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
—
<q
oO
w
°o
—
P-4
WwW
© 1951 FALL ANGLING
* SEPT. 15 — OCT. 25
a
592 FISH MEASURED
ie}
5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 80 85 9.0 9.5 10.00 10.5 I1.0 U.5 12.0 12.5 13.0
TOTAL LENGTH IN INCHES
Fig. 11. -- The size distribution of white crappies in anglers’ catches at Lake Chautauqua during
the various seasons of 1950 and 1951. The graph indicates that white crappies spawned in 1948 dom-
inated the fall catch of 1950 and the spring and fall catches of 1951.
17
natural mortality and the lack of younger broods
of replacement size. Also, increased difficulties
experienced by anglers in catching large crappies
will probably affect the catch either in the fall of
1952 or in 1953.
If the white crappies at Lake Chautauqua
follow the pattern or cycle described above by
Dr. Thompson for the black crappie, a large spawn
of white crappies will not be produced in the lake
until the 1948 brood is greatly reduced in number,
possibly by 1953. If this prediction proves to be
true, white crappie fishing should be good in the
fall of 1955. (However, it is possible that some
other species, such as the black crappie or the
white bass, may become abundant enough to pre-
vent the white crappie from successfully producing
a large and dominant brood.)
Black Crappie
The black crappie, fig. 8, comprised only a
small percentage of the anglers’ catches of crap-
pies in 1950 and 1951 at Lake Chautauqua.
WHITE CRAPPIE
PER CENT OF CATCH
70 7.5 8.0
Wing-net catches made during those 2 years indi-
cated that white crappies were much more abundant
in the lake than were black.
In the fall of 1950 the black crappie was rep-
resented in the catch largely by members of the
1948 brood, fig. 13; however, the size of this brood
was quite small as compared with the size of the
1948 brood of white crappies. Spawning in 1949
was rather unsuccessful for black crappies. In
1950, these crappies were moderately successful
in spawning, and, in 1951, they produced some
young, as indicated by minnow seine sampling.
Very few black crappies were caught by an-
glers fishing in the man-made brush piles. Black
ctappies were caught in numbers in 1950 and 1951
by anglers who fished the buckbrush along shore.
The method and tackle used was described in the
section on white crappies. We suggest that anglers
concentrate on fishing in the buckbrush for black
crappies during years of low white crappie popu-
lations. The 1950 brood of black crappies may be
large enough to provide some good crappie fishing
during 1952 and 1953.
1950 FALL TEST-NETTING
SEPT. 26—OCT. 10
1,684 FISH MEASURED
——-—— 1951 FALL TEST—NETTING
SEPT. 29—OCT. 5
624 FISH MEASURED
Pr
/
/ 1948 ~\
7 BROOD,
8.5 9.0 9.5 10.00 10.5 W.O I.5 12.0
TOTAL LENGTH IN INCHES
Fig. 12. --The size distribution of white crappies caught in l-inch-mesh wing nets at Lake
Chautauqua in the falls of 1950 and 1951. In both years the 1948 brood dominated the catch.
18
BLACK CRAPPIE
PER CENT OF CATCH
7.5
8.0
1950 FALL TEST—NETTING
SEPT. 26—OCT. 10
589 FISH MEASURED
——-—-— 1951 FALL TEST—NETTING
SEPT. 29—OCT7.5
204 FISH MEASURED
8.5 9.0
TOTAL LENGTH IN INCHES
Fig. 13. -- The size distribution of black crappies caught in
Lake Chautaugua in the falls of 1950 and 1951.
Bluegill
In 1950 and 1951, bluegill fishing at Lake
Chautauqua was best during the late spring and
summer months, table 3 and fig. 7.
It may be noted in fig. 14 that the rate of catch
of the bluegill varied from week to week during the
spring and summer of 1950 and 1951. The weekly
changes in fishing apparently were not directly
telated to water levels but to some other factor.
Possibly this factor was the spawning activities of
the bluegill. In 1951, bluegills spawned in Lake
Chautauqua from late May through early August.
The number of bluegills actively engaged in spawn-
ing and the number of males guarding nests will
vary during the season. We believe there may be
some correlation between spawning activity and
the peaks of bluegill catches. Our creel-census
data indicate that during the periods of the best
bluegill fishing the anglers’ catches were composed
to a large extent of males that were in spawninz
condition.
A cane pole rig and a can of red worms are the
l-inch-mesh wing nets at
usual tackle for catching bluegills. However, for
successful bluegill fishing at Lake Chautauqua we
recommend the addition of a small spinner to the
usual tackle--plus a few simple techniques.
The pole used for bluegill fishing in buck-
brush is about 7% to 8 feet in length. The pole
that provides the most sport for open water fishing
is light in weight and does not exceed 10 feet in
length. These two types of bluegill poles are rig-
ged with either a nylon or a silk line, a No. 10 hook
for buckbrush fishing or a No. 8 hook for open water
fishing. A small double-blade spinner is attached
to the eye of the hook. A lead sinker is secured
above the spinner. Anglers usually prefer to use
heavier sinkers on their lines when fishing in the
buckbrush than in open water. The heavy sinkers
enable them to free entangled hooks more readily.
The bobber should be of the type that the angler
can slip up or down the line so as to adjust it for
different water depths. The bluegill rig described
here is pictured in fig. 15. The hook is baited with
three red worms in the manner shown.
The bobber is so adjusted that the worm-
19
spinner rig is fished about 4 inches off the bottom.
The pole is constantly jiggled to keep the baited
hook and spinner in a slow, up-and-down motion in
the water.
Bluegills may be found anywhere from 5 feet
to 100 yards off-shore. They seem to prefer hard
mud bottom, whether it is in the buckbrush, near
stumps, or in the open water. The successful an-
glers try various locations and keep hunting until
they catch a bluegill. They then continue fishing
the immediate area and are often rewarded for their
effort, especially if the area proves to be a
spawning bed.
In 1950. bluegills formed 20.7 per cent of the
——— — BLUE oT
Lake Chautauqua anglers’ catches and, in 1951,
16.6 per cent, table 2; in 1942, they had comprised
50.5 per cent of the catch at one boat yard
(Hansen 1942).
Too few bluegills were caught in our fall net-
ting programs to give accurate information
regarding the size and age distribution of the blue-
gill population in 1950 and 1951. Fig. 16 suggests
the presence of a single dominant year-class in the
lake, but this was not verified by age analyses.
Sunfishes Other Than Bluegills
Three kinds of sunfishes other than bluegills
16
WATER LEVEL
FISH PER 2 FISHERMAN-DAYS
JUNE JULY
1950
AUGUST
)
WATER LEVEL IN FEET
AUGUST
1951
Fig. 14. -- Weekly average water levels and corresponding average catches of bluegills 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 rates of catch of bluegills. The peaks of bluegill fishing are
probably associated with peaks of spawning activity.
20
one,
Fig. 15. -- Bluegill fishing tackle and method of baiting a hook, as used by Robert Doren of Pekin.
A, the bluegill tackle includes a silk or nylon line, No. 8 or No. 10 hook, small double-blade spinner,
small swivel, lead sinker, and cork bobber.
B, a red wom is hooked through the middle of the body so
as to leave two ends free to wriggle in the water. C, two additional worms are placed on the hook in the
manner shown in B. A cane pole is used with this tackle.
were caught occasionally by anglers at Lake
Chautauqua in 1950 and 1951. These were the war-
mouth, the pumpkinseed, and the green sunfish.
None of these was abundant enough to be of much
importance to the sport fishery.
Warmouths are often called rock bass by Lake
Chautauqua anglers; to date we have not found any
tock bass in the lake. More warmouths were caught
in the spring and fall than in any other seasons.
During the spring and fall warmouths were caught
in the buckbrush by anglers who were fishing with
minnows for crappies.
A few pumpkinseeds and green sunfish were
caught on worms in late spring and summer.
Yellow Perch
Many anglers have stated that 10 years ago
they caught large numbers of yellow perch (ring
perch) at Lake Chautauqua and that now they
seldom catch a fish of this kind. Hansen’s (1942)
study of sport fishing at Lake Chautauqua verifies
the anglers’ reports of good perch fishing in 1941
and 1942, table 2. In those years, yellow perch
averaged 17.8 per cent of the anglers’ catches at
one of the Lake Chautauqua boat yards, whereas in
1950 and 1951 this species averaged only 1.0 per
cent of the catch.
James Bridgeman, a boat-yard operator at Lake
Chautauqua, told us that the last good catches of
yellow perch he remembers were taken from the
lake by ice fishermen during the winter of 1944-45.
According to Greene (1935), aquatic vegetation
is usually necessary for the successful spawning
of yellow perch. The decline of the yellow perch
in the lake after the winter of 1944-45 roughly co-
incides with the virtual disappearance of aquatic
vegetation in 1943. While the decline in the perch
21
BLUEGILL
PER CENT OF CATCH
5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5
——— 1950 SUMMER ANGLING
JUNE 16 — SEPT. 14
282 FISH MEASURED
—-—--— 1951 SUMMER ANGLING
JUNE I6—SEPT. 14
354 FISH MEASURED
7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5
TOTAL LENGTH IN INCHES
Fig. 16. -- Size distribution of bluegills caught by anglers at Lake Chautauquain the summer months
of 1950 and 1951.
fishery could have been due to several causes, we
have tentatively concluded that the decrease in
vegetation was probably the principal one.
Yellow perch were caught occasionally in 1950
and 1951 by anglers fishing for bluegills and yel-
low bass. The perch was too scarce to be of much
importance to the sport fishery of Lake Chautauqua.
Channel Catfish
The channel catfish is highly regarded by Lake
Chautauqua anglers, though very few of these an-
glers actually fish entirely for catfish. Most
catfish are caught by anglers fishing for bluegills,
black bass, or freshwater drum.
Live minnows, dead minnows, and worms are
the baits usually used for catfish at Lake
Chautauqua. Catfish are caught in hollow stumps,
in the buckbrush, and in water flowing through cuts
in the levee during periods of high water.
22
Creel-census data indicate a positive correla-
tion between rising or high water levels and an
increase in the catch of catfish, fig. 17.
In 1950 and 1951, channel catfish comprised
2.6 per cent of the catch at Lake Chautauqua, table
2. In 1941 and 1942, very few of these catfish were
caught at the Lake Chautauqua boat yard studied by
Hansen (1942). In those 2 years catfish averaged
only 0.1 per cent of the anglers’ catches.
Freshwater Drum
The freshwater drum comprised 40.6 per cent
of the anglers’ catch at Lake Chautauqua in the
summer of 1950 and only 26.3 per cent in the sum-
mer of 1951, table 3.
The best fishing conditions for drum in 1950
and 1951 were during periods when the water level
was rising or at a high stage, fig. 18. During such
periods, anglers had their greatest success in fish- |
— ——-— CHANNEL CATFISH
WATER LEVEL
”
>
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
. <q
a =
no 2
w
JUNE JULY AUGUST JUNE JULY AUGUST
1950 1951
Fig. 22. -- Weekly average water levels and corresponding average catches of largemouth bass per
10 fisherman-days at Lake Chautauqua in the late spring and summer months of 1950 and 1951. Bass
fishing was best when the water level either was falling or was at a low, stable stage. |
Table 4. -- Number of largemouth bass caught by anglers at Lake Chautauqua, 1950 and 1951, during
the normally closed season of April 16 - May 31 and during the remainder of the year.
Y Bass Taken ir wen of | Bass Taken Total Bass
ear ; otal Number ‘
April 16-May 31 feicor Remainder of Year Taken
1950
(10 inches or over) 295 21.9 1,052
1951
(all sizes) L 191 17.3 913
ak
28
Chautauqua anglers caught 295 largemouth bass
(10 inches or longer), representing 21.9 per cent
of the total 1950 catch of this species at the lake,
table 4. During the normally closed period in
1951, anglers caught 191 bass (all sizes), equal to
17.3 per cent of the catch of bass for 1951.
No actual observations of nesting bass were
made in 1950 or 1951. On June 23, 1950, we took
(in two hauls with a20-foot minnow seine) 65 young
bass ranging in total length from 1.1 to 1.6 inches.
These, and additional catches of young bass taken
later in summer, furnished evidence that bass had
spawned with some degree of success, even though
fishing was not restricted during the spawning sea-
son. Little evidence was found that bass produced
a successful spawn in 1951, and in that year only
191 bass were removed by anglers during the
April 16 through May 31 period. Evidently some
factor other than fishing affected the success of
bass spawning in 1951. Murphy (1950) concluded
from his studies in California that a closure of
fishing during the spawning season of the
largemouth bass did not increase the production of
fingerling bass.
Bennett (1951) found that where bass were
given complete protection from fishermen during
spawning, the numbers of bass fry surviving to the
schooling stage varied inversely with the numbers
of yearling bluegills present.
In the spring of 1951 the 10-inch limit on
largemouth bass was removed at Lake Chautauqua.
Boat liverymen were furnished fish-measuring
boards bearing a mark at 10 inches. They recorded
on each angler’s fishing permit, fig. 3, whether the
bass taken were less than 10 inches or were 10
inches or longer. Of 737 bass measured in 1951,
only 33.4 per cent were less than 10 inches. Length
measurements made on bass caught by anglers in
1950 indicated that 8.2 per cent of the fish were
under 10 inches, even though the size-limit restric
tion was in force. In 1951, some anglers were
hesitant about keeping bass under 10 inches in
length, even though signs had been posted at the
boat yards advising that it was legal at Lake
Chautauqua to keep bass of all sizes. Perhaps in
the future more bass under 10 inches will be kept
by anglers, as the 1951 legislature removed the
size-limit restriction from the Fish Code.
Discussion
The anglers’ catches at Lake Chautauqua in
1950 and 1951, table 2, demonstrate that satis-
factory sport fishing may be found in the Illinois
River valley for thousands of anglers. The Lake
Chautauqua area, once a series of bottomland
sloughs, then a drainage district surrounded by
levees, is again a lake producing aquatic rather
than terrestrial crops.
Studies at Lake Chautauqua indicate that large
populations of certain kinds of sport fishes are not
harvested by anglers and that most of these fish
die of old age. The sport-fish harvest would be
greater if more anglers knew how to fish the lake.
Anglers can enjoy good fishing at Lake
Chautauqua by using tackle and fishing techniques
that have been proved by experience. For example,
artificial lures usually are ineffectual for taking
the largemouth bass at Lake Chautauqua, but a
cane pole and a hook baited with a large, live chub
minnow takes this species quite readily.
Every angler at Lake Chautauqua should talk
over fishing conditions and methods with the liv-
eryman from whom he rents a boat. The boat-yard
liveryman is one person who usually knows what
kind of fish are biting, the kind of bait to use, and
where an angler is most likely to catch fish.
The Lake Chautauqua angler who specializes
in fishing for only one kind of fish may make poor
catches during certain years because of a tempo-
tary reduction in the abundance of that species.
The perennially successful angler is the one
who fishes for species that are abundant and are
biting well. He knows that, even though a species
is abundant in the lake, there is little use to fish
for it under certain conditions. Some abundant
species are difficult to catch except during their
spawning periods, or at certain water stages or
changes in levels, or at certain seasons of the year.
Summary
1. Lake Chautauqua is a reflooded drainage
district in the flood plain of the Illinois River near
Havana. It is being studied to discover the values
of the sport and commercial fisheries of a bottom-
land lake and the factors controlling these values.
2. Since the flood of 1943, the lake has been
more turbid and has contained less aquatic vegeta-
tion than for several years previous. In 1950 a silt
survey indicated that the storage capacity of Lake
Chautauqua had been reduced 18.3 per cent by
sedimentation in approximately 24 years.
3. A creel census made at Lake Chautauqua
between April 15, 1950, and October 25, 1951,
showed that anglers caught 36,822 fish in 1950 and
56,289 in 1951. Anglers’ catches included 25 dif-
ferent kinds of fishes.
29
4. Composition of the anglers’ catches had
changed since 1941 and 1942, when the bluegill
and the yellow perch predominated in the catches.
In 1950 and 1951, the white crappie, the freshwater
drum, and the bluegill predominated.
5. The success of fishing at Lake Chautauqua
was affected by fluctuations in water levels, by
seasons, and by changes in the relative abundance
of the various species of fishes.
6. .Two years of creel censusing showed that
a larger harvest of sport fishes would have been
made if more anglers had known how to fish
the lake.
7. Instruction in methods of still fishing with
cane poles and live bait is a form of fishery man-
agement recommended for the lake. Instruction was
given infishing techniques suitable for the common
species of fishes.
8. The white crappie population in 1950 and
1951 was dominated by the 1948 brood or year-
class. In the fall of 1950, individuals of this
year-class reached a size large enough to furnish
good fishing, and they continued to furnish good
fishing through 1951. The white crappie is a short-
lived fish and possibly the 1948 brood will be
greatly reduced by 1953. The majority of the 1948
brood will be lost to anglers through natural mor-
tality. With the reduction of the 1948 year-class,
white crappie fishing in the lake will decline until
a new large brood is spawned.
9. Whenever the white crappie population is
low or is not biting, anglers should fish for black
crappies in the buckbrush.
10. In 1950 and 1951, bluegill fishing at Lake
Chautauqua was best during the late spring and
summer months.
11. The yellow perch fishery at Lake
Chautauqua declined in the decade ending in 1950.
This decline may have been related to the virtual
disappearance of aquatic plants from the lake fol-
lowing 1943.
12. Channel catfish and freshwater drum bit
best in 1950 and 1951 when the water level was
tising or was at a high stage.
13. Yellow bass were caught in much greater
numbers in 1950 than in 1951. The best catches
of yellow bass in these years were made in late
April and early May.
14. White bass recently became abundant
enough in Lake Chautauqua to furnish good fishing.
These fish are short-lived, and anglers should fish
for them while they are abundant.
15. A still-fishing rig baited with large chubs
30
was a successful tackle for largemouth bass at
Lake Chautauqua in 1950 and 1951.
16. Seasonal restrictions on largemouth bass
were set aside at Lake Chautauqua in 1950 and
1951 and length restrictions in 1951. In 1950 and
1951, the largemouth bass removed by anglers dur-
ing the normally closed spring season amounted to
19.8 per cent of the 2 years’ total catch of these
bass. In 1951, bass under 10 inches in length rep-
resented approximately 33 per cent of the catch of |
bass of all sizes.
We
valley, as demonstrated at Lake Chautauqua, pro-
vide good fishing waters for thousands of anglers.
Acknowledgments
We wish to express our sincere appreciation to
the following persons for the excellent co-operation
they have extended to us in collecting creel-census
data: Mr. James Bridgeman, Mr. Frank Kuntz,
Mr. John Lane, Mr. Paul Riddle, Mr. and Mrs. Harry
Rudolph, and Mr. Burt Sperry.
We wish to thank Mr. Louis Ellebrecht, former
tefuge manager for the United States Fish and Wild-
life Service at Lake Chautauqua, for his help in or-
ganizing the fishery research program and Mr. Lyle
Schoonover, present refuge manager, for his co-
operation on various phases of the program.
We appreciate the technical suggestions we
have received from Dr. George W. Bennett and Dr.
Donald F. Hansen of the Illinois Natural History
Survey. Also, we appreciate the splendid co-
operation, in conducting the Lake Chautauqua
program, we have received from Mr. Sam Parr of
the Illinois Department of Conservation. We thank
Mr. William Bain, formerly assigned to the Lake
Chautauqua program by the Illinois Department of
Conservation, for collecting certain of the 1950
data. To three members of the Natural History
Survey staff who helped in various ways we express
our thanks: to Mr. James S. Ayars for editing the
paper, to Mr. James W. Curfman for making the
graphs, and to Mr. William E. Clark for taking most
of the photographs, including that of Mr. Herbert L..
Rigdon of Mason City, on the cover.
We have received splendid co-operation from)
successful Lake Chautauqua anglers in telling us:
the secrets of their hobby, fishing. We are:
particularly indebted for information on fishing to
Mr. Robert Doren of Pekin (bluegills), Mr. J. F..
Gregory of Glasford (crappies), and Mr. A. T. Peara:
of Havana (largemouth bass).
Bottomland lakes of the Illinois River )
|
|
Literature Cited
Bennett, George W.
1951. Experimental largemouth bass manage-
ment in Illinois. Am. Fish Soc. Trans.
80(1950):231-9.
Greene, C. Willard
1935. The distribution of Wisconsin fishes.
Wisconsin Conservation Commission,
Madison. 235 pp.
Hansen, Donald F.
1942. The anglers’ catch at Lake Chautauqua
neat Havana, Illinois, with comparative
data on hoopnet samples. Ill. State
Acad. Sci. Trans. 35(2):197-204.
Murphy, Garth I.
1950. The closed season in warm-water fish
management. N. Am. Wildlife Conf.
Trans. 15:235-49.
Stall, J. B., and S. W. Melsted
1951. The silting of Lake Chautauqua.
Water Surv. Rep. Invest. 8. 15 pp.
Ill.
Thompson, David H.
1941. The fish production of inland streams
and lakes, in A symposium on hydro-
biology. University of Wisconsin Press,
Madison. 405 pp.
31
So
See He
SONIA
SIGQSE
OPE
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11