FEATURE:

FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Craig Paukert
Michael McInerny
Randall Schultz
Paukert is assistant leader-fisheries at the U.S. Geological Survey
Kansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Kansas State
University, Manhattan. McInerny is a fisheries research biologist
at the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Hutchinson,
and he can be contacted at Mike.McInerny@dnr.state.mn.us.
Randall Schultz is a fisheries research biologist at the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, Chariton.

Historical Trends in Creel Limits, Length-based Limits,

and Season Restrictions for Black Basses in
the United States and Canada
ABSTRACT: We determined for largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), smallmouth bass (M. dolomeui), and spotted
bass (M. punctulatus) historical trends in state- and province-wide creel limits, length limits, and season closures along
with the rationale justifying these regulations. Based on data gathered via mail surveys and the Internet, 55 jurisdictions
had state- or province-wide creel limits, minimum length limits, or season closures, with each regulation type enacted as
early as pre-1900. Most early regulations were established to protect spawning bass, but providing equitable distribution
of 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 not
affected by angler preference except for season closures, and were frequently uninfluenced by advances in scientific
knowledge of black bass biology.

Tendencias Histricas e Influencia de Regulaciones Basadas en

Lmites de Capturas, Tallas Mnimas y Vedas Estacionales en
Poblaciones de Lobinas Negras de los Estados Unidos y Canad
RESUMEN: Las tendencias poblacionales histricas de la lobina de boca grande (Micropterus salmoides), la lobina de boca
chica (M. dolomeui) y la lobina pinta (M. punctulatus) fueron examinadas , en diferentes Estados y Provincias de los Estados
Unidos 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 por
medio de encuestas de Internet en 55 juridicciones de Estados o Provincias de los pases antes mencionados. Data colectada
incluy 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 proteger las lobinas durante los perodos de desova. Las reglas establecan periodos equitativos de pesca del recurso y se enfocaban
en la calidad de la pesca de estas especies. Los resultados de los anlisis temporales y espaciales de tendencias poblacionales
fueron similares para las diferentes especies de lobinas expuestas a estas regulaciones. Siembargo, debemos mencionar que
las tendencias poblacionales se mostraron afectadas por la localizacin geogrfica de las especies estudiadas. La reglas aplicadas a esta pesquera no afectaron las preferencias de los pescadores con la excepcin de las vedas estacionales que
constantemente cambiaban influenciadas por nueva informacin cientfica en la biologa de las lobinas.
INTRODUCTION
Creel limits, length-based limits, and
fishing season restrictions are the most common regulations used to manage fisheries of
largemouth bass, (Micropterus salmoides),
smallmouth bass (M. dolomeui), and spotted
bass (M. punctulatus), the three most com62

mon species of black bass (Micropterus spp.)

in the United States and Canada (Scott and
Crossman 1973; Fuller et al. 1999).
However, information on the history of
these regulations is limited. Quinn (2002)
provided information on the historical use
of season closures and reported that
Connecticut and Massachusetts established
Fisheries

VOL

32

closed and open fishing seasons for black

bass as early as 1871. Further, some states
and provinces still had season restrictions for
black basses in 2000 (Quinn 2002).
Rationales for many of these season closures
were unknown, but protection of spawners
for many fish species, including black bass,
was the rationale for closed fishing seasons
NO

FEBRUARY

2007

WWW. FISHERIES . ORG

in Wisconsin during the 1880s (Quinn

2002). Nielsen (1999) suggested that season
closures were generally used before creel and
length-based limits. However, we know of
no region-wide documentation of early uses
of creel and length-based limits or the rationale for using these two other types of
regulations in a broad geographical scale.
Many changes potentially affecting black
bass regulations in the United States and
Canada have occurred since the 1870s.
These include formation of new states and
provinces each with their own separate
bureaucracies, formation of fisheries agencies, range expansion of black basses, and
advances in fishery science and management. Only 37 states comprised the United
States and 6 provinces comprised the
Confederation of Canada in the 1870s. By
1871, fishery commissions, with minimal
budgets and only regulatory power, were
established in only 10 states (primarily
northeastern states and California), at least
one province (Quebec), as well as one at the
federal level in both countries (Thompson
1970; McHugh 1970; Nielsen 1999). These
were essentially established because fisheries
in populated areas became depleted or
extinct, and because the public began recognizing that fishery resources were finite.
Now, all states and provinces have an
agency that manages fisheries. Black basses,
collectively, are native to 30 states and 3
provinces, all east of the Rocky Mountains,
but self-sustaining populations of at least 1
species now occur in 49 states (all except
Alaska) and 7 Canadian provinces (Scott
and Crossman 1973; Fuller et al. 1999;
Noble 2002). This range expansion began as
early as 1868 in the United States (Maine)
and by 1894 in Canada (New Brunswick).
This expansion was likely widespread
because commercial fish culture of nearly all
freshwater game fish species occurred in up
to 19 states and 2 western territories during
this period (Bowen 1970; Scott and
Crossman 1973; Warner 2005). Lastly,
improved understanding of population
dynamics and biology of black basses led to
changing management goals. Beginning in
the late 1800s fisheries management primarily involved replenishing depleted stocks via
artificial propagation, but by the 1920s and
1930s management goals incorporated the
concept of maximum sustained yield
(Redmond 1986; Nielsen 1999). By the
1970s optimum sustained yield replaced
maximum sustained yield as the most widely
Fisheries

VOL

32

NO

FEBRUARY

used management goal (Redmond 1986;

Nielsen 1999).
In general, regulations restricting harvest
have evolved with changes in human population, numbers of fisheries regulatory
agencies, and advancement in scientific
knowledge. Redmond (1986) provided the
following scenario describing historical
trends in harvest regulations. To restore
depleted fisheries, and because management
philosophies shifted towards maximum sustained yield fisheries, regulations before
1940 changed from more liberal (non-existent) to more restrictive. Harvest regulations
between 1940 and 1960 changed from being
restrictive to more liberal because scientific
studies suggested fish populations were
underexploited. Subsequent scientific studies revealed that some species including
black bass are extremely vulnerable to overfishing, thus regulations after 1960 shifted
from liberal to more restrictive. Redmond
(1986) supported his arguments with specific studies on several fish species, including
black bass but from only a few states.
Historical trends in black bass regulations
across the United States and Canada are
largely unknown.
The use of various types of regulations
could also be a function of geography
because regulations in neighboring jurisdictions would likely be similar than those
between more distant jurisdictions. For
example, Quinn (2002) showed that season
closures on black basses in 2000 were applied
mostly in the north and east United States
and eastern Canada and not applied elsewhere in these two countries. However, to
our knowledge, geographical information on
current creel and minimum length limits has
not been compiled.
Changes or differences in the type and
rationale of state- and province-wide regulations are still expected because of increasing
angling pressure, different angler preferences, and the amount of time black bass
fisheries have existed. For example, Fox
(1975), who summarized the bag limits,
length limits, and season closures on black
basses being used in the 48 contiguous states
during 1974, and Noble and Jones (1999)
hypothesized that agencies would replace
state- or province-wide regulations with
those designed for individual waters because
of increasing angling pressure on limited
waters. The Centrarchid Technical
Committee (CTC) of the North Central
Division of the American Fisheries Society
recognized that angler preferences (i.e., rank

2007

WWW. FISHERIES . ORG

of importance of black bass by anglers) for

black basses differed among their respective
jurisdictions. Thus, angler preferences
throughout the United States and Canada
probably differ, resulting in differing types of
regulations depending upon popularity of
black bass. Temporal trends were also
expected to differ because black bass fisheries were not established at the same times
across the United States and Canada. Lastly,
documentation of the history of regulations
is valuable to fisheries managers, providing
timelines on when regulations were first
implemented, and helping rule out potential
regulations used in the past and deemed
unsuccessful. The objectives of this study
were to compile the state- and provincewide creel and length limits on black bass
and determine the geographical distribution
of these two regulations currently in place as
of 2002; to determine if angler preferences
affected the current creel, length, and season
regulations on black bass; to determine the
decade when the first regulation of each type
became established and their rationale for
each black bass species; to document
changes in regulations between the earliest
and current regulation in each state and
province; and to determine if historical
trends in regulations exhibit a restrictive-toliberal-to-restrictive trend similar to that
described by Redmond (1986).

METHODS
We used the Internet, a mail survey, and
Quinn (2002) to gather information on current and historical creel, length-based, and
season regulations and their rationale in all
states and provinces with fisheries of largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and spotted
bass. We used the Internet to gather information on current (2002) creel and
length-based regulations for these three
species by visiting the website of each state
or provincial agency that manages black bass
fisheries. We gathered current season closure
data from Quinn (2002). We used a mail survey to gather data on the rank of angler
preference of black bass relative to other
game fishes (based on state or province-wide
angler preference surveys); the year when
the most recent angler preference survey was
done; the year when current regulations for
each species were established; the rationale(s) for current regulations; the decade
when the first state- or province-wide creel
limit, length limit (including type of length
limit), and fishing season restrictions were
implemented; the rationale for each histori63

cal regulation; and the decade(s) when regulations were changed including the type of
regulation and rationale. We also asked
responders to list special regulations differing
from state- or province-wide regulations. To
facilitate completion of the survey and subsequent data analysis, most questions were
closed-ended, but space was provided for
additional open-ended responses. Before we
distributed the survey to each agency, an
agency administrator and three biologists
reviewed the draft survey and provided comments. These comments were then
incorporated into the final survey instrument. The survey was sent to either agency
biologists known to be working with black
bass or administrative personnel (e.g., chief
of fisheries) in all states and provinces with
known black bass fisheries. Agencies that
did not return surveys within 4 months
received an e-mail reminder or another survey.

Data Analyses
We visually identified geographical
trends in current (2002) state- and provincewide creel and length limits by displaying
these data on maps of the United States and

Canada. We also compared if enactment

dates of the earliest regulations and current
regulations differed among regulation type
for each species, based on data obtained
from mail surveys. For these analyses, we first
constructed frequency distributions by
decade for each type of regulation. We then
used for each species Chi-square homogeneity tests to determine if frequency
distributions differed between regulation
types. We used the same approach to test
regulation type effects on enactment dates of
current regulations. We qualitatively determined if decade of initial enactment of each
type of regulation for each species was also a
function of geographical location. We calculated the mean decade of enactment for
each species and regulation type, grouped by
5-degrees of latitude and 10-degrees of longitude on decade of initial enactment.
We defined from each mail survey temporal trends in regulation changes for each
species so that they could be compared with
the general trend described by Redmond
(1986). Redmond (1986) reported that the
temporal trend in regulation change showed
a period of more liberalized regulations
(1940 to 1960) bounded by two periods

(before 1940 and after 1960) of more restrictive regulations. A change was categorized as
liberal to restrictive if a creel limit decreased
or was added if nonexistent before, if a minimum length limit was added or increased, if
a maximum limit was added or decreased, or
if a season closure was added or extended.
The change was categorized as restrictive to
liberal if the converse occurred.
We also determined the change in the
number of states with statewide creel limits,
length limits, and season closures between
1974 and 2002, and the magnitude of
change if changes occurred between these
two periods. Fox (1975) compiled the creel
limit, length limit, and length of season closure in each of the 48 contiguous states
during 1974. From the Internet survey, we
gathered data on statewide creel limits and
length limits for the same 48 states during
2002. We used data in Fox (1974) and
Quinn (2002) to determine changes in season closures between 1974 and 2000. To
determine if rationales changed over time,
we compared rationales listed to justify the
first regulation and the current regulation for
each species. We gathered these data via the
mail 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.

64

Fisheries

VOL

32

NO

FEBRUARY

2007

WWW. FISHERIES . ORG

RESULTS
We visited websites of 49 state and 8
provincial agencies that potentially regulate black bass fisheries. We also received
a total of 47 mail surveys, an 82% return
rate, but several were not fully completed.
We did not receive mail surveys from
Hawaii, Montana, Rhode Island, Virginia,
West Virginia, Wyoming, British
Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, or
Quebec. Alberta has never had restrictive
regulations on these species because all
attempts to establish black bass fisheries
failed.

Current Regulations
Based on our Internet search, 48 states
and 7 provinces had a state- or provincewide creel limit for black bass, and 9 states
and provinces had multiple creel limits
(i.e., more than one creel limit for all
black basses; Figure 1). Because nearly all
(88%) states and provinces did not separate state or province-wide regulations by
species of black bass, we presented current
regulations for all black basses combined.
This included those states and provinces

that were partitioned into regional management units, but creel limits did not
differ among units. Creel limits during
part or all of the fishing season ranged
from catch and release (New Brunswick,
New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and
Vermont) to 10 fish (Alabama, Georgia,
Hawaii [not shown in Figure 1], Louisiana,
Mississippi, and South Carolina). A total
of 27 states and provinces had state- or
province-wide minimum length limits
(including jurisdictions divided into
regional units), and 11 of these had multiple minimum length limits (Figure 2). No
other type of state- or province-wide
length limit was found. Hawaii, not shown
in Figure 2, had a minimum length limit of
23 cm (9 in) in 2002. In general, more
restrictive length limits (mean = 35 cm
[14 in]) were found in the midwestern
United States and Great Plains states.
Arkansas waters with black bass fisheries
are managed individually, so this state did
not have a statewide creel limit or minimum length limit.
Based on mail surveys, most of these
current regulations for each species of black
bass became established after 1980 (Figure

3). However, some current creel limits have

existed since the 1920s, one length limit
has been in effect since 1883, and one season restriction has remained in effect since
1874. Frequency distributions of decade of
enactment of current regulations did not
differ among types of regulations for largemouth 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 differed among states and provinces. Anglers
in 22 states and no provinces ranked black
bass as their most sought fish taxa, but
black bass ranked second in 9 and ranked
third in 7 other states and provinces
(Figure 4). Among the 43 respondents,
angler preference surveys were conducted
between 1988 and 2002, half of those were
done after 1997. Angler preference surveys were not partitioned by species of
black bass, but creel limits, minimum
length limits, and season closures were
also not separated by species when two or
more occurred within a jurisdiction.
Current creel and minimum length
regulations 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.

Fisheries

VOL

32

NO

FEBRUARY

2007

WWW. FISHERIES . ORG

65

preference, but season closures could be.

Creel limits among states where black bass
are most sought by anglers averaged 6.4
(s.e. = 0.4) compared to 5.1 (s.e. = 0.4)
among states and provinces where black
bass rank second or lower. Only 1 of 22
states where anglers rank black bass as
their most sought fish has a closed fishing
season, whereas 8 of 21 states and
provinces where anglers rank black bass
second or lower have closed seasons.

Earliest Creel, Length, and Season

Regulations

Frequency distributions of decades of first

enactment differed among regulation types
for smallmouth bass (2 = 37.10; df = 22; P
= 0.0231), but did not differ among regulation 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 proportion of season closures for smallmouth bass
were established before 1910 than creel or
length limits (Figure 3). Decades of enactment of the first state- and province-wide

More season closures were used to manage largemouth bass and smallmouth bass
before 1900, but the 1930s was the peak
decade when creel limits and length limits
became established for these species (Figure
3). The peak decade when most regulations
of all types became established for spotted
bass was also the 1930s (Figure 3).

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.

66

Fisheries

VOL

32

NO

FEBRUARY

2007

WWW. FISHERIES . ORG

creel, length, and season closure regulations

ranged from before 1900 to after 2000.
Median first creel limits for largemouth and
smallmouth bass were 15 (range = 5 to 50),
but median creel limits for spotted bass were
10 (range = 5 to 24). All except one (97%)
of the initial length limits on largemouth
and smallmouth bass were minimums, and
all initial length limits on spotted bass were
minimums. Oregons first length limit was a

reduced bag for largemouth bass and smallmouth bass longer than a certain length.
The decade of enactment of the first
creel and minimum length limits on largemouth bass and spotted bass was a function
of geographic location, but this was not the
case for smallmouth bass (Table 1). The earliest season closures for largemouth bass and
smallmouth bass were not linked with geographic location, but we could not

determine if geographic location affected

initial season closures for spotted bass
because of insufficient sample size. Decade of
enactment of creel limits of largemouth bass
increased with decreasing latitude, but did
not differ among longitude (Table 1).
However, decade of initial enactment of
creel limits for smallmouth bass and spotted
bass did not differ geographically. Initial
dates of minimum length limits for spotted

Figure 4. Rank of angler preference of black bass in the United States and Canada, based on mail surveys completed in 2002.

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 spotted
bass as a function of latitude (5-degree increments) and longitude (10-degree increments) in the United States and Canada.

Latitude (degrees)
< 35
35 to 39
40 to 44
> 45
Longitude (degrees)
< 80
80 to 89
90 to 99
100 to 109
> 110

Fisheries

VOL

Creel limit
Largemouth Smallmouth Spotted
bass
bass
bass

Minimum length limit

Largemouth Smallmouth Spotted
bass
bass
bass

Season closure
Largemouth Smallmouth Spotted
bass
bass
bass

1940
1940
1920
1910

1940
1940
1930
1910

1960
1940
1920
1920

1950
1940
1920
1940

1940
1930
1900
1940

1940
1920
1910
1940

1920
1930
1930
1940
1920

1920
1930
1940
1950
1920

1900
1930
1940
1970
1950

1910
1930
1940
1970
1950

1900
1920
1930
1940
1940

1910
1910
1930
1950
1940

32

NO

FEBRUARY

1950
1950
1930

1930
1940
1980
1960

2007

WWW. FISHERIES . ORG

1970
1940
1960

1930
1960
1990
1930

1940
1930
1930

1940
1940
1930

67

bass were not consistent among latitudes,

but they did differ among longitude.
Minimum lengths on largemouth bass were
established later in southern than northern
latitudes, and minimum length limits of
largemouth bass and spotted bass was earlier
in eastern states and provinces (longitudes <
90o) than in western interior states (longitudes at 100 to 109o) (Table 1).

Historical trends in regulation changes

Unlike that found by Redmond (1986),
regulations within most jurisdictions became
more restrictive without any period of liberalization. Most (19 of 33; 58%) responders
reported that largemouth bass regulations
became gradually stricter over time.
However, 30% reported a period of liberalized (removed or increased creel limit,
lowered or removed minimum length limit,
or removed season closure) regulations
between the first and current regulation, the
trend observed by Redmond (1986). The
liberalized periods began after 1940 and
ended as early as the 1960s or as late as 1980.
Two (6%) reported two periods of liberalized
regulations between restrictive periods, and
two reported that regulations did not
change. Most (21 of 34; 62%) responders
reported that smallmouth bass regulations
became stricter over time and without a
period of liberalized regulations, and 29%
reported a period of liberalized regulations
between two periods of more restrictive regulations. The period of liberalized
regulations were essentially the same as that
observed for largemouth bass. Two others
reported that smallmouth bass regulations
did not change and one reported that two
periods of liberalized regulations occurred
between three periods of restrictive regulations. Nine of 14 (64%) responders reported
that spotted bass regulations became stricter
without a period of liberalization and two
reported a single period of liberalized regulations between two periods of restrictive
regulations. Two others reported no change
in spotted bass regulations and one reported
that regulations became more liberalized
(removal of a length limit) after a period of
more restrictive regulations. Overall, the
most restrictive regulations are those currently in place except for the one spotted
bass example.
Since 1974, creel limits have either
decreased or remained unchanged, more
states now have minimum length limits or
increased their minimum length limits, and
fewer states have closed seasons. All 48 con68

and smallmouth bass and 15 agencies

reported rationales for the earliest regulations for spotted bass. Most (73 to 78%)
responders also provided multiple rationales.
Similar to current regulations, providing
equitable harvest and changing the quality
of catch or harvest were commonly listed
rationales for all three species. However,
unlike the rationales for current regulations,
protection of spawners was the most frequently listed rationale for the earliest
regulations, and public pressure was never
listed (Figure 5).

tiguous states now have creel limits compared to 47 in 1975 (Wyoming did not have
creel limits in 1974). Creel limits decreased
in all except 11 states and the median reduction was 5 (range 0 to 19). A total of 14
states added minimum length limits and 11
of 14 increased their minimum length limit
by an average of 76 mm (3 in) between 1974
and 2002. The number of states with
restricted fishing seasons where no harvest is
allowed dropped from 14 in 1974 to 7 in
2000.
Lastly, based on mail surveys, many states
and provinces are progressing towards individual lake management and using special
regulations rather than relying on state- or
province-wide regulations. At least four
responders (from Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois,
and Louisiana) stated that they no longer
have statewide regulations (although creel
limits within three states were the same in
most water bodies). Thirty-seven responders
(79%) reported a total of 92 special regulations currently in effect. Minimum length
(38%), protected slot (24%), and creellength limit combinations (10%) were the
most common special regulations listed.

DISCUSSION
Similarities in current and historical
trends in regulation changes among each
species of black bass reflect that regulations
in most states and some provinces were not
separated by species. Differences are linked
to the variable spatial distribution of each
species. Based on our Internet survey, regulations in 2002 were not partitioned by species
in 88% of the 56 states and provinces. We
did not ask in our mail survey if earlier regulations were segregated by species; however,
several responders reported that earlier regulations were the same for all black basses.
Spotted bass now inhabit waters in 23 states
(all below 45o latitude) and no provinces,
but smallmouth bass inhabit waters in 47
states and 7 provinces, and largemouth bass
inhabit waters in 49 states and 5 provinces
(Scott and Crossman 1971; Fuller et al.
1999). Thus, because trends in some regulation types were linked with latitude, trends
reported for spotted bass could differ from
trends reported for the other two species
because the influence of states and provinces
without spotted bass were excluded.
Season closures for black bass were more
common in jurisdictions where anglers rank
black bass second or lower. These jurisdictions also typically had season closures for
other game species, which might have influenced the implementation of black bass
regulations to ensure consistency in regulations. In five states and provinces where
black bass rank two or lower among anglers,
fishing seasons are closed for all species or all
game species (Quinn 2002). In the other
three states and provinces (Michigan,
Minnesota, and Quebec), season closures
exist for other game fish species, but closure
dates differ between black basses and the
other species.
The trends in rationale reflect trends in
regulation types. Protection of spawners was
the most common rationale for the earliest

Historical Trends in Rationale

Rationales for current regulations were
similar for largemouth bass and smallmouth
bass, but rationales for spotted bass regulations differed slightly. A total of 43
responders provided rationale data for largemouth bass regulations compared to 41 for
smallmouth bass and 21 for spotted bass, and
most (62 to 83%) provided multiple rationales. Changing the quality of catch or
harvest and providing equitable distribution
of harvest were the most common rationales
listed for all three species (Figure 5).
Protecting spawning adults, responding to
public pressure, and improving prey quality
were the other three common rationales for
current regulations on largemouth and
smallmouth bass. Responding to public pressure and improving prey quality were also
listed as common rationale for spotted bass
regulations, but no responder listed protecting spawning adults as a rationale (Figure 5).
Angler inability to distinguish spotted bass
from other bass species and increasing harvest were two other rationales for regulations
of spotted bass not listed for the other two
species.
Rationales for the earliest regulations
were similar among species. Agencies from
32 states and provinces provided rationales
for the earliest regulations for largemouth
Fisheries

VOL

32

NO

FEBRUARY

2007

WWW. FISHERIES . ORG

regulations and is the primary rationale for season closures (Noble

and Jones 1999; Quinn 2002). Before 1900, protection of spawners
was thought to be essential to assure future yields (Nielsen 1999),
and probably explains why proportionately more season closures
were used on smallmouth bass fisheries before 1910 than creel or
minimum length limits. Declines in the use of season closures in all
three black bass species by 2002 coincided with lower use of protecting spawners as a rationale in current regulations. Conversely,
changing harvest or catch quality was the rationale most frequently
linked with minimum length limits, and ensuring equitable harvest
was the rationale most frequently linked with creel limits (Noble and
Jones 1999). Both of these regulation types and rationale were commonly used before 1930, and, unlike season closures, continue to be
used in the same or more jurisdictions. Lastly, similarity in initial
enactment dates among regulation types for largemouth bass suggest
that more than one regulation type was used to meet the same management goal. Minimum length limits were commonly used to
protect spawners, and all three types have been applied to prevent
overharvest (Noble and Jones 1999). Lack of differences of enactment dates between regulation types for spotted bass could be due to
small sample size.
Spatial variation in temporal trends in regulation changes reflects
settlement patterns in the United States and Canada and building of
new impoundments and reservoirs. States and provinces in the central part of the countries, the last jurisdictions to have length limits,
were the last to be incorporated into their respective countries and
in general are more sparsely populated than states and provinces east
and west. Furthermore, new impoundments and reservoirs > 500 ha
were built between 1900 and 1970 providing up to 11,000,000 additional acres of black bass habitat in the United States (Miranda
1996), much of which occurred in the South (except Florida) and
the western interior where creel limits or length limits were enacted
relatively late. Angling pressure also increased during the same
period, and all 11 states where more than half the angling effort in
1980 occurred on reservoirs were either in the south or western interior (Fisher et al. 1986; Miranda 1996).
Spatial and temporal variation in regulations does not appear
strongly linked with the increased knowledge and improved understanding of population dynamics of black bass; thus, social factors
rather than science probably affected regulation changes in many
jurisdictions. Black basses in northern latitudes grow slower and
mature later in life than in southerly latitudes (Carlander 1977;
McCauley and Kilgour 1990), yet current minimum length limits did
not differ among latitudes. Public reaction towards depletion of
freshwater fish stocks during World War I, leading to the passage of
the Black Bass Act of 1926 (Nielsen 1999), was probably reflected in
the observed peak in startup dates of the first creel and length limits
in the 1930s. Arguably, these initial regulations were not based on
science but perceptions. Today, most states and provinces still have
jurisdiction-wide creel limits and about half have jurisdiction-wide
minimum length limits, even though black bass population dynamics differ among water bodies within jurisdictions. Furthermore, poor
synchrony between temporal gains in the scientific understanding of
black bass fisheries and temporal changes in regulations in more than
half of the jurisdictions also suggest factors other than biology influenced regulation change. Conversely, acceptance of new scientific
knowledge by the angling public probably influenced the elimination of statewide regulations in at least four jurisdictions and enabled
more special regulations to become established in many other states
Fisheries

VOL

32

NO

FEBRUARY

2007

WWW. FISHERIES . ORG

Need a
reliable
method to
track and
monitor
your fish?
Choose VEMCOs sophisticated
coded tags and receivers to
provide the best results.

or more than 25 years, scientists have relied

on VEMCO to provide the latest innovations in
acoustic telemetry. Our line of coded acoustic transmitters and receivers have revolutionized the way
scientists conduct field telemetry research. Micro to
large transmitters encoded with unique digital identification codes permit scientists to keep track of
individuals to populations of many trophic levels.
VEMCOs affordable VR2
underwater coded receiver
records up to 300,000 tag
detections during each deployment and can run for more
than a year on one D-cell
battery! Many researchers
around the world are collaborating and sharing data from
a global network of VR2 receivers. Applications include:
4
4
4
4
4
4

Survival studies
Hydro Dam passage
Fish population movements (smolt migration)
Marine Protected Area (MPA) analysis
Spawning timing and effort
Studies of endangered populations

VEMCO (a division of AMIRIX Systems Inc.)

Tel: 902-852-3047 Fax: 902-852-4000
www.vemco.com

Making Waves in
Acoustic Telemetry
69

Figure 5. Frequency of rationales used to justify the first and current creel, minimum length, or season closures on largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and
spotted bass in the United States and Canada, based on mail surveys completed in 2002.

70

Fisheries

VOL

32

NO

FEBRUARY

2007

WWW. FISHERIES . ORG

and provinces. Processes required for regulation change no doubt differ among jurisdictions and probably affected the spatial and
temporal trends in regulation changes and the ability of black bass
managers to apply special regulations for individual waters.
State- and province-wide decreases in creel limits and removal or
addition of season restrictions probably had little affect on black bass
populations, but the increased use of state- and provincial-wide minimum length limits probably have mixed effects. Except where most
strict, current creel limits have little effect on black bass populations
because few anglers harvest their limit (Fox 1975; Noble and Jones
1999). Season closures designed to protect spawners are ineffective
because they include periods when angling vulnerability is low. The
closed period oftentimes does not include the entire spawning
period, displaced bass caught by anglers may not return to nests, and
population structures do not change after season closures are
removed (Fox 1975; Quinn 2002). Conversely, state- and provincial-wide minimum length limits should have effects ranging from
undesirable to acceptable. Evaluations of minimum-length limits
revealed that some bass populations stockpile at lengths just below
the minimum, population sizes vary depending on the length of minimum length limit, and minimum length limits often do not improve
size structure of bass populations (Rasmussen and Michaelson 1974;
Ager 1991; Wilde 1997).

Track
Track your
your fish
fish with
with
the
the newest,
newest, most
most
advanced
advanced acoustic
acoustic
tracking
tracking receiver
receiver
available
available today.
today.

CONCLUSIONS
Our survey results suggest that regulations on black basses have
changed over time, but changes oftentimes did not coincide with
advances in scientific knowledge of black bass biology. Creel limits
or minimum length limits are still used on a regionwide basis in most
jurisdictions, and these are more restrictive than earlier regulations
of the same type. The use of season closures has declined over time.
Although a slow process, the practice of managing individual waters
appears to be expanding. At least four jurisdictions now manage
black bass fisheries on an individual water body basis, and most jurisdictions now use special regulations on selected fisheries.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Centrarchid Technical Committee of the North Central
Division initiated the idea for this survey. Luke Freeman gathered
most of the information on current creel and length limits. Joe
Addison, Charles Ayer, Walter Beer, Ed Braun, Tim Churchill,
Marion Conover, Ed Enamait, Jim Estes, Patrick Festa, Bennie
Fontenot, Gene Gilliland, Larry Goedde, Tim Goeman, Todd
Grischke, Richard Hansen, Richard Hartley, Chris Horton, Bubba
Hubbard, Keith Hurley, Gary Isbell, Steve Jackson, Robert Jacobs,
Rick Jordan, Steve Kerr, Robin Knox, Ken Kurzawski, Scott
Lamprecht, Jason LeBlanc, Robert Lorantas, Cathy Martin, Duncon
McInnes, Tom Mosher, Gary Novinger, Russell Ober, Robert
Papson, Fred Partridge, Cel Petro, Tom Pettengill, Greg Power, Jeff
Ross, Terry Shrader, Tim Simonson, Dan Stephenson, Dennis
Unkenholz, Scott Van Horn, Mark Warren, and Kirk Young completed our mail survey. Dan Isermann, Bill McKibbin, Don
Gablehouse, Kevin Pope, and Dave Willis reviewed drafts of the survey and participated in preliminary discussions, and Kevin Pope, Joe
Hennessy, and one anonymous reviewer provided constructive criticism on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
Fisheries

VOL

32

NO

FEBRUARY

2007

WWW. FISHERIES . ORG

VEMCOs VR100 Acoustic

Tracking Receiver: the ultimate
fish tracking solution.

hether you are actively tracking large pelagic fish

or conducting presence/absence studies, the
VR100 will get the job done. The VR100 has a flexible
systems architecture with 8MB of non-volatile internal
memory, GPS positioning and precise timing, USB link
to PC or laptop, and field installable software upgrades.
Other features include:
4 Simultaneous, multi-frequency reception and
detection tracking algorithms
4 Wide dynamic range allowing multi-tag reception
without gain adjustment
4 Splash proof case with marine grade connectors
4 Coded and continuous tags
4 Operation frequency 10-100kHz

VEMCO (a division of AMIRIX Systems Inc.)

Tel: 902-852-3047 Fax: 902-852-4000
www.vemco.com

Making Waves in
Acoustic Telemetry
71

REFERENCES
Ager, L. M. 1991. Effects of an increased size
limit for largemouth bass in West Point
Reservoir. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual
Conference Southeastern Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies 43:172-181.
Bowen, J. T. 1970. A history of fish culture as
related to the development of fishery
programs. Pages 71-93 in N. G. Benson, ed.
A century of fisheries in North America.
American Fisheries Society Special
Publication 7, Bethesda, Maryland.
Carlander, K. D. 1977. Handbook of
freshwater fishery biology, volume 2. Iowa
State University Press, Ames.
Fisher, W. L., J. J. Charbonneau, and M. J.
Hay. 1986. Economic characteristics of
reservoir fisheries. Pages 5-10 in G. E. Hall
and M. D. Van Den Avyle, eds. Reservoir
fisheries management: strategies for the
80s. Reservoir Committee, Southern
Division American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Fox, A. C. 1975. Effects of traditional harvest
regulations on bass populations and fishing.
Pages 392-398 in R.H. Stroud and H.
Clepper, eds. Black bass biology and
management. Sport Fishing Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Fuller, P. L., L. G. Nico, and J. D. Williams.
1999. Nonindigenous fishes introduced into
inland waters of the United States.
American Fisheries Society, Special
Publication 27, Bethesda, Maryland.
McCauley, R. W., and D. M. Kilgour. 1990.
Effect of air temperature on growth of

72

465 in D. P. Philipp and M. S. Ridgeway,

eds. Black bass: ecology, conservation, and
management. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Rasmussen, J. L., and S. M. Michaelson.
1974. Attempts to prevent largemouth bass
overharvest in three northwest Missouri
lakes. Pages 69-83 in J. L. Fink, ed.
Symposium
on
overharvest
and
management of largemouth bass in small
impoundments. Special Publication 3,
North Central Division, American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Redmond, L. C. 1986. The history and
development of warmwater fish harvest
regulations. Pages 186-195 in G. E. Hall and
M. J. Van Den Avyle, eds. Reservoir
fisheries management: strategies for the
80s. Reservoir Committee, Southern
Division, American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Scott, W. B., and E. J. Crossman. 1973.
Freshwater fishes of Canada. Fisheries
Research Board of Canada, Ottawa.
Thompson, P. E. 1970. The first fifty
yearsthe exciting ones. Pages 1-11 in N.
G. Benson, ed. A century of fisheries in
North America. American Fisheries Society
Special Publication 7, Bethesda, Maryland.
Warner, K. 2005. Smallmouth bass
introductions in Maine: history and
management
implications.
Fisheries
30(11):20-26.
Wilde, G. R. 1997. Largemouth bass fishery
responses to length limits. Fisheries 22(6):
14-22.

largemouth bass in North America.

Transactions of the American Fisheries
Society 119:276-281.
McHugh, J. L. 1970. Trends in fishery
research. Pages 25-56 in N. G. Benson, ed.
A century of fisheries in North America.
American Fisheries Society Special
Publication 7, Bethesda, Maryland.
Miranda, L. E. 1996. Development of reservoir
fisheries management paradigms in the
twentieth century. Pages 3-11 in L. E.
Miranda and D. R. DeVries, eds.
Multidimentional approaches to reservoir
fisheries management. American Fisheries
Society Symposium 16, Bethesda,
Maryland.
Nielsen, L. A. 1999. History of inland fisheries
management in North America. Pages 3-30
in C. C. Kohler and W. A. Hubert, eds.
Inland fisheries management in North
America, second edition. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Noble, R. L. 2002. Reflections on 25 years of
progress in black bass management. Pages
419-432 in D. P. Philipp and M. S.
Ridgeway, eds. Black bass: ecology,
conservation, and management. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Noble, R. L., and T. W. Jones. 1999.
Managing fisheries with regulations. Pages
455-477 in C. C. Kohler and W. A. Hubert,
eds. Inland fisheries management in North
American, second edition. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
Quinn, S. P. 2002. Status of seasonal
restrictions on black bass fisheries in
Canada and the United States. Pages 455-

Fisheries

VOL

32

NO

FEBRUARY

2007

WWW. FISHERIES . ORG