TPWD 1955 F-2-R-2 #140: Creel Census of Lake Travis, June 1954 through May 1955

. a STATE Texas PROJECT F~2~R~2 Job B~2 __mu____m.m___flmmm_a__~__ PERIOD June l95£ through _m_“_wmm_m“mu___m__w__m. May 1955- JOB COMPLETION REPORT by Kenneth C. Jurgens TITLE censnst {See Segment Completion Report, Job B~2, Project Fm2~R-l.) There were? however; certain important changes. estimating the total catch by angler for a given month“ This was sometimes due to the deficiency of fishermen either in the ccncerned area or passing through the concerned census statinn. For this reascn it was necessary to calculate the estimated total catch by anglers for the lake as a whale instead of for individual areas and an a semiuannnal basis rather than month by month. During the 19§3~5h census, all fishermen, regardless of whether they were boat; shore, or . 2. at the time of the cruise count. it was assumed for purposes of simplicity that persons counted in boats were not trotline fishermen. This assumption is given credence by the fact that most trotlines are ”run” early in the morning, usually before the cruise count was made. Furthermore, an effort was made to keep data on all known trotline fishermen aparate. Though total catch or annual yield figures for trotline fishing are not ins eluded in this report, data concerning the success of trotline fishing, based on the sample obtained, have been included. The formula used in estimating the total catch by all fishermen using Lake Travis, is. all boat and shore fishermen, is given in Figure 8. RESHEES Table I presents the consolidated results from the five census stations, and thus for the lake as a whole, for boat fishing. The table shows on a monthly basis, the rate of catch in fishfman hour, the total number of fishermen interviewed, the number of successful fishermen, and the number and per cent of unsuccessful fishermen. fable II and Table iii present the same results as Table I; but they are for shore and trotline fishing respectively. Table iv gives a comparison of the numbers of fishermen engaged in fishing from boats, from the shore, or with trotlines, and shows the comparative numbers W . , , . r »l fish imen in the average fishing party for each of these three categories on both a monthly and a yearly basis. Table V shows the rate of catch on a monthly and a yearly basis for each species 'aken by fishermen interviewed by census personnel. it also shows the comparative rate .f catch for each species in fishing from the shore, boat, or with a trotline. These figures are based on pure catches where only a single species was taken. Table VI shows the rate of catch for all species taken together and for all methods of fishing commonly employed in fishing on Lake frayis, such as: still fishing, «rolling, casting, etc. Table Vii compares the relative success of fishing with the various types of baits and is based on only those catches where a single type of bait was used. Table Vlli presents the estimated total catch for boat and shore fishing and the date upon which the estimates were made for the period June through November, iQEL. Table EX is the same except that it covers the period December, lQSh through May, 1955. Table X is a breakdown of the estimated total catch by species, showing the total number and weight of each species in the sample obtained during the census; the percentage of the number and weight of the total sample for each species; the estimated total number and weight of each species taken from the lake during the study period; and the estimated yield in number and weight per acre for each species in the total catch. Note that fish taken on trotlines are not included in these estimates. Figures 1 through a show the monthly average lengths for all species of fish taken by fishermen by all methods of sport fishing used in fishing Lake Travis. Only garfish have been excluded from these data because of the inability of the census takers Hp measure them at the time they were caught. . 30 Figures 5 and 6 give a monthly breakdown of the total catch by species and are based on all creels examined by census takers including those of boat, shore, and trots line anglers. Figure 7 shows a breakdown of the sampled catch for the entire study period, from June, 195h through May, 1955. DESQQSSIGN During the study period, the oracle of 1871 boat fishermen, lull shore fisher» men, and 351 trotline fishermen were examined by Texas Game and Fish Commission creel census personnel at the five widely separated creel census stations on Lake Travis. These fishermen took a total of 18h9 fish, 2895 fish, and 719 fish respectively, or a grand tom tel of 5&63 fish for all three categories of fishermen combined {Tables I, II, and Ill}. Boat fishermen had an average take of 0.2h fish per man hour, or 0.98 fish per fisherman per trip; while shore fishermen took 0.59 fish per man hour, or 2.05 fish per fisherman per trip; and trotline fishermen took 0.13 fish per man hour, or 2.0% fish per fisherman per trip (Tables I, Ii, and III). fhe average length of the fishing trip for the three different types of fisherw men varied considerably. Boat fishermen had an average length of fishing trip of c.13 hours; While shore and trotline fisherman had an average length of fishing trip of 3.t3 hours and 16.l3 hours per fisherman per trip respectively {Tables i, ii, and 1113. fhe rate of catch on Lake Travis is relatively low regardless of the method used in fishing, even for the successful fishermen. 0n the average, the successful'boat fi.herman caught fish at the rate of 0.38 fish per man hour; the successful shore fishers man caught fish at the rate of 0.9l fish per man hour; and the successful trotline fishers an caught fish at the rate of 0.17 fish per man hour {Tables i, if, and III}. for the fishermen interviewed during the study period, Lake Travis fishermen were successful in catching fish in the following proportions: 55 per cent of the boat fishermen were successful in catching at least one fish on each trip; 59 per cent of the snore fishermen were likewise successful; and 75 per cent of the trotline fishermen caught fish i«lles i, if, and ill}. The reason for the relative good inch of the shore fishermen over the i.. i. trcrline fishermen lies in the large number of small sunfish that inhabit the areas errand E: “h ' boat docks which provide most of the shore fishing on Lake Travis. bufortunaiei i“ the storage yearly length of the sunfish taken by shore fishermen is only a.s inches {3 l i i; 0} 2:3" r ,_ E. 4' ,. t -. ‘53-. 1 5. w ..5..'.i :. '"‘“‘ west to the novice and the trotline fishermen who use thgse small fish as live'bai: on iieir brotliues, these small sunfish are considered a nuisance. for boat fishermen, the most successful months for fishing during the study period more during hbvember and December. The next most successful time for boat fishing was dorm «1* "3 ing early string, in.March, 1955 iTabie i,. A point of interest, which may or may not be a val d re 01:: H; (I) Ho rm: 0 5b is r'+ H; is found in the fact that during the month of best fishin- 1-. . .i i955, the average number of fishermen per boat was lowest for the year. During this month the number of fishermen per boat was 1.7 and the rate of catch for all flflat riskeV~ men was 0.53 fish per man hour {Table i}. This might indicate that the redu.ed sols- in "boats where there are fewer men might increase the chances of fishermen in taking fish- . A. Largemouth bass and white bass were most frequently caught during the study period in December, 195M {Table V). Contrary to what might be expected, however, still fishing from a boat was the most effective method of fishing during that month, with "rolling as the next most effective method at that time (Table $1). This is probably .counted for in the popularity of fishing for white bass at that time of the year, toward the head of the lake just prior to the spawning season for that species. it is questionable whether December was actually the best month for boat fishing on Lake Travis or whether only the better, more experienced fishermen were fishing at that time of the year. Since the weather during that season is unsettled and relatively cold, it would seem that it was the fishermen rather than the fishing which was better. The usual surge in numbers of boat fishermen began in March, 1955 but came to a rather sudden and in early May with the rains which caused the level of Lake Travis to rise sharply and the water to become murky. The upper end of the lake, where most of the fishermen concentrate during the early spring for white and black bass fishing, was most drastically affected by the increased turbidity in the water. For shore fishermen, the highest rate of catch was recorded in July, 1955, when 112 fishermen caught a total of M21 fish. This was an average rate of catch of 1.as fish per man hour (Table Ii). The fish were, however, mostly small sunfish caught from the baited boat docks at the rate of 3.6 fish per man hour (Table V). Channel cat~ fish and blue catfish were also fairly common in the catch at that time, being caught at the rate of 0.5 and 1.2 fish per man hour respectively (Table V). The poorest rate of catch for shore fishermen occurred in danuary when only 0.2 fish per man hour were taken fTabie ii). This might be explained in the coldness of the water at that time and seem fish being fairly inactive in shallow water along the shore or near the surface under the baited boat docks. For trotline fishermen, the months of November, December, and January were re: iatisely good, in that none of the trotiine fishermen interviewed during those months failed to catch.fish. The largest number of fish caught on trotlines were taken during . .. May foiiowing a sudden rise in lake level and increased turbidity in the water. Only 8.0 per cent of the fishermen failed to catch fish during that month. The highest rate of catch ior trotlina fishermen also came in May when trotline fishermen caught fish at the rate of G.22 fish per man hour {Table iii}. in fishing for largemouth.bass, the most prised of the sport species in hate rid, the data indicate that the late fail and winter months of November through harsh Tra “i were ihe test period to fish for this species. The percentage of the total catch by all fishermen made up of largemouth bass ranged from 33.3 per cent in November to 47.0 per cent in February and down to 3t.2 per cent in march {Figures E and 6E. H The best months to fish for spotted bass, locally called ”smallmouth b hecember and danuary, when they accounted for 6.0 and 11.0 per cent of the total spectiveiy iFigure 6). 9"" 3"“ 19'5“. " 5;, and heir .3 catch rem White bass fishing began to be fairly good in october and picked up through fall and on into the winter months, reaching a peak percentage of the total catch for all fishers men in December. At that time 48.6 per cent of all fish caught were white or ”sand” bass 1"” {Figures 3 and 6). Crappie fishing during the study period did not produce very many fish. The 'ghest percentage of the total catch by all fishermen,composed of crappie,€6.5 per cent}, occurred in November {Figure 5). 5. Sunfish, as expected, comprised the great bulk of the fish taken from the lake, being caught by many men, women, and children on worms and shrimp, especially during the vacation months of June, July, and August (Figure 5). Of the total catch for the year, _ the sunfish species comprised h0.69 per cent (Figure 7). Though no attempt was made to parate the various species of sunfish, it is judged they were caught in the following order of frequency: bluegills, longears, green sunfish, warmouths, and Rio Grande perch. The Rio Grande perch, a cichlid, is locally classed by fishermen as a ”sun perch" or ”brim". 0f the catfish caught by anglers, the channel catfish was the most frequently taken. Next, came the blue catfish and then, the flathead or yellow catfish (figures 5, 6, and T). Carp fishermen were not disappointed in fishing Lake Travis. This species, along with the smallmouth buffalo, and the river carpsucker, comprised more than 5.0 per cent of the total catch for the year (Figures 5, 6, and 7), biting fairly well on doughbait the year around. The only months when this group of species were not caught, and apparently not sought after, were the winter months of January and February. The most effective method of fishing was still fishing from the shore or baited dock, although this paid off mostly in small sunfish (Table VI). The most effective bait was worms, accounting for approximately a_fourth of all the fish taken by anglers during the study period (Table VIII). Surprisingly enough, the next most effective baits were the artificial baits which nosed out the live minnows by a narrow margin. _ Casting from the shore, would appear to be the next most effective method of fishing {Table VI} but the limited data recorded for this method is not sufficient to form ‘he basis for conclusions. Trolling, as a method of fishing, was most effective during October, November, and December {Table VI) and is a popular means of taking white bass from Lake Travis durm ing that season. The total catch of all fish taken from Lake Travis was composed of the following species in the order of their relative abundance in the creels: sunfish {all species and including the Rio Grande perch), largemouth bass, channel catfish, white bass, blue cats fish, white crappie, carp, spotted bass, smallmouth buffalo, freshwater drum, river carp» suckers, flathead or yellow catfish, gars (all species), and bullheads. This list was based on the total catch including those fish taken by boat, shore,and trotline fishermen {Figure 73. Apparently,theiaomoazproductive areas for fishermen are the upper and lower ends of Lake Travis. This is shown rather graphically in Tables VIII and IX. During the period from June through November, lQEh, the largest number of boat fishermen were interviewed in Area V, the last area toward the head of the lake. These fishermen had the best average daily creel and the area yielded the largest number of fish to boat fishermen. The area itself is underdeveloped and does not appeal to most tourists since there are few tourist facilities and no cafes. There are, however, plenty of good camping sites and a relatively large numberof boats for rent. Contrarywise, the lower end of the lake yielded the largest number of fish to shore fishermen QTable VIII}. This area is the best developed area for tourists, with lots 5 cabins, a few places to eat, and the largest number of baited docks to fish from. it is 6. ,..ected that this area would have a relatively high average daily creel for ? hermen. But as was pointed out earlier, these creels contained a very large age of small sunfish. .s 3 3' (D 9-»: *1) “1.3 C. "i a} (D FD N ’75 During the period from December, 195s, through May, 1955, the same pattern was developed. The largest number of fish caught by boat fishermen were taken from near the head of the lake, and the largest number of fish taken by shore fishermen were taken from the lower end of the lake (Table ix). it is interesting to note the relative increase in numbers of fishermen in Area T during the second six months period. This was probably due to the pepularity of white bass fishing in that area during the winter and spring months. The high average daily creel of 4.5 fish per fisherman, for shore fishermen in Area T, as reflected in Table IX, was due to trotline fishermen who fished with pole and line to catch small sunfish to be used as live bait on their trotlines. it is estimated that Lake Travis as a whole yielded 231,835 fish td boat and shore fishermen during the study period. This estimate does not include fish taken on trotlines. it is also estimated that these fish weighed a total of 180,091 lbs. {Table X). The largest number of fish taken from the lake were sunfish, although the greatest weight for any single species was for largemouth bass. In the estimated yields of fish per acre, sunfish again were the most frequently caught with 2.6 fish per acre. Largemouth base were second, being caught at the rate of approximately 1.0 fish per acre. The greatest esw tisated yield in lbs. per acre was also for the largemouth bass with 1.67 lbs. per acre White base were harvested in fair numbers, at the rate of 0.? fish per acre and 3.?5 lbs. per acre (Table X). Channel catfish, taken by boat and shore anglers, amounted to an estimated total sated of 20,471 fish or 8.83 per cent of the estimated total catch for all species. On an acre basis it is estimated that channel catfish were caught at the rate of 0.5 fish per acre an; 0.23 lbs. per acre (Table X). Though carp were harvested at only an estimated 0.2 fish per acre, their estim mated harvest in lbs. per acre was 0.59 (Table X‘. The per acre yield estimated for all of Lake Travis was only 5.52 fish oer acre and only b.29 lbs. per acre. inspection of Figures 1 through 4 will show the indicated trends in the sizes of th various species of fish taken by all Lake Travis anglers, including trotline fishermen. it is indicated in Figure 1 that channel catfish increased in average length.froe cane through December, 195k, and that yearling or ”young of the year” catfish began to enter ‘” l in January, 1955. This graph also shows the average length of blue catfish to that of the channel catfish for most of the year. The three peaks in the graph for blue catfish probably indicate active feeding by larger fish during the months of September, January and March. On the other hand, the ”rough in the graph for February does not necessarily mean the yearlings or ”young of the ar” began to enter the creel at that time since the average size for blue catfish rose sharply in March. 7. Data for flathead, or yellow catfish, and yellow bullheads are inconclusive bee “use of the small number of specimens seen. In Figure 2, the graph for largemouth bass suggests that this species gradually increased in average length from 11 to 1h inches and tha.t largemouth bass larger than 1h inches are seldom taken by anglers. Since this was also the case during the 1953 5hc creel “ensue (see Job Completion Report, Job Bm2, Project F 2uR- 1), it tends to indicate that when largemouth bass reach 1% inches in length they are no longer available to the angler. Speculation on what becomes of these larger bass leads to the assumption that a numerous population of these fish exists in Lake Travis but that they are not being harvested by the anglers. This assumption then leads to the impression that largemouth bass of lb inches or larger have very little trouble in foraging for a meal because of the superwabundance of larger shed and small sunfish. For this reason, it appears that the larger bass are not attracted to the artificial lures of the "bass fishermen" or the live minnows of the live bait fishermen. If this is the case, the problem indicated is to find a way to harvest these larger bass. This is suggested for future work on Lake Travis. Spotted bass, like the largemouth bass, ranged between 11 and 1% inches in length . is indicated that spotted bass less than 11 inches in length are seldom kept by bass The average length of white crappie was fairly constant between 11 and 12 inches the year around. The low point on the graph for white crappie, as shown in Figure 2, for July, 1955, was caused by the relatively few crappie caught at that time of the year. Then- fish happened to be smaller individuals, most likely attracted to the baited areas u.nder the boa.t docks. The other low point on the graph, for April, 1955, probably indie sates the entrance of a new year class into the oracle of fishermen. As is shown in Figure 3 that white bass caught by Lake Travis anglers ranged in sire Tram 11 to lo inches, with an avera.ge length for the year of approximately 13 in.ches. T‘ welage le:ngth of fish caught during the 195k 55 creel census was approximately 2 ice shes greater than that of the white bass ta.ken during the 1953 5t creel census period. T is indicates a probable population increase in a.verage age and length, with fewer you ng ir di iduais bei:ng taken during the 195he 55 census period. This may also indicate a dam crease . spawning success for whit-e bass in Lake Travis during the l95h spawning season. The a.verage length for sunfish, as shown in Figure 3, is approximately 6 lacks“ Liitle .id be said concerning this group of species except that they are too numerous a.nd rs ema11.Th.ey are also too apt to steal ba.it from the bass and crappie fishermen. Since only 21 freshwater drum were taken by anglers during the 195ae5§ census period, the data for this species is too limited for forming any conclusions. however, % g. a . - €30 Contrary to the trend established during the 1953e5h creel census that carp showed a more or less steady increase in average length, the trend for l95he55 was one of gradual decrease in average length, ranging from 17 inches in June 195% to only l2 inches in May 1955. An interesting sidelight concerning carp was the sharp drop in numbers of carp fishermen fishing Lake Travis. This decrease in numbers of ca.rp fishermen was noticed soon after f;ishing became popular on th.e Bolton Reservoir with the people of the Templee itch Area of Texas. Since these people now ha.ve a lake close to home, and since this cake has a large carp population in it, the carp fishermen from the Templemhelton area have stopped coming to Lake Travis. 80 So few river carpsuckers or small mouth buffalo were caught during the l95hm55 creel census period that they are mentioned here only in passinge Average lengths for tese species are plotted on the graph in Figure to, RECGMMENDATIONS lo It is recommended that a study of largemouth bass in Lake Travis he made to determine the size of the population and the disposition of the largemouth bass over it inches in length which are not being harvested by anglerso 26 It is recommended that further study be given the question of how to rem duce the forage and rough fish populations of Lake Travis in order to make the harvest of the game species in Lake Travis easier for the angler» SEMMARY lo A total of 3833 Lake Travis anglers were interviewed by project personnelo 9f this total 1871 were host fishermen; lhll were shore fishermen, and 351 were trotline fishermeno 2° Boat fishermen had an average catch of 0°98 fish per fishermen per trip; while shore and trotline fishermen had average catches of 2005 and 200% fish per trip respectivelya 30 The average lengths of fishing trips for the three types of fishermen are as follows: #013 hours for boat fishermen; 3¢h3 hours for shore fishermen, and 16013 hours for trotline fishermeno to Fiftymfive per cent of the boat fishermen? 59 per cent of the shore fisherm men? and 75 per cent of the trotline fishermen caught at least one fish per tripe ,c Fishing for largemouth hassfi white bassj and spotted bass is best during all and throughout the winter months? during which time still fishing and trolm iing from boats are the most effective methodso 6° Crappie fishing during the lQShm§5 census period was rery pooru ?0 Small sunfish were the bulk of the total catch comprising #0069 per cent of the total number of fish caughto 80 A noticeable decrease occurred in the numbers of carp fishermen using Lake Travis during the 1954m35 census period as compared to the number using the lake during the 19§3e§s census periodo 9a The most effective method of fishing 0n Lake TraVii remains Still fififiiflg and the most effective baits in order of their effectiveness are: wormS, affiififiial lures? and minnowso 100 The upper end of the lake produced the largest number of fish for heat fish» areas while the baited docks of the lower end of the lake produced the most for shore fishermeng ll” Boat and shore fishermen together took an estimated 231,835 fish weighing 305091 pounds during the period from June? 195A through Mayfl 19550 ' 120 It is estimated that Lake Travis anglers harvested only 5052 fish per acre or @929 pounds of fish per acren 9a 130 Largemouth bass averaging not larger than 1% inches in length were harvested at the rate of approximately 1 fish or lab? pounds per acreo This amounted to somewhat more than #03000 largemouth basso lee Largemouth bass in excess of 1% inches in total length are seldom caught by Lake Travis anglers, probably because of the supermabundance of forage fisheso zones moon moww bomsme meoeeEdce Oneness Zodmsame Umoesdme Manoeew awesomew Beans beeew ems HoemH Haas flueswm macaw Geomomm meme @MmWeom memoHam moooemmmow doaooocmaeow swarmeemo @MmWeHEeo mm we mo mm mm HHH ea HHO as He: Has Homw mm mm m: as me mm m: mm me new new 4H mam scene mesammseee some moses magmas sesame a: Hae.m 4m Hmm.o mm moa.mm pea woe.a Hem :mo.m ewe mmm.o Hem m:m.o Ham mew.o we Hmo.o mom mr4.m moo mm:.o mm Hmm.m swam ramo.cm fiflewe H tamoxeeo we. monoemmwow Wemfiwom stew 0.:0 o.rm o.wm o.ro 0.:m 0.4H o.wo 0.:m o.ww o.mr o.mr o.wm Hodmw seaweea see Hoe ease fleece Moose weaned rec.m ww®.o www.4m asmw.m Weafi\smc was was mHH awmoeeeeo Gaps o.mm o.mw o.mw o.m4 o.wm oémw o.mm o.wm o.mm o.Hm O.Hm O.mr Wes ease ow eHH awmomeeeo deacoommmwow oewooHeecd MemeHw eeaeeme wemeHamo new a :.Hw oases was mHmeeees was ease, oewooweemm Memawfi mecemmm macaw a o.wm eemw.mms aemfimaamo wee eeew. mooaowwmedcd somewam ow some weaneom mean new mass Hess Haeewm macaw menace Homes deem seescmmse ooww ens caeeHm om WanneeEco Hoeeedwesem 6% semen mean can Wame_oosawmawoo mnemooomw aoewnm ewe Wesson mono Hmmrc eweoomw macaeoom. see some.