Bass Survey

62 Fisheries VOL 32 NO 2 FEBRUARY 2007 WWW.FISHERIES.ORG

FEATURE:FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Craig Paukert Michael McInerny

Randall SchultzPaukert is assistant leader-fisheries at the U.S. Geological Survey

Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Kansas StateUniversity, Manhattan. McInerny is a fisheries research biologist

at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Hutchinson,and he can be contacted at [email protected].

Randall Schultz is a fisheries research biologist at the IowaDepartment of Natural Resources, Chariton.

INTRODUCTION

Creel limits, length-based limits, andfishing season restrictions are the most com-mon regulations used to manage fisheries oflargemouth bass, (Micropterus salmoides),smallmouth bass (M. dolomeui), and spottedbass (M. punctulatus), the three most com-

mon species of black bass (Micropterus spp.)in the United States and Canada (Scott andCrossman 1973; Fuller et al. 1999).However, information on the history ofthese regulations is limited. Quinn (2002)provided information on the historical useof season closures and reported thatConnecticut and Massachusetts established

closed and open fishing seasons for blackbass as early as 1871. Further, some statesand provinces still had season restrictions forblack basses in 2000 (Quinn 2002).Rationales for many of these season closureswere unknown, but protection of spawnersfor many fish species, including black bass,was the rationale for closed fishing seasons

Historical Trends in Creel Limits, Length-based Limits, and Season Restrictions for Black Basses in

the United States and CanadaABSTRACT: We determined for largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (M. dolomeui), and spottedbass (M. punctulatus) historical trends in state- and province-wide creel limits, length limits, and season closures alongwith the rationale justifying these regulations. Based on data gathered via mail surveys and the Internet, 55 jurisdictionshad state- or province-wide creel limits, minimum length limits, or season closures, with each regulation type enacted asearly as pre-1900. Most early regulations were established to protect spawning bass, but providing equitable distributionof harvest and increasing the quality of bass catch or harvest were the most common rationales for current regulations.Spatial and temporal trends in regulations were similar among species, were affected by geographic location, were notaffected by angler preference except for season closures, and were frequently uninfluenced by advances in scientificknowledge of black bass biology.

Tendencias Histricas e Influencia de Regulaciones Basadas enLmites de Capturas, Tallas Mnimas y Vedas Estacionales en

Poblaciones de Lobinas Negras de los Estados Unidos y CanadRESUMEN: Las tendencias poblacionales histricas de la lobina de boca grande (Micropterus salmoides), la lobina de bocachica (M. dolomeui) y la lobina pinta (M. punctulatus) fueron examinadas , en diferentes Estados y Provincias de los EstadosUnidos y Canad para evaluar el efecto de regulaciones basadas en lmites de capturas, tallas mnimas y vedas estacionales.El estudio incluy el razonamiento utilizado para justificar este tipo de medidas regulatorias. La data fue colecionada pormedio de encuestas de Internet en 55 juridicciones de Estados o Provincias de los pases antes mencionados. Data colectadaincluy regulaciones de tallas minmas , capturas minmas y vedas estacionales y la fecha de implementacin de las reglas.Los datos se remontaron a fechas que preceden los 1900. La mayora de las regulaciones fueron implementadas para prote-ger las lobinas durante los perodos de desova. Las reglas establecan periodos equitativos de pesca del recurso y se enfocabanen la calidad de la pesca de estas especies. Los resultados de los anlisis temporales y espaciales de tendencias poblacionalesfueron similares para las diferentes especies de lobinas expuestas a estas regulaciones. Siembargo, debemos mencionar quelas tendencias poblacionales se mostraron afectadas por la localizacin geogrfica de las especies estudiadas. La reglas apli-cadas a esta pesquera no afectaron las preferencias de los pescadores con la excepcin de las vedas estacionales queconstantemente cambiaban influenciadas por nueva informacin cientfica en la biologa de las lobinas.

Fisheries VOL 32 NO 2 FEBRUARY 2007 WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 63

in Wisconsin during the 1880s (Quinn2002). Nielsen (1999) suggested that seasonclosures were generally used before creel andlength-based limits. However, we know ofno region-wide documentation of early usesof creel and length-based limits or the ratio-nale for using these two other types ofregulations in a broad geographical scale.

Many changes potentially affecting blackbass regulations in the United States andCanada have occurred since the 1870s.These include formation of new states andprovinces each with their own separatebureaucracies, formation of fisheries agen-cies, range expansion of black basses, andadvances in fishery science and manage-ment. Only 37 states comprised the UnitedStates and 6 provinces comprised theConfederation of Canada in the 1870s. By1871, fishery commissions, with minimalbudgets and only regulatory power, wereestablished in only 10 states (primarilynortheastern states and California), at leastone province (Quebec), as well as one at thefederal level in both countries (Thompson1970; McHugh 1970; Nielsen 1999). Thesewere essentially established because fisheriesin populated areas became depleted orextinct, and because the public began recog-nizing that fishery resources were finite.Now, all states and provinces have anagency that manages fisheries. Black basses,collectively, are native to 30 states and 3provinces, all east of the Rocky Mountains,but self-sustaining populations of at least 1species now occur in 49 states (all exceptAlaska) and 7 Canadian provinces (Scottand Crossman 1973; Fuller et al. 1999;Noble 2002). This range expansion began asearly as 1868 in the United States (Maine)and by 1894 in Canada (New Brunswick).This expansion was likely widespreadbecause commercial fish culture of nearly allfreshwater game fish species occurred in upto 19 states and 2 western territories duringthis period (Bowen 1970; Scott andCrossman 1973; Warner 2005). Lastly,improved understanding of populationdynamics and biology of black basses led tochanging management goals. Beginning inthe late 1800s fisheries management primar-ily involved replenishing depleted stocks viaartificial propagation, but by the 1920s and1930s management goals incorporated theconcept of maximum sustained yield(Redmond 1986; Nielsen 1999). By the1970s optimum sustained yield replacedmaximum sustained yield as the most widely

used management goal (Redmond 1986;Nielsen 1999).

In general, regulations restricting harvesthave evolved with changes in human popu-lation, numbers of fisheries regulatoryagencies, and advancement in scientificknowledge. Redmond (1986) provided thefollowing scenario describing historicaltrends in harvest regulations. To restoredepleted fisheries, and because managementphilosophies shifted towards maximum sus-tained yield fisheries, regulations before1940 changed from more liberal (non-exis-tent) to more restrictive. Harvest regulationsbetween 1940 and 1960 changed from beingrestrictive to more liberal because scientificstudies suggested fish populations wereunderexploited. Subsequent scientific stud-ies revealed that some species includingblack bass are extremely vulnerable to over-fishing, thus regulations after 1960 shiftedfrom liberal to more restrictive. Redmond(1986) supported his arguments with spe-cific studies on several fish species, includingblack bass but from only a few states.Historical trends in black bass regulationsacross the United States and Canada arelargely unknown.

The use of various types of regulationscould also be a function of geographybecause regulations in neighboring jurisdic-tions would likely be similar than thosebetween more distant jurisdictions. Forexample, Quinn (2002) showed that seasonclosures on black basses in 2000 were appliedmostly in the north and east United Statesand eastern Canada and not applied else-where in these two countries. However, toour knowledge, geographical information oncurrent creel and minimum length limits hasnot been compiled.

Changes or differences in the type andrationale of state- and province-wide regula-tions are still expected because of increasingangling pressure, different angler prefer-ences, and the amount of time black bassfisheries have existed. For example, Fox(1975), who summarized the bag limits,length limits, and season closures on blackbasses being used in the 48 contiguous statesduring 1974, and Noble and Jones (1999)hypothesized that agencies would replacestate- or province-wide regulations withthose designed for individual waters becauseof increasing angling pressure on limitedwaters. The Centrarchid TechnicalCommittee (CTC) of the North CentralDivision of the American Fisheries Societyrecognized that angler preferences (i.e., rank

of importance of black bass by anglers) forblack basses differed among their respectivejurisdictions. Thus, angler preferencesthroughout the United States and Canadaprobably differ, resulting in differing types ofregulations depending upon popularity ofblack bass. Temporal trends were alsoexpected to differ because black bass fish-eries were not established at the same timesacross the United States and Canada. Lastly,documentation of the history of regulationsis valuable to fisheries managers, providingtimelines on when regulations were firstimplemented, and helping rule out potentialregulations used in the past and deemedunsuccessful. The objectives of this studywere to compile the state- and province-wide creel and length limits on black bassand determine the geographical distributionof these two regulations currently in place asof 2002; to determine if angler preferencesaffected the current creel, length, and seasonregulations on black bass; to determine thedecade when the first regulation of each typebecame established and their rationale foreach black bass species; to documentchanges in regulations between the earliestand current regulation in each state andprovince; and to determine if historicaltrends in regulations exhibit a restrictive-to-liberal-to-restrictive trend similar to thatdescribed by Redmond (1986).

METHODS

We used the Internet, a mail survey, andQuinn (2002) to gather information on cur-rent and historical creel, length-based, andseason regulations and their rationale in allstates and provinces with fisheries of large-mouth bass, smallmouth bass, and spottedbass. We used the Internet to gather infor-mation on current (2002) creel andlength-based regulations for these threespecies by visiting the website of each stateor provincial agency that manages black bassfisheries. We gathered current season closuredata from Quinn (2002). We used a mail sur-vey to gather data on the rank of anglerpreference of black bass relative to othergame fishes (based on state or province-wideangler preference surveys); the year whenthe most recent angler preference survey wasdone; the year when current regulations foreach species were established; the ratio-nale(s) for current regulations; the decadewhen the first state- or province-wide creellimit, length limit (including type of lengthlimit), and fishing season restrictions wereimplemented; the rationale for each histori-


cal regulation; and the decade(s) when reg-ulations were changed including the type ofregulation and rationale. We also askedresponders to list special regulations differingfrom state- or province-wide regulations. Tofacilitate completion of the survey and sub-sequent data analysis, most questions wereclosed-ended, but space was provided foradditional open-ended responses. Before wedistributed the survey to each agency, anagency administrator and three biologistsreviewed the draft survey and provided com-ments. These comments were thenincorporated into the final survey instru-ment. The survey was sent to either agencybiologists known to be working with blackbass or administrative personnel (e.g., chiefof fisheries) in all states and provinces withknown black bass fisheries. Agencies thatdid not return surveys within 4 monthsreceived an e-mail reminder or another sur-vey.

Data Analyses

We visually identified geographicaltrends in current (2002) state- and province-wide creel and length limits by displayingthese data on maps of the United States and

Canada. We also compared if enactmentdates of the earliest regulations and currentregulations differed among regulation typefor each species, based on data obtainedfrom mail surveys. For these analyses, we firstconstructed frequency distributions bydecade for each type of regulation. We thenused for each species Chi-square homogene-ity tests to determine if frequencydistributions differed between regulationtypes. We used the same approach to testregulation type effects on enactment dates ofcurrent regulations. We qualitatively deter-mined if decade of initial enactment of eachtype of regulation for each species was also afunction of geographical location. We calcu-lated the mean decade of enactment foreach species and regulation type, grouped by5-degrees of latitude and 10-degrees of longi-tude on decade of initial enactment.

We defined from each mail survey tem-poral trends in regulation changes for eachspecies so that they could be compared withthe general trend described by Redmond(1986). Redmond (1986) reported that thetemporal trend in regulation change showeda period of more liberalized regulations(1940 to 1960) bounded by two periods

(before 1940 and after 1960) of more restric-tive regulations. A change was categorized asliberal to restrictive if a creel limit decreasedor was added if nonexistent before, if a min-imum length limit was added or increased, ifa maximum limit was added or decreased, orif a season closure was added or extended.The change was categorized as restrictive toliberal if the converse occurred.

We also determined the change in thenumber of states with statewide creel limits,length limits, and season closures between1974 and 2002, and the magnitude ofchange if changes occurred between thesetwo periods. Fox (1975) compiled the creellimit, length limit, and length of season clo-sure in each of the 48 contiguous statesduring 1974. From the Internet survey, wegathered data on statewide creel limits andlength limits for the same 48 states during2002. We used data in Fox (1974) andQuinn (2002) to determine changes in sea-son closures between 1974 and 2000. Todetermine if rationales changed over time,we compared rationales listed to justify thefirst regulation and the current regulation foreach species. We gathered these data via themail survey.

Figure 1. State or province-wide creel limits of black bass in the United States and Canada, based on an Internet survey in 2002.


RESULTS

We visited websites of 49 state and 8provincial agencies that potentially regu-late black bass fisheries. We also receiveda total of 47 mail surveys, an 82% returnrate, but several were not fully completed.We did not receive mail surveys fromHawaii, Montana, Rhode Island, Virginia,West Virginia, Wyoming, BritishColumbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, orQuebec. Alberta has never had restrictiveregulations on these species because allattempts to establish black bass fisheriesfailed.

Current Regulations

Based on our Internet search, 48 statesand 7 provinces had a state- or province-wide creel limit for black bass, and 9 statesand provinces had multiple creel limits(i.e., more than one creel limit for allblack basses; Figure 1). Because nearly all(88%) states and provinces did not sepa-rate state or province-wide regulations byspecies of black bass, we presented currentregulations for all black basses combined.This included those states and provinces

that were partitioned into regional man-agement units, but creel limits did notdiffer among units. Creel limits duringpart or all of the fishing season rangedfrom catch and release (New Brunswick,New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, andVermont) to 10 fish (Alabama, Georgia,Hawaii [not shown in Figure 1], Louisiana,Mississippi, and South Carolina). A totalof 27 states and provinces had state- orprovince-wide minimum length limits(including jurisdictions divided intoregional units), and 11 of these had multi-ple minimum length limits (Figure 2). Noother type of state- or province-widelength limit was found. Hawaii, not shownin Figure 2, had a minimum length limit of23 cm (9 in) in 2002. In general, morerestrictive length limits (mean = 35 cm[14 in]) were found in the midwesternUnited States and Great Plains states.Arkansas waters with black bass fisheriesare managed individually, so this state didnot have a statewide creel limit or mini-mum length limit.

Based on mail surveys, most of thesecurrent regulations for each species of blackbass became established after 1980 (Figure

3). However, some current creel limits haveexisted since the 1920s, one length limithas been in effect since 1883, and one sea-son restriction has remained in effect since1874. Frequency distributions of decade ofenactment of current regulations did notdiffer among types of regulations for large-mouth bass (2 = 22.37; df =18; P =0.2161), smallmouth bass (2 = 17.49; df =14; P = 0.2310), or spotted bass (2 =13.76; df = 14; P = 0.4678).

Angler preferences for black bass dif-fered among states and provinces. Anglersin 22 states and no provinces ranked blackbass as their most sought fish taxa, butblack bass ranked second in 9 and rankedthird in 7 other states and provinces(Figure 4). Among the 43 respondents,angler preference surveys were conductedbetween 1988 and 2002, half of those weredone after 1997. Angler preference sur-veys were not partitioned by species ofblack bass, but creel limits, minimumlength limits, and season closures werealso not separated by species when two ormore occurred within a jurisdiction.

Current creel and minimum lengthregulations were not affected by angler

Figure 2. State or province-wide minimum length limits (in inches) on black bass in the United States and Canada, based on an Internet survey in 2002.


preference, but season closures could be.Creel limits among states where black bassare most sought by anglers averaged 6.4(s.e. = 0.4) compared to 5.1 (s.e. = 0.4)among states and provinces where blackbass rank second or lower. Only 1 of 22states where anglers rank black bass astheir most sought fish has a closed fishingseason, whereas 8 of 21 states andprovinces where anglers rank black basssecond or lower have closed seasons.

Earliest Creel, Length, and SeasonRegulations

More season closures were used to man-age largemouth bass and smallmouth bassbefore 1900, but the 1930s was the peakdecade when creel limits and length limitsbecame established for these species (Figure3). The peak decade when most regulationsof all types became established for spottedbass was also the 1930s (Figure 3).

Frequency distributions of decades of firstenactment differed among regulation typesfor smallmouth bass (2 = 37.10; df = 22; P= 0.0231), but did not differ among regula-tion types for largemouth bass (2 = 22.60;df = 18; P = 0.2066) or spotted bass (2 =9.06; df = 12; P = 0.6978). A higher propor-tion of season closures for smallmouth basswere established before 1910 than creel orlength limits (Figure 3). Decades of enact-ment of the first state- and province-wide

Figure 3. Decade of enactment of the first and current state- or province-wide creel limit, length limit, and season closure for largemouth bass,smallmouth bass, and spotted bass, based on mail surveys completed in 2002.


creel, length, and season closure regulationsranged from before 1900 to after 2000.Median first creel limits for largemouth andsmallmouth bass were 15 (range = 5 to 50),but median creel limits for spotted bass were10 (range = 5 to 24). All except one (97%)of the initial length limits on largemouthand smallmouth bass were minimums, andall initial length limits on spotted bass wereminimums. Oregons first length limit was a

reduced bag for largemouth bass and small-mouth bass longer than a certain length.

The decade of enactment of the firstcreel and minimum length limits on large-mouth bass and spotted bass was a functionof geographic location, but this was not thecase for smallmouth bass (Table 1). The ear-liest season closures for largemouth bass andsmallmouth bass were not linked with geo-graphic location, but we could not

determine if geographic location affectedinitial season closures for spotted bassbecause of insufficient sample size. Decade ofenactment of creel limits of largemouth bassincreased with decreasing latitude, but didnot differ among longitude (Table 1).However, decade of initial enactment ofcreel limits for smallmouth bass and spottedbass did not differ geographically. Initialdates of minimum length limits for spotted

Table 1. Mean decade of the first state- or province-wide creel limit, minimum length limit, and season closure for largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and spottedbass as a function of latitude (5-degree increments) and longitude (10-degree increments) in the United States and Canada.

Creel limit Minimum length limit Season closureLargemouth Smallmouth Spotted Largemouth Smallmouth Spotted Largemouth Smallmouth Spotted bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass bass

Latitude (degrees)< 35 1940 1940 1950 1960 1950 1970 1940 1940 194035 to 39 1940 1940 1950 1940 1940 1940 1930 1920 193040 to 44 1920 1930 1930 1920 1920 1960 1900 1910 1930> 45 1910 1910 1920 1940 1940 1940Longitude (degrees)< 80 1920 1920 1900 1910 1900 191080 to 89 1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 1920 1910 194090 to 99 1930 1940 1940 1940 1940 1960 1930 1930 1940100 to 109 1940 1950 1980 1970 1970 1990 1940 1950> 110 1920 1920 1960 1950 1950 1930 1940 1940 1930

Figure 4. Rank of angler preference of black bass in the United States and Canada, based on mail surveys completed in 2002.


bass were not consistent among latitudes,but they did differ among longitude.Minimum lengths on largemouth bass wereestablished later in southern than northernlatitudes, and minimum length limits oflargemouth bass and spotted bass was earlierin eastern states and provinces (longitudes 500 hawere built between 1900 and 1970 providing up to 11,000,000 addi-tional acres of black bass habitat in the United States (Miranda1996), much of which occurred in the South (except Florida) andthe western interior where creel limits or length limits were enactedrelatively late. Angling pressure also increased during the sameperiod, and all 11 states where more than half the angling effort in1980 occurred on reservoirs were either in the south or western inte-rior (Fisher et al. 1986; Miranda 1996).

Spatial and temporal variation in regulations does not appearstrongly linked with the increased knowledge and improved under-standing of population dynamics of black bass; thus, social factorsrather than science probably affected regulation changes in manyjurisdictions. Black basses in northern latitudes grow slower andmature later in life than in southerly latitudes (Carlander 1977;McCauley and Kilgour 1990), yet current minimum length limits didnot differ among latitudes. Public reaction towards depletion offreshwater fish stocks during World War I, leading to the passage ofthe Black Bass Act of 1926 (Nielsen 1999), was probably reflected inthe observed peak in startup dates of the first creel and length limitsin the 1930s. Arguably, these initial regulations were not based onscience but perceptions. Today, most states and provinces still havejurisdiction-wide creel limits and about half have jurisdiction-wideminimum length limits, even though black bass population dynam-ics differ among water bodies within jurisdictions. Furthermore, poorsynchrony between temporal gains in the scientific understanding ofblack bass fisheries and temporal changes in regulations in more thanhalf of the jurisdictions also suggest factors other than biology influ-enced regulation change. Conversely, acceptance of new scientificknowledge by the angling public probably influenced the elimina-tion of statewide regulations in at least four jurisdictions and enabledmore special regulations to become established in many other states

!"#$%& !#

! !

" # $%

&''''' (#) #

# ! $% *+

, -( ./0 1*/1*0 , ,


Figure 5. Frequency of rationales used to justify the first and current creel, minimum length, or season closures on largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, andspotted bass in the United States and Canada, based on mail surveys completed in 2002.


and provinces. Processes required for regulation change no doubt dif-fer among jurisdictions and probably affected the spatial andtemporal trends in regulation changes and the ability of black bassmanagers to apply special regulations for individual waters.

State- and province-wide decreases in creel limits and removal oraddition of season restrictions probably had little affect on black basspopulations, but the increased use of state- and provincial-wide min-imum length limits probably have mixed effects. Except where moststrict, current creel limits have little effect on black bass populationsbecause few anglers harvest their limit (Fox 1975; Noble and Jones1999). Season closures designed to protect spawners are ineffectivebecause they include periods when angling vulnerability is low. Theclosed period oftentimes does not include the entire spawningperiod, displaced bass caught by anglers may not return to nests, andpopulation structures do not change after season closures areremoved (Fox 1975; Quinn 2002). Conversely, state- and provin-cial-wide minimum length limits should have effects ranging fromundesirable to acceptable. Evaluations of minimum-length limitsrevealed that some bass populations stockpile at lengths just belowthe minimum, population sizes vary depending on the length of min-imum length limit, and minimum length limits often do not improvesize structure of bass populations (Rasmussen and Michaelson 1974;Ager 1991; Wilde 1997).

CONCLUSIONS

Our survey results suggest that regulations on black basses havechanged over time, but changes oftentimes did not coincide withadvances in scientific knowledge of black bass biology. Creel limitsor minimum length limits are still used on a regionwide basis in mostjurisdictions, and these are more restrictive than earlier regulationsof the same type. The use of season closures has declined over time.Although a slow process, the practice of managing individual watersappears to be expanding. At least four jurisdictions now manageblack bass fisheries on an individual water body basis, and most juris-dictions now use special regulations on selected fisheries.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Centrarchid Technical Committee of the North CentralDivision initiated the idea for this survey. Luke Freeman gatheredmost of the information on current creel and length limits. JoeAddison, Charles Ayer, Walter Beer, Ed Braun, Tim Churchill,Marion Conover, Ed Enamait, Jim Estes, Patrick Festa, BennieFontenot, Gene Gilliland, Larry Goedde, Tim Goeman, ToddGrischke, Richard Hansen, Richard Hartley, Chris Horton, BubbaHubbard, Keith Hurley, Gary Isbell, Steve Jackson, Robert Jacobs,Rick Jordan, Steve Kerr, Robin Knox, Ken Kurzawski, ScottLamprecht, Jason LeBlanc, Robert Lorantas, Cathy Martin, DunconMcInnes, Tom Mosher, Gary Novinger, Russell Ober, RobertPapson, Fred Partridge, Cel Petro, Tom Pettengill, Greg Power, JeffRoss, Terry Shrader, Tim Simonson, Dan Stephenson, DennisUnkenholz, Scott Van Horn, Mark Warren, and Kirk Young com-pleted our mail survey. Dan Isermann, Bill McKibbin, DonGablehouse, Kevin Pope, and Dave Willis reviewed drafts of the sur-vey and participated in preliminary discussions, and Kevin Pope, JoeHennessy, and one anonymous reviewer provided constructive criti-cism on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

!"#$%& !#

!"#$%&""'()"*)%(+ ,-

)" "&. "

/" "&"

)" + ,.&01


REFERENCES

Ager, L. M. 1991. Effects of an increased sizelimit for largemouth bass in West PointReservoir. Proceedings of the 43rd AnnualConference Southeastern Association ofFish and Wildlife Agencies 43:172-181.

Bowen, J. T. 1970. A history of fish culture asrelated to the development of fisheryprograms. Pages 71-93 in N. G. Benson, ed.A century of fisheries in North America.American Fisheries Society SpecialPublication 7, Bethesda, Maryland.

Carlander, K. D. 1977. Handbook offreshwater fishery biology, volume 2. IowaState University Press, Ames.

Fisher, W. L., J. J. Charbonneau, and M. J.Hay. 1986. Economic characteristics ofreservoir fisheries. Pages 5-10 in G. E. Halland M. D. Van Den Avyle, eds. Reservoirfisheries management: strategies for the80s. Reservoir Committee, SouthernDivision American Fisheries Society,Bethesda, Maryland.

Fox, A. C. 1975. Effects of traditional harvestregulations on bass populations and fishing.Pages 392-398 in R.H. Stroud and H.Clepper, eds. Black bass biology andmanagement. Sport Fishing Institute,Washington, D.C.

Fuller, P. L., L. G. Nico, and J. D. Williams.1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced intoinland waters of the United States.American Fisheries Society, SpecialPublication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.

McCauley, R. W., and D. M. Kilgour. 1990.Effect of air temperature on growth of

largemouth bass in North America.Transactions of the American FisheriesSociety 119:276-281.

McHugh, J. L. 1970. Trends in fisheryresearch. Pages 25-56 in N. G. Benson, ed.A century of fisheries in North America.American Fisheries Society SpecialPublication 7, Bethesda, Maryland.

Miranda, L. E. 1996. Development of reservoirfisheries management paradigms in thetwentieth century. Pages 3-11 in L. E.Miranda and D. R. DeVries, eds.Multidimentional approaches to reservoirfisheries management. American FisheriesSociety Symposium 16, Bethesda,Maryland.

Nielsen, L. A. 1999. History of inland fisheriesmanagement in North America. Pages 3-30in C. C. Kohler and W. A. Hubert, eds.Inland fisheries management in NorthAmerica, second edition. AmericanFisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Noble, R. L. 2002. Reflections on 25 years ofprogress in black bass management. Pages419-432 in D. P. Philipp and M. S.Ridgeway, eds. Black bass: ecology,conservation, and management. AmericanFisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Noble, R. L., and T. W. Jones. 1999.Managing fisheries with regulations. Pages455-477 in C. C. Kohler and W. A. Hubert,eds. Inland fisheries management in NorthAmerican, second edition. AmericanFisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Quinn, S. P. 2002. Status of seasonalrestrictions on black bass fisheries inCanada and the United States. Pages 455-

465 in D. P. Philipp and M. S. Ridgeway,eds. Black bass: ecology, conservation, andmanagement. American Fisheries Society,Bethesda, Maryland.

Rasmussen, J. L., and S. M. Michaelson.1974. Attempts to prevent largemouth bassoverharvest in three northwest Missourilakes. Pages 69-83 in J. L. Fink, ed.Symposium on overharvest andmanagement of largemouth bass in smallimpoundments. Special Publication 3,North Central Division, AmericanFisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.

Redmond, L. C. 1986. The history anddevelopment of warmwater fish harvestregulations. Pages 186-195 in G. E. Hall andM. J. Van Den Avyle, eds. Reservoirfisheries management: strategies for the80s. Reservoir Committee, SouthernDivision, American Fisheries Society,Bethesda, Maryland.

Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973.Freshwater fishes of Canada. FisheriesResearch Board of Canada, Ottawa.

Thompson, P. E. 1970. The first fiftyyearsthe exciting ones. Pages 1-11 in N.G. Benson, ed. A century of fisheries inNorth America. American Fisheries SocietySpecial Publication 7, Bethesda, Maryland.

Warner, K. 2005. Smallmouth bassintroductions in Maine: history andmanagement implications. Fisheries30(11):20-26.

Wilde, G. R. 1997. Largemouth bass fisheryresponses to length limits. Fisheries 22(6):14-22.

Bass Survey

Documents

Transcript of Bass Survey