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