Hard to imagine much has changed as far as primary hooking mortality. The most likely difference from years past is the incidence of secondary hooking mortality, that is, mortality from multiple hook and release encounters.

I believe the original studies cited a one in 7 chance that a Kenai king would be susceptible to a second H&R encounter. I would suspect the odds of multiple H&R encounters is probably higher today.

The predominant setup for fishing eggs on the Kenai was double salmon/steelhead/octopus style hooks rigged as a fixed double very much like a herring leader, except with the hooks closer together (0.5-1.0 inch), and preferably tied with the hook points 180 degrees from one another to maximize exposure.

In 1999 the river went to ONE single point hook, hence the birth of the amputee rig.... identical to the old tried and true fixed double, except the top hook point was cut off at the shank.

My records dating back to 1996 show 104 king strikes on eggs (40 of those from 2005 alone.... the year of the "egg-bite"), with 73 fish hooked and 60 of them coming to the boat. Of those 60 fish, only two were mortal bleeders, for a bleeder rate of only 3%. Your observation of 67% (2 of 3) is more a function of small sample size than it is an indication that this type of rigging is unacceptably lethal.

Both of my bleeders were caught this year while backbouncing a sliding amputee rigged with the stinger about 2.0-2.5 inches below the amputated shank. That's about 1.5 inches further back than I usually rig them. My limited experience bouncing with identical rigging is two bleeders for eleven fish landed, more than double the published H&R mortality. The exaggerated "hangback" on the stinger was probably one of the main factors for this.

Did not have the bleeder problem backtrolling the same rig with a diver. That suggests to me that perhaps the slower presentation of bounced bait (versus backtrolled bait) was an additional factor that allowed those fish more of an opportunity to inhale the eggs, allowing the stinger a little deeper reach into vital structures.

It would be interesting to know how many bleeders the guys dragging bait encounter (I have not dragged bait since 1995... I refuse to turn my boat sideways unless I have a fish on!) as compared to the trollers or the bouncers. Any of you draggers care to share your experience?

As I mentioned above I have been having a moral dilemma about C&R on this fishery. Part of my thought process was that if guys aren't fishing in a way that is conducive to C&R, maybe it is better to have them whack their fish and be done for the day. As opposed to hooking and potentially killing several more fish. From now on the choice will be simple for me. Hopefully some others have been influenced as well. Thanks for the great info.

"If I were strolling through the annals of incorrectness—up past the invertible heroism of General Custer and on through the safaris of Dennis Finch-Hatton—I would expect to discern, out there in the future, catch-and-release fishing," —John McPhee, The Founding Fish

Yum lots of great eats there!!

Out of four short evening trips this year, we've brought four Kenai kings to the boat on the double/amputated hook setup this year and every one has been hooked in the side of the mouth. (I caught a 45/50ish and a 30ish fish last night, both released as they were fairly well colored up.) A fifth was the only one we hooked deep this year. It was a single hook (no amputee to hold the bait) rigged cheeter, that was hooked down in the throat, but wasn't bleeding. Well, didn't bleed until after it was in the boat anyway...bright 30# chromer.
Definitely the year of the egg...still no take downs on a plug.

Noted OR/AK guide Bob Toman in his latest video/DVD strongly advocates the use of a stinger to reduce mortal hooking wounds. He fishes the Nushagak where they C&R boatloads of kings. He also participated in some landmark H&R studies on the Willamette spring kings.

He is as conscientious as they come, and he is convinced that eggs fished on a conventional single will kill way more fish than those fished with a stinger hook, whether it's rigged as fixed double hooks or Kenai "amputee" style.

Any draggers care to share their thoughts?

I haven't seen Toman's video yet, Doc, but here are my thoughts: A double hook rig is less apt to be taken deeply by a fish as there is an additional point to hang up in the mouth, outside the head, or where ever. This is a plus as I'm guessing hooking mortality on deeply hooked fish is higher than those hooked in the lips. On the other hand, two points do more damage than one, and the likelyhood of landing a "bleeder" is higher with two hooks than with one. Which is better?

C&R or not...that's one nice fish. Gotta start saving my pennies so I can get my arse up there one day.

Carver -
The catch of Washington chinook in Alaskan fisheries varies quite a bit depending on the stock and where they are from. Surprisingly a Columbia River fish is more likely to be caught there than a Puget Sound fish.

With the development of code wire tags there is currently some good information of where some of the stocks are caught. I'm most familar with Puget Sound stocks where for most stocks about 2% of the harvest occurs in Alaska Waters. However for some stocks it is quite abit higher. The following is from code wire tag info for 1996 to 2000 (the latest years available) as developed by the chinook Technical Committee of the PMFC

For the Nooksack spring yearling stock (one of the ESA Puget Sound Stocks in the most trouble 21.5% of the harvest happens in Alaska and 65.8% in B.C.

For the North Fork Stillaguamish summers (Another stock in serious trouble) 26.7% of the harvest is in Alaska and 46.3%.

Another example from the straits of Juan de Fuca. On the Hoko River 70.8% of the harvest is Alaska and 26.5% in B.C. The Elwha is thought to be similar to the Hoko.

I hope that you can see that the issue of the impacts from these mixed stock fisheries is more than an urban legend. As I recall most years more non-Alaskan chinook are caught in SE Alaska than Alaskan fish.

Tight lines
Curt

Thanks, Curt—good reply, polite too, which is always nice. I don't know how to respond though. Aren't such things regulated internationally by the North Pacific Fisheries Council or some such organization?

It seems to me senseless to piss and moan about such matters and best to leave them to the responisibility of those to whom society has delegated it. Certainly any such regulation is politicized if Alaska's fisheries are any example, and the proper place to take our concerns is to the political process that applies if one thinks regulations need to be changed.

There is a place for rational, reasoned, polite discussion in a public forum, but groaning and moaning, pointing fingers, calling names and more accomplish nothing and are socially divisive, devolving into anarchy. We are supposed to be living in democracies.

Regards,
John

Carver -
No response needed or expected. I was just attempting to supply some information so that we can have informed discussions and debates!

It also serves to point out while it is fashionable to blame the trouble with Washington Salmon on mis-management in Washington the information I supplied indicates that the issue is more complex than that.

Tight lines
Curt

Complex? You bet:

"Development also fueled demand for water. Projections of the water demand for industry and agriculture in the 1960s left 'little doubt that many streams presently having adequate minimum flows for fishery purposes will be in serious trouble within the next decade' (Washington State Department of Fisheries 1966, 176). Thus, as urbanization proceeded across the Puget Lowland, it put people and salmon in direct competition for the two things salmon need most: water and gravel." David R. Montgomery (Prof. of Geomorphology at Un. of Wash.), "King of Fish: The Thousand Year Run of Salmon," Westview Press, 2003, pg. 223-224

Those damned Alaskans again...