The 2013 Ohio River Catfish Project was an effort by KDFWR to increase data collection of catfish in the

Ohio River. The goal of the project was to determine the overall status of blue, flathead, and channel

catfish in the Ohio River and determine if the catfish population as a whole is being over harvested and if

trophy-sized fish are being harvested disproportionately to their abundance. This project was conducted

in response to trophy and tournament anglers’ assertions that commercial fishing is overharvesting larger

catfish because of increasing demand for the larger fish by pay lakes. Additionally, there are some catfish

anglers that are adamantly opposed to all commercial fishing since they believe the catfish populations,

as a whole, are being overfished in the Ohio River.

The State of Ohio implemented angler harvest restrictions in response to their trophy catfish anglers’

concerns. The regulations were implemented despite a lack of data to verify that numbers of the larger

fish are in fact dwindling. Blue catfish (one of the two species of primary concern by trophy catfish

anglers because of their ability to attain very large sizes), are notoriously aggressive when compared to

other fish species and have created issues concerning overpopulation in some rivers where the fish have

neither commercial harvest pressure or top predators that would prevent them from becoming too

numerous. For this reason, primarily, KDFWR believes that understanding the demographics of our Ohio

River catfish populations is essential prior to establishing harvest restrictions that may create future

issues that are products of over population such as stunted growth and reducing the number and quality

of catfish and other sport fish species in the river. It should be noted that Ohio is not the only state that

has implemented regulations without knowledge of the resource. Large rivers are very hard to sample

effectively. It takes considerable effort and funding to adequately sample those resources, and since

every state has limited funding, their resources are generally spent managing fisheries that are more

heavily used on a per-acre basis than the big rivers. Kentucky actively manages other sport fish species in

the Ohio River, and this Department feels that the resource is important enough on many levels to

warrant the funding necessary to properly manage it. KDFWR expresses thanks to the Illinois DNR,

Southern Illinois University, and Eastern Illinois University for providing catfish sampling effort and data

during 2013.

The following represents key data that KDFWR used to help formulate potential harvest regulations.

Information gathered from two public meetings that KDFWR hosted and which were attended by

representatives from the trophy catfish anglers and Kentucky commercial fishermen were also

considered prior to the regulation proposals that are provided at the end of this article.

Ohio River Catfish Project 2014 Update

The Tennessee DNR implemented a harvest catfish restriction (1 fish over 34 inches daily) in 2004. The

restriction included anglers and commercial fishermen. This slide was shown to illustrate differences in

catch numbers and fish sizes per fishing trip as reported by anglers in surveys that were taken in 2006

and again in 2012. Anglers reported catching more catfish in general, but the number of catfish over 34

inches had decreased, actually by almost two thirds (not the 1/3 as presented on the slide) after the

regulation was implemented.

This slide shows data from the same Tennessee survey. The percent of anglers favoring the increased

harvest restrictions on commercial fishermen decreased from 2006 to 2012. Potential reasons for the

decrease were not given. It should be noted that Tennessee implemented the regulations to appease

their catfish anglers without data to indicate they were warranted. As previously indicated, this type of

action is not uncommon for big rivers due to the cost and difficulty in sampling in relation to higher

profile fisheries that demand effective resource management.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Av

era

ge

win

nin

g w

eig

ht

(po

un

ds)

Year

Average Winning Weights

Missouri River

Ohio River

Ohio Above Louisville

Ohio Below Louisville

Catfish Tournament Weights Comparison

Missouri River hasNo commercial fishing since 1992

Missouri began restricting commercial harvest in their portion of the Missouri River in 1992. The

expected result would be that the relative number of trophy-sized catfish should increase over time.

However, the average winning weights for catfish tournaments held in the Missouri River were actually

lower than those held in the Ohio River below Louisville. Average winning weights of catfish tournaments

held in Ohio River pools above Louisville were lower than both the lower pools and in the Missouri River.

Winning weights were used for comparisons because many tournaments do not keep records beyond

that information.

20.7

66.6

12.8

Species of Fish Kentucky Catfish Anglers Fished For Most

Blue Catfish

Channel Catfish

Flathead Catfish91.8

8.2

Percent of Kentucky Anglers Surveyed And Fished for Catfish in Last 3 Years

(Targeted catfish anglers using preliminary survey cards)

YesNo

During late summer, 2013, KDFWR conducted a catfish angler survey to determine attitudes concerning

the quality of fishing for catfish in the Ohio River. Five thousand post cards were sent to Kentucky license

holders to reach out to catfish anglers, specifically. The recipients were asked: I) Have you fished for

catfish in Kentucky in the last three years; and 2) Will you take and return a written survey concerning

fishing for catfish in Kentucky? The following results were derived from 894 respondents:

Almost 92% of the returned surveys had indicated that they were catfish anglers (left chart). Anglers that

did not fish were not included in the survey. The chart on the right indicates species anglers targeted

most.

32.1

3.15.9

45.7

10.7

2.5

.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

Fun to catch

Abundant Where I

Fish

Large or Trophy

sized fish

Eat Close to Where I

Live

Other

Reasons to Fish For Catfish

24

35

24

13

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

Angler Satisfaction for Flathead In Large Rivers (19.1% Fished)

Almost 79% of the surveyed anglers fish for catfish or food or because they were fun to catch. Only 6% of

the surveyed anglers said that trophy catfish was their primary reason for fishing.

3637

16

9

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied

Neutral Somewhat Dissatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Angler Satisfaction For Channel Catfish in Large Rivers (21.6% Fished)

25

42

18

10

4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied Neutral Somewhat Dissatisfied Very Dissatisfied

Angler Satisfaction for Blue Catfish In Large Rivers (19.8% Fished)

Angler satisfaction in Kentucky’s large rivers

ranged from 59% to 63%; while dissatisfaction

ranged from 12% to 17%. Approximately 19%

to 22% of the catfish anglers surveyed fished

large rivers.

32 31

25

57

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Very Satisfied Somewhat Satisfied

Neutral Somewhat Disssatisfied

Very Dissatisfied

Angler Satisfaction With Pay Lakes (18.5% Fished)

7.2

13.4

30.2

19.4

29.7

.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

Strongly Support

Somewhat Support

Neutral Somewhat Oppose

Strongly Oppose

Anglers Supporting Unlimited Harvest of Large or Trophy-sized Catfish for Pay Lakes

Approximately 19% of the anglers surveyed fished in pay lakes; but 49% of all respondents opposed

allowing unlimited harvest of trophy-sized catfish that would be sold to the pay lakes.

This slide was used to educate the participants about utility of commercial fishing to sportfish and catfish

anglers. The survey, although subjective, was conducted to determine the importance of trophy-sized

catfish to their overall harvest and income. At the public meeting, anglers protested that commercial

fishermen would not answer the survey honestly since the results would help shape future catfish

regulations. When asked, the commercial fishermen indicated they answered honestly because they

were not sure which way to dishonestly answer questions in the survey since: 1) if they indicated that

trophy catfish represented a small percentage of their catch, that fact would make it easier for KDFWR to

propose stricter harvest regulation since the impact on their income would be minimal; and 2) If they

answered that they collected many trophy-sized catfish, KDFWR would assume there is a problem with

overharvest and propose harvest restriction on trophy catfish.

0.53

0.080.09 0.09

0.07

0.030.04

0.06

0.01 0.000.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100

Rat

io o

f an

gle

rs

Ratio of total pounds harvested >35 inches

Commercial Fisherman SurveyRatio of Flathead Catfish >35 Inches in the Harvest (n=140)

0.46

0.11 0.12 0.12

0.08

0.040.01

0.04

0.010.00

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

Rat

io o

f Fi

she

rme

n

Ratio of total pounds harvested >35 inches

Commercial Fisherman SurveyRatio of Blue Catfish >35 Inches in the Harvest (n=141)

0.62

0.110.09

0.04

0.09

0.02 0.02 0.02

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-90 91-100

Rat

io o

f Fi

she

rme

n

Ratio of total pounds harvested >28 inches

Commercial Fisherman SurveyRatio of Channel Catfish >28 Inches in the Commercial Harvest (n=55)

Ohio River Commercial Harvest by Fishermen Location(Circles represent relative harvest totals)

102 Commercial Fishermen Fish the Ohio River For Catfish20 Commercial fishermen Harvested more than 10,000 pounds36 Harvest more than 5,000 pounds

This map depicts where the commercial fishermen reside and their relative Ohio River catfish harvest numbers. Assuming that most of the commercial effort occurs within some proximity of their residence, this chart indicates that most of the catfish harvest likely occurs in the lower portion of the Ohio River. However, the two green dots in Ohio indicate that some substantial harvest likely occurs in the upper pools as well.

Most commercial fishermen (46% - 62%) indicated that less than 10% of their total harvest included trophy-sized catfish while 61% to 73% indicated that the fish accounted for less than 20% of their harvest. At 20% and less, the commercial fishermen were harvesting catfish at a ratio of trophy-sized catfish to the rest of catfish sizes in the populations in proportion to their abundance in the populations; those were not targeting the larger catfish.

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000A

ngl

er

Day

s w

ith

cat

fish Yearly Effort

Barkley Lake

Kentucky Lake

Ohio River

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

Po

un

ds

cau

ght Yearly Catch (lbs): Ohio River

Blue Catfish

Channel Catfish

Flathead Catfish

-

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Po

un

ds

cau

ght/

An

gle

rDay

Yearly CPUE: Ohio River

Blue CPUE

Channel CPUE

Flathead CPUE

Commercial Fishing Data

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecCatc

h (lb

s)

Average Harvest of Catfish in lbs by month - 1999-2011

Channel Catfish

Blue Catfish

Flathead Catfish

Commercial fishermen are required to fill out daily harvest reports and send them to KDFWR at monthly

intervals. Failure to complete the reports ultimately results in license suspension. Some anglers at the

public meeting, again, protested due to the likelihood of cheating since the reports are not scrutinized.

But for the same reasons indicated on the survey, commercial fishermen are not likely to significantly

falsify their reports since they have no idea as to how results of the data will be used. These charts depict

an increase in angler effort (the number of days with gear in the water) and a corresponding increase in

harvest from the Ohio River. If this data were falsified, then it could certainly result in new restrictions on

commercial fishing in the Ohio River if scientific data indicated that effort and harvest were impacting the

resource. The chart on the right shows increasing trends in catch per fishing effort for Ohio River catfish.

Commercial fishermen will tell you that this chart indicates that the catfish populations in the Ohio River

have never been stronger; and to an extent, they are correct. However, a dip in the flathead CPUE

(though still in the historical range) may be symptomatic of a decrease in numbers. It will be important

for KDFWR to continue monitoring their harvest and look for continuing decreases or new ones with

other catfish species.

One concern that KDFWR biologists have with the increasing trend in catfish harvest CPUE is that the

increases are a result of increased pressure on trophy-sized catfish. The harvest reports do not currently

require differentiating between trophy and other catfish. This concern is partly a result of the data in this

chart showing that most of the harvest occurs during pre-spawn, spawn, and post-spawn migration when

larger catfish are more susceptible to harvest in passive gear types.

11

23

29.3

4.7 4.5

0.8

61

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Greenup Meldahl Markland McAlpine Cannelton Newburg Smithland

2013 Electrofishing CPUEOhio River Channel Catfish

36

41

62

40.7

7.8

48.5

14.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Greenup Meldahl Markland McAlpine Cannelton Newburg Smithland

2013 Electrofishing CPUEOhio River Flathead Catfish

KDFWR is the only state on the Ohio River that has routinely sampled for catfish data over the years. The

Department has been sampling with electrofishing and trot lines for several years. Sampling and

commercial harvest data prior to 2013 had not indicated that the catfish populations were being over

harvested. However, that sampling effort was deemed by our biologists to be potentially inadequate to

sufficiently describe the catfish populations. The following charts were presented to illustrate results

from the increase effort for our 2013 sampling as well as comparing among methods of data collection

and among years within data methods when that data was available.

Electrofishing Catch-per-effort (CPUE) trends or comparative data give indications of the number of

smaller catfish that are in the populations. These charts should have had an asterisk beside Cannelton

and Newburg pools since those were last sampled in 2009. For channel catfish (chart on left) in

McCalpine, Cannelton and Newburg pools, the CPUE results were low; but the remaining pools were fair

to excellent. Flathead catfish (chart on right) were abundant in all pools except Cannelton and Smithland.

The flathead have historically not been very abundant in Smithland Pool. Since blue catfish tend to be

less vulnerable to electrofishing, no data is available for that species.

0

29.3

1

62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2009 2013

Markland Pool

Channel

Flathead

2.8

8.8

4.7

13.2

17.1

40.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2009 2010 2013

McAlpine Pool

4.5

14.5

48.5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2004 2009

Newburg Pool

Electrofishing CPUE in the Ohio River

Electrofishing typically samplessmaller fish

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013

CP

UE

(fis

h/t

rotl

ine

)

Year

Trotline CPUE by Year

Blue catfish

Channel catfish

This chart compared Electrofishing data within pools when multi-year data was available. Increases in CPUE were evident over time in each pool for flathead and channel catfish except for channel catfish in McCalpine Pool which were low in all three years.

Trot line data collected by KDFWR has been very erratic for blue catfish, but a downward trend appears evident in the Ohio River since 2009. Channel catfish data appears to be more stable, but there also appears to be a decline in CPUE for those catfish since 2010. However, 2013 CPUE remains higher than data collected in 2004 – 2007 for channel catfish.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013

% t

rop

hy

fish

Year

Blues

Channel

Percent of Trophy Catfish Collected(Trot Line Samples)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013

Me

an le

ngt

h (

in)

Year

Blue catfish

Channel catfish

Trot Line Samples

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

ln (a

ge f

req

ue

ncy

)

Age

FHC = 10.9

No Fishing

No Regs

1 over 35 in

1 over 32 in

1 over 30

Mortality based on commercial hoop net catch.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

ln (a

ge f

req

ue

ncy

)

Age

FHC = 20.9

No Fishing

No Regulations

1 over 35 in

1 over 32 in

1 over 30 in

Mortality based on KDFWR electrofishingcatch

Mortality based on commercial hoop net catch.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

ln (a

ge f

req

ue

ncy

)

Age

BCF A=18.66

No Fishing

No Regs

1 over 35 in

1 over 32 in

1 over 30 in

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

ln (a

ge f

req

ue

ncy

)

Age

BCF A=13.83

No Fishing

No Regs

1 over 35 in

1 over 32 in

1 over 30 in

Mortality based on KDFWR trotline catch

The percent of trophy blue catfish collected by trotlines (left chart) has declined steadily since 2010 after

an all-time high in that year. Too few trophy channel catfish have been collected over the years to make

comparisons of trends. The average size of blue catfish (right chart) has also declined since 2010,

however, channel catfish average lengths have remained stable.

These charts were added to describe annual mortality of blue catfish (left chart) and flathead catfish

(right chart). Blue catfish annual mortalities estimated by using hoop nets and trot lines resulted in

mortality rates of approximately 19% and 14%, respectively. For flathead catfish, they were 11% and

21%, respectively. Annual mortality rates of approximately 25% are considered good for catfish

populations. Eastern Illinois University recently reported annual mortality for catfish in the Wabash River

to be over 50%; those catfish populations will not likely be able to withstand that rate of mortality for

many more years.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Markland McAlpine Newburgh Uniontown Lower River

% o

f fi

sh t

hat

are

tro

ph

y si

ze

Pool

Ohio River Tournament Trophy Fish

Blue catfish

Channel catfish

Flathead catfish

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2010 2011 2012 2013Ave

rage

To

urn

ame

nt

Win

nin

g W

eig

ht

Year

Catfish Tournament Winning WeightsN=79

Meldahl

Markland

McAlpine

Cannelton

Newburgh

Monsters of the Ohio Catfish Tournament was one of many attended by KDFWR as part of this study. Large fishing tournaments can be valuable resources for data since trends can be used as indicators of fish numbers and the size structure of a given fish population. Because of variability in river and weather conditions, it takes many tournaments to get data that is reliable as an index.

The percent of catfish caught and weighed at the 2013 Ohio River catfish tournaments varied among

pools (left chart), but it was clear that pools in the lower Ohio River yielded higher average percentages

of trophy fish than those in the upper pools. Trends of winning weights in tournaments (n=79) have

declined in the upper pools since 2010, however the trends are less evident in the Newburg and

Cannelton pools because of 2013 data. The 2013 Monsters of the Ohio Tournament held in the Newburg

Pool yielded an all-time record winning weight of 145.6 pounds, and the top four contestants caught over

100 pounds. The weights and big catfish (57.2 pounds) were records for the tournament. Weather and

river conditions were favorable for the 2013 tournament. When they are not favorable, the opposite

results are often seen. Weather and river conditions and related variability underscores why it is

important to have data from many tournaments prior to making conclusions on heath of a fishery when

using this data. Even in excellent fisheries, poor conditions will result in poor catchability; including in

tournaments with excellent anglers.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

% o

f sa

mp

le

Inch class

Blue Catfish

Trotline

Hoop Net

Tournament

River-wide Percent Length Frequency by Gear.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

% o

f sa

mp

le

Inch class

Channel Catfish

Trotline

Electrofishing

Tournament

River-wide Percent Length Frequency by Gear

The chart for blue catfish (left chart) compares trotline data collected by KDFWR, hoop net data collected

when KDFWR biologists rode with commercial fishermen, and tournaments data collected when KDFWR

staff took lengths and weights of catfish brought into the weigh-ins of several tournaments. The most

interesting aspect of this data for blue catfish was the way each method of data collection mirrored the

other. This not only gives us some confidence concerning the relative number of catfish in the river at a

given length, but it also tells us that any of the three types of data may likely be useful for determining

relative sizes of the fish. KDFWR will continue to collect all three data types for the next several years in

an effort to verify that this phenomenon is not unusual. The channel catfish chart (right chart) tells a

different story. We already knew that electrofishing was not a good method to use when looking at

length-frequency data, but that it is good for comparing trends of smaller fish. The charts are also clear

that trotline and tournament data is not comparable for channel catfish. Obviously, fewer small channel

catfish are going to be brought to the tournament weigh-ins when enough larger blue or flathead catfish

are caught. Therefore, this chart illustrates that the methods are not comparable, and that the selective

nature of the tournament data most likely makes it less useful for channel catfish than the trotline data

for trend analyses. As far as the actual length frequencies go, the left chart indicates that most of the

blue catfish caught were between 23 and 33 inches. Although a decrease in relative numbers of the fish

over 33 inches is expected, we will continue to watch these frequencies in the future to see if the peaks

and major contributions of the fish sizes continues to shift; hopefully to the right which would indicate

that whatever regulations are passed are sufficient to protect a portion of the larger fish. The decrease in

relative numbers of large fish (shown in the blue catfish chart) is not unusually steep. Additionally, the

tournament data reinforce that our trotline data in not sufficiently collecting the larger channel catfish,

and more years of all three data types will help us keep an eye on those fish.

0

5

10

15

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

% o

f sa

mp

le

Inch class

Flathead Catfish

Electrofishing

Hoop Net

Tournament

River-wide Percent Length Frequency by Gear.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Mean Length At Age Ohio River Channel Catfish

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Mean Length At Age Ohio River Flathead Catfish

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Mean Length At Age Ohio River Blue Catfish

This chart looks similar to the previous channel catfish chart, except that hoop net and tournament data are more comparable to the blue catfish chart. The relative number of young fish collected by electrofishing looks good, and the peaks and decreasing slope of fish from 26 inches to 40 inches is similar to the blue catfish. As with the blue catfish, we will continue to monitor these length-frequency trends.

These three charts depict growth at age for the three catfish species. Channel catfish reach 28 inches (8.74 lbs) on an average of 14 years; blue and flathead catfish reach 35 inches at 14 (20.64 lbs) and 23 (20.92 lbs) years, respectively. It should be noted that these growth rates are averages, and many fish reach their trophy sizes much quicker that others due to factors such as food availability, gender, river conditions throughout their lives, and genetics; others may never reach trophy sizes for the same reasons even though they inhabit the same water.

Based on the information gathered from sampling and public meetings provided above, the following regulation proposals were submitted to the KDFWR Commission in December, 2013: Kentucky Fish and Wildlife Commission Meeting December 6, 2013 FISHERIES DIVISION TABLE OF CONTENTS: Action Item: Trophy Catfish Regulations in the Ohio River Action Item: Ohio River Commercial Catfish Harvest Regulations Action Item: Commercial Catfish Harvest Reports Action Item: Reciprocal Non-Resident Commercial Fishing Regulations Regulation Number: 301 KAR 1:201 Proposed Recommendation: Unlimited number of catfish harvested below trophy size and a daily harvest of 1 trophy catfish from each species for sportfish anglers fishing the Ohio River mainstem. (Trophy fish are defined as: over 35 inches for blue and flathead catfish; and over 28 inches for channel catfish). Regulation Number: 301 KAR 1:155 Proposed Recommendation: In the Ohio River and its tributaries open to commercial fishing: 1) A daily commercial harvest of an unlimited number of catfish below trophy size and a harvest of only 1 trophy catfish from each species. a) Trophy catfish: blue and flathead catfish > 35 inches; channel catfish > 28 inches. 2) Special Quality Catfish Harvest Permit below the Cannelton Lock and Dam will allow, in addition to unlimited harvest of smaller catfish, a daily commercial harvest of 4 quality catfish (in aggregate): a) Quality catfish: blue and flathead catfish > 40 inches; channel catfish > 30 inches; b) Permit is free and issued to a maximum of 50 commercial fishermen that: 1. Reported harvesting at least 10,000 pounds of catfish in at least two of the last three fishing years (n = 44); or 2. Are randomly selected after registering in a lottery: a. In 2014, the lottery will be held during the work week following passage of this regulation; b. After 2014, if fewer than 50 permits have been issued by the first day of the commercial fishing season, remaining permits will distributed by lottery on the first work day of the week following opening day; c. If fewer than 50 permits have been issued following the lottery in any year, permits remaining will be distributed on a first-come-first-serve basis; Regulation Number: 301 KAR 1:155 Proposed Recommendation: Commercial fishermen daily harvest reports will be changed to include the following information: 1) Total number of catfish harvested by species; 2) Total number of trophy catfish harvested by species; 3) Ohio River pool where catfish are harvested. Regulation Number: 301 KAR 1:155 Proposed Recommendation: A resident of a state that does not offer non-resident commercial fishing licenses will not be allowed to purchase a Kentucky non-resident commercial fishing license. A grandfather clause will be in effect whereby non-resident commercial fishermen residing in states affected by this regulation would qualify to continue purchasing non-resident commercial fishing licenses until the non-resident does not renew their license in a year consecutive to the previous license purchased. Commercial fishing daily harvest reports will include the following additions: - Number of catfish harvested by species; - Number of blue and flathead catfish over 35 inches;

- Number of channel catfish over 28 inches; - When fishing river systems, which pool was fished where the harvest occurred?

All proposed regulations were passed by the KDFWR Commission and were subsequently approved by the Legislative Research Commission. The sportfishing regulations are currently in effect. An injunction was filed against the commercial fishing regulations and has delayed their implementation until December 01, 2014. The commercial fishing regulations will be in effect after this date.

Points of clarification 1. The sportfishing creel and size limits are the same across the entire Ohio River mainstem, while the

commercial fishing regulations do allow for 50 commercial fishermen (with permits) to utilize an expanded size limit from Cannelton Lock and Dam down to the confluence with the Mississippi River.

2. Commercial fishing regulations include the Ohio River mainstem and its tributaries. 3. Kentucky and Barkley lakes are not included in these regulations (sport and commercial fishing).

The creel and size limits as listed in regulation are as follows: Sportfishing (57) Ohio River. (a) Walleye, sauger, and any hybrid thereof, no size limit; daily creel limit, ten (10), singly or in combination. (b) White bass, striped bass, and any hybrid thereof, daily creel limit, thirty (30), no more than four (4) in the daily creel limit shall be fifteen (15) inches or greater. (c) The blue catfish daily creel limit shall be unlimited, except that no more than one (1) fish in the daily creel limit shall be thirty-five (35) inches or longer. (d) The channel catfish daily creel limit shall be unlimited, except that no more than one (1) fish in the daily creel limit shall be twenty-eight (28) inches or longer. (e) The flathead catfish daily creel limit shall be unlimited, except that no more than one (1) fish in the daily creel limit shall be thirty-five (35) inches or longer; Commercial Fishing Section 5. Special Catfish Harvest Restrictions. (1) In the Ohio River and its tributaries open to commercial fishing, there shall be: (a) An unlimited harvest of: 1. Blue and flathead catfish that are less than thirty-five (35) inches in length; and 2. Channel catfish that are less than twenty-eight (28) inches in length; and (b) A daily limit of one (1): 1. Blue and flathead catfish greater than thirty-five (35) inches in length; and 2. Channel catfish greater than twenty-eight (28) inches in length. (2) A person with a valid commercial license shall obtain from the department a free Ohio River Trophy Catfish Harvest Permit in order to harvest multiple trophy catfish downstream of Cannelton Lock and Dam. (a) The department shall issue a maximum of fifty (50) permits annually. (b) Beginning in 2015, the department shall issue a permit to a commercial fisherman who: 1. Has reported a minimum harvest of 10,000 pounds of catfish from the Ohio River and its tributaries open to commercial fishing in at least two (2) of the last three (3) years; and 2. Sends a written request to the department postmarked on or before March 10. (c) In 2014, the department shall issue a permit to a commercial fisherman who: 1. Has reported a minimum harvest of 10,000 pounds of catfish from the Ohio River or its tributaries open to commercial fishing in at least two (2) of the last three (3) years; and 2. Sends a written request to the department postmarked on or before ten (10) days following the 2014 amendment effective date of this administrative regulation. (d) There shall be an unlimited daily harvest of catfish less than trophy size for each permit holder. (e) There shall be a daily harvest limit of four (4) trophy catfish in aggregate for each permit holder. (f) Beginning in 2015, if fifty (50) permits are not issued by March 15, then the department shall conduct a random electronic lottery drawing for the remaining slots. (g) A commercial fisherman shall apply for the lottery established in paragraph (f) of this subsection by sending a written request to the department to be entered in the lottery postmarked on or before March 10.

(h) In 2014, if fifty (50) permits are not issued within fifteen (15) days following the 2014 amendment effective date of this administrative regulation, then the department shall conduct a random electronic lottery drawing for the remaining slots. (i) A commercial fisherman shall apply for the lottery established in paragraph (h) of this subsection by sending a written request to the department to be entered in the lottery postmarked on or before ten (10) days following the 2014 amendment effective date of this administrative regulation. (j) If the number of applicants for any lottery is less than the number of available permits, then the remaining permits shall be distributed on a first-come first-serve basis.