Arkansas Black Bass Management Plan |
ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION
|
|
|
1) Establish harvest regulation guidelines for managing largemouth bass.
2) Establish a stocking protocol to obtain maximum benefit from supplemental
bass
stockings.
3) Maintain “Trophy Bass Lake” program to increase the opportunity to catch
large bass.
4) Examine the benefits and problems of competitive bass fishing and
establish a
working policy for integrating competitive angling with bass management.
5) Identify the program, staffing, and research needed to implement the
objectives of the
Largemouth Bass Management Plan.
LARGEMOUTH BASS MANAGEMENT PLAN
February 28, 2002
Prepared by:
Brett Hobbs,
Chris Horton,
Les Claybrook,
Bill Shinn and
Doug Swann,
Approved by:
Mike Gibson, Chief of Fisheries
Table of Contents
List of Tables & Figures
Summary
Introduction
Criteria for Harvest Restrictions
Supplemental Stocking Protocol
Trophy Lake Management
Tournament Fishing
Research Needs
Resource/Program Needs
Literature Cited
Glossary
List of Tables & Figures
Table 1- Lake Classification – Parameter Ranking System 10
Table 2- Frequency Distribution of Angler Harvest from Arkansas Lakes 13
Table 3- Management Objectives for Largemouth Bass 29
Table 4- Lake Rankings Based on ILMBP 30
Figure 1- Wing Graph for Class "A" Lakes 31
Figure 2- Wing Graph for Class “B” Lakes 32
Figure 3- Wing Graph for “Trophy Lakes” 33
Summary:
Largemouth bass are the most popular sportfish in Arkansas. The purpose of
this plan is to broaden and define the management strategy the Arkansas Game
and Fish Commission uses to satisfy the diversity of bass angler wants.
Enhancing bass fishing opportunities is the goal.
We establish a set of
guideline criteria for identifying candidate lakes for size harvest
restrictions based on rates of recruitment, growth, and mortality.
"Individual" lake or river management will be maintained to accommodate the
diversity of our state’s fishery resources. We maintain public participation
in the annual regulation decision making process as a critical component.
A 15-inch minimum length limit and 13-16 inch slot limit will be the
standard size harvest restrictions where warranted. Exceptions to standard
harvest restrictions will be made in certain situations when justifiable.
Statewide daily limit will remain at 7 bass per day (largemouth, spotted,
and smallmouth combined). Specific daily limit reductions will be
implemented where significant harvest reductions are needed.
Anglers are encouraged to review the annual fishing regulations pamphlets
before any fishing outings, especially to new waters.
A "trophy slot limit" will be utilized on select lakes for enhancing
opportunities to catch larger than 5 pound bass. We offer a program to
identify potential “trophy bass” lakes.
A unique management strategy is utilized on these designated waters. Trophy
slot lakes will have a 16-21 inch protective slot with a daily limit of four
largemouths, only one of which may exceed 21inches.
Exceptions are allowed when justifiable. Fertilization, Florida bass
fingerling stocking,
and maintaining a viable forage population are additional management
strategies on these select
lakes.
A stocking protocol was established to identify lakes that will benefit the
most from supplemental
largemouth bass stockings. Prioritization of candidate lakes will be based
on size, natural
reproduction, forage availability, and stocking history.
Recommended
stocking rates are
included. We describe a Florida bass stocking policy based on what is known
regarding the
suitability of state waters for the southern subspecies.
Florida bass are
primarily suitable for
southern and eastern Arkansas lakes.
Lakes managed under the “Trophy Bass
Lake” program
will receive priority for Florida bass stocking. Currently these "trophy
slot" lakes are the main
recipients of Florida largemouth fingerling production from the Commission's
hatchery system.
Competitive fishing events have increased dramatically. Competitive angling
has benefited the
state through increased revenue, biological data collection, donations, and
promotion of
Introduction
Largemouth bass are the most popular sportfish in Arkansas. Over 36% of
resident anglers and
58% of non-resident anglers fish primarily for bass (AMRA 1988). Bass
anglers fish more often
than other anglers and spend more per trip than all other anglers except
non-resident trout
anglers. Black bass fishing is the most popular type of fishing in the
United States (U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service, Black Bass Fishing in the United States, 1999 (an addendum
to the 1996
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation). In
1996, 44 percent
(12.7 million) of all freshwater anglers in the United States fished for
black bass. The report
defined a black bass angler as anyone 16 years of age or older who fished
for black bass at least
once during the year. Bass fishing is popular with all age groups and
specifically with males
(81%). Most bass anglers (63%) are from small cities, towns and rural areas.
The survey also
indicated bass anglers are not increasing in numbers but they are becoming
more avid. Average
annual days fishing in 1996 for black bass anglers was 15.0 days (1991
national survey data
indicated 12.3 days). A progressive and diverse management strategy is
needed to satisfy the
needs of Arkansas bass anglers.
The purpose of the Arkansas Largemouth Bass Management Plan is to broaden
our ongoing
management efforts by including bass harvest management as a strategy for
improving
recreational bass fishing. Management will focus on a "lake-by-lake" basis
with harvest
restrictions only being considered where applicable. Guidelines are
established for implementing
harvest restrictions and for supplemental stockings. A trophy bass
management program is
presented. The position of the Commission regarding competitive bass fishing
is described.
Finally, the research, human resources, and programs needed to reach the
goals of this plan are
described.
Past largemouth bass management efforts in Arkansas have been directed at
increasing the
abundance and growth of bass by manipulating the lake’s environment and fish
community.
Fourt (1977) guided largemouth bass management for Arkansas using water
level manipulation,
fertilization, stocking of bass and forage, and selective fish kills.
Harvest was assumed small
compared to natural mortality and was encouraged through liberal creel
limits to stimulate
recruitment (Keith 1981).
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission's Fisheries Division developed its
first comprehensive
largemouth bass management plan, the Arkansas Largemouth Bass Management
Plan (LBMP)
in 1990. The Commission adopted the finalized plan January, 1991. The LBMP
serves as a
guideline for establishment of harvest restrictions based on bass population
data.
District
fisheries biologists have been responsible for collecting bass population
estimates (size structure,
recruitment, spawning success, growth, and mortality). These data are then
compared to the
guidelines established in the LBMP. Bass populations potentially benefiting
from a harvest
restriction could then be identified. Since the adoption of the LBMP in 1991
there have not been
modifications to the plan. This species plan accepts many of the tenets
established in the initial
plan while offering some graphic ways of interpreting field data when
considering harvest
restrictions.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission continues to recognize tournament
fishing as a
legitimate use of the resource. State agencies across the U.S. have
identified both positive and
negative aspects of bass tournaments (Schramm, et al., 1991). Some positive
and negative
impacts of Arkansas bass tournaments are listed in the Tournament Fishing
section. According
to Wilde, et al. (1998), fewer than 20 percent of black bass anglers in
Texas participated in black
bass fishing tournaments.
Among nontournament anglers who had fished while a
tournamentwas in progress, 51% believed tournaments negatively affected their fishing
quality and 44% did
not believe most fish released at tournaments survived.
Fisheries managers
should realize nontournament
anglers may become alienated and oppose management actions if they believe
tournament anglers are favored in allocation decisions or management
strategies.
Tournament
activity will not be exempt from harvest restrictions in Arkansas. All user
groups will abide by
harvest restrictions equally. Any deviations could result in bad feelings
between user groups.
Currently the catch and release (C&R) phenomenon for largemouth bass is very
popular with
Arkansas anglers. Recent creel surveys on lakes with harvest restrictions on
largemouth bass in
place have indicated very high C&R rates for black basses (Lake Ouachita 84%
and Beaver Lake
95%). In contrast a 1990-93 creel survey of Lake Hamilton, during which time
there was no
harvest restriction in place, indicated a C&R of 41% for largemouth bass.
Anglers possess
differing opinions regarding the harvest of largemouth bass. The clientele
of a particular
waterbody should be considered when biologists are contemplating imposing
harvest restrictions.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission acknowledges the right of anglers to
harvest and
retain bass of legal size within the daily limit while conservation is also
encouraged.
Arkansas, as well as other states throughout the southeastern United States,
utilize electrofishing
as the standard technique to collect data from a large number of bass within
a short period of
time. While there are minor differences in the boat configuration and
electrofishing components
between districts, the boats are assumed comparable in effectiveness.
Fisheries Division's
Standardized Sampling Procedures dictate the effort needed to collect a
representative sample of
bass per given water body.
Catch per hour; condition factor, proportional
stock density, and
relative stock density are compared to data from previous years to determine
trends. Some lakes
emerge from the evaluation process as a candidate for a harvest restriction.
Minimum length
limits, slot limits, and creel reductions will be used as tools to maximize
the potential of bass
fisheries (when angler exploitation is high). The 1991 plan utilized
recruitment, mortality, and
growth data to determine if a harvest restriction was needed. These criteria
were placed into
target ranges for specific reservoirs grouped by subjective productivity
ratings. This revised 2000
species plan suggests categories for all Arkansas lakes and reservoirs based
on fisheries
potential. Lakes will be assigned an index number indicating the largemouth
bass potential of
each. A graphic system of assessing bass population characteristics was
proposed by Dean and
Wright (1992) in Oklahoma. Their graphic method allows a rapid means of
identifying trends in a
bass fishery while determining if a harvest restriction could benefit a
particular fishery. The
system utilizes electrofishing catch per unit effort of largemouths greater
than 15-inches and total
catch per hour of largemouth bass to plot the population. High recruitment
and abundance of
small largemouths having condition factors below 85% are candidates for slot
limits. Low
abundance of small largemouths with condition factors above 90% suggest
application of
a minimum length limit. The X-axis represents the catch per unit effort (CPUE)
of all
largemouths. The Y-axis represents the CPUE for largemouths greater than
15-inches. We have
developed wing graphs for Arkansas lakes and they are illustrated in Figures
1 and 2. In
addition, we have modified the requirements of the X-axis to include CPUE of
largemouth bass
greater than or equal to 8 inches.
We hope that this plan will foster angler participation in the management of
largemouth bass.
This document contains technical terminology, which may be unfamiliar to
many anglers. A
glossary is provided to aid the understanding of the management concepts
presented.
Criteria for Harvest Restrictions
The purpose of this section is to help fisheries managers identify bass
populations that may be
improved through a bass harvest restriction. There is no “cookbook”
prescribing the proper
application of harvest restrictions, so the criteria identified will serve
as guidelines. Management
objectives are listed in Table 3.
Bass abundance and size-structure are determined by three rate functions:
recruitment, growth,
and mortality. These rates differ from lake to lake and year to year within
lakes, but tend to be
similar among lakes in the same ecoregion. The dynamic nature of
recruitment, growth, cover,
and mortality is due to the dominating effects of watershed size, ecoregion
type, lake depth,
water quality, and productivity (trophic state). Arkansas bass populations
must be managed on a
lake by lake basis to be effective.
Recruitment
Recruitment is the number of bass surviving their first year of life. It is
an important factor in
determining the success of harvest restrictions since these fish form the
stock base from which
the harvestable-size bass will grow. The number of Age 1 (bass from the
previous spring spawn)
largemouth bass in spring electrofishing and/or summer cove-rotenone samples
will be used as
an estimate of recruitment.
Growth
Growth is the change in fish size over time. Of the three rate parameters
necessary for
characterizing a bass population, growth is the least variable and easiest
to measure. Average
length of a bass year-class is a useful assessment of growth. Age can be
determined from the
annuli formations on hard structures (scales and otoliths) from individual
bass and then averaged
for year-class analysis. Scales are the preferred, but less accurate,
structure since their
collection does not require killing the fish. Otoliths are proving to be the
most accurate method
for age analysis. Mean length of bass year-classes at Age 3 will be used to
monitor suitable
growth.
Mortality
Mortality can be separated into two distinct types: fishing mortality
(harvested by an angler,
hooking mortality – both initial and delayed) and natural mortality
(predation, disease, starvation,
or old age). Total annual mortality is the sum of both occurring over the
period of a year, and is
usually derived from year-class catch curves (Ricker 1975). Fishing
mortality is estimated
through "mark and recapture" model studies using reward tags as an incentive
for anglers to
report tagged catches. Natural mortality is determined by subtracting
fishing mortality from total
mortality.
This rank system is based on the primary requirements for a fishery: food (TSI),
high water
potential and nutrient retention (WA), cover (Vegetation), and the ecoregion
(combination of other
requirements) of the state. An example of how to use this system in order to
get a rank value for
a lake is given below:
Beaver Lake:
3 (TSI=23) + 2 (WA=26.9) + 0 (Vegetation=0) + 1 (Ecoregion=Ozarks)= Rank
Val. 6
For simplicity we will label all lakes according to the following titles:
T Trophy Slot Limit Lakes
A Lakes with a high ILMBP
B Lakes with a moderate ILMBP
Actual ILMBP values have been calculated for several Arkansas lakes and are
listed in Table 3.
As some lakes will fall marginally within defined cutoff points, district
fisheries biologists will
determine which ranking should be designated per respective waterbody.
Wing graphs (a form of scatter plot) have been developed for each of three
divisions (Horton
2000). Each wing graph will define the target range for RSD, per given lake
type (T, A, or B). All
wing graphs utilize catch rates of >15 inch largemouth bass on the Y-axis.
The X-axis for all
graphs is represented by the catch rate of largemouths > 8 inch. Wing graphs
for lake types A &
B are listed in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. The "Trophy Lakes" wing is
listed in Figure 3.
The purpose of size limits is to help rebuild depleted stocks of bass by
reducing total annual
mortality on fish of a certain size (Anderson 1974). Novinger (1984) listed
the qualitative criteria
for minimum length and slot limits as lakes exhibiting the following
symptoms:
Minimum Length Limits Slot Limits
1) High fishing mortality 1) High fishing mortality
2) Low recruitment 2) High recruitment
3) Fast growth 3) Moderate to slow growth
4) Low natural mortality 4) High natural mortality on Age 0-2 bass
Standard Harvest Restrictions.
Standardization of harvest restrictions should serve to alleviate confusion
within the angling
public. A 15-inch minimum length limit or 13-16 inch slot limit will be the
standard harvest
restrictions where warranted. A "trophy slot limit" of 16-21 inches will be
enacted on a few select
lakes (see Trophy Lakes section of this document). The purpose of a minimum
length limit is to
maintain a consistent breeding population of fish where natural reproduction
does not keep up
with fishing pressure. A protective slot limit prohibits anglers from
keeping largemouth bass
within a designated size range in order to increase the abundance of
largemouths over 15
inches. The "Trophy Slot" is to promote the opportunity to catch largemouth
bass over 5 pounds
(a 5-pound largemouth in Arkansas is roughly 21 inches in length).
Modeling
Fish population modeling has recently become an effective tool when trying
to determine
appropriate harvest restrictions on specific water bodies. In order to model
effectively, the percent
of the total annual mortality which is represented by natural and fishing
mortality must be
determined. Once fishing mortality is determined (generally by tag-reward
studies) the natural
mortality can be estimated by subtracting the fishing mortality from the
total annual mortality. In
order for minimum length limits to be effective, the natural mortality must
be low. In order for slot
limits to be effective, the inverse needs to be true. After obtaining
estimates of fishing and natural
mortality, a population can be effectively modeled. Fish population models
allow the manager to
predict yield, harvest, and the resulting population structure at various
harvest restrictions.
Modeling a population of largemouth bass would be effective when trying to
determine why a
certain harvest restriction proved ineffective, or when a trend in a
largemouth bass population
displays characteristics bordering a need for both a slot and minimum length
limit.
Creel Limit
The purpose of a daily creel limit is to prevent overharvest of the fishery,
to allow the equitable
distribution of the harvest over the greatest number of anglers, and to give
the angler a
reasonable target to mark his fishing success.
Harvest may reduce the number of quality-size bass available to anglers, but
not to the detriment
of a bass population’s ability to sustain through natural recruitment. The
equitable distribution of the
harvest is implied through a daily creel limit, but probably occurs only in
situations of highly abundant
bass populations. Distribution of the harvest is more dependent on angling
skill than on a daily creel
limit. Further, obtaining a daily limit of 10 bass is a relatively rare
event and usually accomplished only
by more skilled anglers (Table 2). The options for correcting this situation
are to either completely
remove the daily creel limit for bass or to reduce it to a level that
becomes meaningful biologically or to
the angler. The former option is rejected for the obvious reason that it
implies an unlimited supply of
bass that can be harvested without harm to the fishery. The second option
requires a substantial
reduction to be meaningful.
Table 2. (Based on anglers which were harvesting bass)
Frequency Distribution of Angler Harvest from Arkansas Lakes
Data From Arkansas Creel Surveys:
For Black Basses (largemouth, spotted, & smallmouth)
Total number of anglers = 23,756 Number of bass harvested Number of anglers
0 20,002
1 2,039
2 945
3 413
4 167
5 94
6 69
7 10
8 8
9 5
10 4
The statewide daily creel will remain at 10. Specific creel reductions will
be used where
significant harvest reduction is a management objective. Examples:
1) Lake Millwood bass restoration effort in which the daily limit has been
reduced to 3
2) Arkansas "trophy slot limit" lakes will have a daily limit of 4 bass per
day, only 1 of
which may exceed 21-inches
Supplemental Stocking Protocol
Northern strain largemouth bass:
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission supplementally stocks many of its
warmwater lakes
and reservoirs with largemouth bass (Keith 1969, Pritchard et al. 1976) to
improve year-class
strength, overall population size, and angler harvest. The decision to
supplementally stock a lake
will be based on analysis of historical electrofishing and rotenone samples
which will show those
lakes that have had consistent problems with recruitment.
Prioritization of lakes is needed when the request for fingerling bass is
greater than the number
produced by the hatchery system. The highest priorities for largemouth bass
stockings are new
or recently renovated lakes. These lakes will be stocked at a rate of 250/ha
(100/acre). Next,
priority will be given to lakes under 1,215 ha (3000 acres) that have
historically had low
recruitment represented in rotenone and electrofishing samples. These lakes
will be stocked at a
rate of 125/ha (50/acre). Lakes from 1,215 to 4,050 ha will be stocked at a
rate of 62/ha (25/ac).
Other lakes can be added to this “list” as needed based on rotenone and
electrofishing samples.
Lakes over 4050 ha, which include large Corps of Engineers reservoirs,
should be stocked
through the nursery pond system. It is unlikely that the current hatchery
system would be able to
produce enough bass to adequately stock these reservoirs.
Based on recent annual largemouth bass fingerling production, we estimate
our hatchery system
will need to produce 500,000 "northern" largemouth fingerlings annually to
satisfy demand.
Florida Strain largemouth bass:
Lake Millwood will be the exception to the rule for stocking of fingerling
bass. The location and
habitat present in Lake Millwood are conducive to Florida bass stocking. In
addition, preliminary
genetic analysis of Lake Millwood adult largemouths (sample size 55 fish)
indicates 96% of the
sample contained Florida alleles. However, many of these adults were back
crosses between
Fx's and Northerns. We feel this can be positively shifted toward Florida's
with additional
fingerling stocking efforts (see the Florida bass section for more details).
Trophy Lake Management
Trophy bass management in the southeast United States has assumed increasing
importance
during the past few years as angler demand for trophy bass opportunities has
increased. A
recent fishing regulations survey (June, 1997) indicates Arkansas anglers
are strongly in support
of length limits and slot limits for fisheries management. A past survey
indicated Arkansas
anglers are willing to accept more restrictive size or creel limits in
return for a trophy fishery
(AMRA 1988).
The minimum size bass considered a trophy catch varies widely among anglers.
The
Commission’s Master Angler Award Program uses a minimum largemouth bass
weight of 8
pounds. The objective of the Trophy Lake Management program is to promote
conditions
favorable for the production of largemouth bass over 5 lbs. that can also
result in catches of bass
8 lbs. and larger.
The Trophy Lake Management program uses biological criteria to identify
waters that have the
potential to produce large bass. These criteria are characterized by:
1) Age 1 CPUE of 20-30 bass per hour during spring electrofishing or 50 Age
1 bass per hectare cove rotenone, on a consistent basis
2) Average length at Age 3 greater than 14 inches
3) Available Prey/Predator ratio greater than 1 for bass over 15 inches
4) Gizzard or threadfin shad forage base
5) Public acceptance
6) PSD of 50-70%
7) RSD of 30-40%
8) Total catch per effort 75-100 bass per hour during spring electrofishing
9) Catch per effort of 15-40 bass per hour (15 inches and larger) during
spring electrofishing
10) Suitable for Florida bass introduction
Management Strategy
Management on "Trophy Lakes" is designed to capitalize on a lake's high
productivity and
largemouth bass growth potential. The following management program will be
implemented on
waters designated "Trophy Lakes":
1) Restricted harvest: a 16 to 21-inch protective slot with a daily creel
limit of four, only one
of which may exceed 21 inches. (Exception: Lake Monticello which has a 16-24
inch slot
limit)
2) Fertilization: if conditions warrant the addition of inorganic nutrients
to boost production.
Waters suitable for fertilization are limited to lakes owned or controlled
by the
Commission, cost effective in size, hydraulic residence time of one year or
greater, and
Total Hardness value of 20 mg/L (or greater) Calcium Carbonate.
3) Florida largemouth bass introduction: as they are available.
Florida-Strain Largemouth Bass Stocking Policy
Past stocking of Florida-strain largemouth bass in Arkansas waters has in
large part been without
guidelines on stocking suitability or follow-up studies to determine
survival and impacts on the
fishery. Consequently, success has been hit, miss, or more often, unknown.
This policy
statement is an attempt to set forth general guidelines for the most
efficient and effective
distribution of the limited number of Florida bass available.
More is now known about how Florida largemouth bass and their hybrids
compare with the pure
northern subspecies in terms of survival and temperature tolerance outside
their home range.
Some literature suggests the F1 hybrid cross may have similar or superior
growth and may be
more temperature tolerant than the pure Florida bass (Zolczynski and Davies
1976). However,
Horton and Gilliland (1993) found that pure Florida largemouth bass had
significantly faster mean
growth rates than other phenotypes (F1, Fx, and northern LMB). A lower water
temperature limit
of 40 degrees F appears to be the controlling factor for extending the pure
Florida bass range in
Oklahoma (Gilliland, OK Dept. of Conservation, pers. comm.) and Oklahoma no
longer stocks
Florida largemouth bass north of a 3400 heating degree days cline (Gilliland
1992). A thorough
and comprehensive evaluation of Florida bass introduction into Arkansas
waters is a research
need.
Until more information is available, the stocking of Florida-strain
largemouth bass will be
restricted to south and east Arkansas below the Ozark and Ouachita highlands
fall line and lakes
within the Arkansas River valley. Lakes outside this range are eligible if
artificially warmed by
thermal discharges (e.g. steam generation cooling lakes). Lakes managed for
a trophy fishery
will have priority for Florida-strain fingerling stockings. Initially, lakes
should be stocked at a rate
of 250/ha (100/acre) for a minimum of three years. Rates will be based on
individual lake
analysis.
The Andrew Hulsey State Fish Hatchery in Hot Springs produces all the
Florida fingerlings for the
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Constraints would require additional pond
space and
reorganized production goals (by species) to "grow-out" Florida fingerlings
to an average of 3-
inches. Since many of the lakes into which these fingerlings will be
targeted contain abundant
cover, we feel the best choice would be to raise these fingerlings to a
2-inch average. Stocking of
fingerlings on these lakes should be done at ramps which will afford the
most nursery cover. In
situations where the ramp is not near the best available nursery cover, then
the district fisheries biologist should be available to shuttle fingerlings
by boat to the best suited areas.
Based on recent annual largemouth bass fingerling production, we estimate
our hatchery system will need to produce 250,000 "Florida" largemouth
fingerlings annually to satisfy demand. Tournament Fishing Organized
competitive fishing events (tournaments) have become increasingly popular in
the last two decades. An estimated 61,900 anglers participated in at least
one competitive fishing event in Arkansas during 1987 (AMRA 1988). Most of
these (47,700) were bass anglers participating in at least one bass
tournament. About a third of these anglers (15,900) fished in more than 12
tournaments during the year.
Exemptions from harvest restrictions (minimum length limits & slot limits)
will not be made for
tournament activity. The regulations are meant to be equitable between all
user groups.
State agencies across the United States have identified both positive and
negative aspects of
bass tournaments (Schramm et al. 1991). Comparisons of the problems and
benefits associated
with competitive bass angling reveal that tournaments cause as well as solve
problems.
Problems:
1) Mortality resulting from tournament events. High mortality of tournament
caught bass
can lead to depleted stocks of quality-sized fish, this prompting the need
for harvest
restrictions. Several studies have shown that tournament-induced mortality
during “live
release” tournaments range from 0-60%. Past studies revealed bass mortality
associated with tournament fishing increased with water temperature (Schramm
et al
1987). Recent studies (Gilliland 1997, Weathers and Newman 1997, Wilde 1998)
reinforced evidence that significantly higher mortality, both initial and
delayed, occurred
during the hot summer months when water temperatures were elevated. Other
studies
indicate that larger bass suffered higher stress and mortality rates in
tournaments than
smaller fish (Meals and Miranda 1994). In Arkansas, high bass mortality has
been
observed at tournaments held during warm weather, especially smaller local
“bass club”
tournaments. Many tournament organizers and bass clubs have committed to
“live
release” and have done excellent jobs keeping fish alive.
2) Potential displacement of fish within a body of water (fish caught in one
area and
released in another). Tournament caught fish tend to remain in the release
area after
weigh-in (Klindt and Schiavone 1991). Relocation of fish can alter their
availability to
anglers and potentially affect forage fish and competitor populations.
3) Access conflict between tournament and non-competitive anglers. This is a
common
complaint voiced by non-competitive anglers. Large or multiple tournaments
held at the
same access site can tie-up a boat ramp and parking area, making it
difficult for other
boaters to use the area.
4) Increased demands on Fisheries Division personnel. Fisheries Division
personnel are
frequently requested to participate in tournament weigh-in activities and
especially on
weekend days. Fish trucks and personnel are often used to return live fish
to the water.
Biologists and hatchery technicians have verified tournament weights and
helped
tournament anglers separate largemouth from spotted bass.
Almost all large
tournaments are two day events, disrupting normal work schedules. Holding
the fish in a
fish truck is often not necessary for bass survival and the presence of
Commission
biologists appears to sanction the tournament event and weigh-in procedures.
This
service to tournaments is inequitably provided. However, our involvement is
beneficial
for public relations.
Benefits:
1) Tournaments are good opportunities for the collection of catch data and
spawning
broodstock. Tournament data have been shown to be a reliable source of
information
(Gablehouse and Willis 1986). Broodstock for hatchery and nursery pond
projects can
easily be gathered at spring tournaments.
2) Competitive fishing promotes fishing popularity and conservation
practices. Large
tournament organizations have promoted sport fishing through magazines,
newspaper
articles, and television shows. Tournament organizations were among the
first to
promote “catch and release” attitudes common today.
3) Tournament activities inject monies into local economies and generate
revenue for the
AG&FC. Large, well publicized, competitive fishing events can bring as much
as
$150,000.00 into a local economy for a single two day event (Bryan 1988).
Most
tournaments in Arkansas are much smaller, but do support local economies
through the
purchase of lodging, meals, and fuel. Competitive fishing helps drive
interest in
purchasing relatively expensive boats, motors, equipment, and tackle subject
to the
Federal-Aid taxes that support the Commission’s fisheries management
activities.
4) Organized competitive fishing groups have been a source of funding and
volunteer labor
for certain fisheries projects. Many competitive fishing clubs have
contributed funds for
equipment purchases and projects utilized in bass management. Some bass
clubs have
helped directly through voluntary labor and materials used in management
projects (e.g.
fish habitat improvement projects). Good communication and public relations
are
enhanced through these projects.
The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission adopts the following positions
regarding competitive
fishing:
1) Competitive fishing events are a legitimate use of the resource that do
not require special
regulation or use restrictions at their present level of activity. No
evidence exists,
indicating competitive fishing on its own has or is leading to depletion of
adult bass in
Arkansas waters. Competitive anglers are subject to the same harvest
restrictions as
non-competitive anglers and tournament rules are often more restrictive than
Commission regulations. Despite their higher visibility, competitive anglers
represent a
small percentage of the angling public. In a recent survey conducted by the
Arkansas
Game and Fish Commission, only 9.9% of the anglers surveyed had fished in a
bass
tournament in the past year (Responsive Management 2000).
2) Continue to promote the live release of tournament caught bass. The
decision to keep or
release a legally caught bass should remain a personal decision by the
individual angler.
Many tournament organizers and clubs have elected to release all tournament
caught
bass as a rule. We support efforts to conserve the resource and promote
goodwill
between competitive and non-competitive anglers. Tournament organizers
should be
aware of potentially high mortality rates in the warm summer months and
should consider
limiting tournament activities during this time. Current literature suggests
delayed
mortality during warm weather tournaments can be high.
3) Maintain direct involvement of Commission personnel with competitive
fishing events.
The key to increasing survival of tournament-caught bass lies with the
individual angler
and weigh-in officials. Maintaining our direct involvement will allow
tournament
organizers to become responsible for fish survival in “live release”
tournaments. Since
the proper organizational procedures can help reduce catch and release
mortality
(Weathers and Newman 1997), we will continue to work with competitive
anglers in
providing methods for keeping fish alive and collecting broodstock for our
hatcheries and
nursery pond programs.
4) Continue to utilize and develop the Arkansas Tournament Information
Program (ATIP).
ATIP is a voluntary program to 1) collect tournament catch records from
numerous
small bass clubs scattered across the state as a fishery evaluation tool, 2)
service
participating clubs with an annual report of compiled tournament records, 3)
provide
information to club anglers on how to conduct live release tournaments, and
4) maintain
open communications with bass club anglers.
Research Needs
Research answers questions and resolves problems to aid fisheries management
programs. The
following is a list of specific research areas needing investigation to meet
our goal stated in this
plan:
1) Evaluate and develop specific Florida bass stocking and management
guidelines.
Need: Florida strain largemouth bass achieve a larger size than the northern
subspecies where successfully introduced. A logical stocking plan for this
subspecies is needed.
Objective: A long term study to determine the present distribution of
Florida bass
genes across the state from past Florida bass stockings and determine the
most
efficient use of Florida bass and the F1 hybrid in the state.
2) Monitor and adjust the harvest restriction and trophy lake criteria
identified in this plan.
Need: Criteria used in this plan to quantify rates of recruitment, growth,
and mortality are
based on a scant amount of existing data for Arkansas lakes. Evaluation and
adjustment of these criteria are needed to insure the goals of this plan are
being
met.
Objective: Determine if the harvest restriction criteria stated in this plan
are
effective in identifying good candidate lakes for harvest restrictions or
trophy lake
management. Continue to modify these criteria as results from this research
become available.
3) Determine the effects of competitive bass fishing on the harvest,
displacement and spawning
success of largemouth bass.
Need: Bass tournaments have proliferated in the state to the point where
several
tournaments may occur on one lake on the same date. Even if tournaments are
“live release” events, some mortality, displacement and interference with
spawning activities occur. The cumulative effect needs evaluation so
fisheries
managers can make informed management responses to competitive fishing.
Objective: To determine how much competitive bass events are effecting
harvest,
displacement and spawning success of largemouth bass.
4) Evaluate habitat enhancement projects as they relate to largemouth bass
population density
and structure.
Need: The Commission has and will continue to conduct habitat enhancement
projects
in the state’s waters. Evaluation of habitat structures is needed to design
structures that not only concentrate largemouth bass, but also improve
population density and size distribution. The introduction and management of
natural aquatic vegetation for habitat enhancement needs study.
Objective: A long term study to
1) determine if present ongoing habitat
enhancement
projects are effective in concentrating largemouth bass,
2) determine if
habitat
enhancement structures improve angler success,
3) determine what cover
design and materials are most effective in attracting largemouth bass,
4)
determine if the addition of habitat structure can increase largemouth bass
population density and size distribution, and determine the viability of
introducing aquatic vegetation for enhancing bass habitat.
5) Initiate lake trophic status study to further define our lake
classification system.
Need: The proposed ILMBP index utilized in this plan will need additional
chlorophyll a
data. Data will be collected at multiple sites per water body (every 5-10
years).
Lakes are dynamic and will undergo changes in watershed usage which may
alter productivity. The productivity largely determines fisheries potential
and
should be monitored on a regular basis.
Objective: To update the index of largemouth bass potential (ILMBP) to best
manage
the individual fisheries across the state.
Resource/Program Needs
Implementation of this plan requires additional management, hatchery, and
research efforts in
several areas. Described in this section are the programs and resources
needed to effectively
reach the management and research goals discussed in this plan.
Black Bass Program
The Black Bass Program has recently been created to address many of the
needs outlined in this
plan. The program will address research needs, agency tournament
participation and education,
population modeling, Arkansas Tournament Information Program and habitat
improvement
projects. In order to accomplish these tasks, additional resources are
needed.
1) Increased staffing. Currently, the Black Bass Program has only one
biologist tasked with
the development and implementation of the program. In order to meet the
needs of the
Largemouth Bass Species Plan in a timely manner, an additional staff member
at the
level of Biologist II will be required.
2) Increased funding for research. As outlined in the Research Needs, there
are numerous
research projects which are necessary to increase our effectiveness in
managing
largemouth bass populations. We feel the continued refinement of harvest
restrictions,
trophy bass management, the best utilization of a Florida bass stocking
program,
supplemental stocking, and tournament mortality cannot be effectively
addressed without
increasing funds for bass management research.
3) Increased funding for tournament assistance program. Currently, agency
participation at
tournament weigh-ins is provided on an unequal basis and requires
considerable time
from Fisheries Division personnel. A solution to the problem will be the
development of a
fish distribution trailer program where tournament organizers will have
access to fish
tanks mounted on trailers to hold and release fish following weigh-ins.
These trailers will
be available for check-out and can be operated without the use of Fisheries
Division
personnel. These trailers will not only reduce the time required of
Fisheries staff
members but also provide for a more equitable distribution of services.
Fisheries Management
Accurate and precise data are the foundation of effective decision making.
Dedication of manpower
and funds to the following areas are necessary to implement the objectives
of this plan.
1) Increased angler creel surveys. Angler effort, success, and harvest is
the ultimate
test of fisheries management. At a minimum, the major reservoirs of the
state should
be surveyed once every three years on a rotating basis or as often as is
feasible. Any
lake being managed for the production of trophy bass should be surveyed to
evaluate
the effectiveness of the management.
2) Angler attitude and preference surveys. We need to be sensitive to angler
preferences and attitudes about what is a quality fishery. Fisheries
Division should
continue to monitor angler attitudes and preferences through statewide
surveys
every five years. The agency's marketing analyst should facilitate this
process with
coordination through Fisheries Division.
3) Increased fisheries management staffing. Currently our fisheries
biologists spend
less than one third of their time monitoring fish populations and evaluating
data. Our
aggressive lake and access construction programs increase construction
planning,
development, and maintenance work loads on district field staff. Improving
largemouth bass management requires a more intensive sampling and evaluation
regime than the districts can presently provide except on a limited number
of lakes.
Each fisheries district would benefit from a full-time technician to assist
with fisheries
sampling.
Hatchery and Fish Culture
Arkansas Game and Fish Commission boasts one of the nation’s largest warm
water fish
hatchery systems with four warm water hatcheries. In 1999, over 383,500
largemouth bass
fingerlings and yearlings were produced for stocking into new and renovated
lakes, existing
fisheries, and private farm ponds.
Based on recent annual largemouth bass fingerling production:
1) Hatchery production of Florida largemouth bass. An estimated 250,000
Florida-strain
largemouth bass will be required annually to support the Trophy Lake
program.
2) Hatchery production of northern largemouth bass. An estimated 500,000
northern
largemouth fingerlings will be required annually to satisfy stocking demand.
Literature Cited
AMRA 1988. Fishermen attitude study. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission,
Little Rock, AR.
Anderson, Richard O. 1974. Problems and solutions, goals and objectives of
fishery
management. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Association
of Game and Fish Commissions 27:391-401.
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality- Water Division. Water quality
assessment of
Arkansas significant publicly-owned lakes. WQ95-12-01 (December, 1995).
Bryan, H. 1988. Socioeconomic impacts of Red Man (Operation Bass)
tournaments: a research
report. University of Alabama, University (City).
Dean, J., and G. Wright. 1992. Black bass length limits by design: a graphic
approach. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:538-547.
Fourt, Ralph A. 1977. Management of black bass in Arkansas. Arkansas Game
and Fish
Commission, Little Rock.
Gabelhouse, Jr., Donald W., and D. W. Willis. 1986. Biases and utility of
angler catch data for
assessing size structure and density of largemouth bass. North American
Journal
Fisheries Management 6:481-489.
Gilliland, Eugene R. 1992. Experimental stocking of Florida largemouth bass
into small
Oklahoma reservoirs. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 46:487-494.
Horton, Chris M. 2000. Wing graphs: a visual method for evaluating harvest
restrictions on
Arkansas lakes. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Administrative Report.
Little
Rock, AR.
Horton, R. A. and E. R. Gilliland 1993. Monitoring trophy largemouth bass in
Oklahoma using a
taxidermist network. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 47:679-685.
Keith, William E. 1969. Preliminary results in the use of a nursery pond as
a tool in fishery
28
management. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Southeastern
Association of
Game and Fish Commissioners 23:501-511.
Keith, William E. 1981. Pros and cons of minimum size limit on black bass.
Arkansas Game and
Fish Commission, Administrative Report, Little Rock.
Klindt, R. M. and A. Schiavone, Jr. 1991. Post-release mortality and
movements of tournamentcaught
largemouth and smallmouth bass in the St. Lawrence River. Bureau of
Fisheries,
New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Watertown.
Meals, K. O. and L. E. Miranda. 1994. Size-related mortality of
tournament-caught largemouth
bass. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:460-463.
Novinger, Gary D. 1984. Observations on the use of size limits for black
bass in large
impoundments. Fisheries 9:2-6.
Pritchard, D.L., O.W. May Jr., and L. Rider 1976. Stocking of predators in
the predatorstocking-
evaluation reservoirs. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the
Southeastern
Association of Game and Fish Commissioners 30:108-113.
Responsive Management 2000. Arkansas resident anglers and non-resident
anglers awareness
of and attitudes toward fishing in Arkansas. Survey report for the Arkansas
Game and
Fish Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas.
Ricker, W. E. 1975. Estimation of survival rate and mortality rate from age
composition.
Pgs. 29-73 in Computation and interpretation of biological statistics of
fish
populations. Bulletin 191. Fisheries Research Board of Canada, Ottawa,
Canada.
Shramm, H. L., Jr., P. J. Haydt, and K. M. Portier. 1987. Evaluation of
pre-release, postrelease
and total mortality of largemouth bass caught during tournaments in two
Florida
lakes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:394-402.
Schramm, H.L., Jr., M.L. Armstrong, N.A. Funicelli, D.M. Green, D.P. Lee,
R.E. Manns, Jr. , B.D.
Taubert, and S.J. Waters. 1991. The status of competitive sport fishing in
North America.
Fisheries 16(3):4-12.
29
Weathers, K. C. and M. J. Newman. 1997. Effects of organizational procedures
on mortality of
largemouth bass during summer tournaments. North American Journal of
Fisheries
Management 17:131-135.
Wilde G.R. 1998. Tournament associated mortality in black bass. Fisheries
23(10):12-22.
Wilde G.R., R.K. Riechers, and R.B. Ditton. 1998. Differences in attitudes,
fishing motives, and
demographic characteristics between tournament and nontournament black bass
anglers
in Texas. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18:422-431.
Zolczynski, Jr., Stephen J., W. D. Davies. 1976. Growth characteristics of
the northern and
Florida subspecies of largemouth bass and their hybrid, and a comparison of
catchability
between the subspecies. Transactions American Fisheries Society 105:240-243.
30
Glossary
Carlson's Trophic State Index: the "standard" index used to describe
productivity (fertility) in
waterbodies. The index is derived from Chlorophyll a readings.
Catch-curve: a graph representing the relative abundance of various
year-classes of a fish
species. Used to measure total mortality effecting the various year-classes
present in the
population.
Chlorophyll a: a photosynthetic pigment found in the chloroplasts of green
plants. Used as a
measure of primary productivity in aquatic systems.
Delayed Mortality: death of a released fish caused by initial stress. May
occur several days
after the release of a seemingly healthy fish.
Ecoregion: geographic regions in Arkansas that contain similar land, water,
and wildlife
characteristics. Delta ecoregion, Ouachita Mountain ecoregion, etc.
Exploitation: bass harvested or removed from the population by the
fisherman. Measured
using return of reward tags from a known number of tagged bass. Adjusted
exploitation
will account for tag loss, tagging mortality, and non-reporting by anglers.
Florida largemouth bass: a subspecies of largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides) native to
the lower Florida peninsula. Desired for their ability to obtain relatively
large sizes.
F1 hybrid largemouth bass: a first generation cross between northern strain
and Florida strain
largemouth bass.
Growth: change in fish size with time. Measured as the average size of the
bass at its third year
of age (mean length of Age 3 bass).
Heating Degrees Days: the sum over all days fall to spring of the difference
between 65°
Fahrenheit (18.3oC) and the average daily temperature.
Mortality: removal of fish from the population by death, either by natural
causes or harvest by a
31
fisherman. Total mortality is a combination of both factors and is
indirectly assessed with
Proportional and Relative Stock Density indices. Fishing mortality alone
measured by
exploitation studies or creel census surveys. Length and slot limits are
designed to
reduce fishing mortality on selected sizes of bass.
Northern largemouth bass: the subspecies of largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides)
native to Arkansas waters.
Otolith: flattened, oval, calcified structures found in the head of bony
fishes. Associated with
equilibrium. Often more accurate than scales for age analysis.
Preferred-size: largemouth bass reaching 15 inches in length. The size
preferred by most bass
fishermen to catch.
Proportional Stock Density: an index that expresses the proportion of
quality-sized bass (12
inches and larger) to stock size bass (8 inches and larger). Used as an
indirect
measure of total mortality.
Quality-size: size at which most fishermen begin to keep largemouth bass,
about 12 inches.
Recruitment: number of fish that spawn that live at least one year. Measured
as the number of
Age 1 bass in spring electrofishing or summer cove-rotenone samples.
Relative Stock Density: an index that expresses the proportion of
preferred-sized bass (15
inches and larger) to stock size bass (8 inches and larger). Used as an
indirect measure
of total mortality.
Stock-size: bass at a length of 8 inches.
Watershed area: the total area which drains into a particular waterbody.
Determines how much
water enters a reservoir.
Year-class: a population of bass spawned in the same year. Consistent year
classes are an
indicator of good recruitment.
32
Table 3.
Management objectives for largemouth bass density, recruitment, growth, and
size structure on
three classes of Arkansas lakes: T (trophy slot limit lakes), A (lakes with
high fisheries potential),
B (lakes with moderate fisheries potential). Lakes with measured values
falling outside defined
ranges are eligible for a minimum length limit or slot limit harvest
restriction.
Recruitment-
T 20-40 Age 1 bass/hr spring electrofishing
A 15-30 Age 1 bass/hr spring electrofishing
B 10-20 Age 1 bass/hr spring electrofishing
Growth -
T 14+ inches @ Age 3
A 13+ inches @ Age 3
B 11+ inches @ Age 3
Size Structure (percent >15")
T 40-55%
A 20-40%
B 15-25%
Adjusted Exploitation: Tag/reward studies indicate adjusted exploitation
less than 25%.
Minimum Forage Availability: Available Predator/Prey Ratio 6 for bass under
12 inch
Available Predator/Prey Ratio 2 for bass over 12 inch
33
Table 4. Lake Rankings Based on ILMBP
Lake TSI Rank WA Rank Veg Rank Ecoregion ILMBP Rank
B (lakes with moderate ILMBP rankings)
Greers Ferry 3 2 0 1 6
Beaver 3 2 0 1 6
Norfork 3 3 0 1 7
Wilhelmina 1 3 0 3 7
Brewer 3 2 0 2 7
SWEPCO 5 1 0 1 7
Poinsett 4 1 0 2 7
Harris Brake 4 1 0 2 7
Pickthorne 4 1 0 2 7
Bob Kidd 5 1 0 1 7
Elmdale 4 2 0 1 7
Maumelle 4 1 0 3 8
BeaverFork 5 1 0 2 8
Greeson 4 2 0 3 9
Ashbaugh 6 1 0 2 9
Hogue 6 1 0 2 9
Greenlee 6 1 0 2 9
Cane Creek 1 1 5 2 9
Overcup 6 1 0 2 9
Atkins 6 1 0 2 9
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A (lakes with highest ILMBP rankings)
Bull Shoals 4 5 0 1 10
Barnett 2 5 0 3 10
Chicot 5 3 0 2 10
Mallard 7 1 0 2 10
Bear Creek 7 1 0 2 10
DesArc 7 1 0 2 10
Charles 7 2 0 1 10
TriCounty 5 2 0 4 11
Ouachita 3 1 5 3 12
Dierks 6 3 0 3 12
Enterprise 7 1 0 4 12
Hurricane 6 3 0 3 12
DeQueen 6 4 0 3 13
Hinkle 4 1 5 3 13
Sugarloaf 4 1 5 3 13
DeGray 4 2 5 3 14
Nimrod 5 6 0 3 14
Blue Mountain 5 6 0 3 14
Conway 6 1 5 2 14
Gillham 6 6 0 3 15
Columbia 6 1 5 4 16
White Oak (lower) 5 2 5 4 16
First Old River 6 1 5 4 16
Storm Creek 8 1 5 2 16
Erling 6 2 5 4 17
Horseshoe 9 1 5 2 17
White Oak (upper) 7 2 5 4 18
Hamilton 5 6 5 3 19
Millwood 6 5 5 4 20
Catherine 4 10 5 3 22
Copyright©
lakeouachita.org
All Rights Reserved Worldwide
Home
Lake Ouachita
Lake Ouachita
Pictures
Lake Ouachita
Map
Camping
Areas
Fishing
Guides
Marinas
Boat Ramps
Day Use
Areas
Special Use
Facilities
History
Lake Ouachita Citizen Focus Committee
Lake
Ouachita Vegetation Control
Lake
Ouachita
Nursery Pond
Small
Mouth Bass
Lake Ouachita
Real Estate Information
Lake Ouachita Information Center