The relationships between CPUE and abundance were negative during 2003–2014 and the 95% CI for ? were Months hunted and swept 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 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 Bobcats create This new mean quantity of bobcats create annually because of the hunters was 0.forty-five (variety = 0.22–0.72) (Table 1) and exhibited no clear trend through the years (roentgen = -0.ten, P = 0.76). In comparison to our hypothesis, there is no difference in just how many bobcats released between successful and you may unproductive seekers (successful: SE; unsuccessful: SE) (? = 0.20, P = 0.14). The brand new annual quantity of bobcats put out because of the seekers wasn’t coordinated that have bobcat abundance (r = -0.fourteen, 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 Per-unit-efforts metrics and you can 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 Hunter and you may trapper CPUE across every many years wasn’t correlated which have bobcat wealth (roentgen = 0.38, P = 0.09 and you can roentgen = 0.32, P = 0.16, respectively). However, for the two-time episodes we tested (1993–2002 and you can 2003–2014), the fresh correlations ranging from hunter and you will trapper CPUE and you will bobcat variety was basically all the coordinated (|r| ? 0.63, P ? 0.05) except for huntsman CPUE through the 1993–2002 which had a marginal matchmaking (roentgen = 0.54, P = 0.11, Dining table 2). The fresh matchmaking anywhere between CPUE and you will abundance were self-confident during the 1993–2002 although the 95% CI to own ? was basically greater and you can overlapped step one.0 for huntsman and trapper CPUE (Fig step three). 0 demonstrating CPUE refuted quicker in the lower abundances (Fig step three). Hunter CPUE encountered the most effective reference to bobcat abundance (R dos = 0.73, Table dos). Strong lines is estimated fits out of linear regression patterns when you find yourself dashed contours are projected fits regarding reduced biggest axis regression of the diary from CPUE/ACPUE resistant to the record out-of wealth. The newest built and you may independent variables was indeed rescaled because of the separating by the utmost really worth.

The relationships between CPUE and abundance were negative during 2003–2014 and the 95% CI for ? were < -1 Months hunted and swept up Hunters showed a decreasing trend in the number of days hunted over time (r = -0.63,