Joined
·
243 Posts
Re: C&R Mortality, (not the dead fish post)
Since the original post went south as soon as the Dead Fish post came back on, I'd like to go back and continue the original since it is a very good post.
Where to begin... I will start with some of the links provided and go from there so here they are;
Here are some links, but definitely not all, regarding the issue...
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/recreational/recfishery99sprtcatch_e.htm
http://members.shaw.ca/AFGC/fishing study.htm
http://www.flyfishsteelhead.com/stories/playing.htm
http://www.bcadventure.com/adventure/angling/protalk/thornton/catchrelease.phtml
http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.html
In order listed. Link one is a mortality study on coho salmon, since this discussion was primarily about steelhead, the supplied info is not applicable to this discussion.
Link two. Probably the most usefull of the links provided with direct comparisons between bait and artificial lures. The fast break down, Keogh brood fisheries were used to provide most of the supplied info. Rivers that were also mentioned, but not as extensivly tracked were fish from the Thompson, Coquhalla, Squamish, Somass and Chilliwack. Most of the comparison is centered on the Keogh though and although it is an indepth study, there are very obvious biases against fishing with bait.
During the Keogh experiment, it quickly became evident that, in order to obtain the requisite sample size of steelhead hooked on artificial lures, it was necessary to commence angling sessions with that gear type. Despite a strong bias towards artificial lure fishing prior to using bait, lures caught 99 fish while bait produced 236 or 2.38 times as many for similar hours fished (data on file, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP), Nanaimo).
As noted earleer in section 1.1, Angling was generally prosecuted by highly trained, skilled and optimally equipped agency staff. The large majority of all fish they captured were taken using clusters of steelhead or salmon eggs on single hooks... On the surface, all appears to be equal yet I see a bias towards highly effective bait fishermen, not highly effective artificial lure fishermen. This also begs the question, what artificial lures were they using? Spinners and spoons? Were they using small wool ties? Pink worms? Spin-N-glos? Plugs? Jigs? The wording of artificial lures implies that they were using metal (spoons and/or spinners) but that they were predominantly bait fishermen, Angling was generally prosecuted by highly trained, skilled and optimally equipped agency staff. The large majority of all fish they captured were taken using clusters of steelhead or salmon eggs on single hooks , section 1.1 In easier terms, this implies that they were excellent bait fishermen but poor "artifical lure" fishermen. This is an obvious and very real bias in this study which only serves to put a greater emphasis on the effectivness of bait vs. the ineffectivness of artificials. Just because someone wails on the fish with bait does not automatically make them experts in all fields. After realizing this, many of the conclusions become very vague or irrelevant.
Yet even through a jaded view of bait vs. artificials, we still have this conclusion, Once again the immediate mortality rates (i.e., within 24 hours) were relatively low (5.6% for baited hooks and 3.8% for artificial lures, although barbed baited hooks resulted in a 9.1 % mortality rate) (Hooton, 1987). A difference of only 1.8% difference in mortality.
Taken from Summary and Conclusion #2
Observed differences between hooking mortality rates for bait fishing versus artificial lure or fly fishing relate to the incidence of hooks penetrating critical anatomical locations. Angling with bait consistently produces the highest frequencies of hooking fish deep inside the mouth where rupture of blood vessels (gill structures and heart) and puncture of the esophagus is common. Such injuries commonly result in severe bleeding that, in turn, produces high mortality. Artificial lures result in consistently lower hooking injury and mortality rates, and flies consistently the lowest rates because fish are almost always hooked on the periphery of the mouth or in the jaws where blood vessels are not contacted.
Focusing on the bold points, I would counter that given more adept artificial lure users and the numbers of fish encountered because of such a move, the number of bleeders would more closely match the numbers for bait caught fish. Regarding fly fishing, since there was no mention at all of fly fishing in this study I find it ludicrous that they even bring it up for comparison.
I point this out not to try and debunk this study, but to put into perspective how personal angling skills can push a seemingly transparent and equal study in one direction over another.
Links 3, 4 and 5 while usefull for handling and care of caught steelhead, do not provide information on mortality rates for bait and/or artificial caught steelhead.
I will end for now with some info from Eric Carlisles book West Coast River Angling. Under section 7 titled Managment, he relates that from Jan 1, 1974 to March 15, 1985 he has landed 1010 steelhead with a bleeder rate with organic baits (shrimp, roe, worms) of 3.67% of 843 steelhead. His bleeder rate on non organic lures from 167 steelhead was 3.59.
Since the original post went south as soon as the Dead Fish post came back on, I'd like to go back and continue the original since it is a very good post.
Where to begin... I will start with some of the links provided and go from there so here they are;
Here are some links, but definitely not all, regarding the issue...
http://www.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fraserriver/recreational/recfishery99sprtcatch_e.htm
http://members.shaw.ca/AFGC/fishing study.htm
http://www.flyfishsteelhead.com/stories/playing.htm
http://www.bcadventure.com/adventure/angling/protalk/thornton/catchrelease.phtml
http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.html
In order listed. Link one is a mortality study on coho salmon, since this discussion was primarily about steelhead, the supplied info is not applicable to this discussion.
Link two. Probably the most usefull of the links provided with direct comparisons between bait and artificial lures. The fast break down, Keogh brood fisheries were used to provide most of the supplied info. Rivers that were also mentioned, but not as extensivly tracked were fish from the Thompson, Coquhalla, Squamish, Somass and Chilliwack. Most of the comparison is centered on the Keogh though and although it is an indepth study, there are very obvious biases against fishing with bait.
During the Keogh experiment, it quickly became evident that, in order to obtain the requisite sample size of steelhead hooked on artificial lures, it was necessary to commence angling sessions with that gear type. Despite a strong bias towards artificial lure fishing prior to using bait, lures caught 99 fish while bait produced 236 or 2.38 times as many for similar hours fished (data on file, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (MELP), Nanaimo).
As noted earleer in section 1.1, Angling was generally prosecuted by highly trained, skilled and optimally equipped agency staff. The large majority of all fish they captured were taken using clusters of steelhead or salmon eggs on single hooks... On the surface, all appears to be equal yet I see a bias towards highly effective bait fishermen, not highly effective artificial lure fishermen. This also begs the question, what artificial lures were they using? Spinners and spoons? Were they using small wool ties? Pink worms? Spin-N-glos? Plugs? Jigs? The wording of artificial lures implies that they were using metal (spoons and/or spinners) but that they were predominantly bait fishermen, Angling was generally prosecuted by highly trained, skilled and optimally equipped agency staff. The large majority of all fish they captured were taken using clusters of steelhead or salmon eggs on single hooks , section 1.1 In easier terms, this implies that they were excellent bait fishermen but poor "artifical lure" fishermen. This is an obvious and very real bias in this study which only serves to put a greater emphasis on the effectivness of bait vs. the ineffectivness of artificials. Just because someone wails on the fish with bait does not automatically make them experts in all fields. After realizing this, many of the conclusions become very vague or irrelevant.
Yet even through a jaded view of bait vs. artificials, we still have this conclusion, Once again the immediate mortality rates (i.e., within 24 hours) were relatively low (5.6% for baited hooks and 3.8% for artificial lures, although barbed baited hooks resulted in a 9.1 % mortality rate) (Hooton, 1987). A difference of only 1.8% difference in mortality.
Taken from Summary and Conclusion #2
Observed differences between hooking mortality rates for bait fishing versus artificial lure or fly fishing relate to the incidence of hooks penetrating critical anatomical locations. Angling with bait consistently produces the highest frequencies of hooking fish deep inside the mouth where rupture of blood vessels (gill structures and heart) and puncture of the esophagus is common. Such injuries commonly result in severe bleeding that, in turn, produces high mortality. Artificial lures result in consistently lower hooking injury and mortality rates, and flies consistently the lowest rates because fish are almost always hooked on the periphery of the mouth or in the jaws where blood vessels are not contacted.
Focusing on the bold points, I would counter that given more adept artificial lure users and the numbers of fish encountered because of such a move, the number of bleeders would more closely match the numbers for bait caught fish. Regarding fly fishing, since there was no mention at all of fly fishing in this study I find it ludicrous that they even bring it up for comparison.
I point this out not to try and debunk this study, but to put into perspective how personal angling skills can push a seemingly transparent and equal study in one direction over another.
Links 3, 4 and 5 while usefull for handling and care of caught steelhead, do not provide information on mortality rates for bait and/or artificial caught steelhead.
I will end for now with some info from Eric Carlisles book West Coast River Angling. Under section 7 titled Managment, he relates that from Jan 1, 1974 to March 15, 1985 he has landed 1010 steelhead with a bleeder rate with organic baits (shrimp, roe, worms) of 3.67% of 843 steelhead. His bleeder rate on non organic lures from 167 steelhead was 3.59.