Winter Catch-and-Release Hooking Mortality of Saugers below Lock and Dam 3 of the Mississippi River

Abstract

We evaluated the effect of length and depth of capture of saugers Sander canadensis on winter hooking mortality below Lock and Dam 3 of the Mississippi River (i.e., Pool 4) by catching saugers using the most common recreational fishing gear in these fisheries (jig and plastic, jig and minnow, and jigging spoons) and holding the fish for 72 h in a net-pen. Sauger winter hooking mortality was 26.4% and increased with depth of capture. Thirty-three percent (56 of 172) of the saugers caught at depths of 9 to 24 m died, compared with only 2% (1 of 41) of those caught at depths of 9 m or less. There was no relationship between fish length and mortality; however, fish caught at depths of 12 m or less were significantly larger. We applied our hooking mortality estimates (26.4%) to a concurrent creel census and estimated that 2,500–2,900 kg of saugers were lost each year to winter hooking mortality. The percentage of total angling mortality (harvest and hooking) resulting from catch and release each winter was 30.5% (2,515 kg/8,256 kg) in 2005–2006 and 33.0% (2,812 kg/8,529 kg) in 2006–2007. Based on the historical abundance and annual mortality estimates available for Pool 4 saugers, winter hooking mortality did not substantially reduce the population. However, anglers may reduce winter catch-and-release hooking mortality by fishing in shallower water (<9 m).

Received May 12, 2010; accepted December 30, 2010

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Sport Fish Restoration Act provided funding for the project. Special thanks are extended to Dean Marshall at Evert's Resort for allowing us to use their facilities and also organizing volunteer help. Many volunteer anglers donated fish that were used for the study, and their help was crucial to the success of the project. Kevin Stauffer, Al Schmidt, Dan Dieterman, Randy Binder, and Dale Solga provided assistance angling, lifting net-pens, and recording fish data. Keith Reeves, Phil Talmage, Charles Anderson, and three anonymous reviewers provided editorial comments that improved the manuscript.