The EA and the stocking of rivers.

thetrouttickler

Well-known member
Points
38
Location
Sussex

silver creek

Well-known member
Points
18
Reading the last article, one has to ask WHY barbless then. Is it just a manufactures way of getting a new income ? If there is no significant mortality issue can we have our old barbed hooks back then ?
Eddie
I believe the barbless movement was started by fly fishers who honestly believed that barbless hooks for C&R preserved research. Then it became a mantra, if repeated enough becomes accepted as true regardless of whether it is true or not. The "I fish barbless" mantra feeds into the belief that fly fishers are "special" and barbless fly fishers are even more "special."

Trout biologists have know for decades that in healthy fisheries, the carrying capacity of wild rivers determines the amount of trout that will survive and not whether barbed or barbless hooks are used. Some of the best fisheries in the USA do not have a restriction the types of hooks that are used.

My view is that what kills the fish is the very act of getting caught. How long it takes to land them, fighting them on light tackle, and where they are hooked are more important than whether the hook is barbed or not.

I also believe that modern hooks with mini-barbs are easier to remove than the large barbed hooks we used to tie with. They are also chemically sharpened so they penetrate more deeply if there is no barb and the stiletto effect is enhanced by chemical sharpening.

My belief is that the fly fishers are generally logical sportsmen and sportswomen and believe in rationality and the scientific method. Hence, it surprises me that many choose not to believe the science and hold onto a belief that has been demonstrated scientifically incorrect. I believe this is an example of cognitive dissonance in which the intellect must bring the two conflicting views into agreement. Thus the stance that the science is correct but just not in "my" case.

"Cognitive dissonance theory warns that people have a bias to seek consonance among their cognitions. According to (Leon) Festinger, we engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which he said could be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors."

Hence the view that the research is either flawed or does not apply to my case. The view that the research does not apply is a fallacious argument called special pleading. This is the view that the general research may be correct, but my case is special and is exempt from the general rule.

I was taught and also once believed that barbless hooks preserved the fishery. Everyone said and so it must be so; and it is a perfectly reasonable belief. It had to be so.

But as a physician and scientist, I must choose between reason and research or an unproven but seeming obvious belief. To reduce my own cognitive dissonance, I did what Leon Festinger predicted, I decided to believe the research and to discard the barbless hook theory.

Two conflicting beliefs cannot be correct. In the absence of evidence for the barbless hook theory and the presence of evidence for the contrary view, I chose to believe what has been demonstrated as true.

There is now abundant fisheries literature that shows that there is no need bor barbless regulation in ocean fisheries as well.

The following are a series of articles that consistently show no demonstrable biological population survival advantage for barbless hooks for bait fishing and lures whether freshwater or saltwater. This is true for trout and other species as noted in the articles.

Effect of Hook Type on Mortality, Trauma, and Capture Efficiency of Wild, Stream-Resident Trout Caught by Active Baitfishing:

"Mortality at 72 h (2– 7%), anatomical hooking location (superficial or deep), and eye damage (5% of captures) in brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis did not differ between hook types. However, brook trout that were deeply hooked were more likely to die when barbed hooks were used. Mortality and eye damage in brown trout Salmo trutta were similarly low, but sample sizes were insufficient for comparison of hook types. Hook types did not differ significantly in terms of hooking efficiency, frequency of fish escape after hooking, or the mean unhooking time in which fish were held out of water."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M02-172.1

Hook Shedding and Mortality of Deeply Hooked Brook Trout Caught with Bait on Barbed and Barbless Hooks:

"Hook shedding at the end of the 6-week holding period averaged 20% and did not differ between hook types. Neither immediate mortality (average = 12.5%) nor mortality after 5 d (average = 20%) differed between hook types."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M06-276.1

Relative Hooking Mortality among Walleyes Caught on Barbed and Barbless Octopus Hooks and Barbed Jigs:

"Anglers sometimes use alternatives or modifications to J-shaped hooks to reduce hooking mortality in fish that are caught with live baits and then released. One such modification, the removal of barbs, has been evaluated for several fish species but (barbless) has shown little promise for reducing hooking mortality. ……. This study illustrates how gear type can affect hooking mortality based on the amount of damage caused when the fish is caught and adds to the body of literature indicating that the removal of barbs from hooks does not increase fish survival."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02755947.2011.557944

Effect of Hook Type on Mortality, Trauma, and Capture Efficiency of Wild Stream Trout Caught by Angling with Spinners:

"This study assessed short-term (48-h) hooking mortality, eye damage, jaw injury, and capture efficiency of three species of wild stream trout caught on size-1 Mepps spinners having barbed or barbless treble or single hooks. …………. Barbless single hooks were quicker to remove than the other hook types, but the difference was insufficient to reduce mortality. Our results do not indicate a biological advantage with the use of single- or barbless-hook spinners when caught wild stream trout will be released.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/M02-171.1

Performance of Barbed and Barbless Hooks in a Marine Recreational Fishery:

"In this fishery, barbless hooks probably did not reduce hooking mortality and conferred only slight benefits at the expense of reduced catches."

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi.....0.CO;2

My own state of Wisconsin used to have a barbless hook regulation but it was abandoned many years ago.

Then the University of Wisconsin conducted a study that confirmed that barbless regulations are not needed, and in fact, are a waste of Fish and Game warden's time and resources. They also foster ill will amongst the fishing public. The most frequent ticketed violation in our barbless fisheries was the use of a barbed hook. Most of these violation were inadvertent, when either a barbless fly was lost and a new barbed fly was used or when the barb was not pinched down sufficiently.

From the UW study of barbed vs barbless spinner:

"Managers of stream trout fisheries must often make regulatory decisions based on incomplete or contradictory information, and if these regulations do not produce the anticipated biological advantages, agency credibility can suffer. Unnecessary regulations that restrict angling opportunities without producing biological gains can be particularly damaging, especially in the current national situation of stagnant or declining license sales in most states."

http://www.moucheur.com/divers/TroutHooking.pdf

In summary, there is an abundant, if not overwhelming, amount of peer reviewed scientific evidence that barbless hooks play no part in fisheries management other than to appease the fishing public that wrongly believes barbless hooks help preserve fish populations. This has been tested in both fresh and saltwater fisheries and is species independent.

The purpose of wildlife management is to preserve the population. It is not to restrict the fishing public's free choice when that restriction does nothing to preserve the wildlife.

The barbless option is a choice that should rightly be left to the angler. If you believe it preserves the fishery, it is your right to do so. But for those who do not, they should also have the right to use barbed hooks, unless the preponderance of evidence shows otherwise.

It is then up to those who believe that barbless hooks preserve fish populations to provide the scientific evidence to support that claim.
 

silver creek

Well-known member
Points
18
Sure, in an ideal world but that wasn't my point, poorly executed C&R is damaging.
I think you may not understand the result of all the data I presented. Please allow me to explain.

You are making a claim that "poorly executed C&R is damaging" and your implication is that it is damaging the resource. Secondly, you state that the data in the articles is about "an ideal world."

I provided abundant scientific data about the average mortality of C&R. Average means that both the good and bad release techniques were ALREADY considered in the data. These scientific articles were about the "real world" and not the "ideal world."

The burden of proof actually lies with you to prove that "poorly executed C&R is damaging" the resource since I have provided evidence that AVERAGE C&R mortality IN THE REAL WORLD does not damage wild fisheries.

Your reply is a form of the "Burden of Proof Fallacy." The burden of proof is on you to disprove the articles I presented.

See below:


 
Last edited:

diawl bach

Well-known member
Points
83
This is becoming a pedantic discussion which I have zero interest in, I think you've misinterpreted my posts. Do you have any scientific data to show how many badly handled fish survive? Burden of proof etc etc.
 

BobP

Well-known member
Points
48
Location
Wiltshire
As is usual the thread has wandered off piste so I'll weigh in with my thoughts on barbless vs barbed hooks as we appear to be going down that route.

I use barbless hooks for preference and only use de-barbed hooks where there isn't a barbless alternative. I have several reasons for doing so.

1) A day's fishing will involve a hook whistling past one's head hundreds of times and the law of averages indicates that every so often one is going to hit. Mostly the hook will stick in clothing which may very well entail undressing in order to retrieve a barbed hook. Just occasionally that hook will find some exposed part of one's anatomy. In both cases barbless hooks will come out with minimum fuss, barbed will not.

2) I'm a guide in the fishing season and very often look after novice anglers or those whose casting skills and tackle control leave a lot to be desired. Barbless hooks are much safer for the above reason.

3) Removing barbless hooks from fish that are to be returned is infinitely easier and often happens on its own when the fish is netted which means that fish can be returned with as little impact as possible - something all good anglers with a respect for the fish they catch should aim to do.

Just plain common sense and nothing to do with mantras or any such high flown rubbish.
 

Paul_B

Well-known member
Points
63
Location
South Yorkshire
Barbless come out of the fish easily and quite often, if you give the fish a bit of slack as it comes to the bank it will come out on its own accord.

That's my opinion anyway ;)
 

mrnotherone

Well-known member
Points
63
Location
Monmouthshire
OK so if you look at the current science, it's hard to conclude other that barbed and barbless hooks are not statistically different to mortality outcome. However, how good is the science? although perhaps the best available, I might argue, that it's somewhat limited. The Schill & Scarpella work is a 23 year old paper and is a meta-analysis of previous work going back between 30 and 90 years. How good were the controls in the original work and is the conclusion that helpful when when we consider publication bias or the usual pitfalls with meta-analysis.

One thing we have learned from more recent work eg (Bartholomew and Bohnsack 2005, Cooke and Suski 2005, Cooke and Sneddon 2007, Arlinghaus et al. 2007) is that fish welfare following catch and release is subject to many many variables, most of which may have a much greater impact than choice of hook. However, given the widespread and growing use of barbless hooks we also have to consider the practical experience of many anglers.

Fishing with barbless hooks very often results in the hook falling out in the net negating any reason to handle a fish. Barbless hooks are more easily removed also reducing handling. We know that human handling increases fish mortality, so if using barbless hooks reduces handling, that in itself might be all the reason to switch. There is also very good evidence that with deeper hooked fish, barbless hooks do result in lower mortality. Also, with modern barbless hooks, how do they penetrate further than the bend? Is there any hard evidence for this?

The science quoted earlier in the thread may not show statistically better mortality with barbless hooks, but is doesn't show that barbed hooks improve mortality either. Given many other variables (water temperature, time playing a fish, time out of the water, human handling etc, etc,) why would anyone intent on C&R use a barbed hook? Add to this the very real and obvious safety factor for the user.

So instead of taking the view that there is insufficient evidence for using barbless hooks - why not turn it around. As the science is thin, use barbless hooks until there is a preponderance of evidence that barbed hooks improve the welfare of C&R fish?
 

BobP

Well-known member
Points
48
Location
Wiltshire
We need to be careful not to think that trout are so tender that any sort of handling or catching will automatically result in death. Trout on a fish farm go through several gradings prior to their eventual release and you can be certain that the fish farm staff don't handle them with kid gloves which is impossible to do when you are dealing with thousands of fish.

Next point. I do quite a lot of teaching beginners on a small lake in Hampshire. Beginners don't have much clue when it comes to playing fish and, of course, they want a photo of their first fish which they have very little idea of how to hold and frequently drop despite my best efforts to show them. One could be forgiven for thinking that that sort of handling is an automatic death sentence, but it isn't. The main reason for that is that the water is predominantly spring fed and is bl*ody cold! I can vouch for that having been obliged to go paddling one summer's day when a stupid rainbow decided to bury his head in some weed and lay there waiting to die. I've given up on doing that now, as I have found that if they are left they come round in five minutes or so and swim off. I've noticed this at Farmoor a few times as well.

Next point. When I first retired I did some deliveries for a local fish farm. One of the customers had a couple of small lakes and he used to stock a few rainbows. I would be up on the back of the landrover and net out half a dozen fish and pass them to the owner who proceeded to throw them as far as he could into the lake. I was shocked, but he stated that he didn't get any mortalities as a result and I came to the conclusion that as soon as that net had left my hands the fish were his to do with as he saw fit.

Next point. Many years ago one of the reservoirs west of London was used by Thames Water as a cage rearing site for rainbows that would subsequently be stocked out elsewhere. There was a pontoon out over one of the draw-off points and the lorry would back up along it and net fulls of fish would be handed down to us to drop 20' down into the cage below. No mortalities there either.

Finally. I did hundreds of electric fishing surveys on various rivers. This involves passing an electric current through the water which will attract and render unconscious fish and the longer the fish the bigger the impact they received. The survey would involve netting fish out of the water and into a tub on a boat; that tub then transferred to another tub on the bank; each fish netted out, weighed, measured and scales taken where appropriate before being placed in another tub. When this whole process had been done two or three times the total catch was returned to the water. The fish most likely to turn their toes over after this were chub and dace. Brown or rainbow trout where present just swam off. The electric current used was generally around 1.5 amps and take it from me if you put your bare hands in the water anywhere near the anodes you knew all about it!

Treat the fish you catch with respect. Play them as quickly as you can and let them recover for a bit in the landing net. Use appropriate leaders so that you can play them hard. Don't C & R when the water temperature gets much above 15 degrees.
 

Secret Angler

Well-known member
Points
48
Location
London
Some interesting posts. I'm willing to accept that barbless don't make a great or any difference to fish survival - I imagine a lot of handling has more effect - but I'll carry on using barbless (or debarbed) because fish are much easier to unhook, and so is my jumper (or finger).
 

mrnotherone

Well-known member
Points
63
Location
Monmouthshire
Some interesting posts. I'm willing to accept that barbless don't make a great or any difference to fish survival - I imagine a lot of handling has more effect - but I'll carry on using barbless (or debarbed) because fish are much easier to unhook, and so is my jumper (or finger).
Exactly.
 

silver creek

Well-known member
Points
18
Finally. I did hundreds of electric fishing surveys on various rivers. This involves passing an electric current through the water which will attract and render unconscious fish and the longer the fish the bigger the impact they received. The survey would involve netting fish out of the water and into a tub on a boat; that tub then transferred to another tub on the bank; each fish netted out, weighed, measured and scales taken where appropriate before being placed in another tub. When this whole process had been done two or three times the total catch was returned to the water. The fish most likely to turn their toes over after this were chub and dace. Brown or rainbow trout where present just swam off. The electric current used was generally around 1.5 amps and take it from me if you put your bare hands in the water anywhere near the anodes you knew all about it!

Treat the fish you catch with respect. Play them as quickly as you can and let them recover for a bit in the landing net. Use appropriate leaders so that you can play them hard. Don't C & R when the water temperature gets much above 15 degrees.
Electrofishing causes significant spinal injuries in trout especially the larger fish.

However, the most important factor is that both electrofishing and C&R fishing when performed on healthy natural trout populations do not decrease the population density because the natural mortality rate is so high. A fish that dies makes "space" for a fish that "would have died."

Most electrofishing injuries are non lethal spinal injuries that can lead to deformities. The trout survive but these injuries can be seen on subsequent surveys when they are looked for. Also electrofishing is usually NOT performed on an entire river or stream but in a section of a stream to see how many trout and of what size are present. Any fish killed are replaced by fish that migrate from adjacent parts of the river.

Here are two references:


p215-235 Effects of electrofishing on survival and growth of wild brown trout…

pg 215 18-22% spinal injuries vs 0-6% for angled fish.

pg 221 "low mortality over time which likely did not elevate the natural mortality of the population. Growth rates of brown trout were significantly reduced, however, this is probably a response to the healing process of electrofishing injuries and a subsequent result of growth energy from the trout's energy budget."

pg 227 25 - 62% spinal injuries in electrofished wild brown trout

pg 229 injury rates up to 70% on electrofished trout.

Since only small sections of a stream are sample, the overall population effect is not significant. Mortality estimated at 1.11% range of .05 -7.71%

pg 235 50% of large (over 30cm = 13.33 in) trout are injured when electrofished




Impacts of Electrofishing Injury on Idaho Stream Salmonids at the Population Scale

F. S. Elle and D. J. Schill
Fisheries Research Biologists, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nampa, Idaho

ABSTRACT—This study assesses the mortality impacts of electrofishing at the population scale based on levels of sampling by Idaho Department Fish and Game (IDFG) and non-IDFG projects during the 1995 and 1996 field seasons. We estimated electrofishing induced population mortality by considering the proportion of stream reach shocked during sampling, the probability of fish exposure to an electric field based on sampling method used, and a hypothesized worst-case (25%) mortality rate for all electroshocked fish. For IDFG mark-recapture estimates the mean mortality from shocking was 1.05% with a range of 0.13-4.02%. For Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) removal sampling, we estimate a mean population mortality of 0.38% with a range of 0.02-2.91%. For non-IDFG sampling mean population mortality averaged 1.11% with a range of 0.05-7.71%. Fifty-one percent of all mortality estimates were less than 0.50%. These low estimates are likely worst-case electrofishing effects because the high assumed mortality value used is not supported by any literature values. We conclude the impacts due to sampling using electrofishing methods does not constitute a meaningful impact to Idaho stream trout at the population level, especially when compared to annual natural mortality levels for most stream salmonids which typically equal 30-60%.
 

eddleston123

Well-known member
Points
63
Location
Peebles, Scottish Borders
Hooks with barbs must have some bearing on fish mortality.

How often have you witnessed an angler experiencing great difficulty trying to dislodge a barbed hook from a fish, whilst holding it tighter and tighter and consequently squeezing the guts out of the fish!

I have observed this several times.


Douglas
 

silver creek

Well-known member
Points
18
So instead of taking the view that there is insufficient evidence for using barbless hooks - why not turn it around. As the science is thin, use barbless hooks until there is a preponderance of evidence that barbed hooks improve the welfare of C&R fish?
I have three issues with what you have written.

The first is that the science is NOT thin. it has been suppressed. There is ample evidence that barbless hooks do not harm the resource. Most of these studies were don before the modern micro-barbed fly tying hooks were made so the difference between barbed and barbless mortality should be even less now.

Secondly, you can use whatever you like. What I am opposed to are regulations that require barbless hooks in the false belief that they somehow protect the trout population. That is a false narrative.

Whenever government places restrictions on the public, those who apply the restrictions should provide the research that supports the need for such restrictions. That is the foundation of a free society. Barbed hooks do NOT need to IMPROVE the population. They just need to NOT HARM the population any more than barbless hooks.

My second issue is that your post contains an inherent logical fallacy. I don't think you realize the implication of what you have written in your post. Let's apply your "test" to barbless hooks. Since both barbless hooks also "kill" a small (about 4%) percentage of trout, if the test is "evidence that ****** hooks improve the welfare of C&R fish", barbless hooks ALSO FAIL that test!

Finally, you have missed this on my previous post which speaks to the purpose of wildlife management:

"The purpose of wildlife management is to preserve the population. It is not to restrict the fishing public's free choice when that restriction does nothing to preserve the wildlife.

The barbless option is a choice that should rightly be left to the angler. If you believe it preserves the fishery, it is your right to do so. But for those who do not, they should also have the right to use barbed hooks, unless the preponderance of evidence shows otherwise.

It is then up to those who believe that barbless hooks preserve fish populations to provide the scientific evidence to support that claim."
 

boisker

Well-known member
Points
48
Location
Devon
I have three issues with what you have written.

The first is that the science is NOT thin. it has been suppressed. There is ample evidence that barbless hooks do not harm the resource. Most of these studies were don before the modern micro-barbed fly tying hooks were made so the difference between barbed and barbless mortality should be even less now.

Secondly, you can use whatever you like. What I am opposed to are regulations that require barbless hooks in the false belief that they somehow protect the trout population. That is a false narrative.

Whenever government places restrictions on the public, those who apply the restrictions should provide the research that supports the need for such restrictions. That is the foundation of a free society. Barbed hooks do NOT need to IMPROVE the population. They just need to NOT HARM the population any more than barbless hooks.

My second issue is that your post contains an inherent logical fallacy. I don't think you realize the implication of what you have written in your post. Let's apply your "test" to barbless hooks. Since both barbless hooks also "kill" a small (about 4%) percentage of trout, if the test is "evidence that ****** hooks improve the welfare of C&R fish", barbless hooks ALSO FAIL that test!

Finally, you have missed this on my previous post which speaks to the purpose of wildlife management:

"The purpose of wildlife management is to preserve the population. It is not to restrict the fishing public's free choice when that restriction does nothing to preserve the wildlife.

The barbless option is a choice that should rightly be left to the angler. If you believe it preserves the fishery, it is your right to do so. But for those who do not, they should also have the right to use barbed hooks, unless the preponderance of evidence shows otherwise.

It is then up to those who believe that barbless hooks preserve fish populations to provide the scientific evidence to support that claim."
supressed is an interesting choice of words Silver... makes it sound like a conspiracy:)
 

Juneau

Well-known member
Points
18
Electrofishing causes significant spinal injuries in trout especially the larger fish.

However, the most important factor is that both electrofishing and C&R fishing when performed on healthy natural trout populations do not decrease the population density because the natural mortality rate is so high. A fish that dies makes "space" for a fish that "would have died."

Most electrofishing injuries are non lethal spinal injuries that can lead to deformities. The trout survive but these injuries can be seen on subsequent surveys when they are looked for. Also electrofishing is usually NOT performed on an entire river or stream but in a section of a stream to see how many trout and of what size are present. Any fish killed are replaced by fish that migrate from adjacent parts of the river.
 

Juneau

Well-known member
Points
18
Those are American studies and their electric fishing kit is not the same as ours. If our kit caused 62% spinal injuries in trout we'd very soon have known about it. If we had left a trout fishery on the Kennet with loads of deformed trout there would have been hell to pay.

Some of the original gear used in this country 50 years ago was notorious for causing spinal injury but the pulsed DC boxes we were using from Electracatch which supplies all EA fisheries teams plus most of the commercial operators is safe.
 

mrnotherone

Well-known member
Points
63
Location
Monmouthshire
What I am opposed to are regulations that require barbless hooks in the false belief that they somehow protect the trout population. That is a false narrative.

Whenever government places restrictions on the public, those who apply the restrictions should provide the research that supports the need for such restrictions. That is the foundation of a free society. Barbed hooks do NOT need to IMPROVE the population. They just need to NOT HARM the population any more than barbless hooks.

Finally, you have missed this on my previous post which speaks to the purpose of wildlife management:

"The purpose of wildlife management is to preserve the population. It is not to restrict the fishing public's free choice when that restriction does nothing to preserve the wildlife.

The barbless option is a choice that should rightly be left to the angler. If you believe it preserves the fishery, it is your right to do so. But for those who do not, they should also have the right to use barbed hooks, unless the preponderance of evidence shows otherwise.

It is then up to those who believe that barbless hooks preserve fish populations to provide the scientific evidence to support that claim."
I do find your position confusing to say the least. As C&R anglers we have a choice and fishery owners can set whatever rules they want - the choice is not determined by government restrictions. Even if your 'suppressed' science is sound and both barbed and barbless hooks cause similar mortality, so what? There are other very good reasons for using barbless including less and easier fish handling and user safety.

You seem more interested in resisting restrictions on your choice than following what many consider best C&R practice. Why are you so predisposed to barbed hooks? I well understand where the burden of proof sits, but frankly I don't care. I don't need a scientific study to prove that what I'm doing is positively helping to preserve the population. It's enough that I know I'm not doing more harm. There are enough other reasons to use barbless hooks and as you say "there is ample evidence that barbless hooks do not harm the resource". As a matter of interest, how much of a reduction in proven fish mortality would be enough to make you switch, or would you still not like being told what to do?
 

Paul_B

Well-known member
Points
63
Location
South Yorkshire
I've had a sea hook stuck in my leg and the only way to remove it was to snip the shank and thread it through, the same theory is used over here with fishing, its easier and less painful to remove a barbless hook in a fisherman and therefore in the fish.
Barbless are used intensively over here in coarse fishing and in game fishing for the benefit of the fish, and we've seen a lot less lipless fish since its introduction.
We still get those who don't crush the barb properly (if at all) and we can tell who they are by the way they struggle to remove the hook.

Personally I prefer to fish barbless :)
 

black and silver

Well-known member
Points
18
Finally. I did hundreds of electric fishing surveys on various rivers. This involves passing an electric current through the water which will attract and render unconscious fish and the longer the fish the bigger the impact they received. The survey would involve netting fish out of the water and into a tub on a boat; that tub then transferred to another tub on the bank; each fish netted out, weighed, measured and scales taken where appropriate before being placed in another tub. When this whole process had been done two or three times the total catch was returned to the water. The fish most likely to turn their toes over after this were chub and dace. Brown or rainbow trout where present just swam off. The electric current used was generally around 1.5 amps and take it from me if you put your bare hands in the water anywhere near the anodes you knew all about it!
The theory the EA have that electo fishing dosn't harm fish beggers belief for me, i witnest fisrt hand on the Esk when the the NRA i think it was did some work on one of the dams on the Esk when the main run of fish was on, they had a 24 hour guard on the site because of the numbers of fish trapped below the dam and they electo fished the pool and tagged and lifted the fish above the dam. if you caught a fish with a tag you returned it to EA and they sent you a cheque for iether a tenner or twenty pounds (can't rember which), anyway a lot of people made a lot of money picking up dead fish over the next week or so in the stretch of water form the dam for 2 miles down stream.

Electro fishing dosn't harm fish, don't make me laugh.

PS, this isn't a personal thing against you Bob, just don't like the EA's policy on the subject.
 

boisker

Well-known member
Points
48
Location
Devon
The theory the EA have that electo fishing dosn't harm fish beggers belief for me, i witnest fisrt hand on the Esk when the the NRA i think it was did some work on one of the dams on the Esk when the main run of fish was on, they had a 24 hour guard on the site because of the numbers of fish trapped below the dam and they electo fished the pool and tagged and lifted the fish above the dam. if you caught a fish with a tag you returned it to EA and they sent you a cheque for iether a tenner or twenty pounds (can't rember which), anyway a lot of people made a lot of money picking up dead fish over the next week or so in the stretch of water form the dam for 2 miles down stream.

Electro fishing dosn't harm fish, don't make me laugh.

PS, this isn't a personal thing against you Bob, just don't like the EA's policy on the subject.
is it possible they aren’t using the same electro fishing equipment as 20 years ago ???
 

Latest posts

Top