Error in trapper-reported sex of lynx (Lynx canadensis) and wolverine (Gulo gulo): implications for analyses of harvest records


Monitoring trends in the abundance of furbearers may be challenging, particularly at the spatio-temporal scales relevant for management. As such, wildlife managers often rely on harvest records to identify broad-scale harvest patterns and trends. Yet, the reliability of harvest records is often unknown. Analyses of harvest records to determine quotas and assess sustainability need to account for error rates when they are > 0. We evaluated the accuracy of trapper-reported sex of lynx (Lynx canadensis; n = 185) and wolverine (Gulo gulo; n = 467)—two meso-carnivores commonly targeted by fur trappers in northwestern Canada and Alaska—by comparing that to sex determined via necropsies of the same carcasses. Overall error rates differed significantly between wolverine (5%) and lynx (13%). Error rates were sex-biased for wolverine, but not lynx. Body size did not affect error rates for either species. Our data demonstrated species- and sex-specific error rates in the sex reported in harvest records. Error rates for wolverine (5%) were likely trivial for determining harvest sustainability because sex-based bias was small, given that overall accuracy was high. While error rates were greater for lynx (13%), there was no sex-based bias in trapper-reported sex. Because accuracy was lower for lynx, managers should exercise caution when using trapper-reported sex to conduct population analyses or assess harvest sustainability. Managers should be particularly interested in error rates of harvested species that exhibit relatively little sexual size dimorphism and lack obvious genitalia, similar to lynx. We recommend assessing error in trapper-reported sex prior to analysis of harvest records, as well as ongoing education with trappers to increase their ability to reliably determine the sex of animals they harvest.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1


  1. Ahlers AA, Heske EJ (2017) Empirical evidence for declines in muskrat populations across the United States. J Wildl Manage 81:1408–1416

  2. Ausband DE (2016) Gray wolf harvest in Idaho. Wildl Soc Bull 40:500–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Belant JL, Etter DR, Friedrich PD, Cosgrove MK, Williams BW, Scribner KT (2011) Comparison of techniques for sex determination of American martens. J Wildl Manage 75:256–260

  4. Chilelli ME, Griffith B, Harrison DJ (1996) Interstate comparisons of river otter harvest data. Wildl Soc Bull 24:238–246

    Google Scholar 

  5. Crawford JC, Liu Z, Nelson TA, Nielsen CK, Bloomquist CK (2008) A comparison of field and molecular techniques for sexing beavers. J Wildl Manage 72:1805–1807

  6. Fryxell J, Falls JB, Falls EA, Brooks RJ, Dix L, Strickland M (2001) Harvest dynamics of mustelid carnivores in Ontario, Canada. Wildl Biol 7:151–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldberg CS, Woodruff K, Toldness R, Waits LP (2011) Robust molecular sex identification of beaver (Castor canadensis) from non-destructive samples. Conserv Genet Resour 3:729–731

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Golden HN, Christ AM, Solomon EK (2007) Spatiotemporal analysis of wolverine Gulo gulo harvest in Alaska. Wildl Biol 13:68–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gooliaff, TJ, Hodges KE (2018) Measuring agreement among experts in classifying camera images of similar species. Ecol Evol 8:11009–11021

  10. Hess MC, Inoue K, Tsakiris ET, Hart M, Morton J, Dudding J, Robertson CR, Randklev CR (2018) Misidentification of sex for Lampsilis teres, yellow sandshell, and its implications for mussel conservation and wildlife management. PLoS One 13:e0197107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hiller TL, Reding DM, Clark WR, Green RL (2014) Misidentification of sex among harvested bobcats. Wildl Soc Bull 38:752–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hodgman TP, Harrison DJ, Katnik DD, Elowe KD (1994) Survival in an intensively trapped marten population in Maine. J Wildl Manage 58:593–600

  13. Jung TS (2019) Colour-blind: hunters do not select colourmorphs of black bears (Ursus americanus). Eur J Wildl Res 65:35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jung TS, Rivest G, Blakeburn DA, Hamm ER, van Eyk A, Kukka PM, Robitaille J-F (2016) Dental anomalies suggest an evolutionary trend in the dentition of wolverine (Gulo gulo). Mammal Res 61:361–366

  15. Kukka PM, Jung TS, Robitaille J-F, Schmiegelow FKA (2017) Temporal variation in the population characteristics of harvested wolverine (Gulo gulo) in northwestern Canada. Wildl Res 44:497–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Krebs J, Lofroth EC, Copeland J, Banci V, Cooley D, Golden H, Magoun A, Mulders R, Shults B (2004) Synthesis of survival rates and causes of mortality in north American wolverines. J Wildl Manage 68:493–502

  17. Linnell JDC, Broseth H, Odden J, Nilsen EB (2010) Sustainably harvesting a large carnivore? Development of Eurasian lynx populations in Norway during 160 years of shifting policy. Environ Manage 45:1142–1154

  18. Lofroth EC, Ott PK (2007) Assessment of the sustainability of wolverine harvest in British Columbia, Canada. J Wildl Manage 71:2193–2200

  19. Long RA, MacKay P, Zielinski WJ, Ray J (2008) Noninvasive survey methods for carnivores. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA

    Google Scholar 

  20. McLellan BN, Mowat G, Hamilton T, Hatter I (2016) Sustainability of the grizzly bear hunt in British Columbia, Canada. J Wildl Manage 81:218–229

  21. Oakley MP, Jung TS, Kukka PM, Robitaille J-F (2016) Prevalence of renal calculi in wolverine (Gulo gulo) from northwestern Canada. Mamm Biol 81:189–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pasitschniak-Arts M, Larivière S (1995) Gulo gulo. Mamm Species 499:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  23. Pilgrim KL, McKelvey KS, Riddle AE, Schwartz MK (2005) Felid sex identification based on non-invasive genetic samples. Mol Ecol Notes 5:60–61

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Robitaille J-F, Villano L, Jung TS, Oakley MP, Slama HP (2012) Fat dynamics and development of body condition indices for harvested populations of wolverine Gulo gulo. Wildl Biol 18:35–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tumlison R (1987) Felis lynx. Mamm Species 269:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. White HB, Decker T, O’Brien MJ, Organ JF, Roberts NM (2015) Trapping and furbearer management in North American wildlife conservation. Int J Environ Stud 72:756–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Williams BW, Etter DR, Dewitt PD, Scribner KT, Friedrich PD (2011) Uncertainty in determination of sex from harvested bobcats. J Wildl Manage 75:1508–1512

Download references


Foremost, we are indebted to the many Yukon trappers that provided lynx or wolverine carcasses for this study. Without their interest in the conservation and wise use of animals on their traplines, this study would not have been possible. We also thank the many people that ably assisted in the collection and necropsy of carcasses. We appreciate the comments by two anonymous reviewers that helped improve our work.


Funding was provided by the Government of Yukon and the National Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas S. Jung.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jung, T.S., Kukka, P.M., Peers, M.J.L. et al. Error in trapper-reported sex of lynx (Lynx canadensis) and wolverine (Gulo gulo): implications for analyses of harvest records. Eur J Wildl Res 66, 52 (2020).

Download citation


  • Fur trapping
  • Hunting quotas
  • Sex determination
  • Sustainable hunting
  • Wildlife harvest reporting