Fisheries Management Topics: Livescope / Forward Facing Sonar and its Effects on Fisheries

It has been dubbed "video game fishing" and it has been discussed and has been controversial enough that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) had a question about its use on the Spring Hearings "ballot". Crappie regulations in some southern reservoirs have already been reduced due to increased ability of anglers to harvest fishes. And there is at least some anecdotal evidence to suggest that increased catchability of large, long-lived fishes like Muskellunge could lead to increased catch and release related mortality. At least that is the story put forward by Larry Ramsell in a MeatEater podcast (below).

Yes, this topic probably does not have a whole lot to do with fly fishing but it is a fisheries management topic that deserves some attention and I find it interesting. There are a number of reasons that livescope / forward facing sonar is somewhat controversial. Aside from the biological concerns, there are concerns about fishing becoming increasingly a case of the "haves vs. the have nots". They are quite expensive tools, tools that the weekend angler may not be willing or able to afford. But they are "fishing against" those with livescope - that is, fishes can be caught and harvested that are more or less unavailable to non-livescope users. But how can we regulate social issues like that? The "have nots" are already disadvantaged by gear, forward facing sonar is just one more step, no?

Users of the technology will tell you it is not that simple, there is a significant learning curve associated with using it, and that it alone will not make you a better angler. And to a large degree, they are correct. And they would also be correct to say that this isn't the first - nor will it probably be the last - technology that "changes angling as we know it". I don't know that the conversation around side scan sonar was quite as robust but I am fairly sure similar conversations existed. The same is (maybe?) true of flashers, particularly for ice fishing where they are quite deadly as are underwater cameras.

My knowledge of livescope is all second hand, what I can glean from what I have read and watched. However, what I can say - because it has been repeated - is that livescope does two important things for the angler. First, it allows anglers to find fishes in any direction. This is compared to standard downward sonar which scans a relatively small cone below the boat and compared to side scan which generally produces images to the side of the boat boat. Forward-facing sonar is effective in finding suspended fishes, particularly those associated with cover like submerged timber. This is why much of the conversation as been around southern crappies. And secondly, it allows anglers a real-time view of how fishes are reacting to a bait, lure, or fly. In this way, it is sort of like a flasher for ice fishing. Of course, you still have to get them to bite and they don't always do that, no matter what you do.

Biological Impacts

Three main potential concerns come to mind, 1) overharvest of fishes is the most obvious, 2) increased catch and release mortality, and 3) over-educating fishes (I don't know how possible this is). There is evidence that the first has happened in a number of fisheries - of crappie, in particular. The second, there is a lot of talk about but little evidence at this time to support that it is a legitimate concern. The third, well, that will be much harder to provide any evidence of and the biology behind it is pretty questionable.

Overharvest is certainly a problem for some fisheries - panfishes like crappie and Bluegill, Walleye, some long-lived fishes like Paddlefish and some sturgeon species. For other fisheries, harvest is generally pretty negligible and does not have a population level effect (for more on the topic of mortality). For example, so few people are keeping bass and musky on most waterbodies so that harvest is generally not an issue. However, catch and release mortality may be significant for these species - even at pretty high mortality rates, having a biological impact from C&R alone is pretty rare.

Scarneccia and Schooley's (2022) article, "Trophies, Technology, and Timescape in

Fisheries Management, as Exemplified through Oklahoma’s World Record Paddlefish Polyodon spathula" provides maybe the best look at how modern technologies can alter fishing and fisheries management. If you are not familiar with western Paddlefish fisheries, catching is done by snagging these planktivorous fishes. Historically, this meant a lot of random casting and "ripping" the heavily-weighted line through the water. Live-imaging allows Paddlefish snaggers to target specific fish and "chase a record". Many of these fisheries also allow catch-and-release fishing which means a likelihood of some relatively unknown amount of catch-and-release mortality. The accuracy and precision of live-imaging and the relative rarity of Paddlefish, live-imaging sonar is a great tool for the angler and something that fisheries managers must be cognizant of. This tool allow anglers to know exactly where to cast and exactly when their hooks are going to encounter a fish.

Hopefully more research about the effects on livescope technology will be published. Currently, it is difficult to find much literature to support any conclusions. One article on Blue Catfish (Neely et al. 2023) concluded the following:

Results from this study suggest that the use of LIS may influence Blue Catfish angler perception and behavior more than catch.

Others, like Feiner et al. (2020), show that those using electronics do catch more panfish. I am guessing with most things fishing, for those that know how the use the technology and use it often, it improves their catch rates. They did show that 80% of panfish anglers were using technology while ice fishing (typically a flasher). More than anything, there is a lot we do not know / understand about how technology has changed angling.

Most recently, Smith et al. (2025) wrote about live-imaging sonar (LIS) in Texas crappie fisheries and concluded that "Results suggest that LIS use has the potential to increase overall exploitation rates among the study reservoirs. Although exploitation may increase, we found that the potential for overfishing was minimal, given fishing mortality estimates as high as 79% and a 254-mm minimum length limit." In other words, crappie anglers with LIS caught and kept more fish but the dynamics of crappie suggest that natural mortality of crappie of that length/age is so high that angling mortality had little population-level effect. (For more about additive and compensatory mortality). What I found quite interesting was that on most lakes they surveyed, LIS users outnumbered non-users, and in Lake Fork, they outnumbered them 2:1.

Jordan Weeks, WDNR supervisory fisheries biologist on the Mississippi River, is part of an interesting conversation about musky conservation. Some of what he talks about is how to handle muskies to give them the best chance of a successful release. Of course, it is not rocket science. Handle them as little as you need to and as quickly as you can. Take a photo if you need to but keep them in the water until you are ready for the photo and then get them back in the water quickly and let them go. I like Jordan's response - it is basically, here's what the science says but if you "need" a picture, do it but try to do it all quickly. Certainly, I think, for fishes like muskies, experience in handling fish probably improves their survival. And as he suggests, fisheries professionals handle fishes a lot more than the average angler. I have surgically implanted Largemouth Bass with transmitters, a rather invasive process, and knew that they swam away "just fine" because I was able to track them with radio telemetry gear for months after their surgery. My short view on this is fishes are both tougher and more delicate than we sometimes give them credit for.

Quite honestly, about the only group online that irritates me more than the catch and release / fish handling police are those that seem to give zero shits about how fishes are handled and answer with "well, it swam away just fine" as if that is a meaningful answer. Fish swimming away "just fine" is not really an indicator of anything other than very short term survival. My short take on the "argument" is that we owe it to the fish to handle them in ways the maximizes their chances of survival if we are going to release that fish.

Back to technology...it is not something we are going to stop and put back in the bottle. It is questionable whether that would be a good idea or that it would have much affect. Where do we draw the line and why at live-imaging and not GPS units that can put you within feet of a rock bar or submerged down tree without you even having to have fished that body of water before? For many, technology like live-imaging and flashers that provide a near instantaneous "image" of their bait and the fish are part of the hunt. And for others, it is one more hassle to have to deal with. Personally, I want to see more evidence of the negative effects of live-imaging before we take any measures. However, I will add that I'd be more conservative with slow-growing, long-lived fishes like Paddlefish. I will also say that something that draws me to fly fishing and rivers is that technology is largely rendered useless and is secondary to the ability to read the water.

A few other videos on Livescope - and some opposing viewpoints.

Keith Meals is a regional fisheries biologist in Mississippi.

Literature Cited / References / Reading List

Cooke, S.J., Venturelli, P., Twardek, W.M., Lennox, R.J., Brownscombe, J.W., Skov, C., Hyder, K., Suski, C.D., Diggles, B.K., Arlinghaus, R. and Danylchuk, A.J., 2021. Technological innovations in the recreational fishing sector: implications for fisheries management and policy. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 31, pp.253-288.

Feiner, Z.S., Latzka, A.W., Wolter, M.H., Eslinger, L.D. and Hatzenbeler, G.R., 2020. Assessing the rage against the machines: do ice anglers’ electronics improve catch and harvest rates?. Fisheries, 45(6), pp.327-333.

Lant, M.J., Ogle, D.H., Feiner, Z.S. and Sass, G.G., 2022. A comparison of fish catch rates among local, non-local, and non-resident anglers of three northern Wisconsin lakes. Fisheries Research, 250, p.106286.

Neely, B.C., Koch, J.D. and Gido, K.B., 2023. Evaluating effects of live‐imaging sonar on angler catch of crappies in a Kansas impoundment. Fisheries, 48(2), pp.49-53. (open access)

Sass, G.G. and Shaw, S.L., 2020. Catch-and-release influences on inland recreational fisheries. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture, 28(2), pp.211-227. (open access)

Sass, G.G., LaMarche, S.T. and Feiner, Z.S., 2023. Do angler catch and harvest rates differ between open water and ice anglers in Wisconsin?. Fisheries Research, 263, p.106678.

Sbragaglia, V., Brownscombe, J.W., Cooke, S.J., Buijse, A.D., Arlinghaus, R. and Potts, W.M., 2023. Preparing recreational fisheries for the uncertain future: An update of progress towards answering the 100 most pressing research questions. Fisheries Research, 263, p.106662.

Scarnecchia, D.L. and Schooley, J.D., 2022. Trophies, technology, and timescape in fisheries management, as exemplified through Oklahoma's world record paddlefish Polyodon spathula. Fisheries, 47(9), pp.381-394.

Smith, D.R., Bennett, D.L., Norman, J.D. and Allen, M.S., 2025. Live-imaging sonar use in Texas crappie fisheries: Examining population-level responses due to potential increases in exploitation. Fisheries, p.vuae015.