Message from Rober Bloom w/CA DF&G

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Fellow anglers,
I thought I would pass-on an invitation for a study on barbless flies (see info below). This will be a great opportunity to gather some great data, meet some new people, see some new water, and ultimately catch some trout!!! There has been lots of speculation regarding the landing efficiency (or lack there of) of barbed hooks, however very very little research to support any conclusions. This study will hopefully provide some significant results that can not only help answer some of these questions but also help simplify our angling regulations. I have secured many private waters, along with some closed waters, to conducted the study. This should allow anglers to experience high catch-per-unit-effort and provide an incentive if you need one!! Please review the background information and get back to me ASAP.

Thanks,
Roger

As fisheries managers, the California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) is tasked with developing and maintaining quality sport fishing opportunities while balancing the need to protect and monitor the aquatic resources. Utilizing sport fishing regulations as a management tool can have a substantial impact on the existing fisheries and, if used appropriately, can enhance angling opportunities. Currently, California has various combinations of freshwater fishing regulations on rivers and lakes that require the use of barbless hooks.

To help assess the efficacy of current special regulations, CDFG is initiating a study to assess the landing efficiency of barbed verses barbless hooks. This study will utilize volunteers to conduct the angling portion of the project. Volunteers will be placed in three different groups based on their fly(s) selection (streamer, nymph, or dry fly). Volunteers can choose to be in multiple groups or just one based the number of different flies they choose to use. Once the appropriate water, date, and number of anglers are chosen for a given water/sampling day, volunteers will be randomly selected from the different fly groups. Volunteers will then be contacted by CDFG to verify that their participation. If a volunteer cannot participate then another volunteer will be randomly chosen from the appropriate group until the target number of volunteers for that sampling day is reached.
Numbers of volunteers selected for each sampling day will depend on habitat limitations and logistical constraints.

Anglers will only be selected for one type of fly for each sampling day. Sampling days will be divided into two sampling periods (morning/afternoon). Volunteers will actively fish for only one period during the day, during the other period they will serve as an observer and will not actively fish. These periods will be randomly selected for each volunteer. Time spent as the observer is mandatory for all volunteers. The observer will be responsible for, among other things, making the study "blind" by assisting the active angler with the fly, thus not allowing the angler to see whether he or she is using a barbed or barbless hook. During the course of each sampling period the angler will systematically change hook treatments (with the help of the
observer) based on pre-determined time blocks.

Prior to sampling volunteers will be trained in sampling protocols and be given the necessary field gear. Volunteers will be responsible for providing all terminal tackle, except for flies. Flies will be standardized by hook size/type, however, to allow flexibility, anglers will be able to choose from a variety of patterns and or colors.
Volunteers will be required to have some flyfishing experience, however all skill levels are welcome.

Study sites will consist of, but not be limited to, public/private lakes and streams in northern California and the eastern Sierra Nevada.
The fishing portion of study will begin in May 2005 and continue into the fall of 2006. Anglers interested in volunteering should contact Roger K. Bloom at the CDFG Fisheries Programs Branch at (916) 445-3597 or rbloom@dfg.ca.gov. Anglers will need to provide the fly group(s) they are interested in and current contact information (phone # or email preferred). Additional information can also be obtained from Roger K. Bloom.

[Darian]

Before reading this post, let's understand that I do not wish to demean the efforts of the DFG 8) . Nor am I attempting to discourage participation by anyone in this study 8) 8) . Generally I'm supportive of staff efforts... 8) 8) .

But :roll: :roll: ...., I would like to know why a study of the "....landing efficiency...." is necessary, at all. Isn't hooking/landing efficiency the realm of hook mfgrs :?: :?: :?: And, If so, wouldn't that data already be available from them :?: :?:

Where is this study going :?: :?: Might this be a move to force use of circle hooks :?: :?: Not likely, since the latter hook is designed to address fish mortality aftedr release.... :? :?

I'm curious about why California Trout or Trout Unlimited have expressed no interest in this area:?: :?: :?: These organizations certainly have spent a lot of time/money working toward supporting the decision for barbless..... :? :?

Interesting that this study only addresses landing efficiency of barbless hooks for Trout (whether hatchery bred or native). Anadromous species are not included..... :? . Could the potential demise of the hatchery system be a portent of things to come :?: :?: :?: If all Trout fishing is barbless there'll be less need for hatcheries, maybe :?: :?: :?:

I'd really like more info about this from DFG... 8) . Guess I'll be asking some questions, direct..... :roll: :roll:

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Darian,

Here is Roger's email address.

I am sure he would love anyone to email him with questions and ideas.

I think this is a grass roots local study that they feel is necessary or they would not be putting this much effort and money into it.

We here at the shop have been working for month with Roger to get a list of the most popular fly patterns used locally in CA. I believe that Umpqua Feather Mechants, the largest supplier of commercially tied flies, is helping Roger as well.

Roger was born and raised right here and is also a fly fisher. He normally helps run the CA DF&G Wild Trout Program and is a great person to have on our side.


RBloom@dfg.ca.gov

[OregonSalmon]

Darian,
I've been out of the mainstream fly fishing loop for awhile and you can help me on this question: what is the reason for circle hooks? And why must that Steller Jay taunt me with his piliated appeal?

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Geller,

One idea for the circle hook in many fisheries is the fact that they usually hook the fish in the corner of the mouth making it easier to release.

In our case here in Sacramento we are now using them because the top year round striper fly fishers like Andy Guibord and Jim Christensen say they loose about 10% of the flies they use to fishing around snags in the river ands Delta where the Stripers seem to hang out.

The net effect is the fact that they don't have to loose 10 to 12 flies a day now. Instead they loose 1 to 2 flies to snags. The snags are usually down trees and root systems under water that afford cover for bait fish and attrack Stripers.

[Darian]

Hey OC,..... According to everything I've read on this, circle hooks result in hooking in the corner of the mouth (as Bill has said) because the point of the hook does not tend to hook into the gut when set. It slides along in soft tissue until encounters cartilege or bone, then rolls to set up... 8) 8) . The result is a lower loss of fish after release if handled correctly..... This is, supposedly, the case whether using bait/fly or lure... 8) 8) .

Probably not a good description of what circle hooks do as I'm not an expert in the mechanics of this... :wink: . Maybe someone who really understands it could weigh in with a clearer explanation.... 8) .

About the Stellar Jay, I had no idea that any Jay pilliated, at all... :shock: . Gotta update my logs. It might be a call for reinforcements.... :? :? . When Woodpeckers do that it's UGLY :shock: :shock: :shock: .

[slack_in_the_box]

Look, the issue isn't barb or no barb.

I have seen countless people, and seen countless photos of catches, where the angler mishandles the fish either keeping it of the water too long, laying it in dirt for the photo opp., playing way too long, etc. All of these things, we know, lead to dead or unhealthy fish ---- regardless of whether or not there was a barb on the hook. :roll:

People will still unknowingly kill fish even though they fish with barbless hooks. :evil: :evil:

On a side note, a few years ago I started using barbless flies after fishing on Hot Creek Ranch. I thought it would make a difference, but the only difference it made was it became nice and easy to release a poorly hooked fish. I rarely had to bring the fish entirely out of the water. I now only fish barbless - by mashing the barb down with pliers - because it doesn't tear the fish's mouth. And, hey, if I lose a fish or two b/c the hook didn't have a barb, that's all part of the game and soon I'll develop a new skill. :P :P :P

[Darian]

Hey Slack,..... You have correctly stated the real problem (e.g. mortality rates)... 8) 8) . This project will not address that issue... :( . It is intended to "....assess the efficacy of current special regulations." That's a nebulous explanation. I'm not sure where in the reg's it says anything about landing efficiency. Barring a more detailed explanation from DFG, it would appear that there is little to be gained from this project that should concern DFG.

If the result of this project will result in potential changes to the reg's, could those changes mandate specific hooking/landing rates or certaim brands of hooks :?: :?: Who knows.... But, this project appears to have a hidden agenda :? :? :? :?

My uneasiness with this project proposal has resulted in an E-mail note to Roger at DFG for more information.... 8) .

Man, where's Oregon Salmon when I need support for my conspiracy theory :?: :roll: :roll: :roll:

[slack_in_the_box]

Go Get 'Em Darian :!: :!: :!: :!: :twisted:

[Darian]

Following are the texts of DFG's response to my e-mail note and the original questions (in that order):

Darian,
All really good questions! The main reason I initiated this study is
due to the fact that CDFG is managing over 50 waters (inland only) under
a barbless reg with a bag limit of 1-5 fish. If there is no significant
difference in hooking mortality between barbed and barbless hooks (most
of the recent literature supports that) at the population level, then
why should we (CDFG) potentially limit catch rates by requiring barbless
hooks? There are obvious reasons why folks want and should potentially
use barbless hooks (safety, post-release injuries, reduced handling
time), however if those factors are not affecting the fishery on a
population level and folks want to keep fish, we should evaluate the
existing regs and the efficacy of barbless hooks in regards to landing
efficiency. The study design and statical analysis will address most of
the variables you probably thought of, however ultimately we must
constrain/standardize the study to keep it simple. The reason this is a
fly only study is based on angler survey data which revealed a
overwhelming preference for using flies only in our special regulation
waters throughout the state (27 waters/13,000 anglers from 1999-2003).
If you want more details or have some other questions please feel free
to call me.

Sincerely,
Roger Bloom


Roger K. Bloom
Associate Fisheries Biologist
California Department of Fish and Game
Fisheries Programs Branch
1812 9th Street
Sacramento, Ca. 95814
Office: (916) 445-3597
Fax (916) 445-4044
rbloom@dfg.ca.gov

>>> "Darian Calhoun" <colquhoun@quiknet.com> 05/26/05 11:30 AM >>>
Hello Roger,.... I'm a dedicated fly fisherman who has used Barbed and
barbless hooks over the course of my life in fishing.... I read your
message thru Bill @ Kiene's Bulletin Board that you're conducting a
study to determine the "....landing efficiency...." of barbed vs
barbless hooks.... In the context of your note, the information derived
from this study is to "....help assess the efficacy of current special
regulations." What are the goals/objectives of this project??? I guess
I'm not quite sure why the landing efficiency of any hook is a concern
of DFG.....

Another issue for me is the methodology involved in this project.
Certainly, the various skill levels of the volunteers will skew the
outcome and information obtained..... And, why only flies?? Or am I
jumping to a conclusion here???

I'd really like to know/understand what the intended outcome of this
project is....

Thanks,

Darian Calhoun

Well, it shouild be obvious that there's change afoot here... :) . Not sure what at this point... :? :? . I haven't digested all of it yet....

[SullyTM]

'Slack...Did you here the news of the 124lb blue catfish caught and manhandled in an attempt to verify that it was a world record with the desire to put it in a tank for public display...Needless to say it's compost now! OK...OK, I'm still ranting about these guys who wanted thier 15 minutes of fame :!: Consider me a sour puss today!!! SullyTM

[Darian]

OK guys,.... The cat's fed, I'm fed and feeling sufficiently paranoid to stir up some stuff.... :roll: :roll: .

After reading the reply, It's obvious that there is a broader meaning to "....landing efficiency...." than I attributed to it 8) . I'm still feeling that this project is unecessary :? . If majority of the "....latest literature...." support the idea that there is little impact on Trout at the population level whether hooks are barbless or not, why is further study needed :?: :?: Also, what does hooking/landing efficiency have to do with whether a person could keep a fish they caught :?: :?:

Now, my theory comes out..... If you accept the literature/statements concerning barbless vs barbed hooks, it seems to me that relaxing the requirement to use barbless hooks (without benefit of a project) is all that is necessary.... 8) 8) . However, if your objective is to increase catch rates (....of hatchery raised fish in particular :wink: ), you might want to know which hooks are best for landing fish and promote their use :idea: . Thereby, increasing the need for hatchery production/stocking of fish and the value of hatcheries.... :idea: :idea: .

WOW, I suddenly have a need to watch an episode of X-FILES... :shock: . "The Truth is Out There...." :roll: :roll:

[Hairstacker]

Darian, the study I want to see is a comparison of factory barbless to those crimped down by the fly tyer with a pair of pliers. I'd like them to do away with this nonsense of ticketing fly fishers using crimped barbs that won't pass the silk shirt test. Sorry, just had to get that out of the system. :lol:

[Darian]

Hi Mike,..... If I recall correctly, the subject of crimped barbs was hashed out in an earlier topic on this BB... 8) . That problem could be an inadvertant benefit of this project if the reg's requiring use of barbless hooks are relaxed.... 8) 8) .

[OregonSalmon]

Darian,
Of course there is a secret agenda lurking at the DFG, but it is much more sinister than you believe. Do you know who really runs DFG? Friggin' Ollie North!!! He no longer runs the show from the basement of the White House, of course you recall he got booted from that gig, but now does his deals from the basement (he hates being above ground) of a radio station in San Diego. Ollie's agenda? What has always been Ollie's agenda: the conquest of Central America. The poor boy suffers from some sort of Napoleon/Cortez syndrome.
Anyhoo, here's how his plan works: he siphons off tax dollars through the DFG and is hatcheries as training facilities for his invasion force. Do you think those smiling people feeding the fish are harmless? Hell no...killers in training!!! Has anyone gone into those buildings along the raceways lately. I tell you no, because they are not spawning huts but bomb factories.
Ollie doesn't just use tax dollars he has a private source, and since they locked up his favorite drug dealer Noriega, he has gone to a much darker source: late night infomercials. The l"little giant ladder system" is his. Those juicers...all his. Hell that crazy wide eyed guy, The Juiceman is a high ranking official in his private army. Just about any peice of crap you will buy for 19.95, use once then stuff in the attic, Ollie has a grip on.

[OregonSalmon]

The invasion will happen just after Ah-nold gets the boot in 2006. The Governator is in the scheme also. Since he can't be president here, Ollie has promised a dictatorship in his country of choosing. Sinister, sinsister, sinister!!!
How blind and apathetic the public has become to all the conspiracies that abound. Tomorrow's enlightment: Fidel Castro's secret school of poisonous dolphins. Florida bathers beware!!!

[slack_in_the_box]

Hi Sully - Yea, I read about the catfish that was killed b/c Cabella's wanted to put it in a tank.

What a bunch of fools!! :evil: :evil: :evil: This reminds me of the people I used to see fishing the tail waters in Missouri and Arkansas with their stringers full of beautiful browns and rainbows being drug over the rocks and parking lots. Granted they were put and take waters...

I just can't identify with people who are about catching boatloads of fish and totally miss the overall experience. This is why I never picked up conventional fishing. Where I grew up conventional fisherman used powerbait and livebait, and had no respect for the experience, or the environment.

To each his own....

[Hairstacker]

PowerBait? My favorite is the rainbow-colored one that is kind of salmon/orange and green-colored. Has to be the premium version with glitter in it though. :D

[Darian]

Hey OC,..... D'ya mean to tell me that there's a connection between Ollie North, the Governator and Napolean :?: :shock:

Ya know, there's a bunch of Porpoise in the Sea Cortez.... :? . Ya gotta watch out for them Bottle Nose Dolphin..... Always sneakin' around trying to move in your personal stash of tequila.... Mean drunks, they are, too... :shock: :wink: .

Crap, I maght have to re-think my vacation plans for Baja..... :roll: :roll:

[FHTFYR]

Fished Putah Creek yesterday with great success :D (for my standards) hooked 10 landed 1. I do think it changes the landing efficiency but, the only time that I'm sorry I pinch my barbs is when the reel starts to sing and then slack. Still trying to figure out how to strip line in faster than a fish can turn. Love to have fishy photos but hearing the line go and seeing the rod bent is just as good of memory.

:!: Still must take a picture once in a while, The wife can't figure out how we can spend all day knee deep in water so I try to show her the joy in my face :!:

[Darian]

FHTFYR,..... There shouldn't be any doubt about whether a barbed hook is a more efficient tool for hooking/landing a fish than a barbless one... 8) 8) . If the point made by Roger is correct, apparently, more people want to keep fish than we realize.... Therefore, the need for barbed hooks in waters that're now governed by the special regulations.... 8) 8) .

Sounds OK unless you think about the waters in those reg's. There being no restriction in the project on which waters are to be included, said waters might include anadromous fisheries including those that currently are home to endangered species (especially salmonids).... :? :? .

An unintended side affect of this project might be an increase in the bag limits in those sensitive areas as well... :? . Taken in the context where recent decisions by federal courts have determined that there is no genetic distinction between hatchery and non-hatchery fish, it's not much of a stretch... :roll: :roll: :roll: .

After having said all of that, it should be known that I, on occasion, keep a fish (always a hatchery bred Salmonid) for the table. So, I'm n ot condeming anyone else that does the same.... I'm just not sure that this project is needed for changing the special reg's as stated... :? :? .

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Geller has actually traveled the entire state of Oregon trying to substanciate the mith that the Indians did mate with the Buffalo.

The Ozarks has nothing on Oregon as far as genetics gone arye is concerned especially in Hamlet.

You are discriminated in his area if you do still have all your own teeth. It is a sure fire way for locals to weed out the 'furiners'.

[OregonSalmon]

You are right Kiene....and I bet you could graph a relationship between the gene pool (or lack of diversity therein) and elevation. Fifteen miles up the road lies Jewell Oregon, a real holdout for proper dental care. The last Saturday in June they have the "Ya' Sure Got A Purty Mouth Parade". Lot of Ellie Mae's and Jethro's up yonder, and socks are for "them thar' speecial occasionaries".
Poor Jewell...takes a beating in these parts.

[OregonSalmon]

Darian,
That is how those bottlenosed evovled; thieving tequila from the local fisherman. The theory is the drunk ones, those with the slimmest snouts, outspawned and outfought the fat snouts, erasing them from the ocean. Carrie Nation got her ass kicked in the dolphin world.
How does that old saying go??? I'd rather have a bottlenose beneath me than his nose in my bottle...

[Darian]

SOCKS :?: :?: :?: Do people wear SOCKS :?: :?: :shock: :shock:

[Darian]

Not wanting to leave even one pot unstirred, I sent an E-mail to DFG asking some additional questions and making a few observations about the project... 8) 8) .

Probably need to remove the street address from in front of my house now... :roll: . You know those politico's 'll be lookin' for me... :shock: . Somethin's stirrin' outside... :? . Gotta go now.................

[Darian]

Just wanna keep this topic at the top... 8) . Lest we forget :!: :!: :!:

[Darian]

Has anyone volunteered to participate in this project :?: :?: If so, please share your experiences :?: :?:

[Darian]

Just received a reply from DFG to my prior observations/questions. 8) 8) A partial qoute of the info in the reply indicates:

"....there is no preconceived idea on what the
outcome of the study will be. The goal of the study is to provide
baseline information for which we can base management decisions on. I
feel it is CDFG responsibility to the anglers of the State to make
informed decisions based on (as much as possible) sound biological
information."

Since info about the impact of using barbed vs barbless hooks on Trout at the population level already exists (per prior statement of DFG), the study of landing efficiency of certain hooks probably won't contribute any additional/pertinent info. So, I guess it's wait and see..... :? Hope I'm wrong about this but..... :? :? :?