The 2002 Thompson River Steelhead Creel Survey

Transcription

1 The 2002 Thompson River Steelhead Creel Survey By: Jim Renn & Robert Bison For: BC Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Southern Interior Region 1259 Dalhousie Drive Kamloops, BC V2C 5Z5 February 2003

2 Abstract From October 12 th to November 29 th, 2002, 894 angler surveys were conducted on 572 different anglers in the Thompson steelhead sport fishery. The combined CPUE during this period was steelhead/rodhour (n=828, SE= ), ranking it the 4 th highest CPUE recorded since the early 1980 s. There was no significant correlation between the average yearly CPUE of Thompson steelhead anglers and the cumulative CPUE for steelhead from the Albion Chum Test Fishery: for the years 1980 to 2002 (r 2 =0.142, F=1.15, P=0.318) and 1998 to 2002 (r 2 =0.499, F=1.99, P=0. 294). Total effort for the 7 week period was estimated to be rodhours producing an estimated total catch of steelhead. Applying a 1.6% to 5% catch and release mortality rate, an estimated range of 18 to 57 steelhead were killed out of a predicted escapement of steelhead. BC Resident anglers were the most common residency type on the Thompson in 2002 comprising 75% of the anglers (n=424). This was followed by Non Resident US, Non Resident Canadian, Non Resident Foreign and BC Local with 18% (n=105), 3% (n=16), 2.4% (n=13) and 1.8% (n=10), respectively. The most popular gear type used in the Thompson steelhead sport fishery was bait at 44.3% (n=244). This was only slightly more popular than fly fishing at 37.4% (n=206) and twice as common as lure fishing at 18.3% (n=101). Bottom bouncing with bait proved to be the most effective angling method with a CPUE of steelhead/rodhour (n=114, SE=0.0126) followed by float fishing with bait, lure fishing and fly angling, which had CPUE's of (n=146, SE=0.0135), (n=103, SE=0.0108), steelhead/rodhour (n=264, SE=0.0028), respectively. Bait fishermen had the highest proportion of effort with 44.3% of the total effort. This was followed by fly fishermen with 38.6% and lure fishermen with 14.9% of the total effort. Of the various gear and residency types, Non Resident Canadian bottom bouncing bait fishermen appeared to be the most effective with a CPUE of steelhead/rodhour (n=4, SE=0.0735), although sample size was very small. This was followed by BC Resident bottom bouncers (with bait) and BC Resident float (with bait) fishermen which had CPUE's of steelhead/rodhour (n=75, SE=0.0163) and steelhead/rodhour (n=133, SE=0.0144), respectively. BC Resident and US fly anglers had fairly consistent CPUE s of approximately 0.01 steelhead/rodhour whereas BC Local and Non Resident Canadian fly anglers had slightly higher CPUE s of approximately 0.03 steelhead/rodhour. BC Resident bait fisherman got the most use out of the resource by catching 690 steelhead. This was followed by BC Resident lure fisherman which captured an estimated 134 steelhead and US bait fisherman which captured 68 steelhead. BC Resident and US fly fisherman captured an estimated 57 and 35 steelhead, respectively. Anger survey results show that Thompson steelhead anglers with higher CPUE's give higher overall satisfaction ratings, suggesting that capturing fish is a high priority for most anglers. The majority of Thompson steelhead anglers have only 1 to 5 years experience angling on the Thompson but in general have more steelhead angling experience on other rivers. Approximately 19% of the anglers interviewed were fishing the Thompson for the first time in their angling careers: 51% of these anglers were fly fishermen, 25% were bait fishermen and 24% fished with lures. The majority of anglers that fished steelhead on the Thompson spent fewer than 6 days angling. The number of days anglers spent on the Thompson in 2002 appears to be similar to 2001 but this result may be an artifact of the data collection method. In 2002, there may be a slightly significant difference (t=1.37, P=0.172) between the CPUE of anglers that fished the Thompson for 16 to 20 days ( steelhead/rodhour) and for anglers that fished the Thompson for less than 6 days ( steelhead/rodhour). i

3 Acknowledgements Information regarding the Thompson steelhead sport fishery was collected under the auspices of the BC River Guardian Program. The Guardian Program is part of the Quality Waters Strategy and is funded by the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. The authors would like to thank Andy Morris and Mark Phillpotts who diligently traveled the shores of the Thompson River to collect this data. The authors would also like to thank all of the Thompson steelhead anglers who gave generously of their time to answer survey questions and provide input into management of the sport fishery. ii

4 Table of Contents Abstract... i Acknowledgements... ii Table of Contents... iii List of Figures... iv List of Tables v Introduction... 1 Background Study Area... 1 The Thompson Steelhead Sport Fishery in Methods Angler Interviews... 3 Repetitive Instantaneous Angler Counts Calculations... 5 Total Catch by Weekday and Weekend Stratum Total Catch by Gear/Residency Stratum Results... 8 Effort CPUE Thompson Steelhead Sport Fishery CPUE vs. Albion CPUE Catch Residency and Gear Type Catch and Effort by Gear Type and Residency Category Angler Demographics Angler Satisfaction Rating vs. CPUE Years Angling Experience Days Fished in 2001 vs Days Fished vs. CPUE Effort throughout the season in each zone A comparison of instantaneous counts at 10:00 hours to repetitive instantaneous counts Discussion Mortalities Spatial Influences on CPUE...26 Potential Reporting Biases References Appendices iii

5 List of Figures Figure 1. The study area and Zones of the Thompson River steelhead sport fishery in Figure 2. Angler effort in rodhours for each day of the 2002 Thompson steelhead angler survey. Dark bars represent weekend effort and lighter bars represent weekday effort Figure 3. Extrapolated angler effort in rodhours for each week and weekend o f the 2002 Thompson steelhead angler survey. Dark bars represent weekend effort and lighter bars represent weekday effort Figure 4. Trends in effort by Thompson steelhead anglers in the month of November from 1976 to Figure 5. CPUE in steelhead/rodhour for each day of the 2002 Thompson steelhead angler survey. Dark bars represent weekend effort and lighter bars represent weekday effort Figure 6. Trends in the CPUE of Thompson steelhead anglers for the month of November, from 1976 to Figure 7. The cumulative Albion Chum Test Fishing CPUE in relation to the Thompson steelhead sport fishing CPUE's from all years where creel survey data is available Figure 8. The cumulative Albion Chum Test Fishing CPUE in relation to the Thompson steelhead sport fishing CPUE's from 1998 to the present Figure 9. Trends in the number of steelhead captured in November in the Thompson steelhead sport fishery, from 1976 to Figure 10. The frequency of angler satisfaction ratings by CPUE category in the 2002 Thompson steelhead sport fishery. Angler satisfaction ratings are: 1 very good, 2 goo d, 3 average, 4 poor and 5 is very poor Figure 11. The number of years of steelhead angling experience on the Thompson River by Thompson River steelhead anglers in Figure 12. The total number of years of steelhead angling experience by Thompson River steelhead anglers in Figure 13. The percent of anglers of each gear type in there first year of steelhead angling on the Thompson River Figure 14. The number of days fished by anglers in the Thompson River steelhead sport fishery in 2001 and Figure 15. The number of days fished by anglers in the 2002 Thompson River steelhead sport fishery and the corresponding CPUE Figure 16. The percentage of anglers in each zone (Figure 1) at 10:00 hours from October 12 th to November 29 th, Figure 17. A linear regression between the effort estimated by expanding interview data with instantaneous counts at 10:00 hours and the effort estimated through repetitive instantaneous counts in iv

6 List of Tables Table 1. The number and percent of anglers in each residence category in the Thompson steelhead sport fishery in Angler residence data from 1998, 1999 and 2001 is included for comparison Table 2. The gear preference of each residency category in the 2002 Thompson steelhead sport fishery Table 3. The mean CPUE, effort and catch by the 3 dominant gear types used by Thompson steelhead anglers in Table 4. The mean CPUE, effort and catch for Thompson steelhead anglers in each residence category, Table 5. The mean CPUE, effort and catch for Thompson steelhead anglers of the major gear types in each residence category, v

7 Introduction Background Thompson River steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), a sub group of interior Fraser steelhead, are the focus of a popular sport fishery each fall. These steelhead enter the Thompson River in the fall and are highly prized by sports fishermen for their large average size and superior fighting qualities. Despite their anadromous life history, Thompson steelhead sport fisheries are managed by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (MWLAP) and have been a high management priority for many years. As a part of this management focus, creel surveys have been conducted in , and in in an effort to collect catch, effort and angler demographic data (Antifeau 1977; Caverly 1981 and 1982; Dolighan 1978 and 1979; Moore 1983; Moore & Olmstead 1985; Webb & Bennett 2000; Webb 2000). Many of these surveys received limited funding and as a result were short lived and primarily collected catch and effort data. In 2001, the Thompson became one of a number of rivers to receive funding for a River Guardian Program. The Guardian Program is part of a larger Quality Waters Strategy (QWS) which will be carried out on rivers designated in the BC Sport Fishing Regulations as classified waters. The QWS is funded by the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund (HCTF). The primary goal of the QWS is to maintain or improve quality fisheries in order to preserve or enhance the socio-economic benefits derived from the fishery. To this end, a River Guardian is assigned to provide a presence on the water, answer angler's questions regarding management and to collect information about the sport fishery. Because of the increased funding provided for this program, the angler survey carried out in 2001 and 2002 was able to gather catch and effort data on a more regular basis and over a longer period of time (Renn and Bison 2002). More extensive angler demographic information was also collected. Study Area The Thompson River begins at the confluence of the North and South Thompson Rivers near Kamloops, BC. From here it flows in a westerly direction into Kamloops Lake. Downstream of Kamloops Lake, the Thompson flows in a westerly direction towards the town of Cache Creek where it turns and flows south. The Thompson River continues to flow in a primarily southerly direction to its confluence with the Fraser River at Lytton, BC (Figure 1). There are 3 major tributaries to the Thompson River that support spawning steelhead: the Deadman, Bonaparte and the Nicola. Generally the Nicola stock comprises approximately 80% of the entire Thompson escapement, with the remaining 20% escapement being divided equally among the Deadman and Bonaparte Rivers (Bison and Renn 1998). The escapements for the Deadman and Bonaparte steelhead are usually in the low to mid hundreds, whereas the Nicola has an escapement an order of magnitude larger, in the low thousands. Escapement estimates for these systems have been conducted for approximately 23 years using a variety of methods. At the present time resistivity counters are being employed on the Deadman and Bonaparte Rivers, whereas spawning ground surveys are used to estimate escapement for the Nicola River. In season escapement estimates and run timing are generated from CPUE data gathered from the Albion Chum Test Fishery (Bison and Renn 1998). 1

8 Deadman River Bonaparte River Savona Ashcroft Epsom Thompson River 5 N Fraser River Martel 4 Spences Bridge 3 Goldpan 1 Lytton 1 2 Gladwin Nicola River Kilometers Figure 1. The study area and Zones of the Thompson River steelhead sport fishery in

9 The Thompson Steelhead Sport Fishery in 2002 As a response to declining escapements it became mandatory in 1989 to release all wild steelhead captured in the Thompson River Sport Fishery (BC Freshwater Fishing Regulations Synopsis 1989). At this point in time there was a small hatchery component within Thompson steelhead stocks available for harvest by sports fishermen. The last stocking of steelhead fry into the Thompson River occurred in 1992 however, with the majority of these fish being available for harvest by sports fishermen in the fall of 1995, 96 and 97 (Crowe 1993; McGregor 1986). As a result the Thompson River steelhead sport fishery has been almost exclusively catch and release since The Thompson River steelhead sport fishery occurs downstream of Kamloops Lake with the vast majority of angling pressure occurring downstream of Martel. Spences Bridge is generally considered a hub of activity for the Thompson steelhead sport fishery. The Thompson River Valley is a major corridor for transportation and as result access to the Thompson River downstream of Spences Bridge is very good. The Trans Canada Highway provides access to the east bank of the Thompson River downstream of Spences Bridge. Upstream of Spences Bridge however, access to the Thompson via the Trans Canada Highway becomes more difficult and as is often accessed by boat. Methods Angler Interviews The Thompson Steelhead Angler Survey was conducted on the Thompson River between Epsom and Lytton from October 12 th to November 29, Weeks were divided into weekday and weekend strata, with surveys being conducted on two randomly selected weekdays and on both weekend days. On long weekends, all 3 weekend days were surveyed and only one day on the following week was surveyed. A total of 32 survey days were conducted over a 10-week period. Each survey day essentially consisted of two components: an instantaneous count of anglers and a roving angler survey. Ins tantaneous angler counts started near Epsom at 09:30 and proceeded in a downstream direction to Lytton, where they concluded at 10:30 hours. To determine effort in different locations, the Thompson River was divided up into 5 zones based on angling regulations, access, and river characteristics (Figure 1). The zones and their descriptions are as follows: 1. Lytton. This zone extends from the point where the Thompson and Fraser waters meet downstream to the lower CNR Bridge (BC Freshwater Fishing Regulations Synopsis, 2001). This zone has easy access and there is the potential to capture non-thompson steelhead stocks at this location. The water here is generally considered best suited for gear fishing but receives a very limited amount of effort from fly anglers. 2. This zone extends from Copper s Beach downstream to the Thompson/Fraser confluence. It has the most difficult access of any of the 5 zones and is considered to be best suited for gear fishing. The anglers that fish in this area are likely the more experienced anglers and have good knowledge of access points. This area is not suited for boat access. 3. This zone extends from the Cabbage Patch downstream to Cooper s Beach. Access to this zone is quite good for both walking and boating anglers. As a result this zone receives a high amount of effort on both sides of the river. The majority of the water within this zone is considered best suited for gear fishing, there are a number of locations that receive considerable effort by fly anglers. 3

10 4. This zone extends from the bait ban signs below Martel downstream to the Cabbage Patch. This zone has mostly easy access, although the upstream portion is best accessed by boat. This zone receives the vast majority of effort from fly anglers and also receives high effort by gear anglers. It contains some of the most famous and highly publicized runs on the Thompson River. 5. This zone extends from Epsom (the point at which the Thompson River is viewable from the Trans Canada Highway) downstream to the bait ban at Martel. Although this zone can be accessed from points along the highway and a road along the east side of the Thompson River, many of the runs are accessed by boat. Bait is not allowed in this zone and as a result most of the effort is by fly fisherman. This zone appears to receive the most effort once the runs in zone 4 become crowded. All anglers sighted in each of the 5 zones, including those not actively fishing, were counted. Angler interviews started after the instantaneous count at 10:30 hours at the furthest downstream point (Lytton) and continued upstream, concluding at approximately 16:00 hours. Interviews were conducted at as many different locations as possible throughout the day. During the interviews anglers being interviewed for the first time were asked the following questions (Appendix I): 1. Initials. 2. Where are you from? Specific provinces, states and countries outside of BC were recorded. Residency was also broken down into 5 general categories: BC Local, BC Resident, Non Resident Canadian, Non Resident US and Non Resident Foreign. A BC Local was defined as a BC Resident that lived within a 2-hour drive (approximately 200- km) of Spences Bridge. 3. What time did you start fishing today? 4. What time will you stop fishing today? 5. How many steelhead have you hooked so far today? 6. How many steelhead have you landed so far today? 7. What zone were you fishing in when you landed this steelhead? 8. Have you landed any other species of fish so far today? If so, how many and what species. 9. Did you fish yesterday? If so, how many hours did you fish? 10. How many steelhead did you land yesterday? 11. What zone were you fishing in when you landed this steelhead? 12. What type of gear do you use: bait (subdivided into bottom bouncing or float), lure or fly? 13. How would you rate your overall angling experience for today? This was measured on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being a very good score and 5 being a very poor score. 14. How many years have you been steelhead fishing in total? 15. How many years have you been steelhead fishing on the Thompson River? 16. How many days do you expect to fish the Thompson for steelhead this year? 17. Did you fish the Thompson for steelhead last year? If so, how many days did you fish the Thompson for steelhead last year? Along with these questions the time of the interview was also recorded. Anglers being interviewed for a second time were only asked questions about catch and effort. This included question 1 and questions 3 to 12. 4

11 Question 12 regarding gear type was not asked but recorded by observation only. Repetitive Instantaneous Angler Counts On October 23 rd, 27 th, November 2 nd, 9 th, 17 th, and 25 th, instantaneous angler counts were conducted every two hours from first light until dusk to provide a comparison to the current method of estimating effort (extrapolating activity profiles recorded from interviews based on one instantaneous angler count at 10:00 hours). Dates were selected to provide a maximum variety of circumstances during the sport fishery: weekdays with low effort, weekends with high effort, days where the number of anglers increases throughout the day (Saturday) and days where the number of anglers declines throughout the day (Sunday). The total number of angler hours calculated by each method for each date was plotted and a linear regression was performed. Calculations Total Catch by Weekday and Weekend Stratum In roving surveys, the catch rate estimator for the purpose of tracking changes in catch rate over time is the "ratio of means estimator". For each stratum the estimator is: R ^ 1 = m i= 1 m i= 1 c l i i (1) where c i is the catch for the i th angler, l i is the length of time fishing (in hours) up to the time of the interview, and m is the number of interviews. The catch rate estimator for the purpose of estimating total catch is the "mean of ratios estimator": ^ R2 = 1/ m m i= 1 c i li This method of calculating catch rate can result in large mean squared error if short trips are included in samples. Therefore, interviews where time fishing was less than 45 minutes were omitted from the samples (Pollock et al. 1997). (2) 5

12 The variance for the "mean of ratios estimator" is: V ( Rˆ m ) = (1 M m i= 1 2 ) ( ci R li n ) 2 2 (3) Where M is the maximum number of anglers on the river based on the activity profile of interviewed anglers and scaled by the instantaneous count at 1000 hours. The mean instantaneous angler count (the average number of anglers actively fishing in the hr time interval in each stratum) is estimated as: y n t = t = 1 y n (4) where y t is the instantaneous count on each day t, and n is the number of days instantaneous counts occurred in each stratum. The proportion of effort occurring in the hr time interval was estimated using a sum of ratios estimator so that each day sampled within a stratum has equal weight: p t = 1/ n a n j= 1 ai i= 1 where a 10 is the number of anglers active between hrs (based on interviews), a i is the number of anglers at large at each hour (i) of the day (based on interviews), and n is the number of days surveyed within each stratum. (5) 6

13 Total effort (rodhours) for each week and day-type is estimated as: Ew = N y p (6) where N is the number of days in each stratum and p is the average proportion of angler effort in the one hour period corresponding to the time of the instantaneous angler count. Total catch in each stratum is therefore: ^ C = E R2 (7) Total Catch by Gear/Residency Stratum The proportion of effort for each gear/residency type was estimated as: p g = n i= 1 m e i i= 1 e i where e i is the daily effort in hours by the i th angler, m is the number of anglers interviewed with a known gear/residency type and n is the number of anglers in each gear/residency stratum. Total effort for each gear/residency type was estimated as: (8) Eg = n pg Ewi i= 1 where Ew i is the effort for the i th weekday/weekend stratum calculated in formula 6 and n is the number of weekend and weekday strata surveyed. The total effort for each gear /residency type estimated in formula 9 was multiplied by the mean CPUE for each residency and gear type (estimated via the sum of ratios as in formula 2) to provide an estimate of the total catch for each residency/gear type (formula 7). (9) 7

14 Results Weather conditions in 2002 were very good for anglers with low levels of precipitation and suitably warm temperatures. Low snow packs from the previous winter produced very low water conditions for angling. The Thompson remained low and clear throughout the survey period and no angling days were lost due to high or turbid water conditions. In fact, many anglers commented that they felt the water conditions were too low and that it may be impeding the upstream migration of steelhead. Effort A total of 894 surveys were conducted on 572 different anglers over an 8-week period from October 12 th to November 29 th. Effort data gathered on survey days represented rodhours which provided an extrapolated estimate for the entire survey period of rodhours. This represents a drop in effort from 2001 of approximately 20% (Renn & Bison 2002). The average angler day was estimated to be 7.81 hours long (n=894, SE=0.0873) which converts angler effort in rodhours to an estimated anglerdays over the entire survey period. In the first two weeks of the angler survey, effort appears to be nearly as high on week days as it was on week end days. This is most likely due to inconsistent counts between two observers during the instantaneous count at 10:00 hours than an actual reflection of angler behaviour. This survey bias was corrected after week two with further training and a pattern of angler activity similar to that of 2001 was observed in 2002 (Renn & Bison 2002; Figure 2). Effort (Rodhours) Weekday Effort Weekend Effort 12-O ct O ct O ct O ct O ct O ct O ct N ov N ov N ov N ov N ov N ov N ov N ov Nov Nov-02 Survey Date Figure 2. Angler effort in rodhours for each day of the 2002 Thompson steelhead angler survey. Dark bars represent weekend effort and lighter bars represent weekday effort. Effort for the survey period reached a maximum of 922 rodhours on November 2 nd : the Saturday proceeding the Remembrance Day long weekend. This compares with a minimum effort of 197 rodhours on November 25 th. Effort on the Thompson River showed a modest peak in activity during the first week of November. 8

15 Extrapolated effort data shows that angler effort was higher during the week than on weekends (Figure 3). This is to be expected because of the different number of days in each stratum although it is somewhat different than in 2001, where angler effort on weekends was nearly as high as angler effort during the week (Renn & Bison 2002). This suggests that the relative drop in angler effort for 2002 was greater on weekends. Generally, both weekend and weekday effort was less variable over the season compared to 2001 with peak efforts being substantially lower Effort (Rodhours) Oct 12, 13,14 Oct 15 to 18 Oct 19,20 Oct 21 to 25 Oct 26,27 Oc t 28 to Nov 1 ov 2,3 N 4 to 8 Nov Nov 9, Dates 10,11 Nov 12 to 15 Weekday Effort Weekend Effort 16,17 Nov Nov 18 to 22 Nov 23,24 Nov 25 to 29 Figure 3. Extrapolated angler effort in rodhours for each week and weekend of the 2002 Thompson steelhead angler survey. Dark bars represent weekend effort and lighter bars represent weekday effort. In the month of November 2002, there was an estimated rodhours or anglerdays. This compares with an estimated rodhours (2 122 angler days) in 2001, rodhours (1705 anglerdays) in 1999 and rodhours (2878 anglerdays) in 1998 (Renn & Bison 2002; Webb & Bennett 2000; Webb 2000). In 1999, effort data was almost entirely collected in the month of November but in 1998 the angler survey collected effort data for 6 weeks from November 5 th to December 13 th. The effort data collected in the past 4 years appears to be consistent and has stabilized at a level considerably lower than the early 1980's, similar to effort levels from the late 1970's (Antifeau 1977; Caverly 1981 and 1982; Dolighan 1978 and 1979; Moore 1983; Moore & Olmstead 1985; Figure 4). 9

16 6000 Angler Effort (Anglerdays) N/A N/A N/A Year (November) Figure 4. Trends in effort by Thompson steelhead anglers in the month of November from 1976 to CPUE The mean CPUE for the Thompson steelhead sport fishery in 2002 was estimated at steelhead/rodhour (n=828, SE= ). This translates into 23.4 hours/ steelhead or 2.99 anglerdays/steelhead. Since most of the data was gathered by interviews taking place in the morning and early afternoon there was a potential for underestimating the CPUE if catch rates at dusk were significantly higher than morning catch rates. To provide a check on this, anglers were also asked how many steelhead they had captured on the previous day as well as how long they had fished. The CPUE calculated from the previous days data received from anglers was not significantly higher at steelhead/rodhour (n=517, SE= ) than the CPUE of steelhead/rodhour calculated from current interview data (t=1.383, P=0.1670). The mean angler day length calculated from previous days data however, was significantly shorter at 7.37 hours/anglerday (n=517, SE=0.1113) than the previously stated anglerday of 7.81 hours/anglerday, calculated from current interview data (t=3.070, P= ). This suggests that anglers consistently reported fishing for a shorter period of time on the previous day than they expected to fish on the day of the interview. This reduced estimate of effort for the previous days fishing is also likely the cause of the slightly increased estimate of CPUE for the previous day and is not reflective of an increase in evening steelhead catch rates. The CPUE remains relatively stable throughout the entire survey period suggesting that anglers respond very rapidly to the changing vulnerability of steelhead within the sport fishery (Figure 5). 10

17 CPUE (Steelhead/rodhour) Weekday CPUE Weekend CPUE Oct-02 Oct-02 Oct-02 Oct-02 Oct-02 Oct-02 Oct-02 Nov-02 Nov-02 Nov-02 Nov-02 Nov Nov Nov Nov Nov N ov Survey Date Figure 5. CPUE in steelhead/rodhour for each day of the 2002 Thompson steelhead angler survey. Dark bars represent weekend effort and lighter bars represent weekday effort. The CPUE for steelhead anglers in 2002 appears to be only slightly higher on weekdays when effort was lowest. This is quite different from 2001 where CPUE was considerably higher on weekdays than on weekends. This may be reflective of a trend towards increased effort on weekdays in The highest CPUE recorded in 2002 was steelhead/rodhour and occurred on November 29 th : the final day of the survey. This is similar to 2001 where the highest CPUE also occurred late in the season and suggests that late season anglers can often have high catch rates. For the month of November 2002, the mean CPUE was slightly higher than the overall mean CPUE at steelhead/rodhour (n=499, SE= ) or steelhead/anglerday (Figure 6). This is similar to the catch rates of steelhead/rodhour ( steelhead/anglerday) and steelhead/rodhour ( steelhead/anglerday) reported in 1998 and 1999 respectively, but is considerably lower than the catch rate of steelhead/rodhour reported in 2001(Renn & Bison 2002; Webb & Bennett 2000; Webb 2000). 11

18 Steelhead/Anglerday N/A N/A N/A Year (November) Figure 6. Trends in the CPUE of Thompson steelhead anglers for the month of November, from 1976 to Thompson Steelhead Sport Fishery CPUE vs. Albion CPUE The overall CPUE for the 2002 Thompson steelhead sport fishery was the 4 th highest on record despite a predicted escapement of only steelhead (MWLAP unpublished data on file). The cumulative Albion Chum Test Fishery CPUE for the months of October and November was 1.56, ranking 2002 the lowest out of 23 years of data collection. Webb (2000) demonstrated that the Albion test-fishing index did not correlate well with the CPUE from the Thompson steelhead sport fishery and CPUE data from 2002 is no exception (Figure 7). 12

19 Sport Fishing CPUE (Steelhead/Anglerday) y = x R 2 = Cumulative Albion CPUE Figure 7. The cumulative Albion Chum Test Fishing CPUE in relation to the Thompson steelhead sport fishing CPUE's from all years where creel survey data is available. CPUE's from all years surveyed are not significantly correlated (F=1.15, P=0.318) with the cumulative CPUE's from the Albion test fishery. Renn & Bison (2002) demonstrated that CPUE's from creel surveys performed only in the early 1980's are significantly correlated (F=18.0, P=0.0240) with cumulative CPUE's from the Albion test fishery. Although there appears to be an upward shift in the CPUE s from the steelhead sport fishery relative to the cumulative Albion test fishing index, data from the past 4 years is not significantly (F=1.99, P=0.294) correlated (Figure 8). This may change however as a longer time series of data is collected on a strictly catch and release Thompson steelhead sport fishery. 13

20 Sport Fishing CPUE (Steelhead/Anglerday) y = x R 2 = Cumulative Albion CPUE 4.0 Figure 8. The cumulative Albion Chum Test Fishing CPUE in relation to the Thompson steelhead sport fishing CPUE's from 1998 to the present. Catch From October 12 th to November 29 th an estimated steelhead were captured in the Thompson steelhead sport fishery. Approximately 683 of these were captured in the month of November. This compares with a catch of 1391 steelhead reported in November 1998 and a catch of 580 steelhead captured in November 1999 (Webb & Bennett 2000; Webb 2000). Catch rates were much higher in 2001 however, with a total catch of steelhead and a catch of 1535 steelhead in the month of November (Renn & Bison 2002; Figure 9). 14

21 Steelhead Captured N/A N/A N/A Year (November) Figure 9. Trends in the number of steelhead captured in November in Thompson steelhead sport fishery, from 1976 to the Along with steelhead, an estimated rainbow trout (non anadromous Oncorhynchus mykiss) were also reported captured. This compares with captures in 2001 (Renn & Bison 2002). There were also reports of mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), one bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus), large scale suckers (Catostomus macrocheilus) and northern pikeminnows (Ptychocheilus oregonensis ) being captured on survey days. An estimated total of 143 coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) were also captured during the survey period. Coho captures occurred primarily in early October but a second cluster of captures was also reported in mid-november, suggesting the presence of a later run coho stock. Residency and Gear Type The majority (424 or 75%) of the 568 Thompson steelhead anglers interviewed were BC Residents (Table 1). This is slightly higher than the tally of BC Residents obtained by Webb and Webb & Bennett (2000) but slightly lower than reported by Renn and Bison (2002). In 2002, 105 of the anglers interviewed (18%) were from the US. This is very similar to the number of US Residents reported by Webb and Webb & Bennett (2000) but slightly higher that reported by Renn & Bison (2002). All other residence categories form a small fraction of the Thompson steelhead angler community and appear to be consistently represented in recent angler surveys. Out of the 551 anglers interviewed with a recorded gear type, 244 (44.3%) fished with bait, 101 (18.3%) fished with lures and 206 (37.4%) fly-fished (Table 2). Of the 244 bait fisherman, 117 (21.2% of the total) float fished, 77 (14% of the total) bottom bounced and 50 (9.1% of the total) had an undetermined method of bait fishing. This is consistent with 2001 data where 36.2% fished with bait, 21.7% fished with lures and 34.2% fly fished (Renn & Bison 2002). This is also consistent with data from 1998 where 41% fished with bait, 15.1% fished with lures and 34.4% fly-fished (Webb & Bennett 2000). In 1999 the proportion of bait fishermen and lure fishermen was somewhat different with 26.4% bait fishermen, 29% lure fishermen and 31% fly fishermen (Webb 2000). As in past years, the majority (69%) of non-resident anglers that came to fish steelhead on the Thompson, fly fished. This is in contrast to BC anglers that fish steelhead on the 15

22 Thompson: 51.4% are bait fishermen, 21.6% are lure fishermen and 27% are fly fishermen. Gear preference by different residency types suggests that a change in the proportion of residents and non-residents could also affect the relative proportions of gear types. Table 1. The number and percent of anglers in each residence category in the Thompson steelhead sport fishery in Angler residence data from 1998, 1999 and 2001 is included for comparison. Residence Specific 2002 Renn Webb Webb Category Residence n % BC Local NA 10 2% 4.4% 0.4% * 6.5% BC Resident NA % 77.5% 72.8% 67.7% Non Resident Canadian Non Resident American Non Resident Foreign Alberta % Ontario 1 0.2% Yukon 1 0.2% California 4 0.7% Colorado 2 0.4% Florida 1 0.2% Idaho 1 0.2% Illinois 1 0.2% Massachusetts 1 0.2% Montana 2 0.4% Nevada 1 0.2% New Mexico 1 0.2% North Carolina 1 0.2% New York 2 0.4% Oregon % Tennessee 1 0.2% Texas 1 0.2% Washington % Wisconsin 1 0.2% England 1 0.2% Germany 5 0.9% Japan 5 0.9% Scotland 1 0.2% Spain 1 0.2% Total of all Residency Types % 2.6% 5.4% 1.8% % 14.2% 20.0% 18.0% 13 2% 1.2% 0.8% 0.6% * In 1999 the definition of residency types was changed to exclude Kamloops residents from the BC Local category and include them in the BC Residents category. 16

23 Table 2. The gear preference of each residency category in the 2002 Thompson steelhead sport fishery. Gear Type bait lure fly float bottom general total Residence n % n % n % n % n % n % BC Local 3 0.5% 2 0.4% 5 0.9% 1 0.2% 4 0.7% BC Resident % % % % % % Non Resident Canadian 5 0.9% 3 0.5% 8 1.5% 2 0.4% 6 1.1% Non Resident American 2 0.4% % % 9 1.6% % Non Resident Foreign 1 0.2% % Totals % % % % % % Catch and Effort by Gear Type and Residency Category In the 2002 Thompson steelhead angler survey, bait fishermen that bottom bounced had the highest CPUE of all gear types with steelhead/rodhour (n=114, SE=0.0126). This was fo llowed by a CPUE for bait float fisherman of (n=146, SE=0.0135). This was approximately double the CPUE of lure fishermen and seven times that of fly fishermen, which had CPUE's of steelhead/rodhour (n=103, SE=0.0108) and steelhead/rodhour (n=264, SE=0.0028), respectively (Table 3). Table 3. The mean CPUE, effort and catch by the 3 dominant gear types used by Thompson steelhead anglers in Gear Type CPUE Effort Proportion Estimated Mean n S.E. (Rodhours) of Effort Total Effort Estimated Total Catch bait float bottom general / / /- 14 lure fly / /- 12 Although the overall CPUE's for 2001 are much higher than 2002 the relative CPUE of bait fisherman and lure fishermen remain consistent (Renn & Bison 2002). This was also observed in 1998 where bait fisherman had a CPUE approximately double that of lure fisherman (Webb & Bennett 2000). What was unusual about 2002 was the relative CPUE of fly fisherman to bait fisherman. In 1998, 1999 and 2001, bait fisherman had a CPUE approximately 3 times that of fly fisherman (Webb 2000, Webb & Bennett 2000 and Renn & Bison 2002). In 2002 however, bait fisherman had a CPUE approximately 7 times higher than fly fisherman. Unfortunately total effort estimated from 1998 and 1999 angler survey data cannot be compared to values estimated in 2001 and 2002 due to different methodologies. In 1998 and 1999 it was 17

24 assumed that the effort by individual anglers in each gear type was similar. In 2001and 2002 this assumption was not made and the proportion of effort by anglers using each gear type was calculated. It appears that the effort by anglers of the three dominant gear types was relatively consistent in 2002 (Table 3). This in contrast to 2001 where bait fishermen accounted for nearly double the total number of rodhours than fly fisherman with and rodhours, respectively, even though the number of bait fishermen and fly fishermen were similar (Renn & Bison 2002). The much higher CPUE by bait fisherman in 2002 however, translates into a much higher total catch. Of the 3 major gear types, bait fishermen caught 76% of the total catch, lure fishermen caught 14% and fly fishermen captured only 10% of the total catch. In 2002, visiting Canadians had the highest overall CPUE ( steelhead/rodhour; n=21, SE=0.0240) although sample size was small (Table 4). The CPUE of BC Resident fishermen was second highest at steelhead/rodhour (n=505, SE=0.0055) followed by the American anglers with a CPUE of steelhead/rodhour (n=127, SE=0.0069). This is in contrast to 2001 where the US anglers had the highest overall CPUE (Renn & Bison 2002). Non Resident Foreign anglers, despite angling for a combined total of 161 hours, failed to catch a single steelhead. Table 4. The mean CPUE, effort and catch for Thompson steelhead anglers in each residence category, Residence CPUE Effort Proportion Estimated Category Mean n S.E. (Rodhours) of Effort Total Effort Estimated Total Catch BC Local /- 12 BC Resident Non Resident Canadian / /- 40 Non Resident American Non Resident Foreign / /- 0 The proportion of effort by each residence category closely mimics the proportion of anglers in each residence category (Table 2). The vast majority of angling effort in the Thompson steelhead sport fishery comes from BC Resident anglers (most reside in the lower mainland) with 73% of the total effort. Non Resident American anglers are a distant second in this category and provide 19% of the total effort. The remaining 3.2%, 2.8% and 1.5% of the total effort comes from Non Resident Canadian, Non Resident Foreign and BC local steelhead anglers, respectively. BC Resident anglers utilize the bulk of the resource by capturing 84% of the total steelhead captured in the Thompson sport fishery in 2002 (Table 4 and 5). US anglers account for approximately 11% of the steelhead captured in the sport fishery. Despite their proximity to the Thompson River, BC Local anglers are a distant third, capturing less than 1% of the total number of steelhead captured in the sport fishery. 18

25 Table 5. The mean CPUE, effort and catch for Thompson steelhead anglers of the major gear types in each residence category, Residence Gear CPUE Effort Proportion Estimated Category Type Mean n S.E. (Rodhours) of Effort Total Effort BC Local BC Resident Non Resident Canadian Non Resident American Non Resident Foreign Estimated Total Catch bait float /- 0 bait bottom /- 0 bait general lure /- 0 fly /- 14 bait float /- 134 bait bottom /- 88 bait general /- 62 lure /- 75 fly /- 39 bait float /- 33 bait bottom /- 36 bait general lure /- 0 fly /- 15 bait float /- 0 bait bottom /- 49 bait general lure /- 31 fly /- 32 bait float bait bottom bait general lure fly / /- 0 The most productive anglers in the 2002 Thompson steelhead sport fishery appeared to be the Non Resident Canadian bottom bouncing bait fishermen. They had a CPUE of (n=4, SE=0.0735) steelhead/rodhour, although sample size is very small and standard error is high relative to the mean. The second highest CPUE s were recorded by BC Resident bait fisherman. Of this group, bottom bouncers had a slightly higher CPUE than did float fisherman with CPUE s of (n=75, SE=0.0163) and (n=133, SE=0.0144) steelhead/rodhour, respectively. This is different than in 2001 where the highest CPUE was recorded by US bait fisherman (Renn & Bison 2002). The majority of BC Resident bait fishermen float fished (63%) whereas the vast majority of US bait anglers (94%) used the bottom bouncing technique. 19

26 BC Resident bait fisherman are the largest users of the Thompson steelhead sport fishery resource, capturing 66% (n=690) of the total steelhead captured by the major gear types (Table 5). This is followed by BC Resident lure fisherman and US bait fishermen which captured 13% (n=134) and 6% ( n=68) of the total number of steelhead, respectively. Angler Demographics Angler Satisfaction Rating vs. CPUE The level of angler satisfaction appears to be closely correlated with CPUE: anglers with the highest CPUE's give the highest satisfaction ratings (Figure 10). Frequency CPUE Range to to to 0.9 > Overall Experience Rating Figure 10. The frequency of angler satisfaction ratings by CPUE category in the 2002 Thompson steelhead sport fishery. Angler satisfaction ratings are: 1 very good, 2 good, 3 average, 4 poor and 5 is very poor. This is similar to 2001, where satisfaction ratings followed CPUE fairly closely (Renn & Bison 2002). In 2001 however, there were very few ratings of 4 and 5. Overall CPUE s in 2001 were also much higher, especially the CPUE of fly fishermen. It is possible that even though an angler had not recorded catching a steelhead at the time of the interview in 2001, their satisfaction rating may have reflected a steelhead capture from the previous few days. In 2002 however, CPUE s were low enough that many anglers failed to capture a single steelhead while angling on the Thompson and this may have resulted in a higher number of low satisfaction ratings. Years Angling Experience The majority of Thompson River steelhead anglers (approximately 45%) have only 1 to 5 years angling experience on the Thompson River itself (Figure 11). Approximately 35% of steelhead anglers have 6 to 10 years experience angling for Thompson River steelhead. The remaining Thompson River steelhead anglers with more than 10 years angling experience on the Thompson are evenly distributed among the remaining experience categories. In contrast, the total number of years of steelhead angling experience on any river by Thompson steelhead anglers tends to be more evenly distributed among all experience categories (Figure 12). This pattern may result if 20

27 Thompson steelhead anglers gain much of their steelhead angling experience on other rivers and do not come to fish steelhead on the Thompson until later in their angling careers. Frequency Bait Float Bait Bottom Bait General Lure Fly to 5 6 to to to to 25 >25 Years of Thompson Steelhead Angling Experience Figure 11. The number of years of steelhead angling experience on the Thompson River by Thompson River steelhead anglers in Frequency Bait Float Bait Bottom Bait General Lure Fly to 5 6 to to to to 25 >25 Years of Steelhead Angling Experience Figure 12. The total number of years of steelhead angling experience by Thompson River steelhead anglers in Of the 572 anglers surveyed, 111 or 19% said they were fishing the Thompson River for the first time (Figure 13). The majority of these first time anglers were fly fisherman 21

28 (51%) followed by bait fisherman and lure fisherman, which comprised 25% and 24% of the total, respectively. 13% Bait Float Bait Bottom Bait General Lure Fly 10% 2% 51% 24% Figure 13. The percent of anglers of each gear type in there first year of steelhead angling on the Thompson River. Days Fished in 2001 vs The majority of steelhead anglers that fished the Thompson in 2001 and 2002 fished for less than 6 days (Figure 14). 0.6 P ropor tion of Anglers to 5 6 to to to 20 >20 Days Fished Figure 14. The number of days fished by anglers in the Thompson River steelhead sport fishery in 2001 and

29 The number of days spent angling for Thompson steelhead in 2002 appears to be very similar to This may be due in part to the way these questions were asked in the interview. In 2002, anglers were asked in there first interview how many days they expected to fish the Thompson for steelhead this year and how many days did they fish it last year. It is quite possible that anglers tended to predict they would fish the Thompson the same number of days as the previous year or that anglers would recall fishing the Thompson for the same number of days as they had done in the previous year. Either scenario would tend to bias data such that anglers appear to be fishing the same number of days each year. Days Fished vs. CPUE The CPUE s of Thompson steelhead anglers in 2002 does not appear to be related to the number of days spent angling (Figure 15) Proportion of Anglers CPUE CPUE (steelhead/rodhour) 0 1 to 5 6 to to to 20 >20 0 Days Fished Figure 15. The number of days fished by anglers in the 2002 Thompson River steelhead sport fishery and the corresponding CPUE. Anglers who fished the Thompson for 16 to 20 days in 2002 had a mean CPUE of steelhead/rodhour (n=57, SE=0.0177). This may only be slightly significantly higher than the mean CPUE of steelhead/rodhour (n=343, SE=0.0066) by steelhead anglers that fished the Thompson for less than 6 days (t=1.37, P=0.172). These results are somewhat different than 2001 where anglers that fished for more days also had a significantly higher CPUE (Renn & Bison 2002). This may suggest that when angling opportunities are good (such as in 2001) effective anglers tend to spend more days on the water and when angling opportunities are poor as in 2002, effective anglers reduce the amount of time they spend on the water. Effort throughout the season in each zone The level of angler effort in each zone appears to shift throughout the season. As expected anglers utilize the zones furthest downstream (Zones 1 and 2) during the early part of the season when the steelhead run is presumably just entering the Thompson River (Figures 1 and 16). Angler effort tends to shift further upstream as the season progresses. Overall, Zone 4 (around Spences Bridge) receives by far the most effort of any of the zones followed by Zone 3. As effort increases in Zone 4, Zone 5 (upstream of the bait ban near Martel) receives more effort, especially on weekends. 23