The original Regulatory Impact Statement, Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Rural Area Flexibility Analysis and Job Impact Statement, as published in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, remain valid and do not need to be amended.

As a rule that requires a RFA, RAFA or JIS, this rule will be initially reviewed in the calendar year 2024, which is no later than the 3rd year after the year in which this rule is being adopted.

DEC received 22 comments from individuals and two organizations pertaining to this proposed rule. All but one of the comments were supportive of the proposed changes. Many comments simply expressed support for the proposal. For other comments, we reviewed the substance and merit of the comment and provide a summary and response here, organized by topic.

1. Removing the requirement for a mandatory fisher trapping permit

Comment Summary: Twenty-one comments supported the proposal to remove the requirement for a free special permit for trapping fisher in New York. Writers overwhelmingly believed that the decision was based on sound science and that the fisher population in New York is flourishing. Some writers expressed their belief that the permit and associated activity log were not worth the effort and inconvenience trappers experienced.

Response: Although DEC acknowledges that the special fisher permit and associated activity log placed a burden on trappers, the data collected from these efforts has proven invaluable for assessing the status of the fisher population and evaluating potential harvest impacts. When the conservative fisher season was opened in central and western New York, these data allowed DEC biologists to ensure that the harvest was sustainable. Biologists are currently using this robust dataset to better assess fisher season length and timing and better understand fisher demographics.

2. Maintaining the pine marten trapping permit

Comment Summary: One writer stated that they would not trap fisher or marten until they were no longer required to obtain a special permit or submit carcasses.

Response: This proposal does remove the permit requirement for fisher and the carcass submissions for marten. However, the special permit requirement for marten is maintained. Marten occupy a very limited range in New York and are susceptible to over-harvest. Although harvest data indicate a relatively stable, predictable pattern of trapping pressure and harvest, any changes in environmental conditions or demand for marten pelts on the fur market have the potential to negatively impact marten populations. The pine marten permit has been in place since 1978, and data collected from the permit allow DEC biologists to closely monitor harvest pressure and population trends of this species. As biologists are still analyzing data while completing the Marten Management Plan, removing the permit requirement at this time would be premature and potentially detrimental to the management of this species.

3. Removal of the requirement to submit marten carcasses prior to Department sealing

Comment Summary: Many writers expressed enthusiastic support for removing the requirement for submission of marten carcasses. With pelt prices being very low, trappers are eager to utilize more of the carcass than just the pelt, which was not possible under the previous regulations.

Response: DEC supports the full utilization of harvested animals and agrees with trappers who wish to use the full carcass. Although the collection of marten carcasses provided DEC with valuable demographic information for New York marten, we have a robust dataset to inform harvest and population management and no longer have a need to continue the carcass collection.

4. Fisher trapping season length

Comment Summary: Several writers believed that fisher populations are robust across New York, and that populations can support a longer season, especially in central and western New York. In addition, several writers asked for a later season in central and western New York because they felt the current six-day trapping season occurs before fur is prime.

Response: Fisher trapping season length is outside of the scope of this proposal. DEC recognizes that many trappers prefer to trap later in the season when they believe that fur is in prime condition, but also recognize that many trappers prefer a uniform start date for land trapping in late October. DEC is currently analyzing the results from the trapper activity logs and a large-scale camera survey across the Southern Zone. These results will be used to assess the possibility of adjusting existing trapping seasons and/or opening new trapping opportunities in areas where harvest is currently closed.

5. A firearm season should be opened for fisher

Comment Summary: One writer believed that the fisher season should be expanded and opened to firearm hunting as well as trapping. They believed that fisher are becoming invasive and a destructive nuisance with no natural predators. The writer expressed concern that fisher are having an impact on fawns, turkey, pheasant, farm animals and pets.

Response: This is outside of the scope of this proposal. While fisher populations are doing well in New York and expanding across central and western New York, DEC receives relatively few nuisance complaints regarding fisher each year and is not trying to reduce fisher populations. Fisher are native to New York and historically were found throughout the state. DEC is not currently looking at opening a hunting season for fisher.

DEC often receives comments that fisher kill significant numbers of fawns, turkeys, and domestic pets. However, results from fisher diet studies and fawn and turkey survival studies suggest otherwise. Across the range of white-tailed deer, fawn survival studies have found that coyotes, black bears, domestic dogs, and bobcats are the most common predators. While fisher likely take the occasional fawn, there is no evidence that fisher contribute significantly to fawn mortality in New York or elsewhere. An analysis of over 500 fisher stomachs collected from New York has found white-tailed deer remains in less than 10% of samples (NYSDEC, unpublished data).

There is also limited evidence that fisher are a major predator of game birds such as turkey. Research in Massachusetts and New Hampshire found wild turkey remains infrequently in fisher stomachs. A study in Pennsylvania found no evidence of turkey remains in 91 fisher stomachs. To date, there has only been one instance of possible turkey remains found in over 500 fisher stomachs collected in New York.

Each year, DEC receives approximately 8-12 complaints involving negative interactions with fishers. Most of these complaints involve fishers killing domestic fowl. In these situations, DEC may issue a damage permit allowing the landowner to trap the fisher and protect their animals. DEC also receives a limited number of complaints involving fishers preying on house cats. Many of these complaints are difficult to investigate, because they often involve a missing pet and the assumption that a fisher was the predator responsible for its death without corroborating evidence. While fishers are opportunistic predators that will occasionally prey on house cats (Powell et al. 1997), research conducted near Albany revealed that their diet was largely comprised of natural foods despite the proximity of the study area to suburban development and human-provided food sources (R. Kays, North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences, unpublished data).