I believe angler catch data is a pretty good way to evaluate a fishery. Although anglers especially separate anglers have a pretty wide bias in their methods. HOWEVER, HOWEVER as with all sampling methods, there are pros and cons. Often each method can have its variability and amount of bias due to several or many reasons. There is even variability in individuals collecting samples for many subjects even in my laboratory business. Accuracy and Presision are definately different critters. It is almost always, as best as possible, to use two or three other methods to get a better idea of the results from using each method before making firm or definitive decisions. I think it is often too easy to make simple conclusions based on lack of information. It happens way too frequently in most every profession.
I question the applicable validity of the referenced Wisconsin DNR study to fisheries with other species compositions and densities of predators and different habitat conditions. I have worked with northern pike. Their behavior and productive habits are definately different than largemouth bass found in most private ponds. Thus I question how much there is comparison of the referenced WI DNR study with Joe Pondmeister's very commonly occuring bass - BG pond. One has to be careful to not apply wide scale conclusions from one study to other types of fisheries in other types of habitats. Ponds and fisheries are definitately not always the same despite even if both ponds have just BG-LMB and the main fishes. Or in ponds side by side. This is IMO why each pond fishery and even the conditions of the pond ecosystem seems to never be the same and always changing due to the constant changing conditions due to MANY VARIABLES. Some of the variables are probably still not even well understood or known. For example, DNA and genetic chemistry are still in their infancy. We as pond owners and researchers are always learning something new often monthly or daily.
Last edited by Bill Cody; 10/21/25 11:05 AM.
