Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sandflee

It will rust out

Rate this topic

10 posts in this topic

On occasion as much as we hate to admit it sometimes a fish swallows a hook deep, sometimes in a postion that it's difficult to remove without causing further damage, if it's of legal size and within the given limits you just keep the fish for a nice meal, however there are times when that is not possible, so you cut the line as close as possible to the hook and release the fish and thats when you hear those words "It will rust out"

 

so my question is does anyone here actually know how long it takes for a hook to "Rust Out" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

c & p'ed from an article on the topic;

 

 

The recommendation that anglers cut the leader close to the hook when bass are "deep-hooked" is a good example. It is hard to find a publication on catch-and-release (C&R) techniques that doesn't pass on this poor advice. Yet, recent research on release techniques strongly suggests there is a better way.

 

Some years ago, Doug Hannon noted that most magazine articles and state publications recommend leaving hooks in bass and other fish to "rust" out. He claimed that hooks don't rust fast enough, even in salt water; and suggested that the shank of a hook pointing up the throat of a bass acts like a lever or trap door that prevents swallowing. Bass can die of starvation while waiting for normal body processes to eject the hook. Food coming down a bass' throat will bypass a hook-shank, IF the shank lies tightly against the side of the throat where the barb is lodged. However, if the shank protrudes into the throat, food coming down can push the shank across the esophagus, blocking it. Deep-hooked bass may even feel pain as the food rotates the barb and regurgitate the food. Recently, Hannon's observations have been scientifically verified. John Foster, Recreational Fisheries Coordinator for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, studied striped bass at Chesapeake Bay. His researchers held throat-hooked stripers between 16- and 28-inches long for observation in half-strength seawater so that hooks had ample opportunity to rust away. Size 1/0 and 2/0 stainless steel, bronzed, nickel, tin and tin-cadmium hooks were hooked in the top of each fish's esophagus, with an 18-inch length of line connected to the hook.

 

After four months, 78 percent of the hooks were still imbedded. Cadmium coated hooks poisoned 20 percent of the fish, and production of these hooks has been stopped. Bronzed hooks were less likely (70%) to be retained than tin-cadmium (80%), nickel (83%), or stainless steel (100%) hooks.

 

In a second test, the line was clipped at the eye of the hook, as advised by most existing C&R guides. One-hundred percent of the stainless hooks were again retained, while 56 percent of tin, 76 percent of bronze, 84 percent of tin-cadmium, and 88 percent of nickel hooks remained. Fish mortality was greater when all line was trimmed. Foster theorized that the lengths of line hanging from a fish's mouth kept the hook-shank flat against the side of the esophagus and allowed food to pass. Without the line, food could move the hook and close the throat.

 

Hooks rusted slowly in stages, and the bend and barb became smaller very gradually. Stripers formed scar tissue around imbedded hook points, a typical reaction of body tissue to foreign matter. Foster noted, however, that once the tough scar tissue formed, hooks became more, not less, difficult to remove. Months after fish were hooked, infections sometimes developed around points, causing some deaths.

 

Based on his research, Foster recommended anglers carefully remove even deeply imbedded hooks. If the hook can not be removed, then it seems better to leave about 18 inches of line attached. Perhaps, someday, these findings will reach C&R anglers, the biologists who are researching C&R and publish C&R guidelines, and TV anglers who teach by their example.

 

Another good idea is to carry strong wire-cutting pliers. Cur off protruding barbs in the throat and the hook shank falls free easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Food for thought... may surprise you

 

Regardless of hook type, deeply hooked fish died in 65% (13/20) of cases when hooks were removed 41% (9/22) mortality rate when hooks were left embedded

 

Thirty-nine percent (5/13) of fish released with deeply embedded hooks were successful in shedding the hooks during the study period.

 

Deeply embedded hooks showed minimal degradation in seven fish over the study period, but one hook degraded 50% after 130 days.

 

Hook degradation was apparent only on the region of the hook that was exposed to seawater, not on parts embedded in the visceral tissue.

 

The embedded portions of three hooks were encased in a hardened tissue. Hooks suspended in seawater degraded approximately 50% after 90 days and 90–100% after 150 days.

 

Hooks typically corroded first at the point and barb, and then gradually corroded down to the bend and into the shank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

really is a shame, what brought this to mind was watching a show last night "one that's hosted by a Long Island Resident, whom used to be a memebr of this site. anyway. he was attepting to realese a gut hooked fish, ended up cutting the line and releasing it as it swam away he says "see she is no worse for wear she will be fine" really?? Ive's shot deer that still went 50yrds before the keeled over lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This depresses me. I caught a 27"-30" striper in late september, a couple days out of season. I was using a 4" swim bait and he swallowed it, all you could see was the head of the bait sticking out of its throat, I couldn't eve get it out with pliers. Had to let it go knowing it wasn't going to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have caught LM bass that had hooks in their gullet. One had a Mepps spinner in there. I wouldnt call the study definitive by any means. I am sure that a deep hooked fish is in for trouble, they most definit.y do not have a death sentance imposed upon them just because they are hooked deep.

 

I try to cut the hook itself as close to the flesh as I can with a pair of wire cutters in these situations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The 24in ADR fish deehooker helps. When this  happenes I try to put  as much of my hand and forarm to reach the hook. Usually works.Looks a bit odd when I have my whole hand in their:)


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


This brings a few issues to mind.



 



Firstly, I was always skeptical about the survival of released fish, particularly with a hook stuck in its throat. I suspected that it was a self serving bit of self deception.



 



Secondly, the experimental design for catch and release survival studies is often dodgy in that the period of time the dehooked fish is retained is too short to reveal the real death rate and even where the fish are retained for an extended period they are not subject to the competition or predation pressures that may take them out if they were in the wild. That is, the injuries they are carrying may make them less fit. The study referred to in this thread is interesting but would the survival rates be the same if the fish were competing for prey with uninjured fish?



 



Thirdly, people's capacity to reject the blatantly obvious, even when it is supported by rigorous science, if it conflicts with some deeply held belief, is astonishing. This is the basis of many fisheries management debates. I have been involved over many years in formal Fisheries Management Advisory Committees and have witnessed both commercial and recreational fishers attack scientists who, with the very best intentions and the  best available information, called into question the sustainability of stocks or impacts of fishing on non-target species.



 



For example, have a look at this link http://www.sacf.org.au/news-and-events-sydney-aquarium/sacf-news/88-nsw-government-fails-grey-nurse-sharks In the Grey Nurse Shark debate the fishing interest groups argued that there were lots more GNSs in some mythical and cryptic offshore population and that there was no evidence that fishing was killing any sharks. This despite dead GNS regularly washing up with embedded hooks, fishing line trailing from mouths and anus, etc.



 



 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.