Angler Opinions Regarding Handfishing for Catfish in Missouri
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Angler Opinions Regarding Handfishing for Catfish in Missouri Ronald A. Reitz, Missouri Department of Conservation, 1110 South College Avenue, Columbia, MO 65201 Vincent H. Travnichek, Missouri Department of Conservation, 701 NE James McCarthy Drive, St. Joseph, MO 64507 Abstract: A mail survey was conducted in 2004 to solicit the opinions and attitudes of active resident anglers on the subject of handfishing for catfish in Missouri. Almost 90% of survey respondents had heard of handfishing prior to receiving our survey. However, only about 10% had ever participated in the activity. Anglers were essentially split in their opinions with roughly 33% of anglers in support of, 33% in opposition to, and 34% not having an opinion about allowing handfishing in Missouri. Less than 15% of those surveyed indicated that they would participate in handfishing if legalized in Missouri. However, over 70% of those surveyed that had previously participated in handfishing supported legalizing it in Missouri. Results of this survey indicated that there was not a clear majority for support or opposition to legalizing handfishing in Missouri, and handfishing is an activity that would likely have limited participation if legalized. Results of this survey identified differences among Missouri anglers that will assist policymakers within the Missouri Department of Conservation regarding the fu- ture of handfishing in Missouri. Key words: angler survey, catfish, noodling, handfishing, human dimensions, fish- eries management Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 59:273–281 Catfish represent one of the most important recreational and commercial fish groups in Missouri. In one survey, catfish were the third most popular group of fish among Missouri anglers comprising 16% of total angler effort (Weithman 1991). In another survey of Missouri anglers, catfish ranked second only to black bass in both the number of anglers and days spent fishing (U.S. Department of Interior 1997). It has also been recognized that catfish anglers are a diverse group with varying desires and backgrounds (Gill 1980, Wilde and Riechers 1994, Burlingame and Guy 1999, Schramm et al. 1999, Wilde and Ditton 1999, Reitz and Travnichek 2004). Catfish anglers use a variety of methods for catching catfish other than tradi- tional rod and reel methods. Handfishing, also known as noodling, hogging, grab- bing, grabbling, grappling, and under-banking, is a method of catching catfish (most often flathead catfish) with one’s hands. No rods, reels, hooks, lines, bait, nor tackle are generally used. Handfishing is usually conducted from May through August dur- ing the spawning season. People that handfish feel their way along shallow riffles, slower deep water, sunken logs, root wads, or along stream banks looking for holes 2005 Proc. Annu. Conf. SEAFWA 274 Reitz and Travnichek or ledges where catfish are laying their eggs, guarding their nest, or resting. Once a location is found with a catfish, the person blocks the hole with their body. Then they reach in the hole and get a grip on the fish by pinning it to the bottom or side of the hole. The fish is generally secured by grabbing the lower lip of the fish or by running a hand through its mouth and out the gills. Once the person secures the fish and removes it from the hole or crevice an assistant runs a stringer through the fish and it is caught. Summers (1990) reported that in addition to rod and reel angling 34% of Okla- homa catfish anglers used trotlines, 20% used juglines, 18% used limblines, and 5% handfished. Some of these unorthodox fishing methods, especially handfishing, are controversial (Quinn 1993). Some anglers oppose handfishing because it targets spawning fish, disturbs spawning areas, and targets the largest and most fecund fish. Increasingly, the views of individuals and groups who are interested in angling for catfish conflict with the views of those involved in traditional or commercial harvest (Quinn 1993). Few studies have examined effects of handfishing on catfish populations. Fran- cis (1993) compared hoop net catches to handfishing and concluded that recreational handfishing was unlikely to pose a threat to flathead catfish stocks in two Missis- sippi rivers. Data in Jackson et al. (1997) from the Tallahatchie River in Mississippi showed that catfish were infrequently encountered in wooden slat boxes checked weekly with handfishing methods from 1 May through 15 July (52 fish contacts in 638 grab attempts; 8% encounter rate). However, out of the 52 fish contacts made, 36 of the catfish were caught (69% capture rate when encountered). Winkelman (2003) examined effects of handfishing on flathead catfish populations in Lake Carl Blackwell, Oklahoma. He concluded that although the handfishers he encountered were very successful, because of their rarity they were probably not having a signifi- cant negative impact on flathead catfish populations in the reservoir. Handfishing for catfish is only legal in the southern United States. A search of the Missouri State Archives revealed that handfishing was officially declared il- legal in the state in 1919. However, since 2000 handfishing has been at the fore- front of Missouri conservation issues with a contingent of people that would like to see handfishing legalized at some level in Missouri waters. A number of proponents of handfishing have met with Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) biolo- gists, administrators, and commissioners on numerous occasions. State legislators also expressed an interest in the handfishing issue as a result of constituent requests to legalize handfishing in Missouri. However, handfishing methods seem counter to more stringent harvest regulations proposed in an approved catfish management plan (Dames et al. 2004) developed by the MDC and supported by the public. Prior to considering legalization of handfishing in Missouri, information was needed on attitudes of Missouri’s anglers on the issue. A survey was designed and mailed in 2004 to solicit opinions and attitudes of active resident anglers on the subject of handfishing in Missouri. The survey identified catfish anglers and asked specific questions related to angler demographics and opinions on the handfishing issue. Identifying differences in angler opinions and demographics will allow poli- 2005 Proc. Annu. Conf. SEAFWA Angler Opinions Regarding Handfishing for Catfish in Missouri 275 cymakers to make better informed decisions on how best to allocate catfish resourc- es so that most anglers are satisfied with angling opportunities and anglers are sup- portive of agency goals. Methods A randomly selected sample of 6,000 anglers that purchased a 2003 Missouri resident fishing license, or a combination hunting-fishing license, was surveyed. This sample size was adequate to allow a statewide inference to anglers and, specifically, catfish anglers. All duplicate information, individuals with missing addresses, and non-Missouri residents were deleted from the data set before the final sample was drawn. The survey was administered following recommendations by Dillman (2000) with regard to sampling, survey design, and mailing schedule. The questionnaire was developed with input from MDC biologists. Anglers were asked to respond based on their fishing activity and opinions, not that of family members or angling party. The initial mailing of 6,000 surveys took place in August 2004. A follow-up survey was mailed to 4,510 non-respondents in September 2004, and a final mailing to 3,481 non-respondents was completed in October 2004. Respondents who stated they fished for catfish in Missouri during 2003 were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed (SAS 2003) using simple frequencies, cross tabulations, and Chi-square tests to identify any difference in response based on demographics and background. The null hypotheses that there would be no difference in opinions among demographic groups were tested using techniques for categorical data analy- sis. Chi-square (c2) tests were done using loglinear models to provide standardized Pearson residuals (rpi) by cell to determine whether or not significant differences in responses existed among demographic groups (Agresti 2002) using the PROC GEN- MOD procedure. An alpha level of 0.01 was established a priori for all tests in an attempt to reduce the probability of a Type I error due to the large sample size. When significant differences were observed, a cell-by-cell analysis using cell chi-square and Pearson’s standardized residuals (rpi ) was conducted to identify the nature of dependence. Cells containing residuals with absolute values of two or greater indi- cated a lack of fit with the null hypothesis in that cell (Agresti 2002). Results A total of 2,537 usable surveys were returned for a response rate of 42%. Sixty- eight percent of respondents indicated that they fished for catfish at least one day in the previous 12 months, and thus, were considered a “catfish angler” for our analy- sis. Thirty-eight percent further considered themselves to be “avid catfish anglers.” We asked anglers whether or not they had ever heard of handfishing. Eighty-six percent of all anglers, 88% of catfish anglers, and 92% of avid catfish anglers had heard of handfishing prior to receiving our survey. Respondents were asked if they had handfished in Missouri or another state before. Nine percent of all anglers re- ported having handfished before, while about 11% of catfish anglers and 13% of 2005 Proc. Annu. Conf. SEAFWA 276 Reitz and Travnichek