4.1 Article

Assessing Angler Effort, Catch, and Harvest on a Spatially Complex, Multi-Lake Fishery in Middle Georgia

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/nafm.10179

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Georgia's Institutional Review Board [2013-10485-0]
  2. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, University of Georgia
  3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  4. U.S. Geological Survey
  5. Wildlife Management Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Creel surveys are valuable tools in recreational fisheries management. However, multiple-impoundment fisheries of complex spatial structure can complicate survey designs and pose logistical challenges for management agencies. The Marben Public Fishing Area (PFA) in Mansfield, Georgia, is a multi-impoundment fishery with many access points, and these features prevent or complicate use of traditional on-site contact methods, such as standard roving or access-point designs, because many anglers may be missed during the survey process. Therefore, adaptation of a traditional survey method is often required for sampling this special case of multi-lake fisheries to develop an accurate fishery profile. Accordingly, a modified nonuniform probability roving creel survey was conducted at the Marben PFA during 2013 to estimate fishery characteristics relating to fishing effort, catch, and fish harvest. Monthly fishing effort averaged 7,523 angler-hours (SD=5,956) and ranged from 1,301 angler-hours (SD=562) in December to 21,856 angler-hours (SD=5,909) in May. A generalized linear mixed model was used to determine that angler catch and harvest rates were significantly higher in the spring and summer than in the other seasons but did not vary by fishing location. Our results demonstrate the utility of modifying existing creel methodology for monitoring small, spatially complex, intensely managed impoundments that support quality recreational fisheries; these results also provide a template for the assessment and management of similar regional fisheries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据