Guys,

I was wondering if either of your organizations has discussed proposing "the removal of and non use of Treble Hooks" while fishing for Cold Water Game Fish?

If so, what seems to be the general discussion of such?

It just seems to me that if we took Treble hooks off the lures and replaced them with Single hooks, then most of those hook wounds would be solved. Then we could keep with the current two lines per Angler as it is now. In my experience single hooks rarely cause the wounds that Trebles are causing.

Also, it seems like "the groups" are proposing a bunch of changes. Can changes be made in "baby steps" meaning make "one significant" change and reevaluate again next Fall?.

and for what it is worth, I also agree with that theory that "if you give F&G to many new idea's" and one backfires, they will leave you standing on that island alone my friends, (thats how civil politics work).

Thanks
Michael

Mike,

Here is my two cents...

Treble hooks are really not the problem (so I have been told) the handling of fish over and over again is. Whether you use trebles or singles is not what the proposal's are attempting to minimize. These ideas are to create less pressure i.e. catching, handling and hook wounding less fish. A salmon that gets stocked in our lakes because we have a significant amount of pressure/line hours a high number of age 1 fish are being caught and handled over and over again before they make it to that magic number age 3 which is causing a big decline in both mean length and mean weight! See data below… The data is alarming especially if you examine it over a long period of time. The easiest most cost effective way to "fix" the problem is less line hours = catch less fish I could use pressure but let’s face it the goal is less line hours=less hook wounding/handling!

Even if there is or isn’t a visible hook wound, handling - basically, everything that comes with additional fishing pressure causes a decline in fish body quality. Many seem to be losing sight that only considering hook wounding is missing the point. (my opinion) We have fish in Winni that are "studs" as age 2's as well as some age 3's) excellent body condition, but then, magically, they disappear before we see them as a possible "monster" age 3, or else hook wounded or even if not hook wounded, leftover "beat up" seconds age 4 or 5... Of course there are always some fish that sneak threw the cracks but not common as we can see in the data from the fall netting. Simply, they can't be there if they are in our coolers (culling the lake unknowingly to poor quality) and they can't grow properly if constantly caught and released. (Maine is observing the same phenomenon in some of their highest pressure waters). The culling of the largest, best fish by age class, though difficult to to prove certainly cannot be helping the potential "stud" factor (Stud being a big fat healthy salmon) - factor in hook wounding and over handling etc. given the heavy pressure and it certainly appears to paint a picture... in a word it all comes down to pressure. Or so it would appear!!!


Just look at the mean weight in age 3's...

This is why we need to act unselfishly for the resource... If we do we could make it better than ever at least that's what my hope is!!!!

please note this is my opinion!!!



New Hampshire Lakes Region - Landlocked Salmon and Rainbow Trout Netting Summary - Fall 2009

Landlocked Salmon Eggs Collected, Inclusive Hook Wounds, Total Length (in), and Weight (lb)

Lake Eggs Collected Number Processed % Hook Wounded Mean Length Length Range Mean Weight Weight Range
Big Squam 138,300 212 34 (+13) 22.7 (+2.3) 17.8 – 26.2 4.6 (+1.5) 1.9 – 6.8
Sunapee 83,700 90 38 (+12) 21.7 (+1.6) 17.6 - 24.4 4.5 (+1.4) 1.9 – 6.5
Winnipesaukee -- 336 30 (+3) 19.0 (-0.4) 14.8 – 24.0 2.5 (0.0) 1.1 – 4.7

Mean Length (in) by Age
Lake Age 1^ 2 3 4 5 6 7
Big Squam * 18.7 (-1.4) 22.7 (+0.9) 23.0 (+0.6) 22.2 (-3.3) 23.7 (-) *
Sunapee * 20.2 (+0.4) 21.9 (+0.4) 22.6 (-2.2) * * *
Winnipesaukee * 17.4 (-0.4) 19.5 (-0.3) 20.2 (-0.5) 21.5 (-0.6) * *

Mean Weight (lb) by Age
Lake Age 1^ 2 3 4 5 6 7
Big Squam * 2.4 (-0.6) 4.6 (+0.7) 4.7 (+1.4) 5.0 (-1.4) 5.3 (-) *
Sunapee * 3.3 (+0.3) 4.7 (+1.0) 5.0 (0.0) * * *
Winnipesaukee * 1.9 (0.0) 2.8 (+0.1) 2.9 (0.0) 3.3 (-0.1) * *

Condition Factor (C) by Age
(3.3+ = robust body condition)
Lake Age 1^ 2 3 4 5 6 7
Big Squam * 3.6 (-0.1) 3.9 (+0.1) 3.9 (+1.0) 4.5 (+0.6) 4.0 (-) *
Sunapee * 3.9 (+0.1) 4.4 (+0.6) 4.3 (+1.0) * * *
Winnipesaukee * 3.6 (+0.2) 3.8 (+0.3) 3.5 (+0.3) 3.3 (+0.2) * *

Trap Net Catch (%) by Age@
Lake Age 1^ 2 3 4 5 6 7
Big Squam * 2 (-81) 75 (+58) 20 (+19) 1 (0) 2 (-) *
Sunapee * 18 (-66) 70 (+55) 12 (+11) * * *
Winnipesaukee * 41 (+11) 24 (-32) 27 (+18) 8 (+2) * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rainbow Trout Inclusive Hook Wounds, Total Length (in), Weight (lb), and Condition Factor (C)
Lake Number Processed % Hook Wounded Mean Length Length Range Mean Weight Weight Range Mean Condition Factor (C)
Big Squam 53 9 (-) 19.8 (-) 14.4 – 23.0 3.4 (-) 1.3 – 5.4 4.2
Winnipesaukee 37 27 (-) 17.1 (-) 13.6 – 19.7 1.9 (-) 0.9 – 3.1 3.8

^=age-1 salmon immature, infrequently captured
*= none sampled
@=rounded to nearest whole number; may not equal exactly 100%
( ) = +/- from 2008 fall trap netting; (-) indicates no previous year sample/comparison

Landlocked Salmon/Rainbow Trout Fall Trap Netting Summary – 2006

Landlocked Salmon

Lake Number Processed % Hook Wounded Mean Length (in) Mean Weight (lb) Eggs Collected
Big Squam 59 14 (-6) 23.5 (+2.3) 4.9 (+1.4) -
Sunapee 87 6 (-) 21.1 (+0.9) 3.7 (+0.4) -
Winnipesaukee 381 20 (-1) 20.1 (+0.2) 2.9 (0.0) 120,000

Mean Length (in) by Age

Lake Age 2 3 4 5 6 7
Big Squam 19.4 (+0.1) 22.8 (+1.0) 23.2 (+1.1) 24.1 (+1.9) 24.7 (-) 26.9 (-)
Sunapee 19.6 (0.0) 21.9 (+0.7) 23.2 (+1.3) 22.0 (-) 24.3 (-0.3) *
Winnipesaukee 18.5 (0.0) 20.8 (+0.2) 21.1 (-0.4) 21.6 (-0.8) * *

Mean Weight (lb) by Age

Lake Age 2 3 4 5 6 7
Big Squam 2.5 (0.0) 4.5 (+0.7) 4.9 (+0.9) 5.4 (+1.4) 5.4 (-) 7.1 (-)
Sunapee 2.8 (-0.2) 4.2 (+0.3) 4.9 (+0.7) 4.2 (-) 5.5 (+0.1) *
Winnipesaukee 2.2 (-0.1) 3.2 (0.0) 3.2 (-0.4) 3.3 (-1.0) * *

Condition Factor (C) by Age
(~3.4 = robust body condition)

Lake Age 2 3 4 5 6 7
Big Squam 3.3 (-0.1) 3.8 (+0.2) 3.9 (+0.2) 3.9 (+0.3) 3.6 (-) 3.7 (-)
Sunapee 3.8 (-0.1) 4.0 (-0.1) 3.9 (-0.2) 3.9 (-) 3.8 (+0.2) *
Winnipesaukee 3.5 (-0.1) 3.5 (-0.1) 3.3 (-0.3) 3.2 (-0.6) * *

Trap Net Catch (%) by Age
(Sunapee: 3% immature age-1)

Lake Age 2 3 4 5 6 7
Big Squam 5 (-21) 29 (-22) 25 (+6) 19 (+14) 19 (-) 3 (-)
Sunapee 40 (-23) 29 (+2) 7 (-3) 7 (-) 14 (+13) *
Winnipesaukee 32 (-6) 51 (-1) 14 (+4) 3 (+2) * *

________________________________________



Rainbow Trout

Lake Number Processed Mean Length (in) Length Range (in) Mean Weight (lb) Weight Range (lb)
Big Squam 6 15.9 13.9-18.2 1.5 1.0-2.3
Winnipesaukee 45 15.3 13.0-20.0 1.4 0.7-3.1


* = none sampled



Landlocked Salmon Fall Trap Netting Summary - 2005

Water Body Number Processed Mean Length (in.) Mean Weight (lb.) Number LLS Eggs Collected
Big Squam 108 21.2 (+1.4) 3.5 (+0.7) 0
Sunapee 105 20.2 (+1.6) 3.3 (+1.3) 0
Winnipesaukee 358 19.9 (+1.2) 2.9 (+0.6) 100,000

Mean Length (in.) by Age
Water Body Age 2+ Age 3+ Age 4+ Age 5+ Age 6+
Big Squam 19.3 (+0.9) 21.8 (+1.2) 22.1 (+0.9) 22.2 (0.0) -
Sunapee 19.6 (+2.6) 21.2 (+1.8) 21.9 (+2.2) - 24.6
Winnipesaukee 18.5 (+0.6) 20.6 (+0.1) 21.5 (+0.3) 22.4 (-0.4) -

Mean Weight (lb.) by Age
Water Body Age 2+ Age 3+ Age 4+ Age 5+ Age 6+
Big Squam 2.5 (+0.3) 3.8 (+0.6) 4.0 (+0.4) 4.0 (+0.4) -
Sunapee 3.0 (+1.4) 3.9 (+1.5) 4.2 (+1.8) - 5.4
Winnipesaukee 2.3 (+0.3) 3.2 (+0.2) 3.6 (+0.2) 4.3 (+0.8)


Condition Factor (C) by Age Class
Water Body Age 2+ Age 3+ Age 4+ Age 5+ Age 6+
Big Squam 3.4 (-0.1) 3.6 (0.0) 3.7 (0.0) 3.6 (0.0) -
Sunapee 3.9 (+0.7) 4.1 (+0.8) 4.1 (+1.0) - 3.6
Winnipesaukee 3.6 (+0.2) 3.6 (+0.1) 3.6 (+0.1) 3.8 (+0.9) -
(~3.4 indicates good body condition)

Breakdown of Trap Net Catch (Percent)
Water Body Age 2+ Age 3+ Age 4+ Age 5+ Age 6+
Big Squam 25.9 (-19.6) 50.9 (+10.2) 18.6 (+9.0) 4.6 (+1.8) -
Sunapee 62.9 (+22.2) 26.7 (-23.5) 9.5 (+3.7) - 0.9
Winnipesaukee 37.7 (-33.8) 51.9 (+26.5) 9.8 (+8.9) 0.6 (-1.0) -

Winni and Squam are like night and day, we dont catch yearling fish hardly at all.

I've been told, trebles and singles don't make much difference, but we can de-hhok a fiosh much faster in a single hook fly than a treble on a spoon.

I think barbless or pinched would be allot less evasive, without the barb you can de-hook them in a couple of seconds minimizing the time out of the water and less damage from the hook. And if far less make the biat as fishless man points out, it would have to improve everything, ha,ha.

Big John