title
Statewide fishery management survey, 1986 : postal census
author
Array ( [0] => Johnson, James E. )
abstract
date
1988-01-01
organization
Utah. Division of Wildlife Resources
species
Array ( [0] => Not Specified )
file_path
https://grey-lit.s3.wasabisys.com/statewide-fishery-management-survey-1986-postal-census.pdf
thumb
https://grey-lit.s3.wasabisys.com/statewide-fishery-management-survey-1986-postal-census-pdf-1-791x1024.jpg
content
Statewide Fishery Management Survey 1986 Postal Census Dingell-Johnson Project No. F-43-R-7-9 State of Utah Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife Resources William H. Geer, Director STATEWIDE FISHERY MANAGEMENT SURVEY 1986 POSTAL CENSUS COMPLETION REPORT James E. Johnson Fishery Research Coordinator Dinge11 Johnson Project Number F-43-R-7-9 October 1988 Utah State Division of Wildlife Resources An Equal Opportunity Employer William H. Geer, Director TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables. List of Figures . Introduction. Methods Results and Discussion. . . . • . . . . . Statewide Summary . . . . . . • . . . Use Indices for Individual Waters ....... . Results by License Category . . . . . . • . Recommendations . . . . . . . . Survey Design . . . . . . . Fishery Management Programs and Planning .. Literature Cited. Appendix. . . . . . -iii- v vii 1 3 7 7 14 22 25 25 26 29 31 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Angler use, harvest and success for all anglers on Utah waters in 1967, 1968, 1973, 1977, 1981, and 1986 • . . • . 9 2. Comparison of license costs, sales and fishing activi t y by license category, 1977, 1981, and 1986. • . • • • . .. 10 3. Use, harvest and success for anglers with Utah licenses 1967, 1968, 1973, 1977, 1981, and 1986 on Utah waters. 12 4. Angler use indices for lakes and reservoirs for which at least 35 respondents reported activity in 1986 with comparison with 1981 survey results. . • . • • • • • • 16 5. Angler use indices for streams for which at least 30 respondents reported activity in 1986, with comparisons with 1981 survey results . . . . . • . • • • . . .. 17 6. Angling use and success by license category, Utah, 1986. 23 - v- LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Trends in statewide catch rate and annual sales of fishing licenses, 1966-1988. . . • • . • . . . . . . 13 2. Change in angler use on the most heavily used lakes and reservoirs between the 1981 and 1986 postal surveys. . 18 3. Change in angler use on the most heavily used streams between the 1981 and 1986 postal surveys . . . . . . . 20 -vii- STATEWIDE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SURVEY 1986 Completion Report INTRODUCTION Statewide sport fishing postal surveys have been conducted in Utah in 1967, 1968, 1973, 1977, 1981 and 1986. These surveys are used to assess trends in angler use and harvest, information that can be useful in program planning and budget allocation, in assessing state fishery management program success, and in evaluating impacts of increased population and economic development. Past surveys have documented substantial increases in the numbe r of anglers and the number of angler days on Utah's waters. Sportfish harvest has generally kept in pace with the increases in angling pressure, probably due to construction of sportfishing waters and improvement in fisheries management and culture technologies. The 1986 survey was conducted for the purpose of updating the trend information of the earlier surveys. Since there are no estimates of response bias of Utah postal surveys, the information can only be used for assessing trends, with the assumption that any response biases have remained fairly constant from year to year. -1- - 2- METHODS Samples of fishermen were selected at random from the 1985 purchasers of the various types of fishing licenses. Questionnaires were mailed to 2.5% of buyers of resident combination and annual fishing permits, and to 5.0% of purchasers of all other types of fishing permits. A total of 12,820 individuals was selected and these people were sent a letter in May of 1986, to request that they keep a record of their catch during 1986. A form for recording their fishing activity was provided with this letter (fo r examples of the letters and forms employed, see Appendix). A second letter and the survey questionnaire were mailed during January-February, 1987. Responses were coded and "keypunched" onto tape to permit summarization 6f the responses by computer. Expansions of the survey summary statistics were completed for each license type and then combined to produce total estimates. Since 1981, use indices have been made for individual waters with sample sizes (number of respondents reporting use) greater than 35. These lakes and streams with the most reported use were ranked according to their expanded use indices and compared to their use levels in 1981. To estimate angler hours, angler day indices were simply multiplied by four hours per angler day, a figure used in the prior postal surveys which also fairly closely approximated the length of most angler days on Utah waters. -3- Indices for stamp purchasers on Lake Powell and Flaming Gorge, Idaho resident use of Bear Lake, and the specialized cisco fishery at Bear Lake were not made from postal return data. Cisco harvest is usually assessed by field surveys but these were not carried out in 1986 . Thus, cisco harvest and angler days directed at cisco are not reflected by this survey. Idaho resident are permitted to fish the entirety of Bear Lake on Idaho resident permits. The postal data for Bear Lake was corrected for Idaho resident use by multiplying the postal data for that fishery by a correction factor (1.242) determined from the Bear Lake Cutthroat Trout Restoration research projects' creel census. Residents of Wyoming and Arizona may fish Utah waters of Flaming Gorge and Lake Powell, respectively, with purchase of special stamps. No records are kept by permi t vendors of names or addresses of stamp purchasers and accounting for fishing activities of stamp purchasers for these two waters, therefore, cannot be accomplished with any level of certainty. It was estimated purchasers of Utah stamps from Arizona fished Lake Powell an average of 6 days in 1986, based upon estimates from Arizona'S 1981 creel survey (personal communication, Erik Swanson, Flagstaff). Use of Flaming Gorge by Wyoming residents with Utah stamps was also estimated to be 6 angling days per stamp holder, the same as for Arizona stamp holders on Lake Powell in 1981 and similar to the 6.55 trips per Flaming Gorge angler used for the 1977 survey (Bangerter and Archer 1978, Johnson 1983). No estimates of fishing pressure on Lake Powell or Flaming Gorge were made for those Arizona or Wyoming residents who did not purchase Utah stamps (and therefore presumably did not fish Utah portions of these waters). -4- An angling day has been defined for these surveys as a reported instance of fishing a specific water. Since more than one water could be fished in a single day, it was possible for respondents to log more than one angler day in a single day of fishing. Because one-day licenses can be renewed by purchase of a stamp, purchasers of such licenses often reported several "days" of fishing. -5- -6- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Statewide Summary From 12,820 questionnaires mailed, 2,175 responses were received, of which 804 reported no fishing activity and 39 were unusable. The sample size for the estimation of use and harvest was 1,330, the number of usable responses which reported angling activity. The total number of usable responses was 16.7% of the number of questionnaires mailed. The response rate in terms of those reporting angling activity in 1986 was 10.4%. This response rate represents a considerable decline from the 1981 survey. The usable responses and percent responding with information on angling activity were 35.8% and 26.7% respectively in 1981 (Johnson 1983). The decline in response was probably an indication of poor acceptance of one-piece bulk mailing forms and letters, which were tried for the first time with the 1986 survey. All previous surveys employed much more costly envelopes and personalized letters. Based upon the poor response rate in 1986, the bulk mailing approach produced no savings in terms of mailing costs per usable return and may have introduced a change in the survey's response bias. The estimate of the number of anglers of all ages or license types, including unlicensed children and purchasers of Arizona and Wyoming stamps who fished Utah's waters in 1986, was 614,085, compared to 565,191 in 1981, 611,929 in 1977, and 533,869 in 1973 (Table 1). Problems encountered with juvenile harvest and effort responses in the 1977 survey (Bangerter and Archer 1978) almost certainly caused inflation of the 1977 -7- juvenile estimates. In 1980, license fees were increased and the increase was especially steep for nonresident licenses. A sharp decline in nonresident use accounts for a 5% decline in total angler use in 1981. License costs for residents increased sharply in 1985. Resident license sales declined 10%} although total sales were only slightly less (1 percent) in 1986 than in 1981 (Table 2). Taking these factors into consideration) angler use increased from 1967-1977, when license fees were stable and Utah's population and numbers of fishing reservoirs were growing rapidly. License sales and angler use both have declined somewhat since the 1977 peak, perhaps due to increases in license fees. The average number of days spent fishing per angler has changed little from 1977 (Table 2). Although considerable effort has been expended during each of the last five surveys attempting to produce comprehensive statistics for licensed and unlicensed anglers on all Utah waters, the results appear to be subject to question. The comprehensive use-harvest statistics of Table i are highly variable from year to year and few trend lines are apparent. This variability is perhaps partly a function of changing methodologies. Questionnaire design and methods of interpreting juvenile use-harvest data have varied over the years. Non-response bias has not been measured for this survey, but changing response rates could alter results considerably. For the purpose of trend analysis, use of only those data pertaining to licensed anglers seems to be more reliable than the comprehensive indices. Methodologies for tracking use and harvest of licensed anglers have changed very little over the last five surveys. -8- Table 1. Angler use, harvest and success for all anglers on Utah waters in 1967, 1968, 1973, 1977, 1981 and 1986. Estimated Es t i ma ted number of number of license licensed Angling daysb Angling hoursa,b Harvestb buyers and who unlicensed lake and lake and Creela,b Year fished anglers b reservoi r Stream Total reservoi r Stream Total Coldwater Warmwater Total Rate ~ 1967 258,422 409,023 2,840,455 1,070,076 3,910 ,531 11,361,820 4,280,304 15,642,124 8,903,938 1,504,628 10,408,566 0.67 1968 268,512 417,204 2,769,146 1,049,256 3,808,402 11,076,584 4,197,024 15,273,608 8,586,825 1,519,262 10,106,087 0.66 1973 352,397 533,869 3,440,227 1,261,806 4,702,033 13,760: 908 5,047,224 18,808,132 8,887,165 3,759,346 12,646,511 0.67 1977 403,617 611,929 3,356,879 1,438,478 4,795,357 13,427,516 5,753,912 19,181,428 8,248,792 3,575,377 11,824,169 0.62 1981 376,501 565,191 2,852,987 1,065,914 3,918,901 11,411,948 4,263,656 15,675,604 8,392,022 3,311,818 11,703,840 0.75 1986c 368,665 614,085 2,878,672 956,284 3,834,956 11,514,686 3,825,136 15,339,822 8,178,684 2,897,837 11,076,521 0.72 aAll estimates based upon a four-hour angling day. bIncluding Arizona and Wyoming purchasers of stamps to fish Flaming Gorge and lake Powell, respectively. Use of Bear lake by Idaho residents not included. CNot including Bonneville cisco fishery at Bear lake. Table 2. Comparison of license costs, sales and fishing activity by license category, 1977, 1981 and 1986. Average number days fish ed Cost Permit Sales per angler License Type 1977 1981 1986 1977 1981 1986 1977 1981 1986 Resident combination 18.00 23.00 35.00 74,570 83,486 67,436 11.4 12.1 12.5 Resident fishing 8.00 10.50 18.00 146,292 155,775 140,567 12.6 9.4 10.2 Resident 12- 15 year old 3 .50 4.50 8.00 36,644 36,462 36,291 11.4 12.1 9.8 Resident fishing 65 years and oldera 4 .00 5 .00 9.00 14,870 18,045 18,225 9.9 10.3 9 .7 Resident short- termb 12- 15 yr old 2 .00 4.00 843 855 " ....... <=> Adult 5.00 9.00 5,236 5,150 9 .7 " I 6!:i & Older 4.50 146 Nonresident one- day 2.00 5 .00 5.00 96,781 54, 04cr- 75,322 1.4 1.8 2.,9 (including one- day 70, < 400 ......... !Ill Q) v 380 ~ Q) v -... 360 ......I 0.0 ~ 340 -.... ~ !Ill 320 -.... ~ • Ca.tch Rate ..... o:S 300 .- B Annual License Sa.les 0 !-< 280 260 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 Year .. Catch rates are based upon statewide postal survey data from 1%7, 1%8, 1973, 1977, 1981, and 1986. Figure 1. Trends in statewide catch rate and arulUa1 sales o f fishing licenses, 1966-1988. -13- 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 ')::' ~ ........ 0.6 ~ !Ill 0.5 4::::: '-" Q) -0.4 o:S ~ 0.3 ~ u -o:S 0.2 u 0.1 0.0 streams were channelized without regard to fish habitat needs. Particularly hard hit were the Weber, Blacksmith Fork and Provo Rivers (see "individual waters" below). Given the finite nature of the state's water resources, other major resource developments and improvements will be required to meet anticipated future demands for sportfishing. The only options readily apparent of the magnitude required would be development of a major sportfishery in Utah Lake, improved stabilization and sport fishery management of Yuba Reservoir, a major acceleration in reservoir construction, stream habitat improvement and access acquisition, and/or major expansions of the state's hatchery system . Use Indices for Individual Waters Use indices were derived for individual waters using only data for licensed respondents and stamp purchasers. The indices derived from this analysis, when compared to creel surveys conducted in the field, are generally higher, to varying degrees J depending on the water considered (Johnson 1983). The utility of the postal results for individual waters may, therefore, be primarily valuable for detecting major changes in angler habits, such as response to development of major new fisheries. Use indices for individual waters for which 35 or more respondents reported fishing activity are given in Tables 4 and 5. This information must be considered with the reservation that there have not been estimates of standard error provided and there are no means of correcting for any response biases inherent in this effort. The sample size of 35 respondents was intuitively selected. Use data provided do not include -14- juvenile statistics. Use indices of stamp purchasers at Flaming Gorge and Lake Powell have been included in the nonresident estimates for those waters and the Bear Lake use index has been corrected to account for use by Idaho residents fishing under reciprocal agreements. Lake Powell appears to be the state's leading reservoir and the Provo the most important river in terms of angler use. Larger reservoirs tend to be the most popular, with the exceptions of Utah and Bear Lakes, which are Utah's second and third largest fresh waters but rank only tenth and eighteenth, respectively, according to use index. As would be expected, nonresident use i s highest in wate r s of southern Utah and at Flami ng Gorge and relatively low near the Wasatch Front. Although Strawberry Reservoir experienced a decline of more than 10% since 1981, it still leads the state in use by residents of Utah (Table 4). Thirty- fi ve percent of the angler use of Lake Powell is from nonresidents (Table 4). The 1986 survey coincided with one of Lake Powell's peak years of popularity. Use and harvest may have been highest in 1985, when approximately 1.5 million pounds of fish, mostly striped bass, were harvested. Declines in Lake Powell's forage base since 1985 can be expected to result in reduced use in future surveys. The greatest single increase in use of any water occurred at Flaming Gorge Reservoir, where use increased 56% since 1981 (Table 4 and Figure 2). This trend is paralleled by increases in Wyoming and Utah reciprocal use stamp sales over the same period, and may be due to the reservoir's growing reputation as a trophy lake trout fishery. and rainbow trout catch rates were also unusually high in 1986 -15- Kokanee Table 4. Angler use indices for lakes and reservoirs for which at least 35 respondents reported activity in 1986, with comparison with 1981 survey results. Use Angler use index (days) Level Ranking 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Water Name Lake Powell Strawberry/ Residenta 220,039 Soldier Cr. Res. 294,601 Flaming Gorge 192,794 Otter Creek Res. 69,944 Scofield Res. 96,104 Deer Creek Res . 72 ,718 Panguitch Lake 11,432 Utah Lake 69,752 Pineview Res . 49,969 Fish Lake 36,693 Trail/Mirror Area Complex 36,387 Eas t Canyon 43,175 Willard Bay Res . 41,830 Bear Lake 34,431 Steinaker Res. 24,078 Minsersvil1e Res. 19,816 Rockport Res . 24,147 Lost Creek Res. 23,391 Nonresident Total 121,362 341,280 5,215 298,524 23,105 215,306 35,858 105 ,517 2,016 97,707 4,154 76,558 59,640 70,996 620 70,252 2,722 52,684 15,863 52,435 10,403 46,670 278 43,168 171 41,941 1,439 35,870 7,617 31,695 8,282 28,098 278 24,305 257 23,648 Di fference from 1981 +57,267 - 34,347 +77 ,205 +45,098 -35,023 - 14,293 - 15,205 +3,373 -44,318 +20,914 - 6,411 - 4,677 -75,540 +4,173 +20,989 -20,270 -34,135 -13,254 Surface Acreage 185,000b Use Per Acre 1.8 14,000 21.4 40,OOOb 5. 4 2,521 42.0 2,815 34.9 2,965 25.9 1,234 57.6 96,900 0 .7 2,874 18 .3 2,500 21.0 430 108 .8 684 63 .5 10,000 4.2 69,760 b 0 .4 820 38 .7 990 28 .4 1,077 22.7 415 57 .0 alnc1uding Arizona/Wyoming residents who purchased Utah stamps, but not including use by Arizona/Wyoming residents that did not purchase stamps to fish the Utah portions of Lake Powell or Flaming Gorge, respectively . Includes use of Idaho residents fishing Bear Lake under reciprocal agreement . blncluding border waters in adjacent states . - 16- Table 5. Angler use indices for streams for which at least 30 respondents reported activity in 1986, with comparisons with 1981 survey results. Use Angler use index (days ) Level Water Difference Ranking Name Resident Nonresident Total from 1981 1 Provo River 105,878 4,046 109,623 +14,361 2 Weber River 63,848 920 64,640 -55,855 3 Ogden River 41,818 0 41,721 +3,848 4 Logan River 40,891 0 40,861 +5,516 5 Green River 26,518 13,521 40,009 +9,727 6 Sevier River 9,953 11,404 21,312 +12,699 7 Bear River (cold) 15,265 855 16,097 +1,281 8 Mammoth Creek 2,193 11,202 13,388 +3,957 Otter Creek Reservoir and Fish Lake also experienced significant increases in use. These increases followed changes in management and stocking strategies which produced much higher survival rates of stocked trout. Harvest at Steinaker Reservoir was composed of 56% warm and 44% coldwater species, suggesting ei ther/or both types of fishing may have contributed to the apparent increase in use there. Use of Willard Reservoir declined by over 35% since 1981, probably due to the disappearance of its crappie. The fishery is now dominated by walleye and catch rates are undoubtedly lower now than in previous -17- I7j ...,. ()Q ~ t; (I) tv C,. (") (I) ~ rt Pl ~: ;:l (I)()Q (I) (I) ~I ~ rt ;:l ~,. Ctl Pl ;:l 1-" ()Q \{) ...... 0) (I) 1-" t; 1)., ~ ~I til p. (I) ..... 0 \{) ;:l 0) I 0' ("t ...... ::r 00 ,(;1 (I) I 0 (f.I S rv 0 \1:1 til 1-" ("t (f.I ::r ~ (I) I-1J Pl I Table 6. Continued Number Estimated Angling days Estimate of Harvest of number License licenses that Lakes and Type sold fished reservoi r Stream Total Coldwater Warmwater Resident Totals 268,524 247,744 1,931,156 686,429 2,617,585 6,266,001 1,875,215 (77 .0) (23.0) Nonresident Total s 120,921 120,921 493,462 113,172 606,634 1,219,742 549,320 (67.4) (32.6) Grand Totals 389,445 368,665 2,424,618 799,601 3,224,219 7,485,743 2,464,535 (75.2) (24.8) aSample size near zero. bIn addition, 15 ,644 one- day stamps were sold, extending the terms of one and five- day nonresident liceses. Creel Average number rate of fish per Total (fi sh/hr) license buyer 8,141,216 0.78 30.3 1,809,062 0.75 15 .0 9,950,258 0.77 25.5 RECOMMENDATIONS Survey Design Some purchasers of fishing and combination licenses do not fish. Based upon previous surveys, 5-10% of license buyers fail to participate in the sport. Nonparticipation by license buyers was inadvertently left off thi s year's questionnaire, necessitating the use of nonparticipation rates derived from the 1981 survey. The question regarding nonparticipation by license buyers should be reinstated in future ques t i onnaires. The use of bulk mailing technology, although far less costly per parcel than traditional mailings, resulted in a serious reduction in returns and probably produced no net savings in cost per usable return . The change in response rate could also have affected a change in response bias. For these surveys to be considered comparable between years, non response biases and other forms of survey bias must remain consistent. For these reasons, traditional mailings, composed of letters of instruction to each fisherman sampled, printed on Department of Natural Resources Stationary and signed by the Director of Wildlife Resources, along with return addressed envelopes should be used in future surveys. Currently, license buyers names and addresses are not available for the year of survey. Mailing lists must be prepared from license sale records the year prior to the survey and even these were not available until March 1986. Many license buyers do not by licenses regularly and this is especially true of nonresident one- and five-day license buyers. Thus, many respondents report they did not buy licenses and many others - 25 - in the sample probably failed to respond for the reason that they did not fish in the year of the survey. If the survey sample could be selected from those buying licenses in the year of survey, response rates would probably increase markedly, especially among nonresidents. This, in turn, could permit a reduction in number of mailings required, thus reducing the cost of the survey. Name and addresses of Wyoming and Arizona purchasers of stamps should be recorded by license vendors so that stamp purchasers can be sampled in the surveys. Use of the Jordan River is apparently substantial, based upon the responsed received in 1986 . This was somewhat unexpected and a stream code was not assigned to the Jordan; thus, use of this river was not computed for 1986. surveys, however. Use of the Jordan River will be coded in future Fishery Management Programs and Planning Lake Powell and Strawberry Reservoir are the state's leading waters in terms of total angling use. Approximately one angling trip in five was spent on one of these two waters in 1986, and one nonresident trip in fi ve was on Lake Powell alone. However, based on more recent field surveys, the catch rate at Strawberry in 1988 was only about half that of 1986 and the striped bass fishery has declined considerably in quality at Lake Powell. Unless the causes of these problems can be corrected, anglers could respond by reducing their participation in the sport in Utah or by relocating to other Utah waters, many of which are currently experiencing capacity use. - 26- A steady decline in use of streams appears to be emerging. Again, unless measures are taken to reverse this trend, stream anglers could reduce their angling participation in Utah. Several large lakes and reservoirs are being fished at rates far below their capacities, most notably Utah Lake, Yuba Reservoir, Starvation Reservoir, and Bear Lake. Utah Lake, located in the state's Wasatch Front population center, is easily capable of sustaining an additional 1,000,000 angling days per year if it's fish forage base shortage could be corrected . These waters, and Utah Lake in particular, are capable of sustaining anticipated increases in angling pressure, if problems that presently limit their fisheries can be corrected. They should, therefore, be given priority attention. -27- - 28 - LITERATURE CITED Bangerter, A. and D. Archer. 1978. Statewide Fisheries Management Survey, 1977. Dingell-Johnson Project Number F-22-R-4. Publication Number 78-13. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 58 pp. Johnson, J. 1983. Statewide Fisheries Management Survey, census. Dingell-Johnson Project Number F-22- R-6. Number 83- 7. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, City. 34 pp. 1981 postal Publication Salt Lake U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1987. Supplement to final environmental assessment for the recreation master plan, Strawberry Reservoir enlar gement. U.S. Department of the Interio r , Bur eau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region Office, Salt Lake City, Utah. -29- - 30- APPENDIX Letters and forms employed in 1986 Postal Creel Survey -31- (jA, STATE OF UTAH ~~ NATURAL RESOURCES ~ Wildlife Resources 1596 West North Temple· Salt Lake City, UT 84116-3154·801-533-9333 May 1986 Dear Sportsman: Norman H. Bangerter, Governor Dee C. Hansen, Executive Director William H. Geer, Division Director You have been selected from the list of people who purchased fishing or combination hunting and fishing licenses during 1985 to participate in a fish harvest study. We hope that you will assist us in the study, the results of which will help us in developing sound fisheries programs for the future. The information needed is outlined on the form printed on the back of this letter. Please carry the form with you and record the fish you personally catch during 1986. We have found that if you keep a record of your fishing, it is much easier to recall at year's end all of your fishing activity. If you have children in your immediate family who did not purchase a license because they were not yet twelve years old, please record their catches during 1986 in the area provided on the lower portion of the form. If more than one member of your family receives this questionnaire, please arrange to keep only one catch record of the children in your family. (Do not include cisco or cisco trips in this report.) We recognize that a growing proportion of Utah's anglers prefer to release a part or all of their catch. Record the release of only those gamefish (not carp, suckers, chubs, etc.) that were large enough to keep -- do not record fish that were returned because they were too small. You can begin assisting this study now by listing those fishing trips you have already undertaken during 1986 on the back of this letter. Next January 1987 you will receive a follow-up letter requesting your data. Another form will be attached for the summarization of your catch and fishing trips. We wish to thank you at this time for your interest and assistance in collecting this information which will help us to assure continued good fishing for you and xour family in the future. -33- an equal opportunity employer 1. 2. One day of fishing is one fishing trip to a specific water -- no matter how long you fished. For released fish, record only gamefish that were big enough to keep but you chose to release anyway. Name of Water No.- dars-r --Number coldwater fished • I fish KeEt I Released 2• I I I Number Warmwater fish KeEt IReleased2 • I ~ I Totals - - I t I Name of Water ITotals Children 6-12 years of age (list each child's fishing seperately) ~-cfars-r--Numb~r -coldwater Number Warmwater I fished • I fish I fish I I Kept IReleased 2·1 Kept IReleased:! I ,- -----1 w ~ w~ ::r::: OO E-« -<. ~E- U) i: w 0 U 0:: Q) -"" =>." 0 1ii ::r0 41 --' >-0::0 E ." u...-'41 Q) Q) O:::: ~ 2 ~ .... u .... 11 0 a Norman H Bangerter Governor Dee .C Hansen , Execut,ve Dlrecror William H Geer, Div,s'on Dlrec:or 1596 West North Temple· Salt Lake c,tv, UT 84116-3154·801-533-9333 December 19, 1987 Dear Sportsman: Last spring you were contacted by letter and requested to participate in a fish harvest survey for 1986. At that time, you were asked to keep a record of your fishing tripa and fish creeled. We are I'XJW request~ this information. Please ccmplete the questionnaire on the back of this letter. (Do not return the form we sent you last spr~. lhat form was only to assist you in keeping track of your fishing activities.) If you did not keep a written record please go ahead and ccmplete the questionnaire from memory. Upon ccmpletion, simply fold, tape, and mail the questionnaire. Follow the instnx:tions below. We have provided postage paid for your convenience . The information you provide is important in assessing fishing quality in Utah and where improvements need to be directed. I very much appreciate your cooperation. mil' . ;d~, WffJ:!11!~ / Director FRCM ________________________ ___ BUSINESS REPLY MAIL :, . c : rv .~ _ ,) Tr\H DIVISI0N O F NILDu FE RESOURCES , 596 ,NES; '·IO RTh rE J1P~E SALT LA KE o rt ur 841 16-9989 -35- 11"1"1"1,,,11,,,11,11,,1,1,,1,1,,1,,1,1,1,,,1,1,1 ' Ie :>':::5; 4~:;E 'IEC=S3ARV I W a'I I I NS TRue T IUNS I. une 3n91er d3y One day JlJrlr~ .nlch )' vu fished d certain .ater ( no m3tter for how long you fi s hed ther,,) . If yOll fished mor e t han ore water In a single J 3) • record e3(' h Wiater as s.;p or3Te ar g )er d3 y. 2. Re leased fish - Please record or I)' ,J ame f Ish (no t carp, chub S. ,Jr s u~Io, ers) tha t were big enough t o Io,eep. 0 0 no t record f ish that _er e returned because they were smal I. TO RET URN THIS OUESTIONNAIRE I. Cut or tear off this pMel a 1009 dashed I I ne . 2. Fo ld so that return (8uslness Reply message) ouTsloe. ,. Tape flap closed. staple. postage Is on 00 not 4 . Deposit qUesti onnaire your In completed the mall. 0 Q) .. " n ". ". " " II' n '" ., " I; '6 I~ 1986 FISH HARVEST OUESTIONNAIRE I" I~ I~ A. Old you fish In Utah during 1986? Yes I No (If your answer Is "No", you hllve completed the survey - please drop questionnaire In mill I). 8. Type of Utllh license purchllsed (for yourself) In 1986: C. Res I dent Annu" I Resident flve-Day COmbination (S'5.00) Fishing (SI8.00) 12-15 yr. old (S8.00) 65 & older ($9.00) Adult (t9.00) 12-15 yr. old ('4.00) Nonresident Annual 1S40.00) f I va-Day (' 15. 00) One-{)ay (S5.00) He" many unlicensed children , 6- 12 years old, In your InvooOlate family fished In Ufah? ___ • (If more than one member of your family receives this quest ionnaire, please Include the chi lOren on one reporting for" only.) I. He" many days did these children spend stream fish I ng? Lake and reservol r 1'1 sh I ng? 2. He" many cold"ater f Ish were caught b)' these children during 1986? ___ • He" many warmwater fish? (Coldwater fish are trout. kokanee, whitefish, and cisco; Warmwater fish are perch, bluegill, bass, catfish, walleye. pike, etc.) I~ Ii I. I : I: o. I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. II. 12. 13. 14. fishing record--Please list, to the best of your memory, names o f all "aters ~ fished, type of "at er (lake or stream), number of days you fished each "ater, and number of fish you caught. P.l ease Include only your catch. (Do not forget to Include those experiences "hen you caught no fish!) Please do not Include c isco taken while dip-netting at 8ear Lake. Name of Water Lake or Stream? No . Days fished Catch - Record "f I sh Kep t " and "Keepers" you released. No . Coldwater I No. Warm"a t er l2Ifl6 ()IJ)061 Prepared by: James E. Johnson Special Projects Coordinator Approved by: Bruce R. Schmidt Chief of Fisheries Carol Young Federal Aid Coordinator -37-
geography
Array ( [0] => Array ( [state] => Utah [province] => ) )
batch_date
Tue, 05 May 2020 19:04:31 +0000
original_file_path
https://digitallibrary.utah.gov/awweb/awarchive?type=download&item=38201
group__id
5eb1ba49d3bcf3.85861689
document_format
1.1.7
disabled
-1
processing_date
1609350681
year
1988
hash
Array ( [document] => e8f8053c1f6c0abf28b9deffa575802ca9a388ec [content] => 8e73791be97a6e7697593e2df8a92553da6eacee [dedupe] => f42af3d3fd38ed433a1e9f0055fc2254f5cd67b9 )
id
doc-5eb1ba4a40caae9a8309cdd6
__hash__
Content: 8e73791be97a6e7697593e2df8a92553da6eacee | Abstract: da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709