"... when the closure of the fisher season was being considered in California...the common opinion at the time [was] that closing the season would have little effect because fishers were so frequently taken in sets for other species." P. 291

"... because [fishers] are not legal quarry their capture and condition at release are rarely reported. Moreover, fishers frequently receive serious injuries in leg-hold traps (Cole and Proulx 1994) and even low rates of additive mortality from trapping have been predicted to affect fisher population stability (Powell 1979). Fisher conservation may be hindered by the lack of information on the amount and effects of incidental capture." P. 291

"Fishers are absent from significant portions of their range in California (Zielinski et al. 1995) and the western U.S. (Gibilisco 1994, Powell and Zielinski 1994), and have twice been petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act in the western U.S. (Central Seirra Audubon Society 1990…). The susceptibility of fishers to incidental capture, however, suggests that fisher populations are also vulnerable to trappers seeking other furbearers." P. 291

"If the number of licenses sold measures overall trapping effort for terrestrial carnivores, it would appear that the number of legally trapped fishers in California was affected more by generalist trapping effort than by the price paid for fisher pelt. Consequently the decline in the number of fishers harvested during the period 1919-1946 reflects either a decline in the number of fishers or the decline in the number of licensed trappers (CDFG, unpubl. data). Overtrapping by specialists (Grinnell et al. 1937) may have played some role in the decline but our analysis suggests that harvest by trappers who were not specifically seeking fishers was another important factor." P. 294

“Using data collected during a year when the fisher season was closed in New York, Parsons (1980) estimated that incidental fisher captures amounted to 30% of the annual harvest when the fisher season was open... Clark (1980) stated that in Maine, ‘fisher are captured in all types of land traps; therefore any individual who sets a land trap can be classified as a potential fisher trapper.’" P. 295

"If fishers that are unintentionally captured were always released unharmed the frequency of incidental captures would be of little concern. However, as evidenced by our sample of California trappers... this is not always the case.” p. 295

“The subsequent survival of incidentally captured and released fishers (assumed to be 50% by Douglas and Strickland 1987) may negatively affect existing populations or prevent the recovery or establishment of others. Powell (1979) predicted that the removal of as few as one to four fishers per 100 km2 via trapping would result in a decline of a midwest population." P. 295

"Although the population of trappers may be on the decline and traps are less likely to injure captured animals, the potential effects of legal trapping of other species on protected fisher populations should not be ignored, especially when considered in conjunction with habitat loss (Powell and Zielinski 1994) and other sources of mortality (e.g., roadkills)." p. 296

"Trapping regulations should require the reporting of (and providing specific information about) incidental captures of fishers and other protected carnivores, and trappers should be compensated for this information." P. 296