Springtime Exploitation of Brook Trout by Anglers in Remote Headwater Streams of Central Appalachia

Abstract

In the central Appalachian Mountains, Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis are a popular target of anglers, but given the remoteness of many of these systems traditional creel methods of evaluating angling effects are impractical. We used a combination of angler and fish survey sampling methods to determine the sizes and numbers of fish harvested. Fish harvest information was reported by anglers, trout size structures were determined by electrofishing, and angler effort was identified via surveys and remote camera sampling in six streams in West Virginia. On average, anglers retained 3.7 AE 0.2 fish (mean AE SE) ≥ 170 mm TL per trip. Between March 13 and May 29, we estimated that anglers harvested from 0.1 to 2.3 AE 0.3 fish per 100 m in the six streams. Applying these harvest rate estimates to Brook Trout > 170 mm TL, densities in 25 headwater streams in West Virginia yielded a mean of 14.5 angler-days to deplete harvestable-sized fish in these streams. Anglers appeared knowledgeable of local fish populations and focused greater effort on streams with larger populations of harvestable-sized fish. While Brook Trout populations in low-productivity streams may be particularly sensitive to harvest, anglers appear to use them less often. However, in low-productivity streams where fewer harvestable-size fish occur, anglers may still have noticeable effects on mortality through postrelease stress on abundant smaller-sized fish. This study identifies the localized effects that a small subsection of anglers may have on remote populations of sensitive fish and should be carefully considered as a way to understand more widespread effects on popular sport fishes that exist in remote areas.

Blue Water Visitor Monitoring Potential: A Literature Review and Alternative Proposal

“…Camera data can be used alone or combined with additional data to produce a more accurate view of the angling effort over time. In remote areas where traditional creel surveys are difficult to carry out, camera surveys capture angler densities and allow harvest estimates when combined with brief interviews [53]. These applications hold promise for marine sanctuaries and other large areas, but must carefully consider long range distance and time capabilities in order to adequately capture visitors across the full extent of the study/use area.…”