The Arkansas Chapter of Trout Unlimited has been doing a good job of providing a response to the suggested revisions in the trout regs for Bull Shoals and Norfork tailwaters on their website. Concern over the inclusion of barbed hooks and treble hooks in the catch and release areas has been expressed.

My only and final comment on the situation is that Arkansas Game and Fish Commission does not have a handle on the data for these tailwaters. Over the years, I’ve heard conflicting bits of information from the biologists. In the early 1990s, the data I heard was that one section of stream studied showed about 94% of the stocked rainbows were caught from the stream within a period of a week or two. Within the past 3-4 years, creel survey data could not account for nearly 60% of trout stocked. It seems foolish for AGFC to assume that actual hooking mortality can be kept under 10% with the inclusion of barbed and treble hooks.

Studies often assume certain things which in real life don’t bear out. Having observed friends who are casual fishermen killing bass with treble hooks because they could not get the hooks out of the fish in a timely manner or without causing significant damage to gills, and also having observed trout fishermen killing fish because of similar mishandling, I cannot support any use of barbed or treble hooks in a special regulation program. Practiced anglers can usually remove hooks quicky and return to the fish to the water in timely fashion to avoid severe injury to the fish. This is simply not true for the average fisherman.

The recomendation to include barbed and treble hooks supposedly came out of the trout management meeting process. AGFC, however, has removed all the reports from those meetings on their website. The Bull Shoals and Norfork Public Workshops Summary did not show significant concern over allowing the use of barbed and treble hooks in catch and release areas. Most of the comments instead favored the use of barbless hooks.

My hope is AGFC will continue to enlarge catch and release sections on the tailwaters, but also continue to protect these regulated areas with regulations which afford the greatest margin of fish conservation.

Revisions to the regulation proposals may be forthcoming in July, but the commission will vote on the recommended regulations in August. There is still time to write letters to the commissioners. See the AGFC website for a list of the commissioners and their email addresses.

© 2009, Scott Branyan

I had a client ask me the other day about whether fish have cognitive learning ability. Fish do exhibit sensitive foraging, where their foraging location, exposure to risk and time spent there vary accordingly. But much of this is instinctive.

However, I ran across an interesting article today. It cites a study that suggests fish do learn to find new and better food supplies much the way humans do despite their relatively small brains.

© 2009, Scott Branyan

Here is the justification AGFC’s biologist Jeff Williams is presenting for the proposed change in regulations allowing barbed and treble hooks in the catch and release sections on Bull Shoals and Norfork tailwaters. This is a departure from the barbless, single hook rule we have had for many years in the catch and release regulated areas. See the proposals in the post below, “AGFC 2009 Trout Regulation Proposals.”

FYI, Darrell Bowman was the AGFC lead trout biologist prior to Jeff Williams.

The Issue of Hooking Mortality and Trout Management

Jeff Williams - Arkansas Game & Fish Commission

Darrell Bowman - Bella Vista Property Owners Association

Harvest restrictions, such as length limits or catch-and release regulations, have long been a tool for biologists to manage recreational fisheries.  Although length limits were historically implemented to prevent over harvest and protect juvenile fish until they reached maturity, they have also been used to increase the size distribution of fish populations.  Regardless of the type of harvest restriction, the primary goal is to reduce the mortality of fishes in the population of interest.  However, angling related mortality includes direct mortality from harvest as well as post-release hooking mortality of fishes that are caught and released.  Therefore, if the fish anglers are required to release under a particular regulation die anyway as a result of hooking mortality then the ultimate effectiveness of the regulation may be limited.  For this reason, regulations that prohibit certain angling gear generally accompany special regulations such as length limits and catch-and-release requirements.  The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) currently prohibits the use of natural or scented baits in areas with special trout regulations solely because of the higher post-release mortality associated with bait fishing compared to that observed with artificial lures and flies.  A review of the scientific literature substantiates this practice.

Hunsaker and Marnell (1970) compared hooking mortality for cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake caught on single hook lures, single barbless hook lures, single treble hook lures, and single barbless treble hook lures, single hook baited with a worm.  In summary, hooking mortality for all lures combined was 4%.  Hooking mortality for bait-caught trout was 48%, overall.  However, for bait caught trout, they evaluated hooking mortality for trout that swallowed the hook separately from trout that did not swallow the hook, which resulted in drastically different results.  Hooking mortality was 8% for trout that did not swallow the hook, but was 73% for trout that did swallow the hook.  Overall, 55% of the trout caught on bait, swallowed the hook.  Taylor and White (1992) conducted a statistical analysis of results from 18 trout hooking mortality studies and generated an overall summary of those studies.  They found that hooking mortality overall was 4% for artificial single and treble hook lures combined, compared to 31% hooking mortality associated with bait-caught trout.  Pauley and Thomas (1993) studied cutthroat trout hooking mortality comparing single hook lures, single treble hook lures, and bait (worms).  They found a much higher mortality rate for artificial lures than any other study at 20% for single hook lures and treble hook lures combined.  However, bait-caught trout hooking mortality (49%) was more than double that of artificial lures.  Schill (1996) measured hooking mortality for rainbow trout caught on worms in both a hatchery and a trout stream.  He found the lowest overall hooking mortality (16%) associated with bait fishing for trout, of the studies reviewed herein.  Like Hunsaker and Marnell (1970), Schill found very low mortality associated with trout that were not deep-hooked at only 2% in the hatchery study.  However, 63% of the trout studied were deep hooked.  Of those deep hooked, mortality was 74% for trout released after the hook was removed and 47% for trout released by cutting the line.  This represents a 36% reduction in hooking mortality simply by cutting the line. 

These studies indicate that the high post-release mortality associated with bait is directly related to the higher incidence of deep-hooking with bait.  Because bait is fished passively (”slack line”), the fish has a greater chance of being hooked in the gut or other vital organ.  In contrast, both artificial lures and flies, which are fished actively, have a higher incidence of hooking fish in the jaw or other non-lethal location resulting in a much lower post-release mortality.

Although there are those that would contend that only artificial lures with single hooks should be allowed in special regulation areas, the scientific literature does not support this assertion.  Klein (1965) caught trout from a rearing pond with a daredevil type lure equipped with either a single hook or a single treble hook, and then released the trout into a raceway to monitor post-release hooking mortality.  Overall, he found low hooking mortality with both hook types, but actually measured lower hooking mortality with treble hook lures (3%) than with single hook lures (6%).  Klein stated that the single hook was often taken farther into the mouth than the treble hook and therefore, inflicted a more serious injury than the treble hook, which usually hooked in the edge of the mouth.  Marnell and Hunsaker (1970) measured 5% hooking mortality for cutthroat trout caught on treble hook lures.  Hunsaker and Marnell (1970) studied hooking mortality for cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake with barbed flies, barbless flies, barbed treble hook lures, barbless treble hook lures, and a trolled single hook and worm.  They found low hooking mortality for all four artificial lure types with 4 % for single hook lures and 4% for treble hook lures.  Dotson (1982) only documented one trout mortality out of a sample of 315 trout while comparing hooking mortality differences between single and treble hook lures.  Schill et al. (1986) documented 3% hooking mortality in Yellowstone River managed under catch-and-release regulations with artificial lures and flies.  Snuffer and Alexander (1992) compared hooking mortality for wild brook trout caught with five different lure types including Mepps spinners and Cleo spoons rigged with either a single hook or a treble hook, and Rapala lures with two treble hooks.  They found 2% hooking mortality when lures were equipped with a single hook and 8% hooking mortality when lures were equipped with a single treble hook.  They found no mortality associated with Rapala lures with two treble hooks.  Taylor and White (1992) found that hooking mortality overall was 4% for single hook lures and 5% for single treble hook lures.  Pauley and Thomas (1993) compared hooking mortality of sea-run cutthroat trout associated with spinners equipped with either a single hook or a single treble hook and found much higher mortality rates than any other study at 16% for single hook lures and 24% for single treble hook lures.  These higher rates were attributed to the fact that sea-run cutthroat are larger and more aggressive than stream dwelling cutthroat and therefore took lures deeper than trout in other studies.  Schisler and Bergersen (1996) measured 4% hooking mortality for rainbow trout caught on artificial flies.  Schill and Scarpella (1997) found an overall 5% hooking mortality associated with artificial lures and flies by summarizing results from other salmonid studies.

The requirement of artificial lures with barbless hooks in areas under special regulations is also not clearly supported by the fisheries literature.  Hunsaker and Marnell (1970) compared hooking mortality for cutthroat trout in Yellowstone Lake caught on single hook lures, single barbless hook lures, single treble hook lures, and single barbless treble hook lures.  They found no significant difference in hooking mortality for single hook lures (4%) and single barbless hook lures (3%).  For treble hook lures, they found higher mortality with barbless treble hooks (6%) compared to barbed treble hooks (3%), but again the difference was not statistically significant.  Dotson (1982) found no mortality with either barbed or barbless single hooks.  Schill and Scarpella (1997) summarized the results from past salmonid hooking mortality studies.  For flies and artificial lures combined across studies, average hooking mortality was 4.5% for barbed hooks and 4.2% for barbless hooks.  They stated that “a 0.3% mean difference in hooking mortality from the two hook types is irrelevant at the population level, even when fish are subjected to repeated capture”.  Therefore, they deemed the restriction of barbed hooks, a “social issue”.

Based on the current knowledge of hooking mortality associated with terminal tackle, the prohibition of natural or scented baits in special trout management areas in Arkansas will likely continue.  The use of circle hooks for bait fishing has demonstrated the potential of reducing post-release mortality to less than 10% hooking mortality.  However, there remains much research to be done on this subject before bait fishing with circle hooks would be allowed in special management areas. 

The scientific literature indicates that artificial lures of any type will likely yield less than 10% hooking mortality.  However, the type of artificial lures allowed in special regulation areas throughout Arkansas has been inconsistently applied.  Some areas allow barbless, treble-hooked lures while others require lures with single, barbless hooks.  This inconsistency in what types of lures are allowed can be very confusing to anglers.  And although the requirement of lures with single, barbless hooks is likely the most conservative approach, it may unnecessarily exclude anglers that prefer to use treble-hooked lures.  Barbless lures do not significantly reduce hooking mortality, but probably reduce some damage to fish and therefore have a value in trout management.  In the future, the AGFC Trout Management Program will endeavor to make the types of artificial lures allowed in special regulation areas consistent throughout the state.

I’ll follow up with some comments on the proposals in June.

© 2009, Scott Branyan

Roaring River State Park as well as other parks in Missouri are facing budget cuts by the Department of Natural Resources. Parks are funded by sales taxes and, well, sales are down. There will be an open house at the park this Wednesday evening from 6:00 to 7:30 at the Inn and Conference Center. Read about the cuts in Sunday’s Joplin Globe article.

A lot of fly fishers from Northwest Arkansas use the park and some of you may be interested in attending the event.

© 2009, Scott Branyan

Here are the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission 2009 fishing regulation proposals which pertain to Bull Shoals and Norfork tailwaters. There are still public comment meetings scheduled around the state in May where anglers can make their comments. I will be sending a letter to the commissioners sometime in June. I’ll comment on them here in the blog at that time. The proposals are usually voted on at the August commission meeting for a January 1 implementation. The proposals read:

7.  Allow use of artificial lures with barbed hooking points and treble hooks in special regulation areas on the Bull Shoals and Norfork Tailwaters.

This change would allow the use of artificial lures with barbed hooking points and treble hooks in special regulation areas on the Bull Shoals and Norfork Tailwaters.  A substantial amount of scientific literature supports that artificial lures with single, barbless hooks do not significantly improve post-release survival of fish over that observed for artificial lures with treble or barbed hooks.   Allowing anglers to use artificial lures with barbed and/or treble hooked artificial lure would expand the angling opportunities for anglers that fish with this type of tackle while still achieving management objectives.  This would also help to eliminate the often contentious issue of whether or not an adequate attempt by an angler to de-barb their hook has been made.  As management plans for other tailwatersare revisited this change will be recommended for the special regulation areas on those waters to provide consistency throughout the state.

8.  Expansion of Norfork Tailwater Catch-and-Release (C&R) Area.

This change would move the upper boundary of the C&R Area up to the bottom of Long Hole and the lower boundary down to the island above the confluence with the White River (an increase from approximately 1.0 mile to 2.7 miles in length).  The results of a University of Arkansas study indicated that the effectiveness of the Norfork C&R Area may be partially limited by reduced survival associated with high angling pressure and harvest outside of the C&R area.  Increasing the size of the special regulations area would lend itself to reducing harvest related mortality fish that may move outside this area.  Additionally, a substantial amount of scientific literature supports that artificial lures with single, barbless hooks do not significantly improve post-release survival of fish over that observed for artificial lures with treble or barbed hooks.   Allowing anglers to use artificial lures with barbed, treble hooks would expand the angling opportunities for anglers that fish with this type of tackle while still achieving management objectives.

9.  Removal of the Sylamore Catch-and-Release (C&R) Area.

This change would remove the Sylamore C&R Area, which is currently not meeting the objectives of increasing the abundance of larger (>16 inches) rainbow trout.  AGFC population samples as well as data from a U of A study support this statement. The U of A study demonstrated that trout will move out of this area or will simply die as a result of high summer water temperatures, which modeling shows will not be alleviated by minimum flow.  Based on these findings the management plan for this fishery states that reach of Bull Shoals Tailwater from Calico Rock to Guion would be managed solely as a put-and-take trout fishery, which would not warrant special regulations or physical habitat improvement.

Currently anglers wishing to harvest trout or to fish with bait must travel through this area, which is approximately 2 miles long (the longest of all C&R Areas), or run the risk of a citation.  Given the ineffectiveness of this regulation and the inconvenience to anglers, it is recommended that the Sylamore C&R Area and associated regulations be removed.

© 2009, Scott Branyan

My fly-fishing column with the Morning News of Northwest Arkansas has been chopped after eight years. The Morning News announced a reduced format and staff layoffs in Friday’s paper. My outdoors editor called today with the news and said all the freelance budgets, including mine, had been cut also.

I had a good run and received several notes of appreciation on articles from readers over the years—something that is rather rare in the newspaper business since readers often only send letters of complaint on articles. I began by writing a weekly column for an experimental outdoors website that DonRey media launched in 2000. After that dissolved, the Morning News picked up my column in its outdoors section. It ran variously, sometimes weekly, sometimes twice monthly, and I had the chance to do feature stories for the outdoors section every now and then. 

I don’t know if I will find another newspaper gig or not, but thanks for your interest, readership and comments.

© 2009, Scott Branyan

Here’s some short video clips I took last week. In full disclosure, I hooked the rainbow and brown for Quin, but he did all the rest. See the report on the river reports page for April 4, 2009 for more details.

I wish I could have gotten video of Mike’s big brown taking the fly. It was pure exhilaration. The timing of the freight train coming around bend and its deceleration sound was perfect background accompaniment for netting the fish.

© 2009, Scott Branyan

I fished Beaver tailwater with the Moore brothers on Monday. Fishing didn’t produce the usual large number of stockers, but then I don’t think anybody really cared. It was a special day and deserved a write up in my Morning News column for this week.

© 2009, Scott Branyan

I often get questions from customers about the search for the Ivory-billed Woodpecker in Arkansas. Here is a great video of the 123rd Stated Meeting of the American Ornithologists’ Union in August of 2005 at the University of California Santa Barbara. John W. Fitzpatrick, director of the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, gives a nearly two hour presentation on the “Rediscovery of the Ivory-billed Woodpecker and Its Conservation Implications.”

Fitzpatrick summarizes the work of James Taylor Tanner who studied and filmed the Ivory-billed in northern Louisiana in 1935. He looks at the 2004-2005 sightings and resulting research in Arkansas’ Cache River and White River National Wildlife Refuges which triggered national attention. This is a very entertaining introduction to the subject with some hard data.

© 2009, Scott Branyan

I attended the Hunter Angler Water for Wildlife Summit in Little Rock on Saturday. The event was sponsored by the Arkansas Wildlife Federation and the National Wildlife Federation. The AWF, NWF, Trout Unlimited, Ducks Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League of American, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Project as well as other groups are working together to support congressional action known as the Clean Water Restoration Act.

In actuality, there were more professional people from agencies/organizations attending than “Joe” Hunter/Angler. However, it was a good networking event. AWF, DU, USACE, ADEQ, AGFC, NWTF, TU, BASS, Friends of the North Fork and White Rivers, and a few universities were also represented. Gene Dunaway from the Friends of the North Fork and White Rivers gave a good presentation also.

You can read more about the conference in my Morning News column for this week.

© 2009, Scott Branyan