big arbor vitae lake · 4/10/2017 · therefore, we conduct creel surveys. a creel survey is an...

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES CREEL SURVEY REPORT

BIG ARBOR VITAE LAKE

VILAS COUNTY

2017-18

Treaty Fisheries Publication

Compiled by Jeff Blonski & Jason Halverson

Treaty Fisheries Technicians

CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 GENERAL LAKE INFORMATION .................................................................................... 2 Location ........................................................................................................................... 2 Physical Characteristics ................................................................................................... 2 Seasons Surveyed ............................................................................................................ 2 Weather ............................................................................................................................ 2 Fishing Regulations ......................................................................................................... 2 SPECIES CATCH AND HARVEST INFORMATION ....................................................... 2 CREEL SURVEY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................. 3 Survey Logistics .............................................................................................................. 3 General Angler Information ............................................................................................. 3 RESULTS BY SPECIES ....................................................................................................... 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................... 4

SUMMARY TABLES

Table 1. Sportfishing effort summary .................................................................................... 5 Table 2. Creel survey synopses .............................................................................................. 6

SPECIES CATCH AND HARVEST FIGURES

Gamefish Figure 1. Walleye ............................................................................................................. 7 Figure 2. Northern Pike ................................................................................................... 8 Figure 3. Muskellunge ..................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4. Smallmouth Bass .............................................................................................. 10 Figure 5. Largemouth Bass .............................................................................................. 11 Panfish Figure 6. Yellow Perch .................................................................................................... 12 Figure 7. Bluegill ............................................................................................................. 13 Figure 8. Black Crappie ................................................................................................... 14 Figure 9. Pumpkinseed..................................................................................................... 15 Figure 10. Rock Bass ....................................................................................................... 16 Cover Art: Steve Hilt, Portland, OR Fish Graphics: Virgil Beck, Stevens Point, WI

1

INTRODUCTION Fish populations can fluctuate due to natural forces like weather, predation or competition; management actions like stocking, regulations or habitat improvement; habitat loss and harvest impacts. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources fisheries crews regularly conduct fishery surveys on lakes and reservoirs to gather the information needed to monitor changes, identify concerns, evaluate past management actions, and to prescribe fishery management strategies. Netting and electrofishing surveys are used to gather data on the status of fish populations and communities, measuring such parameters as species composition, population size, reproductive success, size or age distribution and growth rates. The other key component of the fishery that we often need to measure is harvest. On many lakes in the Ceded Territory of northern Wisconsin, harvest of fish is divided between sport anglers and the six Chippewa tribes who harvest fish under rights granted by federal treaties. The tribes harvest fish mostly using a highly efficient method, spearing, during a relatively short time period in the spring. Every fish in the spear harvest is counted – a complete “census” of the harvest. We also measure the sport angler harvest to assess its impact on the fishery. However, it would be highly impractical and very costly to conduct a complete census of every angler who fishes on a lake. Therefore, we conduct creel surveys. A creel survey is an assessment tool used to sample the fishing activities of anglers on a body of water and make projections, or estimates, of harvest and other fishery parameters. Creel survey clerks work on randomly-selected days and

shifts, forty hours per week. The survey is conducted during the open season for gamefish from the first Saturday in May through the first Sunday in March. Creel surveys are not conducted in November when fishing effort is low and ice conditions are often unsafe. The survey is run during daylight hours, and shift times change from month to month as day length changes. Creel survey clerks travel their lakes using a boat or snowmobile to count the number of anglers at predetermined times, and to interview anglers who have completed their fishing trip. Data is collected on what species they fished for, catch, harvest, lengths of fish harvested, marks (fin clips or tags), and hours of fishing effort. Collecting completed-trip data provides the most accurate assessment of angling activities, and it avoids the need to disturb anglers while they are fishing. A computer program is used to estimate catch and harvest of each species, catch and harvest rates, and fishing effort by month, as well as for the year in total. Keep in mind that these are estimates based on the best information available, and not a complete accounting of effort, catch, and harvest. Accurate estimates require that we sample a sufficient and representative portion of the angling activity on a lake. The accuracy of creel survey results depends on good cooperation and truthful responses by anglers when a creel clerk interviews them. You may have encountered a DNR creel survey clerk on a recent fishing trip. We appreciate your cooperation during an interview. The survey only takes a few minutes of your time, and it gives the Department valuable information needed for management of the fishery.

2

This report provides estimates of: 1. Overall fishing effort (pressure) 2. Fishing effort directed at each species 3. Numbers of fish caught and harvested 4. Catch and harvest rates Also included are a physical description of Big Arbor Vitae Lake; discussion of results of the survey; and detailed summaries by species of fishing effort, catch and harvest. GENERAL LAKE INFORMATION

Location Big Arbor Vitae Lake is located in Vilas County near the town of Arbor Vitae. Physical Characteristics Big Arbor Vitae Lake is a 1,090-acre drainage lake with a maximum depth of 41 feet. Littoral substrate consists primarily of sand and gravel, with lesser amounts of muck. Big Arbor Vitae Lake contains medium to hard, alkaline, clear water of low to moderate transparency. Seasons Surveyed The period referred to in this report as the 2017-18 fishing season ran from May 6, 2017 through March 4, 2018. The open-water creel survey ran from May 6 through October 31, 2017, and the ice fishing creel survey ran from December 1, 2017 through March 6, 2018.

Weather Ice-out on Big Arbor Vitae Lake was around April 10, 2017. Fishable ice formed on Big Arbor Vitae Lake in mid-December. Fishing Regulations The following seasons, daily bag limits, and length limits were in place on Big Arbor Vitae Lake during the 2017-18 fishing season:

Species SeasonBag

LimitMin. Size

Largemouth Bass 5/6-3/4 5 14"Smallmouth Bass 5/6-6/16 Catch&Release

6/17-3/4 5 14"Musky 5/27-11/30 1 40"Northern Pike 5/6-3/4 5 noneWalleye 5/6-3/4 3

Panfish year round 25 noneRock Bass year round none none

No Minimum, 1>14"

SPECIES CATCH AND HARVEST INFORMATION Angling effort, catch, and harvest information is summarized for each species in Table 2 and Figures 1-10. Table 2 also includes a comparison of these statistics with the previous creel survey. Information presented about species whose fishing season extends beyond March 4 should be considered minimum estimates. Each species page has up to five graphs depicting the following: 1. ESTIMATED FISHING EFFORT Total calculated number of hours

during each month that anglers spent fishing for a species.

2. ESTIMATED CATCH AND

HARVEST Calculated number of fish of the

indicated species caught or harvested by all anglers, regardless of targeted species.

Big Arbor Vitae Lake

3

3. ESTIMATED SPECIFIC CATCH AND HARVEST RATES

Calculated number of hours it takes an angler to catch or harvest a fish of the indicated species. Only information from anglers who were specifically targeting that species is reported.

4. LENGTH DISTRIBUTION OF HARVESTED FISH

All fish of a species that were measured by the clerk during the entire creel survey season.

5. LARGEST AND AVERAGE LENGTH OF HARVESTED FISH

Monthly largest and average length of harvested fish of a species. Only fish measured by the creel survey clerk are reported.

CREEL SURVEY RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Survey Logistics We encountered no unusual problems conducting the survey or calculating the projections contained in the report. This was the eighth time the Department conducted a creel survey on Big Arbor Vitae Lake. The last creel survey took place in 2014-15.

General Angler Information Anglers spent 46,045 hours, or 42.2 hours per acre, fishing Big Arbor Vitae Lake during the 2017-18 season (Table 1). That was more than the Vilas County average of 34.8 hours per acre, and slightly more than the fishing effort documented during the 2014-15 creel survey (40.4 hours per acre). June was the most heavily fished month (8.8 hours), and fishing effort was lightest in October (1.9 hours). The creel clerks were able to conduct 1,045 interviews throughout the survey.

RESULTS BY SPECIES Walleye (Table 2, Figure 1) Walleye received the most fishing effort of any gamefish species during the season. Anglers spent 15,556 hours targeting Walleye. The greatest fishing effort for Walleye was in May (2,970 hours). October had the least amount of Walleye fishing effort (444 hours). Total catch of Walleye was 3,383 fish, with a harvest of 1,584. Highest catch (999 fish) and highest harvest (454 fish) occurred in May. Anglers fished an average of 4.9 hours to catch, and 10.2 hours to harvest, a Walleye during the survey. The mean length of harvested Walleye was 14.5 inches, and the largest measured was a 25.1-inch fish. Northern Pike (Table 2, Figure 2) Fishing effort directed at Northern Pike was 446 hours during the season. Northern Pike fishing effort was greatest in January (213 hours). Total catch of Northern Pike was 88 fish, with a harvest of 37. The mean length of harvested Northern Pike was 24.0 inches, and the largest measured was a 27.2-inch fish. Muskellunge (Table 2, Figure 3) Anglers spent 7,805 hours targeting Muskellunge during the season. Muskellunge fishing effort was greatest in September (2,020 hours). Total catch of Muskellunge was 238 fish, and the highest catch (77 fish) occurred in June. Anglers fished 59.9 hours to catch a Muskellunge, and there was no documented harvest during the survey. Smallmouth Bass (Table 2, Figure 4) Fishing effort targeted at Smallmouth Bass was 4,556 hours during the season. Smallmouth Bass fishing effort was greatest

4

in June (1,610 hours). Total catch of Smallmouth Bass was 3,623 fish, with 260 harvested. Highest catch (1,221 fish) occurred in August. Anglers fished an average of 2.5 hours to catch a Smallmouth Bass during the survey. Largemouth Bass (Table 2, Figure 5) Fishing effort directed at Largemouth Bass was 8,757 hours during the season. Largemouth Bass fishing effort was greatest in June (3,164 hours). Total catch of largemouth bass was 6,255 fish, with a harvest of 800. Highest catch (2,758 fish) occurred in June. Anglers fished an average of 1.8 hours to catch a Largemouth Bass during the survey. Panfish (Table 2, Figures 6-10) Yellow Perch were the most sought after panfish species during the survey. Fishing effort directed at Yellow Perch was 11,558 hours. Total catch of Yellow Perch was 33,364 fish, with 6,002 harvested. The mean length of Yellow Perch harvested was 8.2 inches. Bluegill received 10,773 hours of directed fishing effort. Total catch of Bluegill was 19,231 fish, with 4,626 harvested. The mean length of Bluegill harvested was 7.4 inches. Black Crappie received 9,162 hours of directed fishing effort. Anglers caught 6,709 Black Crappie and harvested 1,880. The mean length of Black Crappie harvested was 9.6 inches. Pumpkinseed received 379 hours of directed fishing effort. Anglers caught 894 Pumpkinseed and harvested 495. The mean length of Pumpkinseed harvested was 7.4 inches. Rock Bass were also caught during the

season. Anglers caught 979 Rock Bass and harvested 141. The mean length of Rock Bass harvested was 8.6 inches. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Department would like to thank all the anglers who took the time to offer information about their fishing trip to the survey clerk. Without their cooperation, the survey would not have been possible. We also thank our cooperators, Scott Will and the property owners of Woodland Beach Resort, along with Bob and Colly Rentmeester of Pine Arbor Resort, who generously allowed the Department to keep a boat or snowmobile on their property during this survey. Completion of this survey was possible because of the efforts of the following fisheries management and treaty fisheries staff: Lawrence Eslinger, Jeff Blonski, Joelle Underwood, Jason Halverson, John Kubisiak, Steve Timler, Tim Tobias, and Hadley Boehm. Creel clerks on Big Arbor Vitae Lake during the survey period were John Davis and Dale Peterson. This creel report was reviewed by John Kubisiak, Lawrence Eslinger, and Hadley Boehm of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Woodruff, Wisconsin. Additional copies of this report, and those covering other local lakes, can be obtained from the Woodruff DNR or online at: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/Fishing/north/trtycrlsrvys.html

Month

Number of Angler Party

InterviewsTotal Angler

HoursTotal Angler Hours/Acre

2014-15 Total Angler

Hours/Acre

Vilas County Average

Hours/Acre

Ceded Territory Average

Hours/AcreMay 126 5922 5.4 5.2 5.3 4.9June 151 9583 8.8 9.3 6.9 6.3July 127 8056 7.4 7.4 7.3 6.7August 119 5697 5.2 4.4 6.4 5.3September 97 4686 4.3 2.9 4.2 3.3October 81 2117 1.9 1.6 2.0 1.5December 120 2535 2.3 4.1 0.6 1.1January 112 3945 3.6 4.1 0.9 1.7February 83 2803 2.6 1.2 1.0 1.6March 29 702 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.2*Summer Total 701 36061 33.1 30.9 32.1 28.0*Winter Total 344 9985 9.2 9.5 2.7 4.6Grand Total 1045 46045 42.2 40.4 34.8 32.6

*"Summer" is May-October; "Winter" is December-March

Table 1. Sportfishing effort summary, Big Arbor Vitae Lake, 2017-18 season compared with 2014-15 creel results, Vilas County, and Ceded Territory averages.

County Average Hours/Acre is the average angler effort in hours per acre for county lakes that have been surveyed since 1990. This value is useful for fishing pressure comparisons with other waters.

Ceded Territory Average Hours/Acre is the average angler effort in hours per acre for inland lakes in the Ceded Territory that have been surveyed since 1990. This value can be used to compare Big Arbor Vitae Lake to other lakes in northern Wisconsin.

Number of Angler Party Interviews is the number of groups of anglers interviewed by the creel clerk. A party is considered the members of a group who fish together in the same boat, ice shanty, or from shore. The clerk fills out one interview form for each group of anglers. The number of individual anglers actually contacted by the clerk is usually much greater than the number of groups listed in this table since most groups consist of more than one angler.

Total Angler Hours is the estimated total number of hours that anglers spent fishing on Big Arbor Vitae Lake during each month surveyed.

Total Angler Hours/Acre is the total angler hours divided by the area of the lake in acres. This is useful in order to compare effort on Big Arbor Vitae Lake to other lakes.

2014-15 Total Angler Hours/Acre is the total angler hours divided by the area of the lake in acres. This is from the previous creel survey that took place on Big Arbor Vitae Lake.

5

Table 2. Comparison of creel survey synopses, Big Arbor Vitae Lake, 2017-18 and 2014-15 fishing seasons.

CREEL YEAR: 2017-18

SPECIES

DIRECTEDEFFORT(Hours)

PERCENTOF TOTAL

TOTALCATCH

SPECIFICCATCHRATE

(Hrs/Fish) *TOTAL

HARVEST

SPECIFICHARVEST

RATE(Hrs/Fish) **

MEANLENGTH OFHARVESTED

FISHWalleye 15556 22.5% 3383 4.9 1584 10.2 14.5Northern Pike 446 0.6% 88 37 24.0Muskellunge 7805 11.3% 238 59.9 0Smallmouth Bass 4556 6.6% 3623 2.5 260 49.8 15.8Largemouth Bass 8757 12.7% 6255 1.8 800 16.4 15.6Yellow Perch 11558 16.8% 33364 0.4 6002 2.1 8.2Bluegill 10773 15.6% 19231 0.6 4626 2.5 7.4Black Crappie 9162 13.3% 6709 1.4 1880 5.3 9.6Pumpkinseed 379 0.5% 894 1.4 495 3.1 7.4Rock Bass 0 0.0% 979 141 8.6

6

* A blank cell in this column indicates that no fish of a given species were caught by anglers who specifically targeted that species.** A blank cell in this column indicates that no fish of a given species were harvested by anglers who specifically targeted that species.

CREEL YEAR: 2014-15

SPECIES

DIRECTEDEFFORT(Hours)

PERCENTOF TOTAL

TOTALCATCH

SPECIFICCATCHRATE

(Hrs/Fish)TOTAL

HARVEST

SPECIFICHARVEST

RATE(Hrs/Fish)

MEANLENGTH OFHARVESTED

FISHWalleye 11144 12.9% 1389 8.4 964 12.0 17.4Northern Pike 131 0.2% 32 0 0.0Muskellunge 10546 12.2% 179 61.3 0 0.0Smallmouth Bass 3923 4.5% 2106 3.5 37 322.6 15.9Largemouth Bass 8163 9.5% 7712 1.4 705 16.3 15.2Yellow Perch 16689 19.4% 27309 0.7 3517 5.1 8.5Bluegill 15329 17.8% 35727 0.4 6702 2.3 7.1Black Crappie 18825 21.8% 26342 0.7 12937 1.5 9.9Pumpkinseed 1291 1.5% 1437 1.1 336 4.9 7.0Rock Bass 190 0.2% 748 3.7 247 5.5 8.5

7

3.1 3.49.9

3.4 3.4 1.8

17.4

48.1

86.2

43.1

6.8 7.812.5

6.6 8.7 5.2

22.5

57.8

113.6

43.1

0

30

60

90

120

MAY JUN. JUL. AUG. SEP. OCT. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR.

HO

UR

S P

ER

FIS

H

MONTH

PROJECTED SPECIFIC CATCH AND HARVEST RATES

CATCH HARVEST

999

757

286

530

390279

50 39 36 17

454328

222 262

133 10130 28 19 7

0

300

600

900

1200


NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

MONTH

PROJECTED CATCH AND HARVEST

CATCH HARVEST

4

26

74

44

11

25

18 19

10 9

25 4 2 1

0

20

40

60

80

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

INCHES

LENGTH DISTRIBUTION OF FISH MEASURED BY THE CREEL CLERK

14.2 14.0 14.813.8

15.213.7

18.4

14.6 15.4

18.0

22.0

24.8

19.1

25.1

22.4

17.6

24.0

20.719.1

21.3

0

6

12

18

24

30


INC

HE

S

MONTH

AVERAGE AND LARGEST LENGTH OFFISH HARVESTED

AVERAGE LARGEST

2970

2472

2774

1701

1156

444681

16131429

316

0

750

1500

2250

3000

3750


AN

GL

ING

HO

UR

S

MONTH

PROJECTED FISHING EFFORT

WALLEYE

Figure 1. Walleye sportfishing effort, catch, harvest, and length distribution, Big Arbor Vitae Lake, during 2017-18.

8

9

15

29

24

63 2

0 0 0

9

0

22

0

6

0 0 0 0 00

10

20

30

40


NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

1 1 1 1

0

1

2

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

INCHES


24.6

22.0

27.2

24.6 25.527.2

0

6

12

18

24

30


INC

HE

S

MONTH


AVERAGE LARGEST

0 0 2 0 0 0

104

213

127

0

50

100

150

200

250


AN

GL

ING

HO

UR

S

MONTH


NORTHERN PIKE

Figure 2. Northern Pike sportfishing effort, catch, harvest, and length distribution, Big Arbor Vitae Lake, during 2017-18.

9

0.0

44.8

178.6

69.0

44.8

73.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00

40

80

120

160

200


HO

UR

S P

ER

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

32

77

2531

52

19

2 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

20

40

60

80

100


NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

63

1791

12211344

2020

1366

00

500

1000

1500

2000

2500


AN

GL

ING

HO

UR

S

MONTH

PROJECTED FISHING EFFORT MUSKELLUNGE

Figure 3. Muskellunge sportfishing effort, catch, harvest, and length distribution, Big Arbor Vitae Lake, during 2017-18.

10 1.8 2.5 3.8 1.7

64.9

4.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0

149.3

45.0

23.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00

40

80

120

160


HO

UR

S P

ER

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

93

875

1063

1221

256

40 0 29 46 00 22109 66 60 0 0 3 0 0

0

400

800

1200

1600


NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

7

13

8

4

1

0

4

8

12

16

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

INCHES


15.3 15.8 15.6 16.215.215.3

17.5 17.519.1

15.2

0

6

12

18

24


INC

HE

S

MONTH


AVERAGE LARGEST

88

1610

979

1379

370

1300 0

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000


AN

GL

ING

HO

UR

S

MONTH


SMALLMOUTH BASS

Figure 4. Smallmouth Bass sportfishing effort, catch, harvest, and length distribution, Big Arbor Vitae Lake, during 2017-18.

11 0.6 1.56.0

1.7 3.1

12.07.5

0.0 0.0 0.0

13.2 12.5

24.2

38.5

9.2

36.2

11.0

0.0 0.0 0.00

10

20

30

40

50


HO

UR

S P

ER

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

1094

2758

666

1264

387

45 41 0 0 0153

359103 63 108 5 9 0 0 0

0

800

1600

2400

3200


NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

1 1

34

30

22

11

41

0

10

20

30

40

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

INCHES


15.7 15.3 16.1 15.3 16.2 16.414.8

17.3 17.219.2

17.6 18.416.9

15.2

0

6

12

18

24


INC

HE

S

MONTH


AVERAGE LARGEST

456

3164

1981 1953

930

192 81

0

800

1600

2400

3200

4000


AN

GL

ING

HO

UR

S

MONTH


LARGEMOUTH BASS

Figure 5. Largemouth Bass sportfishing effort, catch, harvest, and length distribution, Big Arbor Vitae Lake, during 2017-18.

12

40.7

1.2 0.5 1.0 0.8 1.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 1.1

40.7

6.7

1.6 2.0 2.5 3.5 1.6 2.2 2.3 2.4

0

10

20

30

40

50


HO

UR

S P

ER

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

106

1665

5806

1319765

119

9297 9268

4709

31073 374

1479

503 237 53

1358 1010 800115

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000


NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

50

249

374

117

312

0

100

200

300

400

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

INCHES


8.98.3 8.4 8.5 8.2

9.18.2 8.0 8.1 8.4

10.411.1

10.4 10.810.0 10.3

11.0 10.6 10.3 10.3

0

3

6

9

12


INC

HE

S

MONTH


AVERAGE LARGEST

234

1412

1912

981

544

165

2086 2155

1803

266

0

750

1500

2250

3000


AN

GL

ING

HO

UR

S

MONTH


YELLOW PERCH

Figure 6. Yellow Perch sportfishing effort, catch, harvest, and length distribution, Big Arbor Vitae Lake, during 2017-18.

13

The picture can't

0.8 0.5 0.8 2.2 1.047.2

0.3 2.7 6.7 7.12.9 1.0 3.0 20.8 12.947.2

2.5

526.3

0.0

71.4

0

150

300

450

600


HO

UR

S P

ER

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

637

5741

4249

641 7203

6089

778349

24204

2561

1045

46 55 3696

14 0 20

2000

4000

6000

8000


NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

10

46

247

43

10

75

150

225

300

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

INCHES


7.6 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.5 7.2 7.67.1

8.1 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.49.0

8.5

7.1

0

2

4

6

8

10


INC

HE

S

MONTH


AVERAGE LARGEST

406

23962628

823630

125

17191497

374175

0

700

1400

2100

2800


AN

GL

ING

HO

UR

S

MONTH


BLUEGILL

Figure 7. Bluegill sportfishing effort, catch, harvest, and length distribution, Big Arbor Vitae Lake, during 2017-18.

14

2.3

6.3

1.71.0

0.0 0.01.1 1.3

0.6 1.1

5.2

8.9

11.6

1.8

0.0 0.0

5.26.0

3.62.7

0

3

6

9

12

15


HO

UR

S P

ER

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

1186

225 192 21219 5

1317

15861691

276

544

15627

1177 0

283 355 274117

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000


NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

114

114

71

44

59

123

0

30

60

90

120

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

INCHES


11.210.6

11.6

9.510.2

8.7 9.2 9.5 9.1

13.112.0 12.1 11.6

10.211.6

12.6 12.1 12.6

0

3

6

9

12

15


INC

HE

S

MONTH


AVERAGE LARGEST

2526

1190

318153 168

22

1397

2095

985

308

0

800

1600

2400

3200


AN

GL

ING

HO

UR

S

MONTH


BLACK CRAPPIE

Figure 8. Black Crappie sportfishing effort, catch, harvest, and length distribution, Big Arbor Vitae Lake, during 2017-18.

15 0.01.2 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

24.0

0.0 0.0 0.00.02.6

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

24.0

0.0 0.0 0.00

6

12

18

24

30


HO

UR

S P

ER

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

0

344 339

80

320

81

8 0 100

164 164

4826

0

80

8 0 50

80

160

240

320

400


NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

13

55

8

0

15

30

45

60

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

INCHES


7.1 7.27.8 7.6 7.5 7.3 7.3

8.2 7.98.6

8.0 8.17.5 7.5

0

2

4

6

8

10


INC

HE

S

MONTH


AVERAGE LARGEST

315

220 0

42

0 00

80

160

240

320

400


AN

GL

ING

HO

UR

S

MONTH


PUMPKINSEED

Figure 9. Pumpkinseed sportfishing effort, catch, harvest, and length distribution, Big Arbor Vitae Lake, during 2017-18.

16

44

412

137

213

94

243 0

28 2412

72

7 727

3 0 0 13 00

100

200

300

400

500


NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

MONTH


CATCH HARVEST

2

10

7

0

3

6

9

12

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

NU

MB

ER

OF

FIS

H

INCHES


8.4 8.18.9 9.1 9.1

9.89.3

8.59.0 8.9 9.1

9.6 9.8 9.5

0

3

6

9

12


INC

HE

S

MONTH


AVERAGE LARGEST

ROCK BASS

Figure 10. Rock Bass sportfishing effort, catch, harvest, and length distribution, Big Arbor Vitae Lake, during 2017-18.

big arbor vitae lake · 4/10/2017 · therefore, we conduct creel surveys. a creel survey is an...

Documents