Ah, the good ol’ days. Back then unfished bass populations had more and larger fish. Only natural mortality, primarily predation, reduced their abundance, so bass surviving their first couple of years generally died of old age.

Though we don’t have creel reports or tournament results for verification, I have little doubt that the few anglers who fished for bass 80 to 100 years ago enjoyed incredible fishing. Of course they rowed or sculled small wooden boats and fished with bamboo or steel rods.

But what about bass fishing at the beginning of what I’ll call the post-modern bass fishing era—when we began using more comfortable fishing craft equipped with trolling motors and depthfinders and tackle still in use today? Is bass fishing today as good as it was 30 or 40 years ago?

That’s a good topic for friendly debate by a campfire or over a round of cold beverages. But to fishery managers, the question is significant because they’re in the business of making fishing as good as it can be while conserving the fishery resources for which they are the designated stewards. Given this noble charge, fishery managers rely on data, not opinion. Okay, call in the researcher.

The Hypothesis

The researcher begins by presenting a hypothesis, a statement that can be tested: Bass fishing quality today is about the same as in the past. Next, we need measurable variables to test this hypothesis. Catch rates and average size of bass are appropriate choices. The hypothesis then becomes, “The catch rate and average size of bass caught today are about the same as the catch rate and average size of bass caught 35 years ago.”

The next step is to collect data. Because catch rates vary over time and among lakes, the researcher will want to include a large number of angler trips and a large number of lakes. Although fishery management agencies have been conducting creel surveys for many years, retrieving pre-computer data is a challenge to say the least. Fortunately, Bass Angler Sportsman Society (BASS/ESPN) tournament records back to 1972 are available on their website.

The Data

Results were obtained for 267 tournaments on 78 waters from 1972 to 2006. Calculating average size of bass is easy—total weight divided by number of fish weighed in. Calculating catch rate is not as simple, because the number of anglers and tournament formats varied over time. To allow comparison, I standardized catches by dividing fish weighed in by the number of angler days, to obtain catch rate expressed as fish per angler day. BASS tournaments were of two types—3-day events with 250 or more contestants and 4-day events with fewer, and presumably higher-caliber, competitors. I analyzed 3- and 4-day events separately.

Tournament limits declined from 10 bass in early events to 5-fish limits after 1994. It’s impossible to accurately adjust for different limits, so I separately compared catch rates and average size for tournaments with 5-, 7-, and 10-fish limits.

Since we’re interested in a comparison over time, I used average catch rate and average fish weight for each year in looking for trends. For those with a statistical bent, this resulted in equal weighting of tournaments in each year.

The Results

Three-day tournaments with 5-fish limits: Graphs of the data show substantial variation in both catch rate and average weight over time. From 1977 to 2006, the annual average catch rate ranged from a low of 0.9 fish per angler-day to a high of almost 3.5 fish per angler-day. Analysis revealed a slight, but not statistically significant, downward trend in average catch rate. The lack of statistically significant difference in catch rate over time means the average catch rate of 2.2 bass per angler-day is the best estimator of catch rate for the whole time period.

The average weight of bass caught ranged from a high of 3.3 pounds to a low of 1.5 pounds. Average weight each year increased slightly over time, but again it was not statistically significant. Average weight over 35 years was 2.33 pounds.

Four-day tournaments with 5-fish limits: This format began in 1987. Catch rate changed little from 1987 to 2006 and averaged 3.7 bass per angler day. This catch rate was significantly higher than the 2.2 bass per angler day in the 3-day, 5-fish-limit events.

Average bass weight generally declined from 1987 to 2006, but the trend was not statistically significant. The average weight per bass of 2.13 pounds was not significantly different from the average weight in the 3-day events.

Three-day tournaments with 7- and 10-fish limits: From 1978 through 1993, 7-fish limits prevailed. Catch rate and average weight increased over time but these trends were not statistically significant. Catch rate averaged 2.2 bass per angler-day and 2.20 pounds per fish in these tournaments, values not significantly different from catch rates and weight per fish in 3-day, 5-fish-limit tournaments.

From 1972 through 1977, the limit was 10 bass and I didn’t analyze trends for this short period. Catch rate in these tournaments averaged 2.8 fish per angler day and 2.34 pounds per fish, not significantly different from catch rates and fish weights in 3-day tournaments with 5-fish or 7-fish limits.

Catch weights for the best of the best: Tournament anglers vary in skill level, knowledge of the water, and fishing strengths. Certainly these characteristics affect catch, and researchers call this “uncontrolled variation.” To minimize the effect of different anglers, I analyzed the total weight of bass caught by the top 12 anglers in each event.

In 3-day tournaments with both 5- and 7-fish limits, total weights caught by the top 12 anglers increased slightly since 1977 but the trend wasn’t statistically significant. In 4-day, 5-fish-limit events, total weights caught by the top 12 anglers decreased over time but, again, the trend wasn’t statistically significant.

Interpretation

After examining these results, a researcher would say, “These results fail to refute the hypothesis of no differences in catch per angler day or average weight of fish caught.” In simpler terms, these analysis do not point to a clear upward or downward trend in either catch rate or average size of bass caught. In other words, based on the catches recorded by better anglers across a wide range of good waters, neither catch rate nor average size of bass is higher or lower than it was in past decades.

This suggests that despite the often-cited increases in bass fishing pressure, bass populations remain generally in good shape. State to state, water to water, fishery assessments also show good abundances of bass. Longterm comparisons of bass abundance are constrained by changes in sampling efficiency and sampling design, so routine fishery assessments lack the precision to detect small changes in abundance. Nevertheless, there’s no biological evidence of widespread declines in bass populations in recent decades.

Similarly, the size structure of bass populations on many waters offers anglers a good number of quality-size bass. Voluntary catch-and-release probably has contributed to fish surviving to grow larger. And various length-limit regulations are in place on many waters.

In lakes where recruitment is low or harvest is high, these regulations can increase bass abundance. But in most waters, harvest regulations are intended primarily to improve the size structure of bass populations. This is especially true on lakes with protected slot limits intended to reduce over-abundant, small to medium-size bass and thereby increase the growth rate of the survivors.

In this analysis of 35 years of tournament results, catch data and biological assessments send the same message: Bass catch and bass populations haven’t changed much.

The Catchability Catch-22

Relatively stable angler catch rates and average size of bass might be expected, given relatively stable bass abundance and efforts to improve population size structure. Indeed, an axiom of fishery management is that angler catch follows fish abundance. When abundance increases, we expect catch to increase. When abundance falls, catch should follow. This basic premise assumes equal catchability—the proportion of a population captured by a certain amount of effort doesn’t vary.

Biologists often assume equal catchability in biological assessments because the efficiency of electrofishing, gill-netting, or other sampling methods is relatively constant. But can we say the same about angling, especially bass angling?

Today’s fishing equipment is designed to increase catch rate. Bigger, faster boats greatly reduce travel time and allow anglers to fish in a variety of conditions. Sophisticated depthfinders mark fish, and GPS mapping units help anglers find prime structure quickly and return to the same spot without searching. Technological advances in rods, reels, and lines, an endless stream of new lures and presentations, and plenty of advice on how to use them in multiple media outlets should give anglers an edge. Given a relatively stable number of bass, the apparent increase in fishing efficiency should yield increased catch rates unless bass catchability declines.

Fish learn quickly in response to reward or punishment, and memory retention is lengthy. Declines in catchability with repeated angling have been demonstrated for several species and observed in captive bass and in semi-controlled fishing situations. Moreover, it’s been shown that individual bass vary in catchability and that this characteristic is hereditary. Thus, harvest of highly catchable bass in the decades before catch-and-release caught on may have contributed to less gullible bass.

If we assume that new technologies available to anglers do, in fact, increase catch efficiency, we have little choice but to conclude that bass catchability has decreased. It’s possible, then, that some bass populations are larger than in the past but fish are harder to catch, so fishing quality remains rather constant.

Is bass fishing as good as it was 20, 30, or 40 years ago? If “good” is measured by catch rate and fish size, the simple answer is “yes.” Would I like to turn back the clock even further to fish virtually unfished waters filled with large, highly catchable bass? You bet, but only if I can bring my electronics, boat, and tackle. n

*Dr. Hal Schramm is Leader of the Mississippi Cooperative Fishery and Wildlife Research Unit at Mississippi State University, and is also an avid bass angler.