This project used angler survey results to determine Largemouth Bass Micropterus nigricans harvest preferences, as well as anglers’ attitudes toward management in two small fishing impoundments. Our objective was to compare anglers’ preferred Largemouth Bass harvest lengths to proportional size distribution (PSD) advised management harvest lengths to provide theoretical management recommendations regarding harvest and predator–prey population dynamics. We collected survey submissions at Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant in north central South Carolina, questioning anglers regarding harvest preferences, attitude, angling effort, demographic profile, and possible recommendations to fisheries managers. We used Fisher’s exact test to compare results between impoundments and Pearson’s χ2 test to find differences between all submitted responses. Using Kruskal–Wallis tests, we related angling effort to categorical responses. In total, we recorded 82 angler survey submissions. We found no significant differences between impoundments regarding preferred trophy bass length, reason for fishing, regulation support, and whether the angler harvested Largemouth Bass. The majority of anglers at both impoundments responded that they would never harvest Largemouth Bass. We found a significant difference between impoundments regarding targeted species, with the majority (45%) of anglers at Lancaster Reservoir targeting anything that would bite and the majority (53%) of anglers at Lake Oliphant targeting Largemouth Bass. Lancaster Reservoir PSD values aligned with a trophy bass management strategy, whereas Lake Oliphant PSD values fit a balanced management strategy. Anglers’ preferences and attitudes showed minimal differences between surveyed impoundments. Survey results suggested inadequate amounts of Largemouth Bass harvest at both impoundments. Although a lack of harvest falls within the management plan for Lancaster Reservoir, it does not for Lake Oliphant, according to prior PSD calculations. Low harvest rates coupled with a PSD score within the balanced management quadrant suggest Lake Oliphant is at risk of becoming bass crowded.

Largemouth Bass Micropterus nigricans is one of the most extensively managed and sought after fish species in North America (Aday and Graeb 2012; Schramm and Willis 2012). In the United States, nearly 9.6 million freshwater anglers spent a total of 117 million days targeting Black Bass species in 2016, which include Largemouth Bass (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS] and U.S. Census Bureau [USCB] 2018). Because of widespread popularity and known success in temperate climates, Largemouth Bass do particularly well in lower latitudinal states (Fox and Neal 2011; Schramm and Willis 2012). In South Carolina, the average Largemouth Bass angler spends 38.3 d fishing per license year (Responsive Management 2002). Increasing demand for Largemouth Bass angling opportunities has led to the popularity and convenience of small impoundment fishing, an option for anglers, who may not have opportunities otherwise, to enjoy quick and easy access (Chrisman et al. 2023). In the southeastern United States, a combination of Largemouth Bass and Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus are commonly stocked into many reservoirs to achieve a balanced or favorable fishery (Willis et al. 2010; Willis and Neal 2012). Fisheries managers manipulate the balance of this predator–prey relationship to select for desired population characteristics, including growth rates, size structure, and total number of fish present (Aday and Graeb 2012; Neumann et al. 2012).

Proper harvest of Largemouth Bass is essential to avoid unstable population dynamics within fish communities (Schramm and Willis 2012). Historically, overharvest of predator species has led to impaired predator–prey balances, a common concern among fishery managers in past years (Willis et al. 2010). However, in recent years this concern has become less frequent due to a change in angler preference. Voluntary release of Largemouth Bass has become particularly popular among anglers in the United States in recent decades (Aday and Graeb 2012; Jones and Pollock 2012; Schramm and Willis 2012; Willis and Neal 2012). Since 1990, estimated Largemouth Bass fishing mortality rates have nearly halved, likely due to the increased popularity of catch-and-release angling (Allen et al. 2008). Decreased mortality in highly productive and abundant populations of Largemouth Bass often leads to an overcrowded population, creating an unbalanced fish community (Aday and Graeb 2012). Predator-crowded populations result when specific size ranges of Largemouth Bass exceed the availability of their prey (Schramm and Willis 2012). Prey recruitment declines, resulting in reduced forage availability. Consequently, predators are supplied with only enough forage to reach a specific undesirable length. This process creates a bottleneck of slow-growing, stunted predators with little opportunity to grow to larger sizes (Fox and Neal 2011). Failure to adequately monitor the harvest of Largemouth Bass can lead to an unbalanced and poor population size structure through this process (Willis et al. 2010; Fox and Neal 2011; Bonvechio et al. 2013).

Angler harvest estimates are contributing factors that fisheries managers interpret when manipulating and managing fish communities (Pollock et al. 1994; Jones and Pollock 2012). By implementing common regulations such as bag limits, slot length restrictions, and day closures, managers aim to influence predator–prey relationships. One tool that managers use to assess predator–prey dynamics is proportional size distribution (PSD). Gablehouse (1984) describes PSD as a length-categorization system to provide insight and predictability about population dynamics by using length classes to characterize size structure. Adequate PSD estimates for Largemouth Bass populations provide clear direction for management actions regarding harvest of predators or prey (Schramm and Willis 2012). Based upon the population structure indices provided by calculating PSD, fisheries managers can provide recommended angling harvest rates for predator species based on management strategy (trophy bass, balanced, or trophy sunfish) for future desired population structures (Gablehouse 1984; Neumann et al. 2012; Schramm and Willis 2012).

Without adequate harvest rates of predator species within small impoundments, population dynamics will likely require expensive and time-consuming management remediation efforts due to predator overcrowding (Schramm and Willis 2012). Gaining popularity in recent years, removal studies have been implemented on Largemouth Bass populations, attempting to rebalance predator–prey relationships (Schramm and Willis 2012). Chrisman et al. (2023) performed mechanical Largemouth Bass removals on two South Carolina small impoundments, including Lake Oliphant as one of the study sites. Significant removal of Largemouth Bass at Lake Oliphant (40–50% of total population) resulted in increased relative weight measurements along with restructured size distributions, whereby PSD values shifted toward trophy bass management ranges (Chrisman et al. 2023). Similar studies have been conducted on Largemouth Bass–crowded populations to mitigate overcrowding and stunting (Beaman 2021; Holt 2021). These studies are the result of underharvested Largemouth Bass populations due to voluntary release angling practices. Other Largemouth Bass stunting and overcrowding mitigation efforts include the intensive stocking of forage species and impoundment renovation (draining and restocking) projects. These remediation efforts are expensive and proven to not be entirely successful (Schramm and Willis 2012). Through angler surveys, managers can better understand public harvest preferences and attitudes toward regulatory practices, mitigating the need for previously noted Largemouth Bass management interventions.

Fisheries managers use angler surveys to obtain information regarding recreational, biological, social, and economic variables (Pollock et al. 1994; Jones and Pollock 2012). Previous studies have successfully gathered angler opinions on current and hypothetical management changes to better align management efforts with public input (Reed and Parsons 1999; Long et al. 2012). We surveyed anglers at two small fishing impoundments in north central South Carolina to obtain information on angler preference regarding Largemouth Bass harvest and management as well as attitude toward personal success and subjective improvements. Our objective for this study was to compare anglers’ preferred Largemouth Bass harvest lengths to advised management harvest lengths based on PSD calculations.

We conducted this study in north central South Carolina in the Piedmont region. Lancaster Reservoir (60 acres [24 ha]) and Lake Oliphant (40 acres [16 ha]) are two impoundments that are part of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) State Lakes Program. The program includes 18 impoundments and is focused on providing easily accessible, quality fishing and recreational opportunities for the public through intensive management. Both impoundments provide year-round fishing opportunities for Largemouth Bass, Bluegill, Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus, Redear Sunfish Lepomis microlophus, and Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus (Rohde et al. 2009). Fingerling Bluegill and Redear Sunfish are stocked into all SCDNR State Lake small impoundments to provide ample forage for Largemouth Bass.

Lancaster Reservoir, in Lancaster County, is owned by the city of Lancaster, but leased and managed by the SCDNR. The impoundment offers a single-lane boat ramp and shoreline fishing opportunities. Lancaster Reservoir has a maximum depth of 12.8 ft (3.9 m) and an average depth of 3.5 ft (1.1 m). Multiple fish attractor sites are managed by the SCDNR. Lancaster Reservoir is open to fishing year-round on Thursday and Saturday, 0.5 h before sunrise until 0.5 h after sunset. Special regulations are implemented on Lancaster Reservoir for Largemouth Bass, enforcing a harvest limit of two Largemouth Bass per person per day 16 in. or longer (≥41 cm). Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum have migrated from upstream, establishing an additional forage species for Largemouth Bass, along with stocked Threadfin Shad Dorosoma petenense.

Lake Oliphant, in Chester County, is owned by Chester County Airport, but leased and managed by the SCDNR. A single-lane boat ramp is available as well as a public fishing pier. Lake Oliphant offers an extensive trail partially surrounding the impoundment with multiple fishing stations as well as multiple SCDNR-managed fish attractor sites. Lake Oliphant has a maximum depth of 24.8 ft (7.5 m) and an average depth of 4.8 ft (1.4 m). Lake Oliphant is open to fishing year-round on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturday, 0.5 h before sunrise until 0.5 h after sunset. Statewide Largemouth Bass harvest limits are enforced at Lake Oliphant at five total per person per day of any size. Threadfin Shad are stocked by SCDNR to offer additional prey for Largemouth Bass. Lime and fertilization applications are implemented by managers to improve the trophic status of the impoundment to raise the overall carrying capacity (Schramm and Willis 2012). Secchi disk measurements are used to maintain proper water transparency (0.7–0.9 m) to ensure lime and fertilization applications are supporting adequate productivity levels.

This study included individual anglers who were willing to participate on Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024 (Data S1 and Data S2, Supplemental Material). We offered anglers the survey in three separate formats to maximize total submissions. We strategically placed survey drop boxes at each impoundments’ access points for angler self-use. Along with the option of paper entry via drop boxes, anglers had the option of using a scannable quick response (QR) code via ArcGIS Survey123 that provided access to the same survey through their mobile device (Figure 1). We placed three signs containing QR codes and use directions along trails and at fishing sites at each impoundment. In-person questioning of anglers also took place on days that fishing was open to the public. SCDNR personnel participated in surveying anglers when they were available, rather than following a scheduled surveying plan. SCDNR personnel questioned anglers from the bank as well as after loading their watercraft, once they completed their fishing trip. Anglers answered a series of questions regarding angling effort, harvest preferences, attitude, demographic profile, and possible recommendations to fisheries managers (Table 1). We considered angler’s first-time submissions for opinion-, preference-, and attitude-based question analyses. We used repeated submissions only for angling effort calculations and did not include them for preference- and attitude-related survey response analyses. This prevented repeated survey responses from biasing the survey results, yet allowed angling effort calculations to be included for these repeated anglers.

Figure 1.

Beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024, we surveyed anglers at Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant by using self-use paper drop boxes; scannable quick response (QR) codes, providing a virtual version of the survey through an angler’s mobile device; and in-person interviews. The figure shows an angler self-use drop box station as well as the QR code sign that is mounted at the information kiosk at Lancaster Reservoir.

Figure 1.

Beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024, we surveyed anglers at Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant by using self-use paper drop boxes; scannable quick response (QR) codes, providing a virtual version of the survey through an angler’s mobile device; and in-person interviews. The figure shows an angler self-use drop box station as well as the QR code sign that is mounted at the information kiosk at Lancaster Reservoir.

Close modal
Table 1.

Questions included in the survey, beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024, are shown with results expressed in percentage of total submissions (N = 34 for Lancaster Reservoir, N = 46 for Lake Oliphant). The most common response from anglers at each small impoundment is shown. Submissions that did not include location responses are not included (2).

Questions included in the survey, beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024, are shown with results expressed in percentage of total submissions (N = 34 for Lancaster Reservoir, N = 46 for Lake Oliphant). The most common response from anglers at each small impoundment is shown. Submissions that did not include location responses are not included (2).
Questions included in the survey, beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024, are shown with results expressed in percentage of total submissions (N = 34 for Lancaster Reservoir, N = 46 for Lake Oliphant). The most common response from anglers at each small impoundment is shown. Submissions that did not include location responses are not included (2).

For PSD calculations, we performed all fish collection efforts by using standard electrofishing equipment and techniques described by Miranda (2009), Pope et al. (2009), and Reynolds and Kols (2012). Sampling at both impoundments in 2023 consisted of using a boom-mounted electro-fishing boat unit set at 60 pulses per s, with outputs adjusted to achieve a 3- to 5-amp direct current. We sampled each impoundment once in April or May and then again in July, for a total of two samples per impoundment. We segmented each impoundment into quarters and performed 15 min of electrofishing along the shorelines in each quarter. Fish collection efforts took place during daylight hours. We collected, measured for total length (millimeters), and weighed (grams) all Largemouth Bass encountered. We calculated the catch per unit of effort (fish per h) for all collected Largemouth Bass to estimate population abundance. We used catch per unit of effort as a descriptive statistic for each impoundment. For assessing Largemouth Bass population size structure, we used standard methods described by Gablehouse (1984) to calculate PSD. PSD uses incremental minimum length size categories to categorize Largemouth Bass assemblages that, for this study, included quality (PSD-Q), preferred (PSD-P), and memorable (PSD-M). We compared numerical PSD category values (Table 2) to management guidelines provided by Neumann et al. (2012; Table 3). We then compared management strategy results against survey harvest preference results to provide theoretical management recommendations regarding harvest and predator–prey population dynamics.

Table 2.

Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant were sampled, using standard electrofishing equipment and techniques for proportional size distribution calculations, once in April or May, 2023, and again in July, 2023, for a total of two samples per impoundment. Proportional size distribution values for quality (PSD-Q), preferred (PSD-P), and memorable (PSD-M) length Largemouth Bass Micropterus nigricans and catch per unit of effort (CPU; fish/h) for each impoundment are shown. The appropriate management strategy is given for each impoundment from guidelines provided by Neumann et al. (2012; Table 3).

Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant were sampled, using standard electrofishing equipment and techniques for proportional size distribution calculations, once in April or May, 2023, and again in July, 2023, for a total of two samples per impoundment. Proportional size distribution values for quality (PSD-Q), preferred (PSD-P), and memorable (PSD-M) length Largemouth Bass Micropterus nigricans and catch per unit of effort (CPU; fish/h) for each impoundment are shown. The appropriate management strategy is given for each impoundment from guidelines provided by Neumann et al. (2012; Table 3).
Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant were sampled, using standard electrofishing equipment and techniques for proportional size distribution calculations, once in April or May, 2023, and again in July, 2023, for a total of two samples per impoundment. Proportional size distribution values for quality (PSD-Q), preferred (PSD-P), and memorable (PSD-M) length Largemouth Bass Micropterus nigricans and catch per unit of effort (CPU; fish/h) for each impoundment are shown. The appropriate management strategy is given for each impoundment from guidelines provided by Neumann et al. (2012; Table 3).
Table 3.

Proportional size distribution values for quality (PSD-Q), preferred (PSD-P), and memorable (PSD-M) length Largemouth Bass Micropterus nigricans are shown with the appropriate desired management strategy (Neumann et al. 2012).

Proportional size distribution values for quality (PSD-Q), preferred (PSD-P), and memorable (PSD-M) length Largemouth Bass Micropterus nigricans are shown with the appropriate desired management strategy (Neumann et al. 2012).
Proportional size distribution values for quality (PSD-Q), preferred (PSD-P), and memorable (PSD-M) length Largemouth Bass Micropterus nigricans are shown with the appropriate desired management strategy (Neumann et al. 2012).

When comparing results from individual impoundments, we separated data by impoundment. Otherwise, we pooled all responses. Using Fisher’s exact tests, we tested for differences in angler responses to various questions within the survey when comparing by impoundment. We used Pearson’s χ2 tests to test for differences between all pooled survey responses (R Core Team 2022). We found nonnormal distributions using quantile-quantile plots and Shapiro–Wilkes tests (R Core Team 2022). Using Bartlett’s tests, we tested for violation of variance assumptions (R Core Team 2022). Because of normality and variance assumptions not being met, we used Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance tests to test for significant differences relating angling effort to categorical responses (R Core Team 2022). We found the most common responses for individual questions at each impoundment by comparing popular answers to all survey response data and then expressed the results as percentages. For comparing PSD values between impoundments, we created a contingency table containing PSD results and tested using Fisher’s exact test. We used a significance level of α = 0.05 for all statistical testing.

Anglers completed a total of 82 surveys at Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant, although we report on only 80 angler surveys for individual impoundment analyses due to 2 survey submissions being incomplete (Table 1). Because of the omission of the name of the impoundment where fishing occurred, we did not include these two incomplete QR code survey submissions in individual impoundment analyses, but did include them for total fishing effort calculations when pooling all submissions. Less than 2% of anglers declined to participate in the survey, resulting in a high in-person interview participation rate (98%, including repeated angler submissions). We collected only eight total submissions via QR code and five total submissions via drop box, resulting in a low total submission percentage (16%) in relation to in-person interviews (84%; χ2 = 95.439; df = 2; P < 0.001; Figure S1, Supplemental Material). Surveyed anglers spent a total of 217.5 h of fishing at both impoundments. The average time spent fishing by surveyed anglers at both impoundments was 2.65 h (SD = 2.14). When pooling all survey submissions, results showed that most anglers were between 25 and 74 y old (χ2 = 24.437; df = 7; P < 0.001; Figure 2) and they targeted either Largemouth Bass or anything that would bite (χ2 = 20.761; df = 4; P < 0.001; Figure 2). We found no significant differences when comparing angling effort to angler age groups (H = 3.453; df = 7; P > 0.05; Figure 2) or species targeted (H = 4.842; df = 4; P > 0.05; Figure 2).

Figure 2.

We quantified angler age groups and targeted species survey responses from Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant, beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024, by using percentage of total responses as well as angling effort. Shaded bars represent the majority of responses from anglers, indicating a high response percentage. For bar chart analyses, N = 71, due to excluding repeated submissions (11); for box plot analyses, N = 80, due to excluding incomplete submissions (2), but including repeated submissions.

Figure 2.

We quantified angler age groups and targeted species survey responses from Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant, beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024, by using percentage of total responses as well as angling effort. Shaded bars represent the majority of responses from anglers, indicating a high response percentage. For bar chart analyses, N = 71, due to excluding repeated submissions (11); for box plot analyses, N = 80, due to excluding incomplete submissions (2), but including repeated submissions.

Close modal

We collected a total of 34 survey submissions at Lancaster Reservoir, with 79% conducted as in-person interviews. Surveyed anglers spent 79.75 total hours fishing, averaging 2.34 h per angler (SD = 1.75). We collected a total of five repeated angler survey submissions. Most anglers (86%) preferred to fish year-round and were between 25 and 34 y old (31%; Table 1). The majority of anglers described their reason for fishing to be for fun and relaxation (76%; Table 1). Most anglers at Lancaster Reservoir indicated that they were not targeting a specific species, but fished for anything that would bite (45%; Table 1). The majority of anglers expressed that they did not have to harvest fish to have a successful trip (83%), believed their current fishing trip to be successful (52%), and often had a successful freshwater fishing trip in the previous year (69%; Table 1). Most anglers do not harvest Largemouth Bass that they catch (72%; Table 1). Of the anglers that harvest Largemouth Bass, all preferred to harvest Largemouth Bass between 12 and 23 in. ([30 and 58 cm]; Table 1). The majority of anglers considered a trophy-size Largemouth Bass to be more than 10 lb (4.5 kg; 48%; Table 1). Most anglers either supported (45%) or did not know whether they supported (45%) regulation changes for trophy bass management, rather than opposing it (10%; Table 1). When asked where the SCDNR should place its primary emphasis on freshwater fishing, the three most common responses were hatchery stocking (41%), public access to streams and reservoirs (28%), and construction of more impoundments (28%).

At Lake Oliphant, we collected 46 total survey submissions, with 91% conducted as in-person interviews. Surveyed anglers spent a total of 136.25 h fishing, averaging 2.96 h fished per angler (SD = 2.37). We collected a total of six repeated angler survey submissions. The majority of anglers preferred to fish year-round (78%), and the most common angler age group was 55–64 y old (30%; Table 1). The majority of surveyed anglers at Lake Oliphant described their reason for fishing to be for fun and relaxation (95%; Table 1). Most anglers primarily fished for Largemouth Bass (53%) and did not plan on keeping any that were caught (63%; Table 1). The majority of anglers did not feel they had to harvest fish to have a successful trip (78%), and 48% often had a successful fishing trip in the previous year, whereas 40% did not know whether their current trip was successful (Table 1). The most commonly preferred Largemouth Bass harvest length by anglers was 12–17 in. (30–43 cm; 25%; Table 1). The majority of anglers considered a trophy-size bass to be more 10 lb (43%), and 55% supported regulation changes for trophy bass management (Table 1). When asked where the SCDNR should place its primary emphasis on freshwater fishing, the two most common responses were public access to streams and reservoirs (43%) and Largemouth Bass management (35%).

Median angling effort was similar between impoundments with Lancaster Reservoir anglers at 1.99 h and Lake Oliphant anglers at 2.49 h (H = 1.295; df = 1; P > 0.05; Figure S1). Fisher’s exact test found significant differences in species targeted by anglers between impoundments: 45% of anglers at Lancaster Reservoir fished for anything that bites, whereas 53% of anglers at Lake Oliphant selectively fished for Largemouth Bass (P < 0.001; Figure 3). Fisher’s exact test found no differences between impoundments regarding Largemouth Bass trophy size opinions (P > 0.05; Figure 3). This was due to anglers at both impoundments having a significant preference for trophy Largemouth Bass being defined as more than 10 lb (χ2 = 16.507; df = 3; P < 0.001; Figure 3). Fisher’s exact test found that angler opinions on whether they supported regulation changes for trophy size Largemouth Bass in certain systems also did not differ between impoundments (P > 0.05; Figure 3). What caused this similarity was the significance of anglers at both impoundments supporting regulation change (χ2 = 16.435; df = 2; P < 0.001; Figure 3). We found no significant differences between impoundments, by using Fisher’s exact test, regarding whether anglers preferred to harvest Largemouth Bass (P > 0.05; Figure 3). When comparing results from all anglers from both impoundments, we found that a significant number of anglers responded they would never harvest Largemouth Bass (χ2 = 36.261; df = 2; P < 0.001; Figure 3); however, there were differences in angling effort when comparing responses to whether anglers planned on harvesting Largemouth Bass (Figure 4). We found anglers that responded with “yes, always” to whether they harvest Largemouth Bass to spend significantly less time fishing than those who responded “yes, sometimes” or “no” (H = 7.261; df = 2; P < 0.05; Figure 4). When comparing effort to preferred Largemouth Bass harvest lengths of only anglers that harvest Largemouth Bass (29% of total surveys), we found no significant difference (H = 2.988; df = 3; P > 0.05; Figure 5). Of these same anglers, Fisher’s exact test found there to be no significant differences between impoundments regarding preferred Largemouth Bass harvest length (P > 0.05; Figure 5). A significant majority of all Largemouth Bass harvesting anglers preferred to harvest Largemouth Bass between 12 and 17 in. (30–43 cm) at both impoundments (χ2 = 18.217; df = 3; P < 0.001; Figure 5).

Figure 3.

Angler responses to Largemouth Bass Micropterus nigricans–specific management questions from Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant, beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024, compared by impoundment. We express the results as percentage of the total number of first-time angler survey submissions. The analyses do not include repeated submissions (six total at Lancaster Reservoir and five total at Lake Oliphant).

Figure 3.

Angler responses to Largemouth Bass Micropterus nigricans–specific management questions from Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant, beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024, compared by impoundment. We express the results as percentage of the total number of first-time angler survey submissions. The analyses do not include repeated submissions (six total at Lancaster Reservoir and five total at Lake Oliphant).

Close modal
Figure 4.

Angling effort results are shown from Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant, beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024, expressed in hours as related to Largemouth Bass Micropterus nigricans harvest preferences. The analyses do not include incomplete survey submissions (two) that did not include angling effort responses.

Figure 4.

Angling effort results are shown from Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant, beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024, expressed in hours as related to Largemouth Bass Micropterus nigricans harvest preferences. The analyses do not include incomplete survey submissions (two) that did not include angling effort responses.

Close modal
Figure 5.

Harvest-length preferences shown as percentage of anglers that harvest Largemouth Bass Micropterus nigricans at Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant, beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024, only including anglers that responded “yes, always” or “yes, sometimes” to whether they harvest Largemouth Bass. The figure shows harvesting anglers’ length preferences in relation to angling effort as well.

Figure 5.

Harvest-length preferences shown as percentage of anglers that harvest Largemouth Bass Micropterus nigricans at Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant, beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024, only including anglers that responded “yes, always” or “yes, sometimes” to whether they harvest Largemouth Bass. The figure shows harvesting anglers’ length preferences in relation to angling effort as well.

Close modal

Sampling efforts in 2023 at Lancaster Reservoir resulted in a PSD of 90, a PSD-P of 70, and a PSD-M of 14, placing it into the trophy bass PSD management strategy (Neumann et al. 2012; Table 2). At Lake Oliphant in 2023, the alignment of Largemouth Bass population size structure was closest to the balanced PSD management strategy (Neumann et al. 2012), with a PSD of 68, a PSD-P of 36, and a PSD-M of 0 (Table 2). Using Fisher’s exact test, we calculated PSD values for each impoundment to be independent by impoundment (P < 0.005), resulting in different management strategies according to Schramm and Willis (2012; Tables 2 and 3).

Increasing popularity of small impoundment fishing and catch-and-release angling practices has led to fisheries managers facing a difficult task in selectively managing for trophy-size Largemouth Bass with inadequate harvest rates (Aday and Graeb 2012; Jones and Pollock 2012; Schramm and Willis 2012; Willis and Neal 2012). Causing a distinguishable decrease in fishing mortality since 1990, catch-and-release Largemouth Bass angling will likely continue to produce overcrowded and stunted Largemouth Bass populations in small fishing impoundments (Allen et al. 2008). Although each small impoundment requires separate and unique management strategies for future trophy Largemouth Bass sustainability (Eades and Lang 2012), anglers’ preferences and attitudes showed little differences between impoundments. According to Neumann et al. (2012) and Schramm and Willis (2012), PSD values from Lancaster Reservoir suggested minimizing or stopping harvest of all Largemouth Bass to maintain a fishery dominated by trophy Largemouth Bass (Neumann et al. 2012; Schramm and Willis 2012). The low proportion of anglers harvesting Largemouth Bass at Lancaster Reservoir (27%) falls within the management plan. Alternatively, PSD values at Lake Oliphant suggested continuing the current harvest rate of all size ranges of Largemouth Bass, especially those within the stock and quality size classes (8–15 in. [20–38 cm]) to continue shifting the population toward producing more trophy Largemouth Bass. Although survey results found that 67% of Largemouth Bass harvesting anglers preferred harvesting mostly within the appropriate size range, only 37% of total anglers at Lake Oliphant planned to harvest Largemouth Bass. This low percentage of anglers harvesting Largemouth Bass will likely not be adequate to produce appropriate harvest year over year. In both cases, by obtaining anglers’ Largemouth Bass harvest preferences through public surveys, future insights and recommendations can be interpreted and used for future management actions.

Small fishing impoundments are highly individualistic and require timely and unique management to meet the standards of the anglers using them (Willis et al. 2010; Willis and Neal 2012). In this study, angling preference regarding anglers’ opinions on trophy Largemouth Bass length displayed some variation by impoundment; however, not significantly so. The majority of anglers favored the implementation of stricter management practices for trophy Largemouth Bass, while considering a trophy to be more than 10 lb. Pairing these preferences with low Largemouth Bass harvest rates tasks fisheries managers with implementing management strategies to favorably select for trophy Largemouth Bass while accompanied with minimal fishing harvest, has proven to be troublesome and ineffective (Schramm and Willis 2012).

Although being a trophy bass–managed fishing impoundment, the highest proportion of anglers at Lancaster Reservoir responded that they fished for anything that bites, instead of specifically for Largemouth Bass. We did not expect this response, because Lancaster Reservoir is a proven trophy Largemouth Bass fishery and had significantly different responses than those at Lake Oliphant. According to angler survey submissions, Lake Oliphant is used predominantly as a Largemouth Bass fishing impoundment, which we expected. However, there is an implied bias within this question, because anglers, who fished for anything that bites, could have been fishing for Largemouth Bass as well as any other desired species. Although there was a bias, it is assumed to be minimal, because this is an unlikely situation. Although not significant, Lancaster Reservoir submissions found a larger proportion of anglers considering a 10-lb Largemouth Bass to be a trophy compared with Lake Oliphant submissions. This falls in line with comparing PSD values from each impoundment, because Lancaster Reservoir falls within the trophy bass management category and Lake Oliphant into the balanced management category (Gablehouse 1984; Neumann et al. 2012; Schramm and Willis 2012).

Angler demographics and profiles varied, but did not significantly differ when comparing results between impoundments. We expected these similarities among angler age, regulatory preferences, and angling effort, given the relatively close spatial relation of the surveyed impoundments. The highest proportions of anglers were from older age groups, whereas the lowest proportions came from age groups 0–17 (4%) and 18–24 (4%) y. Although younger aged anglers may feel less inclined to submit a survey, we observed noticeably fewer younger aged anglers when surveying anglers in person. This supports the national concern for the trending decrease of youth and younger aged anglers across the United States (USFWS and USCB 2018). With the dominant proportion of anglers fishing for fun and relaxation and fishing year-round, harvest was not seen as a priority for anglers being that they regularly returned to the same fishing impoundment.

There was no significant difference between impoundments in whether anglers supported stricter regulations for trophy bass, because most anglers did. However, there is possible bias within this question due to anglers who submitted the survey in person being questioned by an SCDNR employee, thereby swaying their response. Another bias of concern was an underrepresentation of boating anglers in this survey due to the inability to survey boaters while they were on the water. This bias could potentially influence trophy preferences, targeted species, and effort calculations. Because of this concern, this survey was seen as primarily representing shoreline anglers, although a small proportion of the total submissions (16%) came from boating anglers.

Lancaster Reservoir had a slightly smaller proportion of anglers who responded “yes, always” or “yes, sometimes” to whether they harvest Largemouth Bass compared with Lake Oliphant. Although this was the case, the outstanding proportion of anglers at both impoundments responded that they would never harvest Largemouth Bass. Anglers, who responded that they always harvest Largemouth Bass, were found to fish significantly less time than those who sometimes did or never harvested. This significant difference was contrary to what we expected and can possibly be related to the overall low number of anglers who responded that they always keep Largemouth Bass (N = 7). With further prolonging of this survey, it would be interesting to determine whether this would continue to occur.

Attitudes from anglers, who submitted the survey regarding freshwater fisheries management, stated a need for an emphasis placed on public access to streams and reservoirs in South Carolina. Anglers noted public access as a primary concern, because many felt that they had minimal fishing opportunities in their immediate area. We did not anticipate this concern, because there are multiple publicly accessible rivers, reservoirs, and SCDNR State Lakes within the surrounding area of each surveyed impoundment. This concern may stem from inadequate communication of angling opportunities and access via media, postings, and outreach programs. A secondary concern from surveyed anglers was the need for increased Largemouth Bass management in public freshwater rivers, reservoirs, and small impoundments in South Carolina. With the increasing popularity of Largemouth Bass fishing, this is a primary concern of not just South Carolina anglers, but many anglers across the United States (Fox and Neal 2011). When asked how the SCDNR has performed in improving freshwater fishing, the majority of anglers (48%) responded that the SCDNR’s performance was satisfactory.

Although the sample size for this study was relatively small, repeated submissions did increase throughout the length of the surveying season; thus, most anglers who spend a considerable amount of fishing effort at these impoundments were part of this survey. Total survey submission counts from Lancaster Reservoir were lower than those from Lake Oliphant, likely due to Lake Oliphant being open to fishing one more day per week than Lancaster Reservoir. Even with a relatively small sample size, these angler opinions provide insight to fisheries managers, who, unfortunately, are faced with routinely making decisions with little to no public input.

In-person interviews proved to be the most effective format to obtain the maximum number of survey submissions. A significant proportion of the total number of submissions came from in-person interview surveys. Drop box and QR code formats proved ineffective because we observed many anglers avoiding these options. We collected most drop box and QR code submissions in the first month of surveying, and rates declined as the survey progressed. Future studies, using motion-activated cameras to test for differences in these formats, would be useful to determine participation rates for various surveying formats.

Future applications of public fishing surveys are essential to provide angler information to fisheries managers. By obtaining the opinions of the individuals using the public resources provided by agencies, managers can make insightful decisions backed by the preferences and attitudes of their users (Pollock et al. 1994; Jones and Pollock 2012). In this study, gathering information from anglers using small public fishing impoundments has led to further understanding of two SCDNR State Lakes. This knowledge can help fisheries managers avoid expensive, unnecessary management actions such as mechanical removals; annual supplemental stocking of forage species; and impoundment renovation efforts. These management actions are proven to be expensive and require large amounts of staff time and effort. These efforts may also be undesirable to anglers, because they can require greater restrictions on available fishing opportunities and are not proven to be entirely successful (Schramm and Willis 2012).

Please note: The Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supplemental material. Queries should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

Data S1. Angler survey results and parameters collected from Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant from November 6, 2023, to April 9, 2024, including repeated angler submissions. Data calculation tables include result totals and percentage frequencies for each question and overall angler survey use. The data file includes angler survey answers, fishing effort, and date fished.

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-24-034.S1 (33.4 KB XLSX)

Data S2. Angler survey results and parameters collected from Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant from November 6, 2023, to April 9, 2024, not including repeated angler submissions. The data file includes angler survey answers, total fishing effort, and date fished.

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-24-034.S2 (25.5 KB XLSX)

Figure S1. Percentages for each survey submission type is shown for all angler submissions from Lancaster Reservoir and Lake Oliphant, beginning November 6, 2023, and concluding April 9, 2024 (82). Angling effort from surveyed anglers is shown for each impoundment as well, excluding incomplete survey submissions that did not include angling effort and location responses (4).

Available: https://doi.org/10.3996/JFWM-24-034.S3 (411 KB PDF)

Reference S1. [USFWS and USCB] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. 2016 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. Report FHW/16-NAT (RV). USFWS and USCB, Washington, D.C.

Available: (22,276 KB PDF)

We thank SCDNR freshwater fisheries biologists Preston Chrisman and Robert Stroud for providing guidance throughout this project as well as valuable comments on earlier drafts of the manuscript. SCDNR freshwater fisheries biologist Leo Rose provided guidance on the navigation of ArcGIS Survey123. The manuscript benefitted from numerous anonymous reviewers.

Any use of trade, product, website, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

Aday
DD,
Graeb
BDS.
2012
.
Stunted fish in small impoundments: an overview and management perspective
. Pages
215
232
in
Neal
JW,
Willis
DW
, editors.
Small impoundment management in North America
.
Bethesda, Maryland
:
American Fisheries Society
.
Allen
MS,
Walters
CJ,
Myers
R.
2008
.
Temporal trends in largemouth bass mortality with fishery implications
.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management
28
:
418
427
.
Beaman
TT.
2021
.
Evaluation of mechanical removal rates for rehabilitating over-crowded largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides populations in Alabama small impoundments
.
Master’s thesis
.
Auburn, Alabama
:
Auburn University
.
Bonvechio
TF,
Bowen
BR,
Wixon
JM,
Allen
MS.
2013
.
Exploitation and length limit evaluation of largemouth bass in three Georgia small impoundments
.
Journal of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
1
:
33
41
.
Chrisman
PC,
Cichra
CE,
Rankin
DM.
2023
.
Sportfish population characteristics following mechanical largemouth bass removal in two small public fishing impoundments in South Carolina
.
Journal of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
10
:
58
67
.
Eades
RT,
Lang
TJ.
2012
.
Community fishing ponds
. Pages
351
372
in
Neal
JW,
Willis
DW
, editors.
Small impoundment management in North America
.
Bethesda, Maryland
:
American Fisheries Society
.
Fox
CN,
Neal
JW.
2011
.
Development of a crowded largemouth bass population in a tropical reservoir
.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
65
:
98
104
.
Gablehouse
DW
.
1984
.
A length-categorization system to assess fish stocks
.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management
4
:
273
285
.
Holt
C.
2021
.
Effects of reduced predator abundance on the predator-prey community of a tropical reservoir
.
Doctoral dissertation
.
Starkville
:
Mississippi State University
.
Jones
CM,
Pollock
KH.
2012
.
Recreational angler survey methods: estimation of effort, harvest, and released catch
. Pages
883
919
in
Zale
AV,
Parrish
DL,
Sutton
TM
, editors.
Fisheries techniques
. 3rd edition.
Bethesda, Maryland
:
American Fisheries Society
.
Long
JM,
Hyler
RG,
Fisher
WL.
2012
.
Response by anglers to a differential harvest regulation on three black bass species at Shiatook Lake, Oklahoma
. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science
92
:
9
20
.
Miranda
LE.
2009
.
Standardizing electrofishing power for boat electrofishing
. Pages
223
230
in
Bonar
SA,
Hubert
WA,
Willis
DW
, editors.
Standard methods for sampling North American freshwater fishes
.
Bethesda, Maryland
:
American Fisheries Society
.
Neumann
RM,
Guy
CS,
Willis
DW.
2012
.
Length, weight, and associated indices
. Pages
637
676
in
Zale
AV,
Parrish
DL,
Sutton
TM
, editors.
Fisheries techniques
. 3rd edition.
Bethesda, Maryland
:
American Fisheries Society
.
Pollock
KH,
Jones
CM,
Brown
TL.
1994
.
Angler survey methods and their applications in fisheries management
.
Special Publication 25
.
Bethesda, Maryland
:
American Fisheries Society
.
Pope
KL,
Neumann
RM,
Bryan
SD.
2009
.
Warmwater fish in small standing waters
. Pages
13
27
in
Bonar
SA,
Hubert
WA,
Willis
DW
, editors.
Standard methods for sampling North American freshwater fishes
.
Bethesda, Maryland
:
American Fisheries Society
.
R Core Team
.
2022
.
R: a language and environment for statistical computing
.
Vienna
:
R Foundation for Statistical Computing
.
Reed
JR,
Parsons
BG.
1999
.
Angler opinions of bluegill management and related hypothetical effects on bluegill fisheries in four Minnesota lakes
.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management
19
:
515
519
.
Responsive Management
.
2002
.
South Carolina residents’ attitudes and behaviors toward aquatic resources. Prepared for the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources
.
Harrisonburg, Virginia
. Available: https://www.dnr.sc.gov/pubs/scaresources.pdf (December 2024).
Reynolds
JB,
Kols
AL.
2012
.
Electrofishing
. Pages
305
361
in
Zale
AV,
Parrish
DL,
Sutton
TM
, editors.
Fisheries techniques
. 3rd edition.
Bethesda, Maryland
:
American Fisheries Society
.
Rohde
FC,
Arndt
RG,
Foltz
JW,
Quattro
JM.
2009
.
Freshwater fishes of South Carolina
.
Columbia
:
University of South Carolina Press
.
Schramm
HL
Willis
DW.
2012
.
Assessment and harvest of largemouth bass-bluegill ponds
. Pages
181
213
in
Neal
JW,
Willies
DW
, editors.
Small impoundment management in North America
.
Bethesda, Maryland
:
American Fisheries Society
.
[USFWS and USCB] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau
.
2018
.
2016 National survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation
.
Report FHW/16-NAT (RV). USFWS and USCB
,
Washington, D.C
. (see Supplemental Material, Reference S1).
Willis
DW,
Lusk
RD,
Slipke
JW.
2010
.
Farm ponds and small impoundments
. Pages
501
543
in
Hubert
WA,
Quist
MC
, editors.
Inland fisheries management in North America
. 3rd edition.
Bethesda, Maryland
:
American Fisheries Society
.
Willis
DW,
Neal
JW.
2012
.
Small impoundments and the history of their management
. Pages
3
20
in
Neal
JW,
Willis
DW
, editors.
Small impoundment management in North America
.
Bethesda, Maryland
:
American Fisheries Society
.

Author notes

The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Supplemental Material