Capture Efficiencies of Two Hook Types and Associated Injury and Mortality of Juvenile Muskellunge Angled with Live Baitfish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Strict harvest regulations and a strong catch-and-release ethic among recreational anglers of muskellunge Esox masquinongy have led to interest in developing strategies for reducing injury and mortality of released fish. With many anglers using live baitfish to capture muskellunge, the use of circle hooks may reduce deep hooking and hence mortality. We contrasted the performance of circle hooks and J-style aberdeen hooks when capturing juvenile muskellunge with actively fished live baitfish. The J hooks performed better than circle hooks in terms of capture efficiency. The J hooks were more efficient at hooking muskellunge than were circle hooks, but landing efficiency was similar between the two types. Interestingly, injury was judged to be low regardless of hook type. Neither anatomical hooking location nor hooking depth differed significantly between fish captured on J and circle hooks. No fish were hooked in potentially lethal locations (e.g., gullet or eye) during the use of either hook type. Ease of hook removal did not differ between hook types, and hooks were generally categorized as easy to remove. Bleeding was considered minor and did not differ between hooks. We observed no initial or delayed mortality for fish captured on J or circle hooks. Given that J hooks have a higher muskellunge capture efficiency and that the use of circle hooks did not provide any compelling conservation benefits, anglers will probably continue to use J hooks and avoid circle hooks. Nonetheless, use of circle hooks could be advantageous for other fishing styles (e.g., still fishing, where baitfish are often swallowed), other species, or different sizes of muskellunge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".