Andre Laas
Sealiner
Hi Guys
I know some excerpts of this article have been posted before, but here is the full article with permission from the author.
[align=center]A Test of Circles[/align]
[align=center]By Colin Attwood
[/align]
[align=left]
There have been many claims about the superior performance of circle-hooks, especially for catch-and-release fisheries. We decided to put these to the test. Most important for us is the claim that circle-hooks reduce the frequency of deep (gill or gut) hooking. If this is so, we would also like to know that circle-hooks catch at least as many fish as J-hooks.
Circle-hooks have such a strong bend that the point ‘points’ to a position on the shank below the eye. It seems unlikely to hook anything. In fact, it requires quite a different technique – let the fish hook itself and do not strike. This last bit is really tricky for experienced anglers with a hard-wired action. But after a while you un-train your arm and hook the fish without any acrobatics - less strain on tackle and less damage to the fish.
My tagging team at de Hoop MPA agreed (reluctantly) to try a batch of circle-hooks kindly sponsored by VMC. Anglers were grouped in pairs. One from each pair used circles, the other used J’s. The next day they switched over. The purpose of switching over was to eliminate the effect of angler-skill on the result. Each angler had to record the position where every fish was hooked. The following categories were used:
Lip[/b] – the hook penetrated in front of the jaw.
Jaw[/b] – the hook penetrated behind the jaw, but the eye of the hook was exposed from the mouth.
Corner[/b] – the hook was lodged in the corner of the mouth.
Tongue[/b] – the hook penetrated the floor of the mouth and the eye of the hook disappeared inside the mouth.
Palate[/b] - the hook penetrated the roof of the mouth and the eye of the hook disappeared inside the mouth.
Gill[/b] – the hook penetrated the gill filaments, causing heavy bleeding.
Stomach[/b] – the hook disappeared down the gullet.
Foul[/b] – the hook penetrated the fish outside the mouth.
A fish was considered to be deep-hooked if the hooking position was stomach, gill, tongue or palate. For each of these deep-hooking positions it was necessary to get hands or pliers inside the mouth to dislodge the hook, if dislodging was possible at all without killing the fish. The experiment was repeated many times over the course of a year.
[/b]
Over 1000 fish of 28 species were caught during the experiment by 22 shore anglers. Taken across all species, circles hooked fish less often in the stomach and gill, but more often in the lip, jaw and corner of the mouth (Figure 1). These results were confirmed by statistical testing. When considering individual species, statistically significant results were obtained for elf, kob, galjoen and blacktail. Elf surprised us: 24% were deep-hooked by J’s, but none were deep-hooked by circles. For kob, it was 48% as opposed to 9%.
It appears that fish are foul-hooked more often by circles, although this result was not statistically significant. Circles sometimes hooked fish in the face or fin, which is rarely lethal, unless the eye is penetrated.
Circles caught the same number of fish as J’s (Figure 2). The differences you see in the graph were very slight and overwhelmed by the variability of catch rates between anglers and different days, from which we cannot conclude that there is any difference in the catching ability of the two designs. Some anglers will insist that circles are better, and for some individuals this may be the case, but when averaged across all 22 anglers there was no trend.
J-hooks were at an advantage in that the anglers had decades of experience in striking, whereas the passive approach required for circles was still a novelty.
Some anglers also say that circles will work for some species, but not other species. One written account identified nibblers (e.g. blacktail) as the perfect circle prey, but class the smash-and-grab predators (e.g. elf) as requiring a J-hook. Again, our catch-rate results were consistent across all species.
An added observation, which was not a deliberate part of the experimental design, was that circle-hooks get stuck less often. The rocks at De Hoop are covered by red-bait pods, and we often had to fish among the rocks. J-hooks frequently get stuck in the pods, causing loss of the hook, or worse, all terminal tackle. This is a waste of money and time and a form of pollution. It is that very feature of circles that looks so counter-effective – the partially-closed gape – that saves your tackle.
We concluded that circle-hooks should be used in preference to J-hooks if it is important to reduce the frequency of deep-hooking. When lodged properly in the mouth, a hook can be removed quickly, particularly if the barb is removed, thereby minimising rough-handling and exposure time. By doing away with the need to strike, less damage is caused to the fish and tackle, and less tackle is lost. For anglers who practise catch and release or tagging, circles are clearly advantageous.
Will anglers switch over? The anglers involved in this experiment were sceptical (at best) in the beginning, but virtually all now agree that circles are better. One persistent problem is how to prepare the bait so that the point of the hook is properly exposed. This problem troubles the angler, but not the fish. Circles are no less efficient that J-hooks.
Colin Attwood
Marine Research Institute
University of Cape Town
Private Bag X3
Rondebosch 7700
[/align]
I know some excerpts of this article have been posted before, but here is the full article with permission from the author.
[align=center]A Test of Circles[/align]
[align=center]By Colin Attwood
[/align]
[align=left]
There have been many claims about the superior performance of circle-hooks, especially for catch-and-release fisheries. We decided to put these to the test. Most important for us is the claim that circle-hooks reduce the frequency of deep (gill or gut) hooking. If this is so, we would also like to know that circle-hooks catch at least as many fish as J-hooks.
Circle-hooks have such a strong bend that the point ‘points’ to a position on the shank below the eye. It seems unlikely to hook anything. In fact, it requires quite a different technique – let the fish hook itself and do not strike. This last bit is really tricky for experienced anglers with a hard-wired action. But after a while you un-train your arm and hook the fish without any acrobatics - less strain on tackle and less damage to the fish.
My tagging team at de Hoop MPA agreed (reluctantly) to try a batch of circle-hooks kindly sponsored by VMC. Anglers were grouped in pairs. One from each pair used circles, the other used J’s. The next day they switched over. The purpose of switching over was to eliminate the effect of angler-skill on the result. Each angler had to record the position where every fish was hooked. The following categories were used:
Lip[/b] – the hook penetrated in front of the jaw.
Jaw[/b] – the hook penetrated behind the jaw, but the eye of the hook was exposed from the mouth.
Corner[/b] – the hook was lodged in the corner of the mouth.
Tongue[/b] – the hook penetrated the floor of the mouth and the eye of the hook disappeared inside the mouth.
Palate[/b] - the hook penetrated the roof of the mouth and the eye of the hook disappeared inside the mouth.
Gill[/b] – the hook penetrated the gill filaments, causing heavy bleeding.
Stomach[/b] – the hook disappeared down the gullet.
Foul[/b] – the hook penetrated the fish outside the mouth.
A fish was considered to be deep-hooked if the hooking position was stomach, gill, tongue or palate. For each of these deep-hooking positions it was necessary to get hands or pliers inside the mouth to dislodge the hook, if dislodging was possible at all without killing the fish. The experiment was repeated many times over the course of a year.
[/b]
Over 1000 fish of 28 species were caught during the experiment by 22 shore anglers. Taken across all species, circles hooked fish less often in the stomach and gill, but more often in the lip, jaw and corner of the mouth (Figure 1). These results were confirmed by statistical testing. When considering individual species, statistically significant results were obtained for elf, kob, galjoen and blacktail. Elf surprised us: 24% were deep-hooked by J’s, but none were deep-hooked by circles. For kob, it was 48% as opposed to 9%.
It appears that fish are foul-hooked more often by circles, although this result was not statistically significant. Circles sometimes hooked fish in the face or fin, which is rarely lethal, unless the eye is penetrated.
Circles caught the same number of fish as J’s (Figure 2). The differences you see in the graph were very slight and overwhelmed by the variability of catch rates between anglers and different days, from which we cannot conclude that there is any difference in the catching ability of the two designs. Some anglers will insist that circles are better, and for some individuals this may be the case, but when averaged across all 22 anglers there was no trend.
J-hooks were at an advantage in that the anglers had decades of experience in striking, whereas the passive approach required for circles was still a novelty.
Some anglers also say that circles will work for some species, but not other species. One written account identified nibblers (e.g. blacktail) as the perfect circle prey, but class the smash-and-grab predators (e.g. elf) as requiring a J-hook. Again, our catch-rate results were consistent across all species.
An added observation, which was not a deliberate part of the experimental design, was that circle-hooks get stuck less often. The rocks at De Hoop are covered by red-bait pods, and we often had to fish among the rocks. J-hooks frequently get stuck in the pods, causing loss of the hook, or worse, all terminal tackle. This is a waste of money and time and a form of pollution. It is that very feature of circles that looks so counter-effective – the partially-closed gape – that saves your tackle.
We concluded that circle-hooks should be used in preference to J-hooks if it is important to reduce the frequency of deep-hooking. When lodged properly in the mouth, a hook can be removed quickly, particularly if the barb is removed, thereby minimising rough-handling and exposure time. By doing away with the need to strike, less damage is caused to the fish and tackle, and less tackle is lost. For anglers who practise catch and release or tagging, circles are clearly advantageous.
Will anglers switch over? The anglers involved in this experiment were sceptical (at best) in the beginning, but virtually all now agree that circles are better. One persistent problem is how to prepare the bait so that the point of the hook is properly exposed. This problem troubles the angler, but not the fish. Circles are no less efficient that J-hooks.
Colin Attwood
Marine Research Institute
University of Cape Town
Private Bag X3
Rondebosch 7700
[/align]