Hooking Mortality

[MarkTheSpark]

Graham. You suggested 100% of fish kept in keepnets die, not me. My conclusion was that 'fish don't like being kept in keepnets.' I just told you a factual story.

There could have been other variables which affected the survival rate of the keepnetted fish - they were handled more than usual in that they were taken home in a bucket after the weigh-in, and as I say, keepnet materials weren't as good as they are now.

In any case, I suspect a fish released into an unfamiliar environment doesn't settle, and that might affect the mortality.

However, I think it does indicate that keepnets may not be as kind to fish as buckets, though what anyone might do with that information is open to debate.

 

[Malc Bason]

Mark, perhaps the water you put them in had a bearing too?

 

[Fred Bonney]

Not only that, if you see the start date of the thread, you may find, the research is now old hat, anyway!!
I just wonder, if somebody may have primed this, for ulterior motives?
Isn't that what P*** do,find old research, and reserect?

 

[Gav Barbus]

Toonamp theres a very big stone at the bottom of my garden go crawl under it.mark ive already made my feelings about you clear,do you want me to find a stone for you to crawl under .give your crap a rest.any self respecting angler aint listening.freds totally right,i definatly smell a rat.graham marsden you should know better in my view.dont give em an inch.,because they will take a yard.

 

[MarkTheSpark]

Fred and Gav. I genuinely didn't notice the age of the thread - five years is a bit old. But there's no need to get personal, Gav. I don't know you, and wouldn't presume to judge what kind of a bloke you are. Clearly you don't like people who share the wrong kind of facts....

 

[Paul H]

What a strange outburst Gav.

It is an old thread but Graham's original reason for putting the article up rings true for me.

As for Mark's story, if that's what happened then that's what happened. It was quite clear, in my eyes at least, that even before his qualifying post at the top of this page that he wasn't suggesting all fish kept in keepnets die on release.

A little over-reaction possibly?


Fred, I would quite happily put a bet on the fact that P*** would use any research no matter how dubious or old to support their cause.

 

[Paul H]

My thoughts are 'If the mortality rate were really that high then why are the lakes and other stillwaters we fish not covered in a film of dead and dying fish?'

Plus the other points already raised about repeat captures etc...

 

[Scott Whatmore]

I dont accept those figures as accurate at all.

As said several times before, if they were accurate there would be dead fish everywhere!

We have to put these 'findings' up for discussion though. If only to disagree with them.

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

Look out those Whatmores are ganging up!!

 

[Gav Barbus]

Mark if you dont work for feta ,you really should,top job that.facts, ive heard your kind of facts before and would love you to elaborate on a statement,you made in the past,but you wont be able too.thats a fact. .

 

[Fred Bonney]

Paul,I thought that was what I implied.
In fact, if you find a bookie,put some on for me ;o)

 

[Paul H]

Absolutely Fred, I was agreeing with you.

 

[Ron 'The Hat' Clay (ACA)]

Just a point here. Most fish when they die tend to go to the bottom.

 

[Paul H]

I actually didn't know that.

Every day's a school day.

I wonder how they claim to have gathered their figures for that study then. Maybe frogsuited divers followed released fish for several days afterwards.

 

[Phil Hackett The ostrich pie hater]

Back in the late 90s an eminent fisheries scientist, can?t remember his name, did some research paid for by the RSPCA (no the most supportive body for angling) on fish kept in keepnets and oxygen movement through them and the effects of the fishes health.

He didn?t look at keepnet damage (split fin and scale loss).

His conclusions in his report, was that oxygen levels in keepnet we not impaired and as a consequence fish mortality was not statistically significant.

He went on to recommend what all anglers for donkeys years have been doing as a matter of course. Submerging keepnets fully in deep water, fully stacked out in the flow in rivers. Putting only minimal quantities of fish in the net. Emptying the keepnet regularly in very hot weather where large catches are being taken.

Grudgingly, the RSPCA had to accept his report and since have never to the best of my knowledge made an issue about keepnets.

Given the obvious links between the RSPCA and PETA (share many of the same members) they were when they sniped at angling fully aware of this research.

Yet again it?s a case of take one double barrel shotgun, discharge at both feet?.your left with two stumps!

To those wishing to make some mischief out of this old thread for other agendas, remember some on this site have ver????.y long memories for scientific factual research.

 

[Phil Hackett The ostrich pie hater]

When reading such trip on websites one should always look at the source material they?re quoting from i.e., the references. If there?s no references then it?s almost certain to be made up.

If it?s referenced where did the source material appear, was that a peer reviewed scientific journal? Was it a magazine, where was the magazine quoting it from? The reputable scientific mags always give the original source of publication.

If none of the above appear then it?s likely that its either being embellished or made up.

If you can get a fix on the original source material do a Google on it and see if you can get an abstract of the report. Better still the full report!

Reading reports - Who sponsored the report? Is the body sponsoring it independent of the organisation using it? He who pays the piper and all that!

Has a rebuttal report been written? Google it and see!

If you find the above here?s a few key words to mindful of

It is likely - that means the authors opinion

It could be ? I/we don?t know as we couldn?t find any evidence of it, so we?re guessing.

We hypnotised ? I/we are guessing again!

We extrapolated ? I/we had insufficient data to run it through a recognised statistical programme so I/we are guessed again!

The tests we ran were very near a statistical value. What statistical value were they using 1%, 5%.

We found the average to be?. Cover up for poor science! Very rarely would a credible report use averages in it.

Always look at the references at the back of the report to see whom they?re quoting in their report. Are the references the author is using credible and fit the above test?

You should now be getting the drift of when some writer is trying to pull a fast one over the reader for hidden agenda reasons.

 

[Michael Heylin]

When this story first appeared about two years ago I emailed the researcher and got the following;

Much of the research was done during bass fishing competitions when water temperatures were over 35 degrees. Many of the fish were stored in live tanks on boats and then released after weighing. The water temperatures in the live tanks was even higher and the researchers, funded by an AR group, used the stats to denigrate angling. However the problem was not hooking the fish, death occurred because of low DO in the tank water and little, if any, recovery time allowed to the fish when put back into the lake water.

When the fish were kept in chilled live tanks deaths did not occur. I still have the file somewhere on my system and will see if I can find it later.

Mike

 

[Dave German]

It would be good to know who Funded the "research", like phil & micheal said, the science is very poor.

 

[Jim Pullin 2]

That's the most illuminating post of the strand Michael, thanks.

The problem scientists have, and I used to be one so I kinda know, is that when you publish a paper you are putting out a hypothsis, albeit one backed up by your research. The paper is peer reviewed before publication, ie, other scientsts take a look at your work and decide if it's a valid contribution to the area concerned. But all it ever is is one voice in a contantly moving debate trying to establish the truths of the world around us. Those in the scientific community know that often their papers are overturned by the next lot of research and that's OK, because knowledge moved forward in small steps.

Unfortunately, the modern media, especially in slow news weeks, pounce on any scientific study that might be thought of as newsworthy, quite often distort it to make it more so, and print it as fact. In this case they have obviously mis-represented the study entirely. As long as we are armed with the facts and have the energy to make sure they are heard, we can counteract the negative propoganda. Seems like the Americans could do with taking a look at their fish keeping practices, though, doesn't it?

 

[captain carrott]

Phil
shouldn't that be hypothesised not hypnotised.

it's not often papers go on about how to make people impersonate chickens.