Quesnel Lake Exploitation Analysis 2018

The suggested citation for this analytic report is:

Dalgarno, S. and Thorley, J.L. (2019) Quesnel Lake Exploitation Analysis 2018. A Poisson Consulting Analysis Report. URL: https://www.poissonconsulting.ca/f/1356175666.

Background

Quesnel Lake supports a recreational fishery for large Bull Trout, Lake Trout and Rainbow Trout. To provide information on the natural and fishing mortality, trout were caught by angling and tagged with acoustic transmitters and/or reward tags.

Methods

Data Preparation

The outing, receiver deployment, detection, fish capture and recapture information were provided by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations and added to a SQLite database.

The data were prepared for analysis using R version 3.5.3 (R Core Team 2018). Receivers were assumed to have a detection range of 500 m. Detections were aggregated daily, where for each transmitter the receiver with the most number of detections was chosen. In the case of a tie, the receiver with the greatest coverage area was chosen. Only individuals with a fork length (FL) \(\geq\) 450 mm, an acoustic tag life \(\geq\) 365 days (if acoustically tagged) and a $100 and $10 reward tags were included in the survival analysis.

The Seasons were Winter (December - February), Spring (March - May), Summer (June - August) and Autumn (September - November).

Data Analysis

Hierarchical Bayesian models were fitted to the data using R version 3.5.3 (R Core Team 2018) and JAGS 4.2.0 (Plummer 2015) which interfaced with each other via the jmbr package. For additional information on hierarchical Bayesian modelling in the BUGS language, of which JAGS uses a dialect, the reader is referred to Kery and Schaub (2011, 41–44).

Unless indicated otherwise, the Bayesian analyses used normal and uniform prior distributions that were vague in the sense that they did not constrain the posteriors (Kery and Schaub 2011, 36). The posterior distributions were estimated from 1500 Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) samples thinned from the second halves of 3 chains (Kery and Schaub 2011, 38–40). Model convergence was confirmed by ensuring that \(\hat{R} \leq 1.05\) (Kery and Schaub 2011, 40) and \(\textrm{ESS} \geq 150\) for each of the monitored parameters (Kery and Schaub 2011, 61). Where \(\hat{R}\) is the potential scale reduction factor and \(\textrm{ESS}\) is the effective sample size (Brooks et al. 2011).

The posterior distributions of the fixed (Kery and Schaub 2011, 75) parameters are summarised in terms of the point estimate, standard deviation (sd), the z-score, lower and upper 95% confidence/credible limits (CLs) and the p-value (Kery and Schaub 2011, 37, 42). The estimate is the median (50th percentile) of the MCMC samples, the z-score is \(\mathrm{mean}/\mathrm{sd}\) and the 95% CLs are the 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles. A p-value of 0.05 indicates that the lower or upper 95% CL is 0.

The results are displayed graphically by plotting the modeled relationships between particular variables and the response with the remaining variables held constant. In general, continuous and discrete fixed variables are held constant at their mean and first level values respectively while random variables are held constant at their typical values (expected values of the underlying hyperdistributions) (Kery and Schaub 2011, 77–82). Where informative the influence of particular variables is expressed in terms of the effect size (i.e., percent change in the response variable) with 95% CIs (Bradford, Korman, and Higgins 2005). ### Model Descriptions

Condition

The expected weight of fish of a given length were estimated from the data using a mass-length model (He et al. 2008). Key assumptions of the condition model include:

  • The expected weight is allowed to vary with length and date.
  • The residual variation in weight is log-normally distributed.

Tag Loss

T-bar tag loss was estimated from the number of tags reported from recaught double-tagged individuals (Fabrizio et al. 1999).

Key assumptions of the tag loss model include:

  • The probability of tag loss is independent between tags on a fish.
  • Reported tag numbers are described by a zero-truncated binomial distribution (as fish that had lost both tags were not reportable).

Survival

The natural mortality and exploitation were estimated using a Bayesian individual state-space survival model (Thorley and Andrusak 2017) with monthly intervals. The survival model incorporated natural and handling mortality, acoustic detection, inter-section movement, T-bar tag loss, recapture and reporting. In addition to assumptions 1 to 10, in Thorley and Andrusak (2017), the model also assumes that:

  • The effect of handling on mortality lasts up to two months after capture.
  • Annual T-bar tag-loss is as estimated by the tag loss model.
  • All recaptured fish are retained.
  • Reporting of recaptured fish with one or more T-bar tags is between 90 and 100%.

Yield-Per-Recruit

The optimal fishing mortality (to maximize number of individuals harvested) was calculated using a yield-per-recruit approach (Bison, O’Brien, and Martell 2003). Key assumptions include:

  • The population is at equilibrium.
  • All captured individuals are retained.
  • There are no Allee effects.
  • There are no limitations on prey species.
  • The life-history parameters are fixed.

The values of the vulnerability of capture parameters assume that all fish captured during the study are recorded irrespective of length.

Results

Templates

Condition

.model {
               bWeight ~ dnorm(0, 1^-2) 
               bWeightLength ~ dnorm(3.18, 0.19^-2)
               
               sWeight ~ dnorm(0, 1^-2) T(0,) 
               for(i in 1:length(LogLength)) {
               eWeight[i] <- bWeight + bWeightLength * LogLength[i]
               Weight[i] ~ dlnorm(eWeight[i], exp(sWeight)^-2)
               }
               }

Block 1. Condition model description.

Tag Loss

model {
  bTagLoss ~ dunif(0,1)
  for (i in 1:nObs) {
    TagsRecap[i] ~ dbin(1 - bTagLoss, 2) T(1, )
  }
..

Block 2. Model description.

Survival

.model{
  bMortality ~ dnorm(-3, 3^-2)
  bMortalityHandling ~ dnorm(0, 2^-2)
  bDetected ~ dunif(0, 1)
  bMoved ~ dunif(0, 1)
  bRecaptured ~ dunif(0, 1 - (1 - 0.50)^(1/12))
  bReported ~ dunif(0.9, 1.00)

  for (i in 1:nCapture){
    eTagLoss[i] ~ dbern(TagLoss^2)

    logit(eMortality[i,PeriodCapture[i]]) <- bMortality + bMortalityHandling
    eDetected[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bDetected
    eMoved[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bMoved
    eRecaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bRecaptured
    eReported[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- bReported
    
    InLake[i,PeriodCapture[i]] <- 1
    Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(1-eMortality[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    
    Detected[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Monitored[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eDetected[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    Moved[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * Monitored[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eMoved[i,PeriodCapture[i]])
    
    Recaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Alive[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eRecaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]])

    Reported[i,PeriodCapture[i]] ~ dbern(Recaptured[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eReported[i,PeriodCapture[i]] * eTagLoss[i])
  for(j in (PeriodCapture[i]+1):nPeriod) {
    logit(eMortality[i,j]) <- bMortality + bMortalityHandling * step(PeriodCapture[i] - j + 2)
    eDetected[i,j] <- bDetected
    eMoved[i,j] <- bMoved
    eRecaptured[i,j] <- bRecaptured
    eReported[i,j] <- bReported
    
    InLake[i,j] ~ dbern(InLake[i,j-1] * (1-Recaptured[i,j-1]))
    Alive[i,j] ~ dbern(Alive[i,j-1] * (1-Recaptured[i,j-1]) * (1-eMortality[i,j-1]))
    
    Detected[i,j] ~ dbern(InLake[i,j] * Monitored[i,j] * eDetected[i,j])
    Moved[i,j] ~ dbern(Alive[i,j] * Monitored[i,j] * eMoved[i,j])
    
    Recaptured[i,j] ~ dbern(Alive[i,j] * eRecaptured[i,j])

    Reported[i,j] ~ dbern(Recaptured[i,j] * eReported[i,j] * eTagLoss[i])}}
  }

Block 3. Survival model description.

Tables

Recaptures

Table 1. Summary of recaptures by species and year.

Species Year Captured Recaptured
Bull Trout 2013 23 0
Bull Trout 2014 16 0
Bull Trout 2015 13 2
Bull Trout 2016 24 1
Bull Trout 2017 9 5
Bull Trout 2018 4 0
Lake Trout 2013 101 1
Lake Trout 2014 182 9
Lake Trout 2015 74 2
Lake Trout 2016 59 9
Lake Trout 2017 35 11
Rainbow Trout 2013 55 1
Rainbow Trout 2014 53 13
Rainbow Trout 2015 55 6
Rainbow Trout 2016 140 18
Rainbow Trout 2017 65 13
Rainbow Trout 2018 92 10

Condition

Table 2. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
bWeight Intercept of eWeight
bWeightLength Effect of Length on bWeight
eWeight Log expected Weight
LogLength Log-transformed and centered fork length (cm)
sWeight Standard deviation of residual variation in eWeight
Weight Mass (kg)
Bull Trout

Table 3. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bWeight 0.8265855 0.1288136 6.4169798 0.5769075 1.0812587 7e-04
bWeightLength 3.1787494 0.1897241 16.7581113 2.8007825 3.5428417 7e-04
sWeight 0.0118928 0.0175964 0.9795245 0.0004802 0.0636482 7e-04

Table 4. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
60 3 3 500 10 1386 1 TRUE
Lake Trout

Table 5. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bWeight 0.8885519 0.0626583 14.2044244 0.7709401 1.0153857 7e-04
bWeightLength 3.1754358 0.1715054 18.4892013 2.8357253 3.5108043 7e-04
sWeight 0.0026534 0.0039349 0.9757635 0.0000992 0.0143191 7e-04

Table 6. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
261 3 3 500 10 1350 1.003 TRUE
Rainbow Trout

Table 7. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bWeight 0.8788768 0.0521568 16.8204885 0.7785417 0.9850764 7e-04
bWeightLength 3.1779885 0.1760205 18.0463753 2.8288139 3.5342270 7e-04
sWeight 0.0019143 0.0028471 0.9739014 0.0000471 0.0101106 7e-04

Table 8. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
376 3 3 500 10 1220 1.002 TRUE

Tag Loss

Table 9. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
bTagLossIntercept Intercept for logit(eTagLoss)
eTagLoss[i] Predicted probability of single tag loss for the ith recapture
TagsRecap[i] Tags remaining on ith recapture
Bull Trout

Table 10. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bTagLoss 0.2217718 0.0823031 2.815549 0.0977162 0.4235393 7e-04

Table 11. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
12 1 3 500 10 1500 1.002 TRUE
Lake Trout

Table 12. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bTagLoss 0.0272296 0.0169391 1.789159 0.006731 0.0721175 7e-04

Table 13. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
50 1 3 500 10 1500 1 TRUE
Rainbow Trout

Table 14. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bTagLoss 0.0602979 0.0185944 3.334995 0.032128 0.1045969 7e-04

Table 15. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
88 1 3 500 10 1500 1 TRUE

Survival

Table 16. Parameter descriptions.

Parameter Description
bDetected Monthly probability of detection if in-lake
bMortality Log odds monthly probability of dying of natural causes
bMortalityHandling Effect of capture and handling on bMortality
bMoved Monthly probability of being detected moving between sections if alive
bRecaptured Monthly probability of being recaptured if alive
bReported Monthly probability of being reported if recaptured with one or more T-bar tags
TagLoss Probability of loss of a single tag as estimated by the tag loss model
Bull Trout

Table 17. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bDetected 0.3702042 0.0089280 41.486575 0.3533531 0.3881505 7e-04
bMortality -3.3542212 0.2070391 -16.238284 -3.7858055 -2.9951459 7e-04
bMortalityHandling 1.0079019 0.3561238 2.804052 0.2653084 1.6597171 8e-03
bMoved 0.1969492 0.0122016 16.183102 0.1745114 0.2226654 7e-04
bRecaptured 0.0059549 0.0020903 2.958216 0.0027508 0.0106519 7e-04
bReported 0.9584560 0.0281772 33.941138 0.9026906 0.9981823 7e-04

Table 18. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
5963 6 3 500 50 249 1.032 TRUE
Lake Trout

Table 19. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bDetected 0.7549642 0.0061909 121.932155 0.7427343 0.7672215 7e-04
bMortality -4.0142997 0.1620248 -24.814531 -4.3654990 -3.7163811 7e-04
bMortalityHandling 0.8332181 0.2793949 2.949495 0.2690820 1.3510244 8e-03
bMoved 0.4759912 0.0089978 52.885162 0.4582634 0.4932756 7e-04
bRecaptured 0.0035215 0.0005672 6.291751 0.0025502 0.0048072 7e-04
bReported 0.9847809 0.0192524 50.842703 0.9261163 0.9992741 7e-04

Table 20. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
30217 6 3 500 100 66 1.046 FALSE
Rainbow Trout

Table 21. Model coefficients.

term estimate sd zscore lower upper pvalue
bDetected 0.5269989 0.0054873 96.049148 0.5159647 0.5375743 0.0007
bMortality -2.7890115 0.0806236 -34.594991 -2.9454483 -2.6367861 0.0007
bMortalityHandling -0.4854541 0.1869461 -2.636884 -0.8542502 -0.1419573 0.0027
bMoved 0.7030239 0.0077829 90.308980 0.6870702 0.7175681 0.0007
bRecaptured 0.0116093 0.0014668 7.949704 0.0090003 0.0148392 0.0007
bReported 0.9891025 0.0149442 65.875896 0.9462631 0.9996827 0.0007

Table 22. Model summary.

n K nchains niters nthin ess rhat converged
30820 6 3 500 50 597 1.011 TRUE

Yield-per-Recruit

Bull Trout

Table 23. Bull Trout yield-per-recruit model parameters.

Parameter Value Description Source
tmax 30.0000000 The maximum age (yr). Professional Judgement
k 0.1300000 The VB growth coefficient (per yr). Professional Judgement
Linf 100.0000000 The VB mean maximum length (cm). Default
t0 0.0000000 The (theoretical) age at zero length (yr). Default
Wb 3.1787494 The weight (as a function of length) scaling exponent. Current Study
Ls 65.0000000 The length at which 50% mature (cm). Professional Judgement
Sp 100.0000000 The maturity (as a function of length) power. Default
es 1.0000000 The annual probability of a mature fish spawning. Default
Sm 0.0000000 The spawning mortality probability. Default
fb 1.0000000 The fecundity (as a function of weight) scaling exponent. Default
tR 1.0000000 The age from which survival is density-independent (yr). Default
BH 1.0000000 Recruitment follows a Beverton-Holt (1) or Ricker (0) relationship. Default
Rk 22.9500000 The lifetime spawners per spawner at low density. (Chudnow, van Poorten, and McAllister 2018)
M 0.4120817 The instantaneous mortality rate (per yr). Current Study
Mb 0.0000000 The instantaneous mortality rate (as a function of length) scaling exponent. Default
Lv 50.0000000 The length at which 50% vulnerable to harvest (cm). Professional Judgement
Vp 20.0000000 The vulnerability to harvest (as a function of length) power. Professional Judgement
Llo 0.0000000 The lower harvest slot length (cm). Default
Lup 100.0000000 The upper harvest slot length (cm). Default
Nc 0.0000000 The slot limits non-compliance probability. Default
pi 0.0691639 The annual capture probability. Current Study
rho 0.0000000 The release probability. Default
Hm 0.0000000 The hooking mortality probability. Default
Rmax 1.0000000 The number of recruits at the carrying capacity (ind). Default
A0 0.0000000 The initial post age tR density independent mortality probability. Default
Wa 0.0051027 The (extrapolated) weight of a 1 cm individual (g). Current Study
fa 1.0000000 The (theoretical) fecundity of a 1 g female (eggs). Default
q 0.1000000 The catchability (annual probability of capture) for a unit of effort. Default

Table 24. Bull Trout yield-per-recruit calculations including the capture probability (pi), exploitation rate (u), and average age, length and weight of fish harvested.

Type pi u Yield Age Length Weight Effort
actual 0.0691639 0.0691639 0.0236255 7.270724 59.78075 2466.607 0.6802557
optimal 0.3440717 0.3440717 0.0639750 6.420277 55.96287 1940.139 4.0024843
Lake Trout

Table 25. Lake Trout yield-per-recruit model parameters.

Parameter Value Description Source
tmax 30.0000000 The maximum age (yr). Professional Judgement
k 0.1500000 The VB growth coefficient (per yr). Professional Judgement
Linf 100.0000000 The VB mean maximum length (cm). Default
t0 0.0000000 The (theoretical) age at zero length (yr). Default
Wb 3.1754358 The weight (as a function of length) scaling exponent. Current Study
Ls 65.0000000 The length at which 50% mature (cm). Professional Judgement
Sp 100.0000000 The maturity (as a function of length) power. Default
es 1.0000000 The annual probability of a mature fish spawning. Default
Sm 0.0000000 The spawning mortality probability. Default
fb 1.0000000 The fecundity (as a function of weight) scaling exponent. Default
tR 1.0000000 The age from which survival is density-independent (yr). Default
BH 1.0000000 Recruitment follows a Beverton-Holt (1) or Ricker (0) relationship. Default
Rk 24.1000000 The lifetime spawners per spawner at low density. (Myers, Bowen, and Barrowman 1999)
M 0.2147343 The instantaneous mortality rate (per yr). Current Study
Mb 0.0000000 The instantaneous mortality rate (as a function of length) scaling exponent. Default
Lv 50.0000000 The length at which 50% vulnerable to harvest (cm). Professional Judgement
Vp 20.0000000 The vulnerability to harvest (as a function of length) power. Professional Judgement
Llo 0.0000000 The lower harvest slot length (cm). Default
Lup 100.0000000 The upper harvest slot length (cm). Default
Nc 0.0000000 The slot limits non-compliance probability. Default
pi 0.0414489 The annual capture probability. Current Study
rho 0.0000000 The release probability. Default
Hm 0.0000000 The hooking mortality probability. Default
Rmax 1.0000000 The number of recruits at the carrying capacity (ind). Default
A0 0.0000000 The initial post age tR density independent mortality probability. Default
Wa 0.0053105 The (extrapolated) weight of a 1 cm individual (g). Current Study
fa 1.0000000 The (theoretical) fecundity of a 1 g female (eggs). Default
q 0.1000000 The catchability (annual probability of capture) for a unit of effort. Default

Table 26. Lake Trout yield-per-recruit calculations including the capture probability (pi), exploitation rate (u), and average age, length and weight of fish harvested.

Type pi u Yield Age Length Weight Effort
actual 0.0414489 0.0414489 0.0710215 8.456740 68.16605 3974.955 0.4017864
optimal 0.2707637 0.2707637 0.2074532 6.498134 60.83568 2672.363 2.9969235
Rainbow Trout

Table 27. Rainbow Trout yield-per-recruit model parameters.

Parameter Value Description Source
tmax 30.0000000 The maximum age (yr). Professional Judgement
k 0.2000000 The VB growth coefficient (per yr). Professional Judgement
Linf 100.0000000 The VB mean maximum length (cm). Default
t0 0.0000000 The (theoretical) age at zero length (yr). Default
Wb 3.1779885 The weight (as a function of length) scaling exponent. Current Study
Ls 65.0000000 The length at which 50% mature (cm). Professional Judgement
Sp 100.0000000 The maturity (as a function of length) power. Default
es 1.0000000 The annual probability of a mature fish spawning. Default
Sm 0.0000000 The spawning mortality probability. Default
fb 1.0000000 The fecundity (as a function of weight) scaling exponent. Default
tR 1.0000000 The age from which survival is density-independent (yr). Default
BH 1.0000000 Recruitment follows a Beverton-Holt (1) or Ricker (0) relationship. Default
Rk 12.5000000 The lifetime spawners per spawner at low density. (???)
M 0.7159921 The instantaneous mortality rate (per yr). Current Study
Mb 0.0000000 The instantaneous mortality rate (as a function of length) scaling exponent. Default
Lv 50.0000000 The length at which 50% vulnerable to harvest (cm). Professional Judgement
Vp 20.0000000 The vulnerability to harvest (as a function of length) power. Professional Judgement
Llo 0.0000000 The lower harvest slot length (cm). Default
Lup 100.0000000 The upper harvest slot length (cm). Default
Nc 0.0000000 The slot limits non-compliance probability. Default
pi 0.1307514 The annual capture probability. Current Study
rho 0.0000000 The release probability. Default
Hm 0.0000000 The hooking mortality probability. Default
Rmax 1.0000000 The number of recruits at the carrying capacity (ind). Default
A0 0.0000000 The initial post age tR density independent mortality probability. Default
Wa 0.0056622 The (extrapolated) weight of a 1 cm individual (g). Current Study
fa 1.0000000 The (theoretical) fecundity of a 1 g female (eggs). Default
q 0.1000000 The catchability (annual probability of capture) for a unit of effort. Default

Table 28. Rainbow Trout yield-per-recruit calculations including the capture probability (pi), exploitation rate (u), and average age, length and weight of fish harvested.

Type pi u Yield Age Length Weight Effort
actual 0.1307514 0.1307514 0.0245374 4.574063 58.83314 2569.316 1.329968
optimal 0.4048375 0.4048375 0.0479250 4.244256 56.54300 2219.820 4.925192

Figures

Captures

figures/capture/CaptureHistogram.png
Figure 1. Captures by fork length, year, species and tag type.

Sections

figures/sections/SectionMap.png
Figure 2. Quesnel Lake sections. Color code is used to identify sections throughout analysis.

Coverage

figures/coverage/ReceiverSpatialCoverage.png
Figure 3. Receiver coverage of section area by date.
figures/coverage/ReceiverTemporalCoverage.png
Figure 4. Receiver coverage over time. Black dots represent detections; black vertical lines represent deployment events.

Detections

figures/detection/DetectionOverview.png
Figure 5. Location (color) and date of detections by species for each acoustic tagged fish. Grey segments indicate estimated tag life from capture date. Black shapes indicate recapture date (square indicates that fish was not released; triangle indicates release).

Section Use

figures/movement/SectionUseMapBullTrout.png
Figure 6. Percent of Bull Trout detections by section and season, weighted by receiver coverage.
figures/movement/SectionUseMapLakeTrout.png
Figure 7. Percent of Lake Trout detections by section and season, weighted by receiver coverage.
figures/movement/SectionUseMapRainbowTrout.png
Figure 8. Percent of Rainbow Trout detections by section and season, weighted by receiver coverage.

Condition

figures/condition/condition.png
Figure 9. Estimated weight by length and Species (with 95% CIs and raw data).

Tag Loss

figures/tagloss/tagloss.png
Figure 10. Estimated probability of the loss of a single T-bar tag by species (with 95% CRIs).

Survival

figures/survival/recapture.png
Figure 11. The annual interval probability of recapture by species.
figures/survival/mortality.png
Figure 12. The annual interval natural mortality by species.

Yield-per-Recruit

figures/yield/length_age.png
Figure 13. Calculated length by age and species.
figures/yield/weight_length.png
Figure 14. Calculated weight by length and species.
figures/yield/spawning_length.png
Figure 15. Calculated probability of spawning by length and species.
figures/yield/vulnerability_length.png
Figure 16. Calculated vulnerability to capture by length and species.
figures/yield/survivorship_length.png
Figure 17. Calculated natural survivorship by length and species.
figures/yield/stock_recruit.png
Figure 18. Calculated yield as percent of total unfished population by annual interval fishing mortality rate and species.

Recommendations

Recommendations include:

  • Incorporate recaptures by research crew into survival model.
  • Add growth component to survival model to estimate growth parameters and adjust lengths.
  • Explore seasonal, annual and length-based variation in natural and fishing mortality.

Acknowledgements

The organisations and individuals whose contributions have made this analysis report possible include:

  • Quesnel Lake anglers for reporting their catches
  • Habitat Conservation Trust Foundation (HCTF)
    • and the anglers, hunters, trappers and guides who contribute to the Trust
  • Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
    • Lee Williston
    • Greg Andrusak
    • Mike Ramsay
  • Reel Adventures
    • Kerry Reed
  • Vicky Lipinski

References

Bison, Robert, David O’Brien, and Steven J. D. Martell. 2003. “An Analysis of Sustainable Fishing Options for Adams Lake Bull Trout Using Life History and Telemetry Data.” Kamloops, B.C.: BC Ministry of Water Land; Air Protection.

Bradford, Michael J, Josh Korman, and Paul S Higgins. 2005. “Using Confidence Intervals to Estimate the Response of Salmon Populations (Oncorhynchus Spp.) to Experimental Habitat Alterations.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62 (12): 2716–26. https://doi.org/10.1139/f05-179.

Brooks, Steve, Andrew Gelman, Galin L. Jones, and Xiao-Li Meng, eds. 2011. Handbook for Markov Chain Monte Carlo. Boca Raton: Taylor & Francis.

Chudnow, Rachel E., Brett T van Poorten, and Murdoch K. McAllister. 2018. “Estimating Cross-Population Variation in Juvenile Compensation in Survival for Bull Trout (Salvelinus Confluentus): A Bayesian Hierarchical Approach.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, November. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2017-0555.

Fabrizio, Mary C., James D. Nichols, James E. Hines, Bruce L. Swanson, and Stephen T. Schram. 1999. “Modeling Data from Double-Tagging Experiments to Estimate Heterogeneous Rates of Tag Shedding in Lake Trout (Salvelinus Namaycush).” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56 (8): 1409–19. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/pdf/10.1139/f99-069.

He, Ji X., James R. Bence, James E. Johnson, David F. Clapp, and Mark P. Ebener. 2008. “Modeling Variation in Mass-Length Relations and Condition Indices of Lake Trout and Chinook Salmon in Lake Huron: A Hierarchical Bayesian Approach.” Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 137 (3): 801–17. https://doi.org/10.1577/T07-012.1.

Kery, Marc, and Michael Schaub. 2011. Bayesian Population Analysis Using WinBUGS : A Hierarchical Perspective. Boston: Academic Press. http://www.vogelwarte.ch/bpa.html.

Myers, Ransom A., Keith G. Bowen, and Nicholas J. Barrowman. 1999. “Maximum Reproductive Rate of Fish at Low Population Sizes.” Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56 (12): 2404–19. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/f99-201.

Plummer, Martyn. 2015. “JAGS Version 4.0.1 User Manual.” http://sourceforge.net/projects/mcmc-jags/files/Manuals/4.x/.

R Core Team. 2018. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/.

Thorley, Joseph L., and Greg F. Andrusak. 2017. “The Fishing and Natural Mortality of Large, Piscivorous Bull Trout and Rainbow Trout in Kootenay Lake, British Columbia (2008–2013).” PeerJ 5 (January): e2874. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2874.