Uncut Angling – Minnesota Barotrauma

BigWerm wrote:

I did a little searching Biggill and couldn’t find it. Which might be due to the Lindner video barotrauma video “was a pilot project. Information gleaned from this project will be used to refine research on the barotrauma issue.” So it doesn’t sound like it’s been published yet, and may never be if it’s included as part of a larger study. Maybe Dee J is sobered up and off of his throne today, and could explain how he read it already. Or confirm he was lying.

I spent some time looking for it as well and could t find it. I’d still like to see a report or something on it. I understand it’s a pilot study but if you can’t even find out what the methods are, it’s hard for people to suggest improvements.

I did a little google research on barotrauma today and it seems like the main enemy after bringing them up from 33’+ is how long they are kept above their neutral buoyancy depth. Handling and keeping them out of water probably doesn’t play a huge factor but rather the time spent above their target depth will begin to cause damage when the air begins to burst blood vessels in their gills and organs. The longer they stay there the more damage that occurs. The only way these fish can relieve pressure is by reabsorbing the gasses from the swim bladder back into their blood and ultimately out their gills, if I understood it correctly.

So thinking back to the study, Aaron’s concern about handling was generally correct. The longer they are held above their natural buoyancy depth, the more damage that occurs.

Tom schmitt wrote:

After thinking about all of this for a bit there are a couple items that are open for debate and more study.
#1 If the DNR’s study was flawed in allowing <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>crappies to return to depth, why did the shallower caught fish have better survival? They still had to battle the net the same as the deep fish.
#2 If over handling fish caused mortality, why was there less mortality when fish were caught shallower?

Cumulative effects is the issue. It’s the exponential impact of a combination of things. The shallower fish have less stress on them to begin with, and they used a larger cylinder on the shallower tests which may have made it a bit easier to get down. Imagine if the fish were caught from 5ft of water – they would have likely survived fine in any size net.

Tom schmitt wrote:

#3 What difference does it make to put the fish in the water mouth up, when their gills are behind their mouth and will vent air just as well?

Putting them in backwards is as much or more about making sure there’s no slush or snow in their mouth. There’s probably a little pocket of air right by their throat that is trapped if you put them straight in – and if you don’t close the mouth, their gills almost seal at the back and there will be lots of air in their mouth.

I found the video very informative and Aaron seemed to really hit on all the main points very well. I’ve experienced the same things, and couldn’t believe the hooking mortality was as high as stated when originally reported a year or two ago, so it’s not surprising there were some issues with the study. It seems easy to me from a DNR standpoint to just put a little tag in the fish to track the fish for a few days after they’re released, is that not the case? Why don’t they just run a study like that quick and see what’s really going on with the fish instead of the nets and all the apparatus?

I would really expect to see more dead fish around if they were truly all dying upon release? When there’s a low O2 die off, those fish all show up on shore, not eaten by scavengers under ice so the hooking mortality number just seems off to me and other anglers I’ve talked to about it before.

Thanks for posting, keep up the good work!!

Here’s a great follow up. Grab a cup of coffee it’s a long watch

Anyone who has watched Weibes videos over the years knows he has the utmost respect for the fish and the sport, and calls for better handling and shows on how to do just that.

I respect anyone in today’s day and age w pitchfork nation lurking in the shadows to challenge common held beliefs.

While I don’t necessarily agree with the initial video just from my own observations over the years pulling up fish from the depths it’s good intent behind it. Although the road to he// is paved with good intentions at times I’ll give a pass this round and hope to see more studies, scientific or not, to help find clarity on the issue.

I’ll still be rockin the uncut angling hat purchased several years ago

I’m happy to see Aaron didn’t waiver on his message and I’m also happy to learn that the MN DNR seems to be extremely open minded. Other than the barodrama that has occurred online, seems like a pretty positive impact in my opinion. I’m pretty sure Aaron was quite surprised to hear from the MN DNR and that his video received the attention it deserved.

Excessive handling of fish is a problem across the board. Not addressing that as a major variable in this study is a huge mistake. Barotrauma is a big problem for fish and so is excessive handling. You can’t quantify one without eliminating or at least strictly controlling the other.

The DNR said that 80% of those crappies weren’t releasable. Aaron demonstrated that you can make those fish releasable. If a fish isn’t releasable it has 0% chance of survival.

The DNR should study the fish that are releasable and identify when, where and how to make them releasable. Then study the mortality rate on those releasable fish.

It’s pretty simple. Just don’t fish in deep water and release fish.

…..which brings us back full circle.
Without a post release study, it is impossible to assess barotrauma because much of it doesn’t manifest itself in the first few moments, let alone the first day! And without that assessment, Aaron can’t even guess what might happen 24 & 48 hours post release. Handling trauma is a separate issue than barotrauma. DUH!

duh queen wrote:

…..which brings us back full circle.
Without a post release study, it is impossible to assess barotrauma because much of it doesn’t manifest itself in the first few moments, let alone the first day! And without that assessment, Aaron can’t even guess what might happen 24 & 48 hours post release. Handling trauma is a separate issue than barotrauma. DUH!

Here we go with the godfather again. You tipping back the wild turkey again tonight? If so, I might have to imbibe myself so I can try and follow along with someone who’s impared.

Sorry to bust your bubble, swill-boy, but as John Adams so famously said ” facts are stubborn little things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
In your deluded state, you’re not arguing with me, but with FACTS! Good luck with that one.
Maybe you would like to expand on how Aaron’s little exercise assessed the barotrauma once he couldn’t even see them after they dropped below the ice. That they could swim away was a sign of survival is akin to asserting that just because a buck didn’t immediately drop after being skewered with an arrow, he must be OK.

I was advised long by a wise man that it is exceedingly unsporting to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. You sir, are clearly unarmed. Thus I will defer.

You apparently never watched the video but we digress. He watched them swim all the way to the bottom thanks to technology not liquor. I might crank it up a notch and have some caffeine. We’ve already gone over the fact you never watched the video.

I never argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

DJ. You were talking a big game about how much you knew from reading the DNR study… Several people called you out asking to prove it by providing the study. You turtled and went into hiding after you rambled like a drunk with severe head trauma.

Now you’re back attacking people trying to defend your incoherent blabber and mass generalizations. You lost all credibility. Time to just go home and cut your losses instead of trying to attack others. Maybe lay off the sauce tonight eh bud

Aaron has forgot more about fishing than you will ever know. We, as anglers, are very lucky to have someone like him in our corner.

Gitchi Gummi wrote:

Aaron has forgot more about fishing than you will ever know. We, as anglers, are lucky to have someone like him in our corner.

Exactly! This dude is the salt of the earth and I’m so glad he’s getting back into publishing stuff because he is so good and knowledgeable. We are all better off when people like him share their experiences. He wasnt dissing the study IMO he just shared some thoughts to challenge it and I thought he did a good job.

Even though it’s plainly apparent many of too guys need it, it’s not my job to edgeekate yoose guys.
I suspect that too rezent getting skooled by someone yu think an inferior.
Jealousy is the sincerest form of flattery.
If an idjit like myself could find it, why can’t you guys?
I ask a legit question about Aaron’s little project and you squawk like little wet hens, but NEVER address the question regarding the flaws in it. You circle the wagons like minions in an effort to protect you idol. I gotta mood for good. My critique WAS NEVER ANOUT AARON! It was about the lack of science posing as science. I guess Stoopid people struggle with logic.
Ask all you want for a link. But to tell you the truth, I don’t believe you deserve it. Thus, you’ll get it once you “get” what I’ve maintained all along: Aaron’s little dog and pony show did nothing to evaluate barotrauma. Too guys are just too thick to understand that.
THE QUEEN HAS SPKOEN!

CaptainMusky wrote:

I never argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Mark Twain

Hey smarty pants no need for a link because we know you are inept but how about just answering the question you’ve been asked dozens of times but the wild turkey kicked in and you haven’t answered. Did you even watch the video?

Aaron’s little dog and pony show did nothing to evaluate barotrauma.

I would say this is incorrect as there are pages here and across the web discussing his video. In my mind it doesn’t matter if his video or the DNR’s is right, it spawned discussion. People (well at least some) gave the subject some thought.

Queen Dee,

Is this more ‘sarcasm and trolling’ or you serious this time?

CaptainMusky wrote:

Exactly! This dude is the salt of the earth and I’m so glad he’s getting back into publishing stuff because he is so good and knowledgeable. We are all better off when people like him share their experiences. He wasnt dissing the study IMO he just shared some thoughts to challenge it and I thought he did a good job.

Well said Capt’n.

Aaron, if you’re reading this, we love your content and really wish you’d put out more and appreciate everything you’ve done for the fishing industry. I hope you’re doing well after everything you’ve gone thru the last couple years. Don’t listen to anything clowns like Queen D say. He’s a wanna be smarty pants and troll but he’s really just a clown who thinks he’s a lot smarter than he actually is.

Gitch, I’ve already shared with you that I’m a pretty fart smaller. Now, in my best Decartes form, ” I stink, therefore I am”.

I’ll keep fishing as long as the suckers continue to bite.

Fixed it for ya.

Karry Kyllo wrote:

It’s pretty simple. Just don’t fish in deep water and release fish.

Karry Kyllo wrote:

It’s pretty simple. Just don’t fish in deep water and release fish.

Fixed it.

biggill wrote:

Fixed it.

lmao

duh queen wrote:

Gitch, I’ve already shared with you that I’m a pretty fart smaller. Now, in my best Decartes form, ” I stink, therefore I am”.

I’ll keep fishing as long as the suckers continue to bite.

You were asked for a link to a study you had said you mastered. Why couldn’t you just link it ? Nobody here thinks your superior, smart or wity. You look like a dipshit and I don’t see why you wouldn’t just back up what you say. Sad when guys have to be such d bags especially over nothing. That’s why so many quit visiting this site. Take the bs to Facebook, leave it out of here. Your quirky spelling is really cool. Give your self a pat off the back buddy

gim wrote:

Fixed it for ya.

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Karry Kyllo wrote:</div>
It’s pretty simple. Just don’t fish in deep water and release fish.

And how exactly did you do that?

Karry Kyllo wrote:

And how exactly did you do that?

I lined out the words “in deep water.” Haha

duh queen wrote:

I didn’t watch Aaron’s video, but I did have the opportunity to read the whole DNR study.

Post the link. It’s been requested many times, and instead of a quick link, you choose to argue and attack people just looking for the same info you supposedly read.

Who are the Amundsen’s from Sporting Journal? I’ve honestly never heard of them prior to this, and if they are representing MN Anglers with the DNR, we are in big trouble. They have the same issue as DJ Anders, an appeal to authority and degrees over common sense and questioning what we are being told. Which is a key component to actual science, as any findings should be replicable and stand up to scrutiny, not protected from scrutiny due to a degree hanging on the wall.

BigWerm wrote:

Who are the Amundsen’s from Sporting Journal? I’ve honestly never heard of them prior to this, and if they are representing MN Anglers with the DNR, we are in big trouble. They have the same issue as DJ Anders, an appeal to authority and degrees over common sense and questioning what we are being told. Which is a key component to actual science, as any findings should be replicable and stand up to scrutiny, not protected from scrutiny due to a degree hanging on the wall.

I’ve done a couple of shows with Bret and Dan. They are great guys that share a common passion for the outdoors. It’s good to have these discussions, especially if more knowledge is gained along the way. It’s not a bad thing to disagree.

Here’s Bret’s Bio if you are interested: https://bretamundson.com/bio-2/