Uncut Angling – Minnesota Barotrauma

Doesn’t stop some of the guides on P4 from fishing the 40 foot scour hole down from lock

The angling edge video is obviously a way to promote not catch and release of deep water fish. Worst study I have seen yet.

The Angling Buzz/DNR method showed that a large number weren’t even releasable (wouldn’t even swim down the hole). I think this was what Aaron’s video was debunking first and foremost as there’s no way to tell if they’ll die later on.

The video also exposes how scientists and regulators often use preconceived outcomes/confirmation bias in their studies. “Trust the science”, anyone?

gim 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.

Even fizzing has it’s downfall. There has been some studies done in the south that show people who were not fizzing bass correctly were actually killing bass instead of releasing the air. So like anything, it’s not the end all be all.

Greenhorn wrote:

The Angling Buzz/DNR method showed that a large number weren’t even releasable (wouldn’t even swim down the hole). I think this was what Aaron’s video was debunking first and foremost as there’s no way to tell if they’ll die later on.

The catch and release into a holding net is how the DNR has done all of their hooking mortality studies. Besides the obvious issue demonstrated by Aaron Wiebe in his video (fish like to swim out to the side after release), the other issue is there is no way to release fish into the holding net without catching them (obviously) so there is no true baseline of how many fish would die if constrained to the net for the same time frame without being caught. This *wasn’t* much of an issue as hooking mortality was not used as a management tool until relatively recently when they started using it on Mille Lacs to estimate the non-native “take”. Add in creel surveyor inaccuracies (counting pleasure boaters, musky/pike/smallie fisherman as walleye fisherman), and you have a recipe for the anti-science management currently utilized on ML. Basically they take their creel #’s (how many people fishing and catch rate) x their Hooking Mortality percentage for that water temp = how many fish MN Anglers are credited for “harvesting”. And this poor methodology is likely to get used elsewhere more unless there is pushback.

FWIW I read all the DNR studies, talked to the authors, and submitted a long dissertation to MN Fish (per their request) in May, 2021, recipient’s were Ron Schara, Tom Neustrom, Chip Leer, John Peterson, Steve Pennaz and Jeff Arnold. I raised almost all of the issues that Wiebe and the study authors themselves acknowledged, and MN Fish didn’t really do anything with it nor want any further work or input for me.

mahtofire14 wrote:

Even fizzing has it’s downfall. There has been some studies done in the south that show people who were not fizzing bass correctly were actually killing <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>bass instead of releasing the air. So like anything, it’s not the end all be all.

Oh I can believe that. I wouldn’t even attempt such a thing.

A hybrid of the two “studies” needs to be done.

Aaron clearly showed that they can all swim back.

I suggest having multiple anglers catch as many fish as possible in short order, then lowering them back down in a net to the depths.

From there drop a camera down every day for a week or two and see how they’re doing in the net.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that the DNR results can and will be used to steer future regulations. Essentially we are depending on accuracy and validated test methods.
All Aaron was doing here was putting some question into that and perhaps planting a seed for us all to take another look. He clearly stated “best practice is don’t fish that deep” and also reminded us of unknow and immeasurable trauma we may NEVER be able to determine.

Internet Joker…. not so much

Aaron was just doing an important part of any scientific study. Peer Review

delete

tswoboda wrote:

Aaron was actually doing an important part of any scientific study. Peer Review

That wasn’t remotely close to a scientific study.

fishthumper wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Karry Kyllo wrote:</div>
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.

Actually I know a number of DNR biologists, the Chief of Fisheries and the Commissioner of the DNR. I don’t know where you get your information because it’s totally incorrect. Every DNR employee that I’ve met from the biologists to the Commissioner have all been been extremely talented, knowledgeable and true outdoor people. I’ll take their advice on barotrauma over an internet angler any day of the week. Why do you ask?

Karry Kyllo wrote:

Actually I know a number of DNR biologists, the Chief of Fisheries and the Commissioner of the DNR. I don’t know where you get your information because it’s totally incorrect. Every DNR employee that I’ve met from the biologists to the Commissioner have all been been extremely talented, knowledgeable and true outdoor people. I’ll take their advice on barotrauma over an internet angler any day of the week. Why do you ask?

I generally agree, although not necessarily with the commissioner or deputy commissioner positions because they are political appointees, not permanent tenured positions based on required qualifications like most other positions are. They are selected every 4 or 8 years based on whoever the governor is.

Karry Kyllo wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>tswoboda wrote:</div>
Aaron was actually doing an important part of any scientific study. Peer Review

That wasn’t remotely close to a scientific study.

The Angling Buzz video?

I’m not saying the uncut Angling video was a study at all, maybe that wasn’t clear ??

Weibe is obviously on the eagles payroll down in Red Wing

Gitchi Gummi wrote:

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.

Firstly, you are absolutely right that the messaging in the video with the 5 gallon pail was poor. Before and after that video I have always been consistent on expedited handling, and despite my justification to follow, this is a confusing deviation from that and probably should not have been done.

In my defence, the school was actually only 7-10 feet down, which is why I was so concerned about spooking them, and is why barotrauma was not a cumulative affect. There was water in the pail and the fish released well. Regardless, I agree the messaging was poor.

Karry Kyllo wrote:

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.

That is a very informative google search, thank you!

The demonstration I did of releasing the fish caught from 34-37 ft of water, was only to show that the mortality listed in the MN DNR study was overstated, and that many deep-caught fish are releasable. For the last 10-20 years, “common knowledge” has been that a deep-caught crappie only has the energy to swim partway down, and then floats up under the ice to die. I have never witnessed, experienced, or seen media evidence of this – but I do believe it happens in some scenarios. I know it happens to fish involved in photoshoots, culled fish, and fish held in restrictive net pens for studies.

I made no claims about delayed mortality. That’s next.

Weibe’s criticism of the weaknesses inherent in the studies is 100% valid. More studies need to be done to see if fish released according to Weibe’s method are suffering major harm or not. I would like to know the answer as a mostly catch-and-release crappie ice fisherman. I tend to stay away from fishing crappies deeper than 20′. I found the observation of how a fish returns to depths with FFS fascinating.

I try to release panfish mouth closed face first with momentum because they are more likely to not come back up the hole. It is annoying to me when a fish doesn’t go straight back down the hole.

Is that the real Aaron wiebe ? If so, welcome to the forum. Love all your content and exciting to see new videos coming out. I’ve wasted many hours watching your videos. I can’t say that about many other fishing channels.

Karry Kyllo wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>tswoboda wrote:</div>
Aaron was actually doing an important part of any scientific study. Peer Review

That wasn’t remotely close to a scientific study.

What’s your definition of a scientific study? Do you need a PHD? Do you need fancy equipment and control devices?

Frankly, a scientific study is an experiment. What he did was an experiment. Hell, I bet every one of us did a scientific study when we were 5 years old; ant farm, caught monarch butterflies/caterpillars, ect, then watched how they reacted.

I could take a dozen nightcrawlers, put 6 in the sun and 6 back in the container I bought them in and see which die first. That’s a scientific study.

It’s obvious you have passion for the DNR, and that’s fine. But don’t crap on everyone else that has a different opinion as the DNR.

B-man wrote:

A hybrid of the two “studies” needs to be done.

Aaron clearly showed that they can all swim back.

I suggest having multiple anglers catch as many fish as possible in short order, then lowering them back down in a net to the depths.

From there drop a camera down every day for a week or two and see how they’re doing in the net.

Agree, more study needs to be done on delayed mortality. Aaron demonstrated that fish can at least swim with safe handling but what happens after that, will never know until more study is completed.

Correct me if I am wrong but I did not see 1 fish with the stomach pushed out from the swim bladder. When we catch Crappies or Walleyes from 30 ft or so this is very common. We always close the Crappies mouth when releasing, but wasn’t aware of air bubbles in the mouth. Lesson learned. Very interesting video and educational.

Bearcat89 wrote:

Is that the real Aaron wiebe ?

Yes it is even though he felt the pain of our spam catcher. He posted 3 times before his post went through.

Welcome Aaron! Thanks for being persistent!

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Bearcat89 wrote:
Is that the real Aaron wiebe ?

Yes it is even though he felt the pain of our spam catcher. He posted 3 times before his post went through.

Welcome Aaron! Thanks for being persistent!

Welcome Wiebe. Thanks for joining and the feedback. I look forward to reading more of your post and enjoying new contact on your channel.

What just happened to Aaron great post?

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Welcome Aaron! Thanks for being persistent!

Welcome abord Aaron, also looking forward to your posts!

and it is back

I totally agree with Aaron that the nets played a huge factor for whether or not these fish survive. They struggle pretty significantly getting back down so if they’re impeded in any way it’s going to drastically affect the results.

Aaron explains barotrauma in the beginning of his video. If the fish can get to a place of neutral buoyancy quickly, their chances of actual trauma is greatly reduced, if not eliminated. The DNR study not only inhibited their ability to get back down to neutral buoyancy, they handled them in the danger zone far far longer than any angler releasing a crappie ever would.

The other thing I hate about the DNR study is that they seemed to have zero intention in testing other ways to get them back to neutral buoyancy so there seems to be a bias before starting this study. The net in the deep study seemed like a much smaller diameter compared to the shallower one. Its almost as if they did their best to confirm their bias. I think the only thing the DNR study confirmed is that the methods were badly flawed.

Now the DNR needs to test its methods before conducting more studies. It’s normal for studies to conclude that more research is needed. In this case they seem to have made up their mind before the study even began. They even seemed surprised when they saw that fish actually survived the deep water study and that concerns me.

And just another thought, if those fish aren’t allowed to go back to their place of neutral buoyancy, and are say held 10-15’ above that level, it’s lucky if any fish survive. All they’re going to do is struggle to maintain any buoyancy until they can adjust.

Fish weed edges and forget about it

Youbetcha wrote:

Fish weed edges and forget about it.

100 percent agree. I don’t find myself fishing that deep for any fish. I’ll struggle in the shallows.