Uncut Angling – Minnesota Barotrauma

Anybody see this yet?

Interesting and somewhat compelling. This is a start, but not the end all to dismissing barotrauma- plenty of dead fish due to it.

Great informative video. I disagree with his opinion about live scope not potentially hurting fisheries. He literally defended live scope while catching a limit from one hole.
His experiment about barotrauma was better than the one that the dnr and the Lindner’s did.

some good points, however, he as an issue with the handling of the fish, which is legitimate, but they handled the fish the same way in shallow water and the deep water, so that variable was the same, but the result was different. He also released fish, watch them go down an say good to go, but what happened to those fish 24 hours later? I don’t have the answers, but certainly this was no better of a controlled experiment than angler buzz. I do like uncut angling, great presentation and good info. I would guess stay tuned.

Just because the fish returns to the bottom, does not mean that it will survive. I’m not 100% sure there will not be some delayed effects or possible death. I do think the Idea of putting the fish back in the water and letting its mouth fill with water and then closing the mouth and turning the fish around may really help. Far to many people simply drop the fish from waist high, Wait for awhile for it to try and turn around and swim away. When it doesn’t, they simply assume it was caught from to deep of water and is not able to. I think once a fish remains upside down for a length of time it, It will most likely not survive. I also think how fast fish are reeled up from deeper water is a factor. Far to many fishermen seem to reel like a mad man once they hook a fish. When fishing deeper water, I always try and reel a little slower. That seems to help a lot when I release the fish.

fishthumper wrote:

Far to many fishermen seem to reel like a mad man once they hook a fish. When fishing deeper water, I always try and reel a little slower. That seems to help a lot when I release the fish.

Speed of reeling is absolutely a factor. When fishing LOW and sorting through the dink saugers I started reeling super slow when I could tell it was not a keeper and also we started leaving the fish in the water and unhooking them without taking them out of it.

His tactics obviously worked better than what the dnr was doing. Long term effects on the fish? who knows but it certainly went back to the bottom.

On the other hand, the DNR continues to disappoint me…

I think both Uncut and Linders studies were steps in the right direction. I’d like to see a lot more studies done on this. With all the technology we have, I still can’t believe we don’t have live trackable fish tags that give us location and current depth. Would like to see Uncut’s experiment done with those tags to see if there was delayed mortality. Now to be far, I just avoid fishing deeper than 30’ for this reason.

For the Livescope comments, with great power comes great responsibility. I’ve seen many anglers go out and buy Livescope and still not catch fish because they are just not that good of anglers. Does it help, sure it does. However, I would 100% argue that the biggest technological advancement to catch more fish is detailed contour mapping. I don’t see anyone trying to outlaw maps. Let’s just put stricter bag limits and slots on our fisheries and enjoy the practice of ethical catch and release fishing.

Interesting. Never thought of letting the air out before sending them down.

If I remember correctly, wasn’t there a term called “fizzing” when fish were caught from deep water? I thought it originated on the Great Lakes in bass tournaments for smallmouth when they were caught in really deep water.

As far as the whole livescope part goes, Anyone that thinks Livescope does not have a overall negative effect on the # of fish being caught is crazy. To me livescope makes a Poor fishermen – Good. A Good Fishermen – Great. And a Great fishermen – Really dangerous. There are several fishermen I know who prior to Livescope, Would struggle to catch a fish in a bathtub with a big net who are now out catching limits of fish. That said, Its not really that much different than other past fishing technology. Once its here, Its hard to go back. The only tool available now to try and help fisheries is Stricter Bag limits with more enforcement to enforce them.

gimruis wrote:

If I remember correctly, wasn’t there a term called “fizzing” when fish were caught from deep water? I thought it originated on the Great Lakes in bass tournaments for smallmouth when they were caught in really deep water.

Fizzing is still a common practice, Mostly used by tournament bass fishermen. They get a fair amount of training on the process each year at locations where fish are going to be caught out of deeper water. It does require a little bit of knowledge and practice to do correctly. Its not as simple as sticking a needed in a fish

It was a very interesting video and I applaud the effort he put into it and challenging other industry “science”… science and knowledge advances when knowledgeable people analyze and critique current methods and conclusions.

However, there is one thing I couldn’t get past… the whole video he kept preaching minimal handling and quick releasing as being of the utmost importance in the survival of these fish…. All that kept playing in the back of my head was this video from a few years ago where Aaron literally caught a 5 gallon bucket full of 16” crappies that he released who knows, 5, 10, 15 minutes later because he didn’t want to potentially spook the school. By his own scientific theories and conclusions, all of those fish likely died because of his poor handling of the fish to selfishly try to get some good pics and video footage. Granted, he was fishing a little shallower in that video (26 ft I believe), he needs to practice what he preaches.

Gitchi Gummi wrote:

All that kept playing in the back of my head was this video from a few years ago where Aaron literally caught a 5 gallon bucket full of 16” crappies that he released who knows, 5, 10, 15 minutes later because he didn’t want to potentially spook the school. By his own scientific theories and conclusions, all of those fish likely died because of his poor handling of the fish to selfishly try to get some good pics and video footage. Granted, he was fishing a little shallower in that video (26 ft I believe), he needs to practice what he preaches.

<div class=”ido-oembed-wrap”><iframe loading=”lazy” title=”Hammering 16 inch Crappies – Uncut Angling – December 10, 2014″ width=”850″ height=”478″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/T7nyruQoGyA?feature=oembed&#8221; frameborder=”0″ allow=”accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share” allowfullscreen=””></iframe></div>

In his defense – he stressed the fact that he has been very guilty of that in the past and is trying to do better. Acknowledging pst mistakes and trying to correct them moving fwd is a good thing.

Don’t kid yourself. Just because fish return to the bottom doesn’t mean they’ll survive. Fish suffering from barotrauma can look fine but have injuries including things like eversion, prolapse, torsion and volvulus of the stomach, hemorrhaging of internal organs, hematomas, and loss of vision that may all reslut in delayed mortality. By the way, reeling up a fish slowly doesn’t do a bit of good to negate the effects of barotrauma.

Listen to what the DNR tells you about barotrauma instead of some joker on the internet.

Timmy wrote:

In his defense – he stressed the fact that he has been very guilty of that in the past and is trying to do better. Acknowledging pst mistakes and trying to correct them moving fwd is a good thing.

Yep, I remember him saying that a couple times in the video. I just couldn’t help note the little bit of hypocrisy in his messaging versus his past actions. Like you said, acknowledging past mistakes is a great step in the right direction.

Karry Kyllo wrote:

Don’t kid yourself. Just because fish return to the bottom doesn’t mean they’ll survive. Fish suffering from barotrauma can look fine but have injuries including things like eversion, prolapse, torsion and volvulus of the stomach, hemorrhaging of internal organs, hematomas, and loss of vision that may all reslut in delayed mortality. By the way, reeling up a fish slowly doesn’t do a bit of good to negate the effects of barotrauma.

Listen to what the DNR tells you about barotrauma instead of some joker on the internet.

Did you watch the videos? Both experiments had flaws, no doubt.
The mm dnr’s experiment was very flawed in my opinion. Aaron explains that very well in his video. I agree and remember thinking the same when I watched the video from angling buzz and the dnr.
Avoiding deep water is still the best practice.
In this case I’d take that jokers knowledge and advice over what the DNR is offering.

Of course not fishing in deep water is the best practice but the DNR’s advice on barotrauma is based on decades of knowledge and fisheries experience. They don’t just pull their recommendations out of the air.
Why would you take an internet joker’s advice over the DNR’s?

grubson wrote:

Avoiding deep water is still the best practice.

I’m on board with this grubson.

I’m just glad to see Aaron is alive and well and putting out content again…

Karry Kyllo wrote:

Of course not fishing in deep water is the best practice but the DNR’s advice on barotrauma is based on decades of knowledge and fisheries experience. They don’t just pull their recommendations out of the air.
Why would you take an internet joker’s advice over the DNR’s?

I wouldn’t call Aaron an internet joker but anyway. I support the DNR but even they don’t know barotrauma entirely, no one does. That is why stuff like this needs to be tested and put out there. The Linders/Angling buzz said further research and studies would need to happen. Hopefully they take constructive criticisms from Aaron’s video and implement it in their next study with the DNR.
Delayed Mortality is still the big issue, need to track the fish for a couple days after to really see.

Karry Kyllo wrote:

Why would you take an internet joker’s advice over the DNR’s?

Have you ever meet or know some of the People working for the DNR? I would take the advice from lots of so called Joker’s over some of those working at the DNR any day !!! These days there are a fair amount of people working at the DNR who have never spent a day of their life on the water or in the woods.

fishthumper wrote:

These days there are a fair amount of people working at the DNR who have never spent a day of their life on the water or in the woods.

Spending time outdoors is not a required qualification to work for the DNR. Jobs are posted and they are filled with candidates who meet the minimal educational or experience requirements. I used to work there.

There may be a disconnect between what they read in a book or learn in a classroom compared to what actually occurs in the field, woods, or lakes but that really isn’t any different than working in any line of work.

I’d take the DNRs word over someone on youtube looking for views and likes.

Karry Kyllo wrote:

Why would you take an internet joker’s advice over the DNR’s?

After watching the MN DNR’s continued bumbling of just about everything they touch, I would be more inclined to trust the answers from the magic 8-ball before I trusted that inept clownshow.

gimruis wrote:

There may be a disconnect between what they read in a book or learn in a classroom compared to what actually occurs in the field, woods, or lakes but that really isn’t any different than working in any line of work.

Correct, No different. All I was saying is that not all so called Jokers are Idiots and not all DNR employees are geniuses. I once saw a DNR employee taking fish catch data at a landing ask the fishermen if a fish was a Sunfish or a Crappie while measuring it. It was neither. It was a bass. In that case I would not take the DNR”s word for much.

” I once saw a DNR employee taking fish catch data at a landing ask the fishermen if a fish was a Sunfish or a Crappie while measuring it. It was neither. It was a bass. In that case I would not take the DNR”s word for much.”

yikes. They will hire anyone and everyone for creel survey’s or AIS work at landings. We all know a kid from college that shouldn’t have gotten an internship at place X or even graduated for that matter..

JoeMX1825 wrote:

I’m just glad to see Aaron is alive and well and putting out content again…

Exactly

I thought he had some valid points in his experiment as well

10klakes wrote:

They will hire anyone and everyone for creel survey’s or AIS work at landings.

Most of those are either volunteers or interns. Not full time permanent paid employees.

Seems like some of you should try getting a job there and make a difference yourselves with all the complaining here. Be the change instead of bitching about it all the time.

JoeMX1825 wrote:

I’m just glad to see Aaron is alive and well and putting out content again…

x3.

Karry Kyllo wrote:

Of course not fishing in deep water is the best practice but the DNR’s advice on barotrauma is based on decades of knowledge and fisheries experience. They don’t just pull their recommendations out of the air.
Why would you take an internet joker’s advice over the DNR’s?

Tell me you have no idea how the DNR arrived at their Barotrauma data, without telling me you have no idea. The MN DNR basically has 3 studies they go off of as gospel, and all have significant issues as acknowledged by the authors of the studies.

Gimruis – Did you watch the full Angling Buzz / DNR Video on their test? I’m not real sure I’d call what they did real scientific or trust their results much. Catch a Fish, Transport it in a bucket some distance, Handle the fish, Measure the Fish, Clip its tail, and then drop it into a 3 Ft diameter hoop, Then count the # of floating fish or those you believe will not survive and call that Data. I would say that was about as scientific as the study done by Aaron. To be honest, Neither test did much if any to prove anything.
As far as the DNR goes, Lets just say like a # of government controlled agencies, I’m not a big fan of their leadership or how they were appointed.
A organization is usually only as good as those that lead them. I’m sure there are a lot of great employee’s who work for them.