Importance of Canals for Florida Largemouth Bass: Lake Griffin, Florida

Abstract

Canal systems are commonly found across the country and are rarely constructed to increase fish habitat or angling opportunities. From 2009 to 2011, we assessed the benefits of canals to the fishery at Lake Griffin, Florida, by measuring and comparing the Florida Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides floridanus population and angler use to the main lake. We used electrofishing, angler creel surveys, and a high-reward tagging study. Results from electrofishing surveys revealed a high relative abundance of Florida Largemouth Bass in the canals, with similar electrofishing catch rates and size structure to those in the main lake. The canal creel showed that anglers used canals throughout the study, with peak use during the spawning season. The tagging study revealed anglers caught Florida Largemouth Bass in canals throughout the 12-mo study and that Florida Largemouth Bass migrated between the lake and canals. We conclude that the canals support a significant portion of the overall angler effort for the Lake Griffin fishery. Failing to consider the canals at Lake Griffin results in substantial underestimates of fish populations, angler use, and the fishery's economic impact. Our data suggest, however, that monitoring only the lake section still may represent trends occurring throughout the entire body of water, resulting in lowering sampling time and financial requirements. Fishery managers can identify any impacts canal systems or other lake sections may have to the fishery by including additional sections of a body of water into their sampling protocol.

Seasonal, spatial, and water level predictors of angler catch and effort within Texas black bass reservoir fisheries

“…1994), which can inflate incomplete trip estimates. Regarding the negative bias observed for effort density during roving surveys, we also found studies with similar estimates comparing complete (access point) and incomplete (roving) trip data (Bisping and Thompson 2017; Dutterer et al. 2020).…”

“…Anglers that experience higher catch rates are more likely to fish longer; thus, anglers that fish longer are also more likely to be intercepted during roving surveys (Pollock et al 1994), which can inflate incomplete trip estimates. Regarding the negative bias observed for effort density during roving surveys, we also found studies with similar estimates comparing complete (access point) and incomplete (roving) trip data (Bisping and Thompson 2017;Dutterer et al 2020). During TPWD roving creel surveys, interviews and angler counts that feed into effort estimates are only collected from anglers that are actively fishing, which, in comparison to estimates derived from completed trips, may influence the differential estimations observed when comparing roving and access point survey estimates.…”

Estimating Recreational Fishing Effort Using Autonomous Cameras at Boat Ramps versus Creel Surveys

“…Thus, anglers who were not visible from the main lake, such as those who were fishing in canals or side marshes, may not have been detected during the instantaneous counts but would likely have been detected via a boat ramp camera. For example, Bisping and Thompson (2017) found as much fishing effort and catch in the canal systems at Florida’s Lake Griffin as in the lake proper. Their results showed that considerable amounts of fishing effort may occur in areas that are just out of sight of creel clerks during roving‐creel‐survey counts.…”