunter and trapper since 2003 (Frawley 2022b).
Return to Table of contentsIn 2022, the number of martens and bobcats harvested decreased by 16% and 4% respectively compared to 2021, while the harvests of otters and fishers increased by 38% and 15% (Figure 13, Table 5). These registration totals exclude animals harvested by tribal members and only include animals registered and returned to the trappers/hunters.
Return to Table of contentsAn estimated 155 trappers unintentionally caught bobcats in traps set for other species (Table 6). These trappers released an estimated 185 live bobcats from their traps, while 13 bobcats were registered and kept. Since individual bobcats could have been caught multiple times, the estimated number of incidentally trapped bobcats does not necessarily represent unique animals.
Return to Table of contentsTo trap otter, trappers needed to get a free otter kill tag along with a fur harvester license. We sent a separate survey to these trappers who obtained an otter tag to understand their trapping activity (Frawley 2023d). Since otter trappers often also trap beavers, we asked them to report their beaver trapping activity too. However, the estimates we have for beaver trapping only account for trappers with otter tags. To fully understand these estimates, it's important to know what proportion of overall beaver trapping activity comes from trappers with otter tags.
Out of an estimated 2,906 furtakers targeting beavers (Tables 4 and 7), approximately 65% of these trappers had also obtained an otter kill tag (Table 7). They were responsible for about 84% of the beavers caught.
Return to Table of contentsWe asked furtakers to tell us which furbearer species they focused on, and then share their satisfaction levels regarding the number of animals seen, animals taken, and their overall hunting or trapping experience with that species.
More than half of the furtakers were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the number of all furbearers they saw in 2022 (Table 8). For raccoon, mink, muskrat, and beaver, over 50% of furtakers were satisfied with the number of animals taken. However, for fox, coyote, bobcat, and fisher, less than 50% of furtakers were satisfied with the number of animals they harvested (Table 9). Additionally, over 60% of furtakers pursuing all species except fisher were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their overall hunting or trapping experiences (Table 10).
Return to Table of contentsI appreciate all the furtakers who shared their information. Data entry was handled by Adapt Data Incorporated staff, and Decision Analyst Incorporated personnel created the online survey. Theresa Riebow helped with survey administration, and Marshall Strong created Figure 1. Cody Norton reviewed a draft of this report.
Return to Table of contentsClawson, M. V. 2010. Use of age-at-harvest information to inform wildlife management. Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling techniques. John Wiley & Sons, New York. USA.
Conlee, L. and S. Johnston. 2018. 2017 furbearer program annual report. Unpublished report. Missouri Department of Conservation, Jefferson City, USA.
Dhuey, B. 2018. Wisconsin fur buyers report, 2017–2018. Unpublished report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, USA.
Evelsizer, V. 2018. Trends in Iowa wildlife populations and harvest – 2017–2018. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, Iowa, USA.
Frawley, B. J. 2023a. 2020 Michigan furbearer harvest survey. Wildlife Division Report 3723. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, USA.
Frawley, B. J. 2023b. 2021 bobcat hunter and trapper harvest in Michigan. Wildlife Division Report 3727. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, USA.
Frawley, B. J. 2023c. 2021 marten and fisher harvest survey. Wildlife Division Report 3714. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, USA.
Frawley, B. J. 2023d. 2021 Michigan otter and beaver harvest survey. Wildlife Division Report 3717. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, USA.
Gehrt, S. D., G. F. Huber, and J. A. Ellis. 2002. Long-term population trends of raccoons in Illinois. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30:457–463.
Payton, M. E., M. H. Greenstone, and N. Schenker. 2003. Overlapping confidence intervals or standard error intervals: what do they mean in terms of statistical significance? Journal of Insect Science 3:34.
Poole, K. G. and G. Mowat. 2001. Alberta furbearer harvest data analysis. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 31. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Rees, J. 2015. Wisconsin fur buyers report, 2014–2015. Unpublished report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, USA.
Sovada, M. A., A. B. Sargeant, and J. W. Grier. 1995. Differential effects of coyotes and red foxes on duck nest success. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:19.
Return to Table of contents
| Season, species, and areab | Season dates |
|---|---|
| Trapping Muskrat and Mink UP (Zone 1) | October 25 – March 1 |
| Trapping Muskrat and Mink NLP (Zone 2) | November 1 – March 1 |
| Trapping Muskrat and Mink SLP (Zone 3) | November 10 – March 1 |
| Trapping Raccoon Statewide | October 1 – March 31 |
| Trapping Fox and Coyote Statewide | October 15 – March 1 |
| Trapping Bobcat UP (units A and B)c | October 25 – December 26 |
| Trapping Bobcat NLP (units C, D, and G)c | December 10 – 29 |
| Trapping Bobcat NLP (Unit H)c | December 10 – 20 |
| Trapping Badger UPd and NLP (zones 1 and 2) c | October 15 – November 14 |
| Trapping Badger SLP c (Zone 3) | November 1 – March 1 |
| Trapping Fisher and Marten UP (Zone 1) c,e | December 2 – 11 |
| Trapping Beaver and Otter UP (Zone 1) c,f | October 25 – April 30 |
| Trapping Beaver and Otter NLP (Zone 2) c,f | November 1 – April 28 |
| Trapping Beaver and Otter SLP (Zone 3) c,f | November 10 – April 28 |
| Hunting Bobcat UP (units A B and C)c | January 1 – March 1 |
| Hunting Bobcat NLP (Unit D)c | January 1 – February 1 |
| Hunting Bobcat NLP (Unit G)c | January 1 – 20 |
| Hunting Bobcat NLP (Unit H)c | January 1 – 11 |
| Hunting Fox Statewide | October 15 – March 1 |
| Hunting Raccoon Statewide | October 1 – January 31 |
| Hunting Coyote Statewide | Year-round |
|
a No closed season for opossum, weasel, and skunk. b Nonresidents may trap from November 15 through the regular season closing date, except nonresidents could not trap badger, bobcat, fisher, marten, or otter. c No nonresident season existed for badger, bobcat, fisher, marten, and otter. d The UP badger season only included Baraga, Dickinson, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, Marquette, Menominee, and Ontonagon counties. e The UP Fisher and Marten seasons excluded Drummond Island. f Resident seasons only. Nonresident beaver season occurred during November 15–April 30 (UP), November 24–April 28 (NLP), and December 15–April 28 (SLP). |
|
| Item | 2019a | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Licenses soldb | 23,034 | 25,991 | 26,202 | 27,057 |
| Individuals buying licensesb,c | 23,032 | 25,985 | 26,196 | 27,055 |
| Mentored youth license buyersd | 10,075 | 11,813 | 10,892 | 10,701 |
| Questionnaires mailed | 0 | 5,000 | 5,000 | 5,100 |
| Non-deliverable questionnaires | 0 | 69 | 100 | 96 |
| Questionnaires returned | 0 | 2,168 | 1,965 | 2,024 |
| Questionnaires returned (%)e | 0 | 44 | 40 | 40 |
|
a No harvest survey was completed in 2019. b License types included Fur Harvester, Senior Fur Harvester, Lifetime Fur Harvester, and Apprentice Fur Harvester (person >9 years old who did not have a hunter safety certificate). c A person was counted only once, regardless of how many licenses they purchased. d The mentored youth hunting license was created in 2012 and was valid for hunting small game, waterfowl, turkey, and deer. These youth could also trap furbearers and fish all species. Although these license buyers were eligible to take furbearers, they were not included in survey sample. e Response rate adjusted to exclude non-deliverable questionnaires. |
||||
| Activity | 2020 estimate | 95% CL | 2021 estimate | 95% CL | 2022 estimate | 95% CL | Change between 2021 and 2022 (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trapped (No.) | 9,105 | 501 | 7,625 | 506 | 7,698 | 513 | 1 |
| Trapped (%) | 35 | 2 | 29 | 2 | 28 | 2 | -1 |
| Hunted (No.) | 8,688 | 495 | 8,265 | 518 | 7,707 | 512 | -7 |
| Hunted (%) | 33 | 2 | 32 | 2 | 28 | 2 | -3 |
| Trapped or hunted (No.)b | 14,370 | 522 | 12,728 | 558 | 12,387 | 565 | -3 |
| Trapped or hunted (%)b | 55 | 2 | 49 | 2 | 46 | 2 | -3 |
| Trapped only (No.) | 5,681 | 434 | 4,463 | 420 | 4,680 | 430 | 5 |
| Trapped only (%) | 22 | 2 | 17 | 2 | 17 | 2 | 0 |
| Hunted only (No.) | 5,264 | 422 | 5,103 | 440 | 4,689 | 429 | -8 |
| Hunted only (%) | 20 | 2 | 19 | 2 | 17 | 2 | -2 |
| Trapped and hunted (No.) | 3,424 | 354 | 3,162 | 363 | 3,018 | 358 | -5 |
| Trapped and hunted (%) | 13 | 1 | 12 | 1 | 11 | 1 | -1 |
|
a No harvest survey was completed in 2019. b A person was counted only once, although they may have both trapped and hunted furbearers. * Non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals indicated estimates differed significantly between 2021 and 2022 (P<0.05). |
|||||||
| Season and species | 2021 Partici-pants | 2022 Partici-pants | 95% CLa | Change (%) | 2021 harvest | 2022 harvest | 95% CLa | Change (%) | 2021 effort | 2022 effort | 95% CLa | Change (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trap - Mink | 1,360 | 1,489 | 259 | 9 | 3,038 | 4,178 | 1,807 | 38 | 34,098 | 33,418 | 8,281 | -2 |
| Trap - Raccoon | 3,803 | 4,211 | 411 | 11 | 44,966 | 50,333 | 16,972 | 12 | 109,666 | 107,808 | 16,814 | -2 |
| Trap - Opossum | 1,767 | 1,908 | 291 | 8 | 14,354 | 13,711 | 3,920 | -4 | 57,826 | 74,333 | 22,602 | 29 |
| Trap - Skunk | 910 | 1,210 | 235 | 33 | 3,188 | 3,834 | 1,152 | 20 | 33,713 | 35,047 | 11,259 | 4 |
| Trap - Weasel | 423 | 429 | 142 | 1 | 393 | 600 | 497 | 53 | 7,743 | 8,608 | 4,059 | 11 |
| Trap - Red fox | 1,641 | 1,478 | 257 | -10 | 2,806 | 2,633 | 1,243 | -6 | 57,742 | 45,716 | 12,434 | -21 |
| Trap - Gray fox | 466 | 472 | 149 | 1 | 142 | 277 | 243 | 95 | 13,749 | 16,353 | 8,008 | 19 |
| Trap - Coyote | 3,141 | 2,756 | 344 | -12 | 8,761 | 5,978 | 1,982 | -32 | 96,188 | 80,665 | 15,270 | -16 |
| Trap - Bobcatb | 1,850 | 1,731 | 170 | -6 | 576 | 424 | 90 | -26 | 25,045 | 23,639 | 3,596 | -6 |
| Trap - Beaverc | 2,840 | 2,906 | 352 | 2 | 19,223 | 29,538 | 9,463 | 54 | 50,708 | 59,361 | 11,688 | 17 |
| Trap - Muskrat | 2,386 | 2,639 | 336 | 11 | 105,683 | 83,792 | 36,945 | -21 | 56,997 | 55,852 | 10,603 | -2 |
| Trap - Otterc | 1,012 | 1,261 | 145 | 25 | 843 | 1,277 | 224 | 52* | 18,920 | 23,992 | 4,795 | 27 |
| Trap - Fisherd | 661 | 587 | 81 | -11 | 196 | 225 | 53 | 15 | 4,831 | 4,312 | 649 | -11 |
| Trap - Badger | 81 | 135 | 80 | 66 | 53 | 14 | 27 | -73 | 3,635 | 2,376 | 1,971 | -35 |
| Hunt - Raccoon | 2,610 | 2,356 | 318 | -10 | 36,567 | 22,703 | 7,603 | -38 | 44,051 | 43,510 | 10,929 | -1 |
| Hunt - Red fox | 1,763 | 1,697 | 275 | -4 | 1,625 | 978 | 423 | -40 | 30,611 | 26,199 | 7,796 | -14 |
| Hunt - Gray fox | 820 | 850 | 199 | 4 | 272 | 159 | 149 | -42 | 13,264 | 12,634 | 6,250 | -5 |
| Hunt - Coyote | 6,331 | 6,044 | 473 | -5 | 16,700 | 13,636 | 3,927 | -18 | 91,660 | 103,469 | 20,830 | 13 |
| Hunt - Bobcatb | 2,857 | 2,636 | 204 | -8 | 435 | 300 | 70 | -31 | 19,881 | 17,235 | 2,262 | -13 |
| Both – Raccoon | 5,277 | 5,419 | 452 | 3 | 81,533 | 73,036 | 19,726 | -10 | 153,717 | 151,318 | 22,400 | -2 |
| Both - Red fox | 3,089 | 2,879 | 350 | -7 | 4,432 | 3,610 | 1,311 | -19 | 88,353 | 71,915 | 15,843 | -19 |
| Both - Gray fox | 1,190 | 1,187 | 233 | 0 | 414 | 436 | 285 | 5 | 27,013 | 28,987 | 11,506 | 7 |
| Both - Coyote | 8,189 | 7,556 | 509 | -8 | 25,461 | 19,615 | 4,982 | -23 | 187,848 | 184,134 | 27,450 | -2 |
| Both - Bobcatb | 4,215 | 3,933 | 236 | -7 | 1,012 | 725 | 113 | -28* | 44,926 | 41,194 | 4,330 | -8 |
|
a 95% CL for the 2022 estimate. b Bobcat estimates from separate mail harvest survey (Frawley 2023b). See Table 5 for registration totals. c Otter estimates from separate mail harvest survey (Frawley 2023d). See Table 5 for registration totals. d Fisher estimates from separate mail harvest survey (Frawley 2023c). See Table 5 for registration totals. * Non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals indicated estimates differed significantly between 2021 and 2022 (P<0.05). |
||||||||||||
| Year | Hunt - bobcat | Trap - bobcat | Unknown - bobcat | Total - bobcat | Otter | Fishera | Badgerb,c | Martend |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1987 | 315 | 277 | 5 | 597 | 1,030 | |||
| 1988 | 327 | 170 | 0 | 497 | 731 | |||
| 1989 | 178 | 91 | 0 | 269 | 900 | 94 | 28 | |
| 1990 | 265 | 85 | 0 | 350 | 654 | 125 | 52 | |
| 1991 | 292 | 79 | 0 | 371 | 877 | 68 | 35 | |
| 1992 | 276 | 104 | 0 | 380 | 896 | 139 | 63 | |
| 1993 | 285 | 163 | 0 | 448 | 1,252 | 425 | 90 | |
| 1994 | 373 | 422 | 0 | 795 | 1,552 | 417 | 124 | |
| 1995 | 311 | 137 | 1 | 449 | 1,143 | 210 | 75 | |
| 1996 | 463 | 420 | 0 | 883 | 1,438 | 471 | 109 | |
| 1997 | 347 | 771 | 0 | 1118 | 1,324 | 609 | 117 | |
| 1998 | 331 | 373 | 0 | 704 | 1,026 | 455 | 91 | |
| 1999 | 434 | 343 | 0 | 777 | 1,097 | 291 | 82 | |
| 2000 | 379 | 307 | 0 | 686 | 1,006 | 236 | 85 | 85 |
| 2001 | 465 | 727 | 0 | 1,192 | 1,204 | 381 | 174 | 97 |
| 2002 | 482 | 741 | 0 | 1,223 | 1,221 | 348 | 173 | 85 |
| 2003 | 340 | 621 | 0 | 961 | 1,496 | 442 | 149 | |
| 2004 | 321 | 637 | 0 | 958 | 1,358 | 368 | 184 | |
| 2005 | 309 | 508 | 0 | 817 | 1,526 | 322 | 164 | |
| 2006 | 336 | 515 | 0 | 851 | 1,154 | 390 | 192 | |
| 2007 | 336 | 299 | 0 | 635 | 663 | 280 | 316 | |
| 2008 | 284 | 364 | 0 | 648 | 707 | 326 | 290 | |
| 2009 | 331 | 270 | 0 | 601 | 997 | 216 | 247 | |
| 2010 | 365 | 344 | 0 | 709 | 935 | 312 | 274 | |
| 2011 | 290 | 367 | 0 | 657 | 1,360 | 205 | 187 | |
| 2012 | 311 | 367 | 0 | 678 | 1,234 | 237 | 279 | |
| 2013 | 217 | 308 | 0 | 525 | 849 | 280 | 284 | |
| 2014 | 333 | 325 | 0 | 658 | 834 | 191 | 289 | |
| 2015 | 286 | 297 | 0 | 583 | 856 | 237 | 280 | |
| 2016 | 259 | 140 | 0 | 399 | 711 | 171 | 131 | |
| 2017 | 251 | 186 | 0 | 437 | 665 | 162 | 157 | |
| 2018 | 348 | 354 | 0 | 702 | 728 | 222 | 319 | |
| 2019 | 359 | 250 | 0 | 609 | 699 | 96 | 124 | |
| 2020 | 400 | 480 | 0 | 880 | 918 | 272 | 273 | |
| 2021 | 403 | 360 | 0 | 763 | 655 | 150 | 186 | |
| 2022 | 381 | 348 | 0 | 729 | 906 | 173 | 157 | |
|
a Registration totals included only animals legally harvested by furtakers during hunting and trapping seasons; excluded harvest by tribal members. Also, totals only included animals that were registered and returned to the furtaker (i.e., excluded accidental take). b Badger and fisher seasons were established in 1989. c Furtakers no longer were required to register badgers beginning in 2003. d Marten season was established in 2000. |
||||||||
| Regiona | Trappers (No.) | 95% CL | Incidental bobcats captured and released alive (No.)b | 95% CL | Incidental bobcats captured and registered (No.)b | 95% CL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper Peninsula | 13 | 24 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 24 |
| Northern Lower Peninsula | 115 | 76 | 159 | 118 | 0 | 0 |
| Southern Lower Peninsula | 26 | 35 | 26 | 35 | 0 | 0 |
| Unknown | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Statewide | 155 | 88 | 185 | 123 | 13 | 24 |
|
a See Figure 1 for region boundaries. b Incidental bobcats caught in counties. |
||||||
| Beaver trapper group | Trappers (No.) | 95% CL | Effort (No.) | 95% CL | Harvest (No.) | 95% CL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without an otter kill tag | 1,004 | 213 | 18,192 | 6,368 | 4,590 | 1,879 |
| With an otter kill tag | 1,903 | 291 | 24,948 | 9,291 | 24,948 | 9,291 |
| Combined | 2,906 | 352 | 59,361 | 11,688 | 29,538 | 9,463 |
| Species | Very satisfied or somewhat satisfied (%) | 95% CL | Neutral (%) | 95% CL | Very dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied (%) | 95% CL | No answer (%) | 95% CL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raccoon | 74 | 7 | 16 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Fox | 63 | 18 | 26 | 16 | 8 | 10 | 4 | 7 |
| Coyote | 62 | 5 | 23 | 5 | 11 | 4 | 4 | 2 |
| Bobcat | 59 | 11 | 19 | 9 | 17 | 8 | 5 | 5 |
| Fisher | 64 | 32 | 24 | 28 | 13 | 23 | 0 | 0 |
| Mink | 84 | 28 | 16 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muskrat | 70 | 11 | 17 | 9 | 14 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Beaver | 80 | 7 | 12 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| a Furtakers were grouped in subgroups based on the primary species they targeted, and then satisfaction was summarized for each subgroup separately. The survey focused on opinions about the most popular species. | ||||||||
| Species | Very satisfied or somewhat satisfied (%) | 95% CL | Neutral (%) | 95% CL | Very dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied (%) | 95% CL | No answer (%) | 95% CL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raccoon | 69 | 7 | 15 | 6 | 11 | 5 | 4 | 3 |
| Fox | 37 | 18 | 33 | 17 | 26 | 16 | 4 | 7 |
| Coyote | 33 | 5 | 31 | 5 | 29 | 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Bobcat | 25 | 9 | 30 | 10 | 34 | 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Fisher | 38 | 32 | 24 | 28 | 26 | 30 | 13 | 23 |
| Mink | 68 | 35 | 32 | 35 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muskrat | 59 | 12 | 17 | 9 | 23 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| Beaver | 68 | 8 | 19 | 7 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 3 |
| a Furtakers were grouped in subgroups based on the primary species they targeted, and then satisfaction was summarized for each subgroup separately. The survey focused on opinions about the most popular species. | ||||||||
| Species | Very satisfied or somewhat satisfied (%) | 95% CL | Neutral (%) | 95% CL | Very dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied (%) | 95% CL | No answer (%) | 95% CL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raccoon | 76 | 7 | 12 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| Fox | 70 | 17 | 19 | 14 | 7 | 9 | 4 | 7 |
| Coyote | 66 | 5 | 20 | 4 | 9 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Bobcat | 66 | 10 | 17 | 8 | 12 | 7 | 5 | 5 |
| Fisher | 64 | 32 | 24 | 28 | 13 | 23 | 0 | 0 |
| Mink | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Muskrat | 83 | 9 | 12 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Beaver | 88 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| a Furtakers were grouped in subgroups based on the primary species they targeted, and then satisfaction was summarized for each subgroup separately. The survey focused on opinions about the most popular species. | ||||||||
