1

2

A Case History of Fishing Regulations in

Great Smoky Mountains National Park: 1934 - 2004Matt A. Kulp and Steve E. Moore

Great Smoky Mountains National Park

3

Background

• Study began as case history and summary of GRSM fishing regulations

• Original three objectives:

1) What is the fishing regulation history of GRSM?

2) Did regulations meet management goals for each time period?

3) Were various regulations effective in enhancing or influencing salmonid age structure, size structure, growth, and population dynamics over 70 years (1934-2004)?

• Rainbow trout (non-native) used in all analysis

• >1.4 million rainbow trout stocked in GRSM from 1934-1975• Mostly fingerlings up to 1945; then switched to catchables

• Part of broader study: Kulp, M.A. and S.E. Moore. 2004. A Case History in Fishing Regulations in

Great Smoky Mountains National Park: 1934-2004. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. In press.

4

5

6

7

Methods

• Analyzed similar types of data from different regulatory periods

• Population abundance variety of time series analysis used to evaluate time trend

pre- and post-1960 groups compared with ANOVA

• Length frequency data analyzed using customized RSD’s rainbow >150mm used as “stock size”; RSD’s calculated for subsequent 25mm size groups (i.e. RSD178, RSD 203, RSD229…RSD305, etc.)

years or periods compared using Chi2 analysis

• Age structure – delineated using scales collected Parkwide

years compared using Chi2 analysis

• Annual Mortality – Catch Curves

• Annual Growth – Visual Implant tags

8

General Regulations

Period Season Legal Lures Size Limit Creel Limit Notes

1934-1935 Apr-Aug Single Hook

Artificial >254mm 10 fish/day

Could keep injured

1936-1939 May-Aug Single Hook

Artificial >203mm RBT >152mm BKT

10 fish/day Could keep

injured

1940-1942 Apr-Aug Single Hook Artificial/Bait

>178mm trout

10 trout/day

Could keep injured

1943-1947 May-Aug Single Hook

Artificial >178mm All

Species 10

trout/day Could keep

injured

1948-1950 May-Aug Single Hook Artificial/Bait

>178mm trout

10 trout/day

Could keep injured

1951-1953 May-Aug Single Hook Artificial/Bait

>178mm All species

7 trout/day Could keep

injured

1954-1975 May-Aug Single Hook

Artificial >178mm All

species 5 trout/day

CANNOT keep injured

1976-1982 Apr-Oct Single Hook

Artificial >178mm 5 fish/day

1983-Today Year Round Single Hook

Artificial >178mm 5 trout/day

Eliminate Special Reg

9

10

Population Dynamics – East Prong Little River

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Years

Leg

al T

rout

/ km

.

No Significant Trend Detected

Time Series Linear Regression, Exponential Smoothing, ARIMA (x,y)

11

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Years

Leg

al T

rout

/ k

m

Population Dynamics – East Prong Little River

No Significant Difference

p = 0.73, df = 15

Pre-1960 Post-1960

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

RSD203 RSD254 RSD305 RSD356

RSD

1930's

1940's

1950's

1980's

1990's

Size Structure (RSD’s) – East Prong Little River

Only 1940’s Significantly Greater Than 1990’s

df=3, F=11.92

13

Size Structure (RSD’s) – Abrams Creek

1999 Significantly Greater Than 1985

df=5, F=20.87

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

RSD178 RSD203 RSD229 RSD254 RSD279 RSD305 RSD330

RSD

Abrams Creek 1985

Abrams Creek 1999

205mm Creel Limit

178mm Creel Limit

14

Age Structure – Parkwide

NO Significant Difference

df=3, F=4.04

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Age-1 Age-2 Age-3 Age-4

Per

cent

of

Pop

ulat

ion

(%)

.

Holloway 1945 N=928

Kulp 1993 N=107

* Injured fish

15

Length at Capture – East Prong Little River

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Age-0 Age-1 Age-2 Age-3 Age-4

Tot

al L

engt

h (m

m) .

King 1942

Holloway 1945

Kulp 1995

16

Annual Mortality – Abrams Creek

Abrams Creek 1957y = -0.8545x + 5.5381

A = 58%

Abrams Creek 1994y = -0.8865x + 5.1051

A = 59%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Age-2 Age-3 Age-4

log e

(N

umbe

r of

Fis

h) .

• Regulations similar among two periods regulations very liberal up to 1954

17

Little River 1996y = -0.8226x + 4.8373

A = 56%

Sams Creek 1998y = -1.6479x + 6.1254

A = 80%

Fish Camp 1945y = -1.1612x + 5.2555

A = 69%

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Age-1 Age-2 Age-3

loge

(Num

ber o

f Fis

h)

Annual Mortality – Parkwide

18

Limiting Factors – Food Limitation

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

< 177mm 178-203mm 204-229mm > 230mmMea

n W

eigh

t C

hang

e (g

)

October-April

May-September

1-Year

* Visual Implant (VI) tag data from Little River (May 1991 to Sept. 1996) N=64

19

Limiting Factors – Annual Net Production

Historical Stream Salmonid Literature Review

Annual Net Production

Productivity

Range (g/m2)

Study Area

Specific Conduct. (MS/cm)

Species

Net Production

(g/m2)Authors

Low

(Infertile) < 6.0

GA

QUE

GRSM

MN/WI

N/A

10-11

10

N/A

BKT

BKT

BKT/RBT

BKT/RBT

0.31-0.72

1.5-6.6

0.45-0.62

1.3-5.8

Michaels 1974

O’Connor & Power 1976

Ensign et al. 1990

Waters et al. 1990

Medium 6.0-25.0

PA

ID

WI

MN

27

N/A

273

620

BKT

RBT/STL

BKTBNT

6.4

11.8-12.5

8.2-25.810.4-19.5

Cooper & Scherer 1967

Goodnight & Bjornn 1971

Hunt 1974

Newman and Waters 1989

High

(Fertile)

> 25.0 NZ

PA

N/A

374

BNT

BKT

54.7

33.1

Allen 1951

Cooper & Scherer 1967

20

Angler Attitudes – Changes on the Horizon . . .

• Long-term involvement with sampling provided an understanding of natural variation (>12-40 people per year)

• Angler involvement in annual monitoring opened their eyes to actual size structures and densities (1 or 2 people)

• Angler understanding of regulations dispelled myths

• Once educated about regulation realities:

1. anglers policed their own ranks concerning regulation criticism

2. focused energies on more productive projects

21

• Unable to detect any significant changes due to regulations during any period

Droughts and floods account for major changes

Heavy stocking may explain short-term differences observed in East Prong Little River

Results mirror those of populations outside GRSM

Summary

• Stocking of fingerling/catchable trout temporarily augmented wild population

61-90% caught in first three months

• Acid deposition impacts not apparent in low elevation streams (<875m) in this study

• Current GRSM fishing regulations more closely tied to social beliefs rather than biological data

• Food limitations and subsequent lack of productivity main limiting factor in all GRSM populations

• Angler understanding allowed to focus energies on productive partnership efforts

22

Questions . . . ?

Moral of the regulation story in GRSM. . .

23