TPWD 1957 F-4-R-4 #288: Check on Commercial Catch of Rough Fish from Lake Whitney, Segment Completion Report

Marion Tools Soordinator by Robert N, Hambric Assistant Project Leader DingellmJohnson Project F-u-R~u, Job B~l2 November 1, 1956 to October 31, 1957 Ho Do Dodgen, Executive Secretary Texas Game and Fish Commission Austin, Texas 'WilliamllfoTBrawm ‘Assto Coordinator SEGMENT COMPLETION REPORT State of TEXAS Project No. FARM Name: Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region “B. Job No. B—l2 Title: Check on Commercial Catch of Rough Fish from.Lake Whitney. Period Covered: November 1a 1956 to October 312 1957 ABSTRACT: A study was made of the effectiveness of hoop nets versus gill nets in the capture of rough fish on Lake Whitney. HOOp nets were found to be selective for carp and gill nets were selective for buffalo. About 9h,900 pounds of fish were removed from the lake. Buffalo accounted for 70 percent by number and 78 percent by weight of all fish caught. Carp amounted to 28 percent by number and nearly 22 percent by weight of the total fish captured. An average of six pounds of rough fish per surface acre were removed from the lake? which is an insufficient quantity for adequate control of the undesirable species of that impoundment. Recommendations were made for study of the type of gear and techniques used 'by the commercial fishermen. It was also suggested that technical help and biological data be offered the netter where such information would increase the harvest of rough fish. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of commercial fishing on the control of rough fish and predatory species and the value of the local fishery as well as the relative abundance and seasonal variation by species in the commercial catch. TECHNIQUES USED: The commercial fishermen were supplied forms to be filled out on which they recorded the amount and weight of each species that was netted. The forms were collected each month by mail or by personal contact with the fishermen. DISCUSSION: The only type of commercial fishing allowed on Lake Whitney is by state con» tract. The operator is bonded and compelled to submit a monthly report of his catch. He is limited to specific devices which may be used and the contract states which species of fish that may be taken from the lake. The responsibility of the Operation of the netters is under jurisdiction of the local game warden. There have been only two commercial fishermen on Lake Whitney during the past year and neither have operated continuously for the entire 12-month period. One fish- ermen used hoop nets and netted from November 1956 through April 1957. The other fishw ermen used large-mesh gill nets and Operated from August 18 through October of 1957. Both fishermen netted the middle third of the lake. Although the length of the netting period and the season of operation are hardly comparable for the two fishermen? a come parison of their catches is interesting. Table 1 is a comparison of the effectiveness of capture by hoop nets and gill nets on four Species of fish. It is obvious that hoop nets are selective for carp and large-mesh gill nets are selective for buffalo, with consideration allowed for the techniques used by each fishermen. Carp, buffalo; carpu sucker; shad and gar are the only fish.which.can be retained by the commercial fishermen. Carp and buffalo composed the bulk of the catch with both types of gear used. Shad and gar were seldom captured in the hoop nets and only a relatively small mumber of gar and practically no shad were caught in the large—mesh gill nets. Catfish will invade a hOOp net set after a period of continuous baiting and sometimes forces the fishermen to move his nets. Sunfish are notorous robbers of hoop nets when they are baited with cottonseed cake and sometimes eat a large percentage of the netters bait. Large bass occasionally enter_the hoop nets and catfish, bass, white bass and large crappie at times become entangled in the largewmesh gill nets. The combined catch of both fishermen was 27,188 fish weighing 94,932 pounds. Table 2 shows the number of each species netted and the percent by number and percent by weight that each represents. Table 3 lists the pounds of each species caught and the market value of the fish. The market value of $18,317.1h represents the total value of the fish if all were sold and none lost by spoilage. The fisherman using gill nets was the only one operating on the lake during the latter half of the study. He was very successful and harvested a large number of fish during the short time that he nets Good c00peration was obtained while working with this fisherman. The effectiveness of various types of nets and techniques were discussed and the netter was encouraged in the use of experimental gear that he was working on. Aerial photographs of the lake basin taken before it was flooded were used to study the bottom at various net sites. The writer is grateful to the U. S. Corps of Engineers for furnishing these excellent and very helpful photographs. 0f Specieal interest was the consistency of the catch at some of the stations. Repeated netting at these sites produced about the same number of fish night after night. Other stations netted by the commercial fishermen was found to be productive only in certain spots. It is believed that additional work with the netter will produce data that will be usable in the ecological study of several Species of fish. . Figure 1 shows the pounds of fish harvested per surface acre of the four species of fish netted. The total harvest for all species of fish was only six pounds per surface acre for the entire lake. The mean of 15,800 surface acres used here is based on the yearly average lake level excluding the abnormal floods that occurred during the spring months. Although nearly three times as many fish were taken this year as were netted last year, six pounds per acre harvest of fish is negligible for rough fish control work and it is hoped that a larger catch can be made during the next period of study. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the investigation of the commercial catch of rough fish on Lake Whitney be continued, and that close study is given to the gear and techniques used as well as the ecological habitats that yield the most consistent catches of fish. Table 2 is a comparison of the rough fish and game fish population of Lake waco as represented by data obtained from the gill net collections. Actually the game fish population is only fair and would not be as good as shown in the table if drum were considered as rough fish instead of game fish. The population of game fish would then represent about 2A percent of the entire fish population, exclusive of seine sampling data. Table 3 shows the seasonal variation of capture of different species when identical gear was used over the same type of ecological habitat. The reader is especially referred to the gar, crappie, channel catfish and drum group. It is evident that an insufficient number of samples of the above named species could have produced entirely different data regarding the standing population of these fish. Table h-reconksthe frequency of occurrence of food items from fish collected by gill nets. RESULTS OF THE MINNOW SEINE COLLECTIONS: Nine stations were seined to collect 906 fish representing 11 species. The red Shiner, Notropis lutrensis, was the most abundant species collected and accounted for about 83 percent of the fish captured. No doubt a better seine check of the lake could have been made if the physical features of the impoundment had allowed a greater number of samples to be taken. Table 5 is the results of seine work on Lake Waco. Table 6 is a checklist of the species collected in the fisheries survey on that lake. Table 7 is an analysis of the Waco City Water as furnished by the Waco City Water Works. It is the only chemical analysis available for the lake and may differ slightly from seasonal analysis that could be made on the lake prOper. 300MMENDATIONS: It is also suggested that a controllable type of aquatic vegetation be planted on the lowlands that are exposed during the periods of water draw down. This should improvetxum.the production and the harvest of black bass as well as other species. Oh ef Aquatic Biologist Date: January 292 1958 _ Prepared by: Robert N. Hambric Approved by: Assistant Project Leader memoeom assume reasons 0% resume raucous ow b<m 2a 20. 0% new: Ham. ow meme omsmwd Hoamw 20. omsmfie Hoemw Se. so How. .os H00. Zoe was H00. Zoe meoasms was we m.mm How.mm m.mw H mm pure m.m~ essences ems o.we wo.mp m.mp :.we o.eo. 0 mm oneness meme woos mw.mw mom.wm :H.mr o :m me.mm Hw.mm eseewoo rm m.mm aw.wm m.Hm H.we H.m: H.ep assessowme me H.0H Hm.em p.me o.a: o.ma 0 pm ease 0.0m o.we o.ow o.w4 o.we o.oe awesome awesome owe m.me Hwe.oe HH.oH o.e4 w.ew w.mm esteemea oceans: o.Hm :.mm o.wm H.rm 0.0m o H ememmsosas ease we H.mm ma.m: m.me 0.40 H.0m o a. womome embwems O.Ho O.mm 0.0m o.wo 0.0m O o assesses museums o.em o.me 0.0m o.mm 0.0m o om eases osmeeam wow Hr.mm www.mm Ho.mm 0.x: m.He m we ease wwe Hm.:m mow.me Hm.am o.mo e.~m m m eases mom: Hmpm.mp Hoo.oo mm.pm am.e:. HO0.00 amoHo H. emaCHmewoo 0% Uses woos QHHH Zoe OOHHooeHoo woos boas zmoo Hosea : zososooe mem :.ooaoooe Home. Total Number of Specimens Caught: 2,06h * Total Weight of Specimens Caught 1,218 Average weight per Specimen 0.59 Total Weight of Rough Fish 715 Total Number of Rough Fish 1,237 ** Total Weight of Game Fish 503 Total NUmber of Game Fish 827 Average Weight per Rough Fish 0.57 Average Weight per Game Fish 0.61 Percent Rough Fish (by weight) ' 58.70 Percent Game Fish (by weight) 41.30 Percent Rough Fish (by number) 59.93 Percent Game Fish (by number) h0.07 * - Weight in Pounds ** — Catfishes and Drum included in Game Fish m. Hdeo w. * mesmooew <oHHodHos 0% awesome ow bewwosose mpoowom 6% QHHH Hose» been somec Hosea u wam : Hmmm. i mpoowom zodosooo mmocmufi zones 2mm muse MSH% roamed mopaosoou Ooeoeos Home Home Home Home Home Home Home . Heme Home mpoeaom was . m..m .m H..H. . .. . Hoombomo mos o.mm w.wo w W.mw m m 0 4w W.mw oneness mesa . .:H.mm mm.wm w:.mm no.4r e:.:m we.mm H4.mw :4.mo ww.Hm egaaseo . H.Hr ,_ .m.ww m.mm m.:~ Ho.mp o.ee H.:m Hm.0w assessowme H.Ho :.mm o.mw H.mp m.om o.mm 0.:e :.em Owen . o.mm osmssme oceans: m.mm o.we mw.mm m.wm m.o: :.mm m.mm p:.mw Hm.ow mwmewomm odeMwo o.m4 o.mo easemsosas same. 4.Hm H.Ho m.Ww o.me. o.mp w.ow o.re m.mo mousse msbwemw o.mm O.w4 , stomeHH wfibfiemfi o.m4 o.rw asses oemeeam we.ow e.me Hm.mo m.mm w.mm Hm.me Ho.mm m:.mm H:.em ease m.m: :.ow :.mm m.ee m.o: m.om my.wm e.wm :.mm % s : flamenco Hoesomosd wowoosdomo ow doaeH endow. Table A. Frequency of Occurrence of Food Items from Fish Collected by Gill Nets, Lake Waco, Texas. November 1956 — October 1957. % Food Scrap Detritus Species Shad Fish Algae and or and Total No. Remains Vegetation Stock Feed Insects Fish Exam. Spotted gar 1 l 0 0 0 27 Longnose gar 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 Channel catfish 1 9 19 15 8 97 Flathead catfish 0 0 0 0 0 3 Largemouth bass 0 1 0 0 0 27 Redear sunfish 0 0 0 0 0 1 Bluegill sunfish O 0 0 0 O 1 White crappie 6 79 2 l 0 208 Freshwater drum 0 2 0 0 0 35 Table 5. Results of Seining Collections by Number of Each Species — Lake Waco, Texas. W Species Number Collected Percent of Total __________lll_____i____m_i_______________l_i_______lll__ll________________l._lll_.____ Gizzard shad 27 2.98 River Shiner 2 0.22 Red Shiner (redhorse) - _ 751 82.89 Parrot minnow 21 2.32 Blackstripe topminnow 6A 7.06 Gambusia 6 0.66 Largemouth black bass 3 0.33 Redear sunfish A 0.4h Bluegill sunfish 23 2.5M Yellowbelly sunfish A 0.Ah White crappie l 0.11 Total 906 99 99