Assessment of the Status of the Sport Fishery for Walleye at Pine Lake, 1999.
B. Patterson
Conducted as part of the Alberta Conservation Associations Sport Fisheries Monitoring Program, NE Region
April, 2000
ABSTRACT
To recover or maintain Alberta's walleye fisheries, a new walleye management strategy was implemented in 1996. In 1996, the walleye fishery at Pine Lake was classified as a stocked walleye fishery and a zero (0) daily bag limit was implemented. In order to assess the status of the walleye fishery at Pine Lake, a creel survey was conducted during May to August 1999. The estimated number of anglers was 6,669 anglers. Angler effort was 43.4 angler-hours / ha. Four walleye were reported released in 1,038 hours of angling (0.004 walleye reported released / hour). The test fishery, in 284.5 hours of angling, caught 4 walleye, 149 pike and 1,459 perch. There is no commercial fishery on Pine Lake. Historically, Pine Lake did not support a native walleye fishery. The walleye in Pine Lake were probably established through stocking efforts. Over 4.6 million walleye eggs were stocked into Pine Lake between 1960 and 1974. 115,000 walleye fingerlings were stocked in 1988. Based on the historical information, the stocking records and the criteria used classify walleye stocks in Alberta, the walleye fishery at Pine Lake is stocked/collapsed.
i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The creel survey attendants at Pine Lake, Mark Feldberg, Les Harris, Layla Neufeld and John Tchir deserve full credit for the success of this study. Their dedication to the collection of creel and test fishery data is commendable. Doreen and Earl Jorgensen’s (proprietors of Scotty’s Family Fishing Resort, Pine Lake) hospitality and the contribution of mooring fees to the Sport Fisheries Monitoring Program are greatly appreciated. Volunteer anglers from the Western Walleye Council are recognized for their contribution to the collection of test fishery samples from Pine Lake. Their time and expense are appreciated. The Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) would like to acknowledge the co-operation from Alberta Environment, Natural Resources Service (NRS), Northeast Boreal Region, Fisheries Management Section staff that was received throughout the course of the program. The assistance from NRS staff and the use of NRS equipment is certainly valued.
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ABSTRACT i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES iv LIST OF APPENDICES iv INTRODUCTION 1 METHODS 1 1.1. Study Site Description 1 1.2. Methods of Study 1 RESULTS 4 Angler Survey 4 Test Angling 4 Status of the Walleye Fishery 7 DISCUSSION 8 LITERATURE CITED 9 APPENDICES 10
iii LIST OF TABLES
Table Page 1. Observed catch rates of anglers; Pine Lake, 1999. 5 2. Angler survey summary; Pine Lake, 1999. 5 3. Biological data from test-caught walleye; Pine Lake, 1999. 7 4. Walleye stocking history; Pine Lake, 1999. 7
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page 1. Angling pressure (summer only) at Alberta lakes; Pine Lake, 1999. 6
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page 1. Angler survey data; Pine Lake, 1999. 1.1. Daily summary of angler survey data. 10 1.2. Methods of angling and catch statistics for walleye. 11 1.3. Skill levels of anglers and catch statistics for walleye. 11 1.4. Target species of anglers and catch statistics for walleye. 11 1.5. Angler’s use of electronic gear and catch statistics for walleye. 11 1.6 Residence of anglers and catch statistics for walleye. 12 1.7. Summary of entire lake surveys. 12
2. Biological data from pike; Pine Lake, 1999. 2.1. Biological data from sport-caught pike 13 2.2 Biological data from test-caught pike 14
3. Biological data from sport-caught perch; Pine Lake, 1999. 17
4. Creel survey form; Pine Lake, 1999. 18
iv INTRODUCTION
Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) populations in Alberta have been subjected to heavy fishing pressure for many years. Most populations show signs of over-harvest, with some experiencing significant declines. Previous management strategies have focused on province-wide regulations designed to manage the walleye harvest at an average fishery. Fisheries receiving heavier than average exploitation have not been adequately protected with these regulations and consequently many have declined or collapsed. To recover these fisheries and to maintain the stable fisheries, a new walleye management strategy was implemented in 1996 (Berry 1995). This strategy requires that each walleye population is evaluated as to its degree of exploitation and is then placed in one of these categories: collapsed (or stocked), vulnerable, or stable. The fishery is assigned a standard sport fishing regulation based on this status (Sullivan 1994). In early 1996, the walleye fishery at Pine Lake was assigned a stocked/collapsed status. A zero (0) daily bag limit on walleye was therefore implemented at the fishery. This report describes the creel survey conducted at Pine Lake during the summer of 1999. The purpose of the survey was to assess the status of the walleye population and fishery.
METHODS
Study Site Description Pine Lake (TWP 36 RNG 24, 25 W4M) is approximately 35 km southeast of the City of Red Deer. Pine Lake has a surface area of 389 hectares and a maximum depth of 12 metres. The shoreline is heavily developed with commercially operated campgrounds, seasonal cottages and year around residences. The County of Red Deer maintains the only public day-use and boat launch area located at the north end of Pine Lake. The trophic status of Pine Lake is hypereutrophic. Pine Lake is in the Red Deer River Basin. Ghostpine Creek flows out of the south end of Pine Lake. Several intermittent streams enter the north end of Pine Lake. A more complete description of the physical, chemical and biological characteristics may be found in Mitchell and Prepas (1990).
Methods of Study One creel survey crew (two technicians) collected information from both Pine and Pigeon Lakes between 22 May - 22 August 1999. At Pine Lake, the crew was stationed at Scotty’s Family Fishing Resort. A schedule of 5 survey days at Pine Lake (Fridays through Tuesdays) was followed
1 by 5 survey days (Wednesdays through Sundays) at the alternate site (Pigeon Lake). Four days of rest followed each 10 day shift. This cycle was repeated 7 times during the study. The survey technicians interviewed each angler returning to the survey site during all survey days (24 h survey). Anglers were approached and asked a series of questions concerning their time spent angling, the numbers of each species caught or released, species sought, their gear types, residence, and their use of electronic equipment. A subjective evaluation of their skill level was also made. Children and anglers with little equipment, knowledge or seriousness were considered to be novice anglers. Professional anglers demonstrated clear superiority in equipment and knowledge (and usually had their sponsors emblazoned on their hats, coats and boats). All other anglers were classified as having a moderate skill. As time permitted during the survey period, sport fish retained by anglers were sampled for biological information. The fork length of each fish was recorded to the nearest millimetre; the weight was recorded to the nearest ten grams; and one or more skeletal structures were removed to determine the age of the fish. For this purpose, the left pelvic fin and operculum of walleye, the left cleithrum of northern pike (Esox lucius), and the operculum and or anal fin of yellow perch (Perca flavescens) were collected. Ages were determined following Mackay et al. (1990). Sex and state of maturity of each fish was determined following Olynyk (1980). Stomach contents were removed and classified as to number and species of vertebrates, and approximate number and order of invertebrates. Biological data for pike and perch are partially reported in the Appendices, with the full data set stored in the Alberta Conservation Association (ACA) Fisheries Section and the Alberta Natural Resources Service (NRS), Fisheries Management Branch files, Edmonton Metropolitan office and in Ryerson (2000). An angling test-fishery was used to collect additional information regarding the size frequency distribution of walleye in the population. There was no sport-harvest of walleye, due to the zero (0) daily bag-limit for walleye at this lake. Creel survey technicians, volunteer anglers, and fisheries staff participated in the collection of this data. Test fisheries occurred during creel survey days from 16 May to 16 August 1999. The test fishery catch rate (CUE) was not used in the calculation of angler effort. The CUEs for the sport and test fisheries are in no way associated. All field data were recorded in pencil on field data forms (Appendix 4). These data were transcribed into computer files (Microsoft Excel format) by a commercial keypunch service using double entry verification. Prior to analysis, all data were again subjected to verification procedures. These involved calculating frequency distributions of all creel survey parameters and using field diaries and notes to verify outlying values. Biological samples were verified by plotting weight measurements against the dependent variable of length, and length measurements against the dependent variable of age. Outlying values were investigated and eliminated if measurement error was suspected.
2 To determine sport fishery parameters specific to the creel survey site, the following equations were modified from Sullivan, 1984:
Equation (1) Hp = (Hwe) + (Hwd) + (#weekend days missed (mean Hwe)) + (#weekdays missed (mean Hwd)) Hp (se) = SQRT (((Hwe, se^2) x (#weekend days missed^2)) + ((Hwd, se^2) x (#weekday missed^2))) Hp = estimated primary site harvest Hp (se) = standard error of estimated harvest Hwe = observed weekend day harvest Hwd = observed weekday harvest (Hwe, se) = standard error of mean daily harvest on weekends (Hwd, se) = standard error of mean daily harvest on weekdays
At many surveyed lakes, anglers could access the lake from sites other than the creel survey site. In these instances, an estimate of the total use of the fishery was extrapolated from the proportion of angler numbers using the creel survey site compared to those observed during entire-lake surveys. These entire-lake surveys were conducted over several time periods and consisted of driving a boat over the entire lake and interviewing all anglers encountered. Total use estimators of the fishery were then calculated by simple extrapolation. Variances of these combined estimates were calculated following Pollock et al. (1994). The total harvest was estimated using:
Equation (2) He = Hp x R (He, se) = SQRT (((Hp^2) x (R, se^2)) + ((Hp, se^2) x (R^2))) He = estimated total harvest R = mean ratio of use R, se = standard error of mean ratio of use
The 95% confidence intervals for the total harvest were calculated as follows: He +95% CI = He +-T 0.05 (df) x (He, se) df = (n – 1) n = number of days surveyed
3 All statistical analyses and graphics were done on an IBM - type personal computer (Intel Pentium-II, 300 MHz) using Microsoft Office Professional. All data and analyses are stored in spreadsheet format on the ACA and NRS Edmonton Metropolitan office, Fisheries computers, on recordable compact discs (650 MB), and in Ryerson (2000).
RESULTS
Angler Survey During 22 May - 22 August 1999, 413 anglers were interviewed (Table 1 and Appendix 1). Based on the entire-lake surveys (Appendix 1.7), the creel survey site received 13% of the total angler effort. The total number of anglers was estimated at 6,669, with an estimated effort of 43.4 angler-hours / ha (Table 2). This angling pressure is very high (Figure 1). Only 4 walleye were reported released in 1,038 hours of angling (0.004 walleye released / h). Biological samples were collected from 5 walleye (test fishery sample)(Table 3), 170 pike (23 sport harvest, 147 test fishery sample)(Appendix 2), and 16 perch (sport harvest) (Appendix 3).
Test Angling Test fisheries were conducted on 31 days, from 22 May to 22 August. A total of 284.5 hours were spent test angling. A total of 5 walleye, 147 pike and 142 perch were caught and measured.
4 Table 1. Observed catch rates of anglers; Pine Lake, 1999.
CREEL DATA 1999
# days surveyed 32
# anglers interviewed 413
# angling hours reported 1,038
WALLEYE DATA
Walleye released / angler-hour 0.004
NORTHERN PIKE DATA
Pike kept / angler-hour 0.026
Pike rel. legal-sized / angler-hour 0.016
Pike rel. sublegal / angler-hour 0.19
Total pike released / angler-hour 0.21
YELLOW PERCH DATA
Perch kept / angler-hour 0.15
Perch released / angler-hour 3.7
Table 2. Angler survey summary; Pine Lake, 1999.
PARAMETER REPORTED ESTIMATED (1999) (1999) (95% CI) # Anglers 413 6,669 (+-33.2%)
# Hours 1,038 16,868 (+-33.6%)
Effort 2.7 43.4 (+-33.6%)
# walleye harvested N/A N/A
5 Fig 1. Effort graph
6 Table 3. Biological data from test-caught walleye; Pine Lake, 1999.
Sample # Fork Age Year- Month Date Length (g) (yrs) class mean = 513.8 8.0 n = 5 5 1 476 6 1993 6 8 2 559 12 1987 6 19 3 519 8 1991 6 19 4 510 6 1993 6 19 5 505 8 1991 6 19
Status of the Walleye Fishery Only four walleye were reported released by the sport-fishery in 1,038 hours of angling (0.004 walleye released / hr). Historically, Pine Lake never supported a native walleye fishery even though it is connected to the Red Deer River (pers. comm. Vance Buchwald, NRS Fisheries Biologist). Efforts to establish a walleye fishery were made in the 1960’s, 1970’s and in 1988 (Table 4). Some of the walleye fingerlings stocked into Pine Lake in 1988 appear to have survived (Thomas et. al. 1999). A age- class distribution from a Walleye Spawning Evaluation, Pine Lake, 1994 (Buchwald 1999) also shows walleye older than age 6. This suggests that stockings previous to the 1988 stocking may have established a small population. If the 1988 stocking survived and produced the 1993 and 1991 year-classes, walleye are reaching maturity at age 3.
Table 4. Walleye stocking history; Pine Lake, 1999.
Year of Number of Size of stock stocking stock 1960 840,000 eyed eggs
1961 500,000 green eggs
1962 140,000 eyed eggs
1963 420,000 eyed eggs
1971 1,110,000 eyed eggs
1972 700,000 eyed eggs
1973 900,000 eyed eggs
1974 562,500 eyed eggs
1988 115,000 fingerlings
7 DISCUSSION
Based on the criteria used to classify walleye stocks in Alberta, the status of walleye in Pine Lake is stocked/collapsed. The reported release rates for walleye are extremely low and indicative of a collapsed walleye population. The angling effort was the highest observed since the 1985 survey of Floatingstone Lake. Historical information suggests Pine Lake never supported a native population of walleye. Stockings including the 1988 stocking of fingerlings may have established a trace population of walleye. Age-at-maturity is possibly very young. Based on the historical information, the stocking records and the criteria used classify walleye stocks in Alberta, the status of the walleye fishery at Pine Lake is stocked/collapsed.
8 LITERATURE CITED
Berry, D.K. 1995. Alberta’s walleye management and recovery plan. Alta. Environ. Prot., Nat. Res. Ser. No. T/310. 32 p. Buchwald, V.G. 1999 draft. Walleye spawning evaluation, Pine Lake, 1994. Alta. Environ., Nat. Res. Ser. 43 p. Mackay, W.C., G.R. Ash, and H.J. Norris (eds.).1990. Fish Ageing Methods for Alberta. R.L.&L. Environmental Services Ltd. in assoc. with Alberta Fish and Wildl. Div. and Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton. 113 p. Mitchell, P. and E. Prepas. 1990. Atlas of Alberta Lakes. University of Alberta Press, Edmonton. 675 p. Olynyk, J.P.R. 1980. An analysis of sauger maturity regimes in southern Lake Winnipeg. Manitoba D.N.R. Report No. 80-36. 52 p. Overton, W.S. 1971. Estimating the numbers of animals in wildlife populations. pp 403 – 55. In R.H. Giles (ed.) Wildlife Management Techniques, The Wildlife Society, Wash., D.C. Pollock, K.H. and C.M. Jones, and T.L. Brown. 1994. Angler survey methods and their applications in fisheries management. Am. Fish. Soc. Spec. Pub. 25. 371 p. Ryerson, D. 2000. A comparative summary of the walleye, pike, and perch sport fisheries of northeastern and central Alberta; 1980s and 1990s. Alta. Environ. Prot., Nat. Res. Ser. CD. Sullivan, M.G. 1994. A classification system for walleye fisheries based on a stock-recruitment curve. Alta. Fish & Wildl. Div. unpubl. MS. 11 p. Sullivan, M.G. 1996. Test angling fisheries and reporting bias in creel surveys. Alberta Fisheries Workshop, 24 Oct. 1996. Edmonton, AB. Thomas, J.E. and 5 co-authors. Genetic variation in populations of walleye (Stizostedion vitreum) from central Alberta. Alta. Environ., Fish. And Wild. Manag. Div.
9 APPENDICES
Appendix 1.1. Daily summary of angler survey data. [Pine Lake, 1999]
Month Date # Anglers # Hours # Wall # Wall # Pike # Pike # Pike # Perch # Perch Kept Released Kept > 63 cm TL < 63 cm TL Kept Released Released Released
Totals 32 days 413 1038.0 0 4 27 201 17 158 3844
6 7 6 13.75 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 21 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 4 5.5 0 0 0 11 0 0 4 8 16 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 6 8 3 11 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 6 22 4 16 0 0 0 20 0 5 33 7 6 2 3.5 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 8 3 7 20.5 0 0 0 0 0 1 50 8 17 2 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 67 7 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 22 10 27.5 0 0 0 1 0 0 46 6 18 4 13.5 0 0 0 6 0 0 2 7 2 16 25.5 0 0 0 7 0 19 333 7 23 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 32 8 13 11 31.5 0 0 0 2 0 13 228 5 22 59 152 0 0 4 19 6 0 0 6 5 9 23 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 19 16 38.5 0 0 0 16 2 14 347 7 3 14 56.75 0 0 0 10 0 8 39 7 24 20 38 0 2 0 7 0 14 134 7 31 26 64.5 0 0 0 21 1 17 450 8 14 25 63.5 0 0 13 28 1 4 101 5 23 36 77 0 0 1 9 6 0 0 6 6 4 18.5 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 6 20 20 77 0 0 3 3 0 12 341 7 4 5 7 0 0 0 2 0 5 6 7 25 12 11 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 8 1 36 87.5 0 2 2 7 0 14 824 8 15 5 19.5 0 0 0 0 0 8 150 5 24 13 25.5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 7 1 21 46.5 0 0 4 5 0 0 83 8 2 18 47 0 0 0 5 0 19 503
10
Appendix 1.2. Methods of angling and catch statistics for walleye. [Pine Lake, 1999]
METHOD # Anglers % Anglers # Hours WALL Rel. Rel. CUE
Artificial 226 55.4 516.75 0 Commercial Baitfish 7 1.7 24.50 0 Seined Baitfish 0 0.0 0.00 0 Leeches 52 12.8 140.50 0 Dewworms 77 18.9 222.25 2 0.009 Scent baits 0 0.00 0.00 0 Miscellaneous 46 11.3 118.00 2 0.017
Totals 408 100 1022.00 4
Appendix 1.3. Skill levels of anglers and catch statistics for walleye. [Pine Lake, 1999]
SKILL # Anglers % Anglers # Hours WALL Rel. Rel. CUE
Novice 53 12.9 138.50 0 Average 358 87.1 894.25 4 0.004 Professional 0 0.0 0.00 0
Totals 411 100 1032.75 4
Appendix 1.4. Target species of anglers and catch statistics for walleye. [Pine Lake, 1999]
TARGET # Anglers % Anglers # Hours WALL Rel. Rel. CUE
Walleye 10 2.4 11.00 0 Northern Pike 170 41.6 470.25 0 Yellow Perch 159 38.9 393.75 2 0.005 Any species 70 17.1 150.00 2 0.013
Totals 409 100 1025.00 4
Appendix 1.5. Angler’s use of electronic gear and catch statistics for walleye. [Pine Lake, 1999]
ELECTRONICS # Anglers % Anglers # Hours WALL Rel. Rel. CUE
None 361 87.8 888.50 2 0.002 Depth Sounder 50 12.2 142.75 2 0.014 G.P.S. 0 0.0 0.00 0 Depth Sounder + G.P.S. 0 0.0 0.00 0 Other 0 0.0 0.00 0
Totals 411 100 1031.25 4
11 Appendix 1.6. Residence of anglers and catch statistics for walleye. [Pine Lake, 1999]
RESIDENCE # Anglers % Anglers # Hours WALL Rel. Rel. CUE
Local (50 km radius) 90 22.3 270.00 0 Edmonton 41 10.1 80.50 0 Ft. McMurray 0 0.0 0.00 0 Lac La Biche 0 0.0 0.00 0 Peace River 11 2.7 23.00 0 St. Paul / Bonnyville 0 0.0 0.00 0 Edson / Hinton 0 0.0 0.00 0 Vegreville / Lloydminster 8 2.0 19.00 0 Red Deer and west 21 5.2 60.00 2 0.033 Rocky Mtn. House / Nordegg 0 0.0 0.00 0 South east slopes 0 0.0 0.00 0 Calgary and west 224 55.4 531.75 0 Southern Alberta 9 2.2 29.50 2 0.068 Out of province 0 0.0 0.00 0
Totals 404 100 1013.75 4
Appendix 1.7. Summary of entire lake surveys; Pine Lake, 1999.
Date # Anglers Surveyed # Anglers Surveyed Using Ratio of use on Lake Primary Site May 23 71 10 7.1 May 23 50 3 16.7 May 23 64 4 16.00 June 5 29 8 3.63 June 5 21 3 7.00 June 6 25 3 8.00 June 8 4 2 2.00 June 19 20 4 5.00 June 20 29 8 3.63 July 3 17 3 5.67 July 6 19 2 9.5 July 24 35 6 5.83 July 24 30 5 6.00 Aug 2 46 3 15.33 Aug 2 45 13 3.46 Aug 15 20 4 5.00
mean ratio = 7.5 n = 16 se = 1.15 hi and low value removed
12 Appendix 2.1. Biological data from sport-caught pike. [Pine Lake, 1999]
Sample # Weight Fork Age Sex Month Date (g) Length (g) (yrs) 1 = immature 5 = mature female mean = 1408.91 592.52 5.30 10 = mature male n = 23 23 23 1 1950 651 7 10 5 22 2 1480 660 7 5 5 22 3 2150 685 7 5 5 22 4 1800 642 7 5 5 22 5 2000 655 6 5 5 23 6 1500 597 6 10 6 20 7 1100 555 6 6 20 8 1450 614 6 6 20 9 1100 560 4 7 1 10 900 535 4 7 1 11 950 578 6 5 8 1 12 1300 720 7 5 8 1 13 2000 650 6 5 8 14 14 950 535 4 5 8 14 15 1300 582 4 5 8 14 16 1600 585 4 5 8 14 17 1250 518 3 10 8 14 18 1200 545 4 1 8 14 19 1200 545 4 1 8 14 20 1200 541 4 5 8 14 21 1350 575 6 5 8 14 22 1275 550 5 10 8 14 23 1400 550 5 10 8 14
13 Appendix 2.2. Biological data from test-caught pike. [Pine lake, 1999]
Sample # Fork Age Month Date Length (g) (yrs)
mean = 504.22 3.80 n = 147 147 1 495 3 5 21 2 619 4 5 21 3 667 6 5 21 4 443 3 5 25 5 536 3 5 25 6 568 6 5 25 7 524 3 5 25 8 513 4 6 5 9 665 6 6 5 10 388 3 6 6 11 549 3 6 6 12 501 3 6 6 13 450 3 6 6 14 417 3 6 6 15 462 3 6 6 16 505 3 6 7 17 494 3 6 7 18 458 3 6 8 19 525 3 6 18 20 592 6 6 18 21 592 3 6 18 22 466 3 6 18 23 465 3 6 18 24 450 2 6 18 25 458 3 6 18 26 644 6 6 19 27 415 2 6 19 28 585 5 6 19 29 453 3 6 19 30 450 3 6 19 31 505 3 6 19 32 702 6 6 19 33 543 5 6 19 34 440 3 6 19 35 515 3 6 19 36 635 6 6 19 37 455 3 6 19 38 705 6 6 19 39 585 4 6 19 40 500 3 6 19 41 582 5 6 19 42 489 3 6 19 43 591 6 6 19
14 Appendix 2.2. Biological data from test-caught pike, con’t. [Pine lake, 1999]
Sample # Fork Age Month Date Length (g) (yrs) 44 825 6 6 19 45 465 2 6 19 46 440 3 6 19 47 585 4 6 19 48 544 6 6 19 49 625 6 6 19 50 515 3 6 19 51 577 5 6 19 52 680 6 6 19 53 496 3 6 19 54 465 3 6 19 55 540 5 6 19 56 493 3 6 19 57 575 5 6 19 58 428 2 6 19 59 530 3 6 19 60 480 3 6 19 61 450 3 6 19 62 593 5 6 19 63 500 3 6 20 64 606 6 6 20 65 410 2 6 20 66 480 3 6 20 67 406 2 6 20 68 495 3 6 20 69 561 5 6 20 70 415 2 6 20 71 825 7 6 20 72 585 5 6 20 73 545 4 6 20 74 469 3 6 20 75 459 3 6 20 76 513 4 6 20 77 389 2 6 20 78 519 3 6 20 79 425 2 6 20 80 660 7 6 20 81 559 5 6 20 82 412 2 6 21 83 385 2 6 21 84 466 2 6 21 85 352 2 6 21 86 451 3 6 21 87 425 2 6 21 88 723 6 6 21 89 476 2 6 21
15 Appendix 2.2. Biological data from test-caught pike, con’t. [Pine lake, 1999]
Sample # Fork Age Month Date Length (g) (yrs) 90 436 3 6 22 91 372 2 6 22 92 600 3 6 22 93 451 3 6 22 94 540 3 6 22 95 480 3 6 22 96 620 6 6 22 97 429 3 6 22 98 395 3 6 22 99 518 2 6 22 100 449 2 7 1 101 490 3 7 1 102 556 5 7 1 103 481 3 7 1 104 379 2 7 1 105 384 2 7 1 106 423 3 7 1 107 464 3 7 1 108 595 5 7 1 109 440 3 7 1 110 685 7 7 1 111 541 4 7 1 112 452 3 7 2 113 515 3 7 2 114 456 3 7 2 115 410 2 7 2 116 459 3 7 3 117 448 3 7 3 118 400 3 7 3 119 500 3 7 3 120 490 3 7 4 121 407 2 7 4 122 449 3 7 4 123 384 2 7 4 124 450 3 7 4 125 468 3 7 4 126 495 3 7 4 127 375 2 7 4 128 507 3 7 4 129 478 3 7 4 130 544 3 7 6 131 299 2 7 7 132 252 2 7 22 133 481 3 7 23 134 368 2 7 31 135 519 4 8 1
16 Appendix 2.2. Biological data from test-caught pike, con’t. [Pine lake, 1999]
Sample # Fork Age Month Date Length (g) (yrs) 136 545 2 8 1 137 513 3 8 2 138 405 3 8 3 139 739 6 8 3 140 514 3 8 3 141 509 3 8 3 142 446 2 8 3 143 613 3 8 14 144 455 3 8 14 145 585 3 8 16 146 598 3 8 16 147 451 3 8 17
Appendix 3. Biological data from sport-caught perch. [Pine Lake, 1999]
Sample # Weight Fork Age Sex Month Day (g) Length (mm) (yrs) 1 = immature 5 = mature female mean = 282.50 238.06 5.73 10 = mature male n = 6 16 15 1 300 247 6 19 2 350 229 6 6 19 3 213 5 7 2 4 251 6 10 7 2 5 218 4 5 7 2 6 300 250 6 7 2 7 260 8 7 2 8 237 6 7 2 9 200 5 7 2 10 200 247 6 5 7 2 11 225 5 5 7 2 12 229 5 5 7 2 13 212 5 5 7 2 14 270 251 6 5 7 2 15 275 283 7 5 7 2 16 257 6 5 7 2
17 Appendix 4. Creel survey form. [Pine Lake, 1999]
18