Citation? URL?

Oh look, one of the whiners showed up.

Some deephole somewhere has a springer would tell yuh where, but can’t remember, just had a plentiful binger!

Did he give you a citation or URL?

People on both boards keep tossing around this mythical 10 yr study looking at barbs vs no barbs. I just want someone to post the actual study.... title and abstract would suffice, really. No takers so far. Every time I ask for it, the best someone comes up with is to go look up the "Toman study."

Did a bit of a literature search myself this morning. I found the reference for the so-called "Toman study". It began in 1998, continued thru 2000, and was submitted for publication in Sept 2002. This was a 3 yr study looking primarily at the differential mortality of hooking location for sport caught springers in the Willamette. The results were them multiplied by the frequency of the various hooking locations observed in the sport fishery (based on angler creel survey) to come up with an overall mortality of 12.2% on all released fished. Total impact to the wild run from release mortality was estimated by multiplying that mortality by the proportion of the run handled by anglers (estimated avg 26%).... est C&R impact on total wild run came out to 3.2%.

So in round numbers one in 8 fish dies of C&R, but since the rec fleet is only efficient enough to catch about a quarter of the run, only one in 32 fish in the actual run dies of C&R.

The study was NEVER intended to look at barbs vs no barbs. Clearly the results were not stratified in that manner in the paper. No mention of it whatsoever!

What did they look at and how did they go about doing it?

They employed a variety of recreational terminal gear... spinners, plugs, wobblers, a combination of lures and bait, salmon eggs and prawns. Each salmon caught was netted and placed in an on-board tank for hook removal, tagging, scale samples, measuring, then ultimate release. The researchers kept careful records of 5 possible hook locations (jaw, tongue, eye, gill, gut), time out of the water, and presence of significant bleeding.

Oh yeah.... almost forgot my citations!

Hooking Mortality by Anatomical Location and Its Use in Estimating Mortality of Spring Chinook Salmon Caught and Released in a River Sport Fishery

Robert B. Lindsaya, R. Kirk Schroedera, Kenneth R. Kenastonb, Robert N. Tomana & Mary A. Buckmana

North American Journal of Fisheries Management
Volume 24, Issue 2, 2004, pp 367-378

Abstract

We estimated the hooking mortality of spring Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha that were caught and released to determine whether selective fishing on hatchery Chinook salmon would reduce harvest mortality of wild fish in a sport fishery in the lower Willamette River, Oregon. Hooking mortality in the fishery was estimated from hooking mortality rates for each of five anatomical locations (jaw, 2.3%; tongue, 17.8%; eye, 0.0%; gills, 81.6%; and esophagus–stomach, 67.3%) and from the frequency of these anatomical locations in the sport fishery (jaw, 81.5%; tongue, 5.1%; eye, 0.4%; gills, 5.1%; and esophagus–stomach, 7.8%). Mortality rates by anatomical location were estimated from recaptures of 869 tagged fish that were experimentally angled and of 825 tagged controls that were trapped in a nearby fishway. Anatomical hook locations in the lower Willamette River sport fishery were determined with creel surveys. We estimated hooking mortality rates of 12.2% for wild Chinook salmon caught and released in the sport fishery and 3.2% for the entire run of wild Chinook salmon based on a mean encounter rate of 26%. Hook location was the primary factor affecting recapture of hooked fish, but fish length, gear type, bleeding, and the elapsed time to unhook fish were also significant factors. A selective sport fishery in the lower Willamette River can be used to reduce harvest mortality on runs of wild Chinook salmon while maintaining fishing opportunity on hatchery Chinook salmon. The effect of selective fisheries for Chinook salmon in other rivers would depend on the frequency distribution of anatomical hook locations and on river-specific encounter rates.

.
.
.
.
.

also this lay article...

Spring Chinook Hook Mortality Study
Gillespie, Glenn
Salmon Trout Steelheader April 2004, pp 40-48

Your a funny guy Francis, you bash the bejesus out of this study, yet you demand citations.
It almost seems like you don't know what your talking about, yet your so sure your correct.
Look it up, your the doubting nay bob, although I was frankly surprised at the studies findings and conclusions, but I sure as heck am not stupid enough to publicly ridicule it for being incorrect, because just like you Francis, I'm not qualified.

I wonder what the Furbag factor is on these released fish..75%?

Nobody is bashing or ridiculing the study. I LOVE that study.

But I'm not stupid enough to go waving it around as "proof" that barbs vs barbless makes no difference in mortality.

Bottom line, it doesn't say that, nor was it ever designed to make a conclusion on the issue one way or the other.

What the study does tell us is that we CAN bring the impact of C&R down by modifying our techniques to minimize the risk of mortal hooking locations.... specifically tongue, gill, and/or gut. A jaw hooked fish survives 97.7% of the time.

Compared to jaw-hooking at 2.3 % mortality, a tongue-hooked fish is nearly 8 times as likely to die.... a gut-hooked fish nearly 30 times as likely to die... and a gill hooked fish more than 35 times as likely to die. Based on that alone, we should be discouraging the use of gear/techniques most likely to result in hooking the tongue, gill, or gut.

The study also mentions that while hooking location was the primary factor "gear type, bleeding, and the elapsed time to unhook fish were also significant factors".... factors that we as anglers have significant control over.

What should be clear to everyone is that with judicious choices in gear type/technique, the overall recreational release mortality rate of 12.2% observed in the study CAN be significantly reduced.

I can tell you this, until someone does another study that refutes the ODFW study, advocating for something that isn't going to make any difference in overall hooking mortality, isn't going to fly.
And I think we have already seen this, ODFW rejected the idea of going barbless, on the basis of their study, and they will continue to do so.

Nobody needs to refute the study... nor is anyone here calling for that. It's a very good study, but leaves a lot of pertinent questions unanswered. Like all good scientific studies, it should leave the observers with a desire to pursue further studies to answer those lingering questions. If the ODFW researchers have no interest in that pursuit that's their choice. But on this side of the big river, a lot of folks have an interest, and we should be lobbying our commission to direct WDFW to do exactly that.

What some of us are saying is it's high time to investigate CR-specific differential mortality rates isolating barbed vs barbless as the primary parameter. Does it make a difference? I hypothesize it will, based on reduced handling and reduced bleeding.

WDFW should also a study of differential hooking location based on gear type/technique. Which methods are most likely to cause mortal hooking wounds (tongue/gill/gut)? Lindsay et al found that nearly 1 in 5 fish caught by anglers were hooked elsewhere than in the jaw. Yet mortality in that subset was high enough to skew the overall mortality by 5.3-fold compared to jaw-hooked mortality alone. (12.2% vs 2.3%).

But what I say doesn't amount to a hill of beans for assigning ESA impacts to the CR spring chinook sportfishery. Only an official study can tell us, so WDFW should get it done. The time to get some of those CR endorsement dollars flowing that direction is long overdue.

PM sent

Freespool you must have some skin in the game that is making this personal...... You look like an idiot attacking Doc like you are. All he has ever done is to put up usefull facts for discussion and provide his own educated opinions for discussion. He also seems to always be prepared to back up his statements with references or experience. You should do the same rather than resorting to personal attacks.....

Freetool,

There you go again. Do you actually read what people write before you start your stupid rants?

You say there's a study (I've never seen it) where it's documented that barb vs no barb carries the same mortality rates. Where's the study?

Hook placement isn't the arguement. It's about barb vs no barb. Although logic says there should be a difference between the two, I personally don't think the difference is enough to eliminate barbs.

I personally believe mortality rates are actually lower than the suggested 10% currently especially during the spring with the water temps.

I'd suggest another study as well. I'd suggest it in a river without sea lions and one that they could either place radio transmitters or something that is trackable. One that's not an estuary or bay as straying is a huge factor and very likely would scew the facts.

Not all hatchery fish return to hatcheries, chinook do stray and sea lions do play a part in their disappearance.

Keith

A guy in my National guard unit is part of the yakima nation. Last year we were talking about springers, he told me he had so many fish from the nets that he ended up throwing out majority of the meat because his freezer was full and friends didn't want any....

Cliff Notes version from the compact meeting today....

Fishing March 1 through April 6 (closed March 20-27 and April 3 for commercial fishing), mouth to Beacon Rock by bank or boat and up to Bonneville for bank.

That's all she wrote.

April 3 why not just let them have the 6th or 7th. Then at least we can have the last week without a interruption. Just booked that week going to cancel it now!

I believe that should read closed 20MAR12, 27MAR12, and 3APR for gillnets.

Missed sport opportunity.

You're right Hans, 3 comm openers.... I just did a quick copy and paste from Monroe's live report.

From WDFW...if the news release isn't out yet, it will be soon...

****************

Spring chinook fishing is currently open to boat and bank anglers on a daily basis from Buoy 10 near the mouth of the Columbia River upstream to the Interstate 5 bridge. Under the new rules adopted today, the sport fishery will expand upriver to Beacon Rock from March 1 through April 6. During that period, the sport fishery will close on three Tuesdays - March 20, March 27 and April 3 - to accommodate commercial fisheries.

Starting March 1, bank anglers will also be allowed to fish from Beacon Rock up to the fishing boundary below Bonneville Dam.

Above Bonneville Dam, the fishery will be open to boat and bank anglers on a daily basis from March 16 through May 2 between the Tower Island powerlines six miles below The Dalles Dam and the Washington/Oregon state line, 17 miles upriver from McNary Dam. Bank anglers can also fish from Bonneville Dam upriver to the powerlines during that time.

Starting March 1, anglers fishing downriver from Bonneville Dam may retain one marked, hatchery-reared adult spring chinook as part of their daily catch limit. Above the dam, anglers can keep two marked adult spring chinook per day effective March 16.

This year’s forecast of 314,200 upriver spring chinook is up significantly from 2011, when 198,400 upriver fish were projected to enter the Columbia River. Although last year’s run exceeded that forecast, extremely high water conditions put a damper on catch rates for much of the season.

To guard against overestimating this year’s run, the states will again manage the fisheries with a 30 percent buffer until the forecast is updated in late April or early May.

Fishery managers from Washington and Oregon have already scheduled a meeting April 5 to review the catch and determine if the season can be extended. If the catch to that point has not reached the initial harvest guideline, the two states will consider an immediate extension, said LeFleur, the WDFW fishery manager.

"We’ve agreed to take a conservative approach until May, when we typically know how many fish are actually returning," Le Fleur said. "If the fish return at or above expectations, we will look toward providing additional days of fishing on the river later in the spring."

*****************

Fish on...

Todd

This, right here, is the point. Go Smalma go!