(Note, the graphs could not be posted. If interested in the complete PDF file, PM or email me.)
A Survey of Angler Attitudes and
Biologist Opinions Regarding Trophy
Catfish and their Management
(Note, the graphs could not be posted. If interested in the complete PDF file, PM or email me.)
A Survey of Angler Attitudes and
Biologist Opinions Regarding Trophy
Catfish and their Management
Flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and blue catfish (I. furcatus) are capable of reaching trophy sizes within the Mississippi River
drainage. We conducted opinion surveys of both anglers and biologists regarding their attitudes toward trophy catfish. Channel catfish are more commonly sought by anglers and more widely distributed than other catfish species, but flathead and blue catfish have more trophy potential because they grow larger. Catfish anglers primarily used rod and reel to catch catfish; these anglers caught and harvested fewer catfish than setline anglers (i.e., trotline, jugs, etc.). Anglers reported that “fun” was the most important reason to fish but also mentioned that size of fish caught enhanced the success of a fishing trip. Most catfish anglers (71%) take at least one trip annually to pursue trophy catfish, a majority (66%) suggested that management direct more attention toward catfish fisheries and they supported regulations that are more stringent.
Biologists responded that a single-species approach to management for self-sustaining populations could produce more trophy catfish. Biologists considered the sociological value of restrictive length regulations important for promoting trophy catfish fisheries, but biological data are lacking about the impact of harvest regulations on catfish populations.
Most catfish anglers prefer fishing rivers, and survey results show that
biologists and anglers believe large rivers have the most trophy catfish potential.
Anglers and biologists agreed upon lengths they thought designated a trophy catfish. This survey shows angler support for development of trophy catfish fisheries and helps to define trophy catfish anglers.
Introduction
Biologists frequently use angler information and opinions when considering changes to existing regulations (Wilde et al. 1996). Examining data collected from opinion surveys of anglers and biologists can improve management of catfish fisheries and help educate both groups. Managing unique fisheries, like trophy catfish fisheries, may result in different opinions between biologists and anglers
because specialized anglers may have information about these fisheries that is not available to biologists (Stange 1981). Therefore, the need to exchange information about trophy catfish fisheries is important to maintaining cooperation between
anglers and biologists.
Catfish angling is growing in popularity, or at least in presence. One popular fishing magazine is devoted to catfish and a recent symposium (Irwin et al. 1999b) focused on catfish biology and management. Along with increased catfish angling,
there is growing recognition of the trophy potential of flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), and blue catfish (I. furcatus; Hoffman 1999; Wirth 1999). During the past 10 years, catfish size records have been broken
in several Mississippi River basin states, including 6 new record catfish over 45 kg (Cofer 2000).
State surveys have assessed catfish angler attitudes and demographics (Burlingame and Guy 1999; Schramn et al. 1999; Wilde and Ditton 1999). These surveys indicate that catfish anglers are low-tech, bait anglers of modest means that fish
rivers from shore at night, but this profile fails to address the diversity found among catfish anglers (Burlingame and Guy 1999; Schramm et al. 1999).
The age distribution of catfish anglers makes them: 1) generally younger than panfish anglers, 2) about the same age as walleye anglers, and 3) older than
largemouth bass anglers (Schramm et al. 1999). When compared to anglers that pursue other game fish species, catfish anglers placed more emphasis
on catch and harvest (Wilde and Ditton 1999;Schramm et al. 1999), but flathead and blue catfish anglers placed greater emphasis on obtaining a trophy
(Wilde and Ditton 1999). However, little information specific to angler opinions on trophy catfish exists. Future catfish management may require a new perspective on the importance of trophy catfish to a fishing public that apparently wants
more and bigger catfish. Fisheries managers need to be aware of specialized angler group preferences in order to prevent problems associated with simply managing for the “average” catfish angler (Schramm et al. 1999). Improvements in fishing
tackle and increased angler knowledge about how to catch large catfish have heightened angler concerns about the sustainability of trophy catfish
populations (MICRA 1998). Several surveys have gathered information from
management agencies about catfish (Vanderford 1984; Marshall 1991; Michaletz and Dillard 1999). Most surveys have focused on agency sampling
methods, population assessment techniques, and catfish stocking information. Twenty years ago, three states reported using minimum length limits
to conserve channel catfish stocks (Vanderford 1984). By 1999, the number of states that used length limits as a tool for catfish management had increased nine-fold (Michaletz and Dillard 1999). However, information is lacking regarding the usefulness of minimum length regulations for trophy catfish management.
The goal of our survey was to determine attitudes of anglers and managers about trophy catfish fisheries in waters of the Mississippi River basin. If managers are to develop these catfish fisheries, they need to be aware of angler attitudes when making management decisions (Wilde et al. 1996). Objectives of our study were to:
1) determine an angler-accepted size for trophy catfish that could be used by biologist for managing trophy fisheries
2) identify specific locations where trophy catfish are common, based on commercial, recreational, or management data
3) improve understanding of when and how anglers pursue catfish
4) survey management regulations regarding recreational
harvest
5) make recommendations on future trophy catfish management.
Methods
Angler and agency surveys were developed following standard procedures (Knuth and McMullin 1996). Preliminary surveys were reviewed by 20
anglers and 10 agency personnel. We selected subscribers to Catfish In-sider magazine who resided in the 28 states of the Mississippi River Basin.
Agencies in the basin, represented by the Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association (MICRA), expressed the need to better
understand the opinions of this specially targeted group that recently has increased advocacy for catfish management and expressed concerns
about trophy catfish angling. Angler surveys were sent to the first 7,960 randomly selected names on this list. About 51% (N=4,028) of the angler surveys were returned complete (Figure 1). The agency survey was sent to 74 biologists working for 28 states, 2 Native American tribes, and 3 federal agencies that are MICRA members. The biologists from each state, tribe, or federal agency were fisheries professionals identified by their peers as most
knowledgeable about current catfish management and research. One mailing was conducted and email reminders were sent after 2 weeks and again
after 30 days. About 80% (N=59) of the agency surveys were returned. Data were entered into a spreadsheet and all answers were summed and
reported as percentage of respondents in either tabular or graphical form. Questions not answered, incorrectly answered, or written-in answers were
categorized as miscellaneous and only reported if they accounted for 1% or more of all responses.
Results
Angler behavior and opinions Most catfish anglers (94%) were more than 24
years old and 65% had fished for more than 19 years (Table 1). Thirty-three percent of surveyed anglers indicated that they fished streams most
often (Figure 2). About 61% commonly sought channel catfish, followed by flathead catfish (21%), and blue catfish (14%; Table 1). A majority of respondents (67%) caught more than 24 channel catfish, 18% caught more than 24 flathead catfish, and 24% caught more than 24 blue
catfish annually (Table 2). A majority of catfish anglers (63%) harvested more than 9 channel catfish, 20% harvested more than 9 flathead catfish,
and 27% harvested more than 9 blue catfish annually (Table 2). Eighty-five percent of surveyed anglers preferred using rod and reel, whereas only
9% usually used setlines (Table 1). Rod and reel anglers annually harvested fewer catfish of all species, on an individual basis, compared to setline
anglers (Figure 3).
Information about fishing trips is critical to understanding angler motivations. A majority of catfish anglers (52%) take between 6 and 24 trips
per year and 71% of all surveyed anglers plan an annual trip to pursue trophy catfish (Table 1). However, many catfish anglers (68%) do not consider themselves trophy anglers, and most catfish anglers (86%) do not fish in catfish tournaments (Table 1). The measure of a successful fishing trip
for 57% of surveyed anglers was the amount of enjoyment they experienced (Figure 4). For those who judged a fishing trip successful by what they
caught, fish size was more important than number caught (Figure 4). The size of fish caught was more important to flathead (41%) and blue catfish
anglers (39%) than channel catfish anglers (22%; Figure 4). Trophy anglers showed a preference for flathead and blue catfish whereas non-trophy
anglers preferred channel catfish (Figure 5). Fiftythree percent of flathead catfish anglers consider themselves trophy anglers and 82% of these anglers
were in favor of developing trophy fisheries.
Defining a trophy fish
Biologists need to be aware of the length that anglers and biologists designate as a “trophy” catfish. Anglers and biologists had similar opinions
about the length of a “trophy” catfish (Figure 6). The majority (>67%) of biologists and anglers indicated that the minimum lengths for a trophy
channel, flathead, and blue catfish were >737 mm (29 inches), >864 mm (34 inches), and >914 mm (36 inches). Biologists indicated that both flathead
and blue catfish were important to anglers as trophy fish whereas trophy channel catfish were only slightly important to anglers (Figure 7).
Trophy fishery waters
The Mississippi River Basin has a variety of water bodies that contain catfish, but most agency experts (85%) thought waters containing self-sustaining stocks produced more trophy catfish (Table 3). Catfish anglers indicated they
routinely fished lakes, reservoirs, large rivers, and streams (16-33%). A majority of catfish anglers (53%) fished large rivers when pursuing a trophy
(Figure 2) although, biologists thought anglers pursuing trophy catfish would have comparable success fishing in reservoirs (Figure 2). Both biologists
and anglers identified portions of the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio rivers as the top three trophy catfish waters in the Mississippi River Basin (Table 4).
Trophy catfish management
Only 2% of agency experts indicated that their agency devoted resources to manage trophy catfish fisheries (Figure 8), but 75% of catfish anglers were in
favor of developing trophy fisheries (Table 5). Biologists thought recreational harvest had more impact on catfish populations in streams than on large
rivers (Figure 9). However, when biologists were asked if harvest regulations were an effective management tool for managing trophy fisheries, 63% of respondents did not know (Table 3), the rest were about evenly
divided about whether regulations worked (15%) or not (21%). This lack of knowledge and consensus likely contributes to many catfish anglers (66%) being unsatisfied with the amount of effort their state directed toward catfish management (Table 5). Most catfish anglers (65%) would support harvest
regulations that are more stringent (Table 5). Although many biologists are unsure about the biological value of regulations, most believe that length
regulations can promote trophy fisheries (Figure 10). Regulations that protect large catfish such as: 1) maximum length limits; 2) quality fishing regulations (a minimum length regulation allowing anglers to harvest one fish over a specified length) and; 3) restricting the use of setlines in trophy
waters were mentioned (Figure 10).
Discussion
Our survey targeted a specialized fishing group with the goal of improving understanding about attitudes of anglers and biologists in the Mississippi River Basin relating to trophy catfish. We thought the experiences
and opinions of this specialized group would be more useful than those of the general fishing public. Increasingly specialized user groups are involved in
fisheries management, so biologists need to understand their specific attitudes, beliefs, and values. Surveyed anglers were subscribers to a popular catfishing magazine so, they are probably more pro-regulation,
knowledgeable, avid, and trophy-oriented than nonsubscribers.
Our data may be biased; however, 67% of survey respondents did not label themselves as trophy anglers and the age distribution was similar to that in
other recent surveys (Burlingame and Guy 1999; Schramm et al. 1999). We also found that younger catfish anglers (<35 years old) were more likely than older anglers (>35 years old) to support stringent regulations,
favor development of trophy catfish fisheries, and consider themselves trophy anglers. The majority of survey respondents were non-trophy anglers more than 35 years old, yet were still receptive to management
practices that promote trophy catfish fisheries with restrictive harvest regulations. Most catfish anglers take between 5 and 24 fishing
trips annually, and most catfish anglers take at least one of these trips to pursue a trophy catfish. However, angler satisfaction is largely psychological and derived from such things as relaxation, being outdoors, and getting away from the regular routine (Schramm et al. 1998). The importance of catching fish is likely linked to the psychological satisfaction of anglers. Tangible catch attributes can be managed by biologists and our results were similar
to a Mississippi study that showed for most catfish anglers the size of fish caught was more important than the number of fish caught (Schramm et al. 1999). Our results also were similar to those from a Texas study that showed the value of trophy flathead catfish to anglers was higher than the value of other trophy catfish species (Wilde and Ditton 1999). Angler opinions can vary by time, region, state, water-body, fishing method, and catfish species targeted (Schramm et al. 1998; Arterburn et al. 2001). Although our results focus on the largest portion of respondents to a given question, the diversity of responses present biologists with difficulties when attempting to manage catfish populations. For example, Texas catfish anglers are less willing to
accept stringent regulations and more likely to use methods other than rod and reel when compared to our results (Wilde and Ditton 1999). This illustrates difficulties associated with the application of broadbased
survey results locally. The location of specific catfish waters can greatly influence angler support for special regulations and interest in a particular
species of catfish. There was consensus between catfish anglers and
biologists about the appropriate length of a “trophy” channel, flathead, and blue catfish. These lengths were similar to memorable lengths proposed by
Gablehouse (1984) for channel and blue catfish and by Quinn (1989) for flathead catfish. Therefore, when biologists use the term “trophy catfish,” they are typically describing catfish of memorable length and longer. Each of these three catfishes has unique life-history traits (Graham 1999; Hubert 1999; Jackson 1999), distinctly different behaviors (Fischer et al. 1999; Irwin et al. 1999a), and each attracts specialized anglers. However, even in environments favorable for the production of trophy catfish, it often requires 10 or more years to produce catfish that approach these lengths. For example, Arterburn (2001) summarized growth of channel and flathead catfish in the upper Missouri River basin and found that trophy length fish were usually more than 12 years old. Small rivers provide important local fisheries to shore anglers and most catfish anglers fish from shore
(Schramm et al. 1999). For example, on the Big Sioux River (a small river) in South Dakota, 88% of the 20,000 annual catfish anglers traveled less than 40 km (Doorenbos 1996). The trophy potential of small rivers may be unappreciated. Trophy sized catfish were found in the Big Sioux River, especially in upstream segments where population densities were lowest
(Kirby 2001). The trophy potential of large rivers is likely maintained by low angler harvest, but biological and political complexities limit the ability of biologists to actually manage for trophy catfish. Limits imposed by density dependent growth preclude dense populations of memorable-sized catfish but protecting the largest catfish in certain systems may produce both
ecological and angler benefits. Streams and rivers in the Mississippi River basin typically have limited access, which may benefit fish but also hinders use (Schramm et al. 1999). Catfish growth rates and species distributions vary by water body, so managers should tailor trophy fisheries for their specific area. Results from this survey indicate that developing quality
angling opportunities for memorable sized catfish may increase the number of catfish anglers that want to fish certain waters. Increased effort can impact
overall angler satisfaction both positively and negatively (Varley 1984; Ney 1999). Managing catfish populations to improve trophy opportunities has not been documented, so biologists might benefit from information on other trophy programs. Trophy management differs from managing small fishes with short life spans where creel and minimum length regulations can be effective (Combs 1982; Combs 1986). Historically, catfish were managed like sunfish with liberal creel limits that combined several species under one regulation, and may not have benefited the fishery (Goedde and Coble 1981; Coble 1988; Reed and Parsons 1999). Managing large, long-lived catfish may require different regulations such as quotas, limited-entry, and gear- restrictions similar to used in paddlefish
(Ployodon spathula) management. Information about managing muskellunge (Esox masquinongy;Simonson and Hewett 1999; Margenau and
AveLallement 2000)and largemouth bass (Micropterus solmoides;
Bennett 1974; Neumann et al. 1994) has shown that length specific
regulations can help maintain population size structure while allowing
harvest of small fish that are important to anglers (MacDonald
1990). However, the effects of management ” populations should
be monitored because these data are lacking. Developing cooperation
between anglers and biologists benefits management by increasing regulation compliance and providing some measure of peer enforcement (Stange 1981). Angler education could convince anglers that few regulations and little active management of catfish populations is the best and most economical approach. However, our survey showed support for trophy
catfish fisheries within the Mississippi River Basin, and developing these fisheries could help address angler concerns on the amount of effort
agencies have directed toward catfish management. Future research efforts should be directed at assessing the effects of species-specific gear,
length, and creel regulations on catfish populations and identifying local waters with trophy fisheries potential.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this study was from the Mississippi
Interstate Cooperative Resource Association, In-
Fisherman, Catfish-Insider magazine, and the
South Dakota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit, jointly sponsored by the South
Dakota Game, Fish and, Parks, the U. S.
Geological Survey, the Wildlife Management
Institute, and South Dakota State University.
We also want to thank all of the angler and agency
survey respondents, the graduate and undergraduate
students at South Dakota State University who
helped with reviewing our surveys, mailing surveys,
and data entry, and Donald C. Jackson,
Vince Travnichek, Gerald Wickstrom, Dennis
Unkenholtz, Robert Ditton, and Harold L.
Schramm, Jr. for their contributions during editing
of this article.
John E. Arterburn
Daniel J. Kirby
Charles R. Berry, Jr.
Arterburn is a resident fish manager for Colville Confederated Tribes,
Fish and Wildlife Department, Nespelem, Washington. He can be reached at [email protected]. Kirby is a fisheries biologist for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. He can be reached at [email protected]. Berry is the coop leader at the South Dakota State University. He can be reached at
[email protected]
