TPWD 1957 F-2-R-4 #317: An Inventory and Creel Census of the Fishes of Lake Inks, Texas

--- Page 1 --- SEGMENT COMPLETION REPORT Investigations Project FILE Project No. F2R4 Name Fisheries Investigations and Surveys of the Waters of Region 6-B. STATE OF TEXAS Job No. Belk Title An Inventory and Creel Census of the Fishes of Lake Inks, Texas. Period Covered: February 1956 through January 1957. ABSTRACT The fish population of Lake Inks was sampled with nets and seines on a monthly basis from February 1956 through January 1957 in an effort to determine the relative abundance of the species present. In addition a creel census was made to obtain the basis for an estimate of the total anglers' catch, by species, and the relative abundance of each species in the total anglers' catch. Compared with data obtained during the previous study of the fish population of Take Inks, it was learned that gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum, were increasing in relative abundance. For this reason a selective kill of this species was performed, in November 1956, under the Statewide Rough Fish Control Project. At that time it was estimated that shad were reduced at the rate of 125 pounds per acre. Unfortunately sufficient data concerning the present status of the gizzard shad population has not as yet been obtained. Netting studies have, however, indicated a reduction in the relative abundance of this species. The population study and creel census will be continued for another full. year to etermine the full results of this type of population manipulation in regard to improvement of fishing quality and increasing the harvest of game fish xy augers During the study period an estimated 61,181 fish weighing 28,504 sountie were harvested from Lake Inks during an estimated 34, 57 man days of fishing. In terms of per acre yield this means 68 fish, weighing 32 pounds, were caught per acre. The over- all rates of catch were 0.46 fish per man hour for boat fishermen, 0. 80 fish per man hour for shore fishermen and 0.32 fish per trotline hour for trotline fishermen. As during the previous census period on this lake, live baits were more succ- essful in catching fish; but artificial baits are still the most popular with black bass fishermen. In the order of their relative abundance in the total angler's catch, the five most frequently taken species were sunfishes, principally bluegills, white bass, white crappie, largemouth bass and channel catfish. OBJECTIVES To determine the relative abundance of the species present in Inks Lake; to estimate the total anglers' catch by species; and to obtain data regarding the relative abundance of each species in the total anglers' catch. TECHNIQUES Inventory of Species The work begun during the preceding segment period (June 1955 through January 1956) was continued during the present segment period. As. usual a monthly field trip --- Page 2 --- was*made to the lake during which specimens were collected with nets and seines, and data was recorded as outlined in the segment completion report for Job B-14, Pro ject F-2-R-3. Net collections were made during each month with the exception of November 1956, at which time a "selective kill" of gizzard shad was attempted under Job 16a-1, Project F-14-D, the Statewide Rough Fish Control Project. Seine collections were made at random localities each month from February through August when seining efficiency fell off to the point where it was no longer profitable or possible to take fish in large enough numbers to be of significance. This impasse was brought about by the luxuriant growth of Myriophyllum sp. which almost completely took over the shoreline of the lake. During the previous year this con- dition did not arise because of a late spring drawdown which controlled the vegetation during most of that segment period. Creel Census The total catch by species was estimated by using the same methods used in the preceding segment period. As experienced during the latter part of the 1955 study period, the census stations proved to be of little value, except on occasion, and it was necessary to go to the fishermen wherever they were fishing and interview them on the spot. The reasons for the marked decline in numbers of fishermen are not clear, but it is suspected that the economy of the region has been seriously affected by the drouth and that mety of the people, who couldafford to go fishing at Inks Lake during previous years, no longer can afford to make such a long trip, or they now fish at lakes closer to home. The formula used in estimating the total anglers' catch or total yield for the segment period, excluding trotline fishermen, is as follows: Total yield = (a.b.d) te ) Where: a #* the average number of fishermen counted on the lake during all cruise counts made during the census period. b * the average length of the fishing day, i.e. the length of time in hours from when appreciable numbers of fishermen start fishing until virtually all have stopped fishing for the day. d = the number of days in sensus period. fs the total number of fish caught by the fishermen interviewed. g the total effort in hours by the fishermen interviewed. The derivation of this formula was given in detail in the report for Segment 3, Job B-14, --- Page 3 --- FINDINGS Inventory of Species Table 1 contains a checklist of species of fish found to occur in Lake Inks. A total of 70 seine collections and 84 net collections provided a grand total of 5296 specimens representing 25 species of 11 fish families. These collections are broken down by species, type of gear, and month of collection in Tables 2 and 3. Table 4 is a record of gonadal development of the more regularly collected species taken in gill nets. This development was rated from 1 to 5 with No. 1. rep- resenting ripe; 2. representing nearly ripe; 3. representing sexes not easily distin- guishable; and 5. representing spent fish, gonads empty. Table 5 presents the results of analyses made on the food remains found in the stomachs of 40 specimens of channel catfish. These stomachs contained a total of 797.3 ml. of food. Of this, 80.44 percent was composed of fish in various stages of digestion. Over half of this food was identified as gizzard shad remains, while sunfish, freshwater drum, white bass, minnows and unidentifiable fish remains made up the rest. Various types of vegetable matter made up another 16.68 percent of the toal volume, with algae and Myriophyllum sp. comprising the bulk of this. Insect remains comprised only 2.34 percent of the total volume, with beetles (Coleoptera) accounting for the largest portion of this volume... Other items of food remains present in the catfish stomachs included pieces of cut liver, pecans, various microscopic crustaceans, pieces of shrimp, etc. On the basis of frequency of occurrence in channel catfish stomachs, gizzard shad was found in nearly half of the stomachs containing food. Algae and Myriophyllum sp. were next in order of frequency,. with chironomid larvae and beetles next. These insect remains were almost always found in the stomachs in association with vegetation. Only five largemouth bass stomachs were found tocontain food. This food amounted to a total of 39 m1., 34 ml. of which were gizzard shad remains and 5 ml. were shiner minnows. The three spotted bass stomachs found to contain food held the remains of gizzard shad only. Four white bass stomachs contained a total of 77 ml. of partially digested food. 72 ml. of this food were the remains of gizzard shad, 4.0 ml. were unidentifiable fish and 1.0 ml. was the remains of damseiflys. A single warmonth hace etamanh enantainsd NO wl AP Aenea nnn + --t-- uset) © @ w 6 S V f F WK ¥ HW 4 (996T) \ On | 46h --- Page 4 --- 4, Table 8 contains information similar to that in Tables 6 and 7 but is concerned only with trotline fishing. Table 9 compares the relative success of the various methods of fishing employed on Inks Lake during the study period. It gives the total number of fish taken by each method, the time required to catch the fish and the rate of catch for each method. Similarly, Table 10 presents information concerning the relative success of Lake Inks anglers in fishing for the various species of fish caught during the study period. These data are based only on pure catches, where only a single species was involved. PRR ee er san In Table 11 is g breakdown of the total catch of boat and shore anglers and trotline fishermen showing the number of fish caught on the various type of baits used by fishermen during the study period. The estimated total yield to anglers, excluding trotline fishermen, during the eleven months covered by the census is presented in Table 12. Due to other work within Region 6-B and to assistance given to the Project Leader of Region 7-B, the regularly scheduled work on Lake Inks was not done during November 1956. Table 13 is a breakdown of the estimated total yield, showing the total number of each species and the weight of each species in the sample obtained; the percentage of the total number and total weight of the sampled catch for each species; the estimated yield in number and weight for each species; and the estimated yield per surface acre in number and weight for each species. Fish taken by trotline are not included in these data. Table 14 shows the average length in inches for each species in the sample both on a monthly and study period basis. Table 15 presents an estimate of the total number of fishermen using Inks Lake during the 336 days covered by the creel census. Table 16 shows the origin, or point of residence, of the fishermen interviewed by ereel census personnel during the study period. DISCUSSION Inventory of Species The nettable fish population of Lake Inks showed some change during the present segment over the 1955-56 segment. In particular, gizzard shad, which accounted for more than 51 percent of the fish taken in experimental type gill nets, during the seven month period from July 1955 through January 1956, increased to approximately 66 percent of the total fish taken during the period from February through October 1956. Graphically these percentages of the total monthly net catches during the 1956 netting study were as follows: 15% 10% 656 | \ /\ 60% \ \ 55% 50% - | a --- Page 5 --- In November, in an effort to reduce the relative abundance of gizzard shad, a "selective kill" of gizzard shad was attempted under Job 1l6éa-1, Project F-14-D. ‘© netting was done during November 1956, but in December, 68 fish were taken in nets and 53 percent of these were gizzard shad. A month later, in January 1957, nets were again set, taking 153 fish. Gizzard shad accounted for 62 percent of this total. From the data, as illustrated in the graph, it appears as if the "selective kill" of gizzard shad was only partially successful. It remains to be seen whether or not the reduced relative abundance of gizzard shad will remain below the 66 percent level indicated by the total catch of fish taken in experimental type gill nets during the period from February through October 1956. This will be closely watched during the next segment of work on Lake Inks. The river carpsucker also seems to be increasing in relative abundance. This species, during the:.short segment of 1955-56 accounted for 6.37 percent of the total netted specimens while in the longer segment of 1956-57 its abundance rose to 7-61 percent of the total. Smallmouth buffalo, on the other hand, dropped from 3.20 percent to 2.08 percent, while garfish increased in relative abundance from 0.85 percent to 1.98 percent. The decrease in smallmouth buffalo might be attributed to the fact that commercial netting for this species has increased during the past year. The combined rough and obnoxious species taken in nets accounted for 77.61 percent of the year's total catch in nets. This was an increase of 14.93 percentage points over the short segment of 1955-56. In percentage of the total weight of the netted catch, rough fish comprised (3-75 percent; a,decrease of only 0.03 percentage points. The game fish group, including catfish, white bass, black bass and white crappie, but excluding the sunfishes, increased from 12.42 percent of the total netted catch to 14.17 percent during the present segment period. Like the rough fishes, the game fish group remained relatively constant in percent of the total weight of the netted catch, increasing 0.62 of a percentage point, from 22.95 percent of the weight of the netted catch in 1955-56 to 23.57 percent of the total weight of the netted catch in 1956-57. At present some doubt exists as to the ability of white bass to find optimum conditions for spawning in Inks Lake. Regardless of the fact that, other than sunfish, this species accounted for the largest number of fish in the creels of anglers, only 38 specimens were taken in the 84 gill net collections during the study period. These specimens accounted for only 1.2 percent of the fish caught in gill nets. None were taken in seine collections. . The only indication of spawning success for white bass at all is found in the fact that 51 white bass that averaged 8.0 inches in total length were taken by anglers interviewed in August 1956. Relatively speaking, fishing pressure on the white bass population is great, and the species is highly prized by anglers. Unless something can be done to aid the ‘hite bass in its reproduction, however, this species can be expected, at best, to provide only mediocre fishing in Inks Lake. Some thought, it appears, should be given to artificially increasing the numbers of white bass in this lake and the possibility --- Page 6 --- of replenishing stocks of white bass through restocking with fry obtained by stripping techniques merits future attention. Creel Census _ Excepting November 1956, a total of 1297 fishermen were interviewed by creel census personnel during the period from February 1956 through January 1957. Of these, 495 were boat fishermen and 802 were shore fishermen. In addition, the catch from 32 trotlines was also examined. Together, these fishermen including the trotliners caught a total of 2458 fish of 17 species (Tables 6, 7, 8 and 9). The average rates of catch for fishermen using the lake varied only slightly during the eleven months of this study period from the average rates of catch of the preceding shorter study period. Boat fishermen during the 1955-56 segment had an average rate of catch of 0.45 fish per man hour. During the last segment this increased only slightly to 0.46 fish per man hour (Table 6). Lakewise, shore fishermen had only a slight increase in rate of catch from 0.79 fish per man hour to 0.80 fish per man hour. (Table 7). Trot- line fishing had a decrease from 0.28 to 0.23 fish per trotline hour (Table 8). From these slight variations in average rate of catch it appears as if fishing success remains at about the same level of quality over long periods of time. This stability may be upset during the coming year by the reduction in the numbers of gizzard shad as accomplished in November 1956. Generally speaking, more than half of the anglers, fishing on Lake Inks, are successful (Tables 6, 7, and 8) and the most successful method of fishing remains, as it was during the preceding study period, still fishing. This is true regardless of whether a person is fishing from a boat or from the shore (Table 9). Based on the sample obtained during the creel census, live baits are the most effective types of bait used in catching fish (Table 11) and the most successful of these are minnows and worms. Fly fishing, however, during the months of June and July, the peak months of the sunfish bedding season, was very successful. Unfortunately, few anglers use this method and as a result the sunfish harvest from the lake is much smaller than it could be. As for success in taking the various types of fish, sunfish continue to be the most easily caught. Boat fishermen caught them at an average rate of 1.79 fish per man hour and shore fishermen caught them at 1.47 fish per man hour (Table 10). All sunfish species combined made up 48.95 percent of the total sampled catch (Table 13) but the bulk of these were small bluegills of approximately 5.7 inches in average total length (Table 14). During the eleven months of the census it is estimated that 29,948 sunfish were caught, for a per acre yield of 33 sunfish weighing approximately 5 pounds (Table 13). As in the preceding short segment period, white bass were the second most frequently caught type of fish. Overall, these white bass had an average length of 10.9 inches and it is estimated that 9,630 of these were caught. This is a per acre yield of 10.7 fish weighing 8.51 pounds for the eleven month period (Table 13). From netting samples, it would appear that white crappie are not overly abundant in Lake Inks (Table 3), and judging from specimens contained in the fishermens’ creels, are not very large. The average total length of the crappie taken by fishermen was only 7.0 inches (Table 14). --- Page 7 --- Regardless of the apparent paucity of crappie in the lake and their smallness f size, the white crappie accounted for 15 percent of the total anglers' catch for the eleven months of the creel census (Table 13). Most of these crappie were taken during April, May, and June, the height of the spawning season. During the remainder of the year, few crappie are caught and it appears as if they are not actively sought after. The total number of white crappie harvested during the study period is estimated at 9,575 fish weighing 7,656 pounds for a per acre yield of 10.6 fish and 2.7 pounds (Table 13). Largemouth bass, though most actively sought after by boat fishermen on Lake Inks, were the fourth most abundantly caught fish. They comprised a little over 10 per- cent of the fish in the creels of fishermen interviewed by census personnel. It is estimated that 6,442 largemouth bass were taken from the lake and these were caught at an average rate of catch of 0.43 fish per man hour. Boat fishermen caught them at the rate of 0.38 fish per man hour and the few that were caught by shore fishermen were caught at the rate of 0.90 fish per man hour (Table 10). ‘The average total length of these bass was 12.3 inches (Table 14). Per acre,, 7-15 bass weighing 9.71 pounds were taken from Lake Inks by fishermen during the study period (Table 13). Channel catfish were caught in surprisingly smaller numbers during the last census period than they were during the preceding shorter census period. They dropped from approximately 11 percent of the total sampled catch to 6 percent of the total catch during the 1956-57 census period. In all it is estimated that 3,861 channel catfish weigh- ing 2,916 pounds were taken by Lake Inks anglers, not including those taken by trotline “ishermen. This is a per acre yield of 4.28 fish and 3-25 pounds (Table 13). Based on data recorded by census personnel it is estimated that 61,181 fish were harvested during the eleven months covered by the census. (Table 12). ‘The estimated total catch weighed 28,504 pounds. On a per acre basis, it is estimated that Lake Inks yielded 68 fish weighing 32 pounds to anglers during the period covered by the creel census. (Table 13). The estimated number of man dyas spent by Lake Inks anglers during the last Segment period of eleven months was 34,493 man days. Of this total, 10,946 were spent by boat fishermen and 23,547 by shore fishermen (Table 15). Persons contacted on Lake Inks during the course of the study period come from 95 different townships in 63 counties and from four states other than Texas. ‘The home counties, states and towns of 1,202 fish- ermen are listed in Table 16. t a Prepared by Kenneth C. Jurgens Approved by aa arion Toole Date May 23, 1957 ee --- Page 8 --- Table 1. Checklist of Species, Lake Inks. a Scientific Name Common Name a I Lepisosteus osseus xX Dorosoma cepedianum Tetiobus bubalus Moxostoma congestum * Carpiodes carpio Cyprinus carpio Notemigonus crysoleucas * Notropis venustus Notropis lutrensis Ictalurus punctatus Pilodictus olivaris Fundulus notatus * Gambusia affinis Roceus chrysops Micropterus punctulatus o Micropterus treculi Micropterus salmoides Chaenobryttus gulosus Lepomis cyanellus Lepomis microlophus Lepomis macrochirus Lepomis auritus Lepomis megalotis Pomoxis annularis Percina caprodes Etheostoma spectabile fe) Aplodinotus grunniens I longnose gar gizzard shad smallmouth buffalo grey redhorse river carpsucker carp golden shiner spottail shiner redhorse shiner southern channel catfish yellow or flathead catfish pblackstripe topminnow common mosquitofish white bass Kentucky spotted bass Texas spotted bass largemouth bass warmouth green sunfish redear sunfish bluegill yellowbelly sunfish ‘longear sunfish white crapple logperch orangethroated darter freshwater drum Note: x Erroneously reported as Lepisosteus platostomus in previous report. % Added to checklist during present segment. o Not collected during present segment. --- Page 9 --- Table 2. Seining Results, Inks Lake, February 1956 through August 1956. eee Species February March April May June July August Totals Percent of Total Tn D. cepedianum 53 7 he 112 35 232 in 485 22.36 Carpiodes carpio @) 0 @) 6) e) 1 6) 2 0.09 N._venustus 225 ak 62 43 79 85 ) pEhey 23.88 N. lutrensis 28 2h fo) 2 2 16 fo) 72 3.32 F. notatus a. 17 2 . 9 0) fe) 32 1.47 G. affinis o) 25 fe) A. 4 8 fo) 38 1. 75 M. treculi ) ) ©) 0) 1 0) O 1 0.05 M. salmoides 18 4 5 50 925 19 3 124 512 C. gulosus 3 ) 0 2 2 0 @) 7 0.32 L. cyanellus @) ) 1 3 O 3 11 18 0.83 L. microlophus 69 15 14 16 T 18 1 1h0 6.45 L. macrochirus 260 11 18 170 86 123 6 674 31.08 L. auritus 2 2 3 10 19 1h 1 Si 2.35 L. megalotis 0 1 1 ©) 0 ) 4 6 0.28 P. caprodes 0 0 0) 1 (0) 1 0 2 0.09 659 130 148 413 269 520 30 2169 100.00 -_ eee | 6) et a es) --- Page 10 --- 10. Table 3. Inks Lake Netting Results, February 1956 through January 1957. ee NN Species February March April May June July Ausust September No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. No. Wt. Lbs. lbs. lbs. ibs. lbs. Lbs. lbs. lbs. L. osseus 2 4.8 5 29.6 4 18.4 27 133.8 16 G1 § 22.1 1 6.1 0 --- D. cepedianum 10h 19.5 112 20.1 275 42.9 430 57.9 319 43.1 332 41.3 125 16.6 59 10.2 I. bubalus 6 21.4 1h 50.1 3 11.2 9 35.8 20 76.1 7 23.4 2 7.8 0 a M. congestum ) —_— ef 4.3001 2.4 O --- 9) = 0 --- 0 --- 0 os Carpiodes carpio 29 64.3 52 121.6 37 100.4 37 Th.Q 35 55.5 6 12.1 6 13:8 7 itty? Cyprinus carpio O --- 6) oh 6) --- 1 5-3 © O w= 6) --- 0) --- 0O --- N. crysoleucas (6) === 2 O. 0 woe 0) ied 6) a 0) --- 0 --- QO oo- TI. punctatus 17 23.5 18 21.1 14 16.4 2h 31.7 32 45.6 47 87.6 24 23.7 9 11.5 P. olivaris 2 5.1 Oo --- i. 3.6 0 --- 0 sane 0 a 1 14 1 5.7 R. chrysops 2 3.6 2 hol 3 3.8 2 24 5 3.9 8 5.3 1 0.2 2 2.1 M. treculi @) --- 1 2. 3 7-3 2 hu 60 oo O --- 1 2.2 1 1.4 M. salmoides 3 6.1 4 75 21 ich 8 os Oo.4 2 0.2 O --- 2 1.3 C. gulosus 6) --- 4 0.5 0 --- 0) --- fe) --- ) --- f°) --- 0 --- L. microlophus 3 O.4 6 0.5 2 0.1 2 0.3 12 1.1 3 O.4 1 0.1 1 Ol L. macrochirus 10 1.0 27 2.1 al 1.8 18 1.8 54 5.1 25 2.4 10 ink £2 2.2 L. megalotis 0 --- ) --- 0 --- 3 0.3 - a 2 0.2 O --- O +++ P. annularis 6 1.0 15 3.0 32 5.3 dn 5.8 18 Wow 69 2.2 3 0.3 7 0.9 A. grunniens 0 --- ol dio ah o.8 2 0.9 3 1.7 2 0.9 0 --- 1 0.4 Totals 184 160.7 264 268.6 398 215.3 600 356.4 515 318.0 447 198.1 175 73.3 108 50.5 ee cncnncner ener nen eerste npn, enesensrnsnic hints snr eens neonate nenenssmeesuoahsoenasennnenstnstesnnnenestssnebeliGlSSSStesietseAnGne SASSER AALAND (Continued on next page)-- --- Page 11 --- Table 3. (Continued)--- Species October November* December January Total Total Percent Percent No. Wt. No. Wt..- No. Wt. No. Wt. Number Weight of Number of Weight lbs. Lbs. lbs. Lbs. in lbs. L. osseus 1 6.8 O =+- 1 0.6 ) === 62 313.3 1.98 16.64 D. cepedianum 161 23.3 re) --- 36 6.5 96 12.0 20h9 293.4 65.52 15.58 I. bubalus 1 5.5 0) --- 1 ah 2 6.3 65 240.0 2.08 12.75 M. congestum ) oH ) oe ) =e O “oe 2 6.7 0.07 0.35 Carpiodes carpio 8 16.2 O --- 6 13.7 15 37.3 238 52h 5 7.61 27.86 Cyprinus carpio @) --- @) o-- fe) --- @) — Z 5.3 0.03 0.28 N. crysoleucas 0 --- fo) --- 0) --- ) --~ 2 O.4 0.06 0.03 I. punctatus 19 38.3 @) --- 13 22.9 20 «20.7 237 343.0 7.58 18.21 P. olivaris fe) --- fo) --- ©) --- fo) --- 5 15.8 0.16 0.84 R. chrysops 9 11.5 @) --- 1 2.0 3 3.3 38 42.2 1.22 2.2h M. treculi ¢) --- @) --- ) -<- ) --- 8 17.9 0.26 0.95 M. salmoides @) --- ) --- 1 3. 2 3.8 17 24.9 0.54 1.33 C. gulosus 1 0.2 ) o=- ) --- 1 0.3 6 1.0 0.19 0.06 L. microlophus 3 0.3 fe) --- fo) +++ 6 0.7 39 4.0 1.25 0.21 L. macrochirus 9 1.3 re) --- 6 0.4 7 0.5 205 19.7 6.56 1.05 L. megalotis @) --- O --- ) --- ) — 5 0.5 0.16 0.02 P. annularis 3 1.5 ) --- 3 0.3 1 O.1 136 24.8 4 AL 1.31 A. grunniens ¢) --- © ~-- ) --- ) “== 10 5.3 0.32 0.29 215 104.9 ---* 68 51.9 153 85.0 3127 1882.7 100.00 100.00 er neha eenpssnntepetnsne uessee:pusteseusnueten snare = ee = Note: * Selective eradication of gizzard shad attempted, no netting done in November. REE nee = 12) ct B n io) --- Page 12 --- 12 Table 4. Inks Lake - Gonadal Development. Species February March April May June July August September October November December January L. osseus 1 1-2 1-2 1-2-3 1-2 - = = - = = “ D. cepedianum 3 3 2 1 1 5 5 3 3 ms 3 3 i. bubalus 1 1-3 1-2 1-2 1-2 - 5 ~ 5 we 3 = M. congestum - 1 1-2 - - - - 3 - = - - Carpiodes carpio 1 1-2 1-2 2-5 1 - 1-2-5 3-5 3-5 - 2 1-2 Cyprinus carpio ~ - - 2 - - - - aa ws ws _ I. punctatus 2-3-4 1-2-3 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-4 1-2-3-5 1-3-5 1-4-5 1-4-5 3-5 - 3-4 2-3-4 P. olivaris 3-4 - 2-3 - - - 5 5 . “ : as R. chrysops 1 1 1-2-3 5 5 3-5 3 5 3 = 2 1=3 M. treculi - - 2 2-3 - - 5 h - a - 7 M. salmoides 1-2 - 2 1-3 5 = - 5 « “ 2 2 C. gulosus. & 2 . “ “ . - ~ y ws . 2 L. cyanellus - - - - - - - - - = = a L. microlophus 2-3 2 2-3 1-2 - 1 2 5 3 - = 3 L. macrochirus 2-3 2-3-4 3 1-2 - 1-2 2-5 5 3-4 - 3 3 L. auritus - - - - - - - - - = = = L. megalotis - - - - - - - - - = = = P. annularis 2-3 1-2 1-2-3 1-2 1-2-3-5 3-5 3 3-5 3 = 3 3 A. grunniens - 3 2 1-2 1-5 1-3 - - - - - 2 --- Page 13 --- 13. Table 5. Results of Channel Catfish Stomach Analyses (40 Stomachs), Lake Inks, February 1956 through January 1957. Ee Food Types Frequency of Occurrence Volume in Ml. Total in Mi. Percent of Volume Total Percent nt ee lenny st nsensasspuniascisasrcsasis FISH gizzard shad 17 380.0 47.66 sunfish 3 123.0 15.42 drum 2 80.0 10.04 white bass 1 14.0 1.75 minnows iL traces traces Unidentified fish 7 Kh 5.57 Total 641.4 80.44 VEGETATION algae 15 68.7 8.62 Myriophyllum 13 hO.7 5.10 Maize 4 20.6 2.59 Typha (cattails) 1 3.0 0.37 Total 133.0 16.68 INSECTS chironomid larvae 9 traces traces beetles 5 8.7 1.09 mayflys 1 3.0 0.38 damsel flies 1 1.9 0.24 unidentified insects 8 5.0 0.63 Total 18.6 2.34 MISCELLANEOUS liver 1 3.0 0.37 pecans 1 0.3 0.04 crustaceans 1 traces traces shrimp 2 1.0 0.13 Total 4.3 0.54 ‘GRAND TOTAL 797-3 797-3 100.00 100.00 --- Page 14 --- 14. Table 6. Lake Inks Creel Census - Boat Fishing Results - These Data Representonly the Fishermen Interviewed by Texas Game and Fish Commission Personnel During the Period February 1956 through January 1957.* Month Successful Unsuccessful Total Successful Fish/man Hr. Total Total Fish/men Hr. % of All Fishermen Fishermen Fish Hours Successful Fisher- Hours for all Fishermen Caught Fished Fishin Fished fishermen Unsuccessful February 12 8 20 38.0 0.53 20 56.5 0.35 hO.00 March 35 17 83 148.0 2.37 52 200.5 O41 33.00 April Tal 22 56 146.0 0.38 63 204.0 0.27 34.92 May 42 34 170 191.75 0.89 76 278.25 0.61 kh 73 June 52 25 181 135.5 1.34 TT 202.5 0.89 32.46 July 34 30 68 109.0 0.62 64. 174.0 0.39 46.87 August — ak 26 ike) 75.0 0.65 50 124.75 0.39 52.00 September 13 6 30 62.0 0.48 19 3<5 0.41 31.59 October 14 a7 28 60.0 0.47 31 107-0 0.26 5h. 83 November * -- -- -- -- == -= == -- ~= December.” 9 9 9 27.0 0.33 18 60.5 0.15 50.00 January 11 1h 9 18.0 0.50 25 50.0 0.18 56.00 Total 287 208 703 1010.25 0.70 4.95 1531.5 0.46 42.00 - CR LL LIED Note: * No creel census interviews were made during November 1956. : --- Page 15 --- 15. Table 7. Lake Inks Creel Census - Shore Fishing Results - These Data Represent only the Fishermen Interview by Texas Game and Fish Commission Personnel during the Period February 1956 through January 1957.* Month Successful Unsuccessful Total Successful Fish/man Hr. Total Total Fish/man Hr. % of all Fishermen Fishermen Fish Hours Successful Fisher- Hours for ali Fishermen Caught Fished Fishin men Fished Fishermen Unsuccessful February 12 43 32 40.00 0.80 55 gh .75 0.34 78.18 March 53 50 125 223.00 0.56 103 339.50 0.37 49.00 April 96 43 550 423.75 1.31 139 55.00 1.10 4h .79 May 103 8h 297 279.00 1.06 187 396.50 0.75 hu OL June 61 23 248 118.25 2.10 84 143.75 1.73 27.38 July 38 10 107 84.50 1.27 48 99.00 1.08 20.83 August 39 15 5 108.50 0.69 54 132.00 0.57 27.77 September TQ) 25 100 127.00 0.79 65 191.50 0.52 38.46 October 12 19 52 36.50 1.42 31 58.50 0.89 61.29 November * “= -- -- -- == -= “= -- -- December 5 11 he 13.50 3.07 16 38.50 1.09 68.75 January 9 11 33 15.00 2.20 20 20.00 1.65 55.00 Total 468 334 1661 1469.00 Lg 802 2064.00 0.80 41.64 Note: * No creel census interviews were made during November 1956. --- Page 16 --- 16. Table 8. Lake Inks Creel Census - Trotline Fishing Results - These Data Represent only the Fishermen Interviewed by Texas Game and Fish Commission Personnel During the Period February 1956 through January 1957.* Month Total Trotlines Total Fish Caught Total Trcetline Fish/Trotline Percent of Trot- on Trotlines Hours Fished Hour lines Catching Fish February == -- woe wet a March -- -- — meee me April 1 11 11.0 1.00 100.00 May 11 38 122.5 0.31 55.00 June 5 19 104.0 0.18 80.00 July 4 8 49.0 0.16 100 .00 August 3 9 31.0 0.29 100.00 September 5 6 68.0 0.07 100.00 October 2 2 3.0 0.67 100.00 November * -- -- wo-=~ me a December . ; 1 1 13.0 0.08 100.00 January -- == coe wee Total 32 oh 4O1.5 0.23 91.87 Note: * No creel census interviews were made during November 1956. --- Page 17 --- °QS6T TeqUicAON BUTANp Spell 210M SMSTATOEUT snsus. TeeL0 ON 23870N €s°0 asm goo =619°0 10°0 62°0 9T°O QT°O TE°O O°T =A" nse ayey G° Ton eas O° ET ore o°e9 O°TE)§ O°6H «O°HOT G°22T O°TT) 3 --- a SINOH +6 ae T re 9 6 8 6T ge 7 —— Ustad SUT TIOAL 2l,°0 : --- tates 0°9 o°O 6T’T OT 12°O =~ 6°6 © 0°0 ayey 2°92 mime aa O°T o°T SL°9 Oe Gh --- oO8 O82 O° SINOH ee) 6T ain “== 9 fe) 8 z zoo T e) ) Ustad UTTTOLL 00°0O “-- oo- “<= --- 0°O wee eee ee eee nee “== ayey 0°? <== “<< Cele <= C’°e <<—= om --= = “<- “=< SINOR SsLOUS fe) “<9 “<- --- --- ) aot em eee nee — Ustad urystg ATA €£°2 --- ~—= “-- ae | OMG qh Gee L°0 == === a a7 ey O’°SH “<< -— <= -=- 0°S O°S O°HT O°8T =" -= ones sInoy yeog 96 em “= a aeied € rete ot ) Faia ctae me usta urysta ATA g9°0 Co°T GT°O }3=—.: 680 6€°0 o's 16°0 O70 GL°O 2Q°t 2yo 8 g9°0 ayey G° Let Gt G°9 Goh O'f—E G99 GrHT O°LT GS°ET S°S O°ST Se°OT sINOH (@z04s) €g 9 T + €T €T qT fe) OT OT S d usta UTYSED 62°0 2° STO ©90°0 2S°O sy°O S0°O 92°0 9°0 OF°O HE°O 8 TH'O ayey SS° HES O° TH S°0S = oro. o°€e GS°EE GET O's GS°QSE 0°08 OTE S°9OH sINOK yeog LST 6 6 t et +T T TT &Zg +2 TE 6T usta UTYSeO 98°90 e°T @2°T T6°0 T9°O 64°O 66°0 #6°T 9L°O0 OTT 9€°O QT°O ayey GL°LeLt 0°ST Ose =—S°SG OG EWT GEST «O°HQ OTLET GL°EEE GeHlLy S°90E 865° ae SINOY (@2104s) O6HT Lg Th Qh 1g T9 €g Lae +4S2 LTS OTT ST ustg sUuTUsSTY TITS TL°0O “<= ---= &9°0 9€°0 O£°O gyro HO’T L°0 62°0 +46°0 --- 37 By S°ETS canes ome = = GOT G*6h O°6L S°6Q 0°96 O°cOT GS°ah G°ay ---- SInoH yBog 69€ saci sera oT ST 2 €y TOT OTT Te Ok = Ustad suTUuSTA TTTIS Yo1e9 °Say UT yUSeNeD gO a4yey yIosig UsTy cuee Tequsoeqg reqoj209 °4deq ysn@ny Atne oaeune Ae_ Trudy yorey Arenigeag sutustg jo adéy, s8eieay Teyo, Tero *pakoTduy sen BuUTYSTA JO pouyzay eTsUTS @ ateymM sdtay, esouy ATuQ JUeserdey eyeq sseuy, °pespy Butysty JO spore, snotzeA ay. OJ anoy suUTTLOIY, «£0 ANOH UBW Jeg JUBNeD USTg UT 4xOJJG JO TUN Jag wuInjey 9yy pue YsTy UT suINjey -- snsUeQ TeerTg SHUT syeT °6 STAR, --- Page 18 --- Gt°O rere ce o°0 g0°O Tg°O 2@T°O 98°0 29°0 O£°0 --- --- ayey G2° eet acta lala 0°s2 G°He O°TT O'S G*TT Ge°se o°oT --- --- sanog (380g) 9S aes ine 6 Zz 6 T OT oe . = --- - UST sseg 24 TUM 06°0 oO’? aia Ore =o me QT eae —— LG 19°O eyeY 00° Ze G°0 nade OT w-- == QO'T9” oe --- GOT --- 0°g sanoq 62 T — € mime 9 --- sae et = 1 Ustad sseg qqnouesre7T BE°O THO €£°O 9T°O ae $G°O G*O Cao O°T €€°0 25°0 62°O = 84 BY 0S° Zee O°eT o°L2 0°S2 == QO°T Off GE O° o°€g ork) O°TE sinog 780g €2T S 6 1 7-- LT T 9 4 92 gt 6 Usta sseg Wnomesaey 02° T _— ooo LE°O OS°O --- --- Get £€6°0 S€°g --- O°T 9a7ey 00°SS a caaai o°g og —-= = of O°OT O'HT --- O°T sanoy 99 aaa as € f == sae OT ST = T Ustad atdderg 24 TUM LH°0 ee ses sane 2 2° aw O°€ 60°O +*h°O0 == opty 00° Ot ae =a sana a GG ee O'S S°OT 0°S2 --- sanog 80g 6T “-- --- --- mnt Tom ose 9 T TT oom = «ST eTdderg 34 TUM LT LG°€ S°6 OT S9°0 Sg°O Ose 98°S TTE°T 99°0 S°0 Oo = 8aqey 0S°9S2 ok OH Or G°CE GES GET GL°TE GL°6E G°*T6 og O°Z sinoy (@204$) TEE G2 RE 4 Feta) 0g eH 16 aL 19 T q 860oUSTa ystjgung 61° T — ae dal O°T €€°T 60°T O°eT 0°79 €6°O Gk°T --- 9-9} BY 00°99 —_ _-- _— OZ O06 OF H O'S O'9T 0°02 --- sanoy _(420) ST --- “on ala 3 ZT 9€ Qt oT GT 62 --- UST ystgung Yoveo °sxzyH UT yusneg JO S7eY WOTIG Ustqg °Uer Tequeseg reqoj09 °ydeg ysnBny Ate aune Ae Ttady yorey Arenigag BuTusty jo odkj, aesetoay Te10oy, TeL.0], °qUsNB) SBA SeTosdg By] sSyJUCW 54} TOZ YoeD Jo saqey ayy ATUO epnToUT yoyeD Jo aqey aeferoay Sy} PUB PeATOAUT SBM SeTosdg sTZuTg e ATUO aTeUM soyoyeDQ eing uo ATUO peseg are Byeq ase, °yYsNeD satoadg SNOTIBA SU} TOF INOW SuTTIOIL/UsT, TO anoy ueW/YSTA UT yOFJq Jo yun Jeg urnzey -- snsueg Teerg SHUT eyeT -OT eTaey, --- Page 19 --- Table 10. (Continued) --. Total Total Average Type of fishing February March April May June July August Sept. October December Jan. Fish Effort Rate of in Hrs. Catch White Bass Fish 2 6 2 26 y 20 38 4g 6 1 T 161 (Shore) Hours 5.5 17-0 12.0 54.5 2.5 19.0 58.0 63.0 5.5 0.5 8.0 245.50 Rate 0.36 0.35 0.16 O.47 41.60 1.05 0.65 0.77 1.09 2.0 0.87 0.65 Channel Catfish Fish --- awe 3 20 9 <= --- 12 --- = re Wh (Boat) Hours --- --- 6.5 28.5 19.5 --- <--- 7.5 --- oom a 62.00 Rate ---+ --- 0.46 0.70 O.46 --- --- 1.60 --+ --- --- 0.70 Channel Catfish Fish --- 1 5 hg 5 --- 2 1 --- --- --- 63 (Shore) Hours --- 5.0 30.75 50.0 4.5 --- 7.0 12.0 --- --- = 109.25 Rate --- 0.20 0.16 0.98 1.11 --- 0.28 0.08 --- ae --- 0.57 Channel Catfish Fish --- --- ll 35 T 8 8 6 2 1 “== 78 (Trotline) Hours --- --- 11.0 56.5 84.0 49.0 19.0 68.0 3.0 13.0 --- 303.50 Rate --- --- 1.0 0.61 0.08 0.16 O.42 0.08 0.66 0.07 --- 0.25 Yellow Catfish Fish --- << wee a Oe ee | a — = 1 (Trotline) Hours --- a wee wee we 12.00 ee ~-- -=- 12.00 Rate --- A wee wee ee = 0.08 --- “+= woe 0.08 Carp Fish --- 1 y — a ~-= “= --- 5 Hours --- 6.0 12.0 --- ee eee --- -+- ~we 18.00 Rate --- 0.16 0.33 --- a a — oe --- 0.27 Smallmouth Fish --- 2 wee eee a er --- --- --- 2 Buffalo Hours --- 8.0 --- === <——< «<—_- ee ee pa — si i 8.00 (Shore) Rate --- 0.25 === smu — <a or ee a “we --- 0.25 Freshwater Drum Fish --- --- woo --- 1 --- --- o-- -<- -<= wo ae (Shore) - Hours --- a 1.50 --- ene wee --~ --- “-- 1.50 . Rate --- a 0.66 --= <=. «<«- ~~ — ~+- 0.66 --- Page 20 --- 20. Table 1.1. Inks Lake Creel Census -- Results of Fishing Shuwing the Relative Success with the Various Types of Baits Employed. *(The Fish Shown for Mixed Baits are those Caught for which it was Impossible for Census Takers to Determine the e of Bait.) Fish Caught on Grand Various Baits Feburary March April Ma June July August September October November December Janua Total Total LIVE BAITS minnows 3 57 259 177 134 37 «59 Ke) 23 ) 12 2 812 shad fe) ) ) ) ) fe) O 2 ) fe) ) ) 2 carp 0) ) fe) 3 ) @) ) fe) O ) @) fe) 3 sunfish re) © ) 0 fe) ) 1 ) fe) 0 @) @) 1 grasshoppers ) ) 4 ) 9) ) ) O ©) ) ) ) 4 worms 4 98 20h 106 178 67 #321 1 37 0) ) 10 736 Total 7 155 467 286 312 104 gi 52 60 - 12 12 1,558 DEAD BATTS doughbaits @) 7 13 O O @) ) ¢) ) @) ) ) 20 bloodbait fe) ) ) 20 Oo 0 fe) fe) fe) 0 ) 0 20 ‘shad gizzards @) 0 2 481 1 ) ) ) fe) ) fe) 52 stink bait ) @) ) ) fe) ) ) 11 0 0 @) fe) 11 shrimp ) ) 13 35 58 5 14 27 6 ) 30 fe) 188 cutfish (e) 2 fe) y 16 5 ) h fe) @) ) fe) 31 snails O 0) O ie) 9) 6) (@) oO 0) O 6) (0) (0) soap ) ) ) 6 @) 0 ) fe) 0 ) ) 0 6 Total @) 9 28 113 «75 11 #14 he 6 ) 30 @) 328 ARTIFICIAL BAITS lures 23 28 45 kg 11 10 23 13 10 @) 10 15 237 spinners 0 6 ) ) 2 h fe) 1 6 0 ) © 19 flies fe) ) ) fe) 46 23. 3 ) fe) fe) 0 ) 72 comb. flies and luresO e) ) 27 0) 0) O O 6) (0) c@) (6) 27 Total 23 34 OS 76 59 37 26 14 16 ) 10 15 355 MIXED BAIT* 22 10 77 30 2 31 2 28 re) ) ) 15 217 217 GRAND TOTALS 52 208 617 505 448 183 133 136 82 o) 52 h2 2,458 2,458 ne nnn tnnnceanann --- Page 21 --- el. ‘Table 12. Inks Lake Creel Census -- Estimated Monthly Yields in Total Numbers of Fish Taken by Boat and Shore Fishermen during the Period February 1956 through January 1957. Month Boat Shore Total February 639.5 890 .4 1,529.9 March 1,369.3 1,410.8 2,780.1 April 1,359.4 7,114.8 8,474.2 May 3,362.6 8,602.5 11,965.1 June 3,991.7 14 ,168.7 18,160.4 July 1,193.9 6,293.0 7,486.9 August 1,122.9 2,666.9 3,789.8 September 1,018.4 1,758.1 2,776.5 October 326.9 1,664.2 1,991.1 November mm en December 117.2 699.5 816.7 January 22k.7 1,185.7 1,410.4 Totals 14, 726.5 46,454 .6 61,181.1 --- Page 22 --- L9°TE 02° 40S ‘9a 00°OOT ¥°TOTST 86°19 €°0gTt*Tt9 0O°00T §19€ 62 STBVOI, 0S°0 LE* OSH QS°T e°LT 98°0 TOLL 92°T o€ mip 1eyeayselg e9°2 OH TTH*'S §9n°R Z° £6 49° OT Q° 41566 G9°ST oL€ atddero 94 74M eT’0 Ly? SOT LE°O oH L19°0 9°66S g6°0 €Z ysTguns 1eesu0T go0°0 TH’ g9 qZ°O L°2 94°0 O°OTh g9°0 9T Ystjuns peysverqaoTTax ES°t G2-ELofy = 6S" HT 4° LST 69° 0€ T° L192 HT SH 190°T ystguns TT Tent” ST°O L6°€ET 4° 0 T’S €8°0 1° Onl ce°T 62 ystguns 1eepey 90°0 00°15 02°0 as On" 0 O° TOE 6S°0 4T ystjuns usern S0°0 T9°Sh 9T°O g°T fz°o 0°g0z2 HE°O g YynowreM TL°6 HS°9E1°Q S9°0€ 9° LEE Gt Lh 4° Sty £9 €S°OT 6y2 sseq YoeTq yNowses1e7T €1°0 Te’ Hee SE°T 6° HT TE°O 4° TE? 9t°0 TI sseq pez z0dg TS°9 €2°9692, 99°92 6°S62 oL.° OT 6°629'6 41°ST ele sseq ey TuM TO°0o SS°9 €0°0 €°0 €0°0 G° HZ +0°O T pesylTiIng MOTTEZ 9T°O L9°6ET 64°0 4°S go°o 4° EL ZT°O € YsSTts7VeO MOTTEZ qe" € G6°ST6°Z §=€S°OT L°ett eat G° 09g ‘€ TE°9 6HT Yysts7eo Teuueyy 19°0 65°96S OT’? Tee ZE°O 9°Le2 Liq" 0 TT dzeo ueedoing oL*O 60°Lz9 02°2 He GZ°0 G°2t2 ge°o 6 oTeygng YyNouTTeusg OT’O T2° 16 Ze*o 9°t 90°0 TSS 60°0 2 Ie8 asouzu0T °sqy UT aroy spunog UT YUSTOM "Say UL alloy “ON TeLO7 (dad PTSTR = ° 4M TetOL go VUSTOM Teg PTOTA yorep Texo], go TaquNyt peyeuTisy” pe,ewlysy yusot1eg TezO], + pez,eutysY peyveutys” qusoleg Teo] setoedg ——— eee (°ser0e Ssoejains 006 PeyeUTISse Ue UO peseq ate spTeTé atoy) -).66T Arenuer YBno1yy OG6T ATenrgeq potreg ey. BuTing spomoy esou, fq useye]L, UST™ JO SPTSTA peyvewyTis_ oy pue Buyysty e1oyg pue yeog Jo sq[nsey -- snsusg [eerg eye] syUT ET STaeL --- Page 23 --- nee nn ne T'OT iaied aie ver ODE --- --- 9°TT 9°6 OTT --- O°2T --- unip 1e7yenyset gy ok ai ans mes 0°9 o"g ogoh Ld LI9° gB°9 ag orl atddero 93 TUM bg --- --- w-- 00 ee --- --- 6°99 G°G wee ETQ me 0°S ystguns reesu0_T 6°S --- --- wee wee ges ob 0S o79 --- Sth O°9 “-- Ystguns peysesrqMoT Tey —_ —_ Bum maw a= a wwe ene wee --- w-- --- ustjuns peyyodsesuer9 L°S 9°S 9°S ome BG Les 6S E'S G'S G°G 6°S 4°S €°S ystguns [TTTentE L°S --- --- wee ee 0°9 --- o'2 O'S OF 6°S oO°9 0°9 ystguns reepey Ls --- 0°9 we- 00 eee -~- --- 2S 0°S --- 0°79 0°9 — ystguns useip 9 --- --- === 0 ee --- --- 0°s --- 679 §°9 sae YANoULeM €°eT O° HT 6°ET --- 9°9OT O°OoT 9°ST G6 LG get L*TT €°eT 1° &8T sseq YOeT YANouUss1e7] TET = OHT O° LT ae! O'TT -—- see ees Le EGE wee eee ZEEE sseq periods 6°OT Tae S° HT woe STL Get o7g £€°6 €°6 oO°et S*°TT £°6 9°TT sseq 24 7TUM O°ST --- --- w-- 0 === ~-- Oh? | tate O°€T YsSTs7BO MOTTOX 0°g --- --- --- 0 === --- --- --- --- 0°9 woo oe ame peeyting yovld 6°eT ae mm --- QO°TT SOT «=6C*TIT GOT O'HT GET «TET E°eT O° eT ystgyeo Teuueyp +°Cr --- --- w--5 00 = --- wee eee wn mee POT Q*ET --- dieo ueedoing owe a sami —— ane -om wee eee nen --- wee nee --- aeyonsdieo TeATYy QT --- --- =-- 0 === “= wa eee eee m= 0ST OPLT aaa oTesgng YANoUTTeUs 0°12 sae soaps Snes ne aca ee wn- --- == 0°12 wee eee oon 1eB asousu0l'T qysueT aBereay Axenuepr Jaqiiesag 1equaaoy 19q0900 requaqdeg ysnBny ATme sune Lew Trady yorew Arensqeg awey TOMMOD ence ee yen en en A Re °)66T Arenuee yBnoryy 9G6T Arensqeyg potted ey) Suyanp (uemreysty SUTTPOI, SUTPNTOXG) sxeTsuy Aq usyeL Ysty Fo ‘gayouyT UT YyBue] Tejoy, eBersay -- snsueg [seea1Q SyeT syUT HT eTqAeL "eS --- Page 24 --- eee "QG6T TeqMeacy BSuTInp spell ateM SMdTATAZUT snsusD TeerD ON :970N LHS te 9c TeyOL v 6Ly TE a T'9 gr’ Axenuep GEE TE o°2g 0°6 £2? Jaqusseg <i -- -< — -<-- TIQUeAON Lye 't TE ey 4° OT g°s 18q0700 ase ‘tT o€ G°Z S°TT 9°6 Taquezdag 922 °2 TE ore 6°2T L°9T qzengny QTE *€ TE S°T 9°TT Z°9T Aqtoe 09 6S o€ G°T oO°eT O° Te eune RRS f+ TE S°2 G°eT 9°62 Key 9ST *2 o€ ore Go°eT 9° LT Trady LEE TE GL° az S°TT L°OT Gorey 964 'T 62 GL°T S*OT 9°8 ahaa @YOHS 946 SOT 9ee T8300 664 Te 06° T'9 9°9 wisi Cee TE os°€ 0°6 g°2 taqueoeg —_— --- aac --- --- Tsquisron 6S¢ TE 0S°¢ +° OT 6°€ 18Q0300 ely o€ Ga°s ¢°TT a), tequaydag 6L2°T Te Go°g 6°2T ah qysnsny 9gS‘T TE 00°2 9*TL S°g Aqnp +61, °T of 0S°2 o°eT S°*Tt eune 006 *T TE o0°€ G°et L° HT key 64S °T o€ Gare G2°eT L°€T Trady og), TE Go°H S°TT €°6 yore Z9S 62 Gare S°OT 0°9 Areniqag LVOd poysty ¢ 6g potted snsuse9 TLL UTYS Lit Bq SUTUSTAT aie) SesTnty) [Te uo peqyunog -Ue_ Te Loy ut sfeq requny BAY JO 4V8ueT yysuey] aseroay USWMISYSTY JO ON °Bay SUTYSTg jo adXy, eee °"LG6T Arenuepe yBnoryy 9661 Arensgqayz Poyted |y} Suting sheq-wey Ul uemieystg fq eye] syuT jo o8esp Te{0OL PeyeUT s| -- snsuep Tee19 eye] syUT ST ataey, --- Page 25 --- Table 16. Inks Lake Creel Census -- Home Towns and Counties of Fishermen Interviewed. SECTION COUNTY TOWN NO. PERSONS TOTAL PANHANDLE Gray Pampa. 1 Potter Amarillo 2 3 SOUTH PLAINS Cochran Morton 1 Concho Eden 6 Crockett Ozona 2 Ector Odessa 22 Hale Plainview 2 Hockley Levelland 5 Howard Big Spring al Lubbock Lubbock 18 Martin - Stanton 2 Midland Midland 17 Runnels Ballinger 9 Schleicher Eldorado 2 Scurry Snyder 2 Sterling Sterling City 3 Tom Green San Angelo 12 Tom Green Water Valley 2 Ward Grand Falls 2 128 TRANS PECOS El Paso El Paso y k NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS Callahan Cross Plains 3 Callahan Clyde 2 Dallas Dallas 17 Dallas Grand Prairie 2 Hardeman Quanah k Palo Pinto Possum Kingdom 3 Tarrant Fort Worth 19 50 CENTRAL TEXAS Bandera Bandera 2 Brown Brownwood. L Bell Belton 1 Bell Fort Hood 41 Bell Killeen 73 Burnet Inks Lake 39 Burnet Burnet 112 Burnet Briggs 6 Burnet Bertram al Burnet Lake Victor 6 Burnet Longhorn Cavern 2 Caldwell Lockhart 1 Comal New Braunfels 5 Comanche Comanche Ty --- Page 26 --- Table 16. --- Continuved.--- eee 26. TOTAL 132 SECTION COUNTY TOWN NO. PERSONS eee CENTRAL TEXAS Coryell Copperas Cover dy Coryell Gatesville 2 Fayette Schulenburg 7 Gillespie Flatonia 4 Gillespie Fredericksburg 8 Hays San Marcos 2 Kerr = Kerrville 1 Kerr’ Ingram 2 Lampasas Lampasas 78 Lee Lexington 5 Llano Buchanan 20 Llano Bluffton 2 Llano Llano 12 McLennan Waco 13 McLennan Moody 2 Milam Thorndale 3 Milam Rockdale 5 San Saba Cherokee 2 San Saba San Saba my Travis Austin 120 Williamson Bartlett 2 Williamson Florence 15 Williamson Gerogetown Ta Williamson Granger 2 Williamson Jarrell 6 Williamson Round Rock 4 Williamson Taylor 12 EAST TEXAS Bowie Maud 1 Brazos Bryan 1 Burleson Somerville 3 Brazoria Lake Jackson 2 Cass “ Atlanta 2 Galveston Texas City y Harris Baytown 2 Harris Highlands 3 Harris Houston 67 Harris Pasadena 6 Jefferson Beaumont 3 Madison Madisonville 2 Montgomery Magnolia 1 Nacogdoches Nacogdoches 5 Trinity Trinity 2 104 --- Page 27 --- 27. Table 16. --- Continued. --- a SECTION COUNTY TOWN NO. PERSONS TOTAL ee SOUTH TEXAS Bexar San Antonio 152 Bexar Randolph Field 2 Brooks Falfurrias 2 Cameron Harlingen 5 DeWitt Yoakum 3 Frio Dilley 3 Guadalupe Marion 2 Nueces Corpus Christi 5 174 OUT OF STATE Milwaukee, Wisconsin 1 St. Louis, Missouri 2 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 2 New York City, New York 2 7 GRAND TOTAL 1,202