I'm confused1

Micro -
I believe that Sparkey was proposing bait bans to protect juvenile steelhead. What better studies to use than those on trout . Steelhead juveniles are trout-like and trout size.

Your observations seem to be about hooking site location of adult steelhead (winters). I do have noticed the vast majority of the adultI caught on eggs were hooked in the jaw - non critical areas. However that was standard drifting eggs. However when I fished with no weight, on bait divers, or used prawns, craw-dads or sand shrimp the % hooked in critical areas (tongue , gill, egg, or gullet) goes up.

Virtually all the hooking mortality studies indicate that the mortality that occurs is dominated by were the fish is hooked - ie it is much more likely to die if hooked in a critical area. When spawn-outs or kelts were caught my obseratiions are that the number of fish hooked in critical areas on bait (even drifted eggs) was very similar to that found with trout - over 30%. There has been other discussions of kelts importance to the population elsewhere on this board.

In regards to your issue on the requirement of barbless hooks - I think you are referring to the situation on our marine salmon fisheries. The tribes/commerical don't really care much what we do with our non-salmon freshwater fisheries - a different can of worms if you will.

Stlhead -
I can appreciate your desire for consistent state wide regulations. However should the management be for the most conservative need or tailored to the needs of an individual system. For example in Sparkey's example on the Sky the early June closure was suggested becaused there are still numbers of fish still in the system. On the Sky wild winters begin spawning in early to mid-March, peaks in late April and continues into June. But that varies from system to system. On the Skagit the fish begin spawning in late March/early April, peaks mid-May and continues into July. On some coastal streams spawning begins in February,peaks in early April and ends in late May.

Do we have one size fits all regulation and keep all rivers closed until the 4th of July (protects the Skagit fish)? It seems to me if we want to balance resource protection with fishing opportunity then have some variation is desireable.

Sparkey-
Authors were Pauley and Thomas (U of W). If you can't find a copy give me a call. In another study the incidental steelhead parr caught were included and the mortality on them was the same (again over 30%). I choose to cite the above study as a variety of hooks sizes and lures were included in the same study and both issues seemed to be of concern in this discussion.

I don't know of any estimates of the number of incidental smolts being caught. However consider for a moment - there are about 80,000 steelhead fishers in the state. Lets say that 50% of those use bait (could be more or less) and each catch 10 juvenile steelhed a year that would be 400,000, applying a 35% mortality yields 140,000 dead fish. If those fish would have had typially over-winter survival (50%) than would be 70,000 smolts. Given normal (is there such a thing?) smolt to adult survival that would be the same as 7,000 wild adult steelhead - almost identical to the average number of wild steelhead killed annually state wide in the mid-1990s. Of course that is only an hypothical and the number could be higher or lower - you each can decide for example whether the estimate of 10 juveniles per year per angler is high or low. I also realize that with that number of fish being caught even with artifical lures there would be significant numbers of dead fish - just a whole bunch less than with bait.

In debates on this issue one aspect that is often ignored is the effectiveness of bait. We are passionate about keeping our "eggs" because they are so darn effective for most anglers. Here "eggs" really means all bait and/or scents. That means we are dealing with a situation with both high catch rates and high mortality rates.

Hope some of the above is useful.

Tight lines
Smalma

Smalma, my post was my own and not reflective of the positions of any of the chapters or groups I belong to.

In recent years there has been concern over escapement for the Skykomish winter steelhead, necessitating the closing of the March and April C&R fisheries. I agree with this strategy. I agree we must error in favor of the fish. In recent years there has also been a June 1st opener on the Sky which leads me to believe that there was minimal risk during this time to late spawning wild winter steelhead. I would like to see an opportunity for a recreational fishery on Skykomish hatchery summer chinook but NOT at the expense of the wild winter steelhead. Is there a significant risk to winter steelhead in the Skykomish in June?

micropterus101: that's a good one! (Response 3) I guess you now prefer to use the words "a no brainer" instead of the word "common sense". You really do learn fast!


Smalma:

As always, you appear to have a pretty good knowledge about fishing and hooking mortality and fish biology. Without getting all the "other user groups" guys out there all excited, and ranting on about my "common sense", can you please help me out on a few question? Since this issue has nothing in the world to with "common sense", and only relates to the "real science", I need your expert opinion. I don't recall, but I don't think that I have ever disagreed with any of your remarks in any of your threads in the past years. So that should tell you; I highly respect your opinion and your expertise about fish.

First, I find your reply extremely informative about the Hooking mortality. But it leaves a few questions in mind that still need to be answered. Before I can make any logical conclusions about the study (Pauley and Thomas) and its results, I need just a few questions answered about hook mortality on trout and smolts, so please bear with my questions. I know that you will not take offence to my questions like other sometime tend to so heres number one!

The study that you have referred to only address hook sizes:

# 10 hooks was 39.5%
with bait and #6 hooks was 46.5%
with bait and #2 hooks was 58.1%
with bait and #1/0 hooks was 40.7%
with spinner with teble hook - 23.8%
with spinner with single hook - 15.9%
(bait and spinners, barb and.)

Since this was a study that was basically (I an assuming that) done for cutthroat trout, why in the devil wasn't "flies" used also for comparison, or were they used? Is not fly fishing one of the most popular methods that is used for catching cuts? If so, do you have those figures too and will you show us them? I AM not attempting to put the fly guy against the bait guy! I just need an unbiased answer. It would appear that #10 and #6 hooks are still pretty high when it comes to hooking mortality rates. I was always under the impression from what I have seen and heard that fly hooks are not the same in size as bait hooks are. Is that correct? Maybe Sparky can help me out on that one.

If that was so, did the study take that into consideration? Do you know of any study that has taken "hook style" into consideration? All I ever hear about is single or trebbel! It's always been my own opinion that the style and size of the hook is a major factor in what damage is done to a fish. What is your opinion on that?

Something about this bait thing really gets people excited on this board, and they don't want to see the other side view to the issue (that include both sides). If we are to use "science", then let's use "all the science" and not just our own personal biases. I for one am not yet clear about this size or hook style issue and I know that there are lots of others out there that feel the same way. My question is valid, and it should be taken into consideration by the WDFW before they consider placing any restrictions on any river. Fly guys are great fishermen, but they need to be fair when it comes to reviewing all the science before recommending any solutions for the cure (so do bait guys).

Finally, I could support a no bait restriction recommendation IF (and only if) the science that is used to support conclusion was used in an unbiased fashion. By that, I mean a study must have the appropriate protocols. The protocols must be set by, and agreed to by both the fly, bait, and hardware fishermen. It just seems to me (not a fact) that there has never been such a study put together yet (maybe one does exist). It appears to be either my-way or no-way 99% of the time. I am sure that if those "mutually" supported studies are their, I and this board will be hearing shortly about them.

Thanks for your answer ahead time Smalma

Cowlitzfisherma

I just found this report. I think it speaks volumes
Rainbow trout Mortality Flies 6-11% Bait 25-64%.
Source: Hooking Mortality - a review for recreational fisheries 1994. Reviews in Fisheries Science. 2(2):123-156.

I don't know anything about this review but the numbers seem to be what some people are going to look for. I doubt that we will ever see a report done on Teimco 7999 (steelhead fly hook) and Gami's size 2. All hooks are some what different. A size 2 bait vision hook will not be the same as a size 2 bait Gami, will not be the same as a size 2 Diachi fly hook.

JJ

I am still looking. I still have'nt found a study on hooking mortality of wild steelhead fry or smolts. Plenty on trout.

Contrary to popular belief my prefered fishing method is not eggs, though for silvers eggs come a close second. For steelhead I still prefer drift bobbers of various sorts and jigs. Ah heck! I'll use anything them suckers will bite! But I dont Like to be told how to fish, and I dont like it when a specific group of fishermen is singled out. Except for netters BAN ALL NETS! That will bring the fish back. There is plenty of studies that prove that!

I just dug out some more hooking mortality reports on trout.

1: Rainbow trout Bait 30% artificial 5-10% Fly 5-10%
Mongillo, PE 1984 A summary of slmonid hooking mortality. Washington department of Game, Fish management division

2: Rainbow trout Bait 21.6-32.1% Fly 3.9% No artifical numbers
Schisler, George, J 1995 Survival of Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) caugth and released on scented artificial baits. MS Thesis, Colorado State Universit

3:Resident trout different species Bait 31.% artificial 4.9% Fly 3.8%
Trotter, Pattrick 1995Hooking mortality of trout. Fly Fisherman 26(3)16-27

4: Resident trout different species Bait 25% Artificial 5% Fly 5%
Wydoski, R. S. 1977 Relation of hooking mortality and sublethal hooking stress to qualy fishery management In RA Barnhart and TD Roelofs (ed.) Catch and Releas fishing as a management too. Humboldt State University.

Again these are the statsitcs I have found in Report by Hooton from BC in April 2001. I don't know about the individual experiments so I will let the numbers stand for themselves.

JJ

For what its worth, some more hooking mortality data from Canada:

Barbed hooks with bait 9.1%
Barbed hooks no bait 4.5%
Barbless with bait 3.0%
Barbless no bait 2.6

Total Mortality 5.1%
Total # of fish handled- 336 over 2 years

These data were generated by fisheries biologists capturing fish with hook and line on the Keogh River on Vancouver Is. I would think that handling stress and perhaps playout stress would be lower with this dataset than one generated by recreational anglers simply because professional bios were doing the collecting. But what I find particularly interesting is the difference between barbed and barbless. It would appear that barbed hooks are a larger contributor to hooking mortality than bait.

Barbed/bait or baitless 7.2%
barbless/bait or baitless 2.2%

From the perspective of management and setting seasons, I guess the most important question to ask is what is the largest contributor to angler related mortality--adult, juvenile, or kelt. If its adult mortality, the data above speaks for itself, we should go barbless but not necessarily baitless. If its juvenile mortality, perhaps we should reconsider bait (though I wonder if mortality could be reduced considerably by going barbless; however haven't seen any studies). If its kelt protection, a seasonal restriction (late spring/early summer) should be considered.

How's this fly for a conservative strategy to protect fish during lean runs years:

- wild steelhead release (I'll leave alone whether it should be state wide)

- Year-round barbless for the protection of all adults

- Summer bait ban to protect actively foraging juveniles contingent on fufilling study priorities

- Spring/summer seasonal restriction for kelt outmigration-- Angler related mortality within this relatively small group I do not believe would contribute to population protection. Although percent mortality would be high, total catch is low; therefore not likely necessary.

- Study priorities - smolt mortality
- Quantify smolt mortality by anglers
- Does smolt vulnerability to anglers differ by river reach
- Does smolt vulnerability change sub-seasonally--i.e., during spring outmigration, snow melt, summer lows
- Have resident trout studies looked at bait with barbless hooks? Does this make a difference?

Obviously the investigation of smolt mortality would take $$; but WDFW is not void of study dollars. I think from a fisheries management perspective its importance warrants priority. There are a lot of bait guys out there that would P & M if that were taken away during the summer (me included). Such studies may allow the use of a smaller blanket when making restrictions.

Micro,

What do you think Steelhead smolt are. They are rainbow trout. Steelhead smolt can become resident rainbows and resident rainbows can migrate out to sea and come back as steelhead. So they are the studies you are looking for.

JJ

does anyone know if our stealhead from washington travel throughout the entire pacific ocean or jus up to alaska and back? i personally see a huge decline in all ocean species of recent due to pollution, like the soviets dumping 800-900 tons of nuclear waste in the sea of japan, im sure that stuff has made its way to our waters by now, and with all the whales beaching themselves, and dead this and dead that showing up on shore, im more sure that there is more to the stealhead/salmon not showing up then a hook mortality issue, btw, ive tried gammie circle hooks for trout, and i couldnt get a good hookset on them..they would swallow it tho..

Originally posted by 4Salt:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you know it was the commercial and tribal fishermen that pushed for barbless hooks in the first place?


a good example would be the springer fishing on the columbia, why can you use barbed hooks ?, could it be that they have a greater mortality and would get the sport season over sooner so the commercial clowns can go out ? wouldnt the season last longer if the impact on endangered fish was less ?

Smalma, the point I am trying to get at is:
For example take the Hoh, which opens May 16th versus puget sound rivers opening June 1. For two weeks puget sounders who desire to fish will make the trek to the Hoh adding pressure to that system. Now push the puget sound rivers opening date back two weeks. That's four weeks of extra heavy pressure on the Hoh. Add in hook mortality. I don't know if the extra death is negligable or not but I really hate this "bubble" mentality because of the extra pressure placed on other areas. I know there are no easy answers but these effects never seem to enter the equation.

all I know is that when you catch a fish big or small with a barbed hook you have to handle the fish to get the hook out and if your smooth with a barbless hook you just grab the hook shank and the fish slides off with nary a finger print, I personally think there should be a bait ban on alot of areas in question. indians net this and indians net that so I can fish any way I want, grow up and get a clue people.

and yes those fly fisherman who think this is some montana stream using varouis small barbes flies are more than likely having a large mortality rate among juvenile steelhead and salmon squeezing I mean holding them to take the fly out.

Cowlitzfisherman -
Thanks for the kind words. I try to bring some of my limited knowledge to these discussion in hope that it helps to clarify issues. While I can't claim to be the expert fisherman that many at this site are I'm an avid life long angler and I try to temper "my science" with on the water observations.

The hooking mortality literature has had good agruement that mortalities form using flies is low (generally less than 10%). At the time of the Pauley/Thomas study cited the major controversy was surrounding the use of bait on anadromous waters and whether limiting the hook size (either larger or smaller) would provide relief from mortalities. To add additional variables would have complicated the study as well as requiring the researchers to catch more fish (they had a difficult time catching their needs as it was).

There is good general agreement among the researchers that much of the mortality is caused by the damage the hook does (amount of bleeding) and that certain locations are more damaging than others. The critical areas have been determined to be the eye, the gills, the tongue and the esophagus. These areas of course have large blood supplies thus any damage is likely to cause bleeding. Fish hooked in these "critcal" areas were much more likely to die than those hooked in non-critcal areas (rest of the mouth and jaws). To compare the relative lethal impacts from various gear all one has to do is to compare the % of the fish hooked in critical areas - a mehtod that results in twice the number fish hook in critical areas will have higher mortalities.

In Pauley/Thomas they had 178 fish caught with bait of which 99 or 55.6% hooked in critical areas. They found that the average mortality for critically hooked fish was 70%; about 4 times that of non-critically hooked fish. For those critical areas the mortality varied from a low of 53.8% for those fish hooked in the eye to 95.5% for those hooked in the gills.

To get at what the potential mortality might be for fly caught sea-run cutthroat I kept track of where fish were hooked (critical verus non-critical) over several years during my fishing. While I didn't record the results of all my fishing when I did keep track of hook site location for all cutthroat caught on a given trip. I tried to fish several times a year and on several rivers (Stillaguamish, Snohomish and Skagit systems). Fishing was done with mostly size 6 and 4 flies (occassionally size 8s). The flies were tied on mustad 3399A if that is important. Hopefully my sample size is large enough to be valid.

I recorded the hook site location from a total of 672 fly caught cutthroat. Only 33 or 4.9% were hooked in critical areas. This is less than 1/10 of that found by Pauley/Thomas on bait caught fish. Clearly the hooking mortality for fly caught fish is much lower than that with bait. This is further backed up with my own water observations. I generally see only 1 floater (immediate mortality) every 3 or 4 trips (about 1 out of every 100 fish released). Generally the total mortality (including delayed) is only 2 to 5 times the immediate mortality.

I don't have any knowledge of studies down with different style hooks other than treble, siwash, circle etc. However if you are interested it is straight forward to compare the % of critcially hooked fish in you own fishing. For example I noticed that if I used long shank hooks I tended to hook more fish in the eye (evidently the fly rolled on the fish's take and ended in its eye -ouch). As a result I no longer use long shank hooks.

As you suggested Sparkey maybe able to give you a more definitive on variability of hook size between various styles. It is my obseration that hook size (gap - distance between point and shank) has some variability between those styles that I'm familar with but are generally close in size (within a size or so).

Stlhead -
I can gompletely understand your desire to have consisitent regulations. However with increasing pressures on a complex resource (different species, behaviors, and population status) we are going to be faced with either complex regulations or reduced opportunities (simple seasons).

Are you suggesting that the opening date on the Hoh be moved to June 1 or in Sparkey's example June 15th?

Berkley boy75-
Our steelhed migrate out into the Pacific Ocean with fish going west of the international Date Line. It is doubtful that pollution would effect just steelhead as sockeye, pinks and chums also much of the same areas.

Note - the hooking mortality cited by Obessed is for adult winter steelhead.

Tight lines
Smalma

While were on the subject of hooking mortality in the case of adults why not make it illegal to hold a fish out of the water if that fish is being released. I think the mortality rates would go down if the fish was never touched. How many pictures of a 10# steelhead do you need.

Getting back to the subject of bait and juvenile steelhead. You would think people would just like to have the opportunity to fish and not care as much about the gear that they could use. I am with sparkey it doesn't make any sence to have the juveniles killed by bait if there is anyway to avoid it and still allow a recreational fishery. And if the rivers are closed in March and April because of few wild fish the river should be closed until all wild winter runs are through doing there duty.

The time is now to make these hard decisions. If wild winter runs continue to dwindle in the puget sound streams were liable to see a mass reduction in hatchery plants and a complete closure of rivers.
Shouldn't we error on the side of the fish, or are we just worried about our so called "right" to fish.

Right on Rockfish, agree w/yer comments 100%.

JoJo -- sounds like what I was tryin to get across w/my earlier post.

Lottsa good info on this thread. Someday when I've got some spare time I'm gonna hafta sit down and research the various factors affecting hooking mortality.

I will post anything interesting that I may come across (whether it supports my viewpoint/opinions or not)

Sincerely,
Roger

In your example "On some coastal streams spawning begins in February,peaks in early April and ends in late May." So yes I would think if the delaying of the opener on Puget Sound systems helps fish then delaying the opener on the Hoh could only help fish. I didn't realize that some of the Skagit's spawn into July. So maybe that opener should be delayed into July. But personally I'd rather see everything open June 1, or June 15 or whatever date that both spreads the pressure and ensures healthy runs.

smalma,

Thanks for the great info here.

It is definately time to error on the side of the fish not the fisherman.

The rivers still need people on them to watch out for them and protect them.

JJ

Very inforative topic (got me to register).

So, after reading all this, and knowing that we "don't know" if the hatchery steelhead will show up late or not, if I catch a hatchery steelhead on the Sky this weekend should I release it too?

Drastic times... Should we implement our own personal closures even if the WDFW doesn't?

dv

Oh contrair monfrair, Steelhead were reclasified as salmon several years ago. They are now under the name:
(Oncorhynchus Mykiss) Instead of the previous (Salmo Gairdneri) Some books still list them as Salmo Gairdneri but they are wrong. I am not sure but I think cutthroat trout have alson been reclassified as salmon (Oncorhychus Clarki Clarki) Instead of the previous (Salmo Clarki Clarki)

micro,

JJ is right....you're not. Both resident and anadromous rainbows (steelhead) are classified as O. mykiss. They aren't salmon, either, just members of the same genus. Salmon and trout are layman's terms.

He's also right that resident rainbow offspring can migrate out and become steelhead, and steelhead offspring can remain where they are and become resident rainbows.