Effects of live‐imaging sonar on Blue Catfish angler success, perception, and behavior.

Objective: Proliferation of consumer‐grade live‐imaging sonar (LIS) has created management challenges in recreational fisheries. Most pervasive is the question about whether LIS users catch fish more effectively than nonusers. This project was designed to elucidate the effects of LIS use on catch of Blue Catfish Ictalurus furcatus from the Milford Reservoir, Kansas. Additionally, we sought to identify angler perception of LIS and quantify differences in angling behavior between users and nonusers. Methods: We organized a Blue Catfish angling experiment where 16 anglers used LIS and 16 anglers did not. The experiment was followed by dissemination of a survey to measure angler experience and skill, measure perception of LIS, and identify behavior patterns from groups that did and did not have access to the technology. A multivariate linear model was used to identify how LIS use, angling experience, and self‐assessed angling skill influenced fish catch. Comparisons of LIS perceptions and angling behavior were also evaluated between treatment groups. Result: There was no difference in Blue Catfish mass captured per 5‐h angling trial by anglers using LIS (mean = 14.57 kg, SE = 3.38) and anglers not using LIS (mean = 16.97 kg, SE = 2.29). However, self‐rating of angling skill was identified as a predictor in a supported model but little variation in catch was explained (R2 = 0.169). Anglers using LIS thought their time spent searching and catch would have been similar if they did not use LIS. Anglers that did not use LIS thought they would spend more time searching for fish and catch may have increased if using LIS. Time spent searching for angling locations was greater for anglers using LIS than those not using LIS. Conclusion: Results from this study suggest that the use of LIS may influence Blue Catfish angler perception and behavior more than catch. Impact statementAngler catch of Blue Catfish was not influenced by live‐imaging sonar in this controlled experiment. However, there was evidence that the use of live‐imaging sonar influenced angler perception and behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]