The Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection presently
stocks 92 small lakes in the Omineca Region in order
to
provide quality recreational fishing opportunities to
the angling public. In recent years, efforts to understand
the status of these fisheries resources have primarily
relied upon stocking
assessment techniques. While stocking assessments
allow the fisheries manager to quickly evaluate the size
distribution, growth, health, and relative abundance of
fish stocks in a particular system, they do not reveal
the degree of fishing pressure that has been applied to
a waterbody, nor the effects of that pressure on fish
stocks. Since recreational harvesting alters the growth
and abundance of fish populations, angler exploitation
needs to be understood to correctly interpret stocking
assessment results. The combination of stocking assessment
and exploitation data can then be used to evaluate if
stocks are being harvested in a sustainable manner, or
if angling quality targets are being met.
Creel surveys provide a direct measure of the activity
of anglers, their preferences, and their effect on fisheries
resources. Catch rates (fish captured per unit time),
and yield (number and mean size or weight of fish captured),
are used as indicators of angler satisfaction and fishing
quality, and estimates of total harvest derived from creel
data can be used to assess the sustainability of an exploited
fish stock.
In the Omineca Region, the lack of up to date creel data
has precluded the development of specific angler success
or conservation targets for recreational fisheries. Waterbody
specific stocking rates and fishing regulations have consequently
been developed based on perceived expectations of angling
quality and stock sustainability, which may not be consistent
with the actual performance or resilience of that waterbody's
fishery.
To partly address these data shortcomings, we conducted
a series of ground-based creel surveys at selected stocked
lakes within the Omineca Region during the 2001 angling
season. We focused our efforts on stocked lakes because
the pool of candidate lakes was familiar to us, and because
most had recently received stocking assessments against
which the creel data could be compared. We identified
4 lakes that were representative of various stocking scenarios
currently employed within the Region :
-
stocked with rainbow trout, with no other species
present (Amanita Lake);
-
co-stocked with rainbow trout and brook trout, with
non-piscivorous non-game species present (Cobb Lake);
-
stocked with rainbow trout to supplement wild rainbow
trout stocks, with piscivorous non-game species including
northern pikeminnow present (Eulatazella Lake) and;
-
stocked with rainbow trout to supplement wild rainbow
trout stocks, with non-piscivorous non-game species
present (Grizzly Lake West)
The results of these surveys, an interpretation of the
results, and management recommendations are presented
in the following report.
Methods
We used a two-stage, stratified random survey design
(Dixon 1986, Neilsen
and Johnson 1983) to conduct creel surveys at each
of the 4 lakes. This design is suitable for single-access
lakes where the probability of encountering anglers following
the completion of their trips is 100%, a condition which
was met for all 4 lakes. Stratification was employed to
improve the precision of estimates for the study period.
At Cobb, Amanita, and Eulatazella lakes, the survey period
started on the first day of the Victoria Day long weekend
(May 19), and ended on the last day of the Labour Day
long weekend (September 3). While it was recognized that
some angling likely occurred before and after this period,
for the purposes of this study we assumed this activity
to be negligible in relation to the sampling period. Due
to limitations in staff availability, the survey period
for Grizzly Lake (West) was restricted to the late summer
period, commencing July 12 and ending on September 3.
The angling season was stratified by morning and afternoon,
and weekend and weekday, for a total of 4 strata. The
Monday following a long weekend was included in the weekend
stratum. Sampling was weighted towards weekends, whereby
at least one weekend day was randomly selected for sampling.
However, due to staffing limitations, Amanita Lake was
not sampled during the last two weekends of the survey
period, and the first and last weekends of the survey
period were not sampled at Eulatazella Lake. Weekday strata
were randomly selected for sampling as staff time permitted.
Creel shifts were 6 hours in length at Cobb, Eulatazella,
and Amanita lakes. The proximity of Grizzly Lake West
to Eulatazella Lake permitted us to conduct surveys at
both lakes simultaneously, however the shift length at
Grizzly Lake West was reduced when anglers were encountered
at Eulatazella Lake. The morning shift (stratum) commenced
at 0800 hours, and the afternoon shift commenced at 1500
hours. The period between 1400 hours and 1500 hours was
not sampled. Data recorded during angler interviews included
time spent fishing per rod, number of fish captured, number
of fish released, and number of fish retained. If fish
were retained by the angler, their catch was sampled for
fork length (to the nearest mm), weight (to the nearest
g), sex, and maturity.
A subsample of angling parties were also asked to participate
in a voluntary angler questionnaire. We asked anglers
to provide information on the number of days spent fishing
at the lake where they were interviewed, the number of
days fished elsewhere in British Columbia, the type of
angling gear they used, the location of their home, what
their reasons were for fishing on the day of the interview,
and whether they were satisfied with their fishing experience.
In this report, we present selected responses from this
survey that are germaine to the subject content of the
paper.
Estimates of total effort, total number of rods fished,
catch rate, retained rate, release rate, and total harvest
were developed for Eulatazella, Cobb, and Amanita lakes.
Estimates were restricted to rate values for Grizzly Lake
(West), due to the reduced sampling schedule for that
lake. Estimates were developed for the entire angling
season for Eulatazella, Amanita, and Cobb lakes, and for
the sampling period at Grizzly Lake (West). In addition,
complete estimates were made for three arbitrarily designated
fishing sessions at Eulatazella, Cobb and Amanita lakes.
The sessions were defined as "Early" (May 19
- June 29), "Middle" (June 30 - August 3), and
"Late" (August 4 - September 3). We used sessional
estimates instead of monthly estimates to evaluate within-season
changes to the parameters measured, because sample sizes
were too low to permit stratification within months. To
minimize variances for estimates within sessions, we pooled
the morning and afternoon strata, and stratified the sessional
results by weekend and weekday only.
Sessional estimates of the total biomass of fish removed
were calculated as the product of the sessional estimate
of total catch and the mean mass of fish captured for
that session. We did not use pooled seasonal data to calculate
an independent seasonal estimate of biomass removed, because
fishing effort and the mean mass of fish captured were
highly variable between sessions. We instead summed the
sessional values and their variances to obtain a more
precise estimate of the total biomass of fish removed
during the fishing season.
To estimate total fishing effort and the total number
of rods fished, we computed total values and their variances
within each stratum, then summed these values across strata
to obtain seasonal and sessional estimates, as described
in Dixon 1986. We accounted for the
time period not surveyed between 1400 and 1500 hrs by
applying a correction factor of 13/12 to these estimates
and variances. To calculate 95% confidence intervals (CI)
for each estimate, we first calculated the degrees of
freedom for a stratified sample using the formula :
where
is the degrees of freedom,
is the total variance across all strata,
is the variance of the ith stratum, and
is the total number of sample events in the ith
stratum (Gasaway et al. 1986). We then
derived the t statistic from
and calculated the CI as
.
Catch rate, retention rate, and release rate were computed
using the ratio of means estimator (Pollock
et al. 1997). This estimator has been shown to be
more precise than alternative estimators when anglers
are interviewed at the end of their fishing trip. The
formula for computing the ratio of means is:

where
is the ratio being estimated,
is the number of fish caught, retained, or released by
the jth angler, and
is the time fished in hours by the jth angler.
The variance for the ratio of means estimator was calculated
using the formula (Cochran 1977):

where
is the sample mean of the angler effort,
is the finite population correction factor,
is the sample size,
is the variance of effort,
is the variance of catch, and
is the covariance of catch and effort. Because our survey
did not include a census of the total number of anglers,
we estimated
by dividing
by our estimate of the number of rods (i.e. anglers) for
the session or season.
We estimated the number of fish caught, retained, and
released for each session and by season, as the product
of the effort estimate for each time period, and the associated
rate parameter. Variances for each estimate were calculated
as the variance of a product (Heard 1987).
Results and Discussion
|
TABLE
1. |
Total
number of possible sample events (N),
relative to sampled events, per session
stratum. WD=weekday, WE=weekend |
|
|
|
Early |
|
Middle |
|
Late |
|
WD |
WE |
|
WD |
WE |
|
WD |
WE |
|
|
N |
26 |
58 |
|
22 |
48 |
|
22 |
40 |
Cobb |
5 |
7 |
|
6 |
5 |
|
5 |
5 |
Eulatazella |
5 |
6 |
|
5 |
5 |
|
5 |
3 |
Amanita |
7 |
5 |
|
5 |
6 |
|
4 |
2 |
|
|
|
|
Sampling Schedule
For any one stratum, we attempted to sample at least
5 events in order to minimize variances. Due to unforeseen
reductions in staff availability, we were unable to meet
this target during the Late session at Amanita (both strata)
and Eulatazella (weekend stratum) lakes (Table 1).
Sample sizes at Amanita and Cobb lakes were sufficient
to calculate seasonal estimates using full stratification
by shift and day type. Eulatazella Lake was undersampled
during the weekday morning and weekend afternoon strata,
so these strata were pooled and seasonal estimates were
stratified by day type only. Complete sampling schedules
for Cobb, Amanita, Eulatazella, and Grizzly lakes are
illustrated in appendices 1 through
4 respectively.
|
TABLE
2. |
Total
number of angling parties interviewed
by lake surveyed, per session and
by season. |
|
|
|
Session |
|
|
|
Early |
Middle |
Late |
Season |
|
|
Cobb |
94 |
57 |
60 |
211 |
Eulatazella |
7 |
1 |
2 |
10 |
Amanita |
16 |
4 |
3 |
23 |
Grizzly W |
NA |
NA |
NA |
17 |
|
|
|
|
We conducted a total of 261 angler interviews across
all of the lakes surveyed (Table 2). The low sample of
interviews obtained during the Middle and Late sessions
at Amanita and Eulatazella lakes reflect very low utilization
rates that we observed for these lakes (see below).
Angler Effort
We estimate that Cobb Lake received 2,700 angler visits
during the 2001 fishing season (Table 3), the highest
level of angler use of the three lakes for which estimates
were derived.
|
TABLE
3. |
Estimated
number of anglers fishing by session
and season in 2001, with 95% confidence
intervals in parentheses. |
|
|
|
Session |
|
|
|
Early |
Middle |
Late |
Season |
|
|
Cobb |
1,170 |
820 |
790 |
2,700 |
|
(730-1,610) |
(520-1,120) |
(500-1,080) |
(2,240-3,160) |
Eulatazella |
120 |
21 |
60 |
200 |
|
(0-270) |
(0-75) |
(0-300) |
(30-360) |
Amanita |
110 |
23 |
24 |
170 |
|
(10-220) |
(0-58) |
(0-72) |
(50-280) |
|
|
|
|
Eulatazella and Amanita lakes received very little angler
use, at 200 and 170 angler visits respectively.
Anglers spent 7,300 hours fishing at Cobb Lake, but only
240 and 250 hours at Eulatazella and Amanita lakes (Table
4). Fishing time per trip (95% CI) averaged 1.2 hours
at Eulatazella Lake (0 - 2.6), 1.5 hours at Amanita Lake
(0 - 3.1), and 2.7 hours at Cobb Lake (2.1 - 3.3). Angling
activity was the highest during the Early session for
all three lakes. Variances for all estimates were lower
at Cobb Lake than at Eulatazella and Amanita lakes, suggesting
that the latter two lakes received sporadic, unsustained
angler use.
The shorter fishing times observed at Eulatazella and
Amanita lakes likely reflect the low CPUE values experienced
at each lake (see Catch Success below) and may
also be influenced by the perceived expectations of fishing
quality at the two lakes. For example, if anglers that
targeted Amanita Lake had reduced expectations of fishing
success due to its reputation as a poor quality fishery,
they may have spent less time fishing than they would
at lakes whose success rates are known to be high. Conversely,
anglers that visit Cobb Lake may have high expectations
of success and might therefore allocate more time to fishing
regardless of their individual catch success.
|
TABLE
4. |
Estimated
fishing effort in angler-hours by
session and season in 2001, with 95%
confidence intervals in parentheses. |
|
|
|
Session |
|
|
|
Early |
Middle |
Late |
Season |
|
|
Cobb |
3,600 |
1,700 |
2,200 |
7,300 |
|
(2,000-5,300) |
(900-2,500) |
(1,300-3,200) |
(6,000-8,600) |
Eulatazella |
110 |
60 |
70 |
240 |
|
(0-280) |
(0-230) |
(0-310) |
(30-450) |
Amanita |
190 |
13 |
40 |
250 |
|
(0-440) |
(0-33) |
(0-150) |
(10-500) |
|
|
|
|
Distance from home was an important determinant affecting
lake selection by anglers at all three study lakes (Table
5), however sample sizes for Amanita and Eulatazella lakes
were very low. Cobb Lake is located near the Highway 16
corridor, and attracts anglers due to its relatively quick
and straightforward access. Amanita Lake is located within
an hour's drive of Prince George. Ministry of Forests
user statistics indicate that the Amanita Lake Forest
Recreation Site receives between 2,400 and 3,500 user
days per year (data on file), suggesting that its distance
from Prince George does not negatively influence the recreational
use of the lake by the public. Access to Eulatazella Lake
is more complex and requires knowledge of forest service
roads, however this did not deter the anglers that we
interviewed from accessing the lake.
The reputation of a lake's fishery also influenced its
selection by anglers. Cobb Lake has a reputation for providing
anglers with good yields of brook and rainbow trout. Users
of the Amanita Lake Forest Recreation Site informed the
creel clerk that fishing was known to be poor, even though
few of those users actually fished. Opinions regarding
expectations of catch success at both Amanita and Cobb
lakes are partially supported by gill net CPUE data we
derived from stocking assessments completed in 1999 (Zimmerman
1999a, 1999b), however the relationship between stocking
assessment results and angling success can be variable.
|
TABLE
5. |
Number
of responses by category to the question,
"What is your main reason for
fishing on this lake today?"
from anglers residing in B.C. |
|
|
|
Distance
from Home |
Reputation |
Natural
Setting |
Other |
|
|
Cobb |
56 |
33 |
12 |
48 |
Eulatazella |
2 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
Amanita |
5 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
We have no data on the perceived quality of fishing at
Eulatazella Lake, and the few anglers who fished there
did not have preconceived opinions regarding its fishing
quality. Aerial boat counts conducted in the summer of
2001 (Zimmerman in prep) showed that Grizzly Lake (West),
which is located approximately 15 km from Eulatazella
Lake, received over 4 times as much fishing effort as
did Eulatazella Lake. This suggests that while proximity
may influence overall angler activity, that expectations
of fishing success rates likely play an important role
in lake selection at more remote locations.
Catch Success Rates: Rainbow Trout
The Cobb Lake rainbow trout fishery sustained the highest
sessional and seasonal catch rates of all the lakes surveyed.
Anglers averaged 0.49 fish per angler hour during the
fishing season, with catches up to 0.62 fish per hour
during the Early session (Table 6). Catch success dropped
to half this rate by the July long weekend (i.e. the Middle
session) and remained at a reduced level for the remainder
of the season. Interestingly, the reduction in catch rate
from the Early to Middle sessions corresponded to the
reduction in angling effort over the same period. Whether
these two results are correlated is unknown, however it
is generally accepted that fishing success rates in the
Omineca diminish by mid summer, once thermal stratification
has occurred, and that this reduction in success leads
to reduced angling effort.
|
TABLE
6. |
Estimated
rainbow trout fishing success rates
by session and season in 2001, in
catch per angler-hour, with 95% confidence
intervals in parentheses. NC=not calculated,
rationale given below. |
|
|
|
Session |
|
|
|
Early |
Middle |
Late |
Season |
|
|
Cobb |
0.62 |
0.31 |
0.42 |
0.49 |
|
(0.50-0.74) |
(0.16-0.46) |
(0.29-0.55) |
(0.41-0.57) |
Eulatazella |
0.6 |
NC1 |
NC1 |
0.3 |
|
(0-1.7) |
|
|
(0-0.9) |
Amanita |
0.1 |
0 |
0 |
0.07 |
|
(0-0.2) |
(NC2) |
(NC2) |
(0-0.17) |
Grizzly W |
NC3 |
NC3 |
NC3 |
0.29 |
|
(NC3) |
(NC3) |
(NC3) |
(0.18-0.41) |
|
1Sample
size too low to estimate catch rate. |
2No fish
captured by any angler during session. |
3Sessional
values not calculated for Grizzly
Lake West. |
|
|
|
We were unable to estimate catch rates for Eulatazella
Lake during the Middle and Late sessions due to the paucity
of anglers that fished during these periods (Table 2,
Table 6). The 7 angling parties we interviewed during
the Early session averaged 0.6 fish per angler hour, but
this result was inluenced by one angling party that succeeded
in obtaining 8 rainbow trout over 4 hours of effort, while
the remainder of the parties did not catch any trout.
This variability in fishing success is reflected in the
wide confidence interval for the estimate (Table 6). These
results suggest that Eulatazella Lake is capable of providing
a successful fishing experience to anglers, but that highly
variable catch rates may be negatively influencing the
selection of this lake by anglers.
Amanita Lake exhibited extremely low catch success rates
during all sessions and for the angling season. This lake
receives annual releases of 1,500 hatchery rainbow trout
(Zimmerman 1999a) and should sustain
a moderate recreational fishery capable of providing higher
catch rates than what we observed during our survey. Our
results lead us to believe that Amanita Lake rainbow trout
stocks are experiencing higher than normal natural mortality,
perhaps resulting from sustained winter kills or possibly
due to low lake productivity.
The Grizzly Lake West seasonal catch rate estimate of
0.29 fish per hour was consistent with catch rates reported
in the early 1980s of between 0.31 and 0.47 fish per hour
(Dixon 1983). Because we did not begin
to sample Grizzly Lake West until July 12, this result
may underestimate the true seasonal value of the mean
catch rate for the fishery, since spring rates are typically
higher than summer rates. We therefore predict that catch
success during the spring period may approach or exceed
0.5 fish per hour.
Catch Success Rates: Other Species
In addition to rainbow trout, eastern brook trout were
captured at Cobb Lake, and kokanee and mountain whitefish
were taken at Eulatazella Lake. Incidental catches of
northern pikeminnow were also reported at Eulatazella
Lake. Catch rates for these species were lower than those
reported for rainbow trout (Table 7).
|
TABLE
7. |
Estimated
catch per angler hour of species
other than rainbow trout, by session
and season in 2001. 95% confidence
intervals are given in parentheses.
EBT=eastern brook trout, KO=kokanee,
MW=mountain whitefish, NSC=northern
pikeminnow. NC=not calculated, rationale
given below. |
|
|
|
Session |
|
|
|
Lake (Species) |
Early |
Middle |
Late |
Season |
|
|
|
Cobb (EBT) |
0.084 |
0.036 |
0.038 |
0.059 |
|
(0.038-0.132) |
(0.013-0.060) |
(0.014-0.061) |
(0.034-0.084) |
Eulatazella (KO,MW) |
0.17 |
NC1 |
NC1 |
0.08 |
|
(0-0.42) |
|
|
(0-0.22) |
Eulatazella (NSC) |
0 |
NC1 |
NC1 |
0.17 |
|
NC2 |
|
|
(0-0.37) |
|
1Sample
size too low to estimate catch rate. |
2No fish
captured by any angler during session. |
|
|
|
We did not differentiate anglers that targeted brook
trout from those that were fishing for rainbow trout at
Cobb Lake. Thus our estimate of the brook trout catch
rate may be lower than the actual catch rate, since the
effort data were pooled for both species. Higher accuracy
for the summer brook trout fishery could be achieved by
refining the survey method to include the type of fish
targeted in the fishery.
We assumed that anglers that fished at Eulatazella Lake
targeted rainbow trout, but would consider mountain whitefish
or kokanee for retention as a 'sport' fish. The catch
rates reported for these species suggest that the wild
non-rainbow salmonid populations in Eulatazella Lake currently
supplement the rainbow trout fishery, but do not support
a directed fishery. Seasonal catch rates of northern pikeminnow
exceeded those of kokanee and whitefish, but were lower
than rainbow trout catch rates.
|
TABLE
8. |
Estimated
number of trout captured, harvested,
and released by anglers at Cobb, Eulatazella,
and Amanita lakes. 95% confidence
intervals are given in parantheses.
RB=rainbow trout, EB=eastern brook
trout, NC=not calculated due to small
sample size. |
|
|
|
Session |
|
|
|
Early |
Middle |
Late |
Season |
|
|
Cobb
RB |
Captured |
2,300 |
520 |
940 |
3,600 |
(1,300-3,200) |
(200-840) |
(500-1,370) |
(2,800-4,400) |
Harvested |
1,010 |
350 |
500 |
1,800 |
(580-1,440) |
(150-560) |
(250-750) |
(1,370-2,240) |
Released |
1,250 |
170 |
430 |
1,790 |
(670-1,840) |
(30-310) |
(190-670) |
(1,280-2,310) |
|
|
Eulatazella
RB |
Captured |
70 |
NC |
NC |
80 |
(0-220) |
|
|
(0-240) |
Harvested |
50 |
NC |
NC |
50 |
(0-110) |
|
|
(0-120) |
Released |
28 |
NC |
NC |
30 |
(0-82) |
|
|
(0-90) |
|
|
Amanita
RB |
Captured |
17 |
0 |
0 |
18 |
(0-46) |
|
|
(0-47) |
Harvested |
6 |
0 |
0 |
6 |
(0-27) |
|
|
(0-22) |
Released |
11 |
0 |
0 |
12 |
(0-35) |
|
|
(0-36) |
|
|
Cobb
EB |
Captured |
300 |
62 |
80 |
430 |
(100-510) |
(17-107) |
(20-140) |
(240-630) |
Harvested |
170 |
41 |
30 |
230 |
(80-260) |
(4-79) |
(2-62) |
(140-320) |
Released |
140 |
21 |
54 |
200 |
(0-280) |
(0-44) |
(16-92) |
(70-340) |
|
|
|
|
|
Capture, Retention, and Release of Sport Fish
Our estimates of the total number of fish captured, retained,
and released in each of the study lakes illustrate that
Cobb Lake rainbow trout are highly exploited, whereas
Eulatazella Lake and Amanita Lake stocks receive very
little angling pressure (Table 8).
Fifty-six percent of the total number of rainbow trout
retained at Cobb Lake were taken during the Early session,
which corresponds to the high angler effort seen during
the same period. Retention rates (number retained divided
by number captured) varied from a low of 44% during the
Early session to 67% during the Middle session. The seasonal
retention rate was 50%. While it is beyond the scope of
this study to evaluate the effects of exploitaiton on
fish stocks, these results strongly suggest that the Cobb
Lake adult rainbow trout population is subject to significant
angling pressure. We estimate that 1,800 fish were removed
from the lake during the 2001 fishing season; this likely
represents a high proportion of the total number of catchable
trout, given that the lake is stocked with 10,000 yearlings
per year.
Not surprisingly, our exploitation estimates for rainbow
stocks in Amanita and Eulatazella lakes are very low.
The variances around each estimate are high owing to high
variances in effort and catch rates for the two lakes.
The upper 95% confidence limit of the estimate of fish
harvested is 120 and 22 rainbow trout for Eulatazella
and Amanita lakes, respectively. These low harvest estimates
are attributable to low angling pressure at both lakes,
however catch rates for those anglers that fished Eulatazella
Lake were much higher (Table 6) than for those that fished
at Amanita Lake. These results support our view that different
factors are inluencing angler use and harvest at the two
lakes. We believe that Eulatazella Lake is capable of
supporting a recreational rainbow trout fishery, however
either its location, the presence on non-game fish, or
other deterrents are responsible for low angler use seen
at this lake. Conversely, Amanita Lake, while aesthetically
pleasing, appears to not support viable populations of
trout. The causal factors for this poor survival are unknown
at present, but may be attributable to the lake's low
productivity.
With the exception of Cobb Lake eastern brook trout,
we did not calculate harvest statistics for other sport
fish species because catches were very low. We estimate
that during the 2001 fishing season anglers caught 430
brook trout at Cobb Lake, and retained 230 of these fish
(Table 8) for a retention rate of 53%. Anglers retained
approximately 1 brook trout for every 4 rainbow trout
retained. Cobb Lake supports a summer and winter fishery,
the latter being primarily targeted at brook trout. Exploitation
of brook trout during the summer months appears to be
moderate relative to current stocking rates; if more detailed
catch statistics are required for fish supply planning
needs, a full winter creel survey would be necessary to
fully document brook trout harvest rates throughout the
year.
Parameters of Fish Harvested and Estimates of Biomass
Removed
Because very few fish were captured, we are unable to
describe the characteristics of exploited fish populations
in either Eulatazella or Amanita lakes. Grizzly Lake (West)
was sampled on an opportunistic basis, so few fish were
obtained from this fishery for sampling. Thus we report
only on the Cobb Lake eastern brook trout and rainbow
trout fisheries, for which large sample sizes were available.
|
TABLE
9. |
Mean
length, mean weight, and estimated
total biomass of trout retained from
Cobb Lake, 2001. Values in parantheses
are standard deviations for length
and weight, and 95% confidence intervals
for biomass estimates. |
|
|
|
Session |
|
|
|
Early |
Middle |
Late |
Season |
|
|
Rainbow Trout |
Mean Length (mm) |
424 |
363 |
371 |
378 |
|
(52.9) |
(33.2) |
(39.7) |
(40.4) |
Mean Weight (g) |
618 |
492 |
523 |
529 |
|
(236.8) |
(107.7) |
(155.8) |
(164.4) |
Biomass (kg) |
625 |
172 |
263 |
1,060 |
|
(85-1,165) |
(47-298) |
(61-465) |
(470-1,650) |
|
|
|
Brook Trout |
Mean Length (mm) |
384 |
352 |
321 |
348 |
|
(29.3) |
(37.7) |
(30.1) |
(40.0) |
Mean Weight (g) |
560 |
544 |
397 |
489 |
|
(126.8) |
(137.8) |
(102.3) |
(137.0) |
Biomass (kg) |
94 |
22 |
12 |
129 |
|
(29-160) |
(0-46) |
(0-26) |
(58-200) |
|
|
|
|
|
Retained Cobb Lake rainbow trout averaged 378 mm in length
and 529 g in weight for the angling season (Table 9).
The mean length and weight of fish retained was highest
during the early session, then stabilized during the latter
two sessions of the fishing season. These results suggest
that Cobb Lake rainbow trout stocks are fished down during
the angling season. Those fish that escape retention or
are released without recapture continue to grow during
the marginal season when fishing pressure subsides, then
become available to the retainable fishery during the
following season. Thus we believe that Cobb Lake rainbow
trout angling success is regulated by the degree of angling
pressure that occurs during the previous year, rather
than by density dependent factors that appear to influence
catch success in lakes with low angling activity.
We estimate that a total of 1,060 kg of rainbow trout
were removed from Cobb Lake during the 2001 fishing season.
This equates to a harvest of 5.0 kg per ha, which is consistent
with harvest rates seen in moderately productive lakes
in other jursidictions, that are stocked at low to moderate
densities.
The numbers of brook trout sampled by the creel clerk
were 4, 5, and 6 for the Early, Middle, and Late season
respectively. These low sample sizes were due to low numbers
that were captured and retained by anglers. The attribute
data for each sessional sample is presented in Table 9,
however these data should be viewed with caution because
of the low sample sizes obtained. The mean length and
weight of brook trout captured declined throughout the
fishing season, however this trend was less distinct than
that observed for rainbow trout, and may be an artefact
of the small sample size. We estimate that 129 kg of brook
trout were removed from the lake during the 2001 season,
representing a harvest of 0.61 kg/ha.
Management Recommendations
The creel surveys that we conducted at Eulatazella and
Amanita lakes reveal that these two lakes receive very
little angling effort. Because few anglers were encountered
during our surveys, we were unable to obtain sufficient
data to draw firm conclusions regarding the cause for
the low level of activity that we observed. However, the
data we were able to retrieve from those anglers that
did visit the lakes provide some evidence that different
factors are responsible for their low use.
Amanita Lake is used by local residents for recreational
activities, but with a few exceptions those users did
not include angling as part of their recreational experience.
Anglers that did attempt to fish experienced very low
catch rates, even though the lake is stocked with 1,500
yearlings (42/ha) per year and should theoretically support
a moderate fishery. We believe that this poor fishing
success is explained by the lake's extremely low productivity.
Simply put, low levels of nutrients in Amanita Lake constrain
primary production, which in turn prevents zooplankton
and benthic faunal communities from increasing to the
levels that are required to support a healthy trout population.
This shortage of food will be most acute during the winter
months when terrestrial insects are not available as a
diet supplement. Thus it is likely that many Amanita Lake
rainbow trout experience high mortality during the winter
months and are therefore not available to be angled during
the summer fishing season. This situation cannot be easily
remedied with conventional fisheries management tools.
Given that other fishing opportunities are available in
the vicinity of Amanita Lake, and that the lake does not
appear to support stocked trout, we recommend that the
lake be removed from the Omineca stocking program.
Angling success at Eulatazella Lake was variable but
generally higher than what anglers experienced at Amanita
Lake. The high variance in catch success can be attributed
to the low sample size that we obtained, and possibly
to the level of experience of the anglers that visited
the lake. Most of the anglers we interviewed were not
experienced fishers, but were visiting the lake as family
outing or were "passing through." A larger sample
of interviews is therefore required in order to sufficiently
predict a mean catch rate for the Eulatazella fishery.
Since catch success may not be limiting angler interest,
the low amount of use seen at Eulatazella is likely explained
by other factors. The lake's proximity to other waterbodies
that yield good fishing results (e.g. Grizzly Lake West)
may divert fishing effort to those systems. The potential
to capture non-game fish, such as northern pikeminnow,
may reduce its appeal to the angling community. The size
of rainbow trout available to the angler may be too small
to warrant fishing effort, although we did not collect
sufficient data to support this explanation.
Regardless of the reason for the low level of angling
activity, our results suggest that the exploitation of
rainbow trout stocks by anglers is far below the level
needed to justify a supplemental stocking program. Indeed,
the utility of supplemental stocking in mixed species
lakes is questionable, and the Eulatazella data may be
indicative of the level of angling effort that occurs
at other mixed species lakes throughout the region. We
therefore recommend that stocking be ceased at Eulatazella,
and that consideration be given to the value of supplemental
stocking in lakes with similar, naturally occurring fish
communities.
Cobb Lake rainbow and brook trout stocks appear to support
a robust recreational fishery that blends good catch rates
with medium to large sized fish. Because no other lakes
in the Omineca region have been subjected to creel surveys
in recent years, we are unable to compare angling quality
parameters with different stocking scenarios that are
currently being employed in the region. Nevertheless,
our results show that during the 2001 summer fishing season,
Cobb Lake received 13 angler days per ha, with catch rates
of up to 0.62 fish per angler-hour, and retention rates
of up to 67%. This fishery is based on an annual stocking
rate of 47 rainbow trout yearlings and 95 brook trout
fingerlings per ha per year.
We conclude that this stocking strategy is well suited
to both the productive capacity of Cobb Lake and needs
of the angling community, and recommend that survey results
from other lakes be gauged against the Cobb Lake fishery,
because it represents a good compromise between catch
rate and fish size given its productive potential. While
our data indicates that Cobb Lake currently exhibits good
fishing quality characteristics, we expect these traits
to vary as biophysical conditions change and as the demographic
makeup and behavior of the angling community shifts over
time. To ensure that management strategies for the lake
are optimized, we recommend that this survey be repeated
within a 5 to 7 year time frame.
The Grizzly Lake (West) fishery was only partially sampled,
yet our results show that recreational angling yielded
moderate results during the mid summer, and likely provides
good returns during the spring period. The lake contains
naturally occurring stocks of non-piscivorous cyprinids
which do not appear to detrimentally affect rainbow trout
fish production. More work is needed to evaluate the relative
performance of rainbow trout strains in mixed species
lakes that do not contain piscivores, however the preliminary
findings from Grizzly Lake (West) suggest that for these
lake types, careful stocking strategies may provide good
recreational opportunities if natural fish populations
are accounted for.
Acknowledgments
This survey was conducted under a partnership arrangement
between the Ministry
of Water, Land, and Air Protection, the Carrier
Sekani Tribal Council (CSTC), and the British
Columbia Conservation Foundation. Funding was obtained
from Fisheries Renewal B.C. and administered by the Upper
Fraser-Nechako Fisheries Council. Lawrence Ward assisted
with the fieldwork component of the assessment. Don Cadden
(BC WLAP) and Todd French (UFNFC) reviewed the initial
drafts of this report. Inquiries pertaining to this report
should be directed to the author at the email and address
located at the bottom of this page.
Cochran, W.G. 1977. Sampling techniques,
3rd edition. Wiley, New York.
Dixon, B.M. 1983. Review of creel data for Region 7, Omineca.
BC Ministry of Environment, Fisheries Branch, Prince George.
28 p.
Dixon, B.M. 1986. Instruction for a triple stratified random
sample creel survey (eight strata). BC Ministry of Environment,
Fisheries Branch, Prince George. 16 p plus appendices.
Gasaway, W.C., S.D. DuBois, D.J. Reed, and S.J. Harbo. 1986.
Estimating moose population parameters from aerial surveys.
Biol. Pap. No. 22, University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Heard, D.C. 1987. A simple formula for calculating the variance
of products and dividends. NWT Department of Renewable Resources
Manuscript Report, Yellowknife. 6 p.
Nielsen, L.A. and D.L. Johnson (ed.) 1983. Fisheries techniques.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Pollock, K.H., J.M. Hoenig, C.M. Jones, D.S. Robson, and
C.J. Greene. 1997. Catch rate estimation for roving and
access point surveys. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 17:11-19.
Zimmerman, J.T.
1999a. Amanita Lake recreational fishery stocking assessment.
BC Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Fisheries
Branch, Prince George.
Zimmerman, J.T.
1999b. Cobb Lake recreational fishery stocking assessment.
BC Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, Fisheries
Branch, Prince George.