beget ads 2D 5 ee Bes clit weit abe s Sey erry a Sas . Cet LET ERLE TS gica ns tart RaEa j Mabe ed 6.6 : Mp ne Se SED SL: I ett ck Sota bahln es, Roe RIMS Soe et OA URAL HISTORY SURVEY cebne a : ; sophie atid STATE OF ILLINOIS Adlai E. Stevenson, Governor DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRATION AND EDUCATION C. Hobart Engle, Director SPORT FISHING at Lake Chautauqua, near Havana, Illinois, in 1950 and 1951 William C. Starrett Perl L. McNeil, Jr. Biological Notes No. 30 Printed by Authority of the State of Illinois NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY DIVISION Harlow B. Mills, Chief Urbana, Illinois August, 1952 a ‘enbneyney) eye] Jo pua 1addn woz ySamyINOS pieMo} MATA [eTey -- *T “Sty SPORT FISHING At Lake Chautauqua, Near Havana, Illinois," 1950 and 1951 William C. Starrett and Perl L. McNeil, Jr.* Less than 50 years ago the bottomland lakes adjoining the Illinois River were considered among the best sport and commercial fishing waters in this country. These shallow, fertile lakes provid- ed spawning grounds, food, and space for large populations of largemouth black bass, crappies, bluegills, yellow perch, and various other kinds of sport, commercial, and forage fishes. Between 1900 and 1920 a number of these bottomland lakes were drained and the areas incor- porated into drainage districts for agricultural purposes. It was during this period that the Illinois River fishery declined. Fortunately for Illinois anglers, all of the bottomland lakes were not drained, and some of those that were drained were later restored. We have learned in our research program at Lake Chautauqua, a water area that was drained and later restored, that many anglers do not realize the existing possibilities for good fishing in the Illinois River valley, provided certain fishing techniques are used. In this paper are presented recommended fishing techniques and certain factors we have found that affect sport fishing at Lake Chautauqua. Characteristics of Lake Chautauqua Lake Chautauqua, figs. 1 and 2, is a part of the Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge, which is maintained by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service principally as a migratory waterfowl refuge. Its southernmost end is approximately 4 miles north and east of Havana, in Mason County, Illinois. With many of the characteristics of other bottom- land lakes of the area, Lake Chautauqua is a shallow body of water covering 3,562 acres; it has an average depth of about 3.2 feet at normal pool stage. The bottom is chiefly mud but along the east shore are narrow sandy beaches. The lake is 1 to 1% miles in width and it has little protection against wind. High winds cause it to become quite ‘rough and muddy within a short period. The area now know as Lake Chautauqua for- -merly was a series of sloughs and lakes connected with the Illinois River. In 1916 the Chautauqua Drainage and Levee District was organized, and after World War I this organization built surround- ing levees and pumped the sloughs and lakes dry. The one-time lake bottoms were then planted to com. Only in 1924 was a fair crop produced. In the fall of 1926 the district was flooded by the Illinois River, and parts of the levees were washed out. The levees were not repaired by the drainage district organization, and the water levels in the flooded district fluctuated with the Illinois River until 1940. In late 1936 the United States Biolegical Survey (predecessor of the Fish and Wildlife Service) purchased the drainage district for use as a migratory waterfowl refuge. By 1940 the federal government had repaired the broken levees and in- stalled spillways and control gates. At low Illinois River stages, the manager of the refuge can main- tain a constant pool stage of 435.0 feet (430.0 feet base level). During moderate to high river stages, water levels cannot be controlled, as the lake is then connected with the Illinois River. For several years previous to 1943, according to Frank C. Bellrose of the Illinois Natural History Survey, aquatic plants were abundant in Lake Chautauqua. A near-record flood occurred in the Illinois River valley in the springand early summer of 1943. Since this flood, most of the plants have failed to become re-established in the lake. Flood waters from the Illinois River caused the water levels of the lake to fluctuate consider- ably through the spring and summer months of 1950 and 1951. The lake was connected with the river for 74 months in 1951. In 1950 a silt survey was made of Lake Chautauqua by the Illinois Water Survey (Stall & Melsted 1951). This study revealed that the capac- ity of the lake for water storage had been reduced by sedimentation 18.3 per cent in 23.75 years. An analysis of Lake Chautauqua sediment deposits indicated that they are quite high in fertility. The excreta from waterfowl are thought to be partly responsible for this fertility. *Dr. William C. Starrett is Associate Aquatic Biologist, Illinois Natural History Survey; Perl L. McNeil, Jr., is Fisheries Biologist, Illinois Department of Conservation. and the Department of Conservation. Their paper is a report on a co-operative project of the NattenetHistory-Survey Extent of Fishery Investigation On April 15, 1950, a co-operative fishery re- search program was started onLake Chautauqua by the Illinois Natural History Survey, the Illinois Department of Conservation, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The purposes of this research program were (1) to determine the values of the sport and com- PAUL RIDDLE'S BOAT YARD (8 BOATS) PROMENADE ST. BURT SPERRY'S BOAT YARD (55 BOATS) mercial fisheries of an Illinois River bottomland lake; (2) to develop management practices that would increase the yield of sport and commercial fishes; (3) to study the biology of the fishes pres- ent; and (4) to estimate the dynamics of the fish population. This paper is a preliminary report based on a study of the sport fishery at Lake Chautauqua from April 15,1950, to October 25,1951. While the data Forest City > ROUTE IO AND 136 Fig. 2. -- Location of Lake Chautauqua and boat yards at the lake. are as yet incomplete, and at present do not permit the drawing of final conclusions relative to the fishery, we believe that certain preliminary find- ings on the sport fishery will be of interest to anglers. Information now available relates to (1) kinds and numbers of fish caught by anglers; (2) annual changes in abundance of certain species of fishes; (3) annual changes in the average size of certain common fishes; (4) influence of water levels on fishing; (5) seasonal biting of certain species; and (6) types of fishing techniques that are successful in catching fishes. Methods of Study Creel censuses were made to determine the kinds and numbers of fishes caught by anglers, number of fishermen coming to the lake, number of hours they spent in fishing, and distance they trav- LC-15 CHAUTAUQUA LAKE PERMIT ILLINOIS NATURAL HISTORY SURVEY, HAVANA Date Boat No. Number in party fishing eae ee ee Deere Time! mie Fl abe ei Ba Check here if nothing was caught. Kind of Fish Number Over 10” | Under 10” Largemouth bass Bluegill Other kinds of sunfish Ring perch Buliheads Streakers Crappies Channel catfish Drum Carp Whitebass (31978—10M—6-51) eled to fish. Since April 15, 1950, fishermen have been requested to obtain permits to fish at Lake Chautauqua. The fishing permits, which are issued free of charge to anglers at the four boat yards on or near the lake, fig. 2, function as creel-census cards, fig. 3. Since shore fishing is not permitted, most anglers must go through one of these boat yards if they are to fish on the lake. During the summer months a few permit cards are issued to nearby cottage owners and permanent local residents. Such anglers complete their own creel cards and deposit them in conveniently located collection boxes. In the winter of 1950-51 some ice fishermen fished without permits; however, it is believed that catch records were obtained from the majority. When a fisherman goes out from a boat yard, the boat liveryman fills in, on the permit card, the fisherman’s name, address, license number, and NAMES AND ADDRESSES LICENSE NUMBERS Fig. 3. -- Combination permit and creel-census card used at Lake Chautauqua, 1950 and 1951. mw FP wo Fig. 4. -- A white crappie scale (greatly enlarged). The number of rings or annuli on the scale de- note the age of the fish. Five annuli (denoting approximately 5 years of growth) are shown. Vertebrae and spines are used in aging catfish and bullheads. time of departure, and retains his state fishing license. When the fisherman returns to the boat yard, the liveryman checks the catch, records it and the time on the permit card, and gives back the state fishing license to the fisherman. Through the splendid co-operation of the boat- yard operators and the anglers, the permit system has enabled us to obtain fairly accurate statistics on the yield of the sport fishery of a large bottom- land lake of the Illinois River system. On many week-ends, fish caught by anglers were weighed and measured by the authors. Scale samples were taken from many of the fish for later age determination, fig. 4. In the late spring and summer months, minnow seine hauls were made along the lake shores to determine the annual spawning success of the various fish found in the lake. Also, young fish were collected with a small trap net. In 1951, rote- none was used to poison the fishes in one small bay of the lake, 1n order to test the efficiency of fishing gear in taking small fishes and to sample: any species that were missed in minnow seining. In each of the two falls, 1-inch-mesh wing: nets with leads were set at designated stations., These nets, which caught samples of the larger: fishes, were particularly useful in determining size: distribution of crappies and other species. Crappies (7 inches or larger) caught in these: netting operations were released after being marked, each by a numbered tag fastened to one of! the gill covers. This method of marking fish is: shown in fig. 5. Recaptures of marked crappies: allowed us to estimate the population, to calculate: the rate of exploitation of these fish by fishermen, and to acquire some information on fish movement. Records were made of the sport fishes taken by commercial fishermen in seine hauls and in wing nets fished in the lake. The catches often ptovided examples of unusually large sport fish) not ordinarily appearing in anglers’ catches or in| our small-mesh net sets. Fig. 5. -- White crappie being tagged. and returned to the lake. The size of the population is estimated on the basis of the number of tagged fish that are recaptured. Kinds and Numbers of Fishes In 1950 and 1951, anglers at Lake Chautauqua caught and kept 25 different kinds of fishes, tables l and 2. The most popular fishes were channel catfish, bluegills, crappies, yellow bass, fresh- water drum, and largemouth bass. In 1950, a total of 36,822 fish, table 2, were caught in 10,459 fisherman-days. Most of these fish were caught during the spring, summer, and fall months. A few fish (812) were caught through the ice in late December of 1950. In January and February of 1951, ice fisher- men caught 14,546 fish in 1,026 fisherman-days. Crappies comprised 98.3 per cent of this catch. For the entire 1951 season, the catch was 56,289 fish, table 2, taken in 13,630 fisherman-days, in- cluding the period of ice fishing. The average annual yield of sport fish at Lake Chautauqua for 1950 and 1951 was 5.6 pounds per acre. The average annual fishing pressure was 18.2 man-hours per acre. More than 80 per cent of the anglers in 1950 and 1951 drove to the lake from distances of 25 Each fall at Lake Chautauqua, crappies are caught, tagged, miles or more. The majority of these anglers came from the Peoria-Pekin area, a distance of 40 to 50 miles. A number of anglers drove 50 to 100 miles to the lake from Springfield, Jacksonville, Bloom - ington, and Champaign, Illinois. A few anglers came from the Chicago area. Some Factors That Affect Fishing In 1950 and 1951, the species composition of the anglers’ catches, and the number of fish caught per fisherman-day, varied with water levels, season, and the relative abundance of catchable-size fish. These various factors, as they relate to individual species of fish, are included in the discussions of these species. Water Levels During periods of low, stable water levels, fishing in the late spring and summer months of 1950 and 1951 was consistently poor as compared with that recorded for periods of rising and high i Table 1. -- Accepted common, scientific, and local names of fishes taken by anglers in 1950 and Scientific Name 1951 at Lake Chautauqua. Accepted Common Name Gars Longnose gar Shortnose gar Bowfin Bowfin Mooneye Mooneye Herring Gizzard shad Eel American eel Sucker Quillback Introduced carp Carp Fresh-water catfishes Channel catfish Yellow bullhead Brown bullhead Black bullhead Flathead catfish Perch Yellow perch Black basses and sunfishes Smallmouth black bass Largemouth black bass Green sunfish Bluegill Pumpkinseed Warmouth White crappie Black crappie Lepisosteus osseus (Linnaeus) Lepisosteus platostomus Rafinesque Hiodon tergisus Le Sueur Dorosoma cepedianum (Le Sueur) Anguilla bostoniensis (Le Sueur) Carpiodes cyprinus (Le Sueur) Cyprinus carpio Linnaeus Amia calva Linnaeus Ictalurus lacustris (Walbaum) Ameiurus natalis (Le Sueur) Ameiurus nebulosus (Le Sueur) Ameiurus melas (Rafinesque) Pilodictis olivaris (Rafinesque) Perca flavescens (Mitchill) Micropterus dolomieu Lacépede Micropterus salmoides (Lacépede) Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque Lepomis gibbosus (Linnaeus) Chaenobryttus coronarius (Bartram) Pomoxis annularis Rafinesque Pomoxis nigro-maculatus (Le Sueur) Basses White bass Yellow bass Drum Freshwater drum Lepibema chrysops (Rafinesque) Morone interrupta Gill Aplodinotus grunniens Rafinesque Local Name Billy gar, pickerel, gar Gar, pickerel, billy gar Dogfish, grindle Herring Shad Eel Silver carp Geman carp Morgan cat, fiddler, catfish, bluecat Yellow cat, yellow-bellied cat Bullhead, willow cat, speckled bullhead Bullhead Yellow cat, mudcat Perch, ring perch, ringtail perch Smallmouth Bigmouth, black bass, bass Goggle-eye, sunfish Sunfish Sunfish Rock bass, goggle-eye Crappie, white crappie Calico bass, black crappie, crappie Striped bass Streaker Drum, sheepshead, white perch Table 2. -- Species composition of anglers’ catch at Lake Chautauqua in 1941, 1942, 1950, and 1951. 1 1 Z 2 1941 1942 Kind of Fish | [ nak Lh Number | Per Cent | Number | Per Cent | Number Per Cent | Number | Per Cent Crappie 681 14.4 337 5.0 10,096 27.4 35,462 63.0 Bluegill 2,043 43.3 3,622 50.5 7,626 20.7 9,335 16.6 Freshwater drum 55 12 4 0.1 9,459 257 4,274 7.6 Yellow bass 9 0.2 1,236 E725) || 52222 14.2 2,590 4.6 Channel catfish 13 0.3 0 0.0 1,205 35.8" 1,206 231 Largemouth bass 426 9.0 450 6.3 1,348 S137) 1,104 2.0 White bass 0 0.0 0 0.0 20 0.0 805 1.4 Bullheads 56 1.2 75 1.0 Tafa 251 483 0.9 Yellow perch 1,002 AVE) 1,110 15:5 501 1.4 443 0.8 Sunfishes* 400 8.5 306 4.3 281 0.7 345 0.6 Other species 34 0.7 4 0.1 293 0.8 242 0.4 Total number of fish 4,719 100.0 7,164 100.0 36,822 100.0 56,289 100.0 Fish per fisherman-day 2.8 =<: 4.6 sss Sh 5 aes 4.1 255 Fish per hour 0.7 --- I 1.0 --- 0.7 --- 0.7 == = _ | See Wes east ae | al 1 Based on Hansen’s (1942) study, which included catch from only one boat yard. 2 Based on complete creel census of the lake. 3 Sunfishes other than bluegill. Includes warmouth, green sunfish, and pumpkinseed. water stages, fig. 6. In general, fishing declined during both years when the water level of the lake was falling. However, fishing for at least one species was at its best when the water level was either falling or was at a low, stable stage. Season The 2-year catch data from Lake Chautauqua indicate that the species composition of the anglers’ catches and number of fish caught per fisherman-day varied from season to season. These catch data are presented by seasons in Bele 3 and are illustrated graphically in fig. 7. Population Abundance A species of fish that is caught readily during a given year at Lake Chautauqua may practically disappear from the creel within the next 3 years. This change in the catch often may be due to a tadical change in the abundance of a single dom- inant year-class or brood of a single species. Dr. David H. Thompson (1941) noted the fairly regular occurrence of a dominant brood of ctappies in Lake Senachwine, an Illinois River bottomland lake near Henry, and the marked influence of this brood upon the other fish in the lake. He stated: ‘‘A few large crappies produce a large brood of young which survive. In subse- quent years this dominant brood devours its own young as well as the young of other fish. This yeatly elimination of spawn and young continues until the original dominant brood is so reduced in numbers (almost entirely by natural causes) that the survivors can no longer gather up all the young spawned; then the cycle repeats. In this way the ctappie not only produces a cycle in its own kind but imposes it on many other non-cannibalistic fish. This has a striking effect on both hook-and- line and commercial fishing. During part of the cycle in Lake Senachwine as many as 99 per cent of the black crappies were of catchable size. This was followed by a period when there were as few as one or two per cent of large fish.”’ Fishing Techniques and Factors Two years of creel censusing at Lake Chautauqua showed that many factors influence 5 the catch of fish. Some of these factors are associated with seasons and physical conditions in the lake. Others are associated with changes in the fish population and with the amount of fish- ing “know-how” of the anglers using the water. Most anglers who were unsuccessful either did not know how to fish or persisted in fishing for the kinds of fish that were either not biting or were scarce. — —— — AEE EISHES WATER LEVEL In order to help Lake Chautauqua anglers catch more fish we held a fishing ‘‘college’’ for them at the lake in June, 1951. At this ‘“‘college,’’ experienced local anglers demonstrated methods they use to catch fish at Chautauqua. 3 In the following section, we have listed the kinds of fishes of greatest interest to anglers at Lake Chautauqua, with something of their relative importance to the fish population in 1950 and) 18 4 \ I \ > | Pa) | he z ul 4 | 2% = |I \! 7 2 |! \ r > 7) WwW re 4 (4 ul 10 2 < ee wo = w 8 46 4 AUGUST JUNE JULY AUGUST 1951 Fig. 6. -- Weekly averages of water levels and corresponding catches of all fishes per fisherman-day, at Lake Chautauqua in the late spring and summer months of 1950 and 1951. It is apparent from the graph that fishing improved with rising water levels. 10 1951, of their behavior in relation to certain kinds include the white crappie, black crappie, changes in the physical environment, and of bluegill, perch, channel catfish, drum, carp, yellow methods used successfully in catching them. These bass, white bass, and largemouth bass. CRAPPIES— BLUEGILL — fexessmnnnny DRUM———— WLLLLLLLLLL LLL SPRING, 1950 YELLOW BASS otheERS——— CRAPPIES—— BLUEGILL—— DRUM ————_ SUMMER, I950 OTHERS—— CRAPPIES—— BLUEGILL—— DRUM ————_ YELLOW BASS OTHERS —— FALL,1950 CRAPPIES — BLUEGILL— f ORUM——— YELLOW BASS f[f OTHERS —— WINTER, 1950-51 CRAPPIES—— BLUEGILL—— eevateaaretetatetenetens DRUM——— YELLOW BASS (7777 ee OTHERS —— SPRING, 1951 CRAPPIES — BLUEGILL — Peeeeerxircommrrrceed 7 a) SESS EER Se So eee SUMMER, 195! FALL,1951 ie) 10 20 30 40 59 60 70 80 90 100 PER CENT OF CATCH Fig. 7. -- Seasonal composition of the anglers’ catches at Lake Chautauqua in 1950 and 1951. It will be noted that the anglers’ catches varied with the seasons. 11 Table 3. -- Species composition of anglers’ catch, number of fish caught per fisherman-day, and average number of hours comprising a fisherman-day at Lake Chautauqua, 1950 and 1951. Winter, 1950-51 Ice Fishing (4.13)! Spring, 1950 (4.52)! | Summer, 1950 (5.55)!| Fall, 1950 (5.59)! crappie? : ; 5 8 | 4, : 59.9 | 13,596 Black crappie? : : é : ; : 20.8 | 1,511 Bluegill ; c é 5 : ¢ 13.8 124 Freshwater drum . F 5 i - iy 3 1 Yellow bass Channel catfish Other fishes Largemouth black bass White bass Total or Average Kind Per : = Fish per | Cent ee Fish Fisher- of isher man-Day Gatch White crappie? 55.2 Black crappie? 7.4 Bluegill 18.9 Freshwater drum 2.7 Yellow bass 8.9 Channel catfish 1.8 Other fishes Largemouth black bass White bass Total or average 100.0 | 13,695 56 100.0 | 3,664 1 Average number of hours per fisherman-day. 2 Species of crappies separated on basis of biologist’s creel-analysis census. 12 y White Crappie Os The white crappie, fig. 8, dominated the 2 nglers’ catches of crappies at Lake Chautauqua 11950 and1951. This species is easily caught by anglers when it is present in large numbers, as yas the case during the 2 years of the study. White "eas ers ooo = ° ar anae 2A fae ee ee ee ee ctappies tended to congregate in fall and winter months in man-made brush piles that had been constructed 50 to 100 yards off shore. At one brush pile in 1951, anglers caught over 20,000 white crappies. This brush pile was about 10 feet wide and 100 feet long. No special refinement of technique is required Fig. 8. -- White crappie, above, and black crappie, below, both of which occur in Lake Chautauqua. The two species may be separated on the basis of several characters. The white crappie usually has six dorsal spines, whereas the black has seven or eight. The base of the dorsal fin, BC, of the white Ctappie is much shorter than the distance AB. In the black crappie, the length BC is approximately qual to AB. 13 Fig. 9. -- Tackle and techniques for catching crappies in buck- brush or buttonbush, as used by J. F. Gregory of Glasford. Cane pole is 7% feet long. Guides are mounted on pole with electrician’s tape. Nylon-leader line is secured near base of pole and_ strung through guides. A, a live minnow is hooked through lower and upper lips. B, above baited hook are a bobber and a heavy sinker, C, D, a small paddle is used in propelling boat quietly toward buckbrush. Minnow is dropped into brush. Pole is constantly fished with free hand. If hook is snagged, pulling on line forces tip of pole and bobber toward hook; with aid of heavy sinker, hook is soon jiggled free. Photo of Gregory in boat from the Illinois Department of Conservation. to catch either white crappies or black crappies in or near a brush pile, provided the population is high. In the fall months the angler merely ties or anchors his boat at the edge of the brush pile and drops his minnow into the brush. In the winter the fisherman cuts a small hole in the ice over the brush pile and drops his minnow through the hole down into the brush. Some of the more successful crappie fisher- men use a 7%-foot cane pole with guides (brush pole), a nylon-leader line, a lead sinker, a bobber, and a No. 2 to No. 6 hook baited with a live creek minnow about 2% inches in length, fig. 9. The minnow is dropped in the water ahead of the sinker and bobber. The bobber should hit the water lightly. Fishing along shore in the buckbrush or buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis L.) can be done successfully in the spring, summer, and fall months. To fish the buckbrush properly requires a little practice. The boat should be moved slowly and quietly along the outside of the buckbrush. To accomplish this slow, quiet movement of the boat, either the angler should have a pusher operate the boat for him, or he should use a small, light paddle at one end of the boat, fig. 9. Crappies may be caught in water as shallow as 6 inches. In water this shallow the bobber should be pulled down the line close enough to the hook to keep the minnow off the bottom. In water 2 feet in depth the minnow should be fished 6 inches or more from the bottom. If the water is 34% to 4 feet deep, the minnow should be fished about 14 inches below the surface. When a crappie takes the minnow, abrupt jetking of the pole should be avoided; otherwise the hook may be pulled out of the fish’s weak mouth. No correlation was noted between the success of crappie fishing and changes in water levels at Lake Chautauqua, fig. 10. Fishermen usually preferred low, stable water levels in fishing for ctappies during the spring and fall seasons. The relative abundance of crappies in the anglers’ catch at Lake Chautauqua was not con- stant from year to year. In 1950, white crappies and black crappies together formed 27.4 per cent of the anglers’ catch and, in 1951, 63.0 per cent, table 2; at one boat yard they had formed 14.4 per cent of the anglers’ catch in 1941 and only 5.0 per cent in 1942 (Hansen 1942). The difference between the 1950 and the 1951 catches of crappies was due principally to a change in the abundance of catchable-sized white ctappies belonging to fhe dominant brood spawned in 1948. At the beginning of the 1950 season, white crappies of this 1948 year-class were for the most part too small to interest anglers, fig. 11, and fish from older age groups were not abundant enough in the lake to make good fishing. As a result, white crappie fishing was poor in the spring of 1950, table 3. The white crappies of the 1948 brood attained an average total length of 8.5 inches by September of 1950 and furnished anglers with excellent fish- ing that fall, fig. 12. Crappie fishing continued to be good through the winter of 1950-51 and the spring of 1951. The average total length of the white crappies caught during those periods remained at 8.5 inches. By the fall of 1951, members of the 1948 brood averaged 10.0 inches in length. Fish- ing continued to be good through the fall of 1951 because of the large number of the 1948 brood still present in the lake. Thus, white crappies spawned in 1948 provided the bulk of the crappie fishing in 1950 and 1951 and will dominate the catch through 1952. By the fall of 1952 these white crappies will probably average 11.0 inches or more in length. The abundance of this 1948 year-class of white crappies is decreasing each year. Tagging studies indicate that hundreds of thousands of these fish vanished from the lake between October, 1950, and October, 1951. In all probability some ofthem emigrated from the lake; however, to date we have not received a tag return of a white crappie caught outside of the lake. We believe that the bulk of these fish died in the lake from natural causes and were therefore lost to fishermen. Field observations and scale studies indicate that the white crappies of Lake Chautauqua are telatively short lived. Of the many thousands of white crappies we handled in the field in 1950 and 1951, the largest was slightly more than 14 inches in length. Its age was determined as 7 years. Few other white crappies even approached this fish in size, and those we aged by the scale method were 6 years of age or younger. Spawning of white crappies apparently was very unsuccessful in 1949 and 1951. It was com- paratively successful in 1950, and the brood produced should provide some fishing in future years, but not so much as that provided by the 1948 brood. White crappie fishing will probably decline by the fall of 1952 or by 1953 because of the progressive reduction of the 1948 brood through 15 — ——-—-—CRAPPIES WATER LEVEL o WATER LEVEL IN FEET FISH PER 2 FISHERMAN-DAYS ol > Fig. 10. -- Weekly average water levels and corresponding average catches of crappies per 2 fisher-_ man-days at Lake Chautauqua in the late spring and summer months of 1950 and 1951. There appears to be no correlation between water levels and the rate of catch of crappies. 16 WHITE CRAPPIE 1950 SPRING ANGLING APRIL 15—JUNE 15 214 FISH MEASURED a oO e r~¢ oO = fo} eK za WwW = 1950 FALL ANGLING ui SEPT. I5—NOV. 2 - 648 FISH MEASURED 1951 SPRING ANGLING APRIL I5— JUNE |5 933 FISH MEASURED 25 oO — a o b ! uJ 4 WW a ri = 2 ec — rT) = — uJ o > = 5 2 E ec Ww < a = x at uw JULY AUGUST 1951 Fig. 17. -- Weekly average water levels and corresponding average catches of channel catfishper 10 fisherman-days at Lake Chautauqua in the late spring and summer months of 1950 and 1951. The gtaph indicates that fishing for catfish was best when the water level either was rising or was high. ing with worms at places near the levee where the tiver water was flowing into the lake. Available figures, table 2, indicate that the anglers’ catch of freshwater drum at Lake Chautauqua has increased considerably since 1941, At the boat yard censused by Hansen (1942), drum amounted to only 1.2 per cent of the catch in 1941 and only 0.1 per cent in 1942; in 1950 and 1951 drum averaged 14.7 per cent of the anglers’ catch at the lake. Carp Carp are abundant in Lake Chautauqua; how- ever, only 246 were caught by anglers in 1950 and 141 in 1951. These carp were usually caught by anglers fishing for other species of fishes. The majority of the carp in anglers’ catches weighed less than 3 pounds each. Carp in the commercial catches from the lake averaged 6 pounds, and some weighed over 20 pounds. We have not observed a successful technique fer catching Lake Chautauqua carp; however, on some waters a No. 1/0 or No. 2 hook baited with corn or a doughball is used successfully. Yellow Bass streaker, formed an catch at Lake The yellow bass, or important part of the anglers’ 23 Chautauqua in the spring of 1950, fig. 7, amounting to 32.1 per cent of the catch. The best period of fishing for streakers was from the last week in April through the middle of May. In 1951, the last week in April was the only good week of yellow bass fishing. In both years the best fishing for yellow bass occurred during periods of high water. Most of these fish were caught on worms near Burr Oak Island at the upper end of the lake. A graph of the distribution of sizes of yellow bass caught by anglers suggests that this species does not spawn successfully each year, fig. 19. This species is pictured in fig. 20. White Bass The white bass, fig. 20, is one fish at Lake © Chautauqua and nearby waters that may be caught very successfully on artificial lures. This fish is new to some central Illinois anglers and when taken by them is often confused with its relative the yellow bass, fig. 20. The white bass has been abundant in Lake Chautauqua and neighboring waters since 1950. Evidently water conditions in the Havana section of the Illinois River were favorable for the spawn- ing of white bass, as they appeared in the river and in Lake Chautauqua in 1950 and 1951 in larger numbers than had been seen there previously. 16 ———-— FRESHWATER DRUM h FISH PER 2 FISHERMAN- DAYS wo JUNE JULY 1950 AUGUST WATER LEVEL WATER LEVEL IN FEET Fig. 18. -- Weekly average water levels and corresponding average catches of freshwater drum per 2 | fisherman-days at Lake Chautauqua in the late spring and summer months of 1950 and 1951. Drum fish- — ing was best when the water level either was rising or was high. 24 YELLOW BASS PER CENT OF CATCH 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 —— 1950 SPRING ANGLING APRIL 15 —JUNE I5 505 FISH MEASURED ———-— 1951 SPRING ANGLING APRIL IS—JUNE I5 176 FISH MEASURED 1945 AND 1946 BROODS 1945 AND Sse BROODS 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 1.5 12.0 TOTAL LENGTH IN INCHES Fig. 19. -- Size distribution of yellow bass caught by anglers at Lake Chautauqua in the spring months of 1950 and 1951. In 1950, only 20 white bass were caught at Lake Chautauqua and, of these, 14 were fish spawned in 1950. A total of 805 of these bass were caught at the lake in 1951. This number was more than 40 times the number caught in 1950. The catch in 1951 would have been 10 to 20 times as high had anglers followed a simple fishing technique. This technique consists simply of taking advantage of the summer habit of the white bass of feeding in schools near the lake surface. When these bass are feeding the water “boils.” In the summer of 1951 we noted that, in a body of water adjoining Lake Chautauqua, the “boils” frequently occurred from sunrise to 10 o’clock in the morning and from 3 in the afternoon until dark. In the summer the fly-rod fisherman should try a flicker spinner baited with a small strip of pork tind or a small metal wobbler. He should cast the lure directly into the center of the “boil.” Bait casters will find that smaller, bass-size, metal wobblers are very effective when cast into the “boil.” The “boils” were seldom seen in the fall and spting months. During these seasons, the white bass are feeding in deeper water, and the bait caster can often have good fishing success by casting a weighted metal wobbler over sand bars and other areas that he observed in the previous summer were being used as feeding grounds. White bass will take small minnows and occasionally worms, particularly when fished in currents caused by high water. ; The white bass is a fast-growing fish. At Lake Chautauqua, fish that were spawned in 1950 averaged 8 to 10 inches in length by the middle of July, 1951, and, by fall of that year, 10 to 12 inches. Fishing for white bass should be good in 1952 and 1953. If the outcome of spawning is poor in 1952 and 1953, the fishery will decline by 1954, since the white bass is a short-lived fish and the older fish are very difficult for anglers to catch. 25 Fig. 20. -- White bass, above, and yellow bass, below. They may be distinguished by the following characters: The white bass is silvery in appearance, the yellow bass golden. The lines on the side of the white bass are rather faint but unbroken; on the yellow bass they are distinct but broken. On the white bass the lower jaw protrudes beyond the upper; on the yellow bass the lower jaw does not protrude beyond the upper when the jaws are closed. On the white bass, the third anal spine, B, is considerably longer than the second, A; on the yellow bass, the third anal spine, B, is approximately equal to the second, A. 26 : Anglers should fish hard for white bass in 1952 and 1953 in order to take advantage of the 1950 and 1951 age groups, still abundant in the lake. Largemouth Black Bass All black bass reported caught by anglers at Lake Chautauqua in 1950 and 1951 were large- mouths, except one, a smallmouth. Successful black bass fishermen at Lake Chautauqua use a stiff cane pole, heavy line, bobber, sinker, and a No. 1/0 or similar size bass hook. The hook is baited with a 5- to 8-inch chub minnow hooked through the lips. The chub is fished in the buckbrush, in smartweed beds, and around stumps in the manner described for crappie fishing in the buckbrush under the heading of white crappie. One of the more important aspects of successful fishing with chubs is to approach the area to be fished in a very quiet manner. A.T. Peara, fig. 21, one of the successful fishermen at Lake Chautauqua, says, “You have tosneak up onthem.” A stiff cane pole and heavy line are a necessity to “horse” a bass out of the brush. Often the angler will have to raise a 2- or 3-pound bass straight out of the water; otherwise, the bass will become entangled in the brush or will tear itself loose from the hook. In 1950 and 1951 more largemouth bass were caught per fisherman-day when the water level either was falling or was at a low, stable stage, fig. 22, than when the water was rising or at a high stage. Liberalized Bass Fishing On an experimental basis, in both 1950 and 1951, fishing for largemouth bass was permitted at Lake Chautauqua during the period of April 16 through May 31, which is by state law a closed seasonon these bass inthe Central Zone, in which Lake Chautauqua is located. Largemouth bass caught by anglers during this period were marked at the boat liveries with metal seal tags. These tags were placed on the fish for the protection of each angler in the event his catch was examined later by a conservation officer. In the normally closed season in 1950, Lake Fig. 21. -- A string of largemouth black bass caught and displayed by A. T. Peara of Havana in the summer of 1950. These bass were taken at Lake Chautauqua with cane pole, line, and hook baited with large, live chubs. Photo by J. B. Stall of the Illinois Water Survey. 27 ——-—-— LARGEMOUTH BASS WATER LEVEL o 24 = e 1 Ww z Wl qd w 2 z a — WwW 4 56 Ww no 3 ia a a ° a prt) & E .