PFBC Angler Magazine Article - Trout Mortality vs. Technique?

[MBWCC]

I would appreciate help finding an article I believe I read in PFBC's Angler magazine. The article described a study conducted on a trout stream. If I remember correctly the basic premise of the study was that the folks fishing the stream were asked to bring their live trout catch to a check station to receive a prize. The trout so collected where then monitored to determine mortality rates versus technique (bait/lure/fly).

I believe the study was published in PFBC's Angler magazine within the past 2-3 years.

I have searched the archives on the PFBC website but can't seem to find the article. Any help locating it would be greatly appreciated.

References to additional scholarly articles or review articles on this topic would also be welcome.

 

[DriftingDunn]

I believe this was the study that was done during the Bald Eagle Creek Trout Tournament over the past three years. The results were published in Pennsylvania Outdoor News.

 

[MBWCC]

DriftingDunn wrote:
I believe this was the study that was done during the Bald Eagle Creek Trout Tournament over the past three years. The results were published in Pennsylvania Outdoor News.

Thank you -- this is a good lead. Unfortunately the PA Outdoor News article is a summary only. I wish to find the actual study article. I know I read it somewhere.

If anyone can point me at the actual study report I would appreciate the help.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

more information here. Not the report
http://www.centredaily.com/sports/outdoors/article69687357.html
http://www.littlejuniata.org/ljra-meeting-oct-2014/

 

[Zak]

This study, along with many others now-adays is pretty strong evidence of the misinformation spread about other forms of trout angling. Old outdated info that simply isn't true about hooking mortalities. It has a lot more to do with how one handles a trout then the method of which the trout was caught. Studies like this are the main reason why I think equipment restrictions are far past the time to be eliminated. Just let people fish however they want.

 

[afishinado]

The link is no longer available, but I posted info a while back about the mortality of trout in Missouri's stocked trout parks. They are stocked sections of streams with varying regulations. Some sections allowed fly-only, artificial lures as well as bait. These numbers are based on actual results from fishing day in and day out and based on how many trout must be restocked to maintain the section fished.

This is a perfect laboratory for studying mortality rates under realistic conditions. They studied mortality on a long-term basis through all months of every season. Many of the other studies I’ve read, were for a short-term and involved only few hundred anglers and fish. In these SR areas, many thousands of anglers catching many thousands of fish under actual conditions led them to their conclusions. One other note, since it is a pay-to-fish area, and trout are very expensive to raise, the Missouri Dept. of Conservation has a financial interest to protect. Here are their conclusions:

“Studies conducted by fisheries biologist across the country for the past 40 years, and most recently right here in Missouri, have documented that anglers can improve trout fishing just by changing what is on the end of their line. These studies have shown that trout caught and released using bait are five times more likely to die than trout caught and released using artificial lures or flies. In the trout management areas of Missouri, where minimum size limits require anglers to release sublegal size trout, the effects of bait fishing can have a detrimental effect on the fish population. Up to 80% of the sublegal size fish can die before they reach legal size of 15 or 18" in these areas.

Trout, like many other fish, use their sense of smell and taste when selecting food items. When a trout bites a food item, the scents released from the food can trigger the trout to hang onto its prey even more aggressively than if the smell and taste cues were not present. Unfortunately, this can lead to the hook penetrating very sensitive parts of the fish such as gills, esophagus, or even the heart located just under the skin in the lower rear part of the mouth.

Natural, prepared, and scented baits are often fished passively, meaning the bait is left to set on the stream or lake bottom, or suspended below a float, until the fish ingests it and begins to swim off. By this time the hook is usually deep in the fish's mouth. Because artificial lures and flies don't release scents, and because they are fished more actively by pulling them through the water, the time between biting and hooking is reduced, and the hook does not end up as deep in the trout's mouth. Therefore, if trout are to be released, their chances of survival are much greater if anglers use artificial lures or flies.

The use of artificial lures or flies when trout fishing will reduce catch and release mortality, resulting in more and larger fish for all anglers.”

 

[springer1]

Thanks for posting the above.

 

[Eccles]

There are a plethora of research articles on this topic. One thing worth highlighting is that though the focus is often on the technique it is the method of fishing that matters more as the Missouri study does mention in afishinado's post.

Studies on whether gear is fished actively (as most lure and fly fishermen do) or passively (as many bait fisherman do) show that this has a more significant impact than the technique used. When anglers use actively fished bait techniques - that is fishing with tight rather than slack lines, touch legering, more sensitive bobbers/floats, fisherman positioned ready to strike etc - there is no mortality difference to fly and lure fishing. It's the passive, slow response times to the indication of a bite that is the problem. It happens in fly fishing too with stocked or naive fish. A slow response to a take can see the fly set well back in the mouth or even gill rakers. The fish takes with confidence and has no reason for quick ejection of the "food item".

Eccles

 

[Zak]

Did the Missouri study post their % findings? If fly anglers killed 1% of their catch and bait guys killed 5% that would hardly be a number difference worth talking about when it comes to trout fishing mortality. What is 5x the kill rate? % vs 20%.......now we're talking. There are soooo many other factors too like the fact that a fly fishing only areas probably see 15-20 times the amount of pressure that a section under open regulations sees over the course of a whole year. Angler hours would make that 1 to 5 ratio a little screwy too. I guess I'll admit that all these 'research' experiments are probably useless cause there are too many outside variables at play. A person could pick and choose to death what to believe based primarily on their own agenda.

 

[Zak]

Eccles - that's a great post. Right on the money.

 

[MBWCC]

Zak wrote:
A person could pick and choose to death what to believe based primarily on their own agenda.

The reason I had hoped to find the original research article is related to your point. At some point I read the experiment report. I believe I read the following process steps were used:

1. Fishing event on local river.
2. People offered a prize if they caught a trout and brought the caught trout alive to the research team's collection point.
3. Research team then placed trout in pens and monitored for mortality over a period of time (maybe 10 days).

The experiment summaries I have recently read report "caught trout" versus mortality. However, note that #2 is a filter affecting the study population. Step #2 would actually filter terminally injured or dead trout from live trout prior to submission to the research team's collection center. As such, step #2 could heavily skew the population submitted to the collection point. In other words, given how I remember the event was run, if a trout rapidly died the person who caught it isn't encouraged to bring the dead or terminally injured trout to the collection point (no prize offered, event instructions state team isn't interested in this trout).

If my memory of the report I read is indeed correct then "trout caught" as reported by the research article/team is actually not a
correct representation and the reported results are most likely grossly distorted.

I really appreciate the links to various summary articles. However, given my memory of the report I believe I read I really wish I could find the actual experimental design and complete results.

 

[afishinado]

MBWCC wrote:

Zak wrote:
A person could pick and choose to death what to believe based primarily on their own agenda.

The reason I had hoped to find the original research article is related to your point. At some point I read the experiment report. I believe I read the following process steps were used:

1. Fishing event on local river.
2. People offered a prize if they caught a trout and brought the caught trout alive to the research team's collection point.
3. Research team then placed trout in pens and monitored for mortality over a period of time (maybe 10 days).

The experiment summaries I have recently read report "caught trout" versus mortality. However, note that #2 is a filter affecting the study population. Step #2 would actually filter terminally injured or dead trout from live trout prior to submission to the research team's collection center. As such, step #2 could heavily skew the population submitted to the collection point. In other words, given how I remember the event was run, if a trout rapidly died the person who caught it isn't encouraged to bring the dead or terminally injured trout to the collection point (no prize offered, event instructions state team isn't interested in this trout).

If my memory of the report I read is indeed correct then "trout caught" as reported by the research article/team is actually not a
correct representation and the reported results are most likely grossly distorted.

I really appreciate the links to various summary articles. However, given my memory of the report I believe I read I really wish I could find the actual experimental design and complete results.

No doubt just about any study has flaws in the conditions or the method by which it was conducted and/or has some sort of bias, depending whether the sponsor of the study was looking to prove or disprove something.

What I posted above from the Missouri DC is not a study at all, it is a report about the actual population of trout remaining after fishing in areas with various tackle restrictions.

The long-term result after thousands of anglers fishing under actual conditions is an 80% mortality rate in the bait-fishing section, which is 5 times higher than the fly or artificial lure only section.

In fact, as a result of their findings, the Missouri DC posted info to educate angler on how to reduce mortality in the bait area, and further encourage anglers to use artificials.

The above results comes as no surprise to anyone that has fished a bit and observed anglers bait fishing for trout.

Good luck finding the details of the study you are seeking. I too dismissed that study out-of-hand for many of the same reasons you stated above.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

MBWCC wrote:

Zak wrote:
A person could pick and choose to death what to believe based primarily on their own agenda.

The reason I had hoped to find the original research article is related to your point. At some point I read the experiment report. I believe I read the following process steps were used:

1. Fishing event on local river.
2. People offered a prize if they caught a trout and brought the caught trout alive to the research team's collection point.
3. Research team then placed trout in pens and monitored for mortality over a period of time (maybe 10 days).

The experiment summaries I have recently read report "caught trout" versus mortality. However, note that #2 is a filter affecting the study population. Step #2 would actually filter terminally injured or dead trout from live trout prior to submission to the research team's collection center. As such, step #2 could heavily skew the population submitted to the collection point. In other words, given how I remember the event was run, if a trout rapidly died the person who caught it isn't encouraged to bring the dead or terminally injured trout to the collection point (no prize offered, event instructions state team isn't interested in this trout).

If my memory of the report I read is indeed correct then "trout caught" as reported by the research article/team is actually not a
correct representation and the reported results are most likely grossly distorted.

I really appreciate the links to various summary articles. However, given my memory of the report I believe I read I really wish I could find the actual experimental design and complete results.

MBWCC: Please check your PM's.

 

[Reeder]

What I posted above from the Missouri DC is not a study at all, it is a report about the actual population of trout remaining after fishing in areas with various tackle restrictions.

LOL, of course it is!
Report, statement, data, count...call it whatever you want, it is the result of a test or experiment and is just as flawed as any other study with countless uncontrolled variables.

I guess I'll admit that all these 'research' experiments are probably useless cause there are too many outside variables at play. A person could pick and choose to death what to believe based primarily on their own agenda.

This is absolutely correct. People do pick and choose what to believe based on their agenda. It happens all the time. They disregard the uncontrolled variables, slap the word science or study on their opinion, go to great lengths to cite multiple other opinions with the same words attached, and then treat it as proven, undeniable point of view. As long as it feels right and the masses agree, what wrong with a little intellectual dishonesty?

 

[MKern]

Figures never lie, but lairs know how to figure.