to bull trout recovery and conservation. In this reach, non-resident use has increased 

 1,179% since 1989 (Table 16). 



These trends are exacerbated by expanded public access sites in areas of seasonal 

 bull trout concentrations (spawning, staging and thermal refuge areas). Although bull 

 trout and WSCT comprise only a small proportion of the salmonids inhabiting these 

 areas, they are more susceptible to angling than rainbow trout and brown trout 

 (Schmetterling and Bohnemann 1999, MFWP unpublished data). 



With these issues in mind, we developed a user survey that targeted anglers in key 

 fluvial bull trout and WSCT staging and spawning areas in the Blackfoot River drainage 

 in 2004. The survey was designed to assess regulation compliance, fish identification 

 skills, angling methods, angler demographics, basic catch statistics and angler 

 perceptions of crowding and access availability. A parallel, concurrent survey was 

 completed at similar sites in the Clark Fork River drainage (Knotek 2005). The angler 

 creel survey was an attempt to better understand angler use in areas specified by MFWP 

 as bull trout recovery-recreational conflict areas. 



Methods 



In 2001, MFWP identified bull trout recovery - recreational conflict areas (Pierce 

 et al. 2004). These conflict areas refer to biologically critical sites (key spawning, 

 rearing and staging areas, important migration corridors and areas of thermal refugia) that 

 overlap with recreational developments, increased angler pressure and illegal bull trout 

 harvest problem areas. t - j? 



Angler surveys of 

 these sites were completed 

 between June 1 and August 

 31, 2004, at 19 public 

 access sites in the 

 Blackfoot River system 

 using a roving angler creel 

 survey method. Survey 

 locations included seven 

 mainstem Blackfoot 



locations (including six 

 developed fishing access 

 sites (FAS)) and twelve 

 tributary locations 



(including 2 developed 

 fishing access sites) on five 

 bull trout spawning streams 

 (Figure 58). 



To keep fi-om surveying the same locations at the same time of day, the direction 

 of survey circuit was reversed every other time the survey was conducted. Heavily used 

 locations were often surveyed twice in one day. We searched an area of approximately 

 1 000 feet upstream and downstream of each location for possible survey participants. 

 Anglers were approached by MFWP fisheries personnel in uniform and asked if they 



•K:..^\-f 



> Public access sites 



Figure 58. Bull trout recovery/recreational conflict areas. The arrows 

 show angler interview locations. 



H 



