United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Northern 

Research Station

General Technical

Report NRS-5

Historical Perspective on 

the Reintroduction of the 

Fisher and American Marten 

in Wisconsin and Michigan

Bronwyn W. Williams

Jonathan H. Gilbert

Patrick A. Zollner
Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

Published by: For additional copies:

USDA FOREST SERVICE USDA Forest Service 

11 CAMPUS BLVD SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road

 Delaware, OH 43015-8640

April 2007 Fax: (740)368-0152

Abstract

Management of mustelid species such as fishers and martens requires an understanding 

of the history of local populations. This is particularly true in areas where populations were 

extirpated and restored through reintroduction efforts. During the late 19th and 20th centuries, 

fishers (Martes pennanti) and American martens (Martes americana) were extirpated 

from much of their southern range, including Michigan and Wisconsin. Both species have 

been restored to varying degrees in these states following multiple reintroductions and 

translocations. We describe the status of the original populations and changes in their status 

over time, and include source locations, release sites, release and reintroduction dates, and 

demographic characteristics of released animals. This synthesis is crucial for evaluating 

the relative success of reintroductions in Michigan and Wisconsin, and, combined with 

knowledge of the current condition of these populations, can provide valuable guidance on 

the future management of these species. We also assess the reintroduction of fishers and 

martens in Michigan and Wisconsin and discuss strategies for successful reintroductions.

The Authors

BRONWYN W. WILLIAMS is a graduate student with the University of Alberta, Department 

of Biological Sciences, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. JONATHAN H. GILBERT is a wildlife 

biologist with the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Odanah, WI. PATRICK 

A. ZOLLNER, formerly a research ecologist with the North Central Research Station at 

Rhinelander, Wisconsin, is an assistant professor with Purdue University, Department of 

Forestry and Natural Resources, West Lafayette, IN.

Cover Art with permission from Gabriela Sincich, Museum of Latin American Art, Long 

Beach, CA.

Manuscript received for publication 14 September 2006
1

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge of the history of local populations is critical 

to the management and conservation of most species, 

particularly when reintroductions have been made or are 

planned. Fishers (Martes pennanti) and martens (Martes 

americana) are frequently reintroduced species (Berg 

1982), and populations in Michigan and Wisconsin 

provide unique opportunities to examine the effects 

of multiple reintroductions into areas where both 

species were extirpated (e.g., Williams 2006). Detailed 

stocking records, including source, numbers and sex 

ratios released, and location of releases, can be used to 

test theoretical predictions related to founder events, 

and assist in design, application, and assessment of 

management decisions, including reintroductions in the 

Midwest and other areas.

HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION OF 

FISHERS IN NORTH AMERICA

The fi sher is an exclusively North American species. The 

northern limit of the fi sher’s former range was the lower 

Iskut area of British Columbia near the Alaska border 

(Macleod 1950), across the southeastern corner of the 

Yukon Territory (Rand 1944), south of the Liard River 

and Resolution in the Northwest Territories (Richardson 

1829), and south of a line connecting the southern tip 

of James Bay and Mingan, Quebec (Bell 1884; Fig. 1). 

Fishers were found along the Cascade and Sierra-Nevada 

Mountains (Baird 1859; Rhoads 1898; Grinnell et al. 

1937), in Wyoming and the Northern Rocky Mountains 

(Skinner 1927; Cahalane 1947), into the southern Great 

Lakes States (Plummer 1844; Kennicott 1855; Brayton 

1882), and the Appalachian Mountains into Tennessee, 

Virginia, and North Carolina (Audubon and Bachman 

1851-1854; Allen 1876; Rhoads 1896; Kellogg 1937).

Changes in Historical Distribution

Extensive logging and multiple fi res throughout the 

19th and early 20th centuries degraded forested habitat 

occupied by fi shers. High prices for fi sher pelts increased 

harvest pressure on this easily trapped species (Cook and 

Hamilton 1957). In 1920, prime pelts sold for as much 

as $300 (Brander and Books 1973).

Harvest records suggested a severe decrease in the 

numbers of fi shers across the southern portion of the 

species’ range. In Wisconsin, 559 fi shers were taken 

during the 1917-18 trapping season. Three years later, 

only three fi shers were trapped (Brander and Books 

1973). Similarly in California, 102 fi shers were taken in 

1920 and two fi shers were trapped in 1931 (Brander and 

Books 1973). In response to observed declines in harvest, 

trapping seasons for fi shers were closed in 1922 in 

Wisconsin, 1924 in Michigan, 1929 in Minnesota, 1935 

in New Hampshire, 1936 in New York and Wyoming, 

1937 in Maine and Oregon, and 1946 in California 

(Brander and Books 1973; Sodders 1999).

Trapping bans and the recovery of habitat allowed fi sher 

populations to recover in some states. For example, 

fi shers had been nearly trapped to extinction in New 

York by the 1930s but a closed harvest season from 1936 

to 1949 corresponded to a population increase (Bradle 

1957; Irvine et al. 1964). By 1949, the number of fi shers 

in New York was deemed suffi cient to allow a limited 

trapping season. In 1957, the season bag limit was 

increased to three fi shers per person (Bradle 1957).

Minnesota also retained a remnant fi sher population 

following protection of the species in 1928. Increased 

numbers of fi shers allowed for a limited intrastate 
2

translocation of 15 animals from the northeastern to 

the northwestern portion of the State (Itasca State Park) 

in 1968 (Berg 1982). A trapping season was initiated 

in 1977-78, with a bag limit of three fi shers per person 

(Berg 1982).

Natural recolonization and a number of reintroduction 

attempts (e.g., Benson 1959; Weckwerth and Wright 

1968; Fuller 1975; Pack and Cromer 1981; Berg 1982) 

resulted in the recovery of fi shers in some areas of their 

historical range (e.g., across Eastern North America 

and Montana). Conversely, fi sher populations remain 

absent or fragmented south of the Great Lakes and in the 

Pacifi c Northwest (Harris et al. 1982; Zielinski et al. 1995; 

Fig. 1).

HISTORY OF FISHERS IN WISCONSIN 

AND MICHIGAN

Pre-reintroduction Status

Fishers reportedly were found throughout Wisconsin but 

the last verifi ed sighting was in 1932 (Hagmeier 1956; 

Hine et al. 1975; Petersen et al. 1977). In Michigan, 

fi shers had been found as far south as Gratiot, Ingham, 

Washtenaw, Wayne, and Wexford Counties in the Lower 

Peninsula (Burt 1948). The last confi rmed sighting was 

in 1936 in Marquette County, Upper Peninsula (Sodders 

1999).

The Fisher and the Porcupine

Changes in forest cover from harvest and fi res in addition 

to the decrease and eventual extirpation of the fi sher 

Figure 1.—Approximation of historic and recent distribution of fi shers in North America; adapted 

from Hagmeier (1956), Powell (1993), Gibilisco (1994), and unpublished state agency reports.
3

from much of its southern range were followed by an 

apparent increase in the number of porcupines (Erethizon 

dorsatum) in those areas. The increase in porcupine 

populations and associated forest damage spurred 

managers to initiate control activities. In the Ottawa 

National Forest (ONF), Upper Peninsula, Michigan, 

estimated porcupine densities were as high as 23 per km2

by the late 1950s (Brander and Brooks 1973). In 1961, 

1,799 porcupines were shot on the ONF. Road hunts 

that same year yielded an average of one porcupine shot 

per 2.9 km (Irvine 1961).

Porcupines were associated with timber loss due to 

their feeding habits. A 1948-49 study conducted on the 

Argonne Experimental Forest in Wisconsin showed that 

hardwood-hemlock forests sustained serious damage 

with 24.5 or more porcupines per km2

. An intensive 

harvest during this study resulted in 37 porcupines killed 

per km2

 (Irvine and Brander 1971). There was major 

concern in the 1950s that unchecked population growth 

of porcupines could result in substantial timber losses 

(Olson 1966).

Fishers are purportedly effi cient predators of porcupines 

(Schoonmaker 1938; Earle 1978). Reports of increasing 

numbers of fi shers in the Adirondack Mountains of New 

York and in northeastern Minnesota paralleled reports 

of decreasing porcupine numbers (Olson 1966). The 

inferred causation was mostly a matter of speculation 

as no controlled studies had been conducted to 

determine whether fi shers alone could control porcupine 

populations (Irvine and Brander 1971). However, 

conjecture that fi shers could control the species that 

apparently was creating economic turmoil in the timber 

industry sparked interest in restocking the mustelid to 

Michigan and Wisconsin (Olson 1966; USDA For. Serv. 

interoffi ce commun.).

Reintroduction and Translocation of Fishers 

in Wisconsin and Michigan

Reintroductions

The Forest Service fi rst proposed reintroducing the 

fi sher as a biological control of porcupines in 1955 

(Olson 1966). A conservation rationale was concurrently 

proposed by A.W. Schorger, former Wisconsin 

Conservation Commissioner, who was interested in 

restoring extirpated wildlife species to Wisconsin. Dr. 

Antoon de Vos of the Ontario Department of Lands and 

Forests, known for his work with fi shers in Canada, was 

invited to assess the quality of the habitat in northern 

Wisconsin for possible reintroduction of the fi sher 

(Olson 1966).

By the 1950s, the price of fi sher pelts was suffi ciently 

low that the illegal trapping of this animal appeared to 

be limited (Cook and Hamilton 1957). The fashion 

industry had created much of the high demand for 

fi shers, and a shift in women’s fur fashions to spotted cats 

resulted in a decline in the price of fi sher pelts from as 

high as $300 to $5 to $15 (Brander and Books 1973).

Shortly following a “favorable” assessment by Dr. de Vos, 

the Wisconsin Conservation Department (currently the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, WDNR) 

began negotiations with New York State to acquire 

fi shers for a reintroduction (Irvine et al. 1964). The 

steady growth of the fi sher population in the Adirondack 

Mountains presented an opportunity for the New York 

Conservation Department to trade fi shers to Wisconsin 

for bobwhite quail (Bradle 1957; Irvine et al. 1964). 

During the winter of 1955-56, seven fi shers from the 

southern fringe of the Adirondack Mountains were 

shipped to Wisconsin and were released in the Argonne 

District of the Nicolet National Forest (NNF). Seven 

additional fi shers in three separate shipments from New 

York were released on the NNF during the winter of 

1956-57 (Bradle 1957) and four animals were released 

in 1958. The total number included 12 females and six 

males (Petersen et al. 1977; Table 1, Fig. 2).

Following the initial fi sher reintroductions, a 16,187-

ha closed area, the Nicolet Fisher Management Unit 

(NFMU), was established around the release sites (Bradle 

1957; Irvine et al. 1964). Harvest and dry-set trapping 

was prohibited in the closed area because fi shers often 

were caught incidentally in baited traps set for other 

animals (Olson 1966). 

The NFMU was located in the Pine River watershed 

and was dominated by dense hardwoods and large 
4

coniferous swamps (Bradle 1957; Irvine et al. 1964). In 

1962, NFMU, renamed the Fisher/Marten Closed Area 

(FMCA), was enlarged to 48,562 ha. To discourage the 

incidental taking of dispersing fi shers in dry-set traps, 

state bounty payments on furbearer species such as 

bobcats and coyotes in Wisconsin were discontinued in 

1963 (Olson 1966), though county bounty payments 

remained in effect until 1980 (Hubert 1982).

Following initiation of fi sher restocking in Wisconsin, 

the Forest Service arranged with the Minnesota 

Department of Conservation to live-trap fi shers on the 

Superior National Forest (SNF). These animals would 

continue the reintroduction on the NNF and additional 

individuals would be stocked on the ONF, which is 

immediately north and northwest of the NNF (Irvine 

et al. 1964). Three and nine fi shers trapped on the 

SNF were released on the NFMU in 1958 and 1959, 

respectively, including nine males and three females. In 

1962, 26 fi shers (nine females and 17 males) from the 

SNF were released on the NFMU. Finally, four males 

were released on the NNF in 1963. From 1956 to 1963, 

60 fi shers (24 females and 36 males) were released on the 

NFMU-FMCA (Petersen et al. 1977; Table 1, Fig. 2).

In 1961, 31 fi shers (eight females and 23 males) trapped 

on the SNF were released on the ONF. In January and 

February of 1962, an additional 16 fi shers (fi ve females 

and 11 males) were released north of Kenton, Michigan, 

at Tomlin Hill, approximately 29 km north of the 1961 

release site. Eighteen fi shers had been trapped on the 

SNF for the second stocking, but one male and one 

Table 1.—Demographic data of reintroductions of fi shers in Michigan and Wisconsin

Release location Date N (females) Source population

1. Nicolet National Forest, Fisher Management

 Unit, Forest County, WI

1956 7 Adirondack Mountains, 

New York

1957 7 18 (12) Adirondack Mountains, 

New York

1958 4 Adirondack Mountains, 

New York

1958 3 Superior National 

Forest, Minnesota

 12 (3)

1959 9 Superior National 

Forest, Minnesota

1962 26 (9) Superior National 

Forest, Minnesota

1963 4 (0) Superior National 

Forest, Minnesota 

Total: 1956-1963 60 (24)

2. Ottawa National Forest, MI 1961 31 (8)

 Tomlin Hill: T48N R37W Section 20 1962 16 (5)

 Ottawa National Forest, MI 1963 14 (6)

Total: 1961-1963 61 (19) Superior National 

Forest, Minnesota

3. Chequamegon National Forest, Fisher Management

 Unit, Bayfi eld and Ashland Cos., WI

1966 31 (13)

1967 29 (17)

Total: 1966-1967 60 (30) Superior National 

Forest, Minnesota 
5

female died prior to release (Irvine 1962). The third and 

fi nal release of 14 fi shers (six females and eight males) was 

in 1963. From 1961 to 1963, 61 fi shers (19 females and 

42 males) were released on the ONF (Irvine 1962; Berg 

1982; Table 1, Fig. 2). To discourage trapping methods 

that would incidentally capture fi shers in and around the 

ONF, all bounty payments except those on coyotes were 

eliminated by 1965 (Olson 1966; Hubert 1982).

The release of fi shers on the NNF and ONF was 

suspected to be the cause of a decrease in the number 

of porcupines in those areas. In 1971, porcupine 

populations in two localized areas on the ONF were 

25 and 55 percent of the total recorded in 1962 (Irvine 

and Brander 1971). Although silvicultural practices 

(R. Brander, USDA Forest Service retired, personal 

commun.) or forest successional changes might have 

reduced the amount of preferred porcupine habitat and 

thus species abundance, the speculated relationship 

between fi shers and porcupines prompted the release 

of 60 fi shers (30 females and 30 males) on the 

Chequamegon National Forest (CNF) in Wisconsin in 

1966 and 1967. In 1966, 31 fi shers (13 females and 18 

males) from the SNF were released on the CNF followed 

by a release of 29 fi shers (17 females and 12 males) 

in 1967 (Table 1, Fig. 2). A second Wisconsin fi sher 

management area was established on the CNF (CFMU) 

on 48,562 ha surrounding the release site in Bayfi eld and 

Ashland Counties. As on the NFMU, fi sher harvest and 

dry-set trapping was prohibited on the CFMU (Petersen 

et al. 1977).

Translocations

By the 1980s, fi shers had colonized most of Michigan’s 

western Upper Peninsula. It was thought that natural 

dispersal eastward had been halted by a band of 

agricultural land and thus a lack of suitable habitat 

bisecting the Upper Peninsula (Mich. Dep. Nat. Resour. 

Figure 2.—Locations of fi sher reintroductions and subsequent translocations in Wisconsin 

and Michigan, 1956-92.
6

1990). The boundary of this dispersal barrier followed a 

north-south line from 16 km east of Marquette to 16 km 

west of Escanaba.1

One goal of the fi sher reintroduction in Michigan was 

to restore an extirpated species to its former range given 

the existence of suitable habitat. The long-term goal was 

to provide Michigan residents with the opportunity to 

enjoy the fi sher from an aesthetic, ecological, recreation, 

and economic perspective.1

 To attain both goals and 

overcome the perceived barrier to natural dispersal in 

the central Upper Peninsula, a 5-year translocation plan 

was developed to encourage colonization of fi shers in the 

eastern Upper Peninsula.

In February and March of 1988, 46 fi shers (27 females 

and 19 males) were trapped in portions of Iron, Gogebic, 

Ontonagon, Baraga, and Houghton Counties. The 

trapping area was bordered by State Route 45 on the 

west, State Route 28 on the north, U.S. 141 on the east, 

and the Wisconsin border on the south, according to the 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) 

(unpublished). Fifteen fi shers (six females and nine 

males) were released on the St. Ignace District, East Unit 

of the Hiawatha National Forest (HNF) in Mackinac 

County. Thirty-one animals were released on the West 

unit of the HNF in Delta County (Rapid River District: 

11 females and fi ve males; Manistique District: 10 

females and fi ve males) (Steck 1988; Table 2, Fig. 3).

In February and March 1989, 19 fi shers (eight females 

and 11 males) were trapped in portions of Iron and 

Baraga Counties, Michigan, and released in Mackinac 

County (Steck 1989; Table 2, Fig. 3). During January 

and February of 1990, 34 fi shers (19 females and 15 

males) trapped in portions of Iron and Baraga Counties 

were released in Luce County (Steck 1990; Table 2, Fig. 

3). In February 1991, 52 fi shers were trapped in portions 

of Ontonagon, Houghton, and Baraga Counties and 50 

(25 females and 25 males) were released in Chippewa 

County (MDNR unpublished; Table 2, Fig. 3). One 

trapped animal was albino and released at the trapping 

site after much publicity. Another individual escaped 

while being transferred to the release site (MDNR 

unpublished).

In 1992, 41 fi shers (22 females and 19 males) were 

captured in portions of Iron, Baraga, Houghton, and 

Ontonagon Counties for the fi nal translocation. Forty 

animals were relocated, including 37 individuals released 

in Schoolcraft County and three released in Mackinac 

1

Wagner, D., Fisher plan (unpublished). Mich. Dep. Nat. County (MDNR interoffi ce commun.; Table 2, Fig. 3).

Resour., Wildl. Div. 

Table 2.—Demographic data of translocations of fi shers in Michigan

Release location Date N (females) Source population

1. Rapid River Dist., Hiawatha NF, West Unit 1988 16 (11)

 Manistique Dist., Hiawatha NF, West Unit 1988 15 (10)

 St. Ignace Dist., Hiawatha NF, East Unit 1988 15 (6)

Total: 1988 46 (27) Iron, Gogebic, Ontonagon, Baraga, 

Houghton Counties, MI

2. Mackinac County 1989 19 (8) Iron, Baraga Counties, MI

3. Luce County 1990 34 (19) Iron, Baraga Counties, MI

4. Chippewa County 1991 50 (25) Ontonagon, Houghton, Baraga 

Counties, MI

5. Schoolcraft and Mackinac Counties 1992 41 (22)a Iron, Baraga, Houghton, Ontonagon 

Counties, MI

a

 Forty-one fi shers were trapped, but only 40 released; fi nal sex ratio is unknown.
7

Figure 3.—Trapping locations (section of capture) in the Western Upper Peninsula and release locations 

in the Eastern Upper Peninsula of the 1989-92 translocated fi shers.
8

STATUS OF FISHERS IN 

WISCONSIN AND MICHIGAN

Fishers have colonized most areas across 

Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of 

Michigan. The fi rst modern trapping season 

in Wisconsin was established in 1985 (Dhuey 

et al. 2000). The current population estimate 

is 11,700 fi shers (R. Rolley, WDNR, pers. 

commun.). Fishers have been reported as far 

south as Manitowoc County and are also 

found in Door County, a peninsula that 

projects into Lake Michigan from east-central 

Wisconsin (Davis 1997). The current range 

of fi shers across northern Wisconsin may have 

resulted from natural dispersal from Minnesota 

in addition to dispersal from the release sites on 

the CNF and NNF.

In Michigan, the fi rst legal fi sher harvest season in 60 

years was established in 1989 (Cooley et al. 1990). 

Since that time, there has been a general increase in 

the number of harvested fi shers (Cooley et al. 1990, 

1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997a, b, 1998, 2001; 

M. Cosgrove, MDNR, pers. commun.; Fig. 4). Spatial 

distribution of harvest locations from 1989 to 2004 

indicates the presence of fi shers across most of the Upper 

Peninsula (Fig. 5).

HISTORICAL DISTRIBUTION OF 

AMERICAN MARTENS IN NORTH 

AMERICA

The historical range of the American marten was 

coincident with the distribution of the northern 

coniferous forests (Hagmeier 1956; Gibilisco 1994). 

The northern boundary of the species’ range was from 

northern Alaska, across northern Yukon Territory and 

Northwest Territories, and through northern Manitoba, 

Ontario, and Quebec (Hagmeier 1956; Fig. 6). The 

southern portion of this range included the mountains 

along the Pacifi c Coast (Grinnell et al. 1937), the 

Wasatch, Yellowstone, and Uinta areas of the Rocky 

Mountains in Wyoming and Utah (Seton 1925-28; 

Hagmeier 1956), throughout high elevations (> 2,900 

m) in Colorado, to northern New Mexico (Bailey 1931; 

Williams 1947; Fig. 6). Martens also were found in the 

northern Great Lakes States (Schorger 1942), across 

northern Pennsylvania (Rhoads 1903), northward 

through the Berkshire Mountains of Massachusetts 

(Emmons 1840), Green Mountains of Vermont (Kirk 

1916), White Mountains of New Hampshire (Allen 

1904), into northern Maine (Seton 1925-28; Fig. 6). 

In addition to coniferous habitats, martens are found 

in hardwoods, particularly mixed deciduous-coniferous 

forests that sustain substantial populations of prey species 

(e.g., de Vos 1951). Much of the marten’s distribution 

has been sympatric with that of the larger fi sher, resulting 

in the potential for interference competition. In areas 

with substantial differences in elevation, such as in the 

West or Northeast, martens generally are found at higher 

elevations than fi shers (Hagmeier 1956). Snow depth 

seems to limit the sympatry of the two species, with 

smaller, lighter martens with furred feet able to maneuver 

more effi ciently through deep snow (Raine 1983; Aubry 

and Houston 1992; Krohn et al. 1995; Krohn et al. 

1997).

Changes in Historical Distribution

The same pressures affecting fi shers in the 19th and early 

20th centuries also led to a rapid decline in the number 

of martens across the southern portion of its range and 

in the Midwest. Marten habitat (mature forests) was 

Figure 4.—Total harvest of fi shers from 1989 to 2004 in Michigan, including 

years in which management decisions were made regarding quotas and 

areas trapped.
9

Figure 5.—Location of reported harvested fi shers in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan from 

1989 to 2004 (release locations are provided for reference).

Figure 6.—Approximation of historic and current distribution of American martens in North America; 

adapted from Hagmeier (1956), Gibilisco (1994), and unpublished reports by the Michigan Department 

of Natural Resources and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
10

degraded by logging and fi res, and high prices for marten 

pelts along with unregulated trapping severely depleted 

populations of this animal (Berg 1982).

By the early 1940s, marten abundance across North 

America reached its lowest level and the species’ range 

was restricted to a fraction of its historical distribution 

(Hagmeier 1956). In the Eastern and Midwestern 

United States, martens were found only in limited areas 

of Maine, New York, and Minnesota (Mech and Rogers 

1977). 

Harvest records of the late 1800s indicated marten 

populations were present in localized areas of Minnesota, 

including Koochiching and Beltrami Counties in the 

north-central portion of the state. The last marten 

in Beltrami County was recorded in 1918 (Schorger 

1942) and the last marten trapped in northwestern 

Minnesota was in 1920 from the Northwest Angle. A 

small population remained in northeastern Minnesota. 

Protection from trapping in 1933 in conjunction with 

suspected migration of martens from Ontario resulted in 

a gradual population increase in northeastern Minnesota 

during the 1950s and 1960s (Mech and Rogers 1977).

HISTORY OF AMERICAN MARTENS IN 

WISCONSIN AND MICHIGAN

Pre-reintroduction Status

Protection of martens was too late to prevent extirpation 

in Wisconsin and Michigan. In Wisconsin, martens 

once were found at least as far south as Brown, Jackson, 

Juneau, La Crosse, and St. Croix Counties, following 

riparian habitats along major rivers. Although the 

trapping season in Wisconsin was closed in 1921, 

the last confi rmed report of a marten was in 1925 in 

Douglas County (Jackson 1961). Once found as far 

south in Michigan as Allegan County, the last confi rmed 

marten sighting in the Lower Peninsula was in 1911 

near Lewiston in Montmorency County (Wood and 

Dice 1924). The more remote Upper Peninsula provided 

slightly better refuge for the species, where the last 

confi rmed sighting was 1939 in the Huron Mountains in 

Marquette County (Manville 1948).

Although the value of marten pelts had been lower 

than that of other furbearer species, the species had 

been recognized as a “unique and desirable component 

of wilderness forest ecosystems” (Berg 1982: 165). 

The reintroduction of martens was expected to fi ll a 

“niche in nature” vacated with the species’ extirpation 

(MDNR unpublished). By the 1950s, the amount of 

continuous forested habitat in the Upper Peninsula was 

deemed suitable for the survival of marten populations 

and discussions were initiated on restoring this animal 

(MDNR unpublished).

Reintroduction and Translocation of Martens 

in Wisconsin and Michigan

Wisconsin

The reintroduction of martens in Wisconsin began 

in 1953 with the release of fi ve individuals from near 

Kalispell, Montana, to Stockton Island, Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore, Ashland County (Jordahl 1954; 

Kohn and Eckstein 1987; Table 3, Fig. 7). No further 

stocking was undertaken in this area (Kohn and Eckstein 

1987).

A large-scale reintroduction in Wisconsin was initiated 

on January 28, 1975, with the release of eight martens 

(three females and fi ve males) from the Crown Chapleau 

Game Preserve (CCGP) to the NFMCA (Davis 1983; 

Table 4, Fig. 7). On February 27, 1975, 11 martens (two 

females and nine males) from the CCGP were released 

on the NNF. Seven martens (one female and six males) 

from the CCGP were released on the NNF on April 

3, 1975. On October 20, 1975, an additional seven 

martens (one female and six males) from the CCGP 

Table 3.—Demographic data of reintroductions of martens in Apostle Island National 

Lakeshore, Wisconsin

Release location Date N (females) Source population

 Apostle Island National Lakeshore, 

Stockton Island, Ashland Co. 1953 5 (Unknown) Near Kalispell, Montana
11

were released in the NNF. From December 1975 to April 

1976, 91 individuals (20 females and 71 males) trapped 

in Algonquin Provincial Park (APP), a 7,571-km2

 park in 

central Ontario between Georgian Bay and the Ottawa 

River (Churchill et al. 1981), were part of six releases: 

22 martens (fi ve females and 17 males) on December 

16, 1975; three males on January 16, 1976; one female 

and eight males on February 12, 1976; six females and 

15 males on March 14, 1976; fi ve females and 14 males 

on March 25, 1976, and; three females and 14 males on 

April 2, 1976 (Davis 1983; Table 4, Fig. 7). 

A trade was subsequently negotiated to acquire martens 

from Colorado in exchange for Wisconsin river otters 

(Lutra canadensis; Berg 1982). Between December 

1980 and March 1981, 10 females and nine males 

trapped near Berthoud Pass, Guanella Pass, or Loveland 

Pass, Colorado, were released on the NNF (J. George, 

Colorado Division of Wildlife, pers. commun.). During 

March of 1981, nine females and nine males from APP 

were released on the NNF (Wis. Dep. Nat. Resour. 

1986). During the winter of 1981 and 1982, two males 

and two females trapped in Colorado were relocated to 

the NNF. A fi nal release was made in 1982-83 with nine 

individuals from Colorado (three females, four males, 

and two unknown sex). One male from the fi nal release 

escaped in Minocqua, Wisconsin, on March 14, 1983, 

while being held at the Northwoods Wildlife Center. 

One of the unknown individuals died during shipment 

from Colorado (Wis. Dep. Nat. Resour. 1986). Between 

1975 and 1983, 172 martens (51 females, 120 males, 

and one unknown) were stocked on the FCMA (Table 

4, Fig. 7), including seven females and 26 males from 

the CCGP, 29 females and 80 males from APP, and 15 

females, 14 males, and one unknown from Colorado 

(Wis. Dep. Nat. Resour. 1986).

Figure 7.—Release and source locations of reintroductions and translocations of American martens in 

Michigan and Wisconsin.
12

In 1987, the WDNR made arrangements to obtain 

martens from Minnesota for release onto the CNF. Seven 

trappers were contracted by the Minnesota Department 

of Natural Resources to capture martens for $100 per 

individual (Kohn 1991). Of 31 martens procured the 

fi rst year, only four were females. As a result, a decision 

was made to continue the live-trapping by WDNR 

employees. In the fall of 1988, 1989, and 1990, 108 

martens (41 females and 67 males) were captured north 

of Grand Marais in northeastern Minnesota. Between 

1987 and 1990, 139 martens (45 females and 94 males) 

were released on the CNF (Kohn 1991; Table 5, Fig. 7).

Michigan

Marten reintroduction efforts in Michigan were initiated 

in 1955 in the Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State 

Park (PMWSP), Ontonagon County by the Michigan 

Department of Conservation (MDOC), (Switzenberg 

Table 4.—Demographic data of reintroduction of martens on Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin

Release location Date N (females) Source population

Nicolet National Forest, Fisher 1/28/1975 8 (3) Crown Chapleau Game Preserve, Ontario, Canada

 Management Unit, Forest Co.

2/27/1975 11 (2) Crown Chapleau Game Preserve, Ontario, Canada

4/3/1975 7 (1) Crown Chapleau Game Preserve, Ontario, Canada

10/20/1975 7 (1) Crown Chapleau Game Preserve, Ontario, Canada

12/16/1975 22 (5) Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada

1/16/1976 3 (0) Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada

2/12/1976 9 (1) Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada

3/14/1976 21 (6) Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada

3/25/1976 19 (5) Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada

4/2/1976 17 (3) Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada

12/80-3/81 19 (10) Berthoud, Guanella, or Loveland Pass, Colorado

3/81 18 (9) Algonquin Provincial Park , Ontario, Canada

12/81-1/82 4 (2) Berthoud, Guanella, or Loveland Pass, Colorado

8/82-3/83 7 (3, 1 Berthoud, Guanella, or Loveland Pass, Colorado

Unknown)a

Total: 1975-1983 172 (51)

a Nine martens were trapped, but one male escaped and one marten of unknown sex died prior to release.

Table 5.—Demographic data of reintroductions of martens on Chequamegon National 

Forest, Wisconsin

Release location Date N (females) Source population

Chequamegon National Forest,

 Fisher Management Unit, Bayfi eld

 and Ashland Counties 1987-1990 139 (45) Minnesota 
13

1955; Table 6, Fig. 7). The release area was dominated 

by mature hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) and other 

conifers interspersed with openings of sapling- and 

pole-size hardwoods on rough, broken terrain (MDOC 

unpublished; Harger and Switzenberg 1958). Two 

martens (one female and one male) captured by tribal 

trappers in the White River Country, Algoma District, 

Ontario, (MDOC interoffi ce commun.) were released 

on February 24, 1955. Two martens (one female and 

one male) purchased from a fur farm run by E. Selander 

in Perkins, Michigan (MDOC unpublished) also were 

released on February 24, 1955. The fur farm martens 

originally were from British Columbia and had been 

held in captivity for approximately 5 years (Mich. Dep. 

Conserv. 1957). On March 29, 1955, two martens 

(one female and one male) from White River Country 

were released in the PMWSP (MDOC unpublished). 

A third male from White River Country was scheduled 

to be released on March 29, 1955, but escaped while 

being transported between Baraga, Michigan, and the 

reintroduction site (MDOC unpublished). A single 

male trapped by the Ontario Department of Lands and 

Forests (ODLF) in Chapleau County was released in the 

PMWSP on July 21, 1955 (MDOC unpublished). On 

February 20, 1956, a female marten held at the Cusino 

Wildlife Research Station, Shingleton, Michigan, escaped 

prior to release in the PMWSP (MDOC unpublished). A 

male from Chapleau County was released in the PMWSP 

on April 11, 1956, approximately 2.5 km east of the 

previous releases, in virgin hardwood-hemlock habitat 

(MDOC unpublished).

The small number of martens (three females and six 

males) obtained from Ontario for release in 1955 and 

1956 was disappointing. Alternative employment 

opportunities, primarily uranium prospecting, made 

it diffi cult to interest the Ontario Indian trappers in 

capturing martens for Michigan’s restoration effort 

(Mich. Dep. Conserv. 1957). It was apparent that the 

number of martens released and rate of introduction 

needed to be increased to facilitate successful restocking 

(Mich. Dep. Conserv. 1958). In the winter of 1957, 

three MDOC employees, Al Harger from the Houghton 

Lake Wildlife Experimental Station, Sid Andrews of 

Newberry, and John Arduin from Newberry were sent 

to the CCGP to trap the remaining martens for the 

PMWSP reintroduction (Harger and Switzenberg 1958).

Table 6.—Demographic data of reintroduction of martens in Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park, Michigan

Release location Date N (females) Source population

Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State 

Park, Ontonagon County, T51N R42W 

Sec 18

2/24/1955 4 (2) White River Country, Algoma District, Ontario, Canada 

(2); local MI fur farm (2), originally from British 

Columbia, Canada

3/29/1955 2 (1) White River Country, Algoma District, Ontario, Canada

7/21/1955 1 (0) Crown Chapleau Game Preserve, Ontario, Canada

4/11/1956 1 (0) Crown Chapleau Game Preserve, Ontario, Canada

2/6/1957 4 (2) Crown Chapleau Game Preserve, Ontario, Canada

2/14/1957 8 (4) Crown Chapleau Game Preserve, Ontario, Canada

2/19/1957 4 (1) Crown Chapleau Game Preserve, Ontario, Canada

 2/28/1957 4 (0) Crown Chapleau Game Preserve, Ontario, Canada

4/12/1957 1 (1) Crown Chapleau Game Preserve, Ontario, Canada

Total: 1955-1957 29 (11)
14

The 7,381.5-km2

 CCGP, which has been closed to 

trapping since 1925, provided refuge for a remnant 

marten population during range-wide declines in the 

early 20th century (Harger and Switzenberg 1958). Large 

areas of coniferous forest, including jack pine (Pinus 

banksiana), black spruce (Picea mariana), and balsam fi r 

(Abies balsamea), on the CCGP were interspersed with 

ridges of deciduous forest, including aspen (Populus spp.) 

and white birch (Betula papyrifera) (Ludwig 1986).

The three MDOC trappers were located at Camp 6 

owned by Newaygo Timber Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of 

Consolidated Waterpower and Paper Co. of Wisconsin. 

Camp 6 was located approximately 40 km east of Mosher 

and 354 km north of Sault Ste. Marie. Assisted by ODLF 

personnel, the trappers captured 21 martens during 

February 1957 (Harger and Switzenberg 1958). One 

animal escaped during transport from the trap-line to 

Camp 6, one escaped through the back of the trap, and 

one died during transport to Cusino Wildlife Rearch 

Station from Sault Ste. Marie (Harger and Switzenberg 

1958). Three additional martens were obtained from 

a fi sher-trapping project in Ontario. In all, 21 (eight 

females and 13 males) were shipped to Michigan (Harger 

and Switzenberg 1958; Table 6, Fig. 7). On February 6, 

1957, two females and two males were released in the 

PMWSP (MDOC unpublished). Further releases were: 

four females and four males on February 14, 1957; one 

female and three males on February 19, 1957, and four 

males on February 28, 1957. A pregnant female that 

had been held at Cusino Wildlife Research Station was 

released on April 12, 1957 (MDOC unpublished). Some 

of the martens obtained from Ontario were traded for 

other species, e.g., sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus 

phasianellus) and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) 

(MDOC interoffi ce commun.).

A second marten reintroduction in Michigan was 

initiated in 1969 following assessment of suitable habitat 

in portions of the HNF. In cooperation with the Forest 

Service, the MDNR negotiated with Ontario District 

personnel for the purchase of martens directly from 

licensed trappers in the former Port Arthur District of 

Ontario (Mich. Dep. Nat. Resour. 1970). The contact 

for securing these martens was T. Galarneau, of Nipigon, 

Ontario and it might be inferred that the animals were 

captured along his trap-line 40 km north of Nipigon 

(MDNR interoffi ce commun.). Thirty-seven females 

and 62 males were obtained for $37.50 each. Groups of 

four to 20 animals were fl own into Marquette, Michigan 

from Port Arthur, Ontario, and most were released upon 

arrival (Mich. Dep. Nat. Resour. 1970). The three release 

locations were in the Whitefi sh River Valley, Rapid River 

District, HNF West Unit (Forest Service interoffi ce 

commun.; Table 7, Fig. 7). There were nine releases: 

one female and three males on April 15, 1969; three 

Table 7.—Demographic data of reintroduction of martens in Hiawatha National Forest, West Unit, Michigan

Release location Date N (females) Source population

Whitefi sh River Valley, Rapid River Dist.,

 Hiawatha National Forest, West Unit,

 T43N R20W Sec 29;

 T42N R20W Secs 7 and 19

4/15/1969 4 (1)

4/17/1969 16 (3)

4/23/1969 9 (3)

5/21/1969 8 (3)

6/9/1969 7 (2)

10/28/1969 16 (5) 

11/7/1969 11 (8)

12/5/1969 20 (10)

3/16/1970 8 (2)

Total: 1969-1970 99 (37) Port Arthur District, Ontario, Canada
15

females and 13 males on April 17, 1969; three females 

and six males on April 23, 1969; three females and fi ve 

males on May 21, 1969; two females and fi ve males on 

June 9, 1969; fi ve females and 11 males on October 28, 

1969; eight females and three males on November 7, 

1969; 10 females and 10 males on December 5, 1969, 

and two females and six males on March 16, 1970 

(Schupbach 1977). Dry-land trap sets were banned from 

the 12 townships surrounding the release sites for 5 

years beginning on August 1, 1969 to protect the newly 

released martens from incidental trapping (Mich. Dep. 

Nat. Resour. 1970). 

In 1979, the MDNR contracted trapping and release 

of a third marten reintroduction event to Michigan 

Technological University at Houghton (Ontario Ministry 

of Natural Resources, OMNR, interoffi ce commun.). 

The goal was a release of 150 martens. Under the 

supervision of Dr. Norman Sloan, eight females and 

31 males were live-trapped in APP, (OMNR interoffi ce 

commun.; Churchill et al. 1981). One male died during 

shipment to Michigan but the remaining 38 animals 

were released on the Huron Mountain Club near Lake 

Superior in northern Marquette County (Churchill et 

al. 1981; Table 8, Fig. 7). The Huron Mountain Club 

was privately owned with restricted access, thus offering 

protection from trapping to released animals (Churchill 

et al. 1981). 

In July 1980, Ecological Research Services, a consulting 

fi rm based in Iron River, Michigan, continued the 

marten relocation efforts supported by the U.S. 

Endangered Species Program, the MDNR, and the 

OMNR. Forty martens (23 females and 17 males) 

from APP were released on the Huron Mountain 

Club and the adjacent Carrol-Paul Forest in 1980 and 

1981 (Churchill et al. 1981; Table 8, Fig. 7). During 

December 1980, 22 martens (13 females and nine males) 

from APP were released on the Cyrus H. McCormick 

Experimental Forest Tract, a 70-km2

 primitive area in 

Marquette and Baraga Counties (Churchill et al. 1981; 

Table 8, Fig. 7). The McCormick Tract, a satellite of 

the ONF closed to motorized vehicle use, consisted of 

mature mixed hardwoods-conifer, including hemlock, 

yellow birch (Betula lutea), balsam fi r, and white pine 

(Pinus strobus) as well as cedar swamps, open areas, and 

stands of birch (Betula spp.) and aspen. The release site 

was approximately 16 km south of the primary release 

locations in the Huron Mountains, and was chosen 

to encourage migration between the two populations 

(Churchill et al. 1981).

Additional release sites were in the Iron River District of 

the ONF during the spring of 1981. The general area of 

release was chosen because of its close proximity to the 

reintroduced marten population on NFMU-FMCA. A 

goal of the Iron River releases was to form a link between 

Table 8.—Demographic data of reintroduction of martens into Marquette, Baraga, and Iron Counties, Michigan

Release location Date N (females) Source population

1. Huron Mountain Club, Marquette Co. 1979 38 (8) a

2. Huron Mountain Club, Marquette Co.; 

 Carrol-Paul Forest, Marquette Co. 1980 40 (23)

3. McCormick Experimental Forest, 

 Ottawa National Forest 1980 22 (13)

4. Webb Lake, Iron County,

 Iron River Township, Section 9 1981 10 (6)

5. Perch Lake area, Iron County, Ottawa

 National Forest 1981 38 (21)

Total: 1979-1981 148 (71) Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada

a Thirty-nine martens were trapped, but one male died prior to release.
16

the restricted gene pools of the two reintroductions 

through migration (Churchill et al. 1981). Ten martens 

(six females and four males) from APP were released 

near Webb Lake, approximately 6.5 km northwest of 

Iron River (Table 8, Fig. 7). This was considered to be a 

high-density release (3.8 martens/km2

; Churchill et al. 

1981). Thirty-eight additional animals (21 females and 

17 males) from APP were released north of Webb Lake 

in 28 sections; this was considered to be a low-density 

release (approximately 0.6 martens/km2

;Churchill et 

al. 1981; Table 8, Fig. 7). The low-density releases were 

about 1 km apart along ONF forest roads (FR) 137, 

144-145, and 146. Releases were also made along FR 

347 toward Blockhouse Campground, FR 144-145 on 

the south side of Perch Lake, and along the north side 

of Perch Lake near the campground. With this fi nal 

release, 148 martens (71 females and 77 males) had 

been reintroduced in the west-central Upper Peninsula 

between 1979 and 1981 (Churchill et al. 1981).

In 1984, the MDNR requested permission from the 

OMNR to live-trap martens in APP for a series of 

reintroductions in the northern Lower Peninsula. The 

restoration effort was planned to occur over 2 to 3 years 

and entail fi ve to six releases spaced roughly 32 to 64 km 

apart. Each release was to include about 40 martens for 

a total of 220 to 240 animals. The goal was to maintain 

genetic diversity through natural dispersal among 

sites. Ten to 15 fi shers were expected to be trapped 

incidentally during the process and would be released 

to begin the restoration of the fi sher to its former range 

in the northern Lower Peninsula. The OMNR declined 

permission to trap in APP, in part due to criticism over 

the removal of wildlife from APP for the Michigan 

Moose Reintroduction Project. In 1985, the OMNR 

allowed live-trapping of up to 100 martens in the CCGP 

(Ludwig 1986). 

Ecological Research Services was contracted by the 

MDNR to undertake the trapping effort in Ontario. The 

releases were cooperative efforts between the MDNR and 

the Forest Service. Live-trapping in the CCGP began in 

late October, 1985. On November 6, 1985, 10 martens 

(two females and eight males) were shipped to Michigan 

for release on the Pigeon River Country State Forest 

(Table 9, Fig. 7). The release area was predominantly 

forested, consisting of aspen, red pine (Pinus resinosa), 

jack pine, white pine, northern hardwoods, and northern 

white-cedar (Thuja occidentalis)-mixed swamp conifer. 

The Pigeon River Country State Forest was chosen as 

a reintroduction site because it included “preferred” 

marten habitat and was a large tract of public land (Earle 

Table 9.—Demographic data of reintroductions of martens into Lower Peninsula of Michigan

Release location Date N (females) Source population

Pigeon River Country State Forest,

 Cheboygan County T33N R1W,

 Otsego County T31N R1W

11/7/1985 10 (2)

11/13/1985 10 (3)

11/21/1985 10 (8)

11/27/1985 12 (7)

12/6/1985 6 (4)

3/19/1986 1 (0)

Total: 1985-1986 49 (24) Crown Chapleau Game Preserve, Ontario, Canada

Manistee National Forest 3/5/1986 15 (9)

Pere-Marquette State Forest 3/12/1986 15 (7)

Manistee National Forest 3/18/1986 6 (0)

Total: 1986 36 (16) Crown Chapleau Game Preserve, Ontario, Canada
17

1996). The wide range of habitat types also provided an 

opportunity to better understand habitat preference and 

avoidance in land-cover types not found in the source 

location.

The 10 animals transported in the fi rst group were 

released on November 7 in Cheboygan County along 

Fisherman Road., east on Webb Road, and north on 

Osmun Road. Ten additional martens (three females 

and seven males) were transported to Michigan on 

November 12, 1985, and released in Otsego County on 

November 13 along Tin Bridge Shanty Road, north on 

House’s Lost Cabin Road (Ludwig 1985). On November 

21, ten animals (eight females and two males) shipped 

from Ontario the previous day were released in the 

Cheboygan and Otsego Counties along Fisherman 

Road, east on Webb Road, north on Osmun Road, and 

along Tin Shanty Bridge Road (Ludwig 1985). Twelve 

martens (seven females and fi ve males) shipped on 

November 26, 1985, were released the following day in 

Cheboygan and Otsego Counties along Osmun Road, 

Webb-Clark, and House’s Lost Cabin Road (Ludwig 

1985). A fi nal group of six martens (four females and 

two males) was transported from Ontario on December 

5, 1985, and released in Otsego County on December 6 

along Hardwood Lake Road, north on Osmun Road to 

Hemlock Lake (Ludwig 1985).

The reintroduction of martens into the northern Lower 

Peninsula continued in March 1986. On March 4, nine 

females and six males were transported by Ecological 

Research Services from the CCGP and released the 

following day on the Manistee National Forest (MNF) 

in Lake and Wexford Counties (For. Serv.-MDNR 

intraoffi ce commun.; Table 9, Fig. 7). Seven females 

and eight males were released on March 12 on the 

Pere-Marquette State Forest in Lake County (For. Serv.-

MDNR intraoffi ce commun.). The MNF and the PereMarquette State Forest were chosen as release sites due 

to the availability of acceptable marten habitat and the 

proximity of the two sites meeting qualifi cations within 

the Opportunity Area Analysis Plan (Earle 1996). On 

March 17, six males, three of which were fi tted with radio 

collars, were captured in the CCGP and released the 

following day on the MNF (For. Serv.-MDNR intraoffi ce 

commun.). A juvenile male was transported from the 

CCGP on March 18, and was released on the Pigeon 

River Country State Forest on March 19 (Earle 1996).

The MDNR sought to continue the reintroduction 

through the winter of 1986-87 by releasing an additional 

200 martens into the northern Lower Peninsula. Public 

sentiment in Ontario had sparked a government review 

of activities in provincial parks and Crown game 

preserves, including hunting, trapping, or other removals 

of animals. The OMNR was concerned that removing 

200 martens from any one area of the province could 

have a negative affect on the remaining population in 

Ontario. In addition, it was doubtful that the number 

of beaver carcasses needed for bait could be obtained 

in time. In the event that live-trapping was allowed 

and able to proceed given access to needed resources, 

Ontario trappers would have to be included in the 

effort (Ecological Research Services-MDNR intraoffi ce 

commun.). Ecological Research Services reported that 

live-trapping in 1985 and 1986 resulted in controversy 

with the Chapleau local trappers’ council. The council 

believed that Ontario trappers should have been given 

the opportunity to place a bid on the marten relocation 

project. The OMNR had initially held a public position 

that local trappers were not qualifi ed for the project, 

particularly with respect to handling and anesthesia 

techniques. The trappers’ council and the OMNR 

fi nally reached an understanding: local trappers could 

participate in future release efforts so long as they 

received proper training (Ecological Research ServicesMDNR intraoffi ce commun.).

There were no additional translocations of martens into 

the northern Lower Peninsula as a result of the issues 

mentioned above. Eighty-fi ve martens (40 females and 

45 males) had been reintroduced in the Lower Peninsula 

in 1985 and 1986, including 49 animals (24 females 

and 25 males) on the Pigeon River Country State Forest, 

and thirty-six martens (16 females and 20 males) on 

the MNF and Pere-Marquette State Forest (Ludwig 

1986). No additional furbearer species, e.g., fi shers or 

wolverines, were released in the Lower Peninsula.

Translocations were conducted to assist in the dispersal 

of the marten across its former range in the Upper 

Peninsula. In the fall of 1989, 20 martens were moved 
18

by the Forest Service from the West Unit of the HNF 

to the Tahquamenon Bay area in the HNF East Unit 

(Table 10, Fig. 7). During the winter of 1989 and 1990, 

27 individuals were relocated from Iron County to the 

Tahquamenon Bay area by the MDNR (Table 10, Fig. 

7). In 1992, 19 martens (5 females and 14 males) were 

moved from southern Houghton County to southeastern 

Keweenaw County (MDNR unpublished; Table 10, Fig. 

7). This last translocation was in conjunction with fi sher 

translocations already in progress. 

STATUS OF MARTENS IN WISCONSIN 

AND MICHIGAN

The marten is the only endangered mammal in 

Wisconsin. Migration between the NNF population 

and populations in the Upper Peninsula has been 

documented (Churchill 1982). It may be that 

individuals also migrate between the CNF population 

and populations in Michigan due to the proximity and 

dispersion of harvested martens in the Upper Peninsula. 

It is unclear why the species has struggled to expand 

its range and increase in numbers in Wisconsin while 

recovering to numbers that allow for harvest only 

kilometers away in Michigan.

In 1978, the marten was listed as a “state threatened 

species” in Michigan (Earle et al. 2001). An increase in 

the number of incidentally trapped martens and fi eld 

sign resulted in pressure from fur taker organizations 

to open a trapping season. Martens were removed from 

Michigan’s threatened species list in March 1999. In 

2000, a limited trapping season was opened in the 

Upper Peninsula for the fi rst time since 1924 (Frawley 

2002), resulting in harvest of 90 martens (M. Cosgrove, 

MDNR, pers. commun.). Since 2000, legal harvests 

generally have increased; in 2004, 192 martens were 

trapped. The season bag limit is one per person. Trapping 

for martens is prohibited in the Lower Peninsula.

REINTRODUCTION THEORY: FISHER 

AND MARTEN CASE HISTORIES

The goal of any reintroduction is establishment of a 

self-sustaining population, which is a dynamic process 

(Sarrazin and Barbault 1996). Surrogate measures of 

success are frequently used. Because most translocated 

species are harvested, one goal is to restore abundance 

to a level that can sustain harvest (Griffi th et al. 1989; 

Slough 1994). Success can be defi ned subjectively by 

numerically abundant and widely distributed individuals 

of a reintroduced population. Obtaining high genetic 

diversity is another important goal of reintroduction 

programs (e.g., Allendorf and Leary 1986; Leberg 1990; 

Frankham 1995). 

Strategies for successful population reintroduction 

include use of large numbers of founding individuals, 

high genetic variation among founding individuals, and 

the occurrence of refugia (Griffi th et al. 1989). Following 

release, a high rate of population increase and low effect 

of competition will increase probability of successful 

reintroduction. Fisher and marten populations in 

Michigan and Wisconsin allow us to examine the effects 

of multiple reintroductions into areas from which both 

species were extirpated. The data in this report can be 

used in conjunction with genetics and ecological data 

to test predictions related to founder events and assist 

in the design, application, and assessment of future 

reintroductions.

Table 10.—Demographic data of translocations of martens in Michigan

Release location Date N (females) Source population

1. Tahquamenon Bay, Hiawatha

 National Forest, East Unit 1989 20 Hiawatha National Forest, West Unit, MI

2. Tahquamenon Bay, Hiawatha

 National Forest, East Unit 1989-1990 27 Iron County, MI

3. Keweenaw County 1992 19 (5) Houghton County, MI
19

Assessment of Reintroductions of Fishers

In Wisconsin, the estimated average rate of fi sher 

population expansion was about 3 km per year (Gilbert 

2000). The population initiated on the CNF seemed 

to have expanded at a greater rate than the population 

originating on the NNF (Petersen et al. 1977). Although 

the numbers released at each area were identical, the 

period during which those releases occurred and the 

sex ratios might have resulted in differences in overall 

population expansion. All fi shers were stocked on the 

CNF over an 11-month period with a balanced sex 

ratio (30 females and 30 males). Fishers were stocked 

sporadically in the NNF over 7 years with a malebiased sex ratio (36 males and 24 females). Fishers from 

the NNF reintroduction likely spread into the Upper 

Peninsula and contributed to expansion north and east; 

this was undocumented by the WDNR.

The MDNR began a formal survey of accidentally 

trapped or road killed fi shers (Cooley et al. 1982) with 

the examination of eight carcasses during the winter of 

1981. The fi shers were collected in Gogebic, Ontonagon, 

Houghton, Baraga, Iron, and Marquette Counties in 

the western Upper Peninsula (Cooley et al. 1982). The 

number of fi shers accidentally killed increased in the 

following years, peaking at 50 in both 1987 and 1988 

(Cooley et al. 1986, 1987, 1988).

In 1989, fi shers were considered abundant in much of 

the western Upper Peninsula (Cooley et al. 1990). As a 

result, limited trapping was allowed in Baraga, Gogebic, 

Houghton, Iron, Marquette, and Ontonagon Counties 

on 12,276.5 km2

 in the western Upper Peninsula 

known as Fisher Management Unit A (Sodders 1999; 

Cooley et al. 2001). The original harvest season was 

designed to be conservative and was limited to 11 days 

in December with a bag limit of one fi sher per trapper. 

Registration of all captured fi shers was mandatory. In 

1993, the bag limit was increased to three per trapper. 

In 1994, fi sher trapping was expanded to include Fisher 

Management Unit B (west-central Upper Peninsula), 

which included Alger, Delta, Dickinson, Houghton, 

Keweenaw, Marquette, and Menominee Counties. This 

increased the trapping area to 26,231.4 km2

 (Sodders 

1999). The season bag limit in Unit B was one fi sher 

per trapper. The remaining 15,920.7 km2

 of the eastern 

Upper Peninsula (except Drummond Island) was 

opened to fi sher trapping in 1996 and added to Unit 

B (Cooley et al. 2001). The bag limit remained at one 

fi sher per trapper in Unit B (Cooley et al. 2001). Current 

regulations continue to allow three fi shers per trapper, 

one of which can be taken in Unit B (Mich. Dep. Nat. 

Resour. 2005).

Assessment of Reintroductions of Martens

Wisconsin

A single marten was observed on Stockton Island, 

Wisconsin, during the winter of 1971-72, nearly 20 

years following reintroduction (Schupbach 1977; 

Davis 1978). There were no further reports made and 

the reintroduction was considered a failure (Kohn and 

Eckstein 1987).

Davis (1978) conducted a study in 1975-76 to evaluate 

the reintroduction of martens on the NNF. Several 

martens were radio-tracked and in combination 

with winter track counts and other observations it 

was determined that the species populated the area 

surrounding the releases immediately following the 

effort. Relatively few females had been included in the 

release (27 females of a total of 124) and no reproduction 

had been reported (Davis 1978, 1983). Without further 

releases, the fi nal outcome of the reintroduction was 

uncertain (Davis 1978).

By 1986, the marten population on the NNF was 

estimated to be 150 to 200 individuals. The population 

was projected to reach 300 individuals by 1990 (Wisc. 

Dep. Nat. Resour. 1986), but was estimated at 221 +/- 

61 in 2006 (Woodford et al. 2006). The current marten 

population remains concentrated within 20 km of the 

original release sites (unpublished).

Martens have remained in and around the area of 

the reintroduction on the CNF and breeding has 

occurred (unpublished). On the CNF, Forest Service 

and GLIFWC scientists are studying habitat use and 

selection as well as population size and range of martens. 

Currently, the marten population on the CNF is thought 

to be about 40 individuals (unpublished).
20

Michigan 

Martens are unlikely prolifi c colonizers, and often are 

slow to expand their range.2

 American martens have a 

strong homing instinct (Harger and Switzenberg 1958). 

On July 28, 1955, the male fur farm animal released in 

the PMWSP 5 months earlier was found dead on Route 

2 in Masonville, 225 km from the release site, and about 

10 km from the fur farm (Harger and Switzenberg 1958). 

Ludwig (1986) found evidence of homing instincts in 

males that were captured and released in APP during the 

live-trapping program in 1985 and 1986. For example, 

a male (M-138) captured in APP on March 15, 1986 

was released 55 km from the trap site. The following day, 

M-138 was captured in the same initial trap (Ludwig 

1986). The tendency toward a strong homing instinct 

could be problematic for marten reintroduction efforts as 

individuals may not remain in the release area (MDOC 

interoffi ce commun.).

At the time of the fi rst reintroduction in Michigan, 

MDOC personnel were aware of the strong homing 

instinct of martens and believed that releasing a suffi cient 

number of animals in a given area should result in several 

martens establishing territories. It also was believed 

that a successful reintroduction would be linked to 

females. One female assumed to be pregnant was held 

at the Cusino Wildlife Experiment Station for release 

in April, near the time when she would give birth. It 

was believed that the resulting maternal instinct would 

overcome the homing instinct and that the female with 

her kits would remain near the release area (Harger and 

Switzenberg 1958). The result of the female’s pregnancy 

was undetermined (MDOC interoffi ce commun.).

In the years immediately following the marten releases in 

the PMWSP, many sightings of martens were reported, 

though few were considered valid. The MDOC ran 

systematic survival checks in the area surrounding the 

release site. Routes were traveled via foot, truck, and 

tracked vehicle in search of marten tracks. Survival checks 

in 1957 and 1958 resulted in documentation of few fresh 

tracks (Mich. Dep. Conserv. 1958, 1960; Schupbach 

1977). Surveys conducted in December through 

January 1958-59 and February through March of 1960 

included attempts to live-trap existing martens. No 

martens were trapped during either period (Switzenberg 

and Laycock 1961). A minimum of two fresh marten 

tracks was recorded during the 1958-59 checks. No 

tracks were observed during the 1960 effort or during 

an additional survey undertaken in 1965. The lack of 

marten sightings in the area surrounding the release site 

led to the conclusion that the reintroduction attempt had 

failed (Mich. Dep. Conserv. 1966). Winter track surveys 

and harvest records are currently being used to gauge 

population status and distribution (Earle 2002; Frawley 

2002). Both methods indicate that martens inhabit areas 

near the original release site (e.g., Fig. 8). Animals in 

these areas may be products of the original reintroduction 

or dispersal from later relocation efforts from Michigan 

or Wisconsin.

Records of sightings of live martens as well as tracks and 

carcasses were compiled by the MDNR following the 

reintroduction of 1969 and 1970 in the Whitefi sh River 

Valley. By 1977, 59 records documented a wide dispersal 

of martens from their release locations on the HNF, West 

Unit. Martens were sighted along the Lake Superior shore 

north of the HNF, along the Lake Michigan shore to the 

south, Ontonagon County to the northwest, and Luce 

and Mackinac Counties to the east (Fig. 9). The average 

reported distance from the reintroduction sites was 40 

km, though martens were observed as far away as 180 

km (Schupbach 1977). During January and February of 

1976 and 1977, Schupbach (1977) surveyed an area of 

673 km2

 surrounding the Delta County reintroduction 

site for signs of martens, but no tracks were discovered. 

Local trappers and residents also reported few sightings. 

Schupbach (1977) estimated that fewer than 50 martens 

inhabited the survey area. Illegal dry-set trapping, 

incidental takes in wet-set traps, and random shooting 

of martens were cited as inhibiting the establishment of 

a stable population in the area surrounding the 1969-

70 reintroduction. The scattered nature of reports and 

lack of juveniles (untagged individuals) away from this 

area suggested that it was highly unlikely that a breeding 

nucleus could exist elsewhere in the Upper Peninsula 

(Schupbach 1977). Current MDNR winter track-count 

surveys and harvest records indicate a limited presence of 

2

Bostick, D. (Huron-Manistee National Forests). 2002-2003 

American marten winter track count monitoring project. Final 

report (unpublished).
21

martens in this area of the HNF. A number of individuals 

have been detected 20 to 40 km to the north, suggesting 

that martens reintroduced in 1969 and 1970 may have 

dispersed and established territories toward Lake Superior 

(Figs. 8-9). If this was the case, the reintroduction was 

successful in founding a persisting population.

Figure 8.—Distribution of reported marten harvests in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan from 2000 to 2004 

(reintroduction and translocation sites and dates are added for reference).

Figure 9.—Reports of marten sightings in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan from April 1969 to October 1977; 

adapted from Schupbach (1977).
22

Martens reported in Luce and Mackinac Counties from 

1969 to 1977, assuming the sightings were valid, could 

only have been products of the 1969-70 reintroduction 

due to the distance and direction from all previous release 

locations. Individuals reported in Ontonagon and Baraga 

Counties may have resulted from the 1955-57 releases 

in the PMWSP or the 1969-70 releases in the Whitefi sh 

River Valley.

During the winter of 1981-82, Ecological Research 

Services enacted a live-trapping program around the 

reintroduction sites of 1979, 1980, and 1981 to assess the 

survival and dispersal of released martens. Five martens 

that had been part of the original release were trapped on 

the Huron Mountain Club near their initial release site; 

they were deemed to be in good to excellent condition 

(Churchill et al. 1982). Seven martens were captured in 

Iron County during the live-trapping effort. Five of the 

seven animals, including an unmarked juvenile, were 

trapped near the Perch Lake and Winslow Lake areas 

where most of the martens had been released. One female 

was captured approximately 24 km from her original 

release site. One male was captured nearly 23 km from 

his NNF release site (Churchill et al. 1982).

The relocations into the northern Lower Peninsula 

of Michigan in 1985 and 1986 were not intended as 

stand-alone events. The release sites in the Pigeon River 

Country State Forest and the MNF-Pere-Marquette State 

Forest were separated by more than 160 km, resulting 

in potential geographic isolation of the restocked 

populations. Some limited exchange between the two 

populations has been suggested, but the area between the 

two marten populations in the northern Lower Peninsula 

is fragmented by agricultural land, highways, and urban 

areas. Martens are considered habitat specialists and are 

not known for rapid range expansion or colonization, 

particularly when preferred habitat is limited.2

Fragmentation of habitat is negatively correlated with 

marten numbers (e.g., Hargis and Bissonnette 1997).

CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE 

MARTEN RELEASES

Strategies for successful population reintroduction 

include using a large number of founding individuals, 

high genetic variation among founding individuals, 

low effect of competition at the release site, and the 

occurrence of refugia (Griffi th et al. 1989). Releases 

consisting of equal or female-biased sex ratios have been 

deemed more likely to promote a viable population. Each 

reintroduction effort into Wisconsin and Michigan was 

characterized by different numbers, sex ratios and sources 

of martens released, release techniques, and time spans 

over which the releases occurred. These data along with 

knowledge of the current status of marten populations 

can provide valuable insights for the future management 

of these species. 

A large number of founding individuals is expected 

to increase probability of successful reintroduction. 

No relationship between number of founders and 

reintroduction success was apparent in Wisconsin or 

Michigan. The reintroduction events on the CNF and 

NNF involved a large number of founders (139 and 

174 martens, respectively), but the species remains State 

Endangered. Conversely, the number of reintroduced 

founders in Michigan ranged from 29 to 148, and 

martens are harvested annually.

The time span during which reintroductions occur 

might affect the probability of population establishment 

following reintroduction. The 1955-57 PMWSP release, 

the 1969-70 Whitefi sh River Valley reintroduction, and 

the 1975-83 NNF reintroduction consisted of small 

releases often of 10 or fewer individuals over 2 or more 

years (Tables 4, 6, 7). The total number of martens 

released is deceptive: the number released at one time or 

even during a single season might be too low to expect 

the establishment of a viable breeding population, 

particularly given high emigration rates due to strong 

homing instinct.

High genetic diversity among founding individuals might 

be achieved by using individuals from multiple sources. 

Six source populations were used to reintroduce martens 

into Michigan and Wisconsin. With the exception of 

Colorado and Montana, all source populations were 

historically part of a contiguous range of martens 

across Ontario and into the Upper Midwest. Human 

disturbance, including habitat fragmentation and 

exploitation, created a number of smaller disjunct 

refugia where martens remained into the 20th century. 
23

Individuals in these refugia may be adapted to local 

environmental conditions. Local adaptation, even 

if subtle, may result in an unfavorable response of 

individuals to relocation. Prey should drive habitat 

preference and selection but relocated martens may 

disperse in search of forest types similar to their source 

area.

Competition or predation might reduce the probability 

of successful reintroduction even when refugia are 

available. Marten reintroductions were attempted nearly 

15 years following the reintroduction of fi shers on the 

NNF and 30 years after fi sher reintroduction on the 

CNF. Although martens were released in areas closed 

to trapping, thereby protecting establishing individuals 

from harvest mortality, interspecifi c competition with 

or predation by fi shers might have been limiting. In 

the PMWSP and on the HNF, West Unit, marten 

reintroductions occurred before the reintroduction of 

fi shers into each area. Conversely, the 1979-81 releases 

into the west-central Upper Peninsula occurred 20 

years following fi sher reintroduction. Study of fi sher 

densities in areas coincident with marten populations 

in Wisconsin and Michigan would provide insight into 

species interactions.

Davis (1983) suggested that female-biased sex ratios 

should be used for short-term releases but that a 

restoration effort spanning several years should consist 

of a release of equal numbers of males and females. 

Reintroduction occurring near time of parturition may 

decrease homing instinct of pregnant females (i.e., longrange dispersal patterns) and increase the probability 

of establishing local territories due to strong maternal 

instinct (de Vos and Guenther 1952; Harger and 

Switzenberg 1958).

The method of release is another consideration in 

promoting successful reintroduction. Two techniques 

were used during the 1975-76 marten release on the 

NNF. Individuals that were “quick-released” were 

liberated within 24 hours of arrival on site. The 

quick-release technique was used for most of the 

reintroductions and translocations in Wisconsin and 

Michigan (Slough 1994). A second technique involved 

“gentle-released” animals that were held at relocation 

sites in pens for about 7 days prior to liberation. Five 

quick-released males, fi ve quick-released females, four 

gentle-released males, and six gentle-released females 

were radio-collared to examine post-release movement 

patterns. Dispersal from the release site appeared to be 

limited by the gentle-release technique (Davis 1983), 

but similar results might have been obtained if release 

of pregnant females occurred close to parturition, or 

if food items, such as deer carcasses were placed at the 

release site (Davis 1983). The quick- and gentle-release 

techniques were compared for martens released on the 

Huron Mountain Club in 1979 and 1980 (Churchill 

et al. 1982). No differences were found between the 

release techniques in the post-release movements or 

establishment of territories.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the following individuals who contributed 

materials for this report: Neil Dawson, Lynn Landriault, 

Rosemary Hartley, and Jim Rettie (OMNR), Steve Babler 

(USDA Forest Service), Doug Wagner and Dwayne Etter 

(MDNR), Bruce Kohn (WDNR, retired), Jim Woodford 

(WDNR), and Damien Lunning. We thank Kim 

Scribner (Michigan State University) for his support as 

the M.S. advisor for B.W.W. We also thank Roger Powell 

(North Carolina State University), Bob Brander (USDA 

Forest Service, retired), and Bruce Kohn for their helpful 

reviews of the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITED

Allen, G.M. 1904. Check list of the mammals of New 

England. Occasional Papers of the Boston Society of 

Natural History. 7: 1-35.

Allen, J.A. 1876. The former range of some New 

England mammals. American Naturalist. 10: 27-32.

Allendorf, F.W.; Leary, R.F. 1986. Heterozygosity and 

fi tness in natural populations of animals. In: Soule, 

M.E., ed. Conservation biology: the science of scarcity 

and diversity. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates: 

57-76.

Aubry, K.B.; Houston, D.B. 1992. Distribution and 

status of the fi sher in Washington. Northwestern 

Naturalist. 73: 69-79.
24

Audubon, J.J.; Bachman, J. 1851-1854. The 

quadrupeds of North America. New York: V.G. 

Audubon.

Baily, V. 1931. Mammals of New Mexico. Bur. of Biol. 

Surv., North Am. Fauna, No. 53. Washington, DC: 

U. S. Department of. Agriculture.

Baird, S.F. 1859. Mammals of North America; the 

descriptions of species based chiefl y on the 

collections in the Museum of the Smithsonian 

Institution. Philadephia, PA: J.B. Lippincott & Co. 

Bell, R. 1884. Observations on the geology, 

mineralogy, zoology, and botany of the Labrador 

coast, Hudson’s Strait, and Bay. Progress Report of 

the Geological Survey, Canada 1882-83. 4: 1-62DD.

Benson, D.A. 1959. The fi sher in Nova Scotia. Journal 

of Mammalogy. 40: 451.

Berg, W.E. 1982. Reintroduction of fi sher, pine 

marten, and river otter. In: Sanderson, G.C., ed. 

Midwest furbearer management. Wichita, KS: The 

Wildlife Society, Central Mountains and Plains 

Section: 158-173.

Bradle, B.J. 1957. The fi sher returns to Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin Conservation Bulletin. 22: 9-11.

Brander, R.B.; Books, D.J. 1973. Return of the fi sher. 

Natural History. 82: 52-57.

Brayton, A.W. 1882. Report on the mammals of Ohio. 

Report of the Geological Survey of Ohio. 4: 3-185.

Burt, W.H. 1948. The mammals of Michigan. 2nd ed. 

Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Cahalane, V.H. 1947. The mammals of North America. 

New York: Macmillan.

Churchill, S.J.; Herman, L.A.; Herman, M.F.; Ludwig, 

J.P. 1981. Final report on the completion of the 

Michigan marten reintroduction program. Iron 

River, MI: Ecological Research Services.

Churchill, S.J.; Herman, L.A.; Ludwig, J.P. 1982. A 

report on the winter 1981-1982 Michigan marten 

livetrapping program. Iron River, MI: Ecological 

Research Services.

Cook, D.B.; Hamilton, W.J., Jr. 1957. The forest, the 

fi sher, and the porcupine. Journal of Forestry. 55: 

719-722.

Cooley, T.M.; Schmitt, S.M.; Friedrich, P.D. 1982. 

Fisher survey—1981-1982. Rep. No. 2918. Lansing, 

MI: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

Wildlife Division.

Cooley, T.M.; Schmitt, S.M.; Friedrich, P.D. 1986. 

Fisher survey—1984, 1985, 1986. Rep. No. 3034. 

Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources, Wildlife Division. 

Cooley, T.M.; Schmitt, S.M.; Friedrich, P.D. 1987. 

Fisher survey—1985, 1986, 1987. Rep. No. 3062. 

Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources, Wildlife Division.

Cooley, T.M.; Schmitt, S.M.; Friedrich, P.D. 1988. 

Fisher survey—1987, 1988. Rep. No. 3081. Lansing, 

MI: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

Wildlife Division.

Cooley, T.M.; Schmitt, S.M.; Friedrich, P.D; Stuht, J.N. 

1990. Fisher survey—1989. Rep. No. 3126. Lansing, 

MI: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

Wildlife Division.

Cooley, T.M.; Schmitt, S.M.; Friedrich, P.D; Stuht, J.N. 

1991. Fisher survey—1990. Rep. No. 3140. Lansing, 

MI: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

Wildlife Division.

Cooley, T.M.; Schmitt, S.M.; Friedrich, P.D.; Reis, T.F. 

1992. Fisher survey—1991. Rep. No. 3172. Lansing, 

MI: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

Wildlife Division.

Cooley, T.M.; Schmitt, S.M.; Friedrich, P.D.; Reis, T.F. 

1993. Fisher survey—1992. Rep. No. 3189. Lansing, 
25

MI: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

Wildlife Division.

Cooley, T.M.; Schmitt, S.M.; Friedrich, P.D.; Reis, T.F. 

1994. Fisher survey—1993. Rep. No. 3215. Lansing, 

MI: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

Wildlife Division. 

Cooley, T.M.; Schmitt, S.M.; Friedrich, P.D.; Reis, T.F. 

1995. Fisher survey-1994. Rep. No. 3239. Lansing, 

MI: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

Wildlife Division. 

Cooley, T.M.; Schmitt, S.M.; Friedrich, P.D.; Reis, 

T.F. 1997a. Fisher survey—1995. Rep. No. 3258. 

Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources, Wildlife Division. 

Cooley, T.M.; Schmitt, S.M.; Friedrich, P.D.; Reis, 

T.F. 1997b. Fisher survey—1996. Rep. No. 3264. 

Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources, Wildlife Division.

Cooley, T.M.; Schmitt, S.M.; Friedrich, P.D.; Reis, T.F. 

1998. Fisher survey—1997. Rep. No. 3286. Lansing, 

MI: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

Wildlife Division.

Cooley, T.M.; Schmitt, S.M.; Friedrich, P.D.; Reis, T.F. 

2001. Fisher survey—1999. Rep. No. 3329. Lansing, 

MI: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 

Wildlife Division.

Davis, M.H. 1978. Reintroduction of the pine 

marten into the Nicolet National Forest, Forest 

County, Wisconsin. Stevens Point, WI: University of 

Wisconsin. M.S. thesis.

Davis, M.H. 1983. Post-release movements of 

introduced marten. Journal of Wildlife Management. 

47: 59-66.

Davis, T. 1997. ‘Fishers’. Wisconsin Trails. January/

February: 27-30.

de Vos, A. 1951. Recent fi ndings in fi sher and marten 

ecology and management. Transactions of the 

Sixteenth North American Wildlife Conference. 16: 

498-507.

de Vos, A.; Guenther, S.E. 1952. Preliminary livetrapping studies of martens. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 16: 207-214.

Dhuey, B.; Kohn, B.; Olson, J. 2000. Fisher harvest 

2000. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources.

Earle, R.D. 1978. The fi sher-porcupine relationship 

in Upper Michigan. Houghton, MI: Michigan 

Technological University, Department of Biological 

Sciences. M.S. thesis.

Earle, R.D. 1996. Winter habitat preferences of 

marten. MDNR job fi nal report. Proj. W-127-R-14, 

Stud. 127-20. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources.

Earle, R.D. 2002. Furbearer winter track count survey 

of 2001. Rep. No. 3366. Lansing, MI: Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division.

Earle, R.D.; Mastenbrook, L.H.; Reis, T.F. 2001. 

Distribution and abundance of the American 

marten in northern Michigan. Rep. No. 3321. 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife 

Division.

Emmons, E. 1840. Report on the quadrupeds 

of Massachusetts. In: Dewey, C.; Emmons, E., 

eds. Reports on the herbaceous plants and on the 

quadrupeds of Massachusetts. Cambridge, MA: 

Folsom Wells and Thurston.

Frankham, R. 1995. Conservation genetics. Annual 

Review of Genetics. 29: 305-327.

Frawley, B.J. 2002. 2001 marten harvest survey. Rep. 

No. 3369. Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of 

Natural Resources, Wildlife Division.
26

Fuller, R.W. 1975. The 1974 fi sher trapping season in 

Vermont. [Vermont] Game Annual: 23-30.

Gibilisco, C.J. 1994. Distributional dynamics of 

modern Martes in North America. In: Buskirk, S.W.; 

Harestad, A. S.; Raphael, M. G.; Powell, R. A., eds. 

Martens, sables, and fi shers: biology and conservation. 

Ithaca, NY: Comstock Publishing Associates: 59-71.

Gilbert, J.H. 2000. Impacts of reestablished fi sher 

on Wisconsin’s bobcat population. Madison, WI: 

University of Wisconsin. Ph.D. dissertation.

Griffth, B.; Scott, J.M.; Carpenter, J.W.; Reed, C. 1989. 

Translocation as a species conservation tool: status 

and strategy. Science. 477-480.

Grinnel, J.; Dixon, J.; Lindsdale, J.M. 1937. Fur-bearing 

mammals of California: their natural history, 

systematic status, and relation to man. Berkeley, 

CA: University of California Press.

Hagmeier, E.M. 1956. Distribution of marten and 

fi sher in North America. Canadian Field-Naturalist. 

70: 101-148.

Harger, E.M.; Switzenberg, D.F. 1958. Returning the 

pine marten to Michigan. Rep. 2199. Lansing, 

MI: Michigan Department of Conservation, Game 

Division.

Hargis, C.D.; Bissonnette, J.A.. 1997. Effects of forest 

fragmentation on populations of American marten 

in the Intermountain West. In: Proulx, G.; Bryant, 

H.N.; Woodard, P.M., eds. Martes: taxonomy, 

ecology, techniques and management. Edmonton, AB: 

Provincial Museum of Alberta: 437-451.

Harris, L.D.; Maser, C.; McKee, A. 1982. Patterns of 

old growth harvest and implications for Cascades 

wildlife. Transactions of the North American Wildlife 

Natural Resources Conference. 47: 374-392.

Hine, R.L.; Nicotera, R.F.; Christenson, L.M.; Germain, 

C.E.; Hale, J.B.; Hettrick, H.D.; Les, B.; Posekany, 

L.A. 1975. Endangered animals in Wisconsin. 

Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources.

Hubert, G.F., Jr. 1982. History of Midwestern 

furbearer management and a look to the future. In: 

Sanderson, G.C., ed. Midwest furbearer management. 

Wichita, KS: The Wildlife Society, Central Mountains 

and Plains Section: 174-191.

Irvine, G.W. 1961. Progress report on the porcupine 

problem on the Ottawa National Forest. Ironwood, 

MI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Ottawa National Forest.

Irvine, G.W. 1962. Fisher restoration project 

progress report. Ironwood, MI: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Ottawa National Forest.

Irvine, G.W.; Brander, R.B. 1971. Progress report 

on a fi sher-porcupine study on the Ottawa 

National Forest. Ironwood, MI: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Ottawa National Forest.

Irvine, G.W.; Magnus, L.T.; Bradle, B.J. 1964. The 

restocking of fi sher in Lake States forests. 

Transactions of the North American Wildlife and 

Resource Conference. 29: 307-315.

Jackson, H.H.T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. 

Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.

Jordahl, C.J. 1954. Marten are back! Wisconsin 

Conservation Bulletin. 19: 26-28.

Kellogg, R. 1937. Annotated list of West Virginia 

mammals. Proceedings of the U.S. Natural Museum. 

84: 443-447.

Kennicott, R.I. 1855. Catalogue of animals observed 

in Cook County, Illinois. Transactions of the Illinois 

State Agricultural Society. 1: 577-595.

Kirk, G.L. 1916. The mammals of Vermont. Joint 

Bulletin of the Vermont Botany and Bird Clubs: 28-

34.
27

Kohn, B.E. 1991. Minnesota pine martens introduced 

to Wisconsin. The Niche. Newsletter of the 

Wisconsin Bureau of Endangered Resources. 5: 4.

Kohn, B.E.; Eckstein, R.G. 1987. Status of marten 

in Wisconsin, 1985. Res. Rep. 143. Madison, WI: 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau 

of Research.

Krohn, W.B.; Elowe, K.D.; Boone, R.B. 1995. Relations 

among fi shers, snow, and martens: development 

and evaluation of two hypotheses. Forestry 

Chronicle. 71: 97-105.

Krohn, W.B.; Zielinkski, W.J.; Boone, R.B. 1997. 

Relations among fi shers, snow, and martens 

in California: results from small-scale spatial 

comparisons. In: Proulx, G.; Bryant, H.N.; Woodard, 

P.M., eds. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and 

management. Edmonton, Alberta: Provincial Museum 

of AB: 211-232.

Leberg, P.L. 1990. Genetic considerations in the design 

of introduction programs. Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 

55: 609-619.

Ludwig, J.P. 1985. Internal progress report on fall 

1985 marten trapping project in the Chapleau 

Provincial Game Preserve. Boyne City, MI: 

Ecological Research Services.

Ludwig, J.P. 1986. A short report on the Michigan 

marten reintroduction program Lower Peninsula in 

1985-86: comparison to trapping success with the 

Algonquin Park efforts of 1980-81. Boyne City, MI: 

Ecological Research Services.

Macleod, C.F. 1950. The productivity and distribution 

of fur-bearing species of the coast forest of British 

Columbia in relation to some environmental 

factors. Vancouver, BC: University of British 

Columbia. M.A. thesis.

Manville, R.H. 1948. The vertebrate fauna of the 

Huron Mountains, Michigan. American Midland 

Naturalist. 39: 615-640.

Mech, L.D.; Rogers, L.L. 1977. Status, distribution, 

and movements of martens in northeastern 

Minnesota. Res. Pap. NC-143. St. Paul, MN: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North 

Central Forest Experiment Station. 7 p.

Michigan Department of Conservation. 1957. Current 

status of pine marten releases in Upper Peninsula. 

Spec. Rep. 14. Shingleton, MI: Michigan Department 

of Conservation, Cusino Wildlife Experiment Station.

Michigan Department of Conservation. 1958. 19th

biennial report of the Department of Conservation 

of the State of Michigan, 1957-1958. Lansing, MI: 

Michigan Department of Conservation.

Michigan Department of Conservation. 1960. 20th

biennial report of the Department of Conservation 

of the State of Michigan, 1959-1960. Lansing, MI: 

Michigan Department of Conservation.

Michigan Department of Conservation. 1966. 23rd

biennial report of the Department of Conservation 

of the State of Michigan, 1965-1966. Lansing, MI: 

Michigan Department of Conservation.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1970. 

25th biennial report of the Department of Natural 

Resources of the State of Michigan, 1969-1970. 

Lansing, MI: Michigan Department of Natural 

Resources.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1990. 

Fisher management plan. Lansing, MI: Michigan 

Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division.

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 2005. 2005 

Michigan hunting and trapping guide. Lansing, MI: 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
28

Olson, H.F. 1966. Return of a native. Wisconsin 

Conservation Bulletin. 31: 22-23.

Pack, J.C.; Cromer, J.I. 1981. Reintroduction of fi sher 

in West Virginia. In: Chapman, J.A.; Pursley, D., eds. 

Worldwide furbearer conference proceedings, vol. 2: 

Frostburg, MD: Frostburg State College: 1431-1442.

Petersen, L.R.; Martin, M.A.; Pils, C.M. 1977. Status of 

fi shers in Wisconsin, 1975. Res. Rep. 92. Madison, 

WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Plummer, J.T. 1844. Scraps in natural history 

(quadrupeds). American Journal of Science. 46: 236-

249.

Powell, R.A. 1993. The fi sher: life history, ecology, and 

behavior. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota 

Press.

Raine, R.M. 1983. Winter habitat use and responses 

to snow of fi sher (Martes pennanti) and marten 

(Martes americana) in southeastern Manitoba. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology. 61: 25-34.

Rand, A.L. 1944. The status of the fi sher Martes 

pennanti (Erxleben) in Canada. Canadian Field 

Naturalist. 58: 85-96.

Richardson, J. 1829. Fauna boreali-americana; or the 

zoology of the northern parts of British North 

America: containing descriptions of the objects 

of natural history collected on the late northern 

lands expeditions, under command of Captain 

Sir John Franklin, R.N. Part fi rst containing the 

quadrupeds. London: John Murray.

Rhoads, S.N. 1896. Contributions to the biology of 

Tennessee, no. 3. Proceedings of the Academy of 

Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. 48: 175-205.

Rhoads, S.N. 1898. Contributions to a revision of 

the North American beavers, otters and fi shers. 

Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 

19: 417-439.

Rhoads, S.N. 1903. The mammals of Pennsylvania 

and New Jersey. Philadelphia, PA: [Publisher name 

unknown].

Sarrazin, F.; Barbault, R. 1996. Reintroduction: 

challenges and lessons for basic ecology. Trends in 

Ecology and Evolution. 11: 474-478.

Schoonmaker, W.J. 1938. The fi sher as a foe of 

the porcupine in New York State. Journal of 

Mammalogy. 19: 373-374.

Schorger, A.W. 1942. Extinct and endangered 

mammals and birds of the Upper Great Lakes 

Region. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of 

Sciences, Arts, and Letters. 34: 23-44.

Schupbach, T.A. 1977. History, status, and 

management of the pine marten in the Upper 

Peninsula of Michigan. Houghton, MI: Michigan 

Technological University. M.S. thesis.

Seton, E.T. 1925-1928. Lives of game animals. New 

York: Doubleday Doran.

Skinner, M.P. 1927. The predatory and fur-bearing 

animals of Yellowstone National Park. Roosevelt 

Wildlife Bulletin. 4: 156-281.

Slough, B.G. 1994. Translocations of American 

martens. In: Buskirk, S. W.; Harestad, A. S.; Raphael, 

M. G.; Powell, R. A., eds. Martens, sables, and fi shers: 

biology and conservation. Ithaca, NY: Comstock 

Publishing Associates: 165-178.

Sodders, B. 1999. ’Comeback carnivore’. Michigan 

Out-of-Doors. February: 8, 39.

Steck, M. 1988. A translocation of fi sher in the Upper 

Peninsula of Michigan. Final Rep. Lansing, MI: 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Steck, M. 1989. The 1989 translocation of fi sher in the 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Final Rep. Lansing, 

MI: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
29

Steck, M. 1990. The 1990 translocation of fi sher in the 

Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Final Rep. Lansing, 

MI: Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Switzenberg, D.F. 1955. Report on fi rst release of 

Canadian pine martens (Martes americana) in 

Upper Peninsula. Rep. 2040. Lansing, MI: Michigan 

Department of Conservation, Game Division.

Switzenberg, D.F.; Laycock, W.E. 1961. Marten and 

fi sher introductions. Game Policy No. 29. Lansing, 

MI: Michigan Department of Conservation.

Weckwerth, R.P.; Wright, P.L. 1968. Results of 

transplanting fi shers in Montana. Journal of Wildlife 

Management. 32: 977-980.

Williams, B.W. 2006. Applications of genetic methods 

in furbearer management and ecology: case studies 

of fi shers, American martens, and bobcats. East 

Lansing, MI: Michigan State University. M.S. thesis.

Williams, C.M. 1947. Marten in Colorado. Colorado 

Conservation Comments. 10: 12-13.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1986. 

Pine marten recovery plan. Madison, WI: Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources.

Wood, N.A.; Dice, L.R. 1924. Records of the 

distribution of Michigan mammals. Michigan 

Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters. 3: 425-469.

Woodford, J.; Eloranta, C.; Rinaldi, T.; Kohn, B. 2005. 

Inventory, status, and management needs of 

American marten in northeast Wisconsin. 2005 

Summ. Rep. Rhinelander, WI: Wisconsin Department 

of Natural Resources.

Zielinski, W.J.; Kucera, T.E.; Barrett, R.H. 1995. The 

current distribution of fi sher, Martes pennanti, in 

California. California Fish and Game. 81: 104-112.
Printed on Recycled Paper

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on 

the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial 

status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because 

all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program (Not all prohibited 

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication 

of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at 

(202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To fi le a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Offi ce 

of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800)795-3272 

(voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

Williams, Bronwyn W.; Gilbert, Jonathan H.; Zollner, Patrick A. 2007, Historical 

perspective on the reintroduction of the fisher and American marten in 

Michigan and Wisconsin. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-5. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 29 p.

Management of mustelid species such as fishers and martens requires an 

understanding of the history of local populations. This is particularly true in areas where 

populations were extirpated and restored through reintroduction efforts. During the 

late 19th and 20th centuries, fishers (Martes pennanti) and American martens (Martes 

americana) were extirpated from much of their southern range, including Michigan 

and Wisconsin. Both species have been restored to varying degrees in these states 

following multiple reintroductions and translocations. We describe the status of the 

original populations and changes in their status over time, and include source locations, 

release sites, release and reintroduction dates, and demographic characteristics 

of released animals. This synthesis is crucial for evaluating the relative success of 

reintroductions in Michigan and Wisconsin, and, combined with knowledge of the 

current condition of these populations, can provide valuable guidance on the future 

management of these species. We also assess the reintroduction of fishers and martens 

in Michigan and Wisconsin and discuss strategies for successful reintroductions.

KEY WORDS: Martes pennanti, Martes americana, translocation
www.nrs.fs.fed.us

Capitalizing on the strengths of existing science 

capacity in the Northeast and Midwest to attain a more 

integrated, cohesive, landscape-scale research program