An Analysis of the Put-and-Take Trout Fishery at Toft Newton Reservoir

Abstract

The operation of a put‐and‐take trout fishery at Toft Newton reservoir is analysed from detailed studies of the 1978 and 1979 seasons. Toft Newton is only a small reservoir but the large number of anglers that utilize the fishery mean that the stocking rates per hectare of water have to be very high. As a result of these high densities and a short average residence time in the reservoir, rainbow trout which were the predominantly stocked species do not grow after release. Brown trout, however, which were stocked at lower densities do grow after release. The success rate of the 8–9% of anglers not returning their catch data was examined using a postal survey. Partial correlation analysis indicated that the numbers of fish in the reservoir, the number of anglers fishing and the number of hours of sunshine significantly affected the catch rate. A regression between catch rate and number of fish in the reservoir only explained 35% of the variability but the addition of the other two factors did not significantly improve the accuracy of the model. The market area of the fishery was studied from the register of anglers. Most anglers attending Toft Newton travel a considerable distance to the fishery, the peak number driving from 98–129 km (61–80 miles) round trip. The present and future management policy of the fishery is discussed in the light of this analysis and many of the recommendations may also apply to other small put‐and‐take trout fisheries.

The performance of a small catch-and-release fishery stocked with rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson, and thoughts on stocking densities

“…The correlation of CPUE with stock is uncertain being negative and not significant in 1985 and positive but significant in 1986. This is ai variance with the conclusions from studies at the larger waters with low stocking densities (Coles 1981) (Pawson 1986a).…”

“…Equation 2 Annual data At Toft Newton (Coles 1981) and Loompit {Pawson 1986a) Fisheries, with low level stocking, there is a strong correlation of daily catch rate with stock per unit area, probably over-riding the day-to-day and seasonal variations. At Hurleston Hall, and probably at Farmire.…”

“…Studies of the performance of put-and-take fisheries in the United Kingdom stocked predominantly with rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri Richardson, basing their assessments on catchability and catch per unit effort, have dealt with relatively large stillwaters stocked at low densities, e.g. North (1983) -Draycote 240 hectares (590 acres) and 15-50 fish per ha (6-20/acre); Coles (1981) -Toft Newton 16ha (40 acres) and 6{>-160/ha (25-65/acre); Pawson (1986a) -Loompit 12-5ha (30 acres) and 200-30/ha (8(>-12/acre). These waters were stocked at intervals of greater than 1 week.t…”

The interpretation of anglers’records (trout and sea trout, Salmo trutta L., and salmon, Salmo salar L.)

“…The results of several attempts to obtain more accurate data by means of direct surveys and postal reminders have been published or are available on request (Murphy 1954;Cane 1980;Coles 1981;Welsh Water Authority 1981;South-west Water Authority 1982). The purpose of this part of the paper is to collate the available records and show that the method of adjustment adopted by the Welsh Water Authority (W.W.A.)…”

Angling catch returns as indicators of the status of upland trout lakes

“…This is particularly true in lowland 'put-and-take' trout fisheries, where fish stocks are maintained by the introduction of hatchery-reared trout (O'Grady 1979). A number of studies have used catch-return information to examine the status of 'put-and-take' fisheries (Hunt & Jones 1972;Cane 1980;Coles 1981;Bryan 1982;Moore 1982;O'Grady 1983). However, few studies have been carried out in upland trout fisheries, where the existence of spawning and nursery streams often means that the population is wholly or partially maintained by natural recruitment.…”