YOU TALK ABOUT PRESSURE ON A LAKE!

[rps]

12 minutes ago, Notropis said:

You guys are asking a lot of good questions some of which I can't answer since I haven't studied Table Rock or done much population sampling on it. 

I think I can help with understanding how electrofishing samples are conducted to estimate total fish populations as accurately as possible.  In Arkansas, we went through an extensive evolution in our electrofishing (EF) techniques.  When the first EF samples were conducted in the late 80's we relied on capturing a set number of bass to estimate the population . On lakes the size of Beaver, we were required to capture 250 for each species of bass, weigh and measure each one,  then release them.  We used the catch rates (number of fish caught per hour) to estimate abundance and the lengths and weights to determine population structure (percentage of different sized fish).  As we progressed with our methods and began to apply statistical analysis to our numbers, it became apparent that this method was inadequate for several reasons.  Many biologists were picking out the best areas and habitat to sample to capture the minimal number of fish required in the shortest time since many of them had large numbers of lakes to sample each Spring during a set water temperature window.  This "selective area" sampling was biased in that it would paint too rosy of a picture in catch rates and to a lesser extent population structure.  Realizing this we looked at what other states were doing and utilized techniques of statistical analysis to adapt our EF techniques to better reflect and estimate total fish populations.  We did this by dividing the large lakes into different zones and used multiple randomly generated sample sites in each zone utilizing GPS and computers to randomly select sample sites.  We also increased the number of total sample sites dramatically from 6-10 per lake, to 40-50 per lake.  Since the sites were randomly chosen, they were a more accurate representation of all types of habitat (the good and the bad).  We put in a lot of long nights accomplishing this but it was worth it to have information that was far more accurate and more valid statistically.   Our catch rates went down since we were no longer going to the best areas *honey holes" but they were a lot closer to the reality of what the population was.

It's a complicated process and certainly not perfect but I believe, a lot more accurate than the other methods we were using.  I'm not sure what the protocol for EF samples are in Missouri and you would need to check with them to find out.

Hope this was helpful!   

As helpful as I wish all posts were.

 

[merc1997 Bo]

17 minutes ago, Notropis said:

You guys are asking a lot of good questions some of which I can't answer since I haven't studied Table Rock or done much population sampling on it. 

I think I can help with understanding how electrofishing samples are conducted to estimate total fish populations as accurately as possible.  In Arkansas, we went through an extensive evolution in our electrofishing (EF) techniques.  When the first EF samples were conducted in the late 80's we relied on capturing a set number of bass to estimate the population . On lakes the size of Beaver, we were required to capture 250 for each species of bass, weigh and measure each one,  then release them.  We used the catch rates (number of fish caught per hour) to estimate abundance and the lengths and weights to determine population structure (percentage of different sized fish).  As we progressed with our methods and began to apply statistical analysis to our numbers, it became apparent that this method was inadequate for several reasons.  Many biologists were picking out the best areas and habitat to sample to capture the minimal number of fish required in the shortest time since many of them had large numbers of lakes to sample each Spring during a set water temperature window.  This "selective area" sampling was biased in that it would paint too rosy of a picture in catch rates and to a lesser extent population structure.  Realizing this we looked at what other states were doing and utilized techniques of statistical analysis to adapt our EF techniques to better reflect and estimate total fish populations.  We did this by dividing the large lakes into different zones and used multiple randomly generated sample sites in each zone utilizing GPS and computers to randomly select sample sites.  We also increased the number of total sample sites dramatically from 6-10 per lake, to 40-50 per lake.  Since the sites were randomly chosen, they were a more accurate representation of all types of habitat (the good and the bad).  We put in a lot of long nights accomplishing this but it was worth it to have information that was far more accurate and more valid statistically.   Our catch rates went down since we were no longer going to the best areas *honey holes" but they were a lot closer to the reality of what the population was.

It's a complicated process and certainly not perfect but I believe, a lot more accurate than the other methods we were using.  I'm not sure what the protocol for EF samples are in Missouri and you would need to check with them to find out.

Hope this was helpful!   

thank you for that beneficial info, which backs up what i had previously stated.  the only times that the mdc has ever released shocking info, they always do it in the same "honey holes" and then claim how good the lake is.

bo

[MOPanfisher]

Good info Notropis.  Thank you.

[vernon]

12 hours ago, Notropis said:

You guys are asking a lot of good questions some of which I can't answer since I haven't studied Table Rock or done much population sampling on it. 

I think I can help with understanding how electrofishing samples are conducted to estimate total fish populations as accurately as possible.  In Arkansas, we went through an extensive evolution in our electrofishing (EF) techniques.  When the first EF samples were conducted in the late 80's we relied on capturing a set number of bass to estimate the population . On lakes the size of Beaver, we were required to capture 250 for each species of bass, weigh and measure each one,  then release them.  We used the catch rates (number of fish caught per hour) to estimate abundance and the lengths and weights to determine population structure (percentage of different sized fish).  As we progressed with our methods and began to apply statistical analysis to our numbers, it became apparent that this method was inadequate for several reasons.  Many biologists were picking out the best areas and habitat to sample to capture the minimal number of fish required in the shortest time since many of them had large numbers of lakes to sample each Spring during a set water temperature window.  This "selective area" sampling was biased in that it would paint too rosy of a picture in catch rates and to a lesser extent population structure.  Realizing this we looked at what other states were doing and utilized techniques of statistical analysis to adapt our EF techniques to better reflect and estimate total fish populations.  We did this by dividing the large lakes into different zones and used multiple randomly generated sample sites in each zone utilizing GPS and computers to randomly select sample sites.  We also increased the number of total sample sites dramatically from 6-10 per lake, to 40-50 per lake.  We did reduce the sample time from 30 minutes to 10 minutes per site but still increased our total time sampling.  Since the sites were randomly chosen, they were a more accurate representation of all types of habitat (the good and the bad).  We put in a lot of long nights accomplishing this but it was worth it to have information that was far more accurate and more valid statistically.   Our catch rates went down since we were no longer going to the best areas *honey holes" but they were a lot closer to the reality of what the population was.

It's a complicated process and certainly not perfect but I believe, a lot more accurate than the other methods we were using.  I'm not sure what the protocol for EF samples are in Missouri and you would need to check with them to find out.

Hope this was helpful!   

Aha!  An "outlier"!

A government guy that actually knows what he's doing and talking about. 

Usually looked upon with disdain by coworkers for making them look bad by establishing unrealistic standards for others to live up to.

Just kidding - that's some really interesting stuff and extremely well presented. 

It's reassuring to know that there's still people like you out there. 

Thanks for sharing. 

[snagged in outlet 3]

I don't know how anyone could defend the practice of tournament fishing and relocating fish.  It's ridiculous.

If you were managing your own lake would you do it?

[MOPanfisher]

I honestly don't think anyone is defending tournaments that relocate fish, it's likely more of not being able or willing to take on that fight.  MDC current policy requires a biological basis for changing the regs, and while nobody is really saying mass relocation is good they do say that it doesn't have much effect on the overall populations.  Personally I think they should all adopt the MLF style, but then I aint even a bass fisherman let alone a tournament guy.

[176champion]

So they pull thousands of fish off there beds and relocate them and that has no effect on fish population growth, that's BS right there in my book.

[Old plug]

BFERG..... Management is good if done properly and the results are truly reprted rather than pressured by some outside group. Then there is INFORCEMENT. As far as I am concerned there is vertially none. I have lived her on the banks of LOZ for well over 20 years and have only seen agents out not more than three times. In the same time period  I have seen uncountable voilations. I often see Summer people keeping crappoe no bigger than my hand as well as small bass we refer to as dinks. 

. 

[Old plug]

19 minutes ago, 176champion said:

So they pull thousands of fish off there beds and relocate them and that has no effect on fish population growth, that's BS right there in my book.

That bed fshing is something I do not condone and never will. They do not have to move them.!! Even befpre the stuggle of landing the fish is done many small bluegill have already swarmed into the bed and destroyed it. I am just thankful the tournament fishermen and others cannot find or see most of the beds on LOZ. Maybe that has something to do with our bass population. Most weekend foshermen have this idea that all the bass run to shallow bedding areas when the water is around 65 degrees and spawn. That is what they been told. It just aint so.

[97procraft]

I am confused on the complaints in this thread.  It sounds like you think there are no fish in Table Rock and that tournaments are killing the few that are left.  I fish the rock a few times a year and can catch 50-75 fish per weekend, even per day this time of year.  This place is awesome, my favorite lake.  I pass several other lakes in the state to get there too.  If i didn't know better I would ask Phil to move this thread to the Mark Twain Forum.  That is the place that can use some better fish management.  The rock is just fine with me and I hope they don't change a thing.