The New River, Virginia, Muskellunge Fishery
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Environ Biol Fish (2007) 79:11–25 DOI 10.1007/s10641-006-9089-1 ORIGINAL PAPER The New River, Virginia, muskellunge fishery: population dynamics, harvest regulation modeling, and angler attitudes Travis O. Brenden Æ Eric M. Hallerman Æ Brian R. Murphy Æ John R. Copeland Æ Joseph A. Williams Received: 7 September 2005 / Accepted: 20 June 2006 / Published online: 25 July 2006 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006 Abstract Although muskellunge, Esox masqu- about angler attitudes to the New River muskel- inongy, fisheries in northern US states and lunge fishery. Muskellunge grew quickly, with fish Canadian provinces are increasingly being man- reaching harvestable lengths (762 mm, 30¢¢)in aged by introduction of restrictive harvest regu- 2–3 years. Muskellunge fishing pressure, harvest lations (e.g. 1370-mm (54¢¢) minimum length rates, and voluntary release rates were low com- limits), many southern US muskellunge fisheries pared with reports for more northern areas. Most continue to be managed with comparatively lib- anglers, irrespective of how often they fished for eral regulations (e.g. 762-mm (30¢¢) minimum muskellunge, defined ‘‘trophy’’ muskellunge to be length limits) that are implemented statewide. We approximately 1050–1100 mm (41–43¢¢) in length. studied the population dynamics of the New Although angler support for restrictive harvest River, Virginia, muskellunge fishery and used regulations was low, abundance of memorable- predictive modeling to determine whether length (‡1070 mm, 42¢¢) muskellunge was pre- restrictive harvest regulations also might prove dicted to increase under all evaluated length beneficial for this southern latitude fishery. A limits. Muskellunge yield would remain static at creel survey was also conducted to learn more 914-mm (36¢¢) and 1016-mm (40¢¢) length limits, because of the rapid growth of fish, but yield would decline dramatically with a 1143-mm (45¢¢) T. O. Brenden (&) Æ E. M. Hallerman Æ B. R. Murphy length limit, because male muskellunge rarely Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, exceeded 1100 mm (43¢¢). Because of rapid Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, growth and low release rates, implementation of 100 Cheatham Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0321, higher length limits (e.g. 965–1067 mm, 38–42¢¢) USA e-mail: [email protected] may indeed prove beneficial for augmenting ‘‘trophy’’ muskellunge production on the New J. R. Copeland Æ J. A. Williams River. Angler support for higher minimum length Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, limits might be increased by educating anglers 2206 S. Main St., Suite C, Blacksburg, VA 24060, USA about the rapid growth rates of muskellunge and the expected size structure changes that will result T. O. Brenden from a length-limit increase. Size structure chan- Quantitative Fisheries Center, Department of ges resulting from an increase in the minimum Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 13 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, length limit may be difficult to detect because of MI 48824-1222, USA potential increases in fishing pressure or reduced 123 12 Environ Biol Fish (2007) 79:11–25 fish growth as a result of competition for food fisheries are managed as ‘‘trophy’’ fisheries resources. Long-term monitoring of muskellunge (Hanson et al. 1986), this difference in manage- growth and angling pressure may therefore be ment approaches raises a question regarding the needed to ensure that new regulations are indeed appropriateness of statewide, liberal harvest benefitting the fishery. regulations in southern regions. Although liberal harvest regulations can be Keywords Esox masquinongy Æ Dynamic pool beneficial for increasing production of ‘‘trophy’’ model Æ Creel survey Æ Minimum length limit Æ fish by reducing fish densities and preventing Exploitation Æ Voluntary release angling competition for food resources (Simonson and Hewett 1999), the paucity of information about muskellunge biology and ecology in southern Introduction systems probably is one of the major reasons why southern-latitude muskellunge fisheries are man- Although anglers often associate muskellunge, aged with statewide limits. Low length and high Esox masquinongy, with water bodies in north- creel limits were once common for muskellunge ern US states and Canadian provinces, muskel- fisheries even in northern areas, but regulations lunge fisheries do exist in southern US regions have become more restrictive as interest in mus- (e.g. North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and kellunge sportfishing has increased and the im- West Virginia). Whereas many northern mus- pact of overharvest has become more evident kellunge fisheries are managed with harvest (Crossman 1986; Graff 1986). Because little re- regulations tailored specifically for an individual search addressing muskellunge fisheries has been system based on factors such as stock abun- conducted in southern regions, biologists may dance, harvest rate, and growth rate (Simonson have lacked data regarding muskellunge growth and Hewett 1999, OMNR 20051), southern US and mortality rates. Without such information, muskellunge fisheries continue to be managed predicting the impact and justifying alternative primarily with statewide limits that are substan- harvest regulations for southern muskellunge tially less restrictive than the regulations en- would indeed prove difficult. forced in some northern water bodies. For The purpose of our research was to determine example, all muskellunge fisheries in Virginia whether the New River, Virginia, muskellunge and North Carolina are managed with 762-mm fishery would benefit from implementation of a (30¢¢) minimum length (this and all lengths re- minimum length limit that differed from the ported herein are total length measurements) current statewide limit. Very little is known about and two-fish per day creel limits (NCWRC muskellunge in the New River, because fish are 20052, VDGIF 20053). In comparison, length not frequently collected by Virginia Department limits enforced in places such as Wisconsin and of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) person- Ontario can be as high as 1270 and 1371 mm (50 nel during regular fish sampling. The fishery is and 54¢¢) (Simonson and Hewett 1999, OMNR managed for the production of ‘‘trophy’’ fish and 20051). Considering that most muskellunge is stocked annually with fingerling (~100 mm, 4¢¢) fish. In recent years, some anglers have become 1 concerned that Virginia’s statewide harvest reg- Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. 2005. 2005 ulations do not afford sufficient protection for fish Fishing Regulations Survey. OMNR web site address: http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/MNR/pubs/pubmenu.html#fish and that overharvest may be limiting ‘‘trophy’’ 2 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. fish production. Specific objectives for this re- North Carolina Inland Fishing, Hunting and Trapping search were to estimate important population Regulations Digest. NCWRC web site address: http:// dynamic rate functions for the New River mus- 216.27.49.98/pg02_Regs/Regs_Digest.pdf 3 kellunge fishery, to predict the effect that alter- Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. native harvest regulations would have on the 2005. Freshwater Fishing in Virginia. VDGIF web site address: http://www.dgif.state.va.us/fishing/regulations/2005_ fishery, and to measure angler attitude to the fishing_regulations.pdf fishery. 123 Environ Biol Fish (2007) 79:11–25 13 Materials and methods Fries Dam (upper section) and from Claytor Dam to the Virginia-West Virginia border (lower sec- Study area tion). Approximately 5,000 fingerling muskel- lunge are annually stocked in these river sections The New River originates in northwest North in early to mid-summer. Carolina and flows northward through southwest Virginia and into West Virginia (Fig. 1). The New Data collection River merges with the Gauley River in West Virginia to form the Kanawha River, which is a From 1998 to 2003 muskellunge were sampled by tributary of the Ohio River. Naturalized expan- angling and by boat electrofishing at sites located sion of muskellunge into the New River was primarily in the lower section of the river. The possibly prevented by Kanawha Falls, a waterfall electrofishing unit consisted of two drop-wire located several kilometers below the confluence boom-mounted anodes and a Type VI-A elec- of the New and Gauley rivers (Jenkins and trofisher (Smith Root, Vancouver, Washington, Burkhead 1993). Stocking of the New River with USA). Electrofishing was conducted in the fall, muskellunge by VDGIF began in the early 1960s. winter, and spring months using pulsed-DC out- The Virginia portion of the New River is 245 put at 4 A and a frequency of 60 Hz. Muskellunge kilometers (152 miles) long and the river is was the only species targeted when sampling. impounded by five dams—the Buck, Byllesby, Angling occurred throughout the year. Claytor, Fields, and Fries dams (Fig. 1). Muskel- Lengths of captured fish were measured to the lunge are currently stocked in two sections of the nearest mm and fish were weighed, depending on river, from the North Carolina-Virginia border to size, to the nearest 0.001, 0.01, or 0.1 kg. Mus- Fig. 1 Map of the New River in southwestern Virginia Glen Lyn Bluff City Ripplemead Whitethorne McCoy Falls Claytor Dam Allisonia Buck Dam Fries Dam Byllesby Dam N Fields Dam Kilometers 0102030405 123 14 Environ Biol Fish (2007) 79:11–25 kellunge that were captured by electrofishing many days per year anglers fished exclusively for were sexed using the method of LeBeau and Pa- muskellunge, how many muskellunge had anglers geau (1989). A pelvic fin ray from most fish cap- harvested in the past three years, what length of tured in 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 was clipped muskellunge did anglers consider a trophy, what with wire cutters as close to the body as possible length of muskellunge would anglers consider and stored in coin envelopes for aging—fin rays harvesting, whether anglers believed that harvest were prepared and fish ages were estimated using regulations should be changed, and whether an- methods described by Brenden et al. (2006). glers belonged to specialized fishing clubs.