2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.fishres.2020.105502
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of retrieval time and hook type on hooking depth in ice-angled northern pike caught on tip-ups

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

2
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Potentially exacerbating handling issues for pike is the common winter angling tactic of using baited lines set on "tip-up" devices. Tip ups are set lines that trigger a signal flag when a fish strikes or moves the bait; these devices are only attended by anglers when the flag is triggered (Althoff et al 2020). Thus, large predatory fish may have more time to swallow the bait and become deep-hooked, damaging gills, the gastrointestinal tract, or other vital organs (Dextrase and Ball 1991;Persons and Hirsch 1994).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Potentially exacerbating handling issues for pike is the common winter angling tactic of using baited lines set on "tip-up" devices. Tip ups are set lines that trigger a signal flag when a fish strikes or moves the bait; these devices are only attended by anglers when the flag is triggered (Althoff et al 2020). Thus, large predatory fish may have more time to swallow the bait and become deep-hooked, damaging gills, the gastrointestinal tract, or other vital organs (Dextrase and Ball 1991;Persons and Hirsch 1994).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Larger pike are generally more difficult to play, handle, and dehook than smaller ones, which may increase the likelihood of stress and injury associated with catch and release. Despite these potential concerns, recent studies showed that pike were not often deep-hooked on tip-ups and suffered no shortterm mortality after ice angling (Louison et al 2017a;Althoff et al 2020). However, these studies assessed relatively small fish and did not assess postrelease behavior outside of holding tanks (<66 cm, Louison et al 2017a;<50 cm, Althoff et al 2020).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Reasons for this lack of study include challenges of winter field biology such as cold temperatures, malfunctioning field equipment and higher costs associated with winter field research (Lavery 2015). To date only a handful of iceangling studies that have been published, focusing on hooking location and delayed mortality (Dextrase and Ball 1991;Persons and Hirsch 1994;DuBois et al 1994;Twardek et al 2018;Althoff et al 2020;Somers et al 2021) as well as physiological and behavioural effects of iceangling on fish (Louison et al 2017b(Louison et al , 2017aLogan et al 2019;Bieber et al 2019). These physiological assessments highlight that stress responses exhibited in fish following a C&R event during ice-angling are different than those angled in warmer temperatures (Arlinghaus et al 2009;Louison et al 2017bLouison et al , 2017aTwardek et al 2018).…”
Section: Knowledge Gap #2: Understudied Practicesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The process of ice-angling requires that hooked fish be retrieved and then handled out of water. Retrieval times vary from a few seconds to several minutes, depending on the type of gear used and the size of the fish captured (Althoff et al 2020), and landed fish are often held in the air or on ice for a few seconds to several minutes to remove hooks and to take measurements and photos (Lawrence et al in review). While fish are frequently harvested, many fish are released back through the hole in the ice for a variety of reasons, including conservation ethics and morals, bycatch, culling and harvest regulations (Cooke and Suski 2005;Arlinghaus et al 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation