Days hunted and you may caught up
Hunters showed a decreasing trend in the number of days hunted over time (r = -0.63, P = 0.0020, Fig 1), but an increasing trend in the number of bobcats chased per day (r = 0.77, P < 0.0001, Fig 1). Contrary to our hypothesis, the number of days hunted did not differ between successful and unsuccessful hunters ( SE; SE; ? = 0.04, P = 0.13).
Trappers exhibited substantial annual variation in the number of days trapped over time, but without a clear trend (r = -0.15, P = 0.52). Trappers who harvested a bobcat used more trap sets than trappers who did not ( SE, SE; ? = 0.17, P < 0.01). The mean number of trap-days also showed an increasing trend (r = 0.52, P = 0.01, Fig 1). Trappers who harvested a bobcat had more trap-days ( SE) than trappers who did not harvest a bobcat ( SE) (? = 0.12, P = 0.04).
Bobcats put-out
The new imply amount of bobcats put-out annually by the hunters is 0.45 (range = 0.22–0.72) (Table 1) and you will demonstrated zero clear pattern over the years (r = -0.10, P = 0.76). Contrary to our very own theory, there’s no difference between how many bobcats released ranging from winning and you may unsuccessful seekers (successful: SE; unsuccessful: SE) (? = 0.20, P = 0.14). This new yearly number of bobcats put-out from the candidates wasn’t synchronised having bobcat variety (r = -0.14, P = 0.65).
The mean number of bobcats released annually by trappers was 0.21 (range = 0.10–0.52) (Table 1) but was not correlated with year (r = 0.49, P = 0.11). Trappers who harvested a bobcat released more bobcats ( SE) than trappers who did not harvest a bobcat ( SE) (? = 2.04, P < 0.0001). The annual number of bobcats released by trappers was not correlated with bobcat abundance (r = -0.45, P = 0.15).
Per-unit-work metrics and wealth
The mean CPUE was 0.19 bobcats/day for hunters (range = 0.05–0.42) and 2.10 bobcats/100 trap-days for trappers (range = 0.50–8.07) (Table 1). The mean ACPUE was 0.32 bobcats/day for hunters (range = 0.16–0.54) and 3.64 bobcats/100 trap-days for trappers (range = 1.49–8.61) (Table 1). The coefficient of variation for CPUE and ACPUE was greater for trappers than for hunters (trapper CPUE = 96%, hunter CPUE = 65%, trapper ACPUE = 68%, hunter ACPUE = 36%). All four metrics increased over time (Fig 2) although the strength of the relationship with year varied (hunter CPUE:, r = 0.92, P < 0.01; trapper CPUE: r = 0.73, P = < 0.01; hunter ACPUE: r = 0.82, P = < 0.01; trapper ACPUE: r = 0.66, P = 0.02).
Hunter and you can trapper CPUE all over all years wasn’t coordinated that have bobcat variety (r = 0.38, P = 0.09 and you may roentgen = 0.thirty two, P = 0.16, respectively). However, in the two time attacks we checked-out (1993–2002 LGBT dating only reviews and 2003–2014), the new correlations anywhere between huntsman and you will trapper CPUE and you will bobcat wealth was in fact all the synchronised (|r| ? 0.63, P ? 0.05) apart from huntsman CPUE while in the 1993–2002 which in fact had a marginal matchmaking (roentgen = 0.54, P = 0.eleven, Dining table 2). The fresh new relationships ranging from CPUE and you may variety was indeed self-confident through the 1993–2002 even though the 95% CI getting ? had been wide and you will overlapped step 1.0 for hunter and you may trapper CPUE (Fig 3). 0 appearing CPUE declined faster from the all the way down abundances (Fig step 3). Hunter CPUE met with the most powerful experience of bobcat variety (R dos = 0.73, Table 2).
Solid outlines try projected fits out of linear regression designs while you are dashed contours is projected fits regarding reduced significant axis regression of record out of CPUE/ACPUE resistant to the record out of variety. The new built and you may independent parameters was in fact rescaled from the splitting from the maximum worth.