Are circle hooks an effective tool for conserving marine and freshwater recreational catch‐and‐release fisheries?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Circle hooks have rapidly become popular among recreational anglers, based largely on the assumption that their use aids in the conservation of fisheries resources by reducing gut hooking, and hence mortality. In addition, circle hooks are intended to facilitate jaw hooking. Unfortunately, these assumptions have been perpetuated by anecdotal reports with very little rigorous scientific information to support these assertions. A number of recently published, forthcoming, and grey literature reports provide an opportunity to review briefly and synthesize research conducted on circle hooks. We surveyed literature databases and also used questionnaires to solicit information from unpublished or in‐progress circle hook research. Although among studies the results have been quite disparate, overall the mortality rates were consistently lower for circle hooks than J‐style hooks. In addition, circle hooks were more frequently hooked in the jaw, and less frequently hooked in the gut than conventional hook types. There is no doubt that in some marine fisheries, such as tuna, billfish, and striped bass, capture efficiency remains high and injury and mortality rates are drastically reduced. However, in other species (e.g. bluegill), injury can actually be more severe from circle hooks relative to some other hook types. In other species, such as largemouth bass, circle hooks have minimal conservation benefit, but have reduced capture efficiency relative to conventional hook designs. Factors such as hook size, fishing style, fish feeding mode, and mouth morphology all appear to affect the effectiveness of circle hooks. For these reasons, it is difficult to promote the adoption of the use of circle hooks as a panacea for all fish and fisheries. Instead, we recommend that management agencies focus on recommending circle hooks only for instances for which appropriate scientific data exist. The recent interest in circle hooks has been beneficial for stimulating interest and research on the role of hook designs in reducing hooking‐related injury and mortality. We encourage tackle manufacturers to continue to develop new hook designs that have the potential to provide conservation benefit to caught and released fish. This paper provides direction to management agencies and outdoor media for disseminating responsible information to anglers regarding the application of circle hooks for conserving fisheries resources. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 it