to eas* of access as roads were adjacent to all these areas* The 

 Three Forks, Varney, McAtee, and Snowball Areas were generally- 

 accessible by car at only one or two points, thus necessitating 

 some walking to cover any appreciable amount of water. All these 

 areas also were extensively posted against trespass, which undoubted- 

 ly was a factor in the lower use ascribed to them. The compara- 

 tively high use of Upper Bear Trap Canyon must be attributable to 

 its reputation for being productive in terms of both numbers of 

 fish and pounds of fish, as access, other than by walking, was 

 limited to the two extremities of the area. 



According to Rounsefel (19h6), lakes the size of Madison 

 and Hebgen Reservoirs can be expected to yield about 3.6 and 2.2 

 pounds per surface acre, respectively. Actually the yield from 

 Hebgen was only about 1/2 (1„2 pounds) that expected, while that for 

 Madison Reservoir was 1-1/3 (U.8 pounds) times greater than expected 

 (Table 7). Since the rate of catch (Table 3) and the average weight 

 (Table 5) of fish taken was quite similar for the two reservoirs, 

 the pressure per surface acre might be expected to be at variance 

 with the expected to approximately the same degree as the yield. 

 Although proportionately greater use of Madison Reservoir over that 

 of Hebgen (Table 7) was to be expected under these conditions, the 

 fact that Madison was closest to centers of resident population 

 (Butte and Bozeman) may have contributed to its greater use. 



As a general rule, the rate of catch in fish per hour of 

 effort was greatest in the Middle Section of the river while the 

 rate in the Upper Section was somewhat better than in the Lower Sec- 

 tion (Table 3). Except for the Channel Area, the better rates seem 

 to be correlated with less fishing pressure (Tables 3 and 7). The 

 Channel Area did not conform to this general rule as it had one of 

 the highest rates of catch (0,75 fish per hour in 1951 - Table 3) 

 while being fished the most intensively (539 fisherman-days per mile - 

 Table 7). Therefore, it might be concluded that the Channel Area was 

 one of the most productive sections of the river. The rate of catch 

 of 0.32 fish per hour on Madison Reservoir was only slightly better 

 than the average of 0.30 fish per hour on Hebgen Reservoir . 



It was noted in 1952 in the Upper Section that many fisher- 

 men returned fish to the water, The return of 5 to 10 fish per party 

 was not unusual, One man who caught 19 fish, h said to weight over 

 2 pounds, in lh hours of fishing returned all to the water. Of U77 

 parties interviewed between late July and the end of the season, 88 

 returned some or all of their fish to the water. This practice was 

 noted but not recorded in the other two years, Due to lack of com- 

 parable data from the other two years, fish returned to the water in 

 19^2 were not considered in calculating the rate of catch. Had the 

 fish been retained and included in the calculations, the average 

 rate might have been materially higher. 



21 



