Thread: Paul Rister retiring ??

Paul will be truly missed, but we as Kentucky sportsman have been fortunate to have such a gracious, hard working and dedicated representative.
I believe Paul took great pride in his work, the accomplishments and track record and footsteps he has laid in this end of our beautiful state.
So, I seriously doubt that Paul would even allow someone to take over the reins of what he has built to someone that did not have the same characteristics, desires, and the mindset of the modern day sportsman, and the bravery to fight the good fight.
Adam is an excellent choice and fit, and thus far I really like his style and communication platforms. Getting involvement from the public is great start to building collaboration and teamwork.
I wish Paul a relaxing andb wonderful retirement, and many limits! You definitely deserve it for putting up with all of us!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Crappie.com Fishing mobile app

Thanks for your kind words. I would gladly accept that million dollar check.

Thanks to the many kind words that have been mentioned in this post. I know many would think I had lost my mind for leaving such a fun job and awesome "office" view of the lakes most days of the week. Yea, it was a tough decision. I retired with 31 years of service to the sportsmen and women that came to enjoy the fisheries of Kentucky and Barkley lakes. During my career there were very few days that I dreaded going into work. I loved what I did and who I did it for. I enjoyed trying to solve the puzzle of creating trophy fisheries with the data we collected. I loved being able to explain what we learned to anglers, as well as hearing from anglers as to their fishing experiences. Without the bureaucracy of state government, this would have been the perfect job. As you all get to know Adam, you will find that he has some of the same passions about understanding the fisheries as I did. He grew up on the north end of Barkley, so he knows the lakes area. He has the education from the books, and hopefully I taught him a few things. I have no doubt that he will hit the ground running where I left off. You all just be patient with him as his feet grow to fit the shoes I left him to wear.

Hope to see some of you out on the water fishing some day. And I try to stay in touch and attend the next fish fry. Thanks...

In closing, I always love to provide anglers with data, and if I get to proven a few of them wrong with the facts along the way, well that is fun too. In the days leading up to my retirement, I receive a email from your local Kentucky League of Sportsmen President, Mr. Dan Cayce, and it was also sent to Dr. Carloss (1st Dist. Commissioner). Here is how the email started out.

From: Dan Cayce [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, December 08, 2017 9:20 PM
To: Rister, Paul (FW) <[email protected]>
Cc: Dr. Harry Carloss, MD MACP <[email protected]>
Subject: Your 2017 retirement

I have been thinking about this since your announcement in November. How much the lakes have changed for the worse since the 1985-86 period as far as catchable game fish go when you started.

Mr. Cayce writes another couple of paragraphs of his perceptions of how the fisheries are in worst shape, and numbers of fish have decline. And then he ends with these word "All this on your watch."

So, In my usual manner, I prepared my rebuttal with using the 30 plus years of data. So I want to leave you all with the "thesis" of data that I sent back to Mr. Cayce. There is a lot of history there, which I think that all anglers should have a chance to read. It's long.. so set back and enjoy. Hope all the graphs come through ok.

Mr. Dan Cayce, 1st District LKS Director

I always appreciate correspondence from anglers. I like to hear what concerns anglers have about the fishery of Kentucky and Barkley lakes. I don’t claim to always have the answer, but strive to collect the data to determine the best recourse. I respect your position as 1st District LKS Director, whereas you may be speaking on the behalf of many anglers. However, in many instances that I have communicated with you, I am often confronted with your misconceptions about these fisheries. I find that anglers often only have their fishing experience to reflect upon, or that of a few buddies. I like to use data we have collected to direct my thinking and understanding of these fisheries. This data is based on many days of sampling each year. The trend data we collected is often supported by creel data that we collected from anglers during roving creel surveys on the lakes. But, we are human, and not infallible. Therefore, I like to hear the perceptions that anglers have of the fishery.

My staff and I spend many hours on Kentucky and Barkley lakes sampling fish populations, creeling anglers and putting in fish habitat. Along with this work, there is some amount of time prepping equipment, key punching data, writing reports and eventually presenting the information in public settings and angler club meetings. I did a quick assessment of my time for this year (Jan. 1 to Dec. 8th). More than half (930 hrs.) of the hours that I have worked (1837 hrs.) where spent either on Kentucky or Barkley lakes sampling fish or putting in fish habitat (568 hrs.), key punching and analysis of data (222 hrs.) and presenting data (140 hrs.). The remainder of my time likely was allotted to maintenance of equipment, keeping up with recent fisheries literature and other fish studies, or tending to other fishery needs in the 14 county District that I am over. It is likely that my staff spent even more time on the lakes than I do, since I am often doing supervisory work and attending meetings. Needless to say, my staff and I spend a lot of time on Kentucky and Barkley lakes to sample the fishery. This is done so that we understand the changes that take place, and how to best manage for these changes. In my career, I have taken great pride to do whatever it took to understand the fishery, and apply the best management practice to maintain not only sustainable yield of the fishery, but to attempt to push for a quality fishery, despite the many environmental factors that I have no control over. The one thing that I have learned, is that things change over time, some of which we have no control. Just like you have aged over the past 30 years, the reservoirs have changed and the fisheries have responded to those changes. I would like to address some of the perceptions that have lead you to believe that the fisheries have gotten worse on my watch, with factual data, and not just the discontent of a few anglers.

Graphs of fish data are not new to you, I have used similar data when I have met with you and other sportsmen groups. The graph below illustrates the largemouth bass fishery in regards to harvestable size of bass over the past 34 years. This is standardized electrofishing sampling data that shows the trends of the population over time. Over time there has been some better years, which were stimulated by drought years and increased aquatic vegetation in the lakes. While there have also been some poor years, which were the results of poor spawn.


This next graph is similarly collected data for Lake Barkley. The same peaks can be observed in the data that are present in the KY Lake data. Both lakes saw a decline in the 2010-2011 numbers, but this was really more reflective of sampling conditions. As you may recall these were record flood years, and these high waters affected our ability to sample the lakes. In 2011, we were not even able to sample Lake Barkley due to extreme flooding. In the past decade, we have not seen any great year classes, but the fisheries have been stable and not showing a trend of continued decline. High numbers of young of the year bass from the 2016 spawn will likely improve the catch of these larger bass in a few more years.



These next two graphs reflect what bass anglers have experienced on the lakes. This data is based on thousands of bass anglers that were creeled while fishing the lakes. The trend of Kentucky Lake has been a steady increase of bass caught per hour by anglers, though the drop (1998) in angler catch aligns with the change in the population we saw at KY Lake with our electrofishing data during the same period. While anglers catch at Barkley has had some ups and downs, these trends also reflect our electrofishing data. These years of lower catch can be related to our data for small bass, which reflects the poor spawn. But these ups and downs show that the populations are cyclic, based on good and poor years’ classes, and not a steady decline as you suggest that have occurred over the past 30 years.





The quality bass fishery in our lakes can further be illustrated by the catch in tournament data. Here is a graph of data from the BFL annual fall tournament on the lakes.



You mentioned sauger as one of your concerns. The underlying problem with the lake’s sauger fishery, is that the lakes have changed over time. Sauger by natures design are a riverine species that prefer more turbine water. This may help explain why sauger populations have declined over time, as the lakes have aged since impoundment. There are a few studies that have shown how sauger distribution and range has decreased from historical ranges because of degraded and fragmented habitat conditions. This condition typically occurs as dams are built to turn rivers into reservoirs. Diversions and dams affect habitat and spawning areas of sauger. Altering flows caused by dams, decrease turbidity, reduce flows, and increase water temperatures. These are all critical requirements for sauger to successfully spawn. The decline in angler catch is a direct result of a decline in the population due to man’s intervention to prevent flooding, create hydropower and increase navigation through the construction of dams. The decline in the sauger population has nothing to do with poor management. Although harvest was higher in the early 80’s, still only about 1-2% of all anglers fishing the lakes, fished for sauger. In the 1984 creel survey, it was estimated that only about 24,000 sauger were harvested, which made up about 3% of the total harvest all fish from the lake. Over harvest or poor management never lead to the decline. However, in an attempt to do something, in the 1990’s we implemented a size limit, to help protect the numbers of spawning sauger. But no positive growth in the population was observed. Protection was not needed, because overharvest was not the issue. The ecological change from riverine habitat to a reservoir was occurring, and to make matters worse, they are aging reservoirs.

Brailing for mussels on the lakes was once an issue. Brailing for mussels was a user conflict issue we had to deal with on the lakes. Musseling has long since been discontinued, but many user conflicts still exist on the lake. As a manager of the lake, one of my concerns is to balance the needs and uses of the resource, and not to sway the management to one user group or another. But there has to be boundaries for all users to play by. Just as commercial anglers use the lake to make profit, fishing guides use the resource to make a profit; the mussel brailers were using the resource to make a profit. All awhile the recreational angler might have issues with anyone of these user groups. Many of the meetings you referred to dealt with user conflicts on the lakes. The meetings did allow each user group to be heard. With the information we collected, boundaries were set which dictated where brailers could brail for mussels. Embayments were excluded from waters where they could brail to reduce user conflicts and eliminate loss of habitat in the embayments. Certain boat ramps were off limits to brailers to help reduce user conflicts. Shell size limits were set to prevent overharvest. The main reason we never allowed diving for mussels was because of its high efficiency. If we would have allowed diving, the native mussel population could have quickly been depleted. This is evident from data collected in other states that did allow diving. There were other changes that limited the number of brailers on the lake, such as putting a cap on the number of licenses sold (see graph below). But with so many resource user groups, it just took a few years for a consensus to be made. The long term goal of limiting the number of brailers on the lakes, came much sooner than planned since the price and need for shells declined in the Chinese pearl market.

(Graph did not come through, but it showed how the number of mussels decreased by 1991.)

Regarding white bass, I can partially use some of the information that I wrote about sauger. An aging reservoir and changing habitat lead to not the most favorable conditions that white bass prefer. Overfishing, and/or the lack of regulations did not lead to a decline of white bass in the lakes. White bass was also one of the underutilized fisheries of the lake. Only about 4% of all anglers fishing the lakes, fished for white bass. In the 1984 creel survey, the harvest of white bass made up only 11% of all fish harvested from the lake that year. The change in population of white bass likely followed changes in the reservoir and not poor management. White bass typically use shallow rivers or creeks of a reservoir for spawning. These areas often become degraded because of low flows and siltation. However, occasionally weather patterns and flow patterns are ideal for white bass spawning, and a good year class is produced. This occurred a few years ago, and hence the catch and harvest of white bass in the 2017 creel survey was up.

Here is a chart of the harvest of Morone species from Lake Barkley from those anglers targeting them. The fish family of Morones consist of white bass, striped bass, hybrids and yellow bass. The creel data I have used has them all lumped together, but basically this is anglers fishing for white bass, although they catch the other species. Though anglers typically harvest white bass, striped bass and the larger yellow bass. Other than the one strong season in 1985, the rest of the years suggest a stable population based on angler’s harvest.



With the “invasion” of Asian carp into the tailwaters and eventually the lakes is not something that we planned. Their presence has caused fishing to change in the tailwaters and will, if not already, change fishing patterns in the lakes. However, their direct effect on the fishery is not seen in creel data of anglers. I did a quick review of creel data from the Kentucky tailwater; see the graphs below. The catch of largemouth bass (Black bass) is up. The harvest of catfish was at a similar level in 2015 that was seen in the 1991 creel and 1984 creel. Sauger fishing is down, but it was down before Asian carp were in the tailwaters. Anglers had some great catches and harvest for white bass in the 1980’s, but numbers following the invasion of carp are similar to some old creel data from back in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The striped bass fishery also had some good years , but the population is down once again like it was in 1991, based on angler creel data.








Although, I agree, the Asian carp are not a good thing, and we need to continue to reduce their numbers.
When commercial anglers began catching Asian carp in the lakes during 2004, the Department began at that time being proactive to the potential problem they could cause in the lakes. Mr. Ron Brooks made a few trips to Washington DC to speak with representatives and senators about the potential problems and lack of funding. More recently, after setting through meetings with other states, I am convinced that Kentucky is years ahead of other states in the efforts to control the carp populations. Our agency has made several proactive moves to increase funding, staff and equipment in the efforts to control the Asian carp populations in our waters. We have seen commercial harvest drastically increase in the past few years. Below is a graph of commercial harvest over the past 12 years since we have had Asian carp in the lakes. At the present time, most of our efforts are being put into promoting commercial harvest, and helping to promote the industry to increase the demand, hence increase the harvest. I think the graph below shows that our efforts are working. We will continue to promoting and aid commercial harvest. There is also research being done to better understand how the carp use the reservoir, which will likely be information used by commercial anglers to better target them. There will be some additional changes to commercial fishing made in 2018 as funding continues to increase.



We have observed an increasing number of cormorants on the lakes in the past 20 years. These have the potential to be a problem for the fishery, since they feed on fish. But they also degrade habitat around the lakes, such as the vegetation on islands where the birds roost. However, we have proven through two diet studies, that the cormorants eat very few sportfish. The below graph illustrates the cumulative annual diet of cormorants on the lakes. Annually their diet consists mostly of shad. Which, in an indirect way could have negative effects on the sportfish. However, since the cormorants have been on the lakes since the mid 1990’s, there has been no declining trend in any sportfish population that can be linked to the increasing number of cormorants. In regards to harvest of cormorants, I would like to use some information given to me by Dr. John Brunjes (Migratory Bird Program) of our Department. “Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act only species listed as a game bird can be hunted. If I remember correctly, that list includes 57 bird species. Any species not on that list cannot be hunted without a revision to the treaty (which means getting Canada, Mexico, Russia and Japan to agree). Cormorants are not on that list so we will never have the option of hunting them. What happened in SC (South Carolina) was them taking advantage of a loophole in the Cormorant Depredation Order (DO) to deputize their hunters as agents of the state. That action, got the USFWS and SC sued and has resulted in the suspension of the DO. At some point the USFWS will complete a new EA (Environmental Assessment) and there will likely eventually be a new DO. I am assured the loophole that allowed “hunting” will be firmly closed. The expectations are that the future DO will allow some level of control for government entities. We would be able to take advantage of that to protect the vegetation in combination with a harassment program. Keep in mind, the formerly “liberal” DO only allowed for killing 10% of a population. I would not expect a future DO to allow that level of take so there will need to be a lot of harassment to protect the islands.”




During a time when the crappie population was on the decline, because of poor spawns, we entertained the ideal of stocking crappie at the lakes. This request came from concerned anglers. Despite having read about similar stocking studies failures in other states, we moved forward to try a five year (2009-2013) stocking project. We initially planned to stock Little River (Lake Barkley) and Blood River (Kentucky Lake), but after the first year of splitting up the number of fish available, we decided to put all of the small white crappie in one embayment. We found that stocking a small number (49,000 in Blood River) was having no affect, therefore the following years we used the fish allocated for Little River to increase the stocking at Blood River. The bottom line is that even stocking at almost 800,000 small white crappie over a five-year period did not increase the catch of white crappie by anglers. In 2016, three years after the last stocking, where roughly 300,000 white crappie were stocked in 2013; we examined 159 white crappie harvested by anglers from Blood River, and found only one to be a stocked fish. Not only did the stocking not improve angler catch of crappie in Blood River, during the study, the population at Blood River actually declined, based on trapnet data, while that of Jonathan Creek increased where no stocking was occurring (see graph below). This clearly suggests there are some natural density dependent factors that regulate the population that are not understood.




We did discuss several times about developing a crappie hatchery on Lake Barkley with you and some anglers. We additionally met with officials from the USCOE and KY DOT at proposed sites. However, the logistics and cost of creating such hatchery ponds in the flood plains of the lake did not make such a project feasible. But, not to point the finger at these other agencies as being the ones that stopped such a project; the biology of crappie populations, and the results of our previous stocking project suggested that stocking would not help, so why create the hatchery ponds. The problem with crappie populations is not about having greater numbers of adults to spawn in the lake, although you have to have a few, the problem is that their population is very cyclic due to natural density dependent factors that regulate their population density. In addition to these natural factors, there is also the issues of environmental conditions that can greatly affect the spawn of crappie. A few of the more noted conditions are winter time flow patterns and spring time water level fluctuations. Looking at a graph of age 1 crappie from our trap netting data for the past 30 years, it is obvious there have been some years of good spawns followed by years of poor spawn. We know it takes about 3 years for crappie to reach 10 inches, therefore these good and poor year classes affect what anglers will catch in the following years. You even mentioned this in your letter; you recalled good fishing of 2012. We have the regulations about as restrictive as we see needed at the present time to reduce the potential of overharvest during the years of good fishing.

To address redear sunfish, two things happened which lead to the need for a regulation on redear. We noticed, as you mentioned, that bow fishermen were targeting redear sunfish during the spawning period using gigs and archery gear to harvest them. It was actually one of my staff that saw an ad in a bow fishing magazine promoting such take on redear. I forwarded that information to Mr. Benji Kinman (Fishery Director at the time). At that current time gigging for redear was legal, because they were not listed as sportfish. Hence we changed the regulation and listed them as a sport fish. In a 1998 creel survey, only 1,015 redear were harvested. The clear water during drought years, and vegetation lead to condition in the lakes that redear preferred, hence their population expanded. Creel surveys indicated that anglers were catching and harvesting higher numbers. By 2003, the number of redear harvested increased to 11,263. Therefore, the next step was to gain angler support for a creel limit. A statewide angler attitude survey (2003) asked the question regarding creel limits for redear sunfish. Of those anglers that had an opinion (753), 57% supported some measure of protection by placing a creel limit on this species. Of those that support a creel limit, 10% suggested a 10 fish creel limit, 25% and 22% suggested either a 20 fish or 30 fish creel limit, respectively. Hence, we went with a 20 fish limit.

Here is our creel data for the catch and harvest of redear sunfish at Lake Barkley. Based on angler catch, this population seems to still be growing.



Spider rigging (anglers using multiple poles) for crappie on the lakes continues to be monitored on the lakes. We have used creel data to help us model the effects to harvest by implementing pole limits for crappie anglers. If, and I repeat If, more restrictive regulations were needed to manage the crappie fisheries at the lakes, I would turn to poles limits. We do know from our creel survey data, that anglers that use multiple poles have greater fishing success over a shorter period of time. We have communicated with biologist in Mississippi about their success and challenges of pole limits to reduce harvest of crappie in their lakes. However, for us overharvest is not the issue on our lakes. Cyclic populations driven by variable recruitment (good and poor spawns) is the problem. Protecting a few more fish, in theory may lead some to think these protected fish will produce a few more fish, but that is not the case. The modeling of pole limits that we have completed suggest that going to a 3 pole limit will only reduce the harvest at the lakes by about 4.8%. That percent reduction only equates to about 5,000 fish potentially saved. I agree, this represents a few more fish left in the population to potentially spawn, but numbers to spawn is not the issue right now. Not considering natural density dependent factors, the environmental conditions at occur during the spawning period are the issue. Changes to TVA and USCOE water level management on the lakes for flood control, navigation and hydropower might help to improve spawning.

Lastly, you state that the lakes are out of game fish to eat. Below is a graph of the total fish harvested from Lake Barkley based on thousands of anglers survived. At first glance, one will perceive that harvest has declined. However, the higher harvests seen in the 1980’s reflect a time when the daily creel limit for largemouth bass was 10 and the size limit was 12” and later increase to a 14” and one fish under regulation. Also during this time there was no size limit on crappie and the daily creel limit was 60. These two species alone comprised 65% of the fishing effort at the lakes. With the more restrictive regulations implemented during the 1990s, the harvest was reduced, while the quality of the fish harvested increased. In 1984 the average weight of bass harvested was 1.5 pounds, as compared to 2016 where it was closer to 2.5 pounds. The same trend is also seen with crappie, where the quality of average crappie harvest increased from 0.5 pounds to 0.8 pounds.



I hope this information, although very brief for a 30-year period, has shown you that the fisheries of the lake have not declined. There are some species that have not fared well as the lakes as aged, while other populations have had some good year and poor years. But there has been no continuous decline, due to any management decisions that I or the Department have made. I agree the fisheries, and lakes have changed in the past 30 years. Technology anglers use has also changed. I can’t always explain why some anglers have better days than others. But I do know anglers need to adapt to changes in the fishery and lake conditions.

Good read,thanks

Sent from my SM-S907VL using Tapatalk

Thanks for another great read. Some people open mouth insert foot. Happy retirement.

Thanks for all your work, Paul. Happy retirement.

As someone who has been active on KY and Barkley (before it was impounded) for over 50 years, I think the one word that could be used for the peak times of the late 80s on both lakes would be "GRASS".

From a sportfishing standpoint,

1:We started to see redears become a highly sought after fish then. Many of us had no idea they even existed until we started getting our poles yanked out of the boat by them.

2: Bass numbers were crazy and with the 12"/10 fish limits, they got hammered.

3: Crappie went nuts in the grass and we started to be more aware of the black crappie as a different version instead of just during the spawn when the white crappie males darken up.

During that time, TVA was telling the public THEY WERE NOT, NOR WOULD THEY, SPRAY THE AQUATIC VEGETATION---all the while running an airboat spray rig every day, spaying the aquatic grass and killing it on LBL and west sides of the lake.

Many of us long to see the grass reestablished in both lakes.