Pekania pennanti

(Erxleben, 1777)

Fisher

G5Secure Found in 72 roadless areas NatureServe Explorer →
G5SecureGlobal Rank
Least concernIUCN
PSESA Status
MediumThreat Impact
Fisher (Pekania pennanti). Photo by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Public Domain (U.S. Government Work), via ECOS.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, https://www.usa.gov/government-works
Identity
Unique IDELEMENT_GLOBAL.2.103714
Element CodeAMAJF01020
Record TypeSPECIES
ClassificationSpecies
Classification StatusStandard
Name CategoryVertebrate Animal
IUCNLeast concern
Endemicoccurs (regularly, as a native taxon) in multiple nations
KingdomAnimalia
PhylumCraniata
ClassMammalia
OrderCarnivora
FamilyMustelidae
GenusPekania
USESAPS
Synonyms
Martes pennanti(Erxleben, 1777)
Other Common Names
fisher (EN) Pékan (FR)
Concept Reference
Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
Taxonomic Comments
Stone and Cook (2002) placed the fisher in the subgenus Pekania and suggested that M. pennanti and Gulo gulo may form a monophyletic group, which would make Martes paraphyletic. Sato et al. (2012) used mitochondrial and nuclear DNA to examine the phylogeography of Musteloidea and also concluded that pennanti does not belong in the genus Martes; they proposed that fishers be included in the genus Pekania.
Conservation Status
Rank MethodExpertise without calculation
Review Date2016-04-04
Change Date1997-09-25
Edition Date2005-11-16
Edition AuthorsHammerson, G., based primarily on USFWS (2004)
Threat ImpactMedium
Range Extent>2,500,000 square km (greater than 1,000,000 square miles)
Number of Occurrences81 to >300
Rank Reasons
Large range in northern North America; extirpation from southern portion of range, due mainly to habitat loss, has been counteracted by recent natural and human-aided range expansions in the eastern U.S.; adequate population data are unavailable for much of the range, but the species currently is regarded as secure. See also information on the West Coast Distinct Population Segment.
Range Extent Comments
Fishers range from Quebec, the Maritime Provinces, and New England west across boreal Canada to southeastern Alaska, south in the western mountains to Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, and California, and formerly south to Illinois, Indiana, Tennessee, and North Carolina. Recently the species has expanded its range in the eastern United States, and it has been reintroduced in areas from which it was extirpated, including West Virginia, with some of the latter individuals wandering into Virginia (Handley 1991). The species is relatively abundant in the eastern provinces of Canada, with low populations in British Columbia (USFWS, Federal Register, 1 March 1996).
Occurrences Comments
In the absence of good occurrence specifications and adequate population data, an estimate of the number of occurrences is not possible. But surely there are hundreds of fairly distinct populations.
Threat Impact Comments
The fisher's range was reduced dramatically in the 1800s and early 1900s through overtrapping, predator and pest control, and alterations of forested habitats by logging, fire, and farming (Douglas and Strickland 1987, Powell 1993, Powell and Zielinski 1994, Lewis and Stinson 1998). Since the 1950s, fishers have recovered in some of the central and eastern portions of their historic range in the United States as a result of trapping closures, changes in forested habitats (e.g., forest regrowth in abandoned farmland), and reintroductions (Brander and Books 1973, Powell and Zielinski 1994). However, fishers are still absent from their former range southeast of the Great Lakes (Gibilisco 1994). [from USFWS 2004]

The extent of past timber harvest is one of the primary causes of fisher decline across the United States (Powell 1993), and it may be one of the main reasons fishers have not recovered in Washington, Oregon, and portions of California as compared to the northeastern United States (Aubry and Houston 1992, Powell and Zielinski 1994, Lewis and Stinson 1998, Truex et al. 1998). Timber harvest can fragment fisher habitat, reduce it in size, or change the forest structure to be unsuitable for fishers. Habitat loss and fragmentation appear to be significant threats to the fisher. Forested habitat in the Pacific coast region decreased by about 8.5 million ac (34,400 sq km) between 1953 and 1997 (Smith et al. 2001). Forest cover in the Pacific coast is projected to continue to decrease through 2050, with timberland area projected to be about 6 percent smaller in 2050 than in 1997 (Alig et al. 2003). Thus fisher habitat is projected to decline in Washington, Oregon, and California in the foreseeable future. [from USFWS 2004, which see for further details]

Although exact numbers are unknown, trapping caused a severe decline in fisher populations. Aubry and Lewis (2003) state that overtrapping appears to have been the primary initial cause of fisher population losses in southwestern Oregon. The high value of the skins, the ease of trapping fishers (Powell 1993), year-round accessibility in the low to mid-elevation coniferous forests, and the lack of trapping regulations resulted in heavy trapping pressure on fishers in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Aubry and Lewis 2003). [from USFWS 2004]

See also threats information for the West Coast Distinct Population Segment.
Ecology & Habitat

Habitat

Fishers inhabit upland and lowland forests, including coniferous, mixed, and deciduous forests. They occur primarily in dense coniferous or mixed forests, including early successional forest with dense overhead cover (Thomas et al. 1993). Fishers commonly use hardwood stands in summer but prefer coniferous or mixed forests in winter. They generally avoid areas with little forest cover or significant human disturbance and conversely prefer large areas of contiguous interior forest (see USFWS 2004). Powell (1993) concluded that forest type is probably not as important to fishers as the vegetative and structural aspects that lead to abundant prey populations and reduced fisher vulnerability to predation, and that they may select forests that have low and closed canopies. Several studies have shown that fishers are associated with riparian areas (see USFWS 2004), which are in some cases protected from logging and generally more productive, thus having the dense canopy closure, large trees and general structural complexity associated with fisher habitat (Dark 1997). Riparian areas may be important to fishers because they provide important rest site elements, such as broken tops, snags, and coarse woody debris (Seglund 1995).

Fishers are regarded as habitat specialists in the western United States (Buskirk and Powell 1994), occurring only at mid- to lower elevation in mature conifer and mixed conifer/hardwood forests characterized by dense canopies and abundant large trees, snags, and logs (Powell and Zielinski 1994). In contrast, fishers in the northeastern United States and the Great Lakes region inhabit areas with a large component of deciduous hardwood forest containing American beech (Fagus grandifolia), sugar maple (Acer saccharum), and other broadleaf species (Powell and Zielinski 1994). The majority of conifer forest habitat in Canada is characterized as boreal forest, which is different from the relatively dryer environmental conditions associated with Washington, Oregon, and California. In the Rocky Mountains of north-central Idaho, certain all-conifer habitat types, which include grand fir and Engelmann spruce appear to be important to, and preferentially selected by fishers (Jones 1991).

Fishers are adapted for climbing but are primarily terrestrial. When inactive, they occupy a den in a tree hollow, under a log, or in the ground or a rocky crevice, or they rest in branches of conifer (warmer months). In Connecticut, Kilpatrick and Rego (1994) found that tree with a dbh of 32 cm or more may provide cavities for rest sites in hardwood-dominated forests.

Young are born in a den in a tree hollow (usually), or under a log or in a rocky crevice. Large snags (greater than 50 cm dbh) are important as maternal den sites (Thomas et al. 1993). Of 19 tree dens documented by Truex et al. (1998) across three study areas in California, the average diameter was 115 cm for conifers and 63 cm for hardwoods. Of 16 maternal and natal dens located on managed timberlands in northwestern California, nine were in cavities in hardwoods and seven were in conifer snags: diameters of den trees ranged from 62.5 cm to 295 cm (Simpson Resource Company 2003). See USFWS (2004) for further details on dens used by fishers in California and British Columbia.

West Coast Distinct Population Segment:

The key aspects of fisher habitat are best expressed in forest stands with late-successional characteristics. Fishers use habitat with high canopy closure, large trees and snags, large woody debris, large hardwoods, multiple canopy layers, and avoidance of areas lacking overhead canopy cover (see references in USFWS 2004). Fishers also occupy and reproduce in some managed forest landscapes and forest stands not classified as late-successional that provide some of the habitat elements important to fisher, such as relatively large trees, high canopy closure, large legacy trees, and large woody debris, in second-growth forest stands (Klug 1997, Simpson Resource Company 2003). However, intensive management for fiber production on industrial timberlands does not typically provide for retention of these elements. It is unlikely that early and mid-successional forests, especially those that have resulted from timber harvest, will provide the same prey resources, rest sites and den sites as more mature forests (see USFWS 2004). Late-successional coniferous or mixed forests provide the most suitable fisher habitat because they provide abundant potential den sites and preferred prey species (Allen 1987). Forest structure of good quality fisher habitat should provide high diversity of dense prey populations, high vulnerability of prey to fishers, and natal and maternal dens and resting sites (Powell and Zielinski 1994). Younger forests in which complex forest structural components such as large logs, snags, and tree cavities are maintained in significant numbers, and which provide a diverse prey base, may be suitable for fisher (Lewis and Stinson 1998). [from USFWS (2004), which see for further details on habitat in California]

See also Zielinski et al. (2004) for information on habitat characteristics in California.

Ecology

Solitary except during the breeding season.

Home range has been estimated at 10-800 sq km by snow tracking, 7-78 sq km by telemetry using minimum convex polygon model; generally the ranges of adults of the same sex do not overlap. In Maine, home ranges of females were stable between seasons and years, but males moved extensively in late winter and early spring and their ranges shifted between years. In New Hampshire, mean annual home range was about 15-25 sq km, with daily movements usually were 1.5-3.0 km. In southern Quebec, mean home range size was 5.4 sq km for females and 9.2 sq km for males (Garant and Crete 1997). Has been recorded moving 90 km in 3 days (see Nowak 1991).

Population density in favorable habitat has been estimated at up to about 1 per 3-11 sq km in summer, 1 per 8-20 sq km in winter (Arthur et al. 1989). In southern Quebec, density was estimated at about 3 individuals per 10 sq km; the high density was atrributed to the absence of trapping (Garant and Crete 1997).

Reproduction

Reportedly breeds late February-April or March-May, peak in March (late March-April in Manitoba); females mate probably within days of giving birth. Gestation lasts l year, including an 11-month period before implantation. Litter averages about 3 throughout the range. Births occur primarily from March to mid-April (sometimes in February or May in some areas). Young are mobile by 8 weeks, weaned in 2.5-4 months; separation from the mother occurs in the fifth month, in late summer or early fall. In Maine, young are weaned from mid-May to early June, independent probably in late August or early September (Arthur and Krohn 1991). Sexually mature in 1-2 years; not all adult females breed in a given year. Apparently promiscuous breeding. Very few males live more than 4 years, and less than 10% of females live more than 4 years.
Terrestrial Habitats
Forest - HardwoodForest - ConiferForest - MixedWoodland - HardwoodWoodland - ConiferWoodland - Mixed
Palustrine Habitats
Riparian
Other Nations (2)
United StatesN5
ProvinceRankNative
North CarolinaSXYes
IndianaSXYes
MontanaS3Yes
TennesseeSUYes
VirginiaS1Yes
OregonS1Yes
Rhode IslandS1Yes
WashingtonS1Yes
New YorkS4Yes
West VirginiaS3Yes
MarylandS3Yes
MinnesotaSNRYes
CaliforniaS2Yes
VermontS5Yes
MassachusettsS4Yes
New JerseySUYes
IdahoS3Yes
MaineS5Yes
ConnecticutS2Yes
IllinoisSXYes
OhioS1Yes
North DakotaS4Yes
PennsylvaniaS5Yes
MichiganS4Yes
New HampshireS5Yes
WisconsinS4Yes
IowaSXYes
CanadaN5
ProvinceRankNative
ManitobaS5Yes
Yukon TerritoryS3Yes
SaskatchewanS4Yes
New BrunswickS5Yes
British ColumbiaS2Yes
AlbertaS3Yes
OntarioS5Yes
Nova ScotiaS3Yes
QuebecS5Yes
Northwest TerritoriesS3Yes
Threat Assessments
ThreatScopeSeverityTiming
5 - Biological resource useHigh (continuing)
5.1 - Hunting & collecting terrestrial animalsHigh (continuing)
5.3 - Logging & wood harvestingHigh (continuing)

Roadless Areas (72)
California (62)
AreaForestAcres
AgnewSequoia National Forest9,561
Big Butte ShinboneMendocino National Forest4,265
Black ButteMendocino National Forest15,461
Black Mtn.Sequoia National Forest15,102
ButtermilkInyo National Forest542
ChannellSequoia National Forest45,429
ChicoSequoia National Forest39,836
Coyote NorthInyo National Forest11,932
Coyote SoutheastInyo National Forest53,159
Dennison PeakSequoia National Forest6,293
Devil GulchSierra National Forest30,490
Dinkey LakesSierra National Forest34,171
Domeland Add.Sequoia National Forest3,046
Ferguson RidgeSierra National Forest6,104
Glass MountainInyo National Forest52,867
Greenhorn CreekSequoia National Forest28,226
GrindstoneMendocino National Forest26,031
Horse Mdw.Inyo National Forest5,687
HortonInyo National Forest5,717
Jennie LakeSequoia National Forest2,388
Kings RiverSierra National Forest52,999
Lion RidgeSequoia National Forest5,265
Log Cabin SaddlebagInyo National Forest15,165
Mill CreekSequoia National Forest27,643
Mill CreekLassen National Forest7,587
MonarchSierra National Forest697
Monkey CreekSix Rivers National Forest9,017
Mono CratersInyo National Forest7,115
MosesSequoia National Forest22,077
Mt. RaymondSierra National Forest6,965
NessieInyo National Forest830
Nevahbe RidgeInyo National Forest302
North LakeInyo National Forest2,406
North MountainStanislaus National Forest7,856
Oat Mtn.Sequoia National Forest12,223
Orleans Mtn. BSix Rivers National Forest17,183
PaiuteInyo National Forest58,712
RinconSequoia National Forest54,610
Rock Creek WestInyo National Forest3,626
San JoaquinSierra National Forest22,474
ScodiesSequoia National Forest725
SherwinInyo National Forest3,140
ShuteyeSierra National Forest7,313
Slate Mtn.Sequoia National Forest12,299
Slate Mtn.Sequoia National Forest12,299
SnoozerKlamath National Forest23,414
Snow MountainLassen National Forest2,165
South ForkShasta-Trinity National Forest16,786
South SierraInyo National Forest41,853
South SierraSequoia National Forest8,008
Sycamore SpringsSierra National Forest10,015
Table Mtn.Inyo National Forest4,215
TinemahaInyo National Forest27,060
Tioga LakeInyo National Forest829
Trumbull PeakStanislaus National Forest6,164
Wheeler RidgeInyo National Forest15,744
Whisky CreekInyo National Forest865
Wilderness ContiguousMendocino National Forest3,606
Wonoga Pk.Inyo National Forest11,272
WoodchuckSierra National Forest267
WoodpeckerSequoia National Forest11,936
WoolstaffSequoia National Forest41,445
Minnesota (1)
AreaForestAcres
Cabin CreekSuperior National Forest6,071
New Hampshire (4)
AreaForestAcres
Great Gulf Ext.White Mountain National Forest15,110
KilkennyWhite Mountain National Forest28,766
Sandwich RangeWhite Mountain National Forest16,797
Wild RiverWhite Mountain National Forest46,878
Oregon (1)
AreaForestAcres
Sky Lakes AWinema National Forest3,940
Pennsylvania (1)
AreaForestAcres
Allegheny FrontAllegheny National Forest7,430
Vermont (1)
AreaForestAcres
Bread LoafGreen Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests1,768
West Virginia (2)
AreaForestAcres
Canaan LoopMonongahela National Forest7,867
Little MountainMonongahela National Forest8,172
References (80)
  1. Alig, R. J., A. J. Plantinga, S. Ahn, and J. D. Kline. 2003. Land use changes involving forestry in the United States: 1952 to 1997, with projections to 2050 [Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-587]. Portland (OR): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 92 pp.
  2. Allen, A. W. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: fisher. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-82/10.45. 19 pp.
  3. Allen, A. W. 1987. The relationship between habitat and furbearers. Pages 164-179 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, editors. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Trappers Association.
  4. American Society of Mammalogists (ASM). 2025. Mammal Diversity Database (Version 1.13) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10595931. Online. Available: https://www.mammaldiversity.org/
  5. Arthur, S. M. 1988. An evaluation of techniques for capturing and radiocollaring fishers. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:417-421.
  6. Arthur, S. M., and W. B. Krohn. 1991. Activity patterns, movements, and reproductive ecology of fishers in southcentral Maine. J. Mamm. 72:379-385.
  7. Arthur, S. M., W. B. Krohn, and J. R. Gilbert. 1989. Home range characteristics of adult fishers. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:674-679.
  8. Aubry, K. B., and D. B. Houston. 1992. Distribution and status of the fisher (<i>Martes pennanti</i>) in Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 73:69-79.
  9. Aubry, K.B., and J. C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (<i>Martes pennanti</i>) in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 114(1):79-90.
  10. Badry, M. J. 1994. Habitat use by Fishers (<i>Martes pennanti</i>) in the aspen parkland of Alberta. M.Sc. Thesis, Department of Forest Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB. 72pp.
  11. Baker, R. H. 1983. Michigan mammals. Michigan State University Press. 642 pp.
  12. Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 438 pp.
  13. Berg, W. E. 1982. Reintroduction of fisher, pine marten, and river otter. Pages 159-173 in G. C. Sanderson, editor. Midwest furbearer management. Proc. Symp. 43rd Midwest Fishand Widlife Conference, Wichita, Kansas.
  14. Bradley, R.D., L.K. Ammerman, R.J. Baker, L.C. Bradley, J.A. Cook. R.C. Dowler, C. Jones, D.J. Schmidly, F.B. Stangl Jr., R.A. Van den Bussche and B. Würsig. 2014. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 2014. Museum of Texas Tech University Occasional Papers 327:1-28. Available at: http://www.nsrl.ttu.edu/publications/opapers/ops/OP327.pdf
  15. Brander, R. B., and D. J. Books. 1973. Return of the fisher. Natural History 82(1):52-7.
  16. Buck, S., C. Mullis, and A. Mossman. 1979. A radiotelemetry study of fishers in northwestern California. Cal-Neva Widlife 1979:166-172.
  17. Buck, S. G., C. Mullis, A. S. Mossman, I. Show, and C. Coolahan. 1994. Habitat use by fishers in adjoining heavily and lightly harvested forest. Pages 368-376 in S. W. Buskirk, A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell, editors. Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithca, New York.
  18. Buskirk, S. W. 1992. Conserving circumboreal forests for martens and fishers. Conservation Biology 6:318-320.
  19. Buskirk, S.W., and R. A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 283-296 in S. W. Buskirk, A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell, editors. Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
  20. Buskirk, S. W., et al., editors. 1994. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell. 496 pp.
  21. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFG). 2015. Report to the Fish and Game Commission: A Status Review of the Fisher (<i>Pekania</i> [formerly <i>Martes</i>] <i>pennanti</i>) in California. Charlton H. Bonham, Director. Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1186 pp.
  22. Chapman, J. A., and G. A. Feldhamer, editors. 1982. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
  23. Dark, S. J. 1997. A landscape-scale analysis of mammalian carnivore distribution and habitat use by fisher. M.S. thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.
  24. de Vos, A. 1952. Ecology and management of fisher and marten in Ontario. Tech. Bull. Ontario Dept. Lands For., Wildl. Ser. 1. 90 pp.
  25. Douglas, C.W., and M. A. Strickland. 1987. Fisher. Pages 511-529 in M. Novak, J. A. Baker, M. E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, editors. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Trappers Association.
  26. Drew, R.E., J. G. Hallett, K. B. Aubry, K. W. Cullings, S. M. Koepf, and W. J. Zielinski. 2003. Conservation genetics of the fisher (<i>Martes pennanti</i>) based on mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Molecular Ecology 12:51-62.
  27. Garant, Y., and M. Crete. 1997. Fisher, <i>Martes pennanti</i>, home range characteristics in a high density untrapped population in southern Quebec. Canadian Field-Naturalist 111:359-364.
  28. Gibilisco, C.J. 1994. Distributional dynamics of modern martes in North America. Pages 59-71 in S. W. Buskirk, A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell , editors. Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Ithaca (New York): Cornell University Press.
  29. Godin, A. J. 1977. Wild mammals of New England. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 304 pp.
  30. Grinnell, J., J. S. Dixon, and J. M. Linsdale. 1937. Furbearing mammals of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 2 vols.
  31. Hall, E. R. 1981a. The Mammals of North America, second edition. Vols. I &amp; II. John Wiley &amp; Sons, New York, New York. 1181 pp.
  32. Hamilton, W. J., Jr., and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1979. Mammals of the eastern United States. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, New York. 346 pp.
  33. Handley, C. O., Jr. 1991. Mammals. Pages 539-616 in K. Terwilliger, coordinator. Virginia's endangered species: proceedings of a symposium. McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.
  34. Johnson, S. A. 1984. Home ranges, movements, and habitat use of Fishers in Wisconsisn. M.S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point, WI. 78pp.
  35. Jones, J. K., Jr., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. J. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992a. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1991. Occasional Papers, The Museum, Texas Tech University, 146:1-23.
  36. Jones, J. L. 1991. Habitat use of fisher in northcentral Idaho. M.S. thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. 147 pp.
  37. Kelly, G. M. 1977. Fisher (<i>Martes pennanti</i>) biology in the White Mountain National Forest and adjacent areas. Ph.D. Diss., University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 178pp.
  38. Kilpatrick, H. J., and P. W. Rego. 1994. Influence of season, sex, and site availability on fisher (<i>Martes pennanti</i>) rest-site selection in the central hardwood forest. Can. J. Zool. 72:1416-1419.
  39. Klug, R. R. 1997. Occurrence of Pacific fisher (<i>Martes pennanti</i>) in the redwood zone of northern California and the habitat attributes associated with their detections. M. S. thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.
  40. Koepfli, K. -P., K. A. Deere, G. J. Slater, C. Begg, K. Begg, L. Grassman, M. Lucherini, G. Veron, and R. K. Wayne. 2008. Multigene phylogeny of the Mustelidae: Resolving relationships, tempo, and biogeographic history of a mammalian adaptive radiation. BMC Biology 6(1):10.
  41. Lamberson, R. H., R. L. Truex, W. J. Zielinski, and D. Macfarlane. 2000. Preliminary analysis of fisher population viability in the southern Sierra Nevada. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.
  42. Leonard, R. D. 1986. Aspects of reproduction of the fisher, <i>Martes pennanti</i>, in Manitoba. Can. Field-Nat. 100: 32-44.
  43. Lewis, J.C.,and D. W. Stinson. 1998. Washington State status report for the fisher. Olympia (Washington): Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
  44. Linzey, D.W. 2016. Mammals of Great Smoky Mountains National Park: 2016 revision. Southeastern Naturalist 15(Monograph 8):1–93.
  45. Lofroth. E. C., C. R. Raley, J. M. Higley, R. L. Truex, J. S. Yaeger , J. C. Lewis, P. J. Happe, L. L. Finley, R. H. Naney, L. J. Hale, A. L. Krause, S. A. Livingston, A. M. Myers, and R. N. Brown. 2010. Conservation assessment for fishers (<i>Martes pennanti</i>) in south-central British Columbia, western Washington, western Oregon, and California. Volume I. Denver: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management. https://www.fws.gov/yreka/Conservation%20of%20Fishers%20Vol%20I.pdf
  46. Novak, M., et al., editors. 1987. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 1150 pp.
  47. Nowak, R. M. 1991. Walker's mammals of the world. Fifth edition. Vols. I and II. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore. 1629 pp.
  48. Powell, R.A. 1981. <i>Martes pennanti</i>. Mammalian species. American Soc. of Mammalogists No.156:1-6.
  49. Powell, R. A. 1982. The fisher: life history, ecology, and behavior. University of Minnesota Press. 217 pp.
  50. Powell, R.A. 1993. The Fisher: Life History, Ecology, and Behavior. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. 237 pp.
  51. Powell, R. A. 1994. Effects of scale on habitat selection and foraging behavior of fishers in winter. Journal of Mammalogy 75:349-356.
  52. Powell, R.A., and W. J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Pages 38-73 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, and W. J. Zielinski, technical editors. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine. Fort Collins (Colorado): USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Station. GTR-RM-254.
  53. Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, editors. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores in the western United States: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-254.
  54. Sato, J. J., M. Wolsan, F. J. Prevosti, G. D'Elia, C. Begg, K. Begg, T. Hosoda, K. L. Campbell, and H. Suzuki. 2012. Evolutionary and biogeographic history of weasel-like carnivorans (Musteloidea). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 63:745-757.
  55. Schempf, P.F., and M. White. 1977. Status of six furbearer populations in the mountains of northern California. Berkeley (California): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 51 pp.
  56. Seglund, A. E. 1995. The use of rest sites by the Pacific fisher. M.S. thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 66 pp.
  57. Smith, W. B., J. S. Vissage, D. R. Darr, and R. M. Sheffield. 2001. Forest resources of the United States, 1997 [Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-219]. St. Paul (MN): USDA Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 190 pp.
  58. Spahr, R., L. Armstrong, D. Atwood, and M. Rath. 1991. Threatened, endangered, and sensitive species of the Intermountain Region. U.S. Forest Service, Ogden, Utah.
  59. Spencer, W.D., S.C. Sawyer, H.L. Romsos, W.J. Zielinski, R.A. Sweitzer, C.M. Thompson, K.L. Purcell, D.L. Clifford, L. Cline, H.D. Safford, S.A. Britting, and J.M. Tucker. 2015. Southern Sierra Nevada fisher conservation assessment. Unpublished report produced by Conservation Biology Institute. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3832012.pdf
  60. Stone, K. D., and J. A. Cook. 2002. Molecular evolution of Holarctic martens (genus <i>Martes</i>, Mammalia:Carnivora: Mustelidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 24:169-179.
  61. Strickland, M. A., et al. 1982. Fisher <i>Martes pennanti</i>. Pages 586-598 in J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, editors. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
  62. Thomas, J. W., Ward, J., Raphael, M.G., Anthony, R.G., Forsman, E.D., Gunderson, A.G., Holthausen, R.S., Marcot, B.G., Reeves, G.H., Sedell, J.R. and Solis, D.M. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. The report of the Scientific Analysis Team. USDA Forest Service, Spotted Owl EIS Team, Portland Oregon. 530 pp.
  63. Thomasma, L. E., T. D. Drummer, and R. O. Peterson. 1991. Testing the habitat suitability index model for the fisher. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:291-297.
  64. Truex, R.L., W. J. Zielinski, R. T. Golightly, R. L. Barrett, and S. M. Wisely. 1998. A meta-analysis of regional variation in fisher morphology, demography, and habitat ecology in California. Draft report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Lab, Arcata, California.
  65. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 73(238): 75176-75244.
  66. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Review of Native Species That Are Candidates for Listing as Endangered or Threatened; Annual Notice of Findings on Resubmitted Petitions; Annual Description of Progress on Listing Actions; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 74(215):57804-57878.
  67. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 90-day finding on a petition to list a distinct population segment of the fisher as endangered or threatened. Federal Register 75(73):19925-19935.
  68. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings on 17 Petitions. Federal Register 81(7):1368-1375.
  69. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2020. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Endangered Species Status for Southern Sierra Nevada Distinct Population Segment of Fisher, final rule. Federal Register 85(95):29532-29589.
  70. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 8 April 2004. 12-month finding for a petition to list the west coast distinct population segment of the fisher (<i>Martes pennanti</i>); proposed rule. Federal Register 69(68):18769-18792.
  71. U.S. Forest Service (USFS), et al. 1993. Draft supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Published separately is Appendix A: Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment (FEMAT Report).
  72. Weir, R. D., and F. B. Courbold. 2000. Fishers in British Columbia: options for conservation of a blue-listed species. Pp. 691 IN L. M. Darling (editor). Proceedings of a conference on the biology and management of species and habitats at risk, Kamloops, B.C., 15 - 19 February, 1999. Volume Two. British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Victoria, B.C., and University College of the Cariboo, Kamloops, B.C. 520pp.
  73. Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 1993. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Second edition. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. xviii + 1206 pp. Available online at: http://www.nmnh.si.edu/msw/.
  74. Wilson, D. E., and D. M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference. Third edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. Two volumes. 2,142 pp. [As modified by ASM the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) at https://www.mammaldiversity.org/index.html]
  75. Wisely, S. M., S. W. Buskirk, G. A. Russell, K. B. Aubry, and W. J. Zielinski. 2004. Genetic diversity and structure of the fisher (<i>Martes pennanti</i>) in a peninsular and peripheral metapopulation. Journal of Mammalogy 85:640-648.
  76. York, E. 1996. Fisher population dynamics in north-central Massachusetts. M. S. thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 12 pp.
  77. Zielinski, W. J., and H. B. Stauffer. 1996. Monitoring <i>Martes </i>populations in California: survey design and power analysis. Ecological Applications 6(4):1254-1267.
  78. Zielinski, W.J., J.A. Baldwin, R.L. Truex, J.M. Tucker, and P.A. Flebbe. 2013. Estimating trend in occupancy for the southern Sierra fisher <i>Martes pennanti</i> population. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 4(1):3–19; e1944-687X. doi: 10.3996/012012-JFWM-002
  79. Zielinski, W. J., R. L. Truex, and G. A. Schmidt, F. V. Schlexer, K. N. Schmidt, and R. H. Barrett. 2004. Home range characteristics of fishers in California. 2004. Journal of Mammalogy 85:649-657.
  80. Zielinski, W.J., T. E. Kucera, and R. H. Barret. 1995. Current distribution of the fisher, <i>Martes pennanti</i>, in California. California Fish and Game 81(3):104-12.