History of Striped Bass Management in the Colorado River

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

History of Striped Bass Management in the Colorado River American Fisheries Society Symposium 80:15–23, 2013 © 2013 by the American Fisheries Society History of Striped Bass Management in the Colorado River WAYNE GUSTAVESON* AND GEORG BLOMMER Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Post Office Box 1446, Page, Arizona 86040, USA Abstract.—The discovery of landlocked populations of striped bass Morone saxatilis in Santee–Cooper Reservoir, South Carolina and Kerr Reservoir, Vir- ginia prompted a rush to stock striped bass in other inland waters of the United States, including impoundments in the Colorado River. Fisheries managers re- sponsible for Colorado River waters studied existing literature and predicted that it would be unlikely for successful natural reproduction of striped bass in these systems. Striped bass population development proved unique in the Colorado River system, which is marked by nutrient-poor, well-oxygenated waters with limited forage. Natural reproduction did occur in these reservoirs despite the lack of current previously thought to be essential for successful reproduction, resulting in high survival. Developing populations were sometimes overabundant to the point of forage elimination from pelagic zones. Lack of prey limited growth and temporarily reduced reproduction. Eventually forage returned, increasing striped bass growth and maturity, which led to more reproduction (a “boom and bust” cycle). Planned low-impact, low-abundance adult trophy fisheries produced by managed stocking were replaced by high-abundance juvenile fisheries with high catch rates produced by natural reproduction. In most years, juvenile striped bass living in warm surface waters proved to have the competitive advantage over adults for limited forage. Colorado River Historical Overview and Burrell 2013, this volume). The last im- poundment was completed in 1963 when Glen The preimpoundment Colorado River was Canyon Dam was closed, forming Lake Powell characterized by harsh environmental condi- (Utah and Arizona), which is 300 km long with tions ranging from muddy spring floods ex- 3 3 a surface area of 65,000 ha when full. ceeding 8,495 m /s to flows less than 8 m /s in The Colorado River watershed is mostly drought plagued summer months. Hoover Dam devoid of agricultural and commercial devel- was completed in 1935, creating Lake Mead, opment, which has been the main cause of the first impoundment on the river and one of nutrient enrichment in many of the nation’s the largest reservoirs by volume in the United impoundments and river systems. Colorado States (Figure 1). At full pool, Lake Mead is River impoundments are characterized by low 63,900 ha with a maximum depth of 177 m phosphorus and nitrogen levels. The new lakes and maximum length of approximately 184 filled deep canyons carved out by the Colorado km. Two smaller but significant reservoirs fol- River with limited littoral zones. Seven native lowed. Lake Havasu (1938) and Lake Mohave fish species that thrived in the river prior to (1952) were constructed downstream (Stewart impoundment were poorly suited for life in the * Corresponding author: [email protected] new lake environment. Introduced nonnative 15 16 gustaveson and blommer FIGURE 1. Map of Colorado River drainage with large reservoirs included. history of striped bass management in the colorado river 17 sport and forage fish species dominate the fish tion would not be sufficient to maintain a sport communities that developed in these reservoirs. fishery” (R. Stone, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, personal communication). Hatchery Striped Bass History rearing ponds were built near Lake Powell to meet the anticipated annual stocking require- Many new impoundments were constructed ment. The initial 1974 stocking in Lake Pow- in the United States between 1930 and 1970. ell came from Virginia, California, and North Striped bass Morone saxatilis trapped in Santee– Carolina genetic stock (May and Hepworth Cooper Reservoir (South Carolina) impound- 1975). Over time, most of the fish stocked in ments and Kerr Reservoir (Virginia–North Car- Lake Powell came from North Carolina and olina) survived and reproduced (Van Horn 2013, the California Delta stock (Hepworth et al. this volume). Land-locked striped bass provided 1976; Gustaveson et al. 1979). fisheries managers a top-level predator that pro- duced charismatic trophy fish for anglers while Natural Reproduction controlling overabundant forage fish popula- tions. A nationwide rush to stock striped bass in Based on the literature (Bailey 1975), biologists reservoirs ensued as fish managers hoped to reap stocking Colorado River reservoirs believed the biological and recreational rewards. Biolo- that most reservoir striped bass populations gists in the Southeast quickly determined that were not self-sustaining. Most thought that most striped bass populations in reservoirs failed fingerling introductions would be required to to reproduce because the semibuoyant eggs support a continuing sport fishery. However, in would settle to the bottom without supporting the late 1970s, reports from Arizona and Ne- water currents and die due to siltation or lack of vada suggested that evidence of striped bass dissolved oxygen. Barkuloo (1970) proclaimed natural reproduction had been found. Striped that “striped bass eggs and larvae must be sus- bass reproduction in Lake Mead was first pended by current to prevent settling and death noted in 1973 and in every year since (Allan by suffocation.” This finding guided managers in and Roden 1978). Possible spawning sites in- the Colorado River basin who contemplated in- cluded areas where river current could suspend troduction of striped bass. eggs and larvae, as the literature suggested, but Biologists at the California Department of spawning sites were also suspected in reservoir Fish and Game stocked the first striped bass into locations with minimal current. The Lake Mead the Colorado River in 1959 (St. Amant 1959). analysis by Allan and Roden (1978) referenced Young-of-year striped bass were seined from the an important but overlooked hatchery experi- San Joaquin River Delta and transported over- ment conducted by Bayless (1968) confirming land to the Colorado River near Blythe, Califor- that “suspension of striped bass eggs by water nia. All stocked striped bass were descendants of current is not necessary for a successful hatch fish that were transported from the East Coast in provided eggs are not subjected to suffocation 1879 and stocked in the delta near San Francisco by silt or water quality.” Bay. Collaborative stocking efforts from 1962 to Evidence of striped bass natural reproduc- 1969 by state wildlife agencies in Arizona, Cali- tion in Lake Powell was first discovered in 1979 fornia, and Nevada created thriving striped bass and annually thereafter. Initially, it was thought populations in Lake Mead, Lake Havasu, and that reproduction was confined to the Colorado the connecting river reaches (Edwards 1974). River above the lake where river current could Popular striped bass sport fisheries developed, suspend eggs and larvae. The spawning site was which included trophy-sized adults. in or below Cataract Canyon, a 19-km gorge Striped bass were stocked by the Utah Di- containing 23 sets of rapids. Striped bass ap- vision of Wildlife Resources in Lake Powell in parently used less than 20 km of river above the 1974. It was initially thought that “reproduc- reservoir because ripe striped bass adults were 18 gustaveson and blommer collected below but not above Cataract Canyon density current in the reservoir that could not during spawning season (Persons and Bulkley have assisted in moving larvae from the inflow 1982). any closer to the dam than 190 km (D. Mer- During spring 1979, striped bass spawn- ritt, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, personal com- ing was discovered in the lower reservoir near munication). Instead, striped bass larvae were the dam. In spring of most years, prespawn- captured 295 km downstream from the inflow. ing striped bass aggregated near Glen Canyon If spawning occurred only at inflow areas and Dam. These fish seemed attracted to the cur- larval fish were distributed by reservoir cur- rent created as water was drawn through the rents, then larval fish should have been found dam penstocks. With time and warming, the throughout the reservoir. In contrast, there was aggregation left the 165-m-deep dam forebay a preponderance of young striped bass at two and moved to nearby coves where spawning oc- distinct locations, the inflow and again at the curred. Most fish left the prespawning staging dam. It was evident from these analyses that area simultaneously during early May as water these young striped bass found near the dam surface temperature reached 16–19°C, which were the result of successful in-reservoir spawn- is the generally accepted peak spawning tem- ing (Gustaveson et al. 1984). perature range (Setzler et al. 1980). Spawning Over the years, it has been confirmed that sites were located near the dam where floating striped bass spawning occurs annually in Lake masses of dead (unfertilized) eggs were clearly Powell, Lake Mead, Lake Mohave (Liles 1985), visible. J. D. Bayless (South Carolina Wildlife and Lake Havasu. Eggs and larval striped bass and Marine Resources Department, personal also pass through the dams to provide addi- communication) found that unfertilized eggs tional recruits to downstream lakes and canals would float but that immediately after fertiliza- as water is delivered from the Colorado River tion, eggs would sink 0.3 m in 27 s. Settling to locations in California, Nevada and Arizona rate slowed with time, but eggs still descended (Stewart and Burrell 2013). 0.3 m every 60 s some 24 h after fertilization (Gustaveson et al. 1984). Population Dynamics An oxygen-temperature profile taken in spawning coves near the dam showed oxygen Initial growth of Lake Powell and Lake Mo- levels of 8.4 mg/L near the surface and 13.2 have striped bass was comparable to other fast mg/L on the substrate in 9 m of water. Siltation growing cohorts in the United States (Liles was insignificant in these coves on the rock and 1985; Gustaveson 1999).
Recommended publications
  • Arizona Fishing Regulations 3 Fishing License Fees Getting Started
    2019 & 2020 Fishing Regulations for your boat for your boat See how much you could savegeico.com on boat | 1-800-865-4846insurance. | Local Offi ce geico.com | 1-800-865-4846 | Local Offi ce See how much you could save on boat insurance. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or all GEICO companies. Boat and PWC coverages are underwritten by GEICO Marine Insurance Company. GEICO is a registered service mark of Government Employees Insurance Company, Washington, D.C. 20076; a Berkshire Hathaway Inc. subsidiary. TowBoatU.S. is the preferred towing service provider for GEICO Marine Insurance. The GEICO Gecko Image © 1999-2017. © 2017 GEICO AdPages2019.indd 2 12/4/2018 1:14:48 PM AdPages2019.indd 3 12/4/2018 1:17:19 PM Table of Contents Getting Started License Information and Fees ..........................................3 Douglas A. Ducey Governor Regulation Changes ...........................................................4 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH COMMISSION How to Use This Booklet ...................................................5 JAMES S. ZIELER, CHAIR — St. Johns ERIC S. SPARKS — Tucson General Statewide Fishing Regulations KURT R. DAVIS — Phoenix LELAND S. “BILL” BRAKE — Elgin Bag and Possession Limits ................................................6 JAMES R. AMMONS — Yuma Statewide Fishing Regulations ..........................................7 ARIZONA GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT Common Violations ...........................................................8 5000 W. Carefree Highway Live Baitfish
    [Show full text]
  • Striped Bass Morone Saxatilis
    COSEWIC Assessment and Status Report on the Striped Bass Morone saxatilis in Canada Southern Gulf of St. Lawrence Population St. Lawrence Estuary Population Bay of Fundy Population SOUTHERN GULF OF ST. LAWRENCE POPULATION - THREATENED ST. LAWRENCE ESTUARY POPULATION - EXTIRPATED BAY OF FUNDY POPULATION - THREATENED 2004 COSEWIC COSEPAC COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF COMITÉ SUR LA SITUATION ENDANGERED WILDLIFE DES ESPÈCES EN PÉRIL IN CANADA AU CANADA COSEWIC status reports are working documents used in assigning the status of wildlife species suspected of being at risk. This report may be cited as follows: COSEWIC 2004. COSEWIC assessment and status report on the Striped Bass Morone saxatilis in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Ottawa. vii + 43 pp. (www.sararegistry.gc.ca/status/status_e.cfm) Production note: COSEWIC would like to acknowledge Jean Robitaille for writing the status report on the Striped Bass Morone saxatilis prepared under contract with Environment Canada, overseen and edited by Claude Renaud the COSEWIC Freshwater Fish Species Specialist Subcommittee Co-chair. For additional copies contact: COSEWIC Secretariat c/o Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada Ottawa, ON K1A 0H3 Tel.: (819) 997-4991 / (819) 953-3215 Fax: (819) 994-3684 E-mail: COSEWIC/[email protected] http://www.cosewic.gc.ca Ếgalement disponible en français sous le titre Ếvaluation et Rapport de situation du COSEPAC sur la situation de bar rayé (Morone saxatilis) au Canada. Cover illustration: Striped Bass — Drawing from Scott and Crossman, 1973. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada 2004 Catalogue No. CW69-14/421-2005E-PDF ISBN 0-662-39840-8 HTML: CW69-14/421-2005E-HTML 0-662-39841-6 Recycled paper COSEWIC Assessment Summary Assessment Summary – November 2004 Common name Striped Bass (Southern Gulf of St.
    [Show full text]
  • Tennessee Fish Species
    The Angler’s Guide To TennesseeIncluding Aquatic Nuisance SpeciesFish Published by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Cover photograph Paul Shaw Graphics Designer Raleigh Holtam Thanks to the TWRA Fisheries Staff for their review and contributions to this publication. Special thanks to those that provided pictures for use in this publication. Partial funding of this publication was provided by a grant from the United States Fish & Wildlife Service through the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Authorization No. 328898, 58,500 copies, January, 2012. This public document was promulgated at a cost of $.42 per copy. Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency is available to all persons without regard to their race, color, national origin, sex, age, dis- ability, or military service. TWRA is also an equal opportunity/equal access employer. Questions should be directed to TWRA, Human Resources Office, P.O. Box 40747, Nashville, TN 37204, (615) 781-6594 (TDD 781-6691), or to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office for Human Resources, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203. Contents Introduction ...............................................................................1 About Fish ..................................................................................2 Black Bass ...................................................................................3 Crappie ........................................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • EBFM Covers:EBFM-Striped Bass Cover-8.5X11
    ECOSYSTEM BASED FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FOR CHESAPEAKE BAY Menhaden Species Team Background and Issue Briefs The Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) Project for Chesapeake Bay has been developed and coordinated by Maryland Sea Grant, working in partnership with the scientific community and the region’s state and federal agencies (the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Potomac River Fisheries Commission, Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, District of Columbia Department of the Environment, NOAA, and EPA). The EBFM Project targets five key species identified in the Ecosystem Planning for Chesapeake Bay document, including striped bass, menhaden, blue crab, alosines, and oysters. The goals of the EBFM project are to build a sustainable mechanism for addressing ecosystem issues for fisheries within Chesapeake Bay and to develop ecosystem tools for use in ecosystem-based fishery management plans for the five key species (or group of species in the case of alosines). Currently the project involves 85 scientists, managers, and stakeholders from within and beyond the Chesapeake Bay region. For more information on Maryland Sea Grant’s Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management Project please visit: www.mdsg.umd.edu/ebfm. This publication was produced by Maryland Sea Grant. Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management for Chesapeake Bay: Menhaden Background and Issue Briefs. 2009. EBFM Menhaden Species Team. Publication Number UM-SG-TS-2009-08 Maryland Sea Grant 4321 Hartwick Rd., Suite 300 College Park,
    [Show full text]
  • Striped Bass
    Can you tell the difference between a striped bass, a white bass and a striped bass hybrid? Anglers need to know the differences between these spe- cies because different sizes, seasons and creel limits apply to striped bass and striped bass hybrids, and to white bass. Knowing the differences between these species can also help you better understand Pennsylvania fishes and our wa- ters. These fish belong to the family Moronidae, temperate basses, also known as “true” basses. In Pennsylvania, this family also includes the white perch. Moronidae species are medium-sized to large-sized active predators and prized trophy and sport fishes. Some species live only in fresh water, while others are anadromous they spend much of their lives in salt water or brackish water but return to fresh water to spawn. Striped Bass Morone saxatilis Identification: The striped bass has a smoothly arched pro- file, slimmer and more streamlined than a striped bass hybrid, until it reaches a weight of five to 10 pounds, when its body becomes heavy-looking. The back is olive-green to steely blue- gray, sometimes almost black. The sides are silvery to pale rapidly and stay in brackish bays at the end of their downstream silvery-green, shading to white on the belly. There are seven float. Juveniles spend their first and second summers in the or eight distinct dark stripes that run laterally on the side of tidal Delaware River with most inhabitating that area from the the body. Striped bass have two dorsal fins, the front spiny- Schuylkill River downstream into the state of Delaware.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Factors Affecting Fish Forage Production in Four Arizona Lakes
    Some factors affecting fish forage production in four Arizona lakes Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic) Authors Bergersen, Eric P. Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 30/09/2021 20:32:03 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/552039 SOME FACTORS AFFECTING FISH FORAGE PRODUCTION IN FOUR ARIZONA LAKES by Eric P. Bergersen A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE WITH A MAJOR IN FISHERY BIOLOGY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 1 9 6 9 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of re­ quirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judg­ ment the proposed use of the material is in the interests of scholar­ ship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Fish Suppliers
    2021 Fish Suppliers A.B. Jones Fish Hatchery Largemouth bass, hybrid bluegill, bluegill, black crappie, triploid grass carp, Nancy Jones gambusia – mosquito fish, channel catfish, bullfrog tadpoles, shiners 1057 Hwy 26 Williamsburg, KY 40769 (606) 549-2669 ATAC, LLC Pond Management Specialist Fathead minnows, golden shiner, goldfish, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, Rick Rogers hybrid bluegill, bluegill, redear sunfish, walleye, channel catfish, rainbow trout, PO Box 1223 black crappie, triploid grass carp, common carp, hybrid striped bass, koi, Lebanon, OH 45036 shubunkin goldfish, bullfrog tadpoles, and paddlefish (513) 932-6529 Anglers Bait-n-Tackle LLC Fathead minnows, rosey red minnows, bluegill, hybrid bluegill, goldfish and Kaleb Rodebaugh golden shiners 747 North Arnold Ave Prestonsburg, KY 606-886-1335 Andry’s Fish Farm Bluegill, hybrid bluegill, largemouth bass, koi, channel catfish, white catfish, Lyle Andry redear sunfish, black crappie, tilapia – human consumption only, triploid grass 10923 E. Conservation Club Road carp, fathead minnows and golden shiners Birdseye, IN 47513 (812) 389-2448 Arkansas Pondstockers, Inc Channel catfish, bluegill, hybrid bluegill, redear sunfish, largemouth bass, Michael Denton black crappie, fathead minnows, and triploid grass carp PO Box 357 Harrisbug, AR 75432 (870) 578-9773 Aquatic Control, Inc. Largemouth bass, bluegill, channel catfish, triploid grass carp, fathead Clinton Charlton minnows, redear sunfish, golden shiner, rainbow trout, and hybrid striped bass 505 Assembly Drive, STE 108
    [Show full text]
  • Estimation of Juvenile Striped Bass Relative Abundance in the Virginia Portion of Chesapeake Bay
    Estimation of Juvenile Striped Bass Relative Abundance in the Virginia Portion of Chesapeake Bay ANNUAL PROGRESS REPORT: 2015 - 2016 Christopher D. Davis Department of Fisheries Science Mary C. Fabrizio Virginia Institute of Marine Science College of William and Mary Troy D. Tuckey Gloucester Point, Virginia U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sport Fish Restoration Project F87R26 Submitted to Virginia Marine Resources Commission May 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................ii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................ iii LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................................... v PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................... vii INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 METHODS .................................................................................................................................... 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 6 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Humboldt Bay Fishes
    Humboldt Bay Fishes ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> ·´¯`·._.·´¯`·.. ><((((º>`·._ .·´¯`·. _ .·´¯`·. ><((((º> Acknowledgements The Humboldt Bay Harbor District would like to offer our sincere thanks and appreciation to the authors and photographers who have allowed us to use their work in this report. Photography and Illustrations We would like to thank the photographers and illustrators who have so graciously donated the use of their images for this publication. Andrey Dolgor Dan Gotshall Polar Research Institute of Marine Sea Challengers, Inc. Fisheries And Oceanography [email protected] [email protected] Michael Lanboeuf Milton Love [email protected] Marine Science Institute [email protected] Stephen Metherell Jacques Moreau [email protected] [email protected] Bernd Ueberschaer Clinton Bauder [email protected] [email protected] Fish descriptions contained in this report are from: Froese, R. and Pauly, D. Editors. 2003 FishBase. Worldwide Web electronic publication. http://www.fishbase.org/ 13 August 2003 Photographer Fish Photographer Bauder, Clinton wolf-eel Gotshall, Daniel W scalyhead sculpin Bauder, Clinton blackeye goby Gotshall, Daniel W speckled sanddab Bauder, Clinton spotted cusk-eel Gotshall, Daniel W. bocaccio Bauder, Clinton tube-snout Gotshall, Daniel W. brown rockfish Gotshall, Daniel W. yellowtail rockfish Flescher, Don american shad Gotshall, Daniel W. dover sole Flescher, Don stripped bass Gotshall, Daniel W. pacific sanddab Gotshall, Daniel W. kelp greenling Garcia-Franco, Mauricio louvar
    [Show full text]
  • Predator-Prey Interactions Among Fish-Eating Birds and Selected Fishery Resources in the Chesapeake
    W&M ScholarWorks CCB Technical Reports Center for Conservation Biology (CCB) 2010 Predator-prey interactions among fish-eating birds and selected fishery resources in the Chesapeake Bay: temporal and spatial trends and implications for fishery assessment and management. G. Garman The Center for Conservation Biology C Viverette The Center for Conservation Biology B Watts The Center for Conservation Biology, [email protected] S Macko The Center for Conservation Biology Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/ccb_reports Recommended Citation Garman, G.; Viverette, C; Watts, B; and Macko, S, "Predator-prey interactions among fish-eating birds and selected fishery resources in the Chesapeake Bay: temporal and spatial trends and implications for fishery assessment and management." (2010). CCB Technical Reports. 349. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/ccb_reports/349 This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Center for Conservation Biology (CCB) at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in CCB Technical Reports by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NCBO Award NA06NMF4570304 Draft Report: Predator-prey interactions among fish-eating birds and selected fishery resources in the Chesapeake Bay: temporal and spatial trends and implications for fishery assessment DRAFTand management. Dr. Greg Garman, Catherine Viverette, Center for Environmental Studies and VCU Rice Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, PO Box 843050, Richmond, VA 23284 -3050, (804) 828-1574, [email protected]. Dr. Bryan Watts, Center for Conservation Biology, College of William and Mary and Virginia Commonwealth University. Dr. Stephen Macko, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia.
    [Show full text]
  • Fish I.D. Guide
    mississippi department of wildlife, fisheries, and parks FRESHWATER FISHES COMMON TO MISSISSIPPI a fish identification guide MDWFP • 1505 EASTOVER DRIVE • JACKSON, MS 39211 • WWW.MDWFP.COM Table of Contents Contents Page Number • White Crappie . 4 • Black Crappie. 5 • Magnolia Crappie . 6 • Largemouth Bass. 7 • Spotted Bass . 8 • Smallmouth Bass. 9 • Redear. 10 • Bluegill . 11 • Warmouth . 12 • Green sunfish. 13 • Longear sunfish . 14 • White Bass . 15 • Striped Bass. 16 • Hybrid Striped Bass . 17 • Yellow Bass. 18 • Walleye . 19 • Pickerel . 20 • Channel Catfish . 21 • Blue Catfish. 22 • Flathead Catfish . 23 • Black Bullhead. 24 • Yellow Bullhead . 25 • Shortnose Gar . 26 • Spotted Gar. 27 • Longnose Gar . 28 • Alligator Gar. 29 • Paddlefish. 30 • Bowfin. 31 • Freshwater Drum . 32 • Common Carp. 33 • Bigmouth Buffalo . 34 • Smallmouth Buffalo. 35 • Gizzard Shad. 36 • Threadfin Shad. 37 • Shovelnose Sturgeon. 38 • American Eel. 39 • Grass Carp . 40 • Bighead Carp. 41 • Silver Carp . 42 White Crappie (Pomoxis annularis) Other Names including reservoirs, oxbow lakes, and rivers. Like other White perch, Sac-a-lait, Slab, and Papermouth. members of the sunfish family, white crappie are nest builders. They produce many eggs, which can cause Description overpopulation, slow growth, and small sizes in small White crappie are deep-bodied and silvery in color, lakes and ponds. White crappie spawn from March ranging from silvery-white on the belly to a silvery-green through May when water temperatures are between or dark green on the back with possible blue reflections. 58ºF and 65ºF. White crappie can tolerate muddier There are several dark vertical bars on the sides. Males water than black crappie. develop dark coloration on the throat and head during the spring spawning season, which can cause them to be State Record mistaken for black crappie.
    [Show full text]
  • Herring Diversity (Family Clupeidae and Dussumieriidae) in North Carolina
    Herring Diversity (Family Clupeidae and Dussumieriidae) in North Carolina North Carolina is home to 13 species of herrings, but most people only know of or heard of the more common ones such as American Shad, Hickory Shad, Alewife, Blueback Herring, Atlantic Menhaden, Gizzard Shad, and Threadfin Shad (Table 1; NCWRC undated – a). Except for perhaps some fishermen along the coast, few people have ever heard of or seen Round Herring, Yellowfin Menhaden, Atlantic Herring, Scaled Sardine, Atlantic Thread Herring, or Spanish Sardine. Table 1. Species of herrings found in or along the coast of North Carolina. Scientific Name/ Scientific Name/ American Fisheries Society Accepted Common Name American Fisheries Society Accepted Common Name Alosa aestivalis - Blueback Herring Dorosoma cepedianum - Gizzard Shad Alosa mediocris - Hickory Shad Dorosoma petenense - Threadfin Shad Alosa pseudoharengus - Alewife Etrumeus sadina - Round Herring1 Alosa sapidissima - American Shad Harengula jaguana - Scaled Sardine Brevoortia tyrannus - Atlantic Menhaden Opisthonema oglinum - Atlantic Thread Herring Brevoortia smithi - Yellowfin Menhaden Sardinella aurita - Spanish Sardine Clupea harengus - Atlantic Herring 1 Until recently, Round Herring, Etrumeus sadina (previously known as E. teres), was placed, along with all the other clupeids found in North Carolina, in the Family Clupeidae. Fish taxonomists now place this species in the Family Dussumieriidae. Alewife and Blueback Herring are often referred to as “River Herring”; other colorful names applied to this family of fishes include glut herring, bigeye herring, nanny shad, stink shad, or just plain “shad”. Each species has an American Fisheries Society-accepted common name (Page et al. 2013) and a scientific (Latin) name (Table 1; Appendix 1). Herring occur across the state in freshwater and saltwater environments, but especially in many of our reservoirs, coastal rivers, estuaries, and offshore (Tracy et al.
    [Show full text]