-
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-
-
64 Fisheries VOL 32 NO 2 FEBRUARY 2007 WWW.FISHERIES.ORG
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.
-
Fisheries VOL 32 NO 2 FEBRUARY 2007 WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 65
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.
-
66 Fisheries VOL 32 NO 2 FEBRUARY 2007 WWW.FISHERIES.ORG
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.
-
Fisheries VOL 32 NO 2 FEBRUARY 2007 WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 67
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.
-
68 Fisheries VOL 32 NO 2 FEBRUARY 2007 WWW.FISHERIES.ORG
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 , ,
-
70 Fisheries VOL 32 NO 2 FEBRUARY 2007 WWW.FISHERIES.ORG
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.
-
Fisheries VOL 32 NO 2 FEBRUARY 2007 WWW.FISHERIES.ORG 71
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
-
72 Fisheries VOL 32 NO 2 FEBRUARY 2007 WWW.FISHERIES.ORG
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.