Fish Hooks Effect Living Aquatic Resources: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Alfred Zheng and Version 1 by Krzysztof Kupren.

The fish hook is a commonly known tool used in recreational fishing, which is one of the forms of active, specialised tourism. As a component of a fishing rod, the hook is intended to be anchored into the mouth of a fish and hold the fish on the end of the line while landing it. In the context of the protection of living aquatic resources and Catch-and-Release (C&R) fishing, its role and significance are becoming broader. In addition to the impact of the hook type on fishing efficiency, including the Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE), the importance of hook selection in terms of minimising the resulting damage to the tissues of caught and released fish is increasing.

  • fishing rod
  • fishing hooks
  • angler welfare
  • fishing efficiency

1. Introduction

The hook-and-line is a useful tool that has been accompanying humans for centuries. Hooks for catching fish have been known to humankind for a long time, as catching fish using bait put on the hook was one of the first and basic fishing methods in the history of humankind, with traditional communities, as well as hunting and fishing tribes, who still use it today [36,37,38][1][2][3]. The role of the hook is evidenced by the fact that it has been listed on the Forbes list of twenty most useful and longest-used tools in human history (alongside the knife, needle, and others), with the first hooks most likely being made of wood over 30,000 years ago [39][4]. Currently, the hook is the most important component of the most popular fishing tool used worldwide, namely the fishing rod. However, its significance and function are no longer limited to ensuring only optimum fishing performance but also the safety and welfare of fish in the context of increasingly popular C&R fishing and, consequently, the protection of ichthyofaunal resources.

2. The Design and Function of a Fishing Rod and the Hook as Its Integral Component

When discussing the fish hook, it is appropriate to mention, in the first place, the fishing rod, whose important and integral component is the hook. The simplest fishing rod is comprised of three components: a pole (Figure 1a), a line (Figure 1b), and a hook (Figure 1c). Obviously, depending on the adopted specific angling method, a fishing rod may comprise a greater number of components. For example, a simple fishing rod used for popular float fishing is additionally comprised of a float (Figure 1d) intended to signal bites and weight (Figure 1e) to balance the float [29,99][5][6]. In other fishing methods, e.g., feeder fishing or method feeder fishing (fishing from the bottom using a groundbait feeder), the role of the float is taken over by a quiver tip. Irrespective of the angling method, the hook is always attached to the line of the rod (Figure 1c), being the final (though not always the last) component of the rod submerged in water, which specifically connects the angler with the hooked fish.
/media/item_content/202305/646c1d7aea551water-15-01842-g002.png
Figure 1.
A fishing rod and its design, with a simple float fishing rod as an example: a—pole, b—line, c—hook, d—float, e—weight.
The main “mechanical” function of a fishing rod operated by an angler is to enable and/or facilitate him/her to perform four basic actions: introducing the hook (usually with a bait) into the fishing ground, observing and signalling a bite, hooking the fish, and landing it. These four basic activities make up angling, i.e., fishing using a rod. On the other hand, in the context of recreational fishing, another additional task of the rod that is decidedly more difficult to specify and more “metaphysical” is to provide a certain amount of pleasure from landing the fish to the angler. It should be noted that the fishing rod has been used successfully for a long time in purely commercial fishing [4,118][7][8].
It can be said that the hook is the essential and most important component of a fishing rod that is present and functions in all angling types and methods. It is used both in fishing using natural baits, float and feeder methods, and in any methods using artificial baits, i.e., spinning and fly fishing. It is also essential in vertical methods, including those using mixed (artificial + natural) baits, e.g., in ice fishing using a mormyshka (a type of fishing lure) [119][9]. The design of a modern fish hook is rather simple (Figure 2), with the basic parts comprising it being the shank (Figure 2a) and the bend (Figure 2b). At the end of the bend, there is the tip of the hook (Figure 2c), with a barb located beneath the tip in barbed hooks (Figure 2d). At the other end of the hook, its shank terminates with a part for attaching the line (Figure 2e), which usually has the form of either an eye (a ring) or a flat eye (spade). The primary purpose of the hook as a component of a fishing rod is to effectively hook the fish by penetrating the tissue of the mouth and remaining there during the landing until the fish is removed from the water. In addition, the hook is used for the attachment of the bait and for the presentation of the bait steadily to the fish in the fishing ground. On the other hand, in the context of C&R fishing, a properly selected hook should further minimise injury and damage to fish tissues while maximising the fish’s chances of survival after release.
/media/item_content/202305/646c1d9be576dwater-15-01842-g003.png
Figure 2.
The design of a fish hook: a—shank, b—bend, c—tip, d—barb, e—eye (or flat eye).

2.1. Types of Fish Hooks

The welfare and safety of released fish and the associated impact of the type of hook selected by anglers on their survivability has been the subject of numerous scientific studies (e.g., [27,28,29,83,87,103,105][5][10][11][12][13][14][15]). However, in Central and Eastern European countries, certain alternative hook types are basically unknown and not used in practice [29][5]. This applies, for example, to circle hooks which, despite numerous publications on their role in C&R [25[16][17][18],30,62], are virtually unavailable in Polish physical stores and online shops [29][5]. It appears that this situation is related to C&R angling, which is still developing, albeit very rapidly, e.g., in Poland [29,40][5][19]. On the other hand, an increasing interest in, e.g., barbless hooks, particularly on closed private fishing grounds and online sales (the authors’ own observations).
There are a lot of hook types, as can be seen when entering any large angling shop, so it is difficult to make a clear and detailed division of them. However, there are certain criteria by which several basic types of fish hooks can be distinguished. Apart from differences in hook sizes, which can be enormous (Figure 3a), the first division can be made according to the number of tips, with the simplest one being obviously a single hook (Figure 3Ba), followed by a double (Figure 3Bb) and a triple hook (Figure 3Bc). The next division, particularly important in terms of fish welfare, takes into account the presence or absence of barbs. Therefore, hooks are divided into barbed (Figure 4Ca) and barbless hooks (Figure 3Cc), as well as the so-called micro-barbed hooks (Figure 3Cb). Additionally, hooks with barbs on the shank, serving to hold the bait, can be distinguished (Figure 3Ca). The next category of fish hook division is the position of the tip in relation to the shank. Hooks with the tip positioned parallel to the shank are classic J-type hooks (Figure 3Db), while where the hook tip is bent and directed perpendicular to the shank, the hook is referred to as a circle hook (Figure 3Da). Moreover, hooks can also have the tip offset from the shank axis (Figure 3Ea). Based on the line attachment manner, hooks can be divided into ones with the eye (Figure 3Fb,Fc) and with the flat eye or spade (Figure 3Fa). Other subdivisions take into account the way the hook bend is bent as well as the section of the bend (round or flattened in the forging process) (Figure 3H) and the shank length in relation to the width of the opening between the point and the shank, i.e., the gap. The so-called jig hooks may have an additional weight at the end of the shank (Figure 3Aa). However, the type of hook has very little effect on the size of the fish caught [29,89,120,121,122,123][5][20][21][22][23][24]. The size of the hook [30,120][17][21] and the type of the bait used [63,101][25][26] have a far greater impact on the size of fish caught.
/media/item_content/202305/646c1dbe1d799water-15-01842-g004.png
Figure 3. Various types of the fish hook: (Aa)—a large hook (No 5/0) with a weight (head); (Ab)—a small hook (No 22); (Ba)—single, (Bb)—with two tips, (Bc)—with three tips (a treble hook); (Ca)—a barbed hook with additional barbs on the shank, (Cb)—a hook with a microbarb, (Cc)—a barbless hook; (Da)—circle, (Db)—J-type; (Ea)–a hook with offset tip, (Eb)—a hook with a straight tip; (Fa)—a hook with a spade, (Fb)—with a small eye, (Fc)—with a large eye; (Ga)—a barbed hook with a long shank, (Gb)—a barbed hook with a medium shank, (Gc)—a barbless hook with a short shank, (Gd)—a barbless hook with a long shank, (Ge)—a micro-barbed hook with a medium shank, (Gf)—a barbed hook with a short shank; (Ha)—a barbless forged hook with a V-bend, (Hb)—a barbless hook with a J-bend, (Hc)—a barbed hook with a J/U bend, (Hd)—a barbless forged hook with a U-bend. Scale bar = 1 cm.

2.2. The Hook–A Crucial Component Affecting Fish and Angler Welfare

An earlier section of this research described the most important factors affecting fish survival while also pointing out that the hook type and size are crucial in this context due to the correlation with the duration of fish exposure to the air. The time during which fish is exposed outside water contributes considerably to stress and any subsequent behavioural disorders [63,88,91,92][25][27][28][29]. One of the main components of the total time of this exposure to the air is the time required to successfully remove the hook [29][5], which has an enormous impact on post-release fish survival [82,89,90,93,94,119][9][20][30][31][32][33]. As far as the hook size is concerned, smaller hooks can be swallowed more deeply [26][34], causing increased mortality [124][35], although they may cause less tissue damage as compared with large hooks [125][36].
It appears that the shape and design of the hook may be more important than its size, as the ease of removal is often mainly determined by these. Even such details of the hook design as the tip’s vertical offset from the shank may have an impact on fish survival [126][37], and non-offset hooks appear to be safer for fish [30,127][17][38]. However, single hooks appear to be safer for fish than double or triple hooks [25[16][39],128], although some studies did not confirm such a relationship [62,129,130][18][40][41]. It is generally accepted that barbless hooks are safer for fish than barbed ones [62,102[14][18][42],103], as classic barbed hooks usually need more time to be removed than other hook types used for fishing. This is the case, for example, when fishing for the rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss [87][13]. Kapusta and Czarkowski [29][5] empirically found that the situation was similar for the fishing for cyprinids, despite the differences in the mouth structure. According to these researchers, it takes the most time to unhook fish caught using classic barbed hooks, slightly less time to unhook fish caught with barbless hooks, and the shortest time to unhook fish caught using circle hooks. Alongside other studies related to ice fishing, they also observed a shorter time of unhooking fish caught using barbless hooks [119][9].
It should be noted that the anatomical hooking location (AHL) and its depth have an enormous impact on the time of hook removal, as the deeper the location, the longer the time of unhooking, which may translate into higher fish mortality rates following release [29,129][5][40]. In general, the AHL can be divided into deep (critical) and shallow (safe) locations. The critical locations include deep hookings in the area of the gills or oesophagus or even deeper (Figure 4a) [63,101][25][26]. As regards the cyprinids, these locations include all hookings in the back of the palate, behind the eye line but usually in front of the pharyngeal teeth (Figure 4b) [99][6], which is related to the different structure of the anterior part of the digestive tract, particularly the chewing apparatus which mostly closes the way for the hook to reach further locations [29][5]. The safe locations include hookings by the upper lip (Figure 4d), the lower lip (Figure 4e), a corner of the mouth (Figure 4f), and a shallow hooking by the skin of the body (Figure 4c) [29,63,99,101][5][6][25][26].
/media/item_content/202305/646c1dd882975water-15-01842-g005.png
Figure 4. Basic anatomical hooking locations (AHL): (a)–deep by the oesophagus in the perch; (b)–deep behind the eye line in front of the pharyngeal teeth in the cyprinids; (c)–shallow external by the skin; (d)–shallow by the upper lip; (e)–shallow by the lower lip; (f)–shallow in the corner of the mouth.
A number of researchers have concluded that the AHL is a key factor affecting the post-release survivability of fish [83,84,85,86][12][43][44][45]. The J-type hooks, both with and without a barb, get fish hooked at similar locations [29,103,119][5][9][14]. The location of hookings using circle hooks is usually different when comparing both J-hook types, as fish caught with circle hooks are most often hooked in the corner of the mouth, irrespective of the fish species and the structure of the mouth [29,131,132][5][46][47] (Figure 3 and Figure 4). This is most likely due to the design of this type of hook and the mechanics of its operation once the fish has swallowed the bait [29,133][5][48]. Kapusta and Czarkowski [29][5] concluded that the occurrence of the so-called deep hookings at critical locations was similar for barbed and barbless J-hooks, while dangerous deep hookings of fish caught with a circle hook occurred much less frequently. A number of researchers have confirmed a similar relationship and found an advantage of circle hooks in terms of the safety and welfare of the released fish [27,83,85,86,101,105,134][10][12][15][26][44][45][49]. Vecchio and Wenner [126][37] not only confirmed a similar relationship of the shallower hooking by circle hooks as compared with classic J-type hooks but also as compared with offset hooks.
It has been empirically established that damage to fish tissues occurs least frequently when using alternative hook types, i.e., barbless and circle hooks [29,87,99,119][5][6][9][13]. It is also known that blood discharge due to the penetration of tissues by the hook can considerably increase the risk of fish death after release [25[16][25],63], but this is rather the case of severe bleeding due to fish being hooked in the area of the gills or other important and heavily blooded organs [29][5].
The use of alternative hook types, particularly barbless hooks, has another advantage that is very important while often overlooked in publications. Barbless hooks appear to be safer for humans. In angling practice, it is not uncommon for anglers to have a hook stuck into their body. If the hook has a barb, it is difficult to remove it on one’s own under field conditions, and an intervention of a doctor or paramedic is often needed, especially if children are involved [135][50]. Human tissues appear to be more “dense” than the fish mouth tissues, and it is rather difficult to remove a barbed hook, especially on one’s own, from the area of the palm. A barbless hook is safer for anglers as it is relatively easy to be removed from the body. The scale of the problem is not small. Patey et al. [136][51] report that in three years alone on the east coast of Newfoundland, they recorded as many as 173 cases of hooking that required medical intervention in hospital.

2.3. The Type of Hook and Fishing Efficiency

Cooke and Suski [30][17] proposed that the fishing efficiency of new gear solutions, particularly alternative hook types, plays a significant role when introducing gear that is safer for fish. Recreational anglers will only use solutions safer for fish provided that there is no noticeable drop in fishing efficiency [29][5]. These researchers found that the lack of differences in the overall efficiency between alternative hook types and the commonly used barbed J-hooks was beneficial and paved the way for the possible promotion of alternative hooks among Eastern European anglers [29][5].
Numerous papers have been drawn up on the impact of the hook type on fishing efficiency [29,38,86,101,121,134,137][3][5][22][26][45][49][52]. The overall conclusions of the study indicate that the hook type has little significance and impact on overall fishing efficiency, including the Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE). The lack of these differences is particularly noticeable in float fishing for cyprinids [29,99][5][6]. A similar situation was noted in a study into ice fishing for perch [119][9]. Having compared the effectiveness of barbed and barbless hooks in marine fishing, both Schaeffer and Hoffman [120][21] and Alós et al. [86][45] reached similar conclusions. The lack of differences in the CPUE between circle hooks and classic J-hooks was noted by Skomal et al. [132][47] when fishing for the tuna Thunnus thynnus, Garner et al. [101][26] when fishing for the perch, and Weltersbach et al. [109][53] when fishing for the European eel Anguilla anguilla.
When comparing the effectiveness of circle hooks and classic J-hooks, some authors indicate lower fishing efficiency of circle hooks, even though it is determined by the fish species and fishing conditions [30][17]. This is confirmed by research into the red drum Sciaenops ocellatus [138][54], the largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides [89][20], and the walleye Sander vitreus [139][55]. In contrast, Falterman and Graves for the yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares [140][56], Serafy et al. for billfishes Istiophoridae [141][57] as well as Twardek et al. for the walleye [142][58], noted the higher effectiveness of circle hooks.
In the context of fishing efficiency and effectiveness, certain coefficients appear to be important, which inter alia contribute to the final effect of the fishing and may be associated with the hook type used [29,30,131,132,143][5][17][46][47][59]. Kapusta and Czarkowski [29][5] distinguished three such coefficients: biting efficiency (BE), hooking efficiency (HE), and landing efficiency (LE). It appears that the BE coefficient is not directly determined by the hook type but more by the skills, specialisation, aptitudes, mental and physical form, and the angler’s response [29][5] which have an impact on fishing performance [98,144,145,146,147][60][61][62][63][64]. However, the HE coefficient depends directly on the hook type, with the barbless J-hook piercing tissues most easily, which is due to its design, as a straight tip with no barb offers the least resistance when penetrating the tissues of the mouth [29][5]. As regards the LE coefficient, the opposite is true, as the landing efficiency is usually the lowest when using barbless J-hooks. This is also due to the hook design, as the lack of a barb makes it easier for an embedded hook tip to retract [29][5]. The situation may be different when fishing vertically when the risk of line loosening is considerably lower [29,119][5][9].

References

  1. Cios, S. Fish in the Lives of Poles from the Tenth to the Nineteenth Centuries; Wyd. IRS: Olsztyn, Poland, 2007; p. 251. (In Polish)
  2. Locker, A. The social history of coarse angling in England AD 1750–1950. Anthropozoologica 2014, 49, 99–107.
  3. Scordino, J.J.; Petersen, J.R.; Monette, J.L.; Scordino, J. Evaluation of the čibu.d, traditional halibut hook of the Makah Tribe, for reducing catch of non-target species in recreational Pacific halibut fisheries. Fish. Res. 2017, 185, 17–25.
  4. Ewalt, D.M. No. 19: The Fish Hook, The 20 Most Important Tools. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/2005/08/09/cx_de_05toolslide.html?sh=2dc059fe4435 (accessed on 27 January 2023).
  5. Kapusta, A.; Czarkowski, T.K. Influence of hook type on performance, hooking location, injury, and reflex action mortality predictors in float recreational angling for cyprinids: A case study in northeastern Poland. Fish. Res. 2022, 254, 106390.
  6. Czarkowski, T.K.; Kapusta, A. The impact of angling experience on the efficiency of float fishing using different hook types. FAL 2019, 27, 41–46.
  7. Czarkowski, T.K.; Kapusta, A. Angling or fishing? In Rybactwo i Wędkarstwo w 2015 Roku; Mickiewicz, M., Wołos, A., Eds.; Wyd. IRS: Olsztyn, Poland, 2016; pp. 63–87. (In Polish)
  8. Sokimi, W. Bagan and pole-and-line fishing trials in Kavieng, Papua New Guinea. SPC Fish. Newsl. 2014, 145, 11–14.
  9. Czarkowski, T.K.; Kapusta, A. Catch-and-release ice fishing with a mormyshka for roach (Rutilus Rutilus) and european perch (Perca fluviatilis). Croat. J. Fish. 2019, 77, 235–242.
  10. Lennox, R.; Whoriskey, K.; Crossin, G.T.; Cooke, S.J. Influence of angler hook-set behaviour relative to hook type on capture success and incidences of deep hooking and injury in a teleost fish. Fish. Res. 2015, 164, 201–205.
  11. Kerr, S.M.; Ward, T.D.; Lennox, R.J.; Brownscombe, J.W.; Chapman, J.M.; Gutowsky, L.F.G.; Logan, J.M.; Twardek, W.M.; Elvidge, C.K.; Danylchuk, A.J.; et al. Influence of hook type and live bait on the hooking performance of inline spinners in the context of catch-and-release brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis fishing in lakes. Fish. Res. 2016, 186, 642–647.
  12. Aalbers, S.A.; Stutzer, G.M.; Drawbridge, M.A. The effects of catch-and-release angling on the growth and survival of juvenile white seabass captured on offset circle and J-type hooks. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2004, 24, 793–800.
  13. Meka, J.M. The influence of hook type, angler experience, and fish size on injury rates and the duration of capture in an Alaskan catch-and-release rainbow trout fishery. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2004, 24, 1309–1321.
  14. Cooke, S.J.; Philipp, D.P.; Dunmall, K.M.; Schreer, J.F. The influence of terminal tackle on injury, handling time, and cardiac disturbance of rock bass. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2001, 21, 333–342.
  15. Edappazham, G.; Thomas, S.N. Influence of Hook Types on Hooking Rate, Hooking Location and Severity of Hooking Injury in Experimental Handline Fishing in Kerala. Fish. Technol. 2016, 53, 284–289.
  16. Brownscombe, J.W.; Danylchuk, A.J.; Chapman, J.M.; Gutowsky, L.F.G.; Cooke, S.J. Best practices for catch-and-release recreational fisheries—Angling tools and tactics. Fish. Res. 2017, 186, 693–705.
  17. Cooke, S.J.; Suski, C.D. Are circle hooks an effective tool for conserving marine and freshwater recreational catch-and-release fisheries? Aquatic Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2004, 14, 299–326.
  18. Bartholomew, A.; Bohnsack, J.A. A review of catch-and-release angling mortality with implications for no-take reserves. Rev. Fish. Biol. Fish. 2005, 15, 129–154.
  19. Czarkowski, T.K.; Wołos, A.; Kapusta, A. Socio-economic portrait of Polish anglers: Implications for recreational fisheries management in freshwater bodies. Aquat. Living Resour. 2021, 34, 19.
  20. Cooke, S.J.; Suski, C.D.; Siepker, M.J.; Ostrand, K.G. Injury rates, hooking efficiency and mortality potential of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) captured on circle hooks and octopus hooks. Fish. Res. 2003, 61, 135–144.
  21. Schaeffer, J.S.; Hoffman, E.M. Performance of barbed and barbless hooks in a marine recreational fishery. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2002, 22, 229–235.
  22. Alós, J.; Palmer, M.; Grau, A.M.; Deudero, S. Effects of hook size and barbless hooks on hooking injury, catch per unit effort, and fish size in a mixed-species recreational fishery in the western Mediterranean Sea. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 2008, 65, 899–905.
  23. Lukacovic, R.; Uphoff Jr, J.H. Hook location, fish size, and season as factors influencing catch-and-release mortality of striped bass caught with bait in Chesapeake Bay. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 2002, 30, 97–100.
  24. Cooke, S.J.; Barthel, B.L.; Suski, C.D. Effects of hook type on injury and capture efficiency of rock bass, Ambloplites rupestris, angled in southeastern Ontario. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2003, 10, 269–271.
  25. Arlinghaus, R.; Klefoth, T.; Kobler, A.; Cooke, S.J. Size selectivity, injury, handling time, and determinants of initial hooking mortality in recreational angling for northern pike: The influence of type and size of bait. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2008, 28, 123–134.
  26. Garner, S.B.; Dahl, K.A.; Patterson, W.F., III. Hook performance and selectivity of Eurasian perch, Perca fluviatilis (Linnaeus, 1758) in the Åland Archipelago, Finland. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2016, 32, 1065–1071.
  27. Cooke, S.J.; Schreer, J.F.; Wahl, D.H.; Philipp, D.P. Physiological impacts of catch-and-release angling practices on largemouth bass and smallmouth bass. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 2002, 31, 489–512.
  28. Thompson, L.A.; Cooke, S.J.; Donaldson, M.R.; Hanson, K.C.; Gingerich, A.; Klefoth, T.; Arlinghaus, R. Physiology, behavior, and survival of angled and air-exposed largemouth bass. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2008, 28, 1059–1068.
  29. Wedemeyer, G.A.; Wydoski, R.S. Physiological response of some economically important freshwater salmonids to Catch-and-Release fishing. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2008, 28, 1587–1596.
  30. Barthel, B.; Cooke, S.; Suski, C.; Philipp, D. Effects of landing net mesh type on injury and mortality in a freshwater recreational fishery. Fish. Res. 2003, 63, 275–282.
  31. Cooke, S.J.; Sneddon, L.U. Animal welfare perspectives on recreational angling. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 2007, 104, 176–198.
  32. Lizée, T.W.; Lennox, R.J.; Ward, T.D.; Brownscombe, J.W.; Chapman, J.M.; Danylchuk, A.J.; Nowell, L.B.; Cooke, S.J. Influence of landing net mesh type on handling time and tissue damage of angled brook trout. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2018, 38, 76–83.
  33. Clarke, S.H.; Brownscombe, J.W.; Nowell, L.; Zolderdo, A.J.; Danylchuk, A.J.; Cooke, S.J. Do angler experience and fishing lure characteristics influence welfare outcomes for largemouth bass? Fish. Res. 2021, 233, 105756.
  34. Cooke, S.J.; Barthel, B.L.; Suski, C.D.; Siepker, M.J.; Philipp, D.P. Influence of circle hook size on hooking efficiency, injury, and size selectivity of bluegill with comments on circle hook conservation benefits in recreational fisheries. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2005, 25, 211–219.
  35. Carbines, G.D. Large hooks reduce catch and release mortality of blue cod Parapercis colias in the Marlborough Sounds of New Zealand. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 1999, 19, 992–998.
  36. Rapp, T.; Cooke, S.J.; Arlinghaus, R. Exploitation of specialised fisheries resources: The importance of hook size in recreational angling for large common carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Fish. Res. 2008, 94, 79–83.
  37. Vecchio, J.L.; Wenner, C.A. Catch-and-Release Mortality in Subadult and Adult Red Drum Captured with Popular Fishing Hook Types. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2007, 27, 891–899.
  38. Ostrand, K.G.; Siepker, M.J.; Cooke, S.J.; Bauer, W.F.; Wahl, D.H. Large mouthbass catch rates and injury associated with non-offset and offset circle hook configurations. Fish. Res. 2005, 74, 306–311.
  39. Mandelman, J.; Capizzano, C.; Hoffman, W.; Dean, M.; Zemeckis, D.; Stettner, M.; Sulikowski, J. Elucidating post-release mortality and best capture and handling methods in sublegal Atlantic cod discarded in Gulf of Maine recreational hook-and-line fisheries. In NOAA Bycatch Reduction Engineering Program 2013 Annual Report to Congress; NOAA: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2014; pp. 43–51.
  40. DuBois, R.B.; Margenau, T.L.; Stewart, R.S.; Cunningham, P.K.; Rasmussen, R.W. Hooking mortality of northern pike angled through ice. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 1994, 14, 769–775.
  41. Taylor, R.G.; Whittington, J.A.; Haymans, D.E. Catch-and-release mortality rates of Common Snook in Florida. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2001, 21, 70–75.
  42. Muoneke, M.I.; Childress, W.M. Hooking mortality: A review for recreational fisheries. Rev. Fish. Sci. 1994, 2, 123–156.
  43. Broadhurst, M.K.; Gray, C.A.; Reid, D.D.; Wooden, M.E.L.; Young, D.J.; Haddy, J.A.; Damiano, C. Mortality of key fish species released by recreational anglers in an Australian estuary. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2005, 321, 171–179.
  44. Alós, J.; Cerda, M.; Deudero, S.; Grau, A.M. Influence of hook size and type on short-term mortality, hooking location and size selectivity in a Spanish recreational fishery. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2008, 24, 658–663.
  45. Alós, J.; Mateu-Vicens, G.; Palmer, M.; Grau, A.M.; Cabanellas-Reboredo, M.; Box, A. Performance of circle hooks in a mixed-species recreational fishery. J. Appl. Ichthyol. 2009, 25, 565–570.
  46. Prince, E.D.; Ortiz, M.; Venizelos, A. A comparison of circle hook and “J” hook performance in recreational catch-and-release fisheries for billfish. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 2002, 30, 66–79.
  47. Skomal, G.B.; Chase, B.C.; Prince, E.D. A comparison of circle hook and straight hook performance in recreational fisheries for juvenile Atlantic bluefin tuna. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 2002, 30, 57–65.
  48. Johannes, R.E. Words of the Lagoon: Fishing and Marine Lore in the Palau District of Micronesia; University of California Press: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1981; p. 245.
  49. High, B.; Meyer, K.A. Hooking mortality and landing success using baited circle hooks compared to conventional hook types for stream-dwelling trout. Northwest Sci. 2014, 88, 11–22.
  50. James, V.; Manickam, S.; Yee, N.W.; Ganapathy, S. Fish Hook Injuries in Children. Austin Pediatr. 2018, 5, 1064.
  51. Patey, C.; Heeley, T.; Aubrey-Bassler, K. Fishhook injury in Eastern Newfoundland: Retrospective review. Can. J. Rural Med. 2019, 24, 7–12.
  52. Ateşşahin, T.; Duman, E.; Cilbiz, M. Selectivity and Catch Efficiency of Three Spinner Hook Sizes in Angling for Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum, 1792) in Karakaya Dam Lake (Eastern Turkey). Turk. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2015, 15, 851–859.
  53. Weltersbach, M.S.; Strehlow, H.V.; Ferter, K.; Klefoth, T.; De Graaf, M.; Dorow, M. Estimating and mitigating post-release mortality of European eel by combining citizen science with a catch-and-release angling experiment. Fish. Res. 2018, 201, 98–108.
  54. Aguilar, R.; Rand, P.S.; Beckwith, G.H., Jr. Quantifying the Catch-and-Release Mortality Rate of Adult Red Drum in the Neuse River Estuary; Final Report 01-FEG-07; North Carolina Fisheries Resource Grant Program: Raleigh, NC, USA, 2002.
  55. Jones, T.S. The influence of circle hooks on the capture efficiency and injury rate of walleyes. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2005, 25, 725–731.
  56. Falterman, B.; Graves, J.E. A preliminary comparison of the relative mortality and hooking efficiency of circle and straight shank (“J”) hooks used in the pelagic longline industry. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 2002, 30, 80–87.
  57. Serafy, J.E.; Kerstetter, D.W.; Rice, P.H. Can circle hook use benefit billfishes? Fish Fish. 2009, 10, 132–142.
  58. Twardek, W.M.; Lennox, R.J.; Lawrence, M.J.; Logan, J.M.; Szekeres, P.; Cooke, S.J.; Tremblay, K.; Morgan, G.E.; Danylchuk, A.J. The Postrelease Survival of Walleyes Following Ice-Angling on Lake Nipissing, Ontario. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2018, 38, 159–169.
  59. Ostrand, K.G.; Siepker, M.J.; Cooke, S.J. Capture efficiencies of two hook types and associated injury and mortality of juvenile muskellunge angled with live baitfish. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2006, 26, 622–627.
  60. Dunmall, K.M.; Cooke, S.J.; Schreer, J.F.; McKinley, R.S. The effect of scented lures on the hooking injury and mortality of smallmouth bass caught by novice and experienced anglers. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 2001, 21, 242–248.
  61. Gutowsky, L.F.G.; Harrison, P.M.; Power, M.; Cooke, S.J. Injury and immediate mortality associated with recreational troll capture of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in a reservoir in the Kootenay-Rocky Mountain region of British Columbia. Fish. Res. 2011, 109, 379–383.
  62. Gutowsky, L.F.G.; Sullivan, B.G.; Wilson, A.D.M.; Cooke, S.J. Synergistic and interactive effects of angler behaviour, gear type, and fish behaviour on hooking depth in passively angled fish. Fish. Res. 2017, 186, 612–618.
  63. Heermann, L.; Emmrich, M.; Heynen, M.; Dorow, M.; König, U.; Borcherding, J.; Arlinghaus, R. Explaining recreational angling catch rates of Eurasian perch, Perca fluviatilis: The role of natural and fishing-related environmental factors. Fish. Manag. Ecol. 2013, 20, 187–200.
  64. Pope, K.L.; Chizinski, C.J.; Wiley, C.L.; Martin, D.R. Influence of anglers’ specializations on catch, harvest, and bycatch of targeted taxa. Fish. Res. 2016, 183, 128–137.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Video Production Service
Feedback