______

-,_— VIlP•RTTT1t.Wfi ,,, 4IJ WflIW WTflhi’iPPlIn!.K.lIvflhI. U

PERFORMANCE OF CIRCLE HOOKS WHEN BAIT FOR STREAM-DWELLING TROUT Brett High’, Kevin A. Meyer2, and Christopher L. Sullivan2 RegionalBiologist,IdahoDepartmentof FishandGame,IdahoFalls,ID 2ResearchBiologists,IdahoDepartmentof FishandGame,Nampa,ID

Abstract—Althoughthe use of circlehooks in some settings demonstrablyreduces deep hooking offish,littleinformationexists forcirclehookswhen bait-fishingfor stream-dwelling trout. We used a series of studies to compare hookingmortalityand deep hookingwithcirclehooks to more conventional hook types (baited J hooks, J hook dry flies,and treble hookspinners), and assessed the attributes of circle hooks that produced the largest reductions in deep hooking. We landed over 2,000 troutusing a varietyof baited circlehooks and J hooks noting hooking location, number of strikes, hook-ups, and landings. Deep hooking withcircle hooks was much lower than for J hooks, and for both hooks, active fishing nearly always reduced deep hooking compared to passive fishing (i.e., no traditional ); a combined estimate of deep hooking for circle hooks was 11% and 17% for active and passive fishing, respectively, compared to 20% and 26% for actively and passively fished J hooks. Capture efficiencies (the number of landings per number of strikes) for circle hooks were 43% and 36% for actively and passively fished baited circle hooks, respectively, compared to 54% and 42% for actively and passively fished baited J hooks. We found no difference in deep hooking or capture efficiency by anglers between in-line and 4’ offset circle hooks. In a another study, we caught and released trout in a 1-km enclosed section of stream, and estimated relative hooking mortality69 days later. Relative mortalitywas higher for trout caught with spinners (29%) and baited J hooks fished actively (25%) than for trout caught with baited circle hooks fished passively (7%) and dry flies (4%). We conclude that circle hooks successfully reduced deep hooking and hooking mortalitywhen bait fishingfor stream- dwellingtrout compared to more conventional bait hooks.

INTRODUCTION they generally penetrate these critical areas less than Increasing angler effort on popular wildtrout 10%of the time, compared to a much higher rate has often led to implementationof “special (up to 50%) when bait is used with conventional regulations”such as limits, slot limits, size limits, Shooks (Mongillo 1984).Therefore, it is often and tackle restrictionsdesigned to reduce mortality assumed that bait fishing is incompatiblewith special rates. Thus, post-release hookingmortalitymust be regulation fisheries,even though several studies have negligible for restrictive regulations to be effective demonstrated that bait fishingcan be compatible with (Wydosld 1977). Numerous studies have shown that special regulations for salmonids in some situations bait fishing for trout results in mortality rates 3 to (e.g., Carline et al. 1991). 6 times higher than other gear types such as flies or Although circle hooks have been used for spinners (e.g., Shetter andAllison 1955;Hunsakeret centuries, and major hook manufacturershave been al. 1970; Mongillo 1984).Hooking mortality for trout producing circle hooks lbr decades (Bowerman 1984), using conventional bait fishing gear is significantly they have only recently gained a reputation as a higher than for oilier gear types, because mortality potentially more benign bait hook that often reduces of caught-and-released fish is strongly dependent on hooking mortality relative to conventional J hooks the anatomical site of hooking and resultant injury (reviewed in Cooke and Suski 2004), On a circle to vital organs due to deep-hookingand bleeding hook, the point of the hook is oriented perpendicular (Mason and Hunt 1967;Schill 1996).While artificial to the shank, rather than being more parallel as on flies and spinners are not immune to hooking fish a Shook (Figure 1). It is generally assumed that for in critical areas such as the esophagus, stomach, or circle hooks to perform properly,anglers must not set gills (areas generally referred to as “deep hooking”), the hook, but rather should lift lightly on the rod and

- slowly retrieve the fish (Montrey 1999;ASMFC 2003; (1) (2 and3) (4) Cooke and Suski 2004).This has been termed “passive 25’ fishing” (Prince et al. 2002; Alós 2009). Because of the paucity of informationon the use of baited circle hooks for trout in rivedne settings, we undertooka ;4.lmm - 4,Fn series of studies to compare deep hooking and hooking mortality with circle hooks to more conventional hook types and fishingmethods (i.e., baited J hook, J hook 9.5mm thy fly, and treble hook spinner), and evaluated what 9.5mm 5.8mm hook designs and methods influenced deep (5) 6 and7) hooldng rates for stream-dwellingtrout. METHODS Hooking Location and Capture Efficiency To assess deep hooking with baited hooks, angling was conducted on a number of streams in southern 6.9mm Idaho using a variety of barbed hooks (Table 1;Figure ge,,,,,, 6.8mm I). Anglers fished from late June to early October Figure 1. Hook gap hook width, and front angle between 2006 and 2011 where wild Rainbow Trout (9 for J and circle hooks used to for Oncorhyncluis mykiss, CutthroatTrout 0. clarkii, stream-dwelling trout in Idaho. Hook numbers (in parentheses) correspond to Table 1. Hook and Rainbow x Cutthroat hybrids dominated species number 4 has a 00 front angle. compositions.

Table 1. Hook characteristics and rates of deep hooking and hooking and landing success for the various barbed hooks involved in our study.

Front Ilook I-look Number of hook Fhing h-look angle gap width landed Deep Hooking landing Capture number Hook Offset method Brand se C) (mm) (mm) fish hooking success success ettkk,ncy

I Cfrcle 0 Active Eagle Claw 8 25 4.1 9.5 97 0.10 ± 0.05 0,61 ± 0.07 0.78 ± 0.08 0.48 ± 0.07

I flee 0 Active Eagle Claw 8 25 4.1 9.5 106 0.03 ± 0.06 0.40 ± 0.07 0.74 ± 0.07 0.30 ± 0.05

I flee 0 Passive Eagle Claw 8 25 4.1 9.5 1(X) 0.19 0.08 0.45 ± 0.06 0.77 ± (1.08 0.35 ±0.06

I (‘&rle 0 Passive Eagle Claw 8 25 4.1 9.5 100 0.10± 0.06 0.37th 0.05 0.68th 0.08 0.25th 0.04

I fitle 0 Passive Eagle Claw 8 25 4.1 9.5 75 1)1%± 1)1% ) 2 (‘free 0 Active CamakabuOctopus 8 18 6.5 9.5 45 0.13±0.07 0.66±0.10 0.80±0.11 0.53±0.11 2 flee 0 Passive Gamabbu Octopus 8 18 6.5 9.5 65 (1.25± 0.09 0.70 ± (1.08 0.77 ± 0.09 0.54 ± 0.09 3 Citle 4 Active GamakatsuOclopus 8 18 6.5 9.5 96 0.19 ± 0.06 0.69 ± 11.07 0.91±11.06 0.63 ± 0.08 3 Cfrcle 4 Passive GamalmtsuOctopus 8 18 6.5 9.5 80 0.31 ± 0.08 0.69 ± 0.0% 11.78 0.08 0.54 ± 0.08

4 3 0 Active EagleClaw 8 0 4.7 5.8 92 0.28±11.09 0.75±0.07 0.84±0.07 0.63±0.08

4 3 1) Passive Eagle Claw 8 0 4.7 5.8 99 0.24th 0.08 0.66 ± 0.08 0.76 ± 0.09 0.50 ± 0.07

5 3 4 Active Eagle Claw 8 4 4.9 6.9 94 0.09 ± 0.05 0.61 ± 0.07 0.80 ± 0.07 0.49 ± 0.07

5 3 4 Passive EagleClaw 8 4 4.9 6.9 101 0.28±0.08 0.48±0.08 0.86±0.07 0,41 ±0.06

6 3 0 Active Gamakatsu Octopus 6 8 7.2 9 87 0.23 ± 0.08 0.65th 0.08 0.84 ± 0.07 0.55± 0.08 6 J 0 Passive Gamakatsu Octopus 6 8 7.2 9 87 0.29± 0.08 0.66 ± 0.08 0.85 ± 0.07 (1.56±0.08

7 3 4 Active Gamakatsu Octopus 6 8 7.2 9 75 11.21)± 0.07 0.6.4± 0.08 0.84 ± 0.08 0.54 ± 0.08

7 3 4 Passive Gamakatsu Octopus 6 8 7.2 9 90 0.32 ± 0.08 0.68 ± t).07 0.83±11.1)7 0.56 ± (1.08

8 3 4 Active Renegade 8 3 5.7 6.8 104) 0.19 ± t).08 (1.63± 11.05 0.82 ± (1.08 0.52 ± 0.07

8 3 4 Active Renegade 8 3 5.7 6.8 76 0.21 ± 0,09 - 8 3 4 I’assive Renegade 8 3 5.7 6.8 1(X) 0.20 ± 0.08 0.38 ± 0.05 0.69 ± 0.07 0.26 ± 0(4 9 Fly - Active - 4-14 - - - 1(X) 0 ± 0 0.56 ± 0.07 0.87 ± 0.06 0.49 ± 0.07

9 Fly - Active - 4-14 - - . 74 0.01 ± 0.03 .‘ 10 Spinner - Active Panther Martin 3.5g - - - 100 0.01 ± 0.05 0.65±0.07 0.73 * 0.08 0.47±0.07

10 Spinner - Active Panther Martin 3.5 g - . - 75 11.05± 0.05 ) ‘Fish wew part of hookingmortalày study, and hookingand landingsuccess dab were not collected. Anglers fished hooks baited with night crawlers where is the relative mortality rate for fish of hook both activeLyand passively.Spinners and flies were type ii, A,,is the number of lish of hook type 11 initially fished actively using standard angling techniques. tagged while angling, and B is the estimate of the MI anglers rshed all hook types, and periodically abundance of fish captured with hook type ii at the end switched from one hook to another to collectively of the study.Confidence intervals (Cis) for the relative accumulate sample size for each hook. Landed fish mortality rates were derived by using the lower and were identified to species. measured to the nearest upper bound values of the B,.estimate in the above millimeter in total length, and assigned a hook location formula for each hook type, respectively.In all deep of esophagus, gills, upperjaw or mouth. lowerjaw hooking and hooking mortality analyses. we used CL= or mouth, or foul hooked (i.e.. head, back, fin, etc.). 0.10 or non-overlapping90% CIs to indicate statistical The number of strikes, hook-ups, and landings were significance. recorded to estimate hooking success and capture efficiency. RESULTS Hooking Mortality Deep Hooking Weconducted a hooking mortality experimentin A total of 2,114 fish were landed by anglers with 2006 in Badger Creek, a tributary of the Teton River all hooks combined to determine deep hooking rates in eastern Idaho within a 1-kmsection isolated by and capture efficiency (Table 1).Fish averaged about weirs. Anglers fished within the enclosed section of 300mm total length and ranged from 130 to 520 mm. stream using baitcd in-line circle hooks (hook number Use of baited circle hooks resulted in significantly 1 in Table 1.),baited 4° off-set J hooks (hook number less deep hooking compared to baited J hooks, and for 8), J hook dry flies (hook number 9), and treble hook both circle and J hooks, we found that active fishing spinners (hook number 10).All anglers fished all hook nearly always resulted in less deep hooking compared types, and periodically switched from one hook to to passive fishing (Table 1;Figure 2). For circle hooks another until the desired sample size (ii = 75 fish for (pooled across all hooks used), deep hooking rate each hook type) was achieved.Hooking location was was 11%± 3% and 17%± 4% for active and passive noted for captured trout, and all fish were measured fishing,respectively,compared to 20% ± 3% and and received a PIT tag and an adipose clip prior to 26% * 3% for actively and passively fishedJ hooks, release. respectively.In comparison,deep hooking averaged After a 69-d holding period, a mark-recapture 1%when using dry flies and 3% when using spinners (M-R) electrofishingsurvey was conducted within (Table I). the study reach. The Lincoln-PetersenM-R model as Despite the fact that use of circle hooks generally modified by Chapman (1951) was used to estimate resulted in less deep hooking. rates of deep hooking abundance for all trout in the study reach as well as the varied widely among hook designs for circle hooks remaining abundance of test fish for each hook type (3-31%) and J hooks (9-32%: Table 1). Because we as identifiedby PIT tags. Some test fish shed PIT tags only used two differentcircle hooks in our study,deep during the holding period and could not be traced back hooking rate for circle hooks was correlated equally to hook type. We estimated how many fish shed PIT to (1) hook gap, (2) the front angle of the point shank, tags by calculating a M-R population estimate for this and (3) the proportion of the entire hook width that group. We assumed no differences in PIT tag shedding the hook gap comprised (r = 0.72). In contrast. none rates among fish caught with different hook types. of these hook characteristicswere correlated to deep and distributed the estimate of test fish that lost PIT hooking rates for J hooks (r varied from 0.17 to 0.28; tags and the correspondingvariance back into the four Figure 3). hook types. Weweithted this adjustment based on the There were only four direct comparisons of in-line proportion total sample of the size estimated to remain and offset hooks (i.e., hooks 2 vs. 3 and 6 vs. 7, each after the holding period for each hook type. fished actively and passively; Table 1). In these four We calculateda relative mortality rate over the test direct comparisons, there was no difference in deep period for each hook type as follows: hooking for in-line hooks (24% ± 5%) compared to M = (A, - B,,)/A,, offset hooks (26% ± 5%).

and Stocking—249 Capture efficiency(which combined hooking For circle hooks, capture efficiencydecreased success and landing success) was generally lower for as deep hooking decreased (correlationcoefficient circle hooks than for J hooks, and passively fishing r = 0.59). For J hooks, the relationshipbetween either hook type reduced capture efficiency compared capture efficiencyand deep hooking was much less to actively fishing the hook (Figure 2). Across all pronounced (r = 0.25). Most of the reduction in experiments, capture efficiency for circle hooks was capture efficiency for circle hooks compared to J 43% ± 3% and 36% ± 3% for active and passive hooks, and for passive fishingcompared to active fishing, respectively,compared to 54% ± 3% and 42% fishing,was in reduced hooking success (Table 1). ± 2°/o for actively and passively fished J hooks. Thus, Once fish were successffillyhooked, there was little capture efficiency was reduced by about 17%when differencein landing success between hook types or using circle hooks compared to J hooks, and by about angling methods. 20% when passively fishingcompared to actively fishing.For thy flies and spinners, capture efficiency Hooking Mortality was 49% and 47%, respectively(Table I). Capture The majority (72%) of the 300 trout caught efficiency Wasvirtually identicalbetween directly by anglers were hooked in the upper or lowerjaw, comparable in-line hooks (55%± 4%) and offset followed by the roof and floor of the mouth (13%). hooks (57% ± 4%). Eight percent were deep-hooked,most (67%) of which

—• Circle —a—J 03 • 0.2 -.• 0.1 a C Active C Passive 30 I 0 I. 4 5 6 7 °20 Hook gap (mm) I I bo . C I 0 0.2 0 • i’D • cia 0.1 a 0 ci I C 0 0 10 20 30 60 Front angle (9 0 — 50 40 0.3 E 30 0.2 • ci 0.1 • zS 20 01 0.4 0.6 0.3 1 Hook gap ÷ hook width Circle hook J hook Figure 3. Relationship between deep hooking rates and Figure 2. Rates of deep hooking and capture efficiency three hook characteristics: (1) hook gap; (2) front for circle and J hooks fish actively and passively, angle; and (3) proportion of the entire hook width pooled across all hook designs. Error bars are 90% that the hook gap comprises. Lines represent confidence intervals. trends through the data.

250—Session 6: Regulaifdñsañd Stocking, : Bochenek othet 2002; S deep line hooks. regardless anglers dwelling difference (e.g., wisdom manufacturers’ actively S = with environments the was severely study. resulted deep-hooked circle of angles Suski 41-67%) mortality occurred flowing actively (29%; flowing (4% spinners hooks (9-20%) Deep-hooking hooks), hooked 1-11) a lowest Actively For All Relative or significantly fish ± baited hooking longline 2004). hooks hooks, Prince Previous 90% 4), fished did slightly to of and some water water, (Montrey fished, (25%; in caught offset (5% for trout, with for because fish, was and actively 2002). the of between deep not less circle CI dry those (4°) deep-hooked mortality Our et setting actively whether flies, fish ± hook rates where hook J observed, baited marine may relative influence was = and hooks offset 90% deep recommendations al. which 5), studies hook hooking in flies 24-35) higher results to hooks our that Deep have the 2002), set 1999; and baited hooks perform DISCUSSION for significantly hooks comparisons types make CI the hooking bait (4%; S (by dry of (21% studies they fisheries; the esophagus mortality for were over managers hooks. offset spinners, that = generally hook and deep occurring fished I ASMFC for suggest rates is 40), flies we Qm whereas circle 19-28) drifting Hooking hook circle was similar fish 90% are usually have the ± differently not fish or baited hooks tested were (for but hooking in 9%) Only when (1% using whether compared passively more when 69-d Zimmerman Cl hooks deep-hooked. hooks our was caught higher there in than should that, documented on in-line 2003; and demonstrated both laterally comparisons. studies than after = conducted ± J our fished one produced have they study a 3 holding hooks 54% (Malchoff 1-12). 3; bait for for conventional tjj:i*ut hooks baited were rates fished contradicts circle than they stud)’. for Table for with the immediate Cooke encourage and typically were (7%; to stream- fish fishing, vertically using (90% may through treble baited For fished release not only in in were and or J offset spinners period and passively caught the higher in 1). For hook. our 90% lentic and have circle baited enough et no minor CI 14% hook only in J al. used = CI 3 wcre was with hooking account mortality hook (Mason harvest, that caused baited mortality in also virtually (Shetter reduces rates net Trout, studies hooks. estimates in mortality However, modality (passive treble circle concur (Hand difference transitioning study. similar actively among catching reducing similar hooks a general pen A Our Our We hatchery fish very switched high of lower and hooks hook limitation Thus, 3 which 2001; These with by anglers using to to (Jenkins deep found and deep and hooks and and for, hooking results handling fishing modality for no fish, deep low during rate results for one involving J anglers rates as the agreement in rates hook spinners change circle, associated resulting Hunt Allison these natural for caused high Graves to fish deep hooking, reported hooking setting baited results (4%) J we to which higher that hooking, relative (Jordan of hook, indicate circle circle Hooking those of active the 2003) should of mortality thy caught observed (including rates fishing deep 1967; latter rates. hooking the active our over mortality in trout mortality minimal circle study 1955, (Pamienter and may and corroborate rate flies with in that hook anglers reduces hooks 9% angling better it to tissue and hooking hook of hooking 1999). findings. be the an Schill that However, the is with actively-fished Horodysky caught of J other for limit hooking were but mortality hooks period other Fiunsaker study likely hooks considered overestimation when compared use 10% Mortality worse 69-d deep-hooking passively-fished PIT-tagging), had a setting. hooking-related J), and for may who dry much hooking Interestingly, circle success, 1996). circle hook would fished mortality were hooking thus 2000). with mortality Moving hooks on results capture used actively that experiment, which passively organ flies it the have mortality fish after hatchery lower was and hook 2008). et types our hook any correlated, artificial to only differently result fact preliminary. in passively, mortality. al. if The with damage caused of we baited in-line Forward Stocking—251 hooking at mortality efficiencies 26 our the study hook fishing was after than with 1970, of previous that angler was acceptance one effectively in could Our higher anglers d in lower for angler study actual Rainbow baited mortality. and our in flies at J relative likely for some that circle hooks baited 28 was hooks results a as (2014) not d Wild Trout Symposium

Mongillo 1984, Schisler and Bergerson 1996), AtlanticStateMarineFisheriesCommission(ASMFC). suggests that our estimate of mortality for fish caught 2003. Circle hook definition and research issues. with thy flies was not substantially biased by a lack of Special Report no. 77. 29 p. control fish. Bowerman, M. 1984. The ancient circle hook rediscovered. Australian Fisheries 43:34-35. Carline. R. F., T. Beard, Jr., and B. A. Hollender. 1991. CONCLUSION Response of wild brown trout to elimination of stocking Fishery managers often must balance social and no-harvest regulations. North American Journal of 11:253-266. preferences for fishing regulations with the biological Chapman. D. G. 1951. Some properties of the constraints individual fish populations. Special of hypergeometric distribution, with applications to regulations are typically put in place to limit annual zoological sample censuses. University of California mortality rates of fish populations by reducing angling Publications in Statistics 1:131-160. mortality. Unfortunately, special regulations restricting Cooke, S. J., and C. D. Suski. 2004. Are circle hooks and bait have a tendency to alienate those constituents, effective tool for conserving marine and freshwater sometimes with legal consequences (Gigliotti and recreationa] catch-and-release fisheries? Aquatic Peyton 1993; Thurow and Schill 1994). The current Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems study demonstrates that circle hooks may be fished 14:299-326. Gittliotti, L. M., and R. B. Peyton. 1993. Values and with bait for wild trout in streams with resultant deep behaviors of trout anglers, and their attitudes toward hooking and hooking mortality rates much lower than fishery management, relative to membership in fishing baited J hooks and in some cases not appreciably organizations: a Michigan case study. North American different than dry flies. Thus, allowing bait fishing in Journal of Fisheries Management 13:492-501. the development of fbture restrictive special regulation Graves,J. E., and A. Z. Horodysky. 2008. Does hook choice waters may be possible, if additional studies confirm matter?Effectsof threecirclehooksonpostrelease the present findings and subsequent use of properly survivalof whitemarlin.NorthAmericanJournalof designed circle hooks is mandated. FisheriesManagement28:271-480. Our results highlight the conclusion by Seral’ [land,R. 0.2001. Evaluationofcirclehooksas a means of reducingcatchandreleasemortalityof Roanoke et al. (2012) that not all circle hooks are alike Riverstripedbass.NorthCarolinaWildlifeResources (also see Smith 2006), and some designs do not Commission. Division of Inland Fisheries, Federal appear to reduce deep hooking as much as others. Aid in Fish Restoration Project F-22, Raleigh, North The relationship between deep hooking and hook Carolina. configuration, such as hook size, the degree of Ilunsaker. D., L. F. Marnell, and F P. Sharpe. 1970. olThet,the front angle, the gap width compared to Hooking mortality of Yellowstone cutthroat trout. hook width, and other features of circle hooks arc Progressive Fish-Culturist 32:231-235. only beginning to be understood, and clearly require Jenkins, T. M. 2003. Evaluating recent innovations in bait thither research before definitive conclusions can be and technique for catch andrelease of rainbow trout. North American Journal of Fisheries drawn regarding the use of circle hooks in freshwater Management 23:1098-1107. fisheries. Nevertheless, the consistency with which Jordan,3. 1999.Goinghill circle.BigGameFishingJournal active fishing results in less deep hooking than passive 12(3):52 62. fishing suggests that hook manufacturers, management Malcholt M. 1-I.,J. Gearhart,J. Lucy,andP.J. Sullivan. agencies, and outdoor media need to modi’ their hook 2002.The influenceof hooktype,hookwound set recommendations for circle hooks used to bait fish location,and othervariablesassociatedwithpostcatch- for stream-dwelling trout. and-releasemortalityintheU.S.summerflounder recreationalfishery.AmericanFisheriesSociety Symposium 30:101-105. LITERATURE CITED Mason.J. W..andR. L. Hunt. 1967.Mortalityratesof Alas, J., 2009.Mortalityimpactof recreationalangling deeplyhookedrainbowtrout.ProgressiveFish-Culmrist techniquesandhook typesonTrachynotusovatus 29:87-91. (Linnaeus,1758) followingcatch-and-release.Fisheries Mongillo, RE. 1984. A summary of salmonid hooking Research95:365-369. mortality.WashingtonDepartmentof Game,110pages.

252—Session 6: RegiJlit1ájjandStaékfria, Mootrey. N. 1999. Circle hooks ready to boom- design Shetter, D. S.. and L. N. Allison. 1955. Comparison of pierces fish through jaw, promotes conservation. mortality between fly-hooked and worm-hooked American Sportfishing: The official publication of the trout in Michigan streams. Michigan Department of American Sponfishing Association (2) 6-7. Conservation, lnstimte of Fish Research, Publication Parmenter, S. 2000. Circle hooks: Remedy for bait angling No. 9. 44 pages. mortality? Pages 61-65 in D. A. Schill, S.Moore.AP. Siewen. H. F.. andi. B. Cave. 1990. Survival of released Byonh, and B. flame (editors), Management in the new bluegill. 1_epomismacmchims. caught on artificial millennium: are we ready? Wild trout VII. Yellowstone flies. wonns. and spinner lures. Journal of Freshwater National Park, Old Faithful. Wyoming. Ecology 5:407 11. S. 2006. Disconnected Prince, E. D., M. Ortiz, and A. Venizelos. 2002. A Smith, government circles: which hooks will meet the non-offset circle hook requirement comparison of circle hook and ‘J’ hook perfomrnnce for Atlantic tournaments? Billfish Magazine in recreational catch-and-release fisheries for billfish. 3:26-27. American Fisheries Society Symposium 30:66-79. Thurow, R. F., and D. J. Schill. 1994. Conflicts in allocation Schill. D. 3. 1996. Hooking mortality of bait-caught of wild trout resources: an Idaho case lustory. Pages rainbow trout in an Idaho trout stream and a hatchery: 132-140 in R. Bamhart. B. Shake, and R. H. Hamre. implications for special-regulation management. North editors. Wild Trout V. Trout Unlimited, Arlington, American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:348- Virginia. 356. Wydoski. R. S. 1977. Relation of hooking mortality Schisler, 0. 3., and E. P. Bergersen. 1996. Post release and sublethal hooking stress to quantify fishery hooking mortality of rainbow trout caught on scented management. Pages 43-67 in R.A. Barnhart and T.D. artificial baits, North American Journal of Fisheries Roelofs, editors. A national symposium on catch-and- Management 16:570—578. release fishing. Humboldt State University, Arcata, Seraf’, J. E., S. J. Cooke. 0. A. Diaz. J. E. Graves, M. California. Hall, M. Shivji. and Y. Swimmer. 2012. Circle hooks Zimmerman S. R., and F. A. Bochenek. 2002. Evaluation in commercial, recreational, and artisanal fisheries: of the effectiveness of circle hooks in New Jersey’s research status and needs for improved conservation and recreational summer flounder fishery. American management. Bulletin of Marine Science 88:371-391. Fisheries Society Symposium 30: 106- 109.

:1.1111:1 [‘1 ilt, liT’ eq flfll 1liii 4iJ