Whats the Difference?

[troutologist]

Chris,

 

I will agree with you there has not been an in-depth peer reviewed study on this issue. Since this topic has risen here on OFC I have looked into it online and in various journals. There is very little on the topic save a number of allusions and addendums in other C & R studies. Now you seem to be somewhat informed on the process of science and understand various routes of seeking information.

 

Don't take this as a personal dig, just maybe some explanation as to the lack of rigor in this area of study. Catch and release effects have been studied extensively to various ends. It has, is and will be a "hot topic" in biology since there are a multitude of interests at play. Attempts to conserve resources under varying uses. Political lobbying of anti groups and pro sportfishing groups etc. This has/will ensure C & R studies will receive sufficient funding. So there is funding for this type of research, it’s a known issue, why no studies? One major factor is the need for standardized testing and control of certain variables. As you stated there is a difference between good and poor science. Peer review works to catch this.

 

I spoke to one of Canada's top biologists on C & R physiology regarding this issue. It is difficult to develop a standard protocol and set of circumstances to test the hypothesis of a vertical hold harming the fish. As discussed earlier, this phenomenon is perceived to be have greater deleterious effect on larger/longer fish. Where does one find and house a sufficient number of large fish (e.g. Esox) to have a sample size which permits statistical significance. If angling for these fish, how does one accurately compare the characteristics of the fight, landing, unhooking etc? There are so many variables out of the researcher’s control it makes for a difficult study design. When this occurs there is a lot of qualitative data, estimation and conjecture; flags which will be raised during peer review.

 

Going back to your points, you elude to a single instance of a large muskie being caught and held vertically. This is precisely the point you are arguing against. It certainly debunks nothing. There are exceptions to every rule and theory. To debunk anything you must have sufficient numbers, drawing a standard curve with one point is challenging.

 

To finish up, a scientific theory or study the best information available at the time. New information arises, new technology for study, new insights. The perception of today may be different tomorrow. Now, at present there may not be a peer reviewed study expounding the merits of a horizontal hold on fish. There seems to be a lot of agreement that this may be the way to hold a fish to minimize stress. With the information presented to me, I have made a choice to make every effort to 1. Unhook fish in the water with you handling or, 2. hold a fish horizontally with a hand to support its weight. You or others should not feel obligated to do so, nor should I feel the need to denounce your catch and release techniques. Any attempt to preserve the fishery is admirable. Perhaps as technological capacity increases, a computer simulation will prove all fish should be supported in a net with a mesh size of 75mm at an angle of 11 degrees….I like science.

[Roy]

Troutologist, your post is probably the best ending we could wish for on this matter. Thank you.

[StoneFly]

After all of this,..some fish need to be held gently

 

 

 

 

 

a little closer to home...

 

 

what was that about lactic acid buid up from fighting a fish?

 

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLItLzSRHTk

 

 

they must all be dead!!!

Edited September 4, 2009 by StoneFly

[Greencoachdog]

Chris,

 

I will agree with you there has not been an in-depth peer reviewed study on this issue. Since this topic has risen here on OFC I have looked into it online and in various journals. There is very little on the topic save a number of allusions and addendums in other C & R studies. Now you seem to be somewhat informed on the process of science and understand various routes of seeking information.

 

Don't take this as a personal dig, just maybe some explanation as to the lack of rigor in this area of study. Catch and release effects have been studied extensively to various ends. It has, is and will be a "hot topic" in biology since there are a multitude of interests at play. Attempts to conserve resources under varying uses. Political lobbying of anti groups and pro sportfishing groups etc. This has/will ensure C & R studies will receive sufficient funding. So there is funding for this type of research, it’s a known issue, why no studies? One major factor is the need for standardized testing and control of certain variables. As you stated there is a difference between good and poor science. Peer review works to catch this.

 

I spoke to one of Canada's top biologists on C & R physiology regarding this issue. It is difficult to develop a standard protocol and set of circumstances to test the hypothesis of a vertical hold harming the fish. As discussed earlier, this phenomenon is perceived to be have greater deleterious effect on larger/longer fish. Where does one find and house a sufficient number of large fish (e.g. Esox) to have a sample size which permits statistical significance. If angling for these fish, how does one accurately compare the characteristics of the fight, landing, unhooking etc? There are so many variables out of the researcher’s control it makes for a difficult study design. When this occurs there is a lot of qualitative data, estimation and conjecture; flags which will be raised during peer review.

 

Going back to your points, you elude to a single instance of a large muskie being caught and held vertically. This is precisely the point you are arguing against. It certainly debunks nothing. There are exceptions to every rule and theory. To debunk anything you must have sufficient numbers, drawing a standard curve with one point is challenging.

 

To finish up, a scientific theory or study the best information available at the time. New information arises, new technology for study, new insights. The perception of today may be different tomorrow. Now, at present there may not be a peer reviewed study expounding the merits of a horizontal hold on fish. There seems to be a lot of agreement that this may be the way to hold a fish to minimize stress. With the information presented to me, I have made a choice to make every effort to 1. Unhook fish in the water with you handling or, 2. hold a fish horizontally with a hand to support its weight. You or others should not feel obligated to do so, nor should I feel the need to denounce your catch and release techniques. Any attempt to preserve the fishery is admirable. Perhaps as technological capacity increases, a computer simulation will prove all fish should be supported in a net with a mesh size of 75mm at an angle of 11 degrees….I like science.

 

I believe you'd make a better politician than scientist!

[bigfish1965]

I believe you'd make a better politician than scientist!

 

Here's the Scientist to Redneck translation for ya dawg...

Y'all can't do no studyin' cause weird stuff happens. Then the weird stuff means y'all got more questions and then by the time the shine is stilled, y'all got bugger all to say.

[StoneFly]

Here's the Scientist to Redneck translation for ya dawg...

Y'all can't do no studyin' cause weird stuff happens. Then the weird stuff means y'all got more questions and then by the time the shine is stilled, y'all got bugger all to say.

 

ROTFLMAO,....and dont forget once scientists draw conclusions there is no more need for funding,.. so to translate,..if ya givem some answers theres no more scratch for the kitty.

 

For real though, the essence of research and science in general is not to prove anything it is to disprove!!! you either accept or not accept the Null hypothesis. The Null hypothesis means 'no difference' between treatments among variable/s in a properly controlled experiment. So if the Null hypothesis shows to be false, there is something significant happening and that is always a commentary as to what the difference is caused by. Almost every refereed journal paper ends the same way, 'further research is neccesary in order to vailidate these findings'. dont even get me started on stastical methods that are used to back it up. Not sure how to translate all that into DAWG, lol

 

how you do any of that reagrading this topic is beyond me. did you see those fish jumping 10' vertical slam into rocks and then jump again though? lol

[Greencoachdog]

Here's the Scientist to Redneck translation for ya dawg...

Y'all can't do no studyin' cause weird stuff happens. Then the weird stuff means y'all got more questions and then by the time the shine is stilled, y'all got bugger all to say.

 

 

Yeah, that's a little less to say, to say nothing than the original version.

 

... bottom line! If the vertical hold is good enough for this sites sponsors.. it's good enough for me!!!

 

Edited September 5, 2009 by GCD

[fishermccann]

Unless it is a personel best or the kids have caught it, why do you need a picture of another bass, we all know what they look like? Good fishermen would have hundreds if not thousands of the same type of fish and a fisherman with a goofy look on his face.Who are you trying to impress, people who do not beleive that you catch any?