Whereas Female Pumas allow other females to occupy their territory(with 1 male servicing them all), American female Pine Martens are solitary stakeholders in their home territory(same as 1 male occupying a home territory)...........My interpretation of this spacial requirement is that reproduction rates are thus limited ,,,,,,,,and in combination with decreasing mature mixed conifer/mixed hardwood forests to den in, American Pine Marten are not making the same comeback East of the Mississippi as quickly as a similar tree climbing carnivore, the Eastern Fisher............Noted biologists David Mech and Lynn Rogers long released and peer reviewed paper entitled HISTORY OF MARTENS IN MINNESOTA BEFORE 1970 provides an intriguing historical snapshot to the size of the Marten population just as Europeans began pouring into the Great Lakes Region of the Continent post the Revolutionary War, circa 1800.......................From the turn of the 19th Century right up to the beginning of the Civil War, Minnesota woodlands had a robust enough Marten population to sustain annual trapper kills anywhere from just under 300 to over 1000....................Then, as the forests were cut and burned, Marten populations gradually blinked out by the turn of the 20th Century...............Protected in Minnesota since the 30's and with returning mature conifer woodlands, the species has gradually increased it's numbers...............Continued protected habitat of this type in combination with limited trapping will enable this carnivore to be with us in the years ahead

American Pine Marten

Martes Americana

www.thenatureconservancy.org

Pine martens are agile climbers and spend much of their time in trees. 

Story Highlights

 

The Shy and Curious American Pine Marten

Also called the American marten, the pine marten ranges in forests and woodlands across Alaska, Canada and the northern United States. They prefer mixed conifer and hardwood forests that supply their prey, dens and protection. Though they average 21-26 inches from nose to the tip of their tail, their bushy tails comprise about a third of their total length. Their soft fur ranges from a pale buff to dark brown. 

Usually shy and curious, pine martens are also solitary and territorial. Neither sex will allow another marten of the same sex in their home territory, though males will tolerate the presence of multiple females. An average male defends a territory of approximately 1-3 square miles. Females are somewhat less enterprising, occupying territories of up to one square mile. An adult marten will usually cover its entire territory in 8-10 days, hunting as it goes. 

Pine martens are agile climbers and spend much of their time in trees, where they prey on squirrels and chipmunks. Their diet also includes mice, hares, shrews, birds, bird eggs, amphibians, reptiles, insects, fish, crayfish, nuts, fruit and carrion. Pine martens often make their nests in trees, bearing annual litters of 2-4 young in March or April. Born blind and helpless, the kits’ eyes open after about six weeks, then reach their adult weight at about three months. 
Although the IUCN lists the pine marten as Lower Risk, they are Endangered or locally extinct in some parts of their range.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HISTORY OF MARTENS IN

MINNESOTA BEFORE 1970

STATUS, DISTRIBUTION, AND MOVEMENTS

OF MARTENS IN NORTHEASTERN MINNESOTA

L. David Mech and Lynn L. Rogers

The former abundance and eventual

reduction of the pine marten in northern

Minnesota are documented in the records of

fur buyers. Three to 271 marten pelts were

purchased each year from 1801-1808

at Henry's Post on the Red River, and

approximately 1,000 pelts were purchased by

a fur trader on Lake Superior in 1856

(Swanson 1940).

 In 1857, approximately

1,600 marten pelts were collected from 5

posts in Minnesota (Schorger 1942). The

Joseph Ullmann Company purchased 43 marten

skins from H. Miller of Lake Superior City

(sic) in 1863 and bought 96 skins in Crow

Wing County in 1871.

A decline in pine martens became evident in the

 late 1800's (Swanson 1940). The

Joseph Ullmann Company purchased less than

100 marten pelts in Minnesota between 1872

and 1890. Nevertheless, martens continued

to persist in a few areas. Three trappers

took 43 martens from the vicinity of

Caldwell Brook in Koochiching County between

December 1894 and May 1895 (Swanson et at.

1945), and 2 trappers from Beltrami County

took 22 martens in 1897 (Swanson 1940).

However, even these pockets were decimated

by the early 1900's (Johnson 1922, Swanson

1940, Timn 1975). The last marten recorded

in Beltrami County was taken in 1918

(Schorger 1942), and the last one captured

in northwestern Minnesota was taken in the

Northwest Angle in 1920 (Swanson et al.

1945).

The decline of the pine marten occurred

during the settlement of northern Minnesota.

Trapping pressure undoubtedly had increased,

and during the late 1800's and early 1900's

much of northern Minnesota was logged (Dana

et al. 1960). Most of what was logged was

burned, and even the virgin forests of

northeastern Minnesota experienced twice as

many fires from 1868 to 1910 as they had

before 1868 (exceptionally large areas

burned in 1863, 1864, and 1894) (Heinselman

1973). Consequently, the mature coniferous

habitat preferred by the pine marten

 was greatly reduced during the late

1800's and early 1900's.

 Yeager (1950)

concluded that logging is the single most

destructive factor to marten populations.

Evidence of pine martens in Minnesota

after 1920 is restricted to the northeastern

corner of the State. In winter 1928-1929,

Mike West (personal communication, 1976) an

experienced trapper, found several sets of

marten tracks in Cook County between

Mountain and Moose Lakes near the Canadian

border. Art Allen, a game warden, also

found tracks near Cherokee Lake in Cook

County in 1938 (handwritten report in files

of the Minnesota Department

2of Natural Resources). Moreover, lumberjacks of the
 Consolidated Paper Company

accidently captured several pine martens

in weasel (.Mustela spp.) traps in the

vicinity of Chester Lake in Cook County in

the mid 1930's (Mike West, personal

communication, 1976).

The Chester Lake

location had been made accessible only

shortly before by a newly constructed

logging road. The two other areas mentioned above were virgin conifer stands

according to maps published by Heinselman

(1973) and Marschner (1930).

Martens have been completely

protected in Minnesota since 1933.

However, the species has a low biotic

potential (Marshall 1942), which may

partly explain the population's low rate

of increase. Nevertheless, it appears

that a more important factor may have been

the scarcity of preferred habitat with its

associated prey species.

The forests have

been largely protected from fire since the

early 1900's (Heinselman 1973), and fire

protection generally results in an

increase in shade-tolerant conifers,

particularly balsam fir (Abies baleamea)

and spruce (.Pioea spp.). Such protection

from fire may have led to an improvement

of marten habitat and an Increase in

associated prey species in northeastern

Minnesota. Currently, most of the stands

of aspen (.Fopulus spp.) and paper birch

that arose following fires in the early

1900's are being succeeded by spruce and

fir.

Marten numbers apparently began increasing in Minnesota during the 1950's

and 1960's. Between 1953 and 1963, four

martens were trapped in northern St.

Louis, Lake, and Cook Counties in the

Superior National Forest (Stenlund 1955a,

Gunderson 1965). A fifth specimen was

captured in Lake County in 1969 (Maxham

1970).

RECORDS OF MARTENS IN

MINNESOTA, 1970-1976

The marten population of northeastern

Minnesota increased markedly in the early

1970's as evidenced by the fact that 50

martens were captured or sighted during

that period (fig. I): 33 in Cook County,

9 in Lake County, 5 in St. Louis County,

and 1 in Koochiching County. Thirteen of

the martens were observed in 1972, 12 in

1973, 5 in 1974, 10 in 1975, and 10 in the

first 9 months of 1976.

We attribute the lack of marten

records from the BWCA to the fact that the

area is largely inaccessable during the

trapping season rather than to a paucity

of martens. In fact, we consider the BWCA

with its dense, virgin stands of conifers

as a probable reservoir for martens.

Locations where marten tracks were found

in 1928-29 and in 1938 (see above) were

both in the BWCA, suggesting that at least

some of the populations from which the

recent expansion arose may exist in the

BWCA.

An increase in martens similar to that in

Minnesota apparently occurred in Ontario

The increase in production of marten pelts

in Ontario occurred despite a drop in fur

prices and despite only slight increases

in the number of registered trap lines (M.

Novak, personal communication, 1976). The

vegetation history of Ontario adjacent to

Minnesota is similar to that of Minnesota,

and it seems possible that the increase in

both Ontario and Minnesota were due to the

same factor(s). Further evidence that

similar factors affected both Ontario and

Minnesota marten populations is that

martens in both areas declined when the

areas were logged.

A gross examination of cover types in

the marten home ranges indicates that the

animals ranged through a variety of

vegetation. Generally the areas inhabited

by the radioed martens were similar to

much of the rest of the forest, which was

logged and/or burned primarily between

1890 and 1920 (Stenlund 1955b).

Examination of the specific daytime

resting sites of the radioed martens also

indicates that they used a variety of

forest cover types. About the only
 generalization that can be drawn from the

data is that most of the resting sites

were situated in stands of conifers, many

of which included some white birch and/or

aspen (table 2). A high percentage of the

marten captures and sightings were also in

conifer-dominated areas or mixed stands

(fig. 1 and Marschner 1930).

Marshall (1942) concluded that

martens are adaptable in their use of

cover types. He found martens primarily in

conifer stands, but apparently there were

few stands of deciduous trees in his study

area (Marshall 1951). In Ontario, DeVos

(1952) stressed the marten's need for

mature timber, disagreed that conifer

cover makes the best habitat, and stated

that mixed stands appear best. However,

DeVos et at. (1959) later reported

excellent evidence that areas of mature

conifers produced greater numbers of

martens than did interspersed areas having

fewer mature conifers. Further, Koehler

et al. (1975) studied martens in

coniferous forests in Idaho and found that

they preferred stands with canopy cover

greater than 30 percent.

Although martens are known to be good

swimmers (DeVos 1952), we have found no

records of distances over which they can

swim. Thus, it is interesting to note

that male Marten 2808 swam across Birch

Lake twice between May 7 and May 29, 1973

(fig. 2). He could have crossed at a

point only 30 m wide, just east of his

known range, but if he took the most

direct route between his locations on each

side of the lake, he would have had to

swim at least 64 m.

FUTURE OUTLOOK

If the present increase in martens in

northeastern Minnesota and the apparent

increase in adjacent Ontario are indeed

due to maturing forests and increases in

shade-tolerant conifers, marten numbers

should continue to rise for some time to

come. It currently is uneconomical to

harvest much of the aspen-birch-fir timber

that abounds in the Superior National

Forest because the stands are located so

far from the mills that transportation

costs make cutting of such stands

unprofitable. If the virgin forests of

the BWCA indeed serve as reservoirs for

the marten, the no-cut policies that

continue in effect in the Interior Zone of

the BWCA further enhance the future of the

marten in Minnesota.

 Martens are

protected in Minnesota and are taken only

accidentally in traps set for other

species. They apparently are increasing

despite this level of exploitation.

However, martens are very easily trapped,

and their numbers can easily be decimated

by over-trapping (Yeager 1950, DeVos 1952,

DeVos et al. 1959). Therefore, no

legalized trapping is recommended.

Studies should be conducted to determine

the extent to which the relatively

inaccessable virgin conifer stands of the

BWCA actually serve as a reservoir for

martens in northeastern Minnesota.