__ ; ;,__ 2, ____ t 7.; 2V :3 _: 2:3,: I‘. \f ‘ o . . If: 1' ; \..x..\, ”W... \ . \ 0"..- O . .\.\ “0;. n.‘ I '1" '0"... ._ '.\_I § ’ t a fi r“ ‘ \‘z 5"..- \ ‘u % -~ . -a-m. 0. ‘ v.“ at 0 o 1 I- .‘.' .- <0 '| a... {3. L ‘3‘.-." .... > ‘ "22.-.:- This is to certifg that the thesis entitled ”An Analysis of Brown.Trout (Salmo Trutta) Angling on Augusta Creek in Southwest Michigan" presented by James Edward Shideler has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ._ .M....S. .. degree in_&_L_F Q . Major professor ..--. AN ANALYSIS OF BROWN TROUT (SALmo TRUTTA) ANGLING ON AUGUSTA CREEK IN SOUTHWEST MICHIGAN By James Edward Shideler A.THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of.Fisheries and Wildlife - 1952 Mama ACKNOWLEDGERENTS The investigator extends his appreciation to Dr. Peter I. Tack who was reSponsible for this investigation, also rho was helpful in the guidance of this study. Gratitude is eXpressed to Dr. Don W. Hayne for his vital guidance as to the development of statistical analysis of the data and presentation of the material. Thanks is expressed to Mr; Walter Lemmien for his recording and collection of creel census records from which the data pertaining to this study were taken. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . 0 Location and Description of the Area . DevelOpment of the Stream Stocking the Stream . MATERIALS AND METHODS . Creel Census History . Collecting the Data . Treatment of the Data Visit Classes and Categories . . . Gross and Adjusted Monthly Anglers Utilizing Artificial Limitations of the Problem . RESULTS . . . . . . . . Average Monthly Catches Averages Lures and Spinning Rods Visit Categories and Classes . . . . . Average Monthly and Seasonal Catches Test of Significance Deviation from the Expected Catch . Adjusted Average . . Distribution of Fish per Angler . . . Fishermen Utilizing Artificial Lures Spinning Rods . . . Average Monthly Catches 'U W (m (D KOKDODODOWUlO'ImOJCflNNl—‘I—J NNNNl—‘P O'II\'.>OOl'-‘l--J 27 27 Page Visit Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Average Seasonal Catches . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Deviation from the Expected Catch . . . . . . SO Determining the Success of Various Artificial Fishing Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Average Seasonal Catch . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Deviation from the Expected Catch . . . . . . 36 SUMKARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 LITEdATJRE CI'I‘ED . O O O C O O O O O C O O O O O O O 44 INTRODUCTION The extent to which angling for trout involves skill and chance is a much-debated question of importance to fisheries management. It is the aim of this study to determine whether there is any relationship between frequency of angling on a stream and angler success at this same stream. The data for studying this question are creel census records taken during 1951 on Augusta Creek within the area of the Kellogg Forest. Lgcation and Description of the Area The stream under consideration is that section of Augusta Creek lying in the Kellogg Forest tract situated in the Ross Township, Kalamazoo County TlS - R9W, Section 21, 22, and 27. The Kellogg Forest consists of 485 acres of land donated to Michigan State College by the late Mr. W. K. Kellogg of Battle Creek, Michigan. The section of Augusta Creek under consideration is near the lower end of the stream and is approximately 2.4 miles in length. The stream is approximately 25 miles long and has many tributaries. -2- Development of the Stream A previous study provides information on the history of this stream (Morofsky, Tack, and Lemmien, 1949). Prior to 1934, Augusta Creek had a gravel bottom covered with sand and muck varying from two inches to two feet. This condition was caused primarily by Spring floods, erosion, and sluggishness of the stream. A large portion of the stream ran through Open meadows with little protection against meandering. During the summer of 1954, a stream alteration project was conducted with the idea of improving conditions for both insects and trout. Ninety-four structures such as deflectors, covers, and wing dams have been built to Speed up the flow of water and remove silt from the bottom. Many seedlings and cuttings have been planted along the banks to provide shade in the hope of lowering the water temperatures. Stocking the Stream From 1934 until 1945, Augusta Creek was regarded as a brook trout stream and was stocked consistently with brook trout. These plantings were not considered successful, for whereas good early fishing was provided, it did not last more than a few weeks. During 1946, the management policy was changed and brown trout were planted; and they have furnished better fishing for the entire season. The number of fish stocked are listed in Table 1. Fish thought to be brown trout were observed on Spawning beds in the fall of 1947. The fish planted in the section of the stream under study are free to move beyond the Kellogg Forest area, since it has proven impracticable to place barriers at the boundaries. MATERIALS AND METHODS Creel Census Histo;y_ Information on fishing success, and on other queries, was obtained by a mandatory creel census. A permit, which was issued free of charge, had to be obtained by anglers before fishing. The fish caught had to be submitted for inSpection and the removal of stomachs for food studies. The creel census data are believed to represent most of the fishing done on Augusta Creek. Absence of reports from the small number of fishermen who did not report their catch could affect the data in only a minor way. The Augusta Creek creel census results for the past several years are found in Table l. TABLE 1 Summary of Stocking and Angling Records Number of Number of No. of No. of Hrs. Ei§h_ ,Xgar Trout Planted Trout Caught Anglers Angling Hr. 1946 1600 575 155 725 .51 1947 800 464 260 1,550 .56 1948 2200 551 597 1,975 .55 1949 2500 860 587 2,955 .29 1950 1500 905 709 5,545 .25 1951 500 625 542 + 2,670 .25 The exact number of anglers could not be ascertained for 1951. Occasionally individuals were listed by the last name only,and when this same name occurred in records of another day, it might represent the same or a different fisherman. In a few instances, names were not recorded, although other data were. Records on the fishing success of this group of doubtful identity are included later in this study under the heading "combined and deleted." Colgecting the Data When his fishing was completed, an angler returned to headquarters, gave his name, and stated the number of hours Spent fishing, the number of fish caught, and how the fish were marked, if at all. Further information was furnished as to whether natural or artificial bait had been used, the type of bait if artificial, and whether a Spinning rod was used. Treatment of the Data Visit Classes and Categorieg Records for all individuals making the same total number of fishing visits were grouped into a visit category. Some of the visit categories were combined so that a greater number of individuals would be represented in each visit grouping. There were three such instances where data from two or more visit categories were combined. These comprised (a) those individuals making nine or more fishing visits, (b) those making seven and eight visits, and (0) those making five and Six visits. Since large numbers of individuals were represented in one-, two-, three-, and four - visit categories, no combinations of these were made. A visit category refers to the anglers making the same total number of fishing visits; and a visit class represents visit categories which have been combined. Gross and Adjusted Monthly Averages A summation was made of the number of fishermen, visits, hours Spent fishing, and fish caught monthly for each visit category. The gross monthly average number of fish caught per hour was then calculated from the monthly totals by dividing the number of fish caught by the number of hours fished. For the category ‘deleted and combined," the information on hours of fishing and number of fish caught was valid, even though the identity of the fishermen in this group was doubtful. The gross monthly averages are misleading since a relatively large number of individuals made few fishing visits. Records of these individuals may, -7- for example, tend to depress the monthly averages early in the season due to their poor success; therefore the average has been adjusted by giving any visit class the same weight in each monthly computation. This point is discussed later in greater detail. To determine whether success increases with the numerical value of the visit categories and classes, the average monthly and seasonal catch per hour was computed for each category and class. The Chi Square test was applied to discover whether there was any statistical significance in differences between the seasonal catches per hour for the different visit classes. A monthly eXpected catch was computed for each visit class by multiplying the number of hours fished for each class by the average catch of fish per hour for all the classes combined. These monthly values were summed to obtain the seasonal eXpected catch. The deviation from the expected catch was then determined for those in each visit class. To ascertain whether the minority of fishermen who catch the most fish apiece also remove a large proportion of the total catch, the distribution of fish per angler was recorded. -8- finglers Utilizing Artificial Lures and Spinning Rods Those who utilized artificial bait or Spinning rods were extracted from the entire sample and listed in visit classes. The monthly catch per hour and the success per hour for each visit class was computed; then the Chi Square test was applied to Show if the differences between the seasonal catches per hour were significant. The deviation from the average expected catch of the entire sample was found for each visit class. The sample of fishermen who utilized artificial lures and Spinning rods was reduced to its following components, anglers utilizing a natural bait - artificial fly combination, anglers utilizing a Spinning rod, and anglers utilizing artificial flies exclusively. For the above listings, the monthly averages, the catch of fish per hour for the various visit classes, and the deviation of each class from the expected catch were determined. The expected catch was computed, again, from the average catch for all fishermen. Limitations of the Problem The fishermen who angle in Augusta Creek are assumed to be typical anglers in absence of any information to the contrary. Persons in the visit categories and visit classes probably fished more frequently elsewhere than it might appear from these data. It is emphasized that these data pertain only to Augusta Creek, and to the relationship between frequency of visits to this stream and fishing success in the same stream. Average Monthly Catches Table 2 is a summary of trout fishing in Augusta Creek. The column headed "Visit Category" lists the total number of visits made by individual fishermen over the entire season, and the numbers of such individuals are given in the column headed "Number of Fishermen." The remainder of the table states for each month, the number of visits made, hours fished, and fish caught for each visit category. The row entitled ”Deleted and Combined“ represents those fishermen whose names are not known or who cannot be differentiated. These data were included in the grand total so an average monthly catch of fish per hour could be computed. These averages, listed across the bottom of Table 2, are based upon all fishing effort and the total catch for the month. —10. 0dN. NON. bHN. rflH. 00H. _ 0H0. H500 mom mmam «a o.sm mm m.mma on m.mma no m.aen mam o.mooa eon m.omo Hausa N 0.0 0 v H 0.0H 0 0.0N mH 0.b¢H 0H 0.00 UmGHQEoo 6R0 UumHmm NH 0.00 H0 mN 0.00H H0 0N 0.0NH b0 00 0.H¢0 00H wa 0.00¢H 0P0 00H 000 00Hi000 HMpOH 0 0.0H 0H d 0.00 0H H 0.0N 0H 0 0.00 bfi b0 0.00% HNH 00 0.NOH 00 000 H 0 0.0 N 0 0.00 0H 0 0.NN 0H 0 0.>¢ 0N _N0 0.00N v0 N0 0.00H 00 00 N 0 0.0H w N 0.m fl 0 0.0 0 0 0.00 ON 0H 0.0HN 00 H0 Nm bN 06 0 0 0.H H H 0.0 0 H 0.b 0 N 0.0H. 0 m 0.HOH Cd 0H 00 0H EH 0 “v 0:”. N N 0.0H b 0 0.0H 0 NHO.®0 0H 10H 0.00 0N 0H 0.0N 5. NH 0 0 0.6 H 0 0.dN m H 0 N N 0 0 0.H H 0 0.¢ N 0 0.0H b H 0.0H b 00 0.HHH 0% 0H 0N b 0H b N 0.0 0 0 0.0 w 0 0.0 H N 0.0N 0H ON 0.00 0N 0 0.H0 P 0 0 0 0.N H 0 0.N H 0H 0.00 0H 0 b N N m 0 0.0 N 0 0.N N 0 0.HH 0 0 0.bN 0 w 0H d N 0H 0 0.0 0 d 0.0 d H 0.0 w H HH N 0.0 N 0 0.0 N b 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.00 0H b 0H 0 N 6H H. 0.0 H b 0.0H fl 0 0.0H 0 0 0.0H 0H 0H 0.0N NH 0 N H N 0H 0 0.N H N 0.0 0 w 0.N 0 N 0.bH m 0 b 0 H NN .d . .1. H . 1 T piiuiipimainamnwantam am mam i. m an. a a. a m a. a n Sam: 3 n4. S fl+ S n... S 1. S 04. “as ”L... nUUnn—Wt DAWN-L... S S S S S S J J O honamumww pmmmmd SHSh mndh : an: Hang< m nv .M H To maowopmo pflmfi> 0000 CH 9005mm swam was .wnflnmfim psomm manom .ovma mpama> .mnoawqw mo ampssz .HSOm mom swam Mo mopmo mampnoa one N mHQwB -11- The highest monthly average catch of the season, 0.514 fish per hour, occurred in April. This is easily understood since Augusta Creek was stocked with trout before the Open- ing day, with no further stocking during this season. Fishing success dropped to 0.185 fish per hour during May, and then to a low of 0.147 fish per hour during June. During July, August, and September, 0.217, 0.209, and 0.246 fish per hour reSpectively were caught, although there were fewer fish present. These results are eXpressed graphically on Chart 1. The second curve on this chart is the adjusted average catch which will be explained on Page 12. Visit Categories and Classes Average Monthly and Seasonal Catchgg The relative success of the fishermen in each visit category is expressed on a monthly basis in Table 5. Since there are few individuals who fished a total of five or more times, their monthly averages vary greatly from each other. It may be noted that averages for those who fished one through four times fluctuated less widely, probably deriving their stability from the greater number of individuals involved. Chart 1 Gross and Adjusted Monthly Catch of Fish per Hour FISH PER .35 HGJR -—— GROSS AVERAGE CATCH ADJUSTED AVERAGE CATCH 1 Y .30 .20 t .I5t .IO' .05 t APRIL RAY m JUIJ AUG. _ SEPT -15- Table 4 illustrates the seasonal catch of fish per hour and fish per visit for each visit category. There appears to be a tendency for those individuals visiting more times to be the most successful. These results are shown graphically on Chart 2. Since there is such pronounced fluctuation among certain values for the categories, it was desirable to combine certain of these categories into visit classes to present a more stable picture. Tables 5 and 6 give the basic data combined in this form. Table 5 lists, for each month, the catch of fish per hour for those in each visit class. It was found that for each month, a general increase in the catch per hour was shown as the numerical value of the visit classes increases. In Table 6, the seasonal catch of fish per hour and fish per visit is illustrated. With the exception of those individuals in visit classes three and four, the fishing success increases with the numerical values of the visit classes. Those in visit classes three and four had the least success of all the classes. These results are shown graphically on Chart 5. -14- Table 5 Monthly Average Catch of Fish per Hour by Visit Categories ‘— Tital Number of Visgts Fishermen April May June July, August September 22 l .00 .12 .55 .57 .00 - 18 2 .00 .59 .50 .51 .54 .55 14 2 .54 .25 .50 1.17 .00 .57 11 l - - .15 .44 .50 - 10 2 .27 .22 .27 1.20 .00 - 9 2 .57 .57 .00 - .00 - 8 6 .25 .29 .08 .00 .65 .25 7 10 .65 .59 .06 .22 .00 .00 6 2 .20 .55 .00 - - - 5 12 .49 .26 .51 .00 .20 1.00 4 17 .28 .09 .19 .15 .17 .00 5 48 .54 .08 .06 .OO .22 .00 2 89 .52 .22 .06 .14 .14 .00 l 559 .29 .14 .08 .04 .15 .25 Total 545 4.20 5.15 2.77 4.22 2.55 2.58 Average .52 .24 .20 .55 .19 .26 -15- Table 4 Average Catch of Fish per Unit of Effort by Visit Categories _Visit Number of Total Total Total Fish per Fish per Category Fishermen Visits Hours Fish Visit Hour 22 1 22 57.0 8 .564 .216 18 2 56 75.5 51 .861 .411 14 2 28 67.0 27 .964 .405 11 1 11 25.0 8 .727 .548 10 2 19 60.5 16 .842 .264 9 2 18 46.0 17 .944 .570 8 6 48 145.0 57 .771 .255 7 10 70 170.0 62 .886 .265 6 2 12 55.0 9 .750 .275 5 12 60 161.5 49 .817 .505 4 17 68 176.0 27 .597 .155 5 48 145 579.5 54 .578 .142 2 89 179 448.0 95 .551 .212 1 559 559 848.0 159 .410 .164 -15- Chart 2 Catch of Fish per Unit of Effort for Those in the Visit Categories 0._._0_> o .1. 11‘ IO £30... mun. :0...— hfl.) mun rail d [1 1 d a: d 19.... -17- Tflde5 Monthly Average Catch of Fish per Hour by Visit Classes Class April May June July August September 9+ .54 .28 .58 .57 .52 .46 7-8 .42 .55 .07 .18 .40 .22 5-6 .44 .28 .28 .00 .20 1.00 4 .28 .09 .19 .15 .17 .00 5 .54 .08 .06 .00 .22 .00 2 .52 .22 .06 .14 .14 .00 l .29 .14 .08 .04 .15 .25 -18- Table 6 Catch of Fish per Unit of Effort by the Visit Classes Qiass Hours Fish Visits Fish per Hour Fish per Visit 9+ 509 107 154 .546 .799 7-8 515 99 118 .514 .859 5-6 194.5 58 72 .298 .806 4 176 27 68 .155 .597 5 579.5 54 145 .142 .578 2 448 95 179 .212 .551 1 848 159 559 .164 .410 Total 2670 579 1055 .216 .550 Chart 5 Catch of Fish per Unit of Effort by Visit Classes m..._m_> v n u . ‘ d d d i N. .1 n. i t. .50... cum :0...— -20- Test of Significance To determine whether there is any statistical signifi- cance in differences between the catches per hour for the different visit classes for the entire season, the Chi Square formula was applied: X2 = Sum (observed catch - expected catch)2 Expected Catch For purposes of computing Chi square, the monthly expected catch was determined by multiplying the number of hours fished by each visit class by the monthly average number of fish caught per hour for all the classes. These values were then summed to determine the seasonal expected catch adjusted for differences in quality of fishing from month to month. The Chi Square test shows differences in fishing success among the visit classes to be highly significant (Table 7). Deviation from the Expected Catch To determine how much the catch for each of the visit classes departs from the average catch, an ”expected catch" has been computed for each visit class for each month (Table 7). The overall seasonal departures are expressed on an hourly basis, such that, difference per hour = (pbserved catch - expected catch) Total hours fished -21- 050: 000 momenthHQ a 00:00 ddepooqwo a 00>00090¢ "000: 00danom 0 00.00 00000 .- . . - 000 0 0 0 0 00 00 00>00000 000 000 00 0 00 00 00.000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00000000 0 . . . 00 0 0 0 0 00 00 00500000 000 + 000 00 0 00 + 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00000000 0 .- . . . - 00 0 0 0 0 00 00 00>00000 000 0 000 00 0 00 00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00.00 00.00 00000000 0 .- . . - 00 0 0 0 0 0 00 00>00000 000 000 00 0 00 00 00.00 00. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00000000 0 . . . . 00 0 0 0 00 00 00 00>00000 000 + 0 000 00 0 00 00+ 00.00 00. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00000000 0-0 . . . 00 0 0 0 0 00 00 00>00000 + + 000 000 00 00 00 00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00000000 0-0 . . . 000 0 00 00 00 00 00 00>00000 000 + 000 00 00 00 00+ 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00000000 .0 #0500 000 00300 N2 00:0 0250 002300000 905004 0050 0QSh 002 0000< ,Iwmmao 0000000900 :000000 £0000 00000020 0:9 800% 0500 mom £0000 00>Ammpo 0:» mo :00000>0Q 029 b mHQma It may be seen that those individuals who fished five or more times caught a considerably greater number of fish than might be expected according to the average success, whereas those who fished one, three, and four times fell far below the expected averages; and those who fished twice eXperienced the average success. These results are expressed graphically on Chart 4. Shownin this manner, the data reveal the same general pattern as do the averages for the correSponding classes in Table 6. Adjusted Average The adjusted averages were computed on the basis of the following line of reasoning. The fishermen who made few visits, for the most part, did their fishing early in the season, thus depressing the apparent quality of early seasonal fishing by their poor success. Since the visit classes varied in reSpect to the relative amount of fishing done each month, an adjusted average was computed by weighting the fishing success of each class the same for each month. ~This is done in order to more closely estimate the general fishing success on a standard basis. The weights used in computing the adjusted average were proportional to the total number of hours fished for the entire season. £0900 cmpommxm o£p 800M 050£ 003 £op00 Um>000£0 m£p ho £00000>0Q 0£e 0 00000 mmmmdUo ._._m_n> 4 TN l 00.... 1 nO.+ 29.2.50 -24.. The prOportion of the total number of hours Spent fishing was determined by dividing the total number of hours Spent fishing, by those in each visit class, by the total number of hours fished by all fishermen for the entire season. The prOportion thus determined for each visit class was then multiplied by the catch of fish per hour, for each month, for those in the corresponding visit class. The monthly contribution from each class was summed to obtain an adjusted average of the monthly catch of fish per hour. Thus the following formula was developed. (ti 81) Sum ———T—-— ti = Total hours spent fishing during the season by a visit class. Si = Monthly average fishing success for that class. H! H Total hours fished by all classes for the entire season. The adjusted monthly average catches are .525, .175, .151, .127, .186, and .227 for April through September reapectively. These averages may be compared with the gross monthly averages of fish caught per hour on Chart 1. It was found that the adjusted average catch exceeded the gross average catch only during April. This is apparently due to the poor angling success of those in the visit classes characterized by fewer visits. -25- This adjusted average reflects more truly the inherent quality of the angling from month to month, since it is not influenced by the changing representation of visit classes. Distribution of Fish per Angler Table 8 illustrates for the fishermen catching zero through sixteen fish, the number of individuals catching a prescribed number of fish and the total number of fish they caught. It is evident that the majority of fish are removed by the minority of individuals catching the most fish eaéh. Seven percent of the 555 anglers removed fifty-two percent of the total season's catch. On the other hand, sixty-six percent of the anglers caught no fish. Other workers have found similar results. Studies conducted on Hunt Creek experimental waters indicate that a minority of expert anglers, from about two percent to seventeen percent, removed from thirty-eight to seventy- three percent of the total season's catch of trout. In general, less than ten percent of the individuals are removing fifty or more percent of the total catch (Shatter and Proshek, 1951). -26- Table 8 Number of Individuals, Number of Hours EXpended, Total Number of Fish Caught, and Percent of Fish Caught for Those Catching a Specific Number of Fish Number of Number of Adult Browns Individuals Number of Total Number Caught Per Catching Hours of Fish Percent of Angler Browns Expanded Caught Fish Caught O 552 1148 O O l 84 469 9O 16 2 55 205 70 12 5 26 209 72 12 4 6 77.5 28 5 5 4 62 2O 5 6 5 25 18 5 7 4 56.5 28 5 8 4 81.5 52 6 9 2 25.5 18 5 10 5 45 5O 5 11 1 25 ll 2 12 5 61 56 6 l4 2 56 42 7 15 5 99 5O 5 l6 1 28.5 16 5 l7 1 l7 l7 5 __ 21 1 21.5 21 4 Total 555 2670 57 100 Fishermen Utilizing Artificial Lures and Spinning Rods Average Monthly Catches Table 9 was constructed in the same manner as was Table 2 in order to demonstrate the average monthly catch of fish per hour. It was found that a high of 0.400 fish per hour were caught during April, while May, June, and July had 0.225, 0.212, and 0.221 fish per hour reSpectively. August had the lowest average of 0.155 fish per hour. September was the second most successful fishing month with a catch of 0.545 fish per hour. Except for August, the monthly average catches were larger than those of the correSponding months for the entire sample. Visit Classes Ayerage Seasonal Catcheg From the information contained in Table 9, the hours Spent fishing and the number of fish caught were recorded for each visit class in.Table 10. The number of fish caught per hour for each visit class for the entire season was then calculated. As the numerical value of the visit classes increase, the correSponding catches per hour increase, with the exception of those making five-six visits. The individuals in this class caught more fish per hour than those in the next greater class. 0w 11‘ 00 . 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000% . 000 :00 0 0.ea 0 0.00 00 0.000 mm 0.000 00 0.0s0 00 00 00000 0 0 0 0.0 a 0.00 0 0 0 0.00 a 00 3 0000000 0:0 00000000 0 0.>H a 0 0.e0 00 00 0.00 00 mm 0.000 00 00 0.000 000 00 00 00 00000 0 0.0 0 0 0.00 0 a 0.00 00 n 0.00 00 00 0.000 «a 0 00 0 00 a 0 0.0 a n 0.00 00 0 0.00 00 a 0.00 00 0 0 a 00 0 0 0.0 a a 0.0 0 0 0.00 a H 0.0 a 0 0.00 0 p 0 a 0.0 H a 0.0 0 00 0.00 00 m 0 a a a a 0.0 0 00 0.5 0 0 0 a m 0 0 0.0 m 0 0.0 m 90 0.0 m a 0 i o i . 0 0 a a 0.0 a 0 0.0 m N. 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 a 0.0 a a 3 00 a 0.0 a a 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 00 m 00 m 0.0 0 0 0.0 b 0 0.0 0 a 00 w” .0 r . a, 0 mm T. w. um mu m. “m mt mm mm mm m“ mm ”m w“ mm ..mm mxw m my m0 m m. w. mw “w m. “w m m. nu s s “u s _.iq. 9.4 s q. s a. s q. s .0 m "H "4 m "H mnw "cm. 8 S S S 8 , S T.. , .d . ugh "ufim 10700000 00 030000 003. 0000 0: magi: pm Um $0 00 S” 0000 0000000000 00000 00000 000 00000000 pamfi> 0000 00 000000 0000 000 .0000000 00000 00000 .0000 mpfima> 0000000 00 000000 000 000 .0000 000 0000 00 00000 aa00002 000 m 0.3.8.. 000. 00 0.000 0 0.00 a 0.00 0.00 00 0.000 a m. 000. 0 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 a 0.00 0 0% 000. 00 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 0 000. 00 0.00 0 0.0 00 0.00 0 000. 00 0.00 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 00 0.00 0-0 0-0 000. 00 0.000 0 0.0 0 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 00 0.00 +0 050m 00m 000m 0050m swam m0zom 000m 0050m :mHm m0som 000m m0som 000m 0050: 000m.m000m mmmao .I 0000 00000 00000 000000000 000000 .0000 0000 000 00000 00000 0000 0000000000 000000000 00000 000 0000000 00000 000 mp umocmflnmmxm 00 0003 00m 0000 00 00000 mmmmm>¢ 009 OH mHQwB With the exception.of those making one and two visits, it was found that those using artificial lures caught more fish per hour than those in the correSponding classes for the entire sample. A Chi Square test on Table ll shows the difference in fishing success among the visit classes to be highly significant. Deviation from the Expected Catch Table ll illustrates for those using artificial lures how much each visit class deviates from the expected average catch of the entire sample. The same procedure was used as was in Table 7. It was found that all the classes, except those making one and two visits, caught above the expected average. Also, with the exception of those making one and two visits, the average of each class was higher than.for the corresponding classes of the entire sample in Table 7. Determining the Success of Various Artificial Fishing Gear The types of artificial fishing gear were recorded for those in each visit class. To determine the type of fishing gear which was most successful, Table 12 was constructed for those individuals using a natural bait - artificial fly combination, Table 15 for those using a Spinning rod, and Table 14 was constructed for those using only artificial flies. -31- mm.bm 00000 .- . . . - 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00000000 000 0 000 00 0 00 00 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00000000 0 .- . . . 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000 000 0 00 00 0. 00 0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00. 00000000 0 . . . . 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000 000 + 0 00 00 00 0 + 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000 0 . . . 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00000000 + . + . . . . 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.0 00000000 000 + 0 00 00 00 00 00+ 00.0 00. 00. 00. 00.0 00.0 00000000 0-0 00>nmmpo 00000000 0-0 . . . 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00>00000 000 + 0 000 00.00 00 00+ 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000 +0 m000mlwmm musom mx 00:0 055m mmnamnmmm 000m:<.NHSh 00:0 002 00094 mmuww 0000000000 -000000 0000 0000000000 00000 00000 000 0000000 000000 000 000 00000 HH manma vmpoomxm 0:0 300% 050m 00& 00000 00>00090 000 00 000000>0Q one mam. mm 0.0m H0009 000.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 ”w 0 000.0 0 0.0. 0 0.0 0 000. 0 0.00 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 000. 00 0.00 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0-0 0-0 +0 050m 000 0000 00502 0000 00503 0000 0050m 000m 005cm £000 005cm 0000 00502 0000 00500 00000 0000 00000 00000 000000000 000000 0000 0000 000 .00000 0000 mcflnq00m 00000000: 008000000 00009 00% 0503 000 £000 00 00000 00000>4 009 0H QHQQB firm. Mb O.dom proa Hod. dd m.mm o m.m H m.md m an OH m.mm H L. mod. d o.vm o m.m m m.w m NH o m N ha Nwm. ¢ o.wH o 0.H o 0.N o O.w o w d O.n a mum. m 0.0H H o.m m m.m w mow. r O.ma o 0.0 O 0.9 O m h 0.0H mum mur wa. ad O.rw m m.¢ o m.m «H m.mm «H mm Ha m.mm +0 adom mmm swam wagon swam manom swam muncm swam wagom swam manom zmflm manom swam mRSOm mmwao wmmwm>¢ Hmpoa dance meSmpmmm pmsws¢ kHSh mafia mma HHHQ4 mqoa¢ mmflam HwHOHMHuH¢ mdflmfiaflpb amanmgmflm mmoge how hdom nmm swam we mopmo mmmmm>¢ mca «a maan -55- For each table, the fish caught per hour were then calculated for each of the visit classes. Then the average number of fish caught per hour for the entire season was calculated for each table. Limitations For those using a natural bait - artificial fly combination, only three individuals fished over three times, and for those utilizing a Spinning rod, only three individuals are represented; therefore no comparisons can accurately be drawn from the success of the various visit classes. A more even distribution of anglers in different classes was found for those using only artificial flies. It was found that for these individuals, the catch per hour increased as the numerical value of the visit classes increased, except that those who fished one time were more successful than those making two visits. Comparisons of these gross seasonal averages may be misleading and probably there is need for an adjusted value. For instance, the anglers using artificial flies fished only two hours during April when fishing was the best, and 65.5 hours in July when fishing was poorer, thus depressing the apparent success as compared to all fishermen. Average Seasonal Catch For the seasonal catch, it was found that those who used a Spinning rod caught 0.853 fish per hour; those who used only artificial flies caught 0.277 fish per hour; those who used a natural bait - artificial fly combination caught 0.165 fish per hour; and those who used only natural bait (Table 15) caught 0.206 fish per hour. Qeviation from the Expected Catch It was determined for those using artificial bait how much the catch of each visit class deviated from that expected according to the average eXperience of the entire sample. Tables l6, l7, and la illustrate the deviation from the eXpected catch for those fishermen using natural bait - artificial riy combinations, Spinning rods, and artificial flies alone respectively. Except for the instance of those anglers using artificial flies exclusively, the results, as summarized for the remaining tables, show considerable variation. For those utilizing artificial flies exclusively, all the classes, except for those making one and two visits, caught above the expected average. As the numerical value of the classes increase, the corresponding catch of fish per hour increases,except for those making one visit; these individuals were more successful than those making two vists. The catch per hour of each visit class using artificial bait appears to be more successful than the correSponding catches of the entire sample, except for those making two visits. -37- Average Monthly Catch for Those Using Artificial Bait Those Using Those Using ‘_— Entire Artificial Natural Fish Per Hour Population Bait Bait (Natural Bait) Apr. Hours 650.5 50 600.5 .506 Fish 204 20 184 Iay Hours 1605 275.5 1527.5 .174 Fish 295 62 251 June Hours 561.5 104 257.5 .120 Fish 55 22 51 July Hours 158.5 108.5 50 .200 Fish 50 24 6 Auf. Hours 158.5 65.5 75 .260 Fish 29 10 19 Sept. Hours 57 17.5 59.5 .205 Fish 14 6 8 Average Seasonal Catch for Those Using Natural Bait Exclusively 0.206 ma.md Hdpoa . - . . a. - oo.ma 00.0 00.0 00.0 oo.m oo.m oo.m cm>acmno oaa m Had em a a. ma mm.om Hm.m cm.a mm.a mH.H we.ea me.m cccccaxm a . - . . . - oo.m oo.a oo.a oo.o cc>aampo mma m mm mm m we a mm.c co.n mm.a mm.H capcmaam m . + . . . . oo.a oo.a oo.e 00.4 oo.a cc>accno gas 0 an do as mm.c cm. mm. am. oc.m capocaxm m . 8 oo.aa oo.ag cc>acmpo aw now. + o.ma mm.am mm.m + mm.m mm.m cmpommxm w vo>nwmno cocoaaxm c-m um>ammno empomaxm m-a . . . oo.a oo.H oo.a oo.o cc>aamco are + 0 mm as. co m + em.m as. mm.m mc.H cascaaxm +a 9503 9mm wagon MN coco madm mopempmmm pmmw5¢7NHSh @255 >62 Hfi994 mmwao moqmmmmwam uhmMMHD coapccaceco gag acaoamapam - paam danceaz a wcauaaapb smegmamaa cache to“ mopwo umpommxm amp 5099 asom 9mm mopmo wm>aompo map wo soapwfl>ma cam meadow ago may 0H mHQwB vb.mm Hmpoa . u . . . n .0 00.0 00.0 Um>pmm90 0m>mmmpo capoaaxm m . . . . .w 00.5 co>nmmno . o o o o. . . . . .0 00 w 00 m 00 m 0m>ummpo ”w mac + m Ha we oa Hm m . ac.m as. ao.a em. capocaxm a . . . . .0H 00.0 00.0 Uo>nmmno Um>mmm90 ampommxm 6's 0m>momno umpoqum +0 .lMSofl hon masom x mono mESm mopfimpqmm pmsmswfiwdh mth ,Hma HHAQ¢ mmaao monAmM%HQ m umohmfla PH mHQwH muom mqaqcfimm wzfiufiaapb coaaogmam omega no“, noumo cmpommxm can 809% n30: mom mopwo 0m>nmmno esp Mo meanwfl>mo was mAMva H30 one -40- on.a¢ aapca . - . . . 00.ea 00.0 00.0 00.a 00.0 00.0H 0m>acc00 000 0 mm 00 00 m 00.0H 00.H 00.0 0e.e 00.0 capomaxm a . . . . 00.e 00.0 00.m 00.0 00.0 ampacmpo 0 I 0 0.0 0 at >0 00 m 00.0 00.H «0.H 00.0 00. capomaxm m . . . . 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0c>Aca00 000 0 0H ma 0s 00.0 me. ea.a 00. 00. capocaxm 0 . . . . 00.0 00.H 00.0 0a>aca00 000 + 0 0H 00 00 0H.m 00.H H0.H capocaxm a . . .c . 00.a 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.a 0c>aaano 00H + 0 0H 0c c we 0 00.0 00. 00. we. mm.a cmpccaxm 0-0 00>nmm90 capocaxm 0-a . . . . 00.He 00.0 00.0 00.0H 00.ea 00.HH cc>acm00 m + a . e0 0 a0 mo an 00 em+ 00.0H HH.H 0H.H 00.0 00.0 00.e cacacaxm .0 9:00 mom mhzom NM mono mazm monsopmmm pmmw§< masm ocsh [N02 Hflpm¢ mmwao coqcacaaaa -acmwaa maaaa Htaaatapa< aaco mcauaflapp acaacamaa amaze tom , £0900 copoomxm map Song ago: new gopmo Um>mmmno map Mo soapmfl>ma 0cm mumswm H20 039 ma mHQwH -41- SUHHARY The question of the relationship between frequency of fishing in a stream and fishing success in the same stream has been examined with reference to date from a season-long creel census of a section of Augusta Creek, Kalamazoo County, Michigan. More than 542 anglers fished for 2,949 hours and caught 625 fish. When the data are arranged in visit categories, that is, according to number of visits made to the stream, there is an apparent general increase in success in fish per hour associated with greater numbers of visits throughout the season. .Relatively few individuals were in any single category fishing the stream more than four times, and consequently the success per unit effort in these categories fluctuated considerably. When the visit categories covering the larger numbers of visits were combined into visit classes, the fluctuation in average values for fish caught per hour was reduced, reflecting the larger numbers contributing to each average. Here again was seen an increase in fish per hour accompanying an increase in the numerical value of the visit class involved. For example, those individuals fishing five or more times caught 0.50 fish per hour or more, while those fishing fewer times caught 0.21 fish per hours or less. A Chi-Square test showed differences in catch among visit classes to be significant. By computing the catch expected if all had eXperienced the same success, and comparing with the actual catch, the relation between number of visits and fishing success was shown in a different way. Fishermen making nine or more visits to Augusta Creek caught, on the average, 0.142 fish per hour more than the average, while fishermen in the classes making one, three, and four visits caught fish at below the average rate, with an average deficiency in success as great as -0.070 fish per hour. Those making two visits eXperienced just about average success. EXpressed in another way, the 40 persons who visited the stream five or more times rather consistently caught more trout than the average, and over the season accounted for 97 fish more than should be eXpected from the average success. Having found the distribution of fish per angler, it was evident that the greater number of fish are removed by the minority of individuals catching the most fish, for instance, the most successful seven percent of the anglers removed fifty-two percent of the total season's catch. Sixty-six percent of the anglers caught no fish. For those using artificial lures and Spinning rods the average monthly catch, except for August, and the seasonal success per hour for each visit class, except those making one and two visits, was greater than for the correSponding classes of the entire sample. Upon closer examination of the data for fishermen using artificial lures and spinning rods, it was found that those using Spinning rods were the most successful with an average catch of 0.855 fish per hour; those using artificial flies exclusively were the next most successful group with a catch of 0.277 fish per hour; and those using a natural bait - artificial fly combination were the least successful group with an average catch of 0.165 fish per hour. Those who angled with natural bait alone constituted the bulk of the entire sample and had an average seasonal catch of 0.206 fish per hour. Comparisons made between the seasonal average catches may be misleading; for instance, those using artificial flies fished only two hours during April when fishing was most successful and 65.5 hours during July when the monthly average success was poorer, thus the apparent seasonal success may be depressed for this group. There is need of an adjusted value. -44- LITERATURE CONSULTED Calhoun, 1950, California Angling Catch Records from Postal Card Surveys: 1956-1948; with an Evaluation of Postal Card Nonre3ponse, California Fish and Game, Vol. 56, No. 5, pp. 177-207. Clark, 1950, Report of the General Creel Census for 1958, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 575 (unpublished). Eschmeyer, 1957, The Michigan Creel Census, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 401 (unpublished). Fukano, 1949, Report of the General Creel Census for 1949, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 1255 (unpublished). Fukano, 1951, Report of the General Creel Census for 1950, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 1284 (unpublished) Hazzard, 1940, Census--Fisheries Style, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 597 (unpublished). Krumholz, 1945, Comparison of 1945 General Creel Census for Trout Waters with Similar Censuses of Previous Years, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 908 (unpublished). MOrofsky, Tack, and Lemmien,l949, Recovery of a Southern Michigan.Trout Stream, Hichigan Agricultural Experimental Station Quarterly Bulletin, Vo. 52, No. 1, pp. 59-65. Shatter, 1940, Report on Intensive Trout Stream Creel Censuses in the Upper Peninsula in 1957, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 619 (unpublished). Shetter, 1945, Creel Census on the Hunt Creeleisheries Experimental Area, 1942 Trout Season, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 889 (unpublished). Shatter and Galvin, 1944, Intensive Creel Census Results on the Hunt Creek Fisheries Emperimental Area, 1945 Trout Season, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 945 (unpublished). Shatter and Galvin, 1945, Intensive Creel CenSus Results on the Hunt Creek Fisheries Experimental Area, 1944 Trout Season, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 1021 (unpublished) Shetter, 1946, Intensive Creel Census Results on the Hunt Creek Fisheries Experimental Area, 1945 Trout Season, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 1061 (unpublished). Shetter, 1946, Results of the Intensive Trout Stream Creel Census, 1945 Season, on the Trout Streams of the Rifle River Area (Grousehaven). Inst. for Fish Research Report, 1051 (unpublished). . Shetter, 1947, Intensive Creel Census Results on the Hunt Creek Fisheries Experimental Area, 1946 Trout Season, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 1127 (unpublished). Shatter and Fukano, 1947, Results of Demonstration Creel Censuses and Voluntter Creel Census on.Various Trout Streams during the 1946 Trout Season, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 1092 (unpublished). Shetter and Proshek,1950, The Intensive Creel Census of the Experimental waters of the Hunt Creek Drain e, 1950, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 510 (unpublished. Shetter, 1950, Report on the Intensive Creel Census of the Emperimental Waters of the Hunt Creek Drainage, 1949 season, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 1268 (unpublished). Shatter and Proshek, 1951, The IntenSive Creel Census of the Experimental waters of the Hunt Creek Drainage, 1950 Season, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 1510 (unpublished). 1959, Report on General Creel Census, 1957, Inst. for Fish Research Report, 558 (unpublished). kw." : c -- . “f .“AH \ 5%:£:: 3 "Vi-1” £63 IEJ th (.21ch l l l l l l l l Ill lo l l l l l l l 3 lo l l l1 l ll3 l l l l l l3 l l l9 l 2 l l l l l l l l l l l