fine shape and public pressure began to mount to have the Park Service ease 

 the fishing regulations to permit a greater harvest. In 19U8, the minimum 

 size restriction was dropped, and the use of natural bait, except minnows, 

 was permitted. 



It is generally conceded that the relaxation of the fishing regulations 

 in the Park was accompanied by a decline in fishing quality. Rangers and 

 wardens reported that as most of the larger fish disappeared creel limits 

 of li-inch to 6-inch trout became common; fishermen confessed that high mor- 

 talities of small trout were occurring due to the use of tiny hooks (sizes 

 ill to 18) baited with bits of bread, wasp larvae, caddis worms, or crickets. 

 It was soon charged by some that the Park had lost the respect of the fish- 

 ermen, that enforcement of regulations was inadequate in face of increasing 

 violations, and that the streams were being stripped of trout of all sizes 

 by the bait and bread fishermen. 



Staff members of the Park conducted a fisherman's opinion survey in 

 19U9 • Anglers were contacted on the streams and asked to record their 

 opinions on several questions dealing with the current fishing regula- 

 tions. At that time 232 expressed themselves on the question of bait fish- 

 ing versus artificial lures. Only 37 percent approved the retention of the 

 bait fishing regulation; 63 percent of them recommended the restoration of 

 the artificial-lures-only restriction. Co incident ally, 37 percent of the 

 respondents disapproved a minimum-size restriction while 68 percent were in 

 favor. 



The opinion of fishermen appears to be growing stronger on the matter 

 of restoring the artificial-lures-only restriction. Whenever possible, the 

 fishermen who recorded catches at the creel checking station on the Little 

 Pigeon River in 1953 were asked to state their preference for lures; other- 

 wise, the type of lure they used to catch their fish were determined from 

 information on the creel register form. The statements of Ui7 respondents, 

 all successful in catching fish were recorded (table 9). Those in favor 

 of general fishing, including bait, numbered 26 percent, whereas those in 

 favor of artificial lures numbered 7u percent. 



The proponents of general fishing argue that restricting fishing lures 

 to artificial types discriminates against the nonresident fisherman. Such 

 is not the case. Only a small number of nonresidents caught fish in the 

 Little Pigeon this summer, yet information obtained from these persons 

 showed them to be almost entirely in favor of artificial lures. My obser- 

 vations and interviews with nonresident anglers indicate that few of them 

 use bait in any form while fishing in Park streams. Opinion among nonlocal 

 fishermen from Tennessee, that is, living in counties other than Sevier, 

 Cocke, and Blount, was largely in favor of artificial-type lures. 



There were 237 successful anglers who were not questioned on bait 

 preferences. Artificial lures were used by $1 percent of them, and some 

 form of natural bait was employed by the other 1x9 percent. Most of these 



23 



