Influence of Circle Hook Size on Hooking Efficiency, Injury, and Size Selectivity of Bluegill with Comments on Circle Hook Conservation Benefits in Recreational Fisheries

Cooke, Steven J.; Barthel, Brandon L.; Suski, Cory D.; Siepker, Michael J.; Philipp, David P.

doi:10.1577/m04-056.1

Cited by 75 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, smaller hooks caught more sea bream Pagellus spp. than larger hooks in a study by Erzini et al (1998), and a relationship between hook size and size selectivity was seen with circle hooks and freshwater bluegill Lepomis macrochirus (Cooke et al, 2005). However, catch rates for serranid groupers were unaffected by hook size (Bacheler and Buchel, 2004).…”

Section: Catch Rate Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 87%

Effects of circle versus J-style hooks on target and non-target species in a pelagic longline fishery

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Catch Rate Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 87%

Effects of circle versus J-style hooks on target and non-target species in a pelagic longline fishery

2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…the distance between the point and the shank (Cortez-Zaragoza et al, 1989), is one parameter proposed for hook size standardization among manufacturers (ASMFC, 2003). It is a functional parameter that affects the possibility of jaw hooking in fish (Cooke et al, 2005), and can be conveniently related to the size of the fish mouth (Hovga˚rd and Lassen, 2000). In this study, the gape width, or minimum inner width (Yokota et al, 2006), was assumed as a primary measure for hook size, thus hooks with an equal gape width are considered hooks of the same size.…”

Section: Fishing Gear and Operationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are circle hooks effective in reducing incidental captures of loggerhead sea turtles in a Mediterranean longline fishery?

Piovano

Swimmer

Giacoma

2009

Aquatic Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT1. A known fishing hot spot for loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta) in the Mediterranean Sea is in the waters of the Strait of Sicily where interactions with fish hooks and branchlines are believed to be a major cause of mortality for sea turtles.2. Hooks with different shapes but a similar gape width (circle hook size 16/0 vs J hook size 2) were tested in order to determine the potential effectiveness of the hook design to both reduce sea turtle capture as well as to maintain acceptable levels of target species capture rates in a shallow-set longline swordfish fishery in the Mediterranean.3. Seven experimental fishing trips, 30 000 hooks total, were conducted on a single commercial fishing vessel (18 m in length) in the Strait of Sicily during the months of July through October over a period of three years from 2005 to 2007. Circle and J hooks were alternated along the mainline.4. A total of 26 sea turtles were hooked, all immature-size Caretta caretta. Turtles were caught at a statistically greater frequency on J hooks than on circle hooks. The capture rate, weight, and upper jaw fork length of the target species were not significantly different between the two types of hooks employed.5. Five sea turtles swallowed the hook and in all such cases these were J type. Circle hooks tended to be located externally and were more easily detected by fishermen, and could be removed with the correct dehooking action before returning the turtle to the sea.6. These findings suggest that 16/0 circle hooks can effectively reduce the incidental capture of immature loggerhead sea turtles in a Mediterranean swordfish longline fishery without affecting the catch size of the target species.

show abstract

“…Several studies have addressed the effects on catch rates, location of hooking (e.g., internal versus external; gut versus mouth hooking), and resulting injuries and mortalities induced by differing hook types in teleosts (e.g., Bacheler and Buchel 2004;Cooke et al 2005), pelagic teleosts (e.g., Domeier et al 2003;Kerstetter and Graves 2006a;Kerstetter et al 2006;Kerstetter and Graves 2006b) and in sea turtles (see Garrison 2003;Watson et al 2005).…”

Section: Potential Strategies To Reduce Shark Interactions or Mortalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Shark bycatch and depredation in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery

Mandelman

Cooper

Werner

et al. 2008

Rev Fish Biol Fisheries

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The non-target bycatch of sharks in pelagic longline (PLL) fisheries represents a potential source of compromise to shark populations worldwide. Moreover, shark bycatch and depredation (damage inflicted on gear, bait, and catch) complicates management of sharks and other species, and can undermine the operations and financial interests of the pelagic longline industry. Thus, deducing means to reduce shark interactions is in the best interest of multiple stakeholder groups. Prior to doing so, however, the extent, cause and effect of these interactions must be better understood. In this review we address or conduct the following in relation to the U.S. Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean PLL fishery: (1) U.S. management governing shark interactions in the Atlantic; (2) the primary species encountered and historical shark catch data associated with PLL fishing in the Atlantic; (3) a historical comparison of area-specific shark species catch records between the two primary sources of shark catch data in this fishery; (4) the conditions and dynamics that dictate shark interactions in this fishery, and potential means to reduce these interactions, and; (5) a synthesis of the estimated impacts of this fishery on shark populations relative to other fisheries in the Atlantic. As has been found in other PLL fisheries, the blue shark (Prionace glauca) is clearly the shark species most commonly encountered in this fishery in the Atlantic, and receives the majority of attention in this review. U.S. management areas with high relative shark species diversities had a greater divergence in historical shark species percent-compositions between data sources (Pelagic Observer Program versus mandatory pelagic Logbook databases); this complicates the ability to conclude which species are most impacted by PLL fishing in those areas. The current fishing effort by the U.S. PLL fleet is small compared to that of PLL fishing targeting sharks in the Atlantic by non-U.S. fleets, and therefore poses a comparatively lower threat to the stability of Atlantic shark populations. However, incidental shark encounters are inevitable in U.S. Atlantic PLL fishing operations. Thus, it is in the best interest of all stakeholders in the Atlantic to better understand the extent and conditions governing these interactions, and to explore methods to reduce both their occurrence and those aspects leading to higher rates of incidental shark mortality.

show abstract

Influence of Circle Hook Size on Hooking Efficiency, Injury, and Size Selectivity of Bluegill with Comments on Circle Hook Conservation Benefits in Recreational Fisheries

Cited by 75 publications

References 12 publications

Effects of circle versus J-style hooks on target and non-target species in a pelagic longline fishery

Effects of circle versus J-style hooks on target and non-target species in a pelagic longline fishery

Are circle hooks effective in reducing incidental captures of loggerhead sea turtles in a Mediterranean longline fishery?

Shark bycatch and depredation in the U.S. Atlantic pelagic longline fishery

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About