Kurt E. Kuklinski and Chas P. Patterson
Oklahoma Fishery Research Laboratory, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation,
500 E. Constellation, Norman, Oklahoma 73072, USA 405-325-7288
Title: Development of a Blue Catfish Management Program in Oklahoma: A Case History
Abstract: Management of blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus populations is an emerging focus for
state fish and wildlife agencies as catfish anglers have shown a growing interest in trophy
fishing. As blue catfish sampling methodology has improved, management of blue catfish
fisheries has become a greater priority in some states. The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation (ODWC) has collected abundance, age and growth, and mortality data on blue
catfish from 14 reservoirs statewide. Electrofishing surveys indicated that blue catfish
populations are dominated by slow-growing fish <400 mm total length (TL) and average 24%
total annual mortality. In addition, relative abundance of >762 mm TL blue catfish in the angler
creel (8%) greatly exceeds that in population samples (< 1%). In 2009, ODWC recommended a
statewide regulation limiting harvest of blue catfish >762 mm TL to one fish per day while
maintaining the daily limit of 15 fish per day. The proposal met with moderate opposition
through the regular regulation review process but was approved by the Oklahoma Wildlife
Commission. Legislative opposition to the proposal subsequently developed, and a resolution
was introduced to rescind the regulation, but ultimately failed. A regulation restricting blue
catfish harvest to 15-fish daily with only 1 fish >762 mm TL went into effect on January 1, 2010.
Blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus are widely distributed across Oklahoma reservoirs and
rivers, making them popular among anglers. In addition to their native range of the Red and
1
Arkansas river systems, blue catfish have been introduced into numerous reservoirs throughout
the state (Miller and Robison 2004). Current Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation
(ODWC) gillnetting records indicate blue catfish populations exist in at least 40 reservoirs.
Oklahoma angler opinion surveys show an increase in popularity of blue catfish over the
past 20 years, ranking ninth among 18 species in 1985, fifth in 1990 and 1996, and fourth in
2001 and 2006 (Summers 2009). Blue catfish are desired because of their qualities as food
(Graham 1999), and anglers are motivated to harvest catches for consumption (Wilde and Ditton
1999; Arterburn et al. 2002; Reitz and Travnichek 2006). Oklahoma is one of 21 southeastern
states where blue catfish support a sport fishery (Graham 1999). Currently, Oklahoma anglers
are allowed to harvest 15 blue and/or channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus, in aggregate, per day,
with only one blue catfish over 762 mm total length (TL) allowed.
A recent trend in catfish angling has been the increase in the number of anglers pursuing
trophy-sized blue catfish (>853 mm TL; Arterburn et al. 2002). These trophy class fish are
present in Oklahoma waters, evident by a former rod and reel world record blue catfish (55.2 kg)
being caught in Lake Texoma in 2004. Lagging behind the trend of increasing angler popularity
of trophy fish, few state fish and wildlife agencies (2%) surveyed within the past decade
emphasize managing waters for trophy catfish (Arterburn et al. 2002). Additionally, fisheries
managers are just beginning to understand optimal sampling methodology for blue catfish. A
recent survey of fisheries professionals indicated that 61% had concerns about gear bias and gear
efficiency for catfish sampling methods, and 26% indicated a need for accurate measurement of
recruitment, mortality, length frequency, and exploitation (Brown 2007). Recent studies have
begun to focus on use of specific gears to provide fisheries managers with accurate population
assessment (Gale et al. 1999; Cailteux and Strickland 2007; Buckmeier and Schlechte 2009;
2
Bodine and Shoup 2010; Evans et al. 2011). Many traditional sampling techniques have been
shown to be less than optimal for sampling blue catfish populations due to size-bias or
ineffectiveness (Gale et al. 1999). Low-frequency, pulsed-DC electrofishing is the most
commonly used sampling method and appears to be effective and not size biased (Buckmeier and
Schlechte 2009; Bodine and Shoup 2010).
Prior to 2010, blue catfish regulations in Oklahoma were limited to a daily limit of 15
blue and channel catfish, in aggregate, per day with no length limits. However, management of
blue catfish fisheries had been constrained by a lack of data. Jenkins (1956) published blue
catfish length-at-age information from Lake Texoma based upon spine-aged fish, but little
current information was available. To resolve this issue the ODWC collected blue catfish
abundance data using standard experimental gillnets fished during fall and supplemented these
data with electrofishing. Current ODWC blue catfish assessment and management includes
standard sampling protocols and the implementation of more conservative harvest regulations.
DEVELOPMENT OF CURRENT BLUE CATFISH MANAGEMENT IN OKLAHOMA
ODWC began a concerted fishery assessment in 2003 with a series of studies focusing on
size and age structure of reservoir blue catfish statewide. Mauck and Boxrucker (2004) used
otoliths to determine that blue catfish growth in Lake Texoma was slow and highly variable for
fish > age 6, and that individuals reaching 762 mm TL were often > age 12. Even though total
mortality was <19%, growth overfishing was a concern due to slow growth rates and the lack of
large fish (Mauck and Boxrucker 2004), that lead to consideration of limiting harvest of large
blue catfish and prompted ODWC to investigate other popular blue catfish fisheries.
3
During 2003-2008, the ODWC conducted an evaluation of blue catfish population
structure in 14 reservoirs using low frequency electrofishing. Findings from nine reservoirs were
reported in Boxrucker and Kuklinski (2006). Total catch rates of all sizes were commonly >700
fish per hour, and catch rates of blue catfish >762 mm TL were less than 5 fish per hour
(Boxrucker and Kuklinski 2006; Table 1). Growth rates were slow, with blue catfish reaching
762 mm TL at ages 13-16, and total annual mortality was low (mean = 26%, Table 2). An
additional five reservoirs revealed similar high total catch rates, low catch rates for those >762
mm TL, slow growth, and low to moderate total annual mortality (Tables 1 and 2).
Supplemental age and growth data were provided to ODWC by angler donations of harvested
catfish from Grand Lake (Table 2).
Slow-growth with low to moderate total annual mortality and low catch rates of large fish
lead ODWC to consider reducing harvest of the largest blue catfish to protect and promote
trophy angling opportunities. However, ODWC felt that additional information was necessary
prior to proposing new regulations. From May 2006 to December 2007, ODWC interviewed
over 4,000 catfish anglers on 66 water bodies throughout Oklahoma (Kuklinski and Boxrucker
2008). Angler surveys revealed that 8% of blue catfish harvest was fish >762 mm TL, greatly
exceeding the <1% of fish this size collected in electrofishing surveys (Kuklinski and Boxrucker
2008).
Harvest of blue catfish (5,438 fish) greatly exceeded that of channel catfish (1,972 fish)
in creel surveys, and <2% of anglers interviewed had caught a daily limit of catfish (Kuklinski
and Boxrucker 2008). Differences in harvest of catfish by angling method were also noted.
Kuklinski and Boxrucker (2008) found that a small number (193 anglers) of blue catfish anglers
using passive gears such as juglines and trotlines harvested a large percentage (48%) of the total
4
catch between November 1 and May 15 (Table 3). This harvest was almost equal to the harvest
(52%) of a much larger group (718 anglers) of rod and reel anglers during the same period
(Table 3). An equal percentage of trotline (6%) and jugline (7%) anglers harvested >762 mm TL
blue catfish, and the trend was magnified during the cool water period (trotline = 14%, jugline =
18%; Kuklinski and Boxrucker 2008; Table 3). These percentages are equal to rod and reel
angler harvest (6%) of >762 mm TL blue catfish in the analysis for all months and exceeded the
rod and reel anglers harvest of large fish (13%) during the cool water period (Kuklinski and
Boxrucker 2008). A small percentage (3%) of anglers harvested multiple blue catfish >762 mm
TL during a single angling trip, a trend that was also magnified in the cool water period
(Kuklinski and Boxrucker 2008; Table 3).
Based on these studies, the ODWC proposed a new statewide regulation in 2009 to limit
harvest of blue catfish >762 mm TL to one fish per day. The daily limit of 15 channel and blue
catfish in aggregate was left unchanged to promote harvest of blue catfish <762 mm TL. Public
hearings were held in January 2009 to gather public input, but hearings were not well attended
by blue catfish anglers. Comments were received from seven anglers favoring the regulation and
15 anglers opposing the regulation. Public hearing input and biological data convinced ODWC
to recommend the regulation to the Oklahoma Wildlife Commission, who subsequently approved
the proposal. Legislative opposition to the proposal surfaced, and passage was delayed. ODWC
continued to support the regulation change based upon the data and vocal support from anglers in
favor of the proposal. The proposed regulation subsequently passed the Oklahoma legislature
without comment and was adopted into law January 1, 2010.
DISCUSSION
5
The current ODWC blue catfish management program was developed through rigorous
sampling of catfish populations across Oklahoma and is based on results and recommendations
of several studies. High total catch rates and low catch rates of blue catfish >762 mm TL
described by Boxrucker and Kuklinski (2006), coupled with slow growth, and highly variable
mean length-at-age justified implementation of restrictive harvest regulations for large
individuals. Electrofishing and angler harvest data indicate that growth overfishing is occurring
on reservoir blue catfish populations in Oklahoma.
Other states have regulations that vary widely in length and daily bag limits (Table 4).
Of the 21 states identified by Graham (1999) as having sport fisheries for blue catfish, nine (CA,
FL, GA, IL, KY, MS, NC, SC, and WA) do not have statewide regulations for length or daily
limits. Some of these states do have special length restrictions on specific water bodies.
Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, and Kansas have statewide regulations of no minimum length limit
and a daily limit of 10 blue catfish per day. Missouri has a similar blue catfish regulation of no
length limit and a five fish daily creel limit. Louisiana (100 fish per day) and Texas (25 fish per
day) have a more liberal daily creel limit with a minimum length limit of 305 mm (12 inches).
Nebraska restricts anglers to a single blue catfish per day with no length limit. West Virginia
regulations allow anglers to keep two fish per day with a 610 mm (24 inch) minimum length
limit. Tennessee (no daily creel limit and only one blue catfish over 864 mm or 34 inches) and
Virginia (20 fish daily creel limit and only one fish over 813 mm or 32 inches) instituted a
limited harvest on large individuals while allowing substantial harvest of smaller blue catfish,
similar to Oklahoma's management strategy.
The cornerstone of the current Oklahoma blue catfish management program and
corresponding regulations is to encourage harvest of small fish while protecting and promoting
6
trophy fisheries. Blue catfish anglers are harvest oriented (Wilde and Ditton 1999; Reitz and
Travnichek 2006) and enjoy eating fish (Graham 1999). However, blue catfish and flathead
catfish Pylodictis olivaris anglers also place more importance on size of fish caught than other
catfish species anglers (Wilde and Ditton 1999; Reitz and Travnichek 2006). Arterburn et al.
(2002) found that trophy anglers prefer blue and flathead catfish, whereas non-trophy anglers
prefer channel catfish. The Oklahoma program will still allow harvest-oriented anglers to meet
their angling desires, and also conserve blue catfish trophy potential for the growing number of
anglers interested in catching large fish.
Differences in trophy blue catfish harvest among angling methods was considered when
the current Oklahoma regulation was in review. Passive gears such as juglines and trotlines have
been shown to be an effective angling method for large catfish (Hale 1987; Vokoun and Rabeni
1999; Kuklinski and Boxrucker 2008). Passive gear may potentially increase mortality of large
blue catfish because those captured with such gear may be left unattended for prolonged periods.
Oklahoma law requires trotline and jugline anglers to check their gear a minimum of once every
24 hours. Implementation of the regulation limiting harvest of blue catfish >762 mm TL to one
per day creates a scenario in which multiple large blue catfish may be captured on passive gear,
possibly stressed for prolonged periods of time while on a trotline or jugline hook, then having to
be released when the angler checks their gear. Ultimately, a single regulation for all angling
methods was determined to simplify compliance, reduce confusion among anglers, and provide
all anglers with the same opportunities.
Before ODWC passes a new or modified regulation, all proposed regulations are
presented to anglers at regional public hearings. The proposed blue catfish regulation met with
moderate opposition from anglers who preferred to harvest fish >762 mm TL. This opposition
7
was not unexpected as an angler opinion survey in 2008 indicated that many catfish anglers
(51%) were opposed to restriction in harvest of larger catfish (Summers 2009). After review of
public comment, ODWC recommended the proposed regulation be adopted and the Oklahoma
Wildlife Commission voted to send the regulation to the Oklahoma legislature for review.
During legislative review, a resolution was introduced recommending the regulation be
rescinded. Several special interest groups, including blue catfish commercial guides, vigorously
opposed the proposed regulation, and the resolution to rescind was introduced on their behalf.
After further discussion between the ODWC and the legislature, the resolution was dropped and
the proposal became effective on January 1, 2010.
The ODWC has developed a standardized sampling protocol for blue catfish based
largely on results and recommendations of Bodine and Shoup (2010). This sampling protocol
requires fisheries managers to assess blue catfish populations using low-frequency, pulsed-DC
electrofishing. Blue catfish are collected using random sites of five-minute units of effort on the
upper half of a reservoir when surface water temperatures range from 18 to 29 °C. The number
of random sample sites is dependent upon size of the reservoir (i.e., larger reservoirs require
more samples). Using this sampling protocol, ODWC fisheries staff should have confidence and
increased precision in assessments of blue catfish population metrics and overall status of blue
catfish fisheries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We thank ODWC staff for their efforts in reviewing the manuscript, especially J. Boxrucker and
G. Summers. A special thanks also goes to the ODWC Law Enforcement Division whose
8
assistance provided most of the catfish angling creel information. Funding for this investigation
was provided by ODWC and Federal Aid in Sportfish Restoration grants.
LITERATURE CITED
Arterburn, J. E., D. J. Kirby, and C. R. Berry, Jr. 2002. A survey of angler attitudes and
biologist opinions regarding trophy catfish and their management. Fisheries 27(5):10-21.
Bodine, K. A., and D. E. Shoup. 2010. Capture efficiency of blue catfish electrofishing and the
effects of temperature, habitat, and reservoir location on electrofishing-derived length
structure indices and relative abundance. North American Journal of Fisheries
Management 30:613-621.
Boxrucker, J., and K. E. Kuklinski. 2006. Abundance, growth, and mortality of selected
Oklahoma blue catfish populations: implications for management of trophy fisheries.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies 60:152-156.
Brown, Z. 2007. Current trends in catfish sampling techniques and information needs.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies 61:6-9.
Buckmeier, D. L., and J. W. Schlechte. 2009. Capture efficiency and size selectivity of channel
and blue catfish sampling gears. North American Journal of Fisheries Management
29:404-416.
Cailteux, R. L., and P. A. Strickland. 2007. Evaluation of three low frequency electrofishing
pulse rates for collecting catfish. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 61:29-34.
9
Evans, N. T., D. E. Shoup, and K. E. Kuklinski. 2011. Comparison of electrofishing and
experimental gill nets for sampling size structure and relative abundance of blue catfish
in reservoirs. Pages xxx-xxx in P. H. Michaletz and V. H. Travnichek, editors. Catfish
2010: proceedings of the 2nd international catfish symposium. American Fisheries
Society, Symposium xx, Bethesda, Maryland.
Gale, C. M., K. Graham, K. DeiSanti, and J. S. Stanovick. 1999. Sampling strategies for blue
catfish and channel catfish in the Harry S Truman Dam tailwater, Missouri. Pages 301307 in E. R. Irwin, W. A. Hubert, C. F. Rabeni, H. L. Schramm, Jr., and T. Coon, editors.
Catfish 2000: proceedings of the international ictalurid symposium. American Fisheries
Society, Symposium 24, Bethesda, Maryland.
Graham, K. 1999. A review of the biology and management of blue catfish. Pages 37-49 in E.
R. Irwin, W. A. Hubert, C. F. Rabeni, H. L. Schramm, Jr., and T. Coon, editors. Catfish
2000: proceedings of the international ictalurid symposium. American Fisheries Society,
Symposium 24, Bethesda, Maryland.
Hale, R. S. 1987. Commercial catch analysis, spawning season, and length at maturity of blue
catfish in Kentucky Lake, Kentucky-Tennessee. Master’s thesis. Murray State University,
Murray, Kentucky.
Jenkins, R. M. 1956. Growth of blue catfish Ictalurus furcatus in Lake Texoma. The
Southwestern Naturalist 1:166-173.
Kuklinski, K. E., and J. Boxrucker. 2008. Catfish angling and harvest statistics with an
emphasis on trophy blue catfish management in Oklahoma. Proceedings of the Annual
Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 62:149-153.
10
Mauck, P., and J. Boxrucker. 2004. Abundance, growth, and mortality of the Lake Texoma blue
catfish population: implications for management. Proceedings of the Annual Conference
of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 58:57-65.
Miller, R. J., and H. W. Robison. 2004. Fishes of Oklahoma. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman, Oklahoma.
Reitz, R. A., and V. H. Travnichek. 2006. Examining the relationship between species
preference and catfish angler demographics, angling behavior, and management options.
Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies 60:145-151.
Summers, G. L. 2009. Angler opinion survey. Federal Aid in Fish Restoration F-50-R, Project 6
Final Report. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City. 29pp.
Vokoun, J. C., and C. F. Rabeni. 1999. Catfish sampling in rivers and streams: a review of
strategies, gears, and methods. Pages 271-286 in E. R. Irwin, W. A. Hubert, C. F.
Rabeni, H. L. Schramm, Jr., and T. Coon, editors. Catfish 2000: proceedings of the
international ictalurid symposium. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 24,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Wilde, G. R., and R. B. Ditton. 1999. Differences in attitudes and fishing motives among Texas
catfish anglers. Pages 395-405 in E. R. Irwin, W. A. Hubert, C. F. Rabeni, H. L.
Schramm, Jr., and T. Coon, editors. Catfish 2000: proceedings of the international
ictalurid symposium. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 24, Bethesda, Maryland.
11
Table 1. Catch per unit effort (fish/h) of all blue catfish (CPUEtotal) and blue catfish >762 mm
TL (CPUE>762), associated estimate of sampling precision (coefficient of variation of the
mean) and total annual mortality rates (A) in Oklahoma reservoirs. Those reservoirs
followed by an * are from Boxrucker and Kuklinski (2006).
Reservoir
Year
Sampled
CPUEtotal
CV total
CPUE>762
Arcadia
2006
118.5
0.18
0
Ellsworth*
2004
693.5
0.24
0.5
Eufaula*
2005
390.0
0.15
0
Fort Cobb*
2005
124.0
0.28
3.4
Fort Gibson
2007
174.0
0.10
0
Frederick*
2005
330.5
0.22
0.5
1.00
Hugo*
2005
633.5
0.11
0.5
1.00
0.28
Kaw*
2004
294.0
0.15
2.0
0.53
0.30
Keystone*
2005
224.0
0.28
3.0
0.42
0.23
Oologah
2006
848.0
0.22
2.5
0.80
0.34
R.S. Kerr
2006
294.0
0.31
1.5
0.70
0.17
Sardis
2007
61.0
0.23
0
Texoma*
2003
225.0
0.09
3.0
0.83
0.23
Waurika*
2004
490.5
0.09
5.0
0.45
0.32
12
CV>762
A
0.15
1.00
0.26
0.21
0.54
0.15
0.04
Table 2. Mean total length (mm) at age (years) and standard error for blue catfish from
Oklahoma Reservoirs. Data from Grand Lake were provided through angler donations of
harvested blue catfish. Those reservoirs followed by an * are from Boxrucker and Kuklinski
(2006).
Age
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
45
54
23
2
4
5
75
8
1
3
9
7
1
Length
Arcadia
205 ±
5
283 ±
2
317 ±
3
355 ± 10
378 ±
8
446
465
492
500
551
543
584
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
11
6
21
14
27
39
N
2
32
227
243
419
141
116
109
12
22
57
32
13
3
2
1
Length
Ellsworth*
166 ±
186 ±
222 ±
236 ±
253 ±
274 ±
298 ±
321 ±
339 ±
384 ±
394 ±
414 ±
382 ±
555 ±
591 ±
822
4
600 ±
1
898
1
1
896
493
N
18
3
1
1
1
2
3
2
11
7
4
6
18
58
135
78
706
48
41
60
65
117
93
71
39
32
83
28
34
27
16
12
7
1
1
1
2
13
Length
Eufaula*
156 ±
203 ±
256 ±
295 ±
320 ±
350 ±
357 ±
375 ±
414 ±
427 ±
473 ±
479 ±
491 ±
498 ±
486 ±
505 ±
531
462
504
531 ±
N
2
4
3
4
4
4
4
9
10
4
10
10
9
10
24
20
35
7
35
33
22
15
6
9
33
12
4
5
5
6
9
1
1
2
Length
Ft. Gibson
174 ±
202 ±
233 ±
266 ±
296 ±
325 ±
332 ±
342 ±
353 ±
361 ±
385 ±
382 ±
427 ±
435 ±
374
344
486 ±
7
3
3
4
3
7
5
5
7
8
17
15
39
22
58
Table 2 (continued). Mean total length (mm) at age (years) and standard error for blue catfish
from Oklahoma Reservoirs. Data from Grand Lake were provided through angler donations of
harvested blue catfish. Those reservoirs followed by an * are from Boxrucker and Kuklinski
(2006).
Age
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
N
3
4
12
14
27
23
31
21
9
5
5
5
Length
Grand
529
458
531
614
649
647
697
688
779
827
780
902
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
N
63
19
23
22
10
12
8
18
34
72
52
56
721
212
167
20
45
44
46
4
2
3
N
21
75
259
129
39
22
12
6
9
1
6
1
5
1
1
1
1
Length
Hugo*
168 ±
1
223 ±
2
273 ±
3
320 ±
4
331 ±
5
371 ±
3
412 ±
5
450 ± 16
474 ±
0
487 ± 23
926
914
14
Length
Kaw*
174 ±
232 ±
272 ±
325 ±
401 ±
481 ±
511 ±
544 ±
614 ±
610
673 ±
737
702 ±
830
853
N
2
2
1
3
6
10
17
14
9
21
98
57
29
36
39
62
24
26
12
36
5
11
1
Length
Keystone*
195 ±
277 ±
356 ±
422 ±
455 ±
516 ±
564 ±
576 ±
612 ±
637 ±
666 ±
714 ±
793
2
765 ±
3
5
7
6
6
4
9
9
17
11
20
24
27
48
Table 2 (continued). Mean total length (mm) at age (years) and standard error for blue catfish
from Oklahoma Reservoirs. Data from Grand Lake were provided through angler donations of
harvested blue catfish. Those reservoirs followed by an * are from Boxrucker and Kuklinski
(2006).
Age
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
283
141
68
41
25
33
40
9
24
4
4
1
Length
Oologah
188 ±
247 ±
312 ±
373 ±
440 ±
516 ±
579 ±
611 ±
674 ±
723 ±
735 ±
850
N
1
3
5
5
13
7
6
13
11
53
19
172
126
34
41
31
45
44
16
12
14
15
6
19
9
4
4
1
1
1
Length
R. S. Kerr
185 ±
229 ±
278 ±
308 ±
335 ±
354 ±
381 ±
396 ±
424 ±
444 ±
485 ±
540 ±
524 ±
570 ±
509 ±
655 ±
743
714
640
N
2
2
2
6
6
5
11
9
9
15
15
6
13
37
4
42
1
10
5
1
11
13
37
20
2
1
2
2
10
1
1
Length
Sardis
269
290 ±
317 ±
315
337 ±
351 ±
365 ±
378 ±
370 ±
372
482 ±
465 ±
455 ±
440
452
N
3
10
5
5
3
5
9
110
26
24
30
21
23
42
32
35
19
47
26
17
18
12
6
1
4
4
1
1
1
620
1
1
584
682
1
478
1
541
15
Length
Texoma*
172 ±
4
253 ±
10
315 ±
8
370 ±
5
402 ±
6
439 ±
7
459 ±
8
497 ±
6
536 ±
12
584 ±
17
573 ±
22
686 ±
51
881 ± 100
696
852 ±
57
933 ± 132
954
1270
Table 2 (continued). Mean total length (mm) at age (years) and standard error for blue catfish
from Oklahoma Reservoirs. Data from Grand Lake were provided through angler donations of
harvested blue catfish. Those reservoirs followed by an * are from Boxrucker and Kuklinski
(2006).
Age
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
22
278
196
195
66
48
66
41
35
10
5
3
4
3
2
Length
Waurika*
184 ±
3
194 ±
2
262 ±
3
292 ±
3
321 ±
8
381 ±
9
458 ±
5
468 ±
7
538 ±
11
570 ±
35
646 ±
45
788 ±
41
936 ±
40
631 ± 112
862 ±
2
1
903
16
Table 3. Blue catfish harvest by angling method for 66 Oklahoma waters during 2006-2007.
Data are from Kuklinski and Boxrucker 2008.
Angling
Method
Rod & Reel
Jugline
Trotline
Noodling
Limbline
TOTAL
Number of
Anglers
Harvesting Blue
Catfish
1563
800
135
9
7
2514
Number (%) of
Anglers
Harvesting Blue
Catfish >762 mm
TL
90.1 (5.8)
52.1 (6.5)
7.5 (5.5)
0
(0)
1.8 (26.4)
151.5 (6.0)
Number (%) of
Anglers
Harvesting >1
Blue Catfish >762
mm TL
51 (3.3)
27 (3.4)
5 (3.7)
0 (0)
1 (14.3)
84 (3.3)
Rod & Reel
Jugline
Trotline
Noodling
Limbline
TOTAL
Warm Water (May 16 – October 31)
1151
37.6 (3.4)
656
26.9 (4.1)
111
5.2 (4.7)
8
0
(0)
7
1.8 (26.4)
1933
71.5 (3.7)
18 (1.6)
14 (2.1)
2 (1.8)
0 (0)
1 (14.3)
35 (1.8)
Rod & Reel
Jugline
Trotline
Noodling
Limbline
TOTAL
Cool Water (November 1 – May 15)
412
52.6 (12.8)
144
26.5 (18.3)
24
3.5 (14.4)
1
0
(0)
0
0
(0)
581
82.6 (14.2)
33 (8.0)
13 (9.0)
3 (12.5)
0
(0)
0
(0)
49 (8.4)
17
Table 4. Angler harvest regulations for 22 states identified by Graham (1999) as having sport
fisheries for blue catfish.
Statewide Blue Catfish Regulations
States
California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois,
No length or daily bag limits
Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South
Carolina, and Washington
No length limit and 1, 5, or 10 fish daily bag
Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas,
limit
Missouri, and Nebraska
305 mm (12-inch) minimum length limit and
100 or 25 fish daily bag limit
Louisiana and Texas
610 mm (24-inch) minimum length limit and 2
fish daily bag limit
West Virginia
762 mm (30-inch) maximum length limit (1
fish) and 15 fish daily bag limit
Oklahoma
813 mm (32-inch) maximum length limit (1
fish) and 20 fish daily bag limit
Virginia
864 mm (34-inch) maximum length limit (1
fish) and no daily bag limit
Tennessee
18