Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Northern Pike and Walleye Summer Sport Fishery at Haig Lake, Alberta, 2011
The Alberta Conservation Association is a Delegated Administrative Organization under Alberta’s Wildlife Act.
25% Post Consumer Fibre
When separated, both the binding and paper in this document are recyclable
Northern Pike and Walleye Summer Sport Fishery at Haig Lake, Alberta, 2011
Melissa Buskas and Clayton James Alberta Conservation Association
Box 900-26 Peace River, Alberta, Canada
T8S 1T4
i
Report Editors PETER AKU GLENDA SAMUELSON Alberta Conservation Association R.R. #2 #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Craven SK S0G 0W0 Sherwood Park AB T8A 6J7 Conservation Report Series Type Data ISBN printed: 978-1-4601-0038-7 ISBN online: 978-1-4601-0039-4 Publication No.: T/261 Disclaimer: This document is an independent report prepared by Alberta Conservation Association. The authors are solely responsible for the interpretations of data and statements made within this report. Reproduction and Availability: This report and its contents may be reproduced in whole, or in part, provided that this title page is included with such reproduction and/or appropriate acknowledgements are provided to the authors and sponsors of this project. Suggested Citation: Buskas, M., and C. James. 2012. Northern pike and walleye summer sport fishery at
Haig Lake, 2011. Data Report, D-2012-001, produced by Alberta Conservation Association, Peace River, Alberta, Canada. 13 pp + App.
Cover photo credit: David Fairless Digital copies of conservation reports can be obtained from: Alberta Conservation Association #101, 9 Chippewa Rd Sherwood Park AB T8A 6J7 Toll Free: 1-877-969-9091 Tel: (780) 410-1998 Fax: (780) 464-0990 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ab-conservation.com
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
High fishing pressure, coupled with slow-growing and late-maturing populations, have resulted in the over-harvest of many of Alberta’s sport fish populations, especially
northern pike (Esox lucius) and walleye (Sander vitreus). To generate the information
required for the management of these species on Haig Lake, we conducted a creel survey during the summer of 2011 (1 June to 31 August). We used a reduced-effort creel
survey to collect data on angling effort, catch rates, harvest and release rates, population structure and other related sport fishery demographics.
Based on 307 angler interviews, angler effort at Haig Lake was 2.8 h/ha (95%CI = 2.3–
3.4). Total estimated yield of northern pike was 199.2 kg (95%CI = 155.3–252.8), or 0.2
kg/ha (95%CI = 0.2–0.3). The northern pike population had a length distribution ranging from 289 to 913 mm total length (TL) (n = 233), with the majority of fish ranging from 400
to 650 mm TL. The mean lengths (±SE) for sport-harvest and test-angled fish were 639 ± 29 mm TL (n = 15) and 528 ± 6 mm TL (n = 218), respectively. Overall age ranged from 1
to 12 y, with the population consisting largely of 2 to 6 y fish. Mean ages (±SE) were 8 ± 1
y (n = 8) and 4 ± 0.1 y (n = 214) for sport-harvest and test-angled fish, respectively. Growth estimates indicate it would take approximately 5 to 6 years for northern pike in
Haig Lake to reach the 550 mm TL harvestable size and 7 to 8 years to reach the 630 mm TL Alberta Northern Pike Management and Recovery Plan standard size.
The total estimated yield of walleye was 318.1 kg (95%CI = 257.2–386.1), or 0.3 kg/ha
(95%CI = 0.3–0.4). The walleye population length distribution ranged from 265 to 618
mm TL (n = 262), with the majority of fish between 350 to 600 mm TL. The mean length (±SE) was 540 ± 5 (n = 46) for sport-harvest fish and 464 ± 5 (n = 216) for test-angled fish.
Overall age ranged from 2 to 18 y, with the population consisting largely of 4 to 9 y fish. The mean age (±SE) was 11 ± 1 y (n = 46) and 7 ± 0.2 y (n = 213) for sport-harvest and test-
angled fish, respectively. Growth estimates indicate it would take approximately 7 to 8
years for walleye in Haig Lake to reach the 500 mm TL harvestable size. Key words: northern pike, walleye, creel survey, Haig Lake.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding was provided by Alberta Conservation Association (ACA). We thank our seasonal staff, Kelsey Morin and Carl Steenbergen, for conducting the creel surveys and
representing ACA in a professional manner. We thank Alberta Sustainable Resource
Development, Fisheries Management Division, Peace River, for their in-kind support. Thank you to Troy Furukawa, Brendan Ganton, and Bill Patterson for their support and
guidance in the process of ageing samples.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vi
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................... vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1
2.0 STUDY AREA ...................................................................................................... 2
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................ 3 3.1 Survey design .................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Biological fish data ........................................................................................... 3 3.3 Test-angling ....................................................................................................... 4 3.4 Data management and analysis ..................................................................... 5
4.0 RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 6 4.1 Angler survey ................................................................................................... 6 4.2 Northern pike harvest and yield .................................................................... 6 4.3 Northern pike population structure .............................................................. 6 4.4 Walleye harvest and yield ............................................................................... 9 4.5 Walleye population structure ......................................................................... 9
5.0 LITERATURE CITED ....................................................................................... 12
6.0 APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 14
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Map of Haig Lake, Alberta showing the location of the creel survey site ........ 2
Figure 2. Length distribution of northern pike caught during test-angling and sport-harvest at Haig Lake, 2011. ...................................................................................... 7
Figure 3. Age distribution of northern pike caught during test-angling and sport-harvest at Haig Lake, 2011. ...................................................................................... 7
Figure 4. Length-at-age relationship of northern pike caught during test angling and sport-harvest at Haig Lake, 2011 ............................................................................ 8
Figure 5. Length distribution of walleye caught during test-angling and sport-harvest at Haig Lake, 2011. .................................................................................................. 10
Figure 6. Age distribution of walleye caught during test-angling and sport-harvest at Haig Lake, 2011. ...................................................................................................... 10
Figure 7. Length-at-age relationship of walleye caught during test-angling and sport-harvest at Haig Lake, 2011. .................................................................................... 11
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Number of available sample units and the number of units sampled during the creel survey of Haig Lake, 2011. ....................................................................... 3
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Creel survey form, Haig Lake, 2011. ............................................................... 14
Appendix 2. Biological information collected from fish during test-angling, Haig Lake, 2011 ...................................................................................................................... 15
Appendix 3. Flow chart outlining the process used to calculate a whole lake estimate for a single access creel survey, Haig Lake, 2011 .......................................... 27
Appendix 4. Summary of information collected from anglers during the creel survey, Haig Lake, 2011 .................................................................................................. 28
Appendix 5. Biological information collected from angler harvested fish during the creel survey, Haig Lake, 2011 .......................................................................... 29
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
High fishing pressure, coupled with slow-growing and late maturing populations, have resulted in the over-harvest of many of Alberta’s sport fish populations (Sullivan 2003a),
including northern pike (Esox lucius) and walleye (Sander vitreus). To facilitate the
management of these important sport fish species, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development (ASRD) established the Alberta Walleye Management and Recovery Plan
(AWMRP) in 1995 and the Alberta Northern Pike Management and Recovery Plan (ANPMRP) in 1999 (Berry 1995; 1999). Under these management plans, lakes are
classified into one of four management categories: 1) collapsed, 2) vulnerable, 3) stable,
or 4) trophy, according to which lake-specific sport fishing regulations are developed.
Based on these management plans, both northern pike and walleye fisheries at Haig
Lake are classified as vulnerable. Northern pike are managed with a three-fish >55 cm total length (TL) daily bag limit regulation, and walleye harvest is limited to a one-fish
>50 cm TL daily bag limit regulation. Haig Lake was stocked with walleye from 1990 to 1993 and is therefore designated as a stocked fishery that is now self-sustaining. The
2011 angling season was from 1 June to 31 March.
This report summarizes results of the creel survey we conducted on Haig Lake during
the summer of 2011. The goal of this survey was to collect information on angling effort, catch rate, sport fish yield, and population structure to help evaluate the current sport
fishing regulations and to facilitate future decisions regarding regulations for the management of this lake.
2
2.0 STUDY AREA Haig Lake (56°53’N 116°6’W) has a surface area of 914 ha, a maximum depth of 8.2 m, and a mean depth of 4.6 m (Government of Alberta 2011). It is located in the Peace River
drainage, approximately 100 km northwest of Peace River, Alberta (Figure 1). Haig Lake
can be accessed from Highway 986, which is located approximately 60 km north-east of Peace River. There is an unmaintained campground and boat launch on the northwest
shore of the lake, as well as a few cabins.
Figure 1. Map of Haig Lake, Alberta showing the location of the creel survey site.
3
3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Angler Survey
We conducted a reduced-effort creel survey (Pollock et al. 1994) from a single access
point on Haig Lake from 1 June to 31 August 2011. The survey was stratified into four temporal sampling units; weekdays and weekends, further divided into morning (08:00-
15:30) and evening (15:30-23:00) units. Sunday evenings were classified as weekday units and Friday evenings as weekend units, because Friday evenings displayed angling
effort more typical of weekend evenings (high) and Sunday evenings were more typical
of weekday evenings (low). In total, 61 (33%) of the possible 184 temporal sampling
units were sampled (Table 1). We used data from units that were sampled to calculate
estimates of creel survey parameters for the units that were not sampled.
Table 1. Number of available sample units and the number of units sampled during the creel survey of Haig Lake, 2011.
Strata # Available # Surveyed % Surveyed Weekday morning 64 17 27 Weekday evening 64 14 22 Weekend morning 28 15 54 Weekend evening 28 15 54
We asked anglers a series of questions regarding the number of hours fished, the number of fish harvested and released, along with questions regarding their fishing
methods (see Appendix 1).
3.2 Biological fish data
When permitted, we collected biological data from fish harvested by anglers including
fork length (FL, mm), TL (mm), weight (g), gender, state of maturity, and ageing
structures. Gender and state of maturity were determined following Duffy et al. (2000). For age determination, we collected the first three rays of the left pelvic fin from both
species, as well as the left cleithrum from northern pike, and otoliths from walleye, following Mackay et al. (1990). It is often difficult to identify the first annulus when
4
ageing walleye otoliths and therefore we used the following equation to estimate its
location (Watkins and Spencer Unpubl. data):
X = R (L0) / LC where,
X = distance from the focus to first annulus of otoliths;
R = radius of otolith cross-section; L0 = length at age 0 (~120 mm); and
LC = length of fish at capture (FL).
We described fish growth using the von Bertalanffy (1938) growth model:
Lt = L∞ (1 – e -K (t - t0))
where, Lt = length at age t;
L∞ = maximum theoretical length that can be attained; K = coefficient of growth;
t = age, in years; and
t0 = theoretical time, in years, when the fish was size zero.
L∞, K, and t0 were calculated using Fishery Analysis and Simulation Tools Version 3.0 (Slipke and Maceina 2006).
3.3 Test-angling As sport anglers are required to release all northern pike and walleye below the minimum size limit, no biological data was available for the protected-size fish in the
creel survey. To generate this data, we test-angled fish throughout the survey period,
recording the number of hours fished, and the species, FL, and TL of all fish caught. We
collected the first three rays of the left pelvic fin for age determination. To reduce
handling time and fish stress, we did not weigh fish. Instead, we estimated weight for these fish using the following weight-length relationships established using data from
the 2008 Haig Lake Fall Walleye Index Netting (Wood 2009):
5
Northern pike: Weight = 0.00002 x Fork Lenth3.2409 (R2 = 0.99, n = 33)
Walleye: Weight = 0.000006 x Fork Length3.1124 (R2 = 0.99, n = 191)
The biological information collected during test-angling is included in Appendix 2.
3.4 Data management and analysis Prior to data analysis, we used weight-length and length-age plots to identify and omit
outliers if measurement or recording error was suspected.
For ageing walleye, we used otoliths whenever possible, as they are the preferred ageing structure (Watkins and Spencer 2009). We compared fin ray ages to otolith ages for
walleye that had both samples collected. Fin to otolith age agreement was only 7%, with
fins consistently aged lower than otoliths. Therefore, we performed a regression analysis and used the resulting equation to correct the ages of walleye where only a fin sample
was collected (Alberta Conservation Association Unpubl. Data):
Otolith age = 1.61 + 0.98 x fin age (R2 = 0.92, df = 44, P < 0.001)
A bootstrap technique was used to derive estimates and associated 95% confidence
intervals (CI) for the number of angler trips, angling hours, angling pressure, angler harvest, and angler catch for northern pike and walleye (Sullivan 2004). We calculated
yield of harvested fish as the product of the average weight of observed fish and the
estimated number of harvested fish. Angler catch rates were calculated as total ratio estimators (Malvestuto 1983). Flow charts describing the steps for determining estimates
for angler survey parameters are presented in Appendix 3. To remove test-angling catch rate bias from the length distribution graphs, we used the sport-harvest total catch rate,
divided by an angler exaggeration factor (Sullivan 2003b), for the test-angled length-
frequency data.
To estimate release mortality for walleye, we multiplied the release mortality rate (5.3%), determined by Watkins and Patterson (2006), by the total estimated number of walleye
released by anglers. We then multiplied the predicted number of mortalities by the calculated weight of released fish from the test-angled fishery, to determine release
6
mortality yield. We assumed the release mortality rate of northern pike was similar to
walleye.
4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Angler survey During the creel survey we interviewed 307 anglers that fished for a combined total of
913.5 h (Appendix 4). Four boats and one shore angler were observed angling but were
not available to be surveyed. The total number of trips and fishing hours were 887 trips (95%CI = 750-1,033) and 2,554 h (95%CI = 2,078-3,068), respectively. Total angling effort
was 2.8 h/ha (95%CI = 2.3-3.4). 4.2 Northern pike harvest and yield Anglers harvested 74 northern pike (95%CI = 60-88) at a rate of 0.03 fish/h, and released
1,148 northern pike (95%CI = 934-1,379) at a rate of 0.5 fish/h. The total catch rate was 0.5 fish/h. Of the released fish, 61 (95%CI = 45-80) died as a result of release mortality. The
mean weight was 1,708 g (95%CI = 1,276-2,240) for harvested fish and 1,209 g (95%CI = 1,118-1,313) for released fish. The weight of harvested fish per hectare was 0.1 kg/ha
(95%CI = 0.1-0.2). Total yield of northern pike (harvest + release mortality) was 199.2 kg
(95%CI = 155.3-252.8) or 0.2 kg/ha (95%CI = 0.2-0.3). Observed illegal harvest (harvested fish <550 mm TL) of northern pike at Haig Lake was 6.7% (1 of 15 fish). Biological data
collected from angler harvested northern pike are included in Appendix 5.
4.3 Northern pike population structure The length distribution of northern pike captured by anglers and during test-angling
ranged from 289 to 913 mm TL (n = 233), with the majority of fish between 400 and 650 mm TL (Figure 2). The mean length (±SE) was 639 ± 29 mm (n = 15) for sport-harvest fish
and 528 ± 6 mm (n = 218) for test-angled fish. Overall age ranged from 1 to 12 y, with the population mostly consisting of 2 to 6 y fish (Figure 3). The mean age (±SE) was 8 ± 1 y
(n = 8) and 4 ± 0.1 y (n = 214) for sport-harvest and test-angled fish, respectively.
7
Figure 2. Length distribution of northern pike caught during test-angling and sport-
harvest at Haig Lake, 2011. Test-angling n = 218, sport-harvest n = 15.
Figure 3. Age distribution of northern pike caught during test-angling and sport-harvest at Haig Lake, 2011. Test-angling n = 214, sport-harvest n = 8.
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 950
Cat
ch R
ate
(fis
h/h)
Total Length (mm)
Test-anglingSport-harvest
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Cat
ch R
ate
(fis
h/h)
Age (y)
Test-angling
Sport-harvest
8
The average northern pike from Haig Lake is estimated to reach harvestable size (>550
mm TL) between ages 5 and 6 and the ANPMRP standard size (630 mm TL) between ages 7 and 8 (Figure 4). The estimated maximum average length was 1,502 mm TL, with
an associated growth coefficient (K) of 0.04. There was insufficient data to analyze the fish population based on gender and maturity.
Figure 4. Length-at-age relationship of northern pike caught during test-angling and sport-harvest at Haig Lake, 2011. Solid line represents von Bertalanffy growth curve with parameters, K = 0.04, t0 = -6.4, L∞ = 1,502, n = 221.
0100200300400500600700800900
1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Tota
l Len
gth
(mm
)
Age (y)
9
4.4 Walleye harvest and yield Anglers harvested 169 walleye (95%CI = 137-202) at a rate of 0.1 fish/h, and released
1,164 walleye (95%CI = 946-1,398) at a rate of 0.5 fish/h. The total catch rate was 0.5 fish/h. Of the released walleye, 62 (95%CI = 45-81) died from release mortality. The mean
weight was 1,496 g (95%CI = 1,400-1,596) for harvested fish, and 1,071 g (95%CI = 1,011-
1,131) for released fish. The weight of harvested fish per hectare was 0.3 kg/ha (95%CI = 0.3-0.3). Total yield of walleye (harvest + release mortality) was 318.1 kg (95%CI = 257.2-
386.1) or 0.3 kg/ha (95%CI = 0.3-0.4). Observed illegal harvest (harvested fish <500 mm TL) of walleye was 6.5% (3 of 46 fish). Biological data collected from angler-harvested
walleye are included in Appendix 5.
4.5 Walleye population structure The length distribution of walleye captured by anglers and during test-angling ranged
from 265 to 618 mm TL (n = 262), with the majority of fish between 350 and 600 mm TL (Figure 5). The mean length (±SE) was 540 ± 5 mm (n = 46) for sport-harvest fish and 464
± 5 mm (n = 216) for test-angled fish. Overall age ranged from 2 to 18 y, with the
population consisting largely of 4 to 9 y fish (Figure 6). The mean age (±SE) was 11 ± 1 y (n = 46) and 7 ± 0.2 y (n = 213) for sport-harvest and test-angled fish, respectively.
10
Figure 5. Length distribution of walleye caught during test-angling and sport-harvest at Haig Lake, 2011. Test-angling n = 216, sport-harvest n = 46.
Figure 6. Age distribution of walleye caught during test-angling and sport-harvest at Haig Lake, 2011. Test-angling n = 213, sport-harvest n = 46.
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650
Cat
ch R
ate
(fis
h/h)
Total Length (mm)
Test-angling
Sport-harvest
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Cat
ch R
ate
(fis
h/h)
Age (y)
Test-angling
Sport-harvest
11
The average walleye from Haig Lake is estimated to reach harvestable size (>500 mm
TL) between ages 7 and 8 (Figure 7). The estimated maximum average length was 565 mm TL, with an associated growth coefficient (K) of 0.29. There was insufficient data to
analyze the fish population based on gender and maturity.
Figure 7. Length-at-age relationship of walleye caught during test-angling and sport-
harvest at Haig Lake, 2011. Solid line represents von Bertalanffy growth curve with parameters, K = 0.29, t0 = -0.2, L∞ = 565, n = 259.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Tota
l Len
gth
(mm
)
Age (y)
12
5.0 LITERATURE CITED
Berry, D.K. 1995. Alberta’s walleye management and recovery plan. Publication T/310, produced by Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Service,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 32 pp.
Berry, D.K. 1999. Alberta’s northern pike management and recovery plan. Publication
T/459, produced by Alberta Environmental Protection, Natural Resources Service, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 22 pp.
Duffy, M., J. McNulty, and T. Mosindy. 2000. Identification of sex, maturity and gonad
condition of walleye (Stizostedion vitreum). Produced by Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, Kenora, Ontario, Canada. 33 pp.
Government of Alberta. 2011. Internet Mapping Framework. URL: http:// xnet.env.gov.ab.ca/imf/imf.jsp?site=fw_mis_pub. [Date Accessed: 15/12/2011].
Mackay, W.C., G.R. Ash, and H.J. Norris (eds.). 1990. Fish ageing methods for Alberta. Produced by R.L.&L. Environmental Services Ltd., Alberta Fish and Wildlife
Division and University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 113 pp.
Malvestuto, S.P. 1983. Sampling the recreational fishery. Pages 397-419. In: L.A. Nielsen and D.L. Johnson. Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda,
Maryland, USA.
Pollock, K.H., C.M. Jones, and T.L. Brown. 1994. Angler survey methods and their
applications in fisheries management. Special Publication 25, produced by American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 371 pp.
Slipke, J., and M. Maceina. 2006. Fishery analyses and simulations tools (FAST), Version 3.0. Auburn University, Department of Fisheries and Allied
Aquacultures, Auburn, Alabama, USA.
13
Sullivan, M.G. 2003a. Active management of walleye fisheries in Alberta: dilemmas of
managing recovering fisheries. North America Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 1343-1358.
Sullivan, M.G. 2003b. Exaggeration of walleye catches by Alberta anglers. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management 23: 573-580.
Sullivan, M.G. 2004. Computer simulation of sport fishery parameters. Produced by
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Division, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 16 pp.
von Bertalanffy, L. 1938. A quantitative theory of organic growth. Human Biology 10: 181-213.
Watkins, O.B., and B. Patterson. 2006. Assessment of the summer sport fishery for walleye and northern pike at Beaver Lake, Alberta, 2005. Produced by Alberta
Conservation Association, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 27 pp. + app.
Watkins, O.B., and S.C. Spencer. 2009. Collection, preparation and ageing of walleye
otoliths. Produced by Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 14pp.
Wood, S.K. 2009. Population structure and growth of walleye in Elinor, Haig,
Ironwood, and Wadlin lakes, Alberta, 2008. Data report, D-2009-005, produced
by Alberta Conservation Association, Sherwood Park, Alberta, Canada. 26 pp.
14
6.0 APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Creel survey form, Haig Lake, 2011.
1999 SPOR
TFISHER
IES MO
NITO
RIN
G PR
OG
RA
MA
lberta Conservation A
ssociation H
aig Lake C
reel Survey Form
Crew
:
Month
Date
Day Code
Hour (24 hr clock)
Nearest 15 min (15, 30, 45, 00)
.1 thru .9
# of Anglers in Party H
ours
1/4 hrs = 0, .25, .5, .75
# WALL Kept
# WALL Released
# NRPK Kept
# NRPK released
Fishing Style (0 or 1)
Fishing depth (0 or 1)
Bait Used (0 or 1)
Fishing Location (0 or 1)
Trip Length (0 or 1)
Winter Fishing (0 or 1)
Residence
Comments
:.
.Fishing Style
Trip Length
:.
.0 = P
assive 0 = D
ay
:.
.1 = A
ctive 1 = C
amping
:.
.:
..
Fishing Depth
Winter Fishing
:.
.0 = <17 ft
0 = No
:.
.1 = >17 ft
1 = Yes
:.
.:
..
Bait U
sed
:.
.0 = N
o
:.
.1 = Yes
:.
.:
..
Fishing Location
:.
.0 = S
hore
:.
.1 = B
oat
:.
.:
..
:.
.M
ISSED B
OA
TS
:.
.:
..
:.
.M
ISSED SH
OR
E AN
GLER
S
:.
.:
..
SHEET TO
TALS =
.
Page:
BO
AT: S
A:
Party #
2011 Angler Survey
An
glersD
ate Trip Len
gthW
ALL
Time
NR
PK
Day C
ode1 = M
onday2 = Tuesday3 = W
ednesday4 = Thursday5 = Friday6 = S
aturday7 = S
unday8 = H
oliday
15
Appendix 2. Biological information collected from fish during test-angling, Haig Lake, 2011. (NRPK = northern pike, WALL = walleye)
Species Sample # Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Age (y) NRPK 1 327 352 2 NRPK 2 460 488 2 NRPK 3 437 472 3 NRPK 4 515 550 5 NRPK 5 515 547 5 NRPK 6 470 505 3 NRPK 7 573 611 6 NRPK 8 552 585 6 NRPK 9 525 546 5 NRPK 10 488 519 4 NRPK 12 523 554 5 NRPK 13 529 550 4 NRPK 14 564 600 6 NRPK 15 548 581 5 NRPK 16 547 581 4 NRPK 17 635 674 8 NRPK 18 493 521 4 NRPK 19 540 521 5 NRPK 21 542 574 5 NRPK 22 486 513 4 NRPK 23 332 351 2 NRPK 24 532 561 6 NRPK 25 523 557 4 NRPK 27 472 502 4 NRPK 28 332 352 2 NRPK 29 547 578 6 NRPK 30 442 470 4 NRPK 31 480 512 5 NRPK 32 528 559 5 NRPK 33 505 535 5 NRPK 34 491 523 5 NRPK 35 562 593 5 NRPK 36 430 460 3 NRPK 37 448 457 2 NRPK 38 669 704 11 NRPK 39 565 596 5 NRPK 40 470 502 5
16
Appendix 2. Continued.
Species Sample # Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Age (y) NRPK 41 465 495 5 NRPK 42 544 578 6 NRPK 46 705 742 8 NRPK 54 555 585 6 NRPK 57 703 735 10 NRPK 64 450 480 2 NRPK 66 607 645 7 NRPK 69 504 536 3 NRPK 71 509 543 5 NRPK 72 540 573 6 NRPK 78 488 521 5 NRPK 81 563 595 8 NRPK 84 389 415 2 NRPK 87 460 489 4 NRPK 89 436 464 4 NRPK 91 363 387 2 NRPK 92 548 580 4 NRPK 98 498 524 4 NRPK 99 584 614 9 NRPK 102 439 464 3 NRPK 103 308 329 2 NRPK 104 534 567 5 NRPK 105 502 528 5 NRPK 106 610 644 7 NRPK 108 523 555 5 NRPK 109 540 572 6 NRPK 111 508 540 7 NRPK 114 577 610 6 NRPK 115 507 541 5 NRPK 127 468 498 4 NRPK 128 310 333 2 NRPK 129 488 522 5 NRPK 130 512 544 5 NRPK 131 583 616 8 NRPK 132 512 544 5 NRPK 135 496 525 5 NRPK 137 525 558 4 NRPK 138 578 600 7 NRPK 139 370 396 2
17
Appendix 2. Continued.
Species Sample # Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Age (y) NRPK 140 483 520 4 NRPK 143 558 594 7 NRPK 151 527 560 5 NRPK 152 519 544 6 NRPK 159 446 480 4 NRPK 161 595 627 9 NRPK 162 607 638 7 NRPK 163 630 664 8 NRPK 164 500 532 NRPK 168 536 561 NRPK 169 416 446 3 NRPK 170 527 560 4 NRPK 171 474 506 4 NRPK 172 464 492 3 NRPK 173 478 504 5 NRPK 174 535 567 5 NRPK 175 398 421 3 NRPK 176 474 505 2 NRPK 179 530 561 6 NRPK 181 546 578 5 NRPK 182 520 554 6 NRPK 183 509 540 5 NRPK 185 464 495 3 NRPK 187 523 554 5 NRPK 188 526 559 6 NRPK 189 530 564 5 NRPK 190 358 385 2 NRPK 191 428 458 3 NRPK 192 495 525 5 NRPK 193 440 466 3 NRPK 194 504 526 NRPK 195 553 586 6 NRPK 196 495 525 5 NRPK 197 510 543 4 NRPK 198 493 524 3 NRPK 199 397 426 1 NRPK 200 512 547 6 NRPK 201 507 542 6
18
Appendix 2. Continued.
Species Sample # Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Age (y) NRPK 202 500 534 6 NRPK 203 567 601 5 NRPK 206 399 427 2 NRPK 207 552 581 6 NRPK 208 481 511 5 NRPK 214 396 425 2 NRPK 219 528 561 4 NRPK 223 452 480 2 NRPK 224 377 402 1 NRPK 227 375 400 2 NRPK 230 609 640 9 NRPK 231 505 540 6 NRPK 232 432 458 2 NRPK 233 437 463 2 NRPK 234 362 385 1 NRPK 235 398 425 2 NRPK 236 407 433 2 NRPK 237 444 474 2 NRPK 238 436 466 3 NRPK 239 387 412 NRPK 240 525 559 6 NRPK 241 456 488 4 NRPK 242 514 549 5 NRPK 243 593 627 7 NRPK 244 529 566 4 NRPK 245 488 516 3 NRPK 246 538 569 5 NRPK 249 435 457 5 NRPK 250 351 378 3 NRPK 256 377 404 2 NRPK 257 470 502 3 NRPK 259 325 345 2 NRPK 261 490 527 2 NRPK 262 510 542 6 NRPK 263 523 553 4 NRPK 265 488 510 3 NRPK 266 402 429 2 NRPK 278 636 671 12 NRPK 287 551 585 6
19
Appendix 2. Continued.
Species Sample # Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Age (y) NRPK 292 488 517 5 NRPK 296 384 409 2 NRPK 303 399 427 2 NRPK 304 474 507 2 NRPK 310 402 428 2 NRPK 312 613 655 6 NRPK 317 465 495 4 NRPK 325 569 604 6 NRPK 326 487 518 4 NRPK 327 548 581 5 NRPK 328 582 614 6 NRPK 329 545 572 6 NRPK 334 484 513 3 NRPK 340 478 508 7 NRPK 341 529 558 4 NRPK 342 511 545 4 NRPK 343 472 505 3 NRPK 345 699 735 8 NRPK 349 494 524 5 NRPK 353 545 579 5 NRPK 357 505 530 5 NRPK 358 554 585 6 NRPK 359 525 556 5 NRPK 361 271 289 1 NRPK 362 480 511 4 NRPK 363 533 567 4 NRPK 367 428 455 2 NRPK 372 443 477 4 NRPK 373 888 913 12 NRPK 374 538 569 6 NRPK 376 513 545 5 NRPK 378 464 499 2 NRPK 379 389 416 2 NRPK 380 523 558 3 NRPK 381 814 854 9 NRPK 383 523 556 5 NRPK 384 414 442 3 NRPK 385 493 524 6
20
Appendix 2. Continued.
Species Sample # Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Age (y) NRPK 386 447 477 3 NRPK 390 515 550 4 NRPK 393 605 644 2 NRPK 395 482 513 2 NRPK 397 624 660 7 NRPK 399 553 582 4 NRPK 404 540 571 4 NRPK 407 473 493 2 NRPK 408 519 552 4 NRPK 409 483 518 3 NRPK 410 504 538 4 NRPK 411 453 483 2 NRPK 412 504 535 4 NRPK 413 545 578 5 NRPK 414 451 483 2 NRPK 415 446 463 3 NRPK 416 574 609 6 NRPK 417 384 410 2 NRPK 419 398 426 2 NRPK 420 561 596 6 NRPK 422 350 373 2 NRPK 423 582 614 8 NRPK 424 484 525 4 NRPK 427 528 559 5 NRPK 429 484 518 2 NRPK 430 458 488 2 NRPK 432 425 456 2 WALL 11 415 445 5 WALL 20 491 519 7 WALL 26 359 385 6 WALL 43 382 405 5 WALL 44 448 470 6 WALL 45 506 535 8 WALL 47 455 485 7 WALL 48 427 451 7 WALL 49 423 448 5 WALL 50 487 513 8 WALL 51 490 520 8 WALL 52 525 555 13
21
Appendix 2. Continued.
Species Sample # Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Age (y) WALL 53 495 524 7 WALL 55 341 362 4 WALL 56 345 365 4 WALL 58 384 407 5 WALL 59 364 384 4 WALL 60 390 413 5 WALL 61 325 349 4 WALL 62 486 513 8 WALL 63 512 543 12 WALL 65 424 448 7 WALL 67 480 508 7 WALL 68 358 375 4 WALL 70 464 486 9 WALL 73 495 528 9 WALL 74 445 475 8 WALL 75 308 326 3 WALL 76 495 527 7 WALL 77 423 448 5 WALL 79 412 435 6 WALL 80 462 497 8 WALL 82 362 382 6 WALL 83 441 469 8 WALL 85 440 470 6 WALL 86 466 493 7 WALL 88 498 527 11 WALL 90 440 470 5 WALL 93 543 572 9 WALL 94 468 494 7 WALL 95 450 478 9 WALL 96 464 493 8 WALL 97 549 571 13 WALL 100 418 444 5 WALL 101 465 490 7 WALL 107 392 415 5 WALL 110 430 453 5 WALL 112 522 551 8 WALL 113 531 557 9 WALL 116 450 476 5
22
Appendix 2. Continued.
Species Sample # Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Age (y) WALL 117 497 527 8 WALL 118 420 447 5 WALL 119 510 540 9 WALL 120 377 401 5 WALL 121 398 425 5 WALL 122 422 460 5 WALL 123 423 460 6 WALL 124 433 458 6 WALL 125 389 414 5 WALL 126 420 449 6 WALL 133 429 453 6 WALL 134 479 501 9 WALL 136 385 410 5 WALL 141 452 479 7 WALL 142 423 446 5 WALL 144 545 566 10 WALL 145 368 389 4 WALL 146 414 438 6 WALL 147 445 474 6 WALL 148 430 459 7 WALL 149 508 540 14 WALL 150 338 356 3 WALL 153 502 527 10 WALL 154 509 535 13 WALL 155 484 512 9 WALL 156 482 506 8 WALL 157 498 520 7 WALL 158 465 495 8 WALL 160 555 588 13 WALL 165 328 348 3 WALL 166 506 530 8 WALL 167 550 582 14 WALL 177 537 570 14 WALL 178 504 534 WALL 180 506 538 11 WALL 184 384 408 4 WALL 186 372 395 5 WALL 204 440 465 5 WALL 205 415 440 5
23
Appendix 2. Continued.
Species Sample # Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Age (y) WALL 209 455 480 6 WALL 210 518 547 16 WALL 211 429 454 WALL 212 323 345 4 WALL 213 373 394 4 WALL 215 486 512 8 WALL 216 423 448 5 WALL 217 414 439 5 WALL 218 350 370 3 WALL 220 380 399 4 WALL 220x 455 480 5 WALL 221 310 338 3 WALL 222 510 530 14 WALL 225 351 372 4 WALL 226 516 543 18 WALL 228 525 550 11 WALL 229 452 479 5 WALL 247 500 528 17 WALL 248 548 581 14 WALL 251 419 442 6 WALL 252 445 473 5 WALL 253 538 572 11 WALL 254 377 397 4 WALL 255 317 339 4 WALL 258 368 388 4 WALL 260 368 390 4 WALL 264 507 537 8 WALL 267 409 433 5 WALL 268 516 547 9 WALL 269 518 543 14 WALL 270 500 530 8 WALL 271 436 464 5 WALL 272 545 581 14 WALL 273 471 504 7 WALL 274 498 528 16 WALL 275 480 511 8 WALL 276 329 347 4 WALL 277 396 419 4 WALL 279 364 386 4
24
Appendix 2. Continued.
Species Sample # Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Age (y) WALL 280 485 513 7 WALL 281 558 592 14 WALL 282 422 446 5 WALL 283 318 338 4 WALL 284 409 435 5 WALL 285 460 486 8 WALL 286 482 510 7 WALL 288 465 493 9 WALL 289 494 520 8 WALL 290 368 393 5 WALL 291 435 460 5 WALL 293 513 544 9 WALL 294 401 425 5 WALL 295 344 364 4 WALL 297 453 480 5 WALL 298 462 488 6 WALL 299 379 403 4 WALL 300 428 455 5 WALL 301 366 389 4 WALL 302 330 353 4 WALL 305 387 411 4 WALL 306 328 348 4 WALL 307 354 375 3 WALL 308 426 450 6 WALL 309 392 416 4 WALL 311 439 465 5 WALL 313 508 536 8 WALL 314 417 443 5 WALL 315 379 403 4 WALL 316 460 487 7 WALL 317 483 510 9 WALL 319 421 445 6 WALL 320 414 436 5 WALL 321 463 492 5 WALL 322 514 544 WALL 323 448 478 5 WALL 324 249 265 2 WALL 330 467 496 5 WALL 331 449 472 5
25
Appendix 2. Continued.
Species Sample # Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Age (y) WALL 332 466 495 7 WALL 333 454 482 9 WALL 335 317 336 4 WALL 336 371 394 5 WALL 337 431 460 5 WALL 338 525 553 17 WALL 339 455 482 7 WALL 344 333 353 4 WALL 346 350 369 3 WALL 347 412 440 6 WALL 348 506 531 6 WALL 350 457 487 5 WALL 351 341 362 3 WALL 352 483 515 7 WALL 354 330 349 3 WALL 355 306 324 3 WALL 356 443 470 6 WALL 360 326 349 3 WALL 364 411 435 5 WALL 365 518 548 11 WALL 366 382 406 4 WALL 368 500 533 11 WALL 369 472 506 7 WALL 370 441 470 7 WALL 371 418 447 5 WALL 375 483 509 7 WALL 377 485 511 7 WALL 382 461 491 6 WALL 387 362 382 4 WALL 388 365 388 4 WALL 389 437 457 5 WALL 391 499 527 7 WALL 392 435 464 6 WALL 394 486 505 8 WALL 396 506 533 9 WALL 398 451 479 5 WALL 400 510 543 9 WALL 401 389 413 4 WALL 402 555 586 17
26
Appendix 2. Continued.
Species Sample # Fork length (mm) Total length (mm) Age (y) WALL 403 536 562 14 WALL 405 509 539 9 WALL 406 337 356 3 WALL 418 385 407 4 WALL 421 515 545 9 WALL 425 375 399 4 WALL 426 509 532 16 WALL 428 503 534 7 WALL 431 418 445 5 WALL 433 335 357 3
27
Appendix 3. Flow chart outlining the process used to calculate a whole lake estimate for a single access creel survey, Haig Lake, 2011. Circles represent values with no variance (i.e. observed data) and rectangles represent data with variance.
Surveyed Weekday AM
mean x + =
# Weekdays not surveyed
Total observed during strata
Weekday AM estimate
+
Surveyed access site estimate
Surveyed Weekend AM
mean x +
# Weekends not surveyed
Weekend AM estimate
Total observed during strata =
Whole lake estimate
Surveyed Weekday PM
mean x + =
# Weekdays not surveyed
Total observed during strata
Weekday PM estimate
+ Surveyed
Weekend PM mean x +
# Weekends not surveyed
Weekend PM estimate
Total observed during strata =
+
28
Appendix 4. Summary of information collected from anglers during the creel survey, Haig Lake, 2011. (NRPK = northern pike, WALL = walleye)
Date (d/m/y)
Number of anglers
Fishing effort (h)
NRPK harvested
NRPK released
WALL harvested
WALL released
01/06/11 6 10.5 2 0 5 2 02/06/11 6 4.5 0 0 0 0 03/06/11 6 15 2 1 1 0 04/06/11 17 60.5 7 36 24 2 05/06/11 6 15.25 0 1 1 0 15/06/11 0 0 0 0 0 0 16/06/11 2 8 2 7 1 0 17/06/11 7 14.75 4 8 2 0 18/06/11 14 44.25 3 26 12 0 19/06/11 0 0 0 0 0 0 24/06/11 0 0 0 0 0 0 25/06/11 3 4 0 4 1 0 26/06/11 17 49 5 22 21 0 27/06/11 9 15.5 1 50 6 0 28/06/11 1 4 0 18 5 0 13/07/11 5 15.5 3 11 20 0 14/07/11 4 8 0 2 8 0 15/07/11 14 18.75 0 0 15 1 16/07/11 9 12.5 0 0 1 2 17/07/11 3 10 0 4 3 0 27/07/11 20 40.75 1 15 20 1 28/07/11 11 38 2 12 14 0 29/07/11 8 28 0 5 28 2 30/07/11 26 106.75 3 54 44 2 31/07/11 11 40.5 2 8 16 0 01/08/11 4 11.5 3 11 2 0 05/08/11 6 30 4 36 15 7 06/08/11 0 0 0 0 0 0 07/08/11 9 54.5 1 22 19 0 08/08/11 2 1.5 0 0 0 0 09/08/11 0 0 0 0 0 0 24/08/11 13 31.25 2 34 8 0 25/08/11 14 39 2 25 25 2 26/08/11 15 31.5 0 1 14 1 27/08/11 35 144.25 15 178 70 1 28/08/11 4 6 0 1 2 0
29
Appendix 5. Biological information collected from angler harvested fish during the creel survey, Haig Lake, 2011. (NRPK = northern pike, WALL = walleye)
Species Sample
# Fork length
(mm) Total length
(mm) Weight
(g) Gender Maturity Age
NRPK 1 699 735 F Mature 8 NRPK 3 846 889 12 NRPK 5 622 655 F Mature 6 NRPK 11 796 827 3755 F Mature 10 NRPK 23 624 661 1570 F Mature 8 NRPK 24 450 476 580 M Immature 3 NRPK 30 700 735 2400 M Mature 12 NRPK 31 538 569 750 F Immature 5 NRPK 38 548 571 NRPK 39 579 615 NRPK 40 520 556 NRPK 41 553 588 NRPK 42 555 587 NRPK 43 530 561 NRPK 44 522 555 WALL 2 551 570 17 WALL 4 531 564 1460 17 WALL 6 466 501 M Mature 14 WALL 7 503 530 1255 8 WALL 8 547 575 1625 14 WALL 9 476 504 1230 7 WALL 10 557 584 F Mature 13 WALL 12 500 530 1390 F Mature 9 WALL 13 490 516 1240 F Mature 9 WALL 14 484 514 1240 F Mature 11 WALL 15 559 596 1850 F Mature 15 WALL 16 510 541 1390 F Mature 15 WALL 17 496 523 1395 9 WALL 18 493 524 1425 14 WALL 19 470 500 8 WALL 20 555 585 1860 15 WALL 21 523 545 1530 15 WALL 22 544 569 13 WALL 25 543 572 18 WALL 26 422 440 810 M Immature 6 WALL 27 470 500 1125 M Mature 6
30
Appendix 5. Continued.
Species Sample
# Fork length
(mm) Total length
(mm) Weight
(g) Gender Maturity Age
WALL 28 475 504 1000 8 WALL 29 502 532 1300 10 WALL 32 552 583 F Mature 14 WALL 33 501 533 1395 14 WALL 34 519 547 1585 13 WALL 35 485 515 1285 8 WALL 36 472 501 1170 8 WALL 37 479 505 1475 7 WALL 45 456 483 6 WALL 46 455 485 7 WALL 47 506 530 1565 F Mature 8 WALL 48 496 522 1450 M Mature 7 WALL 49 519 550 1515 M Mature 11 WALL 50 571 601 2185 F Mature 13 WALL 51 526 558 1525 M Mature 10 WALL 52 518 551 1545 F Mature 15 WALL 53 510 537 1405 M Mature 9 WALL 54 514 541 1505 M Mature 9 WALL 55 589 618 2345 F Mature 14 WALL 56 495 521 1410 F Mature 11 WALL 57 526 557 1635 M Mature 13 WALL 58 519 552 1615 M Mature 10 WALL 59 548 581 1895 F Mature 13 WALL 60 553 580 2045 F Mature 13 WALL 61 537 564 1725 M Mature 18
Alberta Conservation Association acknowledges the
following partner(s) for their generous support of this project:
