TPWD 1955 F-2-R-2 #140: Job Completion Report: Creel Census of Lake Travis

--- Page 1 --- " STATE Texas PROJECT F-2-R-2, Job B-2 PERIOD June 195% through ee UE May 1955. JOB COMPLETION REPORT by Kenneth C. Jurgens TITLE Creel Census of Lake Travis. OBJECTIVES To estimate the total catch by species and to obtain data regarding the growth rate and relative abundance of each species in the total catch. PROCEDURE Essentially the procedure followed in taking the 1954-55 creel census of Lake Travis fishes was a continuation of the procedure worked out during the 1953-54 creel census. (See Segment Completion Report, Job B-2, Project F-2-R-1.) There were, however, certain important changes. instead of operating the five census Stations for seven days per month, they were operated for only five days per month. This change was made because of the relatively large number of days during which few or no fishermen passed through the census stations. “ince this was true of all of the fishing camps on the lake, it was felt that project costs ould be substantially reduced by limiting the number of census days to five without seri- ously impairing the accuracy of the data obtained. The cruise count method of estimating the total number of fishermen using a given, well defined area of the lake was continued. As was done during the previous year, the count was made from a motorboat on a day when the census station in that area was manned. As was experienced during the 1953-54 creel census efforts, the cruise count for any one census day in a given area did not necessarily produce data which could be used in estimating the total catch by anglers for a given month. This was sometimes due to the deficiency of fishermen either in the concerned area or passing through the concerned census Station. For this reason it was necessary to calculate the estimated total catch by anglers for the lake as a whole instead of for individual areas and on a semi-annual basis rather than month by month. Another difference of importance between the 1953-54 creel census and the 1954= 55 creel census, was the change in the method for calculating the estimated total catch. During the 1953-54 census, all fishermen, regardless of whether they were boat, shore, or trotline fishermen, were lumped together in the calculations. As a result, the extremely large number of hours fished by trotline fishermen caused a large error in the rate of catch figures, and in the average daily creel. For this reason, these three categories of fishermen are treated separately in this report and the estimated total catch for Lake Travis in this report is based only on the sum of the estimated total catches for boat and shore fishermen. Trotline fishing was excluded from the estimated total catch figures because of the difficulty encountered in distinguishing trotline fishermen from other boat fishermen --- Page 2 --- Qs 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 vas made. Furthermore, an effort was made to keep data on all known trotline fishermen eparate. Though total catch or annual yield figures for trotline fishing are not ine» cluded 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, ie. all boat and shore fishermen, is given in Figure 8. RESULTS 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 fish/man hour, the total number of fishermen interviewed, the number of successful fishermen, and the number and per cent of unsuccessful fishermen. Table II and Table III present the same results as Table IT; but they are for shore and trotline fishing respectively. Table IV gives a comparison of the numbers of fishermen engaged in fishing rom boats, from the shore, or with trotlines, and shows the comparative numbers rmen in the average fishing party for each of these three categories on both a4 and a yearly basis. monthly 8 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 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 Travis, such as: still fishing, trolling, casting, ete. 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 VIIT presents the estimated total catch for boat and shore fishing and the data upon which the estimates were made for the period June through November, 1954. Table IX is the same except that it covers the period December, 1954 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 4 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 P measure them at the time they were caught. --- Page 3 --- . 3. 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 trot- line anglers. Figure 7 shows a breakdown of the sampled catch for the entire study period, from June, 1954 through May, 1955. DISCUSSION During the study period, the creels of 1871 boat fishermen, 1411 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 1849 fish, 2895 fish, and 719 fish respectively, or a grand to- tal of 5463 fish for all three categories of fishermen combined (Tables I, II, and III). Boat fishermen had an average take of 0.24 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 2.04 fish per fisherman per trip (Tables I, II, and III). The average length of the fishing trip for the three different types of fisher-~ men varied considerably. Boat fishermen had an average length of fishing trip of 4.13 hours; while shore and trotline fisherman had an average length of fishing trip of 3.43 hours and 16.13 hours per fisherman per trip respectively (Tables I, II, and III). The rate of catch on Lake Travis is relatively low regardless of the method used in fishing, even for the successful fishermen. On the average, the successful boat fisherman caught fish at the rate of 0.38 fish per man hour; the successful shore fisher- man caught fish at the rate of 0.91 fish per man hour; and the successful trotline Pisher- an caught fish at the rate of 0.17 fish per man hour (Tables Tt, II, and IIT). 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 2 Pishermen were likewise successful; and 75 per cent of the trotline fishermen esught Tables I, TI, and TIT). D> ‘he reason for the relative good luck of the shore fishermen over th ishermen lies in the large number of small sunfish that inhabit the ng on Lake Travis. age yearly length of the sunfish taken by shore fishermen is only 5.6 tus novice and the trotline fishermen who use these small fish as live trotlines, these small sunfish are considered a nuisance. { eat shermen, the most successful months for fishing during the study x and December. The next most successful time for boat fishing was Sonn Lope Por boat fi were during November ing early spring, in March, 1955 {Table A point of interest, which may or May not be a valid reason for better fishing, in the fact that during the menth of best fishing for boat fishermen, December, 3 avérage 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 be 0.53 fish per man hour (' ignt indicate that the e chances of fi --- Page 4 --- 4, uargemouth bass and white bass were most frequently caught during the study riod in December, 1954 (Table V). Contrary to what might be expected, however, still siing from a boat was the most effective method of fishing during that month, with ‘olling as the next most effective method at that time (Table VI). 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. be Ti 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 end 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 ll2 fishermen caught a total of 421 fish. This was an average rate of catch of 1.48 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 January when only 0.2 fish per man hour were taken ‘Table I1). This might be explained in the coldness of the water at that time and sun- 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 reé- Latively good, in that none of the trotline fishermen interviewed during those months failed to catch fish. The largest number of fish caught on trotlines were taken during May following a sudden rise in lake level and increased turbidity in the water. Only 6.6 per cent of the fishermen failed to catch fish during that month. The highest rate of ch Por trotiine fishermen also came in May when trotline fisherwen caught fish at the ate of 0.22 fish per man hour (Table III). =) foe a fe in fishing for largemouth bass, the most prized of the sport species in Lake Travis, the data indicate that the late fall snd winter months of Novenber through Merch were the best period to fish for this species. The percentage of the total catch by ail. fishermen made up of largemouth bass ranged from 33.3 per cent in November to 47.0 per cent in February and down to 34.2 per cent in March (Figures 5 and 6). The best months to fish for spotted bass, locally called "smallmouth bass", wers December and January, when they accounted for 6.0 and 11.0 per cent of the total catch re- spectively (Figure 6). 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 fisher- men in December. At that time 48.6 per cent of all fish caught werc white or "sand" bass (Figures 5 and 6). Crappie fishing during the study period did not produce very many fish. ghest percentage of the total catch by all fishermen, composed of erappie, (8.5 per cent}, -scurred in November (Figure 5). --- Page 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, _ tte sunfish species comprised 40.69 per cent (Figure 7). Though no attempt was made to barate 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 "prim". Of 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 7). 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 “se 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 dur- ing that season. The total catch of all fish taken from Lake Travis was composed of the Pollowing 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 cat- fish, white crappie, carp, spotted bass, smallmouth buffalo, freshwater drum, river carpe suckers, fiathead or yellow catfish, gars (all species), and bullheads. This list was based on the total catch including those ®ish taken by boat, shore, and trotline fishermen (Figure 7). Apparently, the iwmost productive areas for fishermen are the upper and lower ends of Lake Travis. This 1s shown rather graphically in Tables VIII and IX. During the period from June through November, 1954, 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 (Table VIII). This area is the best developed area for tourists, with lots “ cabins, a few places to eat, and the largest number of baited docks to fish from. It is --- Page 6 --- 6. expected that this area would have a relatively high average daily creel for shermen, But as was pointed out earlier, these creels contained a very large nentage of small sunfish. a oO oO ¢ During the period from December, 1954, through May, 1955, the same pattern was developed. The largest number of fish caught by boat fishermen were taken from near the ad 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 V during the second six months period. This was probably due to the popularity 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 V, 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 to boat and nore fishermen during the study period. This estimate does not include fish taken on rotlines. It is also estimated that these fish weighed a total of 180,091 lbs. (Table X). * “+ om € 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 bass e The greatest es-= mated yield in lbs. per acre was also for the largemouth bass with 1.67 lbs. per acre White bass were harvested in fair numbers, at the rate of 0.7 fish per acre and O.75 lbs. per acre (Table X). Channel catfish, taken by boat and shore anglers, amounted to an estimated total cateh 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 and 0.23 lbs. per acre (Table X). Though carp were harvested at only an estimated 0.2 fish per acre, their esti- 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 per acre and only 4.29 lbs. per acre. Inspection of Figures 1 through 4 will show the indicated trends in the sizes the various species of fish taken by all Lake Travis anglers, including trotline fis it is indicated in Figure 1 that channel catfish increased in average length frow Jane through December, 1954, and that yearling or "young of the year" catfish began to enter the creel in January, 1955. This graph also shows the average length of blue catfish to exceed 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 ““ough 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. --- Page 7 --- Te Data for flathead, or yellow catfish, and yellow bullheads are inconclusive be- ~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 14 inches and that largemouth bass larger than 14. inches are seldom taken by anglers. Since this was also the case during the 1953-54 creel census (see Job Completion Report, Job B-2, Project F-2-R-1), it tends to indicate that when largemouth bass reach 14 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 14 inches or larger have very little trouble in foraging for a meal because of the super-abundance of iarger shad 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 14 inches in length and it is indicated that spotted bass less than 11 inches in length are seldom kept by bass fishermen. 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. “hese fish happened to be smaller individuals, most likely attracted to the baited areas under the boat docks. The other low point on the graph, for April, 1955, probably indi- cates the entrance of a new year class into the creels of fishermen. As is shown in Figure 3 that white bass caught by Lake Travis anglers ranged in size from 11 to 16 inches, with an average length for the year of approximately 13 inches. The average length of fish caught during the 1954-55 creel census was approximately 2 in- hes greater than that of the white bass taken during the 1953-54 creel census period. Bais indicates a probable population increase in average age and length, with fewer young ineiv viduals being taken during the 1954-55 census period. This may also indicate a de-~ erease spawning success for white bass in Lake Travis during the 1954 spawning season. The average length for sunfish, as shown in Figure 3, is approximately 6 inches. Little can be said concerning this group of species except that they are too numerous and too small. They are also too apt to steal bait from the bass and crappie fishermen. Since only 21 freshwater drum were taken by anglers during the 1954-55 census period, the data for this species is too limited for forming any conclusions. Eowever , the monthly and yearly average lengths for the sample obtained are shown in Figure 3. Contrary to the trend established during the 1953-54 creel census that earp showed 3 more or less steady increase in average length, the trend for 1954-55 was one of gradual decrease in average length, ranging from 17 inches in June 1954 to only 12 joches in May 1955. An interesting sidelight concerning carp was the sharp drop in numbers of carp fishermen Pishing Lake Travis. This decrease in numbers of carp fishermen was noticed soon —— fishing became popular on the Belton Reservoir with the people of the Temple~ iton Area of Texas. Since these people now have a lake close to home, and since this adke has a large carp population in it, the carp fishermen from the Temple~Belton area have stopped coming to Lake Travis. --- Page 8 --- 8. So few river carpsuckers or small mouth buffalo were caught during the 1954-55 sreel census period that they are mentioned here only in passing. Average lengths for ‘ese species are plotted on the graph in Figure }. RECOMMENDATIONS lL. It is recommended that a study of largemouth bass in Lake Travis be made to determine the size of the population and the disposition of the largemouth bass over 14 inches in length which are not being harvested by anglers. 2. It is recommended that further study be given the question of how to re- 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. SUMMARY 1. A total of 3833 Lake Travis anglers were interviewed by project personnel. Of this total 1871 were boat fishermen, 1411 were shore fishermen, and 351 were trotline Pishermen. e. Boat fishermen had an average catch of 0.98 fish per fishermen per trip, while shore and trotline fishermen had average catches of 2.05 and 2.04 fish per trip respectively. 3. The average lengths of fishing trips for the three types of fishermen are as follows: 4.13 hours for boat fishermen, 3.43 hours for shore fishermen, and 16.13 hours for trotline fishermen. h, Fifty-five per cent of the boat fishermen, 59 per cent of the shore fisher- men, and 75 per cent of the trotline fishermen caught at least one fish per trip. ‘> Fishing for largemouth bass, white bass, and spotted bass is best during the late fall and throughout the winter months, during which time still fishing and trol- ling from boats are the most effective methods. 6, Crappie fishing during the 1954-55 census period was very poor. 7. Small sunfish were the bulk of the total catch comprising 40.69 per cent of the total number of fish caught. 8, A noticeable decrease occurred in the numbers of carp fishermen using Lake Travis during the 1954-55 census period as compared to the number using the lake during the 1953-54 census period. 9. The most effective method of fishing on Lake Travis remains still fishing and the most effective baits in order of their effectiveness are: worms, artificial lures , and minnows. 1O. The upper end of the lake produced the largest number of fish for boat Pish- ermen while the baited docks of the lower end of the lake produced the most for shore Tishermen. il. Boat and shore fishermen together took an estimated 231,835 fish weighing 30,091 pounds during the period from June, 195% through May, 1955. ié. It is estimated that Lake Travis anglers harvested only 5.52 fish per acre or 4.29 pounds of fish per acre. --- Page 9 --- Des 13. Largemouth bass averaging not larger than 14 inches in length were harvested at the rate of approximately 1 fish or 1.67 pounds per acre. This amounted to somewhat ~ore than 40,000 largemouth bass. 14. Largemouth bass in excess of 14 inches in total length are seldom caught by lake Travis anglers, probably because of the super-abundance of forage fishes. --- Page 10 --- Table I Total Suecessful Fish/man hr. Total Total Fish/man hr. Per cent of all Month Successful Unsuccessful Fish Hours Successful Fisher- Hours for all Fishermen Fishermen Fishermen Caught Fished Fishing Fished Fishermen Unsuccessful June 36 66 7h 171.5 O43 102 WATS 0.17 65 July 37 56 15 188.0 0.40 93 338.0 0.22 61 August 60 5h 95 207.25 0.46 114 356.75 0.23 Tag September 89 67 146 304.5 0.38 156 509.5 0.29 43 October 95 64. 186 461.5 0.40 159 682.5 0.27 WL November 111 35 23h 522.0 0.49 146 642.25 0.36 25 December 46 2h 172 242.0 0.71 70 324.0 0.53 35 January 110 85 188 585.0 0.30 195 846.5 0.22 yy February he 81 81 181.0 O.45 123 WSUS 0.18 65 March 19} 123 312 947.5 0.33 317: 1he6.5 0.22 39 April 154. 122 201 824.0 0.24 276 1264.0 0.16 yy May Ike) 71 85 156.5 0.54 120 437.5 0.19 59 Total 1023 848 1849 4790.75 0.38 1871 = 7729.5 0.24 4S Calculated yearly average fisherman day - 4.13 hours per fisherman per trip. Calculated yearly average creel - 0.98 fish per fisherman per trip. Lake Travis Creel Census: Consolidated results of boat fishing Prom the five Lake Travis Creel Census Stations. These data represent only the creels of fishermen interviewed by Boat Fishing Results Texas Game and Fish Commission personnel during the period June 1954, through May 1955. --- Page 11 --- Month dune July August September October November December January February March April May Total Lake Travis Creel Census: Shore Fishing Results Successful Fishermen 62 66 110 73 61 30 2g 60 D5 71 138 8h 839 Unsuccessful Fishermen 15 46 56 ay zt 26 i 74 43 76 63 52 p72 Total Fish Hours Caught Fished 361 U9 25 4el 172.5 370 LUT 25 22h = ah.o 109 191.0 122 151.5 15 132.25 87 = 221.5 138 = 204.0 204 304.0 506 574.0 278 268.0 2895 3157.25 Table IT Successful Fish/man hr. Successful Fishing LAS 24h 0,83 0.92 0.91 Total Pisher- men 137 134 98 147 201 136 Wy Total Fish/man hr. Hours Fished 468.75 284.0 613.25 276.0 4843.25 for all Fishermen 0.32 0.66 0.59 0.59 Per cent of all Fishermen Unsuccessful 35 a5 34 21 31 7 oo 20 hy 52 31 38 KL Calculated yearly average fisherman day - 3.43 hours per fisherman per trip. Calculated yearly average creel = 2.05 fish per fisherman per trip. Consolidated results of shore fishing Prom the five Lake Travis Creel Census Stations. These data represent only the creels of fishermen interviewed by Texas Game and Fish Commission personnel during the period June 1954, through May 1955. 1 --- Page 12 --- Table IIT Total Successful Fish/man hr. Total Total Fish/man hr. Per cent of all Month Successful Unsuccessful Fish Hours Successful Fisher- Hours for all Fishermen Fishermen Fishermen Caught Pished Fishing men Fished Fishermen Unsuccessful June 28 26 100 392.50 0.26 5h 838.00 0.12 Ke) July 6 15 150 685.00 0.23 61 877.50 O17 25 August 37 17 75 437.00 0.16 54 556.00 0.13 32 September 14 8 38 221.00 O.17 22 292.50 0.13 37 October 11 1 37 283.00 0.13 12 296.00 0.13 9 November 14 O 22 317.00 0.07 14 317.00 0.07 ) December 2 O 4 29.00 0.14 2 29.00 0.14 0 January 8 ) 15 141.00 0.16 8 141,00 0.11 ) February 6 5 16 82.00 0.20 ll * «6199.00 0.08 46 March 21 6 24 456.00 0.05 27 603.00 0.04 27 April 18 6 30 384.00 0.08 2k 562.00 0.05 25 May 57 5 208 880.00 0.2h 62 953.00 0,22 8 Total 262 89 719 4307.50 0.17 351 5664.00 0.13 25 Calculated yearly average trotline trip - 16.13 hours per fisherman per trotline set. Calculated yearly average creel - 2.04 fish per fisherman per trip. Lake Travis Creel Census: Consolidated results of trotline fishing from the Pive Lake Travis Creel Census Stations. These data represent only the creels of trotline fishermen interviewed Trotline Fishing Results by Texas Game and Fish Commission personnel during the period June 1954, through May 1955. --- Page 13 --- Table IV Month Total Fishermen Number of Parties Average Number Fishermen Boat Shore Trotline Boat Shore Trot Line per Party Boat Shore Trot line June 102 137 5h 52 67 36 1.9 2.0 1.5 July 93 112 61 he 50 37 2.2 2.2 1.6 August 114 166 54. 53 70 34 2.1 2.3 1.4 September 156 92 22 67 51 17 2.3 1.8 1.2 October 159 88 12 73 46 8 2,2 1.9 iS November 146 56 1h 71 32 8 2.0 1.8 1.7 December 70 yh 2 he 30 é 1.7 1.5 1.0 January 195 134 8 96 68 6 2.0 1.9 1.3 February 123 98 11 60 5h 10 2.0 1.6 lL. March 317 147 27 139 71 14 2.2 2.0 1.9 April 276 201 Aan 121 92 14 2,3 2.1 1.7 May 120 136 62 55 62 39 22 2.1 1.6 Totals 1871 W411 351 871 693 225 2.1 2.0 1.6 Lake Travis Creel Census: Consolidated results from the five Lake Travis Creel Census Stations. These data represent only the fishermen interviewed by Texas Game and Fish Commission personnel during the period June 1954. through May 1955, --- Page 14 --- Species Sunfish Boat Shore Crappie Boat Shore Largemouth bass Boat Shore Trotline White bass Boat Shore Channel catfish Boat Shore Trotline Blue catfish Boat Shore Trot line Spotted bass Boat Shore June July Wo AN O GW eRORe) MOH ON 0.3 OO° Rw PP Sept. Table V Oct. Nov. cCoO—~ QI OV [e) = xO OC 0.2 O. O.4 - g i *€ i ll O. ~= 6, Fe x 0.8 = 0.2 - 0.2 0. 0.1 0. O.1* - * . Based ono 3 2 1 ON Dec. 4.O* QO 0, O Based on only 0.8 Based on only O.1* Jan. Based on only one(1) fish One 0.3 one(1) fish 0.3 1.0 one(1) fish OoOO°0 COW Ww 0) . 1 0.2 Feb. NO 8 = 0.8 0.5* O.1 nly one{1) fish Mar. ine) Apr. mM oO On O° Or ome) Mo ome) O° May ON Average Oe —] Go i ' © ook MO Wo ooo ooo mM PO KH Po Loe) Or --- Page 15 --- Table V (continued) Species June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dee. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Average Yellow catfish Trotline - + ~- - = == ~ = ~ = = = - = == 0.04 - - 0,03 0.06 Drum Boat O.1 - = = = - - ~ = - - ~- -- = = -~ = = =o 0.1 Shortnose gar Boat 0.5 — = = - - “ < — ——— = == = = ~ ee 0.5 Carp Shore O.4 0.6 0.4 O.4 0.8 O.4 0.5 - - -- 1.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 River carpsucker Shore 0.2 - — 1.0 — 0.7 = - - — me wm ~- 0.5 0.5 Catfish (all species) Trotline 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 O.1 O.1 O.1 ~ = 0.2 Cal. 0.1 0.3 0.2 Lake Travis Creel Census: Return per unit of effort in fish/man hour for the various species caught by either boat, shore or trotline fishermen during the study period. These data are based only on pure catches, where only one species was involved. --- Page 16 --- Method of Fishing Still fishing Boat Shore (? o tA ting Boat Shore Trolling Boat Trotline Lake Travis Creel Census: June oe, oO FR July 0.0 0.0 Aug. 0.3 Oo = Lee) OW Table VI Oct. Nov. 0.5 0.4 O.4 0.6 0.2 0.3 O.4 = = % O.4 0.5 O.1 O.1 Dec. >! WO 0.2 died 0.2 0.4 ~ Based on only one{1) oO nh O.1 Qo MO fish ro) WIA) ne) 5 ° ome) Fp ome) NM PO QO. a 0.3 May O.1 0.2 Average OnW Loe) Wi po 0.3 Return per unit of effort in fish/man hour for the various methods of fishing used by fishermen during the study period. fishing trips where only one fishing method was used. Note that these data include only those a --- Page 17 --- Fish Caught on Various Baits Live Baits Sunfish Minnows Crayfish Grasshoppers Worms Carp Dead Baits Beef Heart Liver Cheese Doughbait Bloodbait Cut Shad Cut Perch Cut Carp Cut gar Shrimp Stink Bait Artificial Baits Lures Spinners June 50 14 36 25 19 15 17 D Artificial Fliesh7 Lure & Fly Comb. -- Lure & Live Bait Comb. July 19 2h 299 66 ig 33 19 a9 Lake Travis Creel Census: ee VOUS | Aug. 1 51 250 46 32 19 ll 18 Table VII Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 5 = ‘ies anes 52 28 ks 55 1 ~~ = axe Wh1 35 63 10 __ h y __ 48 hoa " \ -- = 5 25 37 18 h h -- _- _- 3h 11 5 — i al a aim = Jan. iL Mar. 137 oo oe 88 14g 14 Apr. May Tl le L177 Total 807 879 48 AL Results of fishing showing the relative success with the various types of baits employed. (These data are based only on the creels of successful fishermen, where only a single type of bait was used.) --- Page 18 --- nosy suny Jog sqtnsex snsusg Tear ys SAOK Tequ pus 3Bc0q Acyl + aLoys ‘uamIeust y 1S. TV LOL TS9 0S°99T Sz L09‘T 119 ‘60T Shore Fishing < ual 00° HH S'O HE T'9 HT °€ 50°99 8 be Oo 0S TLG’E 669 ‘2 KH < OS L°T Ge" T6T 62 ON 99 €QT di 16° 6% Ege O9f *T ZTOSE tH H H 8°9 th 00'OSO‘T = =6L*6 062 £QT ie) o9°elLT = gg ee O8t SS9°T Stg‘L H WH 46 0S" 90h on 921 L*5 G°9 T'6 Zo"' SL" 6QT con €QT LGE“€ 99g ‘HT TLT GL aLy 622 dibs" S TE eSh ce EQT 98 Lene Gen ‘Tg TVLOL OL) 0S°91L6‘2 OTS GH 6 SE Boat Fishing < G1L°9f6 Q°h Leg PASS CQt £6 96°S2e AT Cs ZST TSS°T HTT ‘6 Ge" Lah Ze 16 26 9°9 8°8 not O€T €QT LT 99°O£T OnE *T ZHO'9 0S* Lol, OTe OL TST G9°€ 6yT €Qt £G Go" HOE OTL’O gre ‘9 H WH. Let 612 00* het ot g°€ G9 T'6 cere BH Ley T2°66S QT on TE 60T 9590 get ‘9 60T 00° 66€ Th? 99°€ OL, €QT ong 0 €T2‘9 Area. Total Creels Checked. (30 Census Days. ) Average Daily Number of Fishermen Passing through Census Stations. Total Effort in Hours By All Fishermen Interviewed. Number of Fishermen Counted On All Cruises. Average Length of Fishing Day in Hours. Length of Average Fisherman Day or Fishing Trip in Hours. Total Fisherman Using Areas on All Cruise Count Days. Total Creels Checked At Cen- sus Stations on All Cruise Count Days. Total Days From June through November 1954. Total Fish in Creels Checked At Census Stations, June through November 195). Average Daily Creel Per Fish- erman, June through Nov. 1954. Estimated Total Catch, June through November 1954. ITIA eT4eL --- Page 19 --- JBNGIGY G61 Asequeossq soz SYTNsay snsuag Tesz9 pue yecq Jog SGéT ‘hi. aroys Td us oO TVLO“L og), GL°919%e 992 °T S99 ‘4S Shore Fishing < 0S *6QT L°T TS TH c€ T’S Lee 8°68 E°49 €°TST o€2 Zgt LT 60S" % TLE SL H < ool Tt 00'9St uae gre oQgt eQt et 00S °T Ofo Sh HY H H 902 89 GL HeQ 89 SL 6°98 ot o'r Of Qt g ARS GO9*T TSE‘) Hi f4 eSt T'S 00° HTS Lh ne 6°69T cet 6LT LUT HQT ‘9 Gee ZQT oe tH 96h ons 9°6 eST 0S°099 9°), 622 6TH T 62°62 TOT‘T ‘IvLoL 00° ESL 6£0‘T 9S STE Boat Fishing < To qT Toh 00°29g‘T ZZ ane) 99T 19 e % tht Z*tT9 €€ ZQT L0S T'T 96 961° et Hi << o'9 05° 096 aes Q°€eT egt 2560 LT a gO" tH H kei HH Sel a9 L°g 62° etg HOT 6°8 iS* dh, C21 Zgt "9 HOT? oh gre SE9°O Len *é 4 ie €oz2 SL°OLL OST 6° COE ZQT HS LOT 928 °O 699‘S 9°6 06 oS" LL2 ere 66 E*e L°SLe 19 eQt 2g INQ" O L29°9 Area. Total Creels Checked. (30 Census Days. ) Average Daily Number of Fishermen Passing through Census Stations. Total Effort in Hours By All Fishermen Interviewed. Number of Fishermen Counted on All Cruises. Average Length of Fishing Day in Hours. Length of Average Fishermen Day or Fishing Trip in Hrs. Total Fishermen Using Areas on All Cruise Count Days. Total Creels Checked at Cen- sus Stations on All Cruise Count Days. Total Days From December 1954 through May 1955. Total Fish in Creels Checked at Census Stations December through May. Average Dgily Creel Per Fish- erman, December through May. Estimated Total Catch, Decem- ber 1954 through May 1955. XI eTqe], --- Page 20 --- Table X Per cent Estimated Estimated Total Per cent Estimated Estimated Species Total of Total Yield Weight of Total Weight Yield Per Number Total Catch Per Acre In Lbs, Weight In Pounds Acre In Lbs. Sunfish (All species) 2223 ¥6. 7h 108, 360 2.6 367. 4 9.94 17.901.0 0.43 White crappie 2h0 5.04 11,685 0.3. 172.5 4.67 8,410.3 0.20 Largemouth bass 875 18.41 2,681 1.0 1439.9 38.97 70,181.6 1.67 Spotted bass 113 2. 3F 5,495 O.1 130.3 3.53 6,357.2 0.15 White bass 563 11.85 27,472 0.7 643.6 17.42 31,371.9 0.75 Channel catfish 420 8.83 20,471 0.5 199.9 5.41 9,742.9 0.23 Blue catfish 20 0.42 O74 0.02 22.4 0.61 1,098.7 — 0.03 Yellow bullheads 1 0.02 46 0.001 0.6 0.01 18.0 0.000} European carp 238 5.00 11,592 0.2 509.5 13.79 24, 834.6 0.59 River carpsuckers 15 0.31 718 0.02 29.6 0.81 1,458.7 0.04 Smallmouth buffalo 25 0.53 1,229 0.03 161.1 4.36 7,851.9 0.19 Freshwater drum 21 0.44 1,020 0.03 14.8 0.40 720.4 0.02 Garfish (Shortnose) 2 0.04 92 0.002 2.9 0.08 Wah. 1 0.003 Total 4756 99.97 231, 835 5.52 3694.5 100.00 180,091. 3 4, 2884 Estimated Total Catch Shore (June through November 1954) - 109,877 Boat (June through November 1954) = 35,745 Shore (December 1954 through May 1955) 54,665 Boat (December 1954 through May 1955) - 31,548 ~ 231,835 tstimated Grand Total 6 Lake Travis Creel Census: Consolidated results of boat and shore fishing and the estimated yield of fish taken by those methods during the period of June 1954 through May 1955. (Acre yields are based on 42,000 surface acres.) --- Page 21 --- FIGURE 1. Monthly Average Lengths Size Ranges Yearly (Inches ) dune July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. feb, Mar. Apr. lay Averages 36 : 28 ‘\ 3 % 18 ¥ 4 16 x % 15 x ee x x 1h / x NL 13 _ 12 - GN ° 11 10 y J Lake Travis Creel Census: Monthly average lengths of channel catfish, blue catfish, yellow bullhead, and flat- head catfish caught by Lake Travis sport fishermen during the period June 1954 through May 1955. The overall averages are based on 584 channel catfish, 551 blue catfish, 1 yellow bullhead, and 8 flathead catfish. The symbols 0, x, y, and * are for channel catfish, blue catfish, yellow bulltead, and flathead catfish respectively. --- Page 22 --- FIGURE 3. Monthly Average Lengths Size Ranges Yearly (Inches ) June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Averages 16 ; 13 12 11 1O \o ~] | Lake Travis Creel Census: Monthly average lengths of all species of sunfish, white bass, and freshwater drum caught by Lake Travis sport fishermen during the period June 1954 through May 1955. The overall averages are based on 2,223 sunfish, 563 white bass, and 21 drum. The symbols *, x, and o are for sunfish, white bass, and freshwater drum respectively. --- Page 23 --- FIGURE 2. Monthly Average Lengths Size Ranges Yearly (Inches ) June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. dan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Averages 1h on a a 2 , oN 3 x ©, x Oo “12 ae x ~_——_4 _: _ : | | N. ra | a 10 * 9 8 . 7 6 Lake Travis Creel Census: Monthly average lengths of largemouth black bass, spotted bass, and white crappie caught by Lake Travis sport fishermen during the period June 1954 through May 1955. The overall averages are based on 876 largemouth bass, 113 spotted bass, and 20 crappie. The symbols o, x, and * are for largemouth bass, spotted bass, and white crappie respectively. --- Page 24 --- FIGURE 4. Monthly Average Lengths Size Ranges Yearly (Inches ) June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Averages 2h 23 22 21 20 17 16 >) 14 lake Travis Creel Census: Monthly average lengths for carp, smallmouth buffalo, and river carpsucker caught by Lake Travis sport fishermen during the period June 1954 through May 1955. The over- all averages are based on 238 carp, 25 buffalo, and 15 river carpsuckers. The syme bols *, o, and x are for carp, smallmouth buffalo, and river carpsucker respectively. --- Page 25 --- Figure 5. NOmaER | POR cone Tm 7 L COMMON NAME rita | rota, | O58 10K 15% 2% 25% 30% 35% bOS 45% 50% 55% COR 65% 70% 75% COMMON NAME viru | tein” [O58 10K 158 20K 25% 30K 35% LO 45% SOK 55% GOL 65% 70% 75h SHORTNOSE GAR 03 0.6 SHORTNOSE GAR oO ce) L je SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO [ ° i) SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO o1 0.7 cha 7 ToT RIVER CARPSUCKER ol RIVER CARPSUCKER 0 ° on + EUROPEAN CARP 2 EUROPEAN CARP 15 2.2 CHANNEL CATFISH 5 CHANNEL CATFISH 87 13.4 —_—|- = BLUE CATFISH E BLUE CATFISH 102 15.7 YELLOW BULLHEAD oO YELLOW BULLHEAD ° O ep t+ YELLOW CATFISH ° ° YELLOW CATFISH ° 0 cs ce WHITE BASS 03 0.6 WHITE BASS 0 ° =— © — { SPOTTED BLACK BASS ° 0 SPOTTED BLACK BASS ° ° 4 LARGEMOUTH BLACK BASS 05 | LARGEMOUTH BLACK BASS ° ° ons * £454 444348441: coms » | + P8228 242984445 fe WHITE CRAPPIE 2 WHITE CRAPPIE o7 1.2 mt FRESHWATER DRUM ol FRESHWATER DRUM ° 0 + TOTAL 535 | 100.0 JUNE 1954 TOTAL G46 | 100.0 TULY 1954, COMMON NAME “Wee,” [PTET [05% 10% 15% 204 25% 30% 35% LOL L5% SOL 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% COMMON NAME EE | 05% LO 15% 2X 25% 30 35% 4OF 45h 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% SHORTNOSE GAR te) oO SHORTNOSE GAR ° r T 7 SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO ol 0.7 qs SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO o1 0.2 RIVER CARPSUCKER ° i) RIVER CARPSUCKER O04 1.0 EUROPEAN CARP 26 rm: ] EUROPEAN CARP 2 6.4 = CHANNEL CATFISH 15 13.8 CHANNEL CATFISH 70 17.2 1 BLUE CATFISH 47 8.7 BLUE CATFISH 25 6.1 YELLOW BULLHEAD ° ° YELLOW BULLHEAD ° te) YELLOW CATFISH i) ie) YELLOW CATFISH ° 0 WHITE BASS 17 3.1 WHITE BASS lo 2.5 SPOTTED BLACK BASS ol 0.2 SPOTTED BLACK BASS 02 0.5 LARGEMOUTH BLACK BASS 28 5.2 LARGEMOUTH BLACK BASS 67 16. T 7 SUNFISH 307 56.8 SUNFISH 185 45.3 = WHITE CRAPPIE 38 763 WHITE CRAPPIE 7 4.2 FRESHWATER DRUM ° te) FRESHWATER DRUM o1 0,2 TOTAL 540 100.0 AUGUST 1954 | TOTAL 408 100,0 SEPTEMBER 1954 — COMMON NAME Mme [Pitot [05% 10% 158 2% 25% 30% 35% LOL L5% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% COMMON NAME weiha ['stekeh"]05% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% LOS LS% SOL 55% GOL 65% OL 758 SHORTNOSE GAR O io) SHORTNOSE GAR oO ° + SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO 02 0.6 SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO o1 0.3 —t RIVER CARPSUCKER 0 oO RIVER CARPSUCKER 05 1.3 EUROPEAN CARP Bi 5.7 [ EUROPEAN CARP 3 Bok 4 CHANNEL CATFISH 32 9.2 CHANNEL CATFISH 08 21 L +- BLUE CATFISH 37 1.1 BLUE CATFISH Bh 9.0 YELLOW BULLHEAD ° ° | YELLOW BULLHEAD 0 ° = YELLOW CATFISH ° ie) YELLOW CATFISH to) ° WHITE BASS 50 15.2 WHITE BASS 61 16.1 rh L L a a SPOTTED BLACK BASS 08 SPOTTED BLACK BASS 12 3.2 LARGEMOUTH BLACK BASS 93 28.0 LARGEMOUTH BLACK BASS Vim 33.3 x SUNFISH 72 21.7 SUNFISH 86 22,8 WHITE CRAPPIE 18 5.4 WHITE CRAPPIE 32 8.5 | FRESHWATER DRUM ol 0.3 FRESHWATER DRUM 0 i) OCTOBER 1954, TOTAL 378 | 100.0 NOVEMBER 1954 Total catch by species of fish taken by anglers interviewed by Texas Game and fish personnel June through November, 1954. --- Page 26 --- Figure 6. a aE ae TUNpER | Pam CORT as | COMMON NAME the [Tek [05% 10k 15% 2x 258 30% 35% Ok 5% SOK 55% 608 65% 70% 75 COMMON NAME ria | tafu [05% 10% 158 20% 25% 30% 35% LOL U5 50% 55% GOR 65% 70% 75% SHORTNOSE GAR ° o SHORTNOSE GAR ° ° 4 rt 4 SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO ol 0.4 SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO ° oO = _| RIVER CARPSUCKER ol 0.4 RIVER CARPSUCKER ° i) = 1 —] EUROPEAN CARP pal hel EUROPEAN CARP 0 ° + —t CHANNEL CATFISH 12 4.8 CHANNEL CATFISH OL 14 7 — BLUE CATFISH 3 5.2 sy BLUE CATFISH 18 | 6.2 t } YELLOW BULLHEAD ° ° | YELLOW BULLHEAD fo oO iz YELLOW CATFISH o1 Ou YELLOW CATFISH ° ° - | WHITE BASS 122 | 48.6 | WHITE BASS us | 39.7 SPOTTED BLACK BASS 15 6.0 SPOTTED BLACK BASS 32 | lo LL | —_— {| | LARGEMOUTH BLACK BASS 58 4 23,2 Yes LARGEMOUTH BLACK BASS | 107 | 36.9 » y Pp 4 SUNFISH 08 3.1 SUNFISH 02 0.7 +~ WHITE CRAPPIE 09 3.6 WHITE CRAPPIE n 347 ‘ : a ares FRESHWATER DRUM ° ° FRESHWATER DRUM ol 04 TOTAL 251 | 100.0 T | TA T 100.0 : DECEMBER 195), TOTAL 2970 JANUARY 1955 Ta NUE HEN [SE O58 los ise 204 254 304 GSR LOE UGK 50k 55% GOk 65% 70k 75% [ ~_ Soran NAME uae * 05% 1OK 15K 2h 25% 30% 35% LO ASX 5OR 55% GOL 65% TOR 75% SHORTNOSE GAR 0 i) SHORTNOSE GAR ° 1°) e = ee eens SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO 05 2,1 SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO OL 0,7 ba + RIVER CARPSUCKER (°) oO RIVER CARPSUCKER ol 0,2 EUROPEAN CARP i) i) EUROPEAN CARP 35 6.5 CHANNEL CATFISH nh AeT CHANNEL CATFISH 37 6.9 BLUE CATFISH a 89 BLUE CATFISH 38 7.0 : - — + = YELLOW BULLHEAD oO oO YELLOW BULLHEAD ol 0,2 = + |} YELLOW CATFISH i) i) YELLOW CATFISH 03 0.6 T 4 WHITE BASS 43 18,3 WHITE BASS 91 16,8 SPOTTED BLACK BASS 08 34 SPOTTED BLACK BASS. lo 7 LARGEMOUTH BLACK BASS. 40 17,0 LARGENOUTH BLACK BASS 185 34,2 PP? L SUNFISH 93 | 39,7 SUNFISH 101 | 18,7 am WHITB CRAPPIE B 545 WHITE CRAPPIE 27 5.0 + - FRESHWATER DRUM o1 Ook FRESHWATER DRUM o7 1,3 [tomer [235 | 100.0 i FEBRUARY 1955 TOTAL 540 | 100,0 MARCH 1955 C NA i 0 1 2 0: jaa [POR CEN OWION NAME Ee al zd 10k 158 208 25% 30K 35K LO USE 508 55% 60% 05% 70% T5E [ COMMON NAME Wea THAN [05% 108 15d 20d 254 308 958 MOR UGK SOR 55% GO O54 70% 758 —————— [_ SHORTNOSE GAR ° ° SHORTNOSE GAR 02 Ob SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO 09 1,2 cha SMALLMOUTH BUFFALO t) 0 whi RIVER CARPBUCKER 0 0 RIVER CARPSUCKER 03 0.5 ‘a rc | aaa ml EUROPEAN CARP 63 8,5 BUROPEAN CARP 06 1a —+ a —t CHANNEL CATFISH 40 54 CHANNEL CATFISH -— +— ee BLUE CATFISH 2 Ae? BLUE CATFISH —_ | YELLOW BULLHEAD ° o YELLOW BULLHEAD 0 ° ———_|—___}- = YELLOW CATPISH 02 0.3 (¢ YELLOW CATFISH * rsh WHITE BASS 49 | °5 gS WHITE BASS 02 ane -— : a SPOTTED BLACK BASS 25 Boh, v7 SPOTTED BLACK BASS 0 0 - 2 v ¥ ca | waromoura Lack Bass | 117 | 15.9 PRPS IARGEMOUTH BLACK BASS iS SUNFISH 349] 7b xe bf 3¢ L rd o¢ SUNFISH i ; RRBs Lt b4 WHITE CRAPPIE As 6.0 | bg WHITE CRAPPIE U = FRESHWATER DRUM 08 la te FRESHWATER DRUM o1 0.2 if TOTAL 7 | 100.0 TOTAL 571 | 100.0 MAY 1955 | APRIL 1955 Total catch by species of fish taken by anglers interviewed by Texas Game and fish personnel December, 1954 through May, 1955. --- Page 27 --- Ap pemMeTAJequT sueTsue £q yo ye. Teo] *snsusd Teetd $66T — 47G6T uy BL Whud YLVMHSaaA OOT | €917S ° te jo) Ww (o) re) . &_ a | GIddvuo ALIHM Nha i Yr 5 " si alien ii 7 SSVd MOVId HLNOWADUVI SSV@ MOVIE CYLLOdS SSVd WLIHM HSTALVO MOTIEX QVHHTING MOTIAA HST4LV0 and 18S HSIGLVO TANNVHO Pencils a Ha b | duvo Nvadoune T UMMONSduVO AAATY jo | OTVIAiNG HLINOWITVWS UvVO ASONLYOHS QNYN NOWNOD N29 Yad BSL BOL B59 409 255 %0S H57 Yor HSE YE 4Sz Yor 4ST YT 4S i --- Page 28 --- FIGURE 8. The estimated total catch for a given area = (a) (b/c) (da) (e) a = Average daily number of fishermen checked at census station. b = Total number of fishermen using the area on all cruise count days. ¢ = Total number of fishermen checked at station on all cruise count days d = Total number of days in period under study. e = Average daily creel for the period. Therefore: The total estimated catch for the period = sum of the estimated total eatches for Areas I, II, III, IV, and V. Method used in estimating the total catch of fish from Lake Travis by boat and shore fishermen during the period June, 1954 through May, 1955.