100 percent agree. I don’t find myself fishing that deep for any fish. I’ll struggle in the shallows.
Basin bites are fairly easy to get on so those fish get so much pressure. Especially now with livescope. Shallows are the place to be anyway for the giants.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Bearcat89 wrote:</div>
100 percent agree. I don’t find myself fishing that deep for any fish. I’ll struggle in the shallows.Basin bites are fairly easy to get on so those fish get so much pressure. Especially now with livescope. Shallows are the place to be anyway for the giants.
Agreed.
Actually I know a number of DNR biologists, the Chief of Fisheries and the Commissioner of the DNR.
Would this Commissioner be the same one appointed by Tim Walz in 2019, The same one with a degree in Biology and Latin American Studies, The same person who used Grant money to study in Costa Rica, The same one who served several terms in Ramsey City Council, The same one who was a Mayor for several Terms. Anyone can list themselves as a Avid outdoor person. This resume looks far more like a Career politician than that of a outdoors person.
Here is another idea, fish in certain lakes might be able to handle being caught deeper than fish in shallower lakes
Example – Wife and I ice fished on Rainy Lake with a guide a few years ago, we were set up in 37ft fishing for walleyes. I asked the guide about the fish having their swim bladders come up/out and he said the fish on Rainy can handle it betting than on other lakes because the depth of the lake is deeper on average and the fish were used to changing depths often
We fished for 2 days, caught somewhere around 20 walleyes (slow 2 days due to weather in my opinion), only 1 walleye had bulged out eyes and I didnt see any swim bladders in the mouths of any
If a person sees the fish dying and struggling to swim away wouldn’t you move shallower ? That’s like shooting a deer in the leg and letting it limp away and not caring
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Karry Kyllo wrote:</div>
Actually I know a number of DNR biologists, the Chief of Fisheries and the Commissioner of the DNR.Would this Commissioner be the same one appointed by Tim Walz in 2019, The same one with a degree in Biology and Latin American Studies, The same person who used Grant money to study in Costa Rica, The same one who served several terms in Ramsey City Council, The same one who was a Mayor for several Terms. Anyone can list themselves as a Avid outdoor person. This resume looks far more like a Career politician than that of a outdoors person.
What exactly do you have against the DNR?
Personally the DNR is far to political for me. Their stance where they allow GLIFWC to dictate management of Mille Lacs is an embarrassment and a slap in the face of the taxpayers who fund their jobs. They were given joint power by the Supreme Court yet will bend the quota’s to fit the narrative they are pushing.
Before all the anti Mille Lacs and pro DNR guys start pecking away with long thought out or copy & pasted answers I’ll say it won’t change my mind. I am anti DNR when it comes to Mille Lacs. I prefer the first hand experience of a longtime DNR employee like Dick Sternberg or a lifelong resident & guide like the Fellegy’s and others.
That is what I have against the DNR….thanks for asking.
Frankly I don’t care if you have an axe to grind with the DNR or not Dutchboy but but unless you also go by the name fishthumper, I didn’t ask you.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Karry Kyllo wrote:</div>
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.
X2. I’ve ran into a lot of clowns working for the dnr
Frankly I don’t care if you have an axe to grind with the DNR or not Dutchboy but but unless you also go by the name fishthumper, I didn’t ask you.
Sorry, I didn’t know you are so touchy / fragile.
I didn’t watch Aaron’s video, but I did have the opportunity to read the whole DNR study. My question is: how is Aaron assessing mortality 24 and 48 hours post release?
A second question involves bias, and not that of the “testers”, but of the readers’. I suspect that if the sources were switched (Aaron’s “study” was swapped with the DNR’s), that many of the same folks who disagreed with the DNR would still disagree because many are biased against them, not the study.
Personally, until someone like Aaron can show me his scientific credentials, the results remain suspect. The folks who designed and conducted the DNR study have those credentials if a master’s degree in a hard science means anything.
I’ve got nothing bad to say about Aaron or his study. Just questions. Did he do what the DNR did and look at mortality rates 1 & 2 days post release? If not, his “data” is meaningless.
I didn’t watch Aaron’s video, but …
Doesn’t watch a second of it but proceeds to bash it. Lol is this can’t be real… has to be satire right?
The only thing these studies prove is that anyone who posts something on the internet is an expert. And this thread is proof.
I also see a lot of what might be called envy. Where someone without any training or experience in the scientific method summarily dismissing a study based on bias towards the author.
When dept leaders get dissed as idiots because they were appointed really is an indictment of the disser, and exposes their own ignorance. I personally know a past DNR director/chief. His credentials and character are above reproach, but a bunch on nameless joker’s on the internet would presume to know more than he and delude themselves into thinking they could do a better job? Kindly excuse me while I change my pants! I just wet myself laughing at your pretensions.
I also see a lot of what might be called envy. Where someone without any training or experience in the scientific method summarily dismissing a study based on bias towards the author.
Personally, until someone like Aaron can show me his scientific credentials, the results remain suspect.
The irony with these two statements gave me a good chuckle
I enjoyed the video. The one thing that stuck with my was his criticism of science in general when what he was doing was essentially SCIENCE!! Scientific studies aren’t gospel truth and only a stepping stone for others to identify flaws, improve methods, and collect more accurate data. The tube net used by DNR has likely been the standard method for years; pre-dating FFS by decades. If I was a fisheries biologist I would be considering a modification to the current protocol based on new technology. A comparison between the two would be a highly informative study and could lead to improved methods for measuring mortality. Hopefully this shift occurs and more accurate mortality data can be generated.
I didn’t watch Aaron’s video, but I did have the opportunity to read the whole DNR study. My question is: how is Aaron assessing mortality 24 and 48 hours post release?
A second question involves bias, and not that of the “testers”, but of the readers’. I suspect that if the sources were switched (Aaron’s “study” was swapped with the DNR’s), that many of the same folks who disagreed with the DNR would still disagree because many are biased against them, not the study.
Personally, until someone like Aaron can show me his scientific credentials, the results remain suspect. The folks who designed and conducted the DNR study have those credentials if a master’s degree in a hard science means anything.
I’ve got nothing bad to say about Aaron or his study. Just questions. Did he do what the DNR did and look at mortality rates 1 & 2 days post release? If not, his “data” is meaningless.
Wiebe’s main bone to pick with the DNR study is in how much it deviates from an angler who gets the fish back in the water quickly and releases it purposely. It is not a small bone of contention. It looks to this 3rd party that the DNR designed the study to get the results they desired. Where have we seen that in science before, besides all over the place nowadays? What good is a study that may be deeply flawed from the outset? Wiebe raises multiple red flags with how the study was conducted.
Weibe’s complaint of the fish being over handled may be a little over-rated.
Mille Lacs band did a survey where they caught fish, took them to a centrally located boat, inserted a telemetry device into the fish, then returned them to the original location.
With all of that, they had 5% mortality.
This really shows the flaw in their hooking mortality rate, but it also shows that fish can handle a little more handling than we think.
One other note to consider, how often have you brought fish home in the winter that were laying on the ice, put them in water to rinse off and watched them revive and swim around.
The DNR’s study was a step in the right direction. Hopefully Weibe’s video will show them the flaws in their study, and they resolve them.
It’s amazing the amount of people who just instantly brush off a guy because he makes “YouTube” videos.
Seriously…watch the video and listen to the things he says. He explains things pretty well and never ONCE said these fish were guaranteed to live the next few days. We all should question things and spur discussion, it makes for a better end result.
Critical thinking doesn’t require elitist credentials.
This is the appeal to authority fallacy.
For those of you disagreeing with Aaron’s video, what points do you disagree with?
Critical thinking doesn’t require elitist credentials.
This is the appeal to authority fallacy.For those of you disagreeing with Aaron’s video, what points do you disagree with?
The only flaw that I could pick out was that his follow up time was a few minutes. If the fish made it deep, it was assumed a long term survivor. This may be an accurate interpretation, but some of those bug-eyed fish he pulled up could very well have made the decent only to die from organ/vessel damage over the next 24-48hr. His method was much better than the DNR cylinder net, but it lacks a critical long-term survival data point that would cement his argument.
I didn’t watch Aaron’s video, but I did have the opportunity to read the whole DNR study. My question is: how is Aaron assessing mortality 24 and 48 hours post release?
A second question involves bias, and not that of the “testers”, but of the readers’. I suspect that if the sources were switched (Aaron’s “study” was swapped with the DNR’s), that many of the same folks who disagreed with the DNR would still disagree because many are biased against them, not the study.
Personally, until someone like Aaron can show me his scientific credentials, the results remain suspect. The folks who designed and conducted the DNR study have those credentials if a master’s degree in a hard science means anything.
I’ve got nothing bad to say about Aaron or his study. Just questions. Did he do what the DNR did and look at mortality rates 1 & 2 days post release? If not, his “data” is meaningless.
Is this the queen of England? If watching the video isn’t of interest to you, how could discussing the video possibly be worth your time?
Weibe’s complaint of the fish being over handled may be a little over-rated.
Mille Lacs band did a survey where they caught fish, took them to a centrally located boat, inserted a telemetry device into the fish, then returned them to the original location.With all of that, they had 5% mortality.
This really shows the flaw in their hooking mortality rate, but it also shows that fish can handle a little more handling than we think.One other note to consider, how often have you brought fish home in the winter that were laying on the ice, put them in water to rinse off and watched them revive and swim around.
The DNR’s study was a step in the right direction. Hopefully Weibe’s video will show them the flaws in their study, and they resolve them.
Hi Tom, I agree with you about how durable and resilient fish can be! They are simultaenously indestructible and extremely fragile. This dynamic is common among cold-blooded animals, and I think it’s more because we don’t relate with them, so the things that they can tolerate vs cannot are often against our thinking.
It all comes down to cumulative effects (or the cumulative affect). Typically, it seems a fish can survive almost any one bad stressor. But if that bad thing is combined with even one additional medium stressor, it has an exponential affect and fatal outcome. Some examples of bad stressors would be barotrauma, warm water, deeply-hooked, and extended handling time. When it comes to all four, there are massive unknowns with delayed mortality; however it seems like if there are no additional stressors, that the fish has a decent chance. I am not familiar with the study you mentioned, but I assume that barotrauma, warm water, and deeply-hooked were not involved at all to magnify the affect of the excessive handling you described.
Neither their pilot study or my video show anything about delayed mortality. The methods of their study killed the fish pre-emptively, and my video simply demonstrated that those were “releasable” fish. Still, I said countless times that deep water fishing has dangerous unknowns and is best avoided.
The DNR/Lindner study did not have a hidden agenda. Everyone on site meant well, but they had an anticipated outcome, and they all took for granted that the sum of the parts had a handle on things. It is worth considering that even after everything has been presented about this, many of the people in this conversation thread still have the same bias on this topic as the DNR/Lindners did beforehand.
Good video Arron and hope you stay around on this site .
Would you consider, or would it be logical to revisit the fishing hole after a day with an under water drone ?
I didn’t watch Aaron’s video, but I did have the opportunity to read the whole DNR study.
@steeliedan
Please post the link.
An interesting video that discusses barotrauma:
Some of you may be familiar with the guy.
Buffalo Fishhead
The video by gord pyzer is terrible. The title and the message is that you can fish unethically deep now with this product.
I’ve been using a clip on depth weight on a separate rod. Clip it on the pectoral fin, lower the fish and give a yank. Releases the fish at any depth. When used in the summer, I haven’t had any come back up that I could see. If I catch 2 fish that won’t go back down I move shallower or to a different spot. Sometimes you catch fish in 20-25 feet that won’t go down. They probably just moved up from deeper and their swim bladder hasn’t equilibrated yet.
A agree with Aaron. Why fish deep to start with?
A agree with Aaron. Why fish deep to start with?
I also agree, if you are targeting physoclistous fish, don’t fish water deeper than about 30 feet, UNLESS you plan to keep all the fish you catch.
Buffalo Fishhead
If 76% of fish die in that scenario there would be hundreds or even thousands of dead fish on the bottom of the ice and bottom of the lake around the popular winter deep crappie holes on some lakes. Stick a camera down, there isn’t.
If the dnr did a similar study with fish that don’t suffer as much from barotrauma such as a lake trout I’d guess a similar amount would die in their net. That’s a lot of stress to put on fish before and after the release.
I am glad someone pointed out the serious flaws in the dnr study. Too many people take the dnr or guys like the Linders as gospel without even analyzing it.
Thanks for all the entertainment over the years Wiebe. You’re the only fresh water fishing show I follow.
What exactly do you have against the DNR?
Like I said Prior. Most of my issue is with their leadership and how they got to it. Like I also said prior, I’m sure there are plenty of smart people working for them, Sadly though because of the mostly political agenda of those at the top, Their great thoughts and ideas are probably never heard. My problem overall with the DNR is that they are there to look after and Manage the public resources of this state and I feel like they are failing at that. Just my .02 worth. You are free to yours as well.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
