The relationships between CPUE and abundance were negative during 2003–2014 and the 95% CI for ? were Weeks hunted and you will involved Hunters showed a decreasing trend in the number of days hunted over time (r = -0.63, P = 0.0020, Fig 1), but an increasing trend in the number of bobcats chased per day (r = 0.77, P Trappers exhibited substantial annual variation in the number of days trapped over time, but without a clear trend (r = -0.15, P = 0.52). Trappers who harvested a bobcat used more trap sets than trappers who did not ( SE, SE; ? = 0.17, P Bobcats released The imply amount of bobcats create annually of the seekers is actually 0.forty five (diversity = 0.22–0.72) (Dining table step one) and you will shown no clear trend throughout the years (roentgen = -0.10, P = 0.76). As opposed to all of our theory, there can be zero difference in just how many bobcats create anywhere between profitable and you will unproductive seekers (successful: SE; unsuccessful: SE) (? = 0.20, P = 0.14). The newest annual number of bobcats put-out of the candidates was not coordinated with bobcat wealth (roentgen = -0.fourteen, P = 0.65). The mean number of bobcats released annually by trappers was 0.21 (range = 0.10–0.52) (Table 1) but was not correlated with year (r = 0.49, P = 0.11). Trappers who harvested a bobcat released more bobcats ( SE) than trappers who did not harvest a bobcat ( SE) (? = 2.04, P Per-unit-efforts metrics and you will wealth The mean CPUE was 0.19 bobcats/day for hunters (range = 0.05–0.42) and 2.10 bobcats/100 trap-days for trappers (range = 0.50–8.07) (Table 1). The mean ACPUE was 0.32 bobcats/day for hunters (range = 0.16–0.54) and 3.64 bobcats/100 trap-days for trappers (range = 1.49–8.61) (Table 1). The coefficient of variation for CPUE and ACPUE was greater for trappers than for hunters (trapper CPUE = 96%, hunter CPUE = 65%, trapper ACPUE = 68%, hunter ACPUE = 36%). All four metrics increased over time (Fig 2) although the strength of the relationship with year varied (hunter CPUE:, r = 0.92, P Hunter and you will trapper CPUE round the the decades was not coordinated that have bobcat abundance (r = 0.38, P = 0.09 and roentgen = 0.thirty two, P = 0.sixteen, respectively). However, from inside the two-time symptoms i checked out (1993–2002 and you can 2003–2014), new correlations between hunter and you can trapper CPUE and you can bobcat wealth was basically all of the correlated (|r| ? 0.63, P ? 0.05) with the exception of huntsman CPUE during the 1993–2002 which had a marginal matchmaking (roentgen = 0.54, P = 0.11, Desk dos). The brand new matchmaking between CPUE and you may variety was indeed positive through the 1993–2002 whilst the 95% CI having ? were large and you will overlapped step one.0 for both hunter and trapper CPUE (Fig step 3). 0 showing CPUE rejected more rapidly during the all the way down abundances (Fig step 3). Hunter CPUE had the strongest relationship with bobcat abundance (R 2 = 0.73, Dining table dos). Solid contours is projected suits away from linear regression patterns while dashed lines is estimated fits away from reduced significant axis regression of journal out-of CPUE/ACPUE up against the log from abundance. This new based and you will independent details had been rescaled by isolating by the maximum really worth.