The legend returns! Hope all is well, glad to see content again. On a positive side, I'm glad that Aaron is ADDING TO THE CONVERSATION. The reality is that fishing looks very different today and going forward, everyone needs to start prioritizing ethical harvest, practices, and conversations. This is not a yes or no discussion, this is lots and lots of education on the part of the experts all the way down to the new and young anglers. I agree fully with Aaron (and Jay, any Clayton, etc) on the livescope issue itself. I think its better we start talking about fishing issues holistically and not each issue in a vaccum, like Aaron does here.
This is the type of person we need heading the fishing community. Extremely knowledgeable and plenty of experience to back it up. Teaches and entertains at same time
Yeap, it’s great when someone can this easily identify the flaws in what some will blindly accept as “science” and be able to articulate it and make his point where it makes sense.
Maybe you should go buy the 100 ft diameter net to prove you are correct. I when they released all these fish in the Angling edge study the fish swam down down to the bottom. The NEXT day, they were dead. not when released. Sure the fish swim back down to the bottom, within 2 minutes. The small part of the tail that is remove does not change the ability of the fish to swim. I grew up one block from a national hatchery, I learn so much about fish. Even helped with egg taking of Northern Pike and Walleye.
@@MrJigginjimI think I'll believe the guy that has dedicated the last ten years to fish conservation over the guy that grew up down the road from the hatchery😂
@@Depressingburneraccount I didn't just live down the block I have been fishing for over 60 years. I have been on lakes where thousands of fish were laying on the bottom dead, due to lack of Oxygen. My only guess is what happens to the fish a day later? What would happen if the study was done with a extra large net. The idea is do all fish survive if caught from deep fish?
Glad to see some content man! As a high school science teacher, I wanted to point out that while this video was somewhat framed as you vs the scientists, what you were doing was a key part of all scientific study. Scientists publish their work and other scientists (you in this case!) review it to criticize their methods and conclusions. This allows the body of scientific knowledge to approach the truth as closely as we can! Much like you were concerned with the implications of the other guys video that LiveScope was a threat (just got mine and can’t wait to use it!), I was concerned with the implications in your video that science, in part or as a whole, is an untrustworthy enterprise. Especially when the result of your video was science in action! We live in a wild time where people who are surrounded by scientific marvels understand science so little that they can be manipulated into making decisions based on some talking heads on the TV. Even with the implications of untrustworthy science, I love the video, and I’m hoping to use it next year while teaching about the scientific method. Thanks for all you do for fishing. And enjoy the hard water this year. We’ll be waiting for the next video!!
Agree 100%. Aaron is absolutely doing science by identifying flaws in others work, and designing an alternative testing procedure to reduce variables and produce more rigorous results
I think it does science an injustice to talk about the angling buzz video as if it were accepted science. It was more of a demonstration that was conducted within a lot of constraints and then presented by a 3rd party media outlet. He addresses the 2 major concerns I saw in the angling buzz video; handling time and the restrictions in their release. But he’s also guilty of working backwards to support a previously existing opinion. He started with the idea that they were wrong and worked on demonstrating that belief. Neither video fully goes through the scientific process.
I have a degree in natural resource management and I was so unimpressed with the angling buzz methodology in their “experiment”. I appreciate what you did in the vid and am looking forward to what you may have coming!
Its one of the main things that annoys me about governmental science projects is how narrowminded they are. All It took was an amazing weird Canadian guy with a livescope to provide a legitimate counter evidence to the work of professional scientists.
Brother man, first off we all missed you. We need your content back because it’s some of the best out there! Secondly, this type of content is what we need to educate and spread knowledge in the fishing industry. Please keep doing your thing man. We are all here to support it. Just want to say thanks for all your hard work and commitment to the sport of fishing that we all love!
Really enjoyed your video! Some of your criticisms of the MNDNR study are spot on! Specifically, there is a need to redo that study without the straight vertical release and reduced handling time. Also keeping some fish that have been caught at depth and looking for pathological changes like broken blood vessels and nerve damage would be really helpful to understand the potential long-term effects of barotrauma on fish- I really appreciate how you focused on caution since we don’t know everything yet! I wanted to add to this comment though that - the criticism of the MNDNR study being bad science is not correct. The work done in that project is called a "pilot study" - pilot studies are intended to examine the methodology of a proposed experiment - another name for this is a "feasibility" study. Good science is an iterative process that relies on a weight of evidence after repeating experiments and correcting for flaws in methodology. - your video was helpful in exposing some of the flaws in methodology (Which is great!), but the task of determining angling mortality is complicated and will require some time and repetition.
This is probably the most educational fishing video I've watched in years. Really enjoyed this type of content. I appreciate the care taken to make sure the fish being released is ok, we need more of this in the youtube fishing community. Don't get me wrong, I like seeing the various species and sizes people are catching, and on what baits, but this is next level. Well done, keep it coming.
Had to pause in the middle of this video to say, “Aaron, well done good sir” It is so refreshing to hear a fisherman of your status (likely the best, and I’ve seen to many to count) articulate, analyze, and depict your concerns and with so many of the factors that seemingly and coincidentally flew right over the heads of these “pro anglers”and biologists. It’s Awsome to hear from you again! Your honestly the one I’d rather watch, learn, and be entertained by then any other in the industry. Keep up the amazing work and keep teaching us. We love it man.
This is great but I do have a few questions/comments. 1. The MN study checked on the fish after 24 hours. While agree the net was limiting as well as the time out of water, I wonder what has happened to these fish you caught 24 hours after you caught them? 2. Live sonar isn't exploiting the resource but you can't deny it makes it much easier. Drill a hole over the basin and turn your transducer until you find what you're looking for. In the past the guy with the vexilar may have had to drill multiple holes to find them. Maybe they never would have?
Appears to me they never reacclimatized the depth and left them at the surface. Also, realize how Aaron covered the energy consumption the fish generates trying to get down. If there was a way to quickly tag with a transmitter that wouldn’t impede the fish, it might truly answer the million dollar question.
@jonesyrules15 1. In the MN study, they show/said that some of the fish that they left floating on the surface actually recovered overnight, and the mortality at 76% wasn't as bad as they were expecting (they were expecting 100% mortality). So this would not suggest that the fish I released, which were viewed going back to happy depth, would trend in the opposite (negative) direction. Yes, some of the fish I released could have died 5 mins, 5 hours, or 5 days later. But their fish were left floating on the surface and actually improved condition (the 24hr monitoring is not what contributed to their 76% by adding delayed mortalities that I didn't account for). Leaving the fish floating and stressed on the surface would contribute greater to long term delayed mortality than facilitating them getting back down to happy depth. So, if we were to say that there would be a delayed mortality of X% on the fish I released, presumably that would also be at least an ADDITIONAL X% to their 76%, and is not apart of the 76%. Am I making this more confusing or do you understand what I am trying to get at? 2. Live sonar does make it "easier" but all benefits of live sonar come with work, and even then, the fish can move or not bite. Live sonar in the hands of most users does not end up working as smoothly as is demonstrated in my videos - partly because I am a trained professional and partly because I wouldn't showcase all the times it doesn't work smoothly, as that wouldn't make for very exciting content. Furthermore, if you look closely in the aerial shot of their study, you can see that there is an expansive gridding of holes that was drilled by this group of 13 anglers, as in, it is not just drill one hole and "BOOM, there are all the fish". Furthermore, I outlined the mapping and general sonar elements of crappie targeting, because those would be single handedly more exploitive than the increased edge of Live sonar. If crappie are amassed in a predictable locations, then skilled anglers will typically find them eventually with or without live sonar. The true benefits of live sonar are realized when fish are scattered in more featureless areas, and then it becomes chasing and working for each bite - not what I would consider exploitive. The second location in my video demonstrated this. The barotrauma study and topic needs to be done properly, and not because of live sonar, but because it was already an important topic - as relayed by the first video that was done by Angling Buzz, pre-live sonar.
@@uncutangling I agree more information needs to be good. I'm pro live sonar and use it. I appreciate your effort on this topic and your contributions to it.
@@uncutangling How critical is getting the air out of there mouth when you are releasing these crappies? I've never seen you or any other fisherman ever release a fish like this, by backing them down and taking the air out of their mouth. If this is critical, then we have a problem across the board. If its not, well, your study makes me feel good. We my need to do another study where you release the crappies as every other fisherman does and then release them using the backing down and get the air out and monitor if they survive the same.
This is LITERALLY what we needed waiting for ice. So glad you’re doing ok Aaron and PLEASE keep posting! I have admin multiple fishing groups, one of which has 380k members on FB and I’ll share you with every single time guaranteed! The king is back! 🙏
This is a great example of a funded study verses a independent study based on passion. One side has a financial gain attached to the study and the other is self funded and losses money but shows what a PhD is really worth. Experience is worth its weight in gold, Thanks Aaron! Can’t wait for the next one!
@@ChadHooverFishingI mean this video is also monetized for Aaron, and he used it as an add for Frostbite too, so it’s definitely not cut and dry. Also, Aaron showed bias in assuming all the fish he released lived. The MNDNR study checked mortality after 24 hrs, which was completely ignored in Aaron’s experiment. We can’t assume all or any of the fish he released survived, because we just don’t know.
You must have missed the part where he transported 50 to another lake 15 years ago , and only 1 died ... the study that dnr did was a joke , quickly putting a transponder in/on the fish and releasing would have been interesting data vs putting them in a NET 😵💫
@ChadHooverFishing You’ve got to see the irony in calling out “bad science” and confirmation bias with a video using “bad science” and conformation bias
Thanks Aaron for this awesome video man, thank you for informing anglers of all ages and leaving this huge impact in the fishing community! Keep doing what you love and believe in, we will all be here. Hope this new science you have tested yourself comes to a bigger light!
I was thinking the same thing watching our DNR video. When I saw a 3 foot vertical hoop net I knew those crappie had no chance to work their natural way down and re-stabilize. I keep a 1 oz barbless jig I use with a line tied to apex of hook that I use to sink down crappies that don’t have the energy to kick down. Once I sink them down about 15 feet they take off. Coastal anglers been using descending devices successfully for years.
Aaron you will break TH-cam with this video! Unreal thank you so much for teaching us and fighting for our rights as a fisherman! You are truly inspiring, and so happy to see you making a video’s again! Thank you
Glad to see a post from you again! I definitely agree that netting may have helped kill the fish. However, watching the fish return down to that depth isn't proving they aren't dying in post-release mortality either. In my opinion, it's entirely possible the fish could make its way back down and then die in a few hours or days from internal damage as well, and I think that's also something that should be looked into.
Yes I totally agree with you @Jersey_Fishin, I am currently studying wildlife resource management and I think there were some major problems with the dnr study. Just because the fish got back down to depth doesn’t mean that it will survive either as you said. More studies definitely must be done on barotrauma. 18:52
Look at the studies on fizzing bass. More fish are killed by idiots sticking needles through the guts of the fish than from barotrauma. Largemouth bass are so rarely fished for at depths which would even require it that it's insignificant but the powers that be promoted fizzing which was a disaster. Took a couple days for infection to set in and those fish to die, but they would have been totally fine if that didn't have their air bladders destroyed or their intestines skewered. Working for DNRs or the feds, you're going to learn that 99% of what they do is pointless and they never actually do the right thing all the way because it's all about increasing that annual budget, increasing regulations and power, and ensuring their continued existence. If you can stomach it, go for it. Be the change you want to see in the world--but don't drink their koolaid and you'll keep your soul.
Phenomenal video. Very entertaining and well said. Aaron clearly has his heart and mind in the right place. Demonstrating once again that you're one of the premiere ambassadors for natural resources, the sport, and fishing industry.
An inspiration Aaron! Not only the best fishing video creator out there, but also a forward thinking angler that deeply cares about the environment and our fishing as a part of it. Love this new project and keep doing you my man
This was a great video! You exposed some clear issues with how the MN DNR handled their study. I avoid fishing deep but from time to time, I do. This gives some great information for release. Thanks again Aaron, missed you and happy you are doing well and it’s great to see new content!
Another thing to add to this is that people can use mapping to locate said basins and still catch those fish out of that deep water, no matter what forward facing technology / livescope is not to blame and it would be ridiculous for them to take away mapping for obvious reasons, people just love to find some stupid reason to knock down livescope users. Love your videos bud and so informative ! Keep up the good work Aaron !
This is one of the best, and certainly most important videos I’ve seen in years. Not only discussion of how the studies by the MN DNR are flawed, but also a trip to the lake to do an independent demonstration. Amazing work Aaron, you’ve been missed.
Loved your video. Don't knock the word science too much. You are 100% right that they botched the experiment in Minnesota and you proved that better science is what was needed.
Exactly this video came off as more of a fuck you to the guys in that video and to science. You can’t discredit science just because these guys didn’t know what they were doing.
I appreciate your remarks. I would love to see fisheries policies driven by sound science. But the frustration comes from REPEATEDLY seeing government departments using dramatically flawed or biased research to implement their desired policies. The departments use the bludgeon of "science" to implement regulation. And the general population is left feeling powerless and unengaged. Even though they know the information is flawed or erroneous it is so difficult to dispute those who have degrees and government funding to lend weight to their flawed rational. I hope and believe that this video can be a beginning to a more inclusive conversation and dialog.
Nice 2 See you again! Here in Germany, Livescope has already been banned on several bodies of water. Technological progress is seen as a risk to fish stocks. I'm not just a Garmin fan, I also work for this company and not being able to use Livesopce in my home waters anymore is extremely frustrating.
@@Chad71174 It is already banned on many lakes, but if you use it anyway and get caught, you will be charged with fish poaching (can also be construed as theft), receive a prison sentence of up to 2 years or a fine. Normally you will then be personally banned from this body of water for several years. Here are the regulations for Lake Chiemsee chiemseefischerei.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Bestimmungen-Sportfischerei_2021-1.pdf under point 13 you will find the ban on live sonar technology. This lake is the third biggest in germany.
Great info! Neighbor just got back from a Canadian fly In trip targeting large lake trout. Ball jigging 80-100 ft. He managed pic and release protocol precisely. On questionable fish he would clip a fish with a spring clamp attached to an anchor and rope. Get them back to max depth fast, quick jerk of rope fish was released and swam away. All confirmed with live scope. Brilliant Love you passion, it drew me to your show over a decade ago. Your da goat
Great work Aaron! As a Fisheries Biologist myself I can see how a mind frame of we have to do this and that to set up our study can be very limiting (example here in the DNR study measure and mark fish) and not really thinking outside the box. Perhaps the best thing the DNR could think of for following the fate of Crappie was a netted tube which you so well pointed out the flaws in that. It is very easy to do bad science at the cost of time, money, and potentially implementing poor regulations. You got me thinking and I've shared this with other colleagues of mine. Again great video and glad to see you uploaded again!
I hope for the sake of government agencies, the use of public money, and science in general that you are not an actual fisheries Biologist that works for any decision making body. If you are, it's probably why we are having such a distrust in government and science today. As a fisheries biologist myself, I am saddened by your comment.
@reidsimonson Thank you for your concern. It appears my comment was not clear. In essence I thought Aaron did a great job using his tools to critique a barotrauma study. As scientists we use our tools to the best of our ability to learn about our world. Sometimes we can get so caught up in or comfortable with our methodology that we don't think to ask if this is an appropriate method for answering the question we have. Bad science can happen when the methodology is not appropriate for the question at hand. As I said it's easy to do. People make mistakes it doesn't mean that they're dumb. Finally, I am a Fisheries Biologist in the Pacific Northwest mostly focused on Conservation of Native Fish. I got into this because I have always had a strong passion for the natural world and love fishing. That's awesome you're a Fisheries Biologist too. I would guess you got into this for many of the same reasons I did. It is a very wonderful and fulfilling job.
Thrilled to see you back, Aaron. I hope the videos keep coming with regularity. I'm a big fan and have been for quite some time. I have some issues here though. I'm on board with most of the statements here, but the questions of science are a bit concerning. I agree with your criticisms of the processes represented, full stop. However, those criticisms themselves are also science. Peer review is a critical part of the scientific process and studies like those shown in the video typically get thrown out of meta-analysis for the reasons you cited. They aren't isolating variables and they're doing sloppy work that will affect the exact phenomena they're categorizing. This lone representation of bad science isn't a reason to generalize against scientific analysis as a whole though. Bluntly, any reliable data leading one to a conclusion on this or any subject is science and part of the scientific process. If the data wasn't collected in a scientific manner, it's anecdotal and as bad or worse than the Lindner featured study. Additionally, while checking that they were able to reach the bottom is one indication of improved condition, you mention delayed mortality being a concern. The problem here is that just watching that they get back down gives no indication as to whether or not they were fatally injured. In the studies I've read about barotrauma, delayed mortality is typically cited as the primary issue, not some secondary low odds condition. Following this, just showing that they reach the bottom, doesn't actually prove much other than that the quick release left them with more energy. That definitely gives them a better chance, but it's far from conclusive and not addressing the primary concern. I also strongly agree with your statements of needing knowledge diversity in study groups. Your video is a great example of why. The lack of oversight for the featured scientific study showed how poorly some studies are conducted even by those that are highly educated in the scientific process. Something where the keen eye of a fishing enthusiast was readily able to spot multiple problems. This can also go both ways though where science conducted by the fishing enthusiast lacks the scientific acumen to measure infallible data related to their point. While I'm aware this is meant to be an educational video for regular people and not an academic biological study, some of the shortcomings I mentioned highlight how a scientist aiding might be able to make your data more airtight and clean up the arguments being made. Specifically, advocacy for new tech will likely require both the appeal of enthusiasts in tandem with properly measured scientific data to sway regulatory opinion. Anyway, I don't want to come across as too negative here, my primary criticism is with your criticisms of science. I think it's rooted more in misunderstanding than anything problematic. Of all your videos I've watched this is the only I've had any significant criticisms that I can remember. Keep doing what you're doing. Unsure if you'll read this, or this far into my novel of a comment, but also, if you are interested in discussing the scientific process and its strengths/shortcomings with someone that spent time directly working in that field, feel free to reach out. Again, love the channel, hope all is well with you.
"Phoenix sit," my dog looks at me a sits. Aaron has command even through the screen. Great video Aaron and thanks for taking on topics like this and challenging MNR's and other "experts". Your aloofness masks a fierce defender of knowledge and rights.
Always love seeing a new video from you Aaron, I completely agree with your argument about the other group confirming their biases, however I would like to point out that your peer review/ subsequent experiment, is how the scientific process works, so science isn't the problem, publishing insufficient data is. It would be really nice if these guys you're talking about see your video and conduct another experiment or at least release a correction to their faulty experiment. PS I love your devotion to conservation, and educating people on how to be better at it, I would never have considered letting the air out of their mouths upon release.
Thank you for asserting barotrauma into the limelight and creating awareness across this platform. No matter peoples exp level or opinion or location it is all relevant. It shows that more work is needed from ALL PARTIES. And not one group runs the show, aaron please continue to be constructive and think outside the norm. No matter what side you stand; for or against; this video raised awareness and taught some facts from both studies. Also thanks for the continued talk on fhf. Nothing but respect from Indiana.
I think science is effective at answering a lot of questions like this but you have to do the science right. If you have someone doing bad science making errors like you highlighted then the study becomes useless. You did a nice job showing that they can make it down to bottom just fine. My only question would be if they survive indefinitely once they get to bottom or if they die after an hour or two. That's what I think of when I think of delayed mortality.
From countless other studies on fish survivability, if they survived to make it down to the bottom in 35' of water it's like 99.99% they'll live except if it's studies on fizzing bass which decreases their survivability because it damages their swim bladder, so they sink until they hit bottom and then they succumb to infection 2-7 days later.
Yes, you are so right. Some guy in the middle of Canada with maybe a highschool degree who fishes once in awhile for fun is going to know so much more about the scientific method, understanding, math, results, data management, etc. than a team of people who not only have studied and have advanced degrees, but literally do it everyday professionally. I bet on monday you know exactly what your NFL team did wrong and how they can fix it if only they would make you coach.
A comeback video that shows why we all have been checking your channel for almost a year every week waiting for the next video. And one that makes so much sense for everyone to see. Great work man!!
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 yay, Aaron is back! 🎉🎉🎉🎉 you've been dearly missed. ❤ I love your videos- you have a way of explaining tactics and other insights in a way that is approachable and fun. My favorite vid is the ice safety one- I fell through a few years ago....haven't had the courage to get on the ice since (ground is sound!), but I watch that video and can feel the itch to try again. Maybe this season? Anyhoo...glad to see you back. ❤
Whoa, haven't gotten a Uncut notification in a minute!! Just to clarify, Gussy caught more than 12 bass at the classic. There was an 18" minimum size slot limit on that lake. He caught 12 over 18". Glad to see you uploading a video. We all want to see more. Thank you Aaron!
I specifically said 12 "keepers". Also, he won another event on the same waterbody in 2021 without FFS (his sponsor Humminbird didn't have the technology yet), even though many other anglers had livescope already at that point....and he beat them without it. If the technology was as exploitive and as much of an unfair advantage as described, how could someone win a high level tournament without using it, while competing against anglers that are using it? It is a great tool, but it is not a weapon of mass destruction.
Thanks for replying Aaron. I'm not against FFS, but it is a definite advantage to anyone who uses it competitively or recreationaly. Gussy winning those derbies could be seen as a testament to his abilities catching smallmouth just as much as a perceived electronic advantage or disadvantage. Overall FFS is a major factor in competitive bass fishing today, I'd be willing to bet very few derbies have been won since where FFS didn't play a role. It's not a weapon of mass destruction, but it can't be argued that it's an advantage in many different ways. Overall I agree with you and I enjoyed this video. Though it was more educationally focused, it still featured your wit and charm. Though you're experiment has flaws (they all do) it was well thought out and explained well in the video. I'm looking forward to more in the future. Thanks again!
It’s important to note that we don’t know if any of these fish faced a delayed mortality from the catch and release or any long term effects from the barotrauma. We are only seeing the first minute of their release. I guess the only way to know would be to have a closed study on a location where you could check all of them in the future. Would be awesome if Aaron worked together with the other channel to further the research together with checks and balances on the “scientific” study. I wouldn’t have an ethical issue fishing deep as long as I am focused on the quick release or kill of the fish. I learned a lot from this video with getting the mouth air out and closing the mouth and pointing down .
Thank you ! That is the main issue the delayed mortality. There are studies out there that show this with bass the majority of the fish that die will be from the delay . This video was e no better then the one he dogs on
Joe you saw into the future! The next video shows him observe them for four days after catch. I watch your videos too and this got me thinking how deep lake trout are affected by barotrauma
The Legend returns and oh how you have been missed. I couldn’t agree more with your sentiment on forward facing sonar and how we need to demonstrate that it is not a threat to fisheries but can be used for good! Thanks for the tips on how to get the slabs back down to their home depth. I will keep that in mind and put it into practice if I’m ever in that situation!
Good Job Aaron, Good idea how you decompress by allowing the air out then closing the mouth before the release on fish that can’t purge fish like a lake trout can
Hey Aaron, Great video on fish barotrauma - crucial info for anglers. I agree on the importance of science, but remember, it's a dynamic field… While your video dispels the DNR’s finding, it;s important to know not all findings and conclusion to the studies are fact… research is built upon research. Keep up the informative content! P.S. forward scanning sonar companies should pay you because i think this video may very well increase sales. 😂
One thing I have always liked about Aaron is the factual information he constantly provides. Such a knowledgeable individual. Love the vid! Keep em coming.
I will add that the comments against science aren't necessarily correct in the standpoint that they are finite. You are performing your own scientific study (probably with it's own subset of errors) to counter. That's the scientific method at work. Hypothesis, followed by experimentation, and using those results to gather understanding. I would say the fault of Angling Buzz and the DNR is more along the lines of them thinking they are end all rather than just another step in the road to figure out what actually happens with barotrauma.
As the DNR guys said multiple times in the video, the test they did was not a full study and was in no way conclusive. They said that it was simply a pilot study to see if it is worth looking into before beginning a proper study.
So good to see you again. As a deep sea fisherman I use descending devices to put fish back down to depth safely. It insures our resources as fisherman. But I find the same issues with agencies with agenda's and poor science and pushing regulations with bad data. Keep up fight for truth it helps us all
Thanks for doing this Aaron! The amount of doom and gloom I keep seeing online about front facing sonar being the end of all of our fisheries. I didn’t hear these people complain about detailed charts which are much more useful in finding fish. Not to mention auto chart mapping. Side imaging. Reels with gear ratios, the internal combustion engine. All of these technologies have made fishing much easier for us. I would argue the most damaging thing for fishing has been social media itself! I have FFS and played around with it with my musky fishing but generally it’s more of a hinderance than a help. It’s a very fun thing to use on the ice, saves me punching as many holes but it certainly isn’t going to ruin the fisheries!
Half the people out there don't even know how to use their smart phones properly lol, or to the full potential of the technology. I wouldn't be too concerned about FFS, most anglers wouldn't be able to use it effectively enough to cause a problem. Maybe 15 years from now when a new generation of anglers learned by only using FFS, than maybe slots and regulations may need to be tweaked, but not to banning new and fun technologies. I would agree social media has been the biggest destroyer of certain fishing destinations, in that department we do have to embrace old school and not flaunt our favourite fishing holes to the entire world via the internet.
I have a question 🤔 With barotrauma, does it make a difference on how quickly you reel them up? AND... we are so happy to see you! So much knowledge! 🤓
I thought I was tripping when I saw an Uncut Angling notification on my phone! Bro, the cylinder release net had me dying 💀. Just a crappie tomb is all that was! 🤣
So great to see that smile on your face. God has given you a platform to teach and entertain and I pray you will use it to bless us and glorify Him. Soo good to have you back!!!!
Always a great day of the year when Aaron posts his video...the GOAT for sure. Now...if we can only teach everyone to not handle the fish too much, then grab the crappie by the lip, put it in the hole tail first, wait for the bubbles/air to come out, close the mouth, turn it around before releasing it head first all would be good LOL. The issue I have is the "easy harvest" with Livescope". In my area I have watched a guiding business in the winter with 10 customers, with the guides using 2 LiveScopes every outing and quickly pulling 200 crappies out of the lake...then doing it for another group of 10 in the afternoon...that's 400 crappies every day (and these are medium sized lakes in MN, not huge Canadian Lakes). I talked with another well known walleye guide in my area and he said "fish no longer have a place to hide". He also said he can now take two people out in his boat in the morning and catch a limit and again in the afternoon, where in the past it was an all day grind for one group and they may not even get a full limit. There is a reason Pro Tours are now announcing that Livescope will no longer be allowed. I know they are here to stay but it won't make the youth into fishermen, they either love the outdoors or they like to play video games...and maybe both...but Livescope is not going to bring more youth into the sport....period.
a simple proof to your point Aaron is in open water fishing never have I seen a bunch of dead floating fish, despite catching dozens of fish while angling with multiple other boats in the same deep area. I also do a lot of lake trout fishing and they always swim down, but I only bring maybe 1 out of 20 into the boat . boat side release is a sure way to make sure they swim again another day.
@vwdiesel101 absolutely are. Barotrauma can take several days to die and floating is a single symptom. Barotrauma is more than an inflated swim bladder and bulging eyes. Barotrauma also causes burst nerves, capillaries, cells, and ruptured organs. I partook in a study with the University of Oregon in 2018 about Barotrauma where I used a descender tool and reported on my observations with crappie and walleye. I too could only report on immediate outcomes not long term which was a study they planned for the future. The NDFG and USFW teamed up for a Barotrauma study in 2016 on lake Sakakawea walleye. Their study showed an 80% mortality rate at 25ft that only went up as depth climbed. They through radio tagging found it took up to 5 days to kill fish with most swimming away fine and most died on the bottom. So yes "I am with the program.".
The world is better when Aaron is on the Tube... This is stellar video showcasing a deeply flawed application of science. ...Loved the observation and noting the released fish bumping into the net tube on their way down the water column. And....clipping the Caudal fin... It's like they were purposefully sabotaging their experiment for a desired result...
Good work. But remember this is only one piece of the puzzle. Livescope = more fish caught. More fish caught = more fish dead. Plain and simple. In the case of targeting open water muskies you can do the math. If 50% of the fish in the lake are caught post livescope vs. 10%, you have 40% more fish caught. That means the potential for those fish to die. And you are talking about winter where the water temperature is the same throughout the water column. Summer is different with the thermocline. Like you said, science doesn't do much when you think you know the outcome. So let's rely on visual observations. I agree. But what I visually observe is more dead muskies floating on the surface since livescope. I also observe fish that are less willing to bite. Probably because they've been caught already this year, maybe multiple times.
Well said. Ethics and self-control are major factors that need to be mentioned. It cannot be ignored that anglers with FFS can do significantly more damage in a much shorter amount of time. There's no coincidence we have seen a surge in state-record caliber muskies come out of Mille Lacs in the last few years....
Dead wrong about livescope = more fish caught. I was using a vex and out fished my brother in law using livescope. Apparently you still have to be good at fishing.
And this is exactly why we love you man...Glad you are back! Hope you continue the campaign of truth and dispeller of misinformation with that special dash of wit. Thanks for caring and sharing!
I haven't seen an uncut angling I didn't thoroughly enjoy - until this one. I had to find the other video but could not find any writeup of the experiment. To review... The MN DNR did 3 separate depth studies of 50 fish each - presumably looking for the depth where barotrauma becomes an issue. In each case it looks like they gathered some information and returned all fish to the 3' vertical netting. In the ~22' study, 2 fish died. In the ~24' study, 4 fish died and in the ~30' study, 38 were dead or would have died. Clearly the release net doesn't prevent crappies from living - or all studies would have similar mortality. I missed in the DNR study where they said that all fish made it to the bottom before dying in the next 24 hours? It looked to me that a LOT more were laying on the surface (than in the shallower groups). As others have pointed out, we know that Aaron's fish made it to the bottom - no way to determine if all died/lived for the next 24 hours. So, what should 'science' do next? Concentrate the next studies on the 30' fish to determine if barotrauma is the cause and if there is anything that can be done to prevent 24 hour death in the deeper caught fish - which was what the DNR guy said at the end of the other video. What I fear most of the viewers of Aaron's video will take from it is you can release 30 foot or deeper fish and they will all live - and we just don't have the data to know that (because he wasn't able to monitor them for 24 hours). Aaron is right that the new sonar has the possibility to change fishing regulations - either to fish limits or technology limits. I fail to see how the current (and forthcoming) DNR studies won't help to provide needed data to make informed decisions. Last point. Others have mentioned this. This is EXACTLY how science works. Study, refine, study again. To be science is to allow it to be questioned and refined (to figure out why there are more deaths in the fish over 30'). Good to see you back, Aaron.
I will try to add a bit more context to this. For most considerations and discussions, "delayed mortality" is referring to days later, and not hours later. A fear with releasing a deep-caught stressed fish through an ice hole is that it has energy to go out of sight, a few feet down, and then could struggle unbeknownst to the angler, and float back up against the underside of the ice, where it's chances of survival are low, because it has exhausted its energy and now continues to use and lose energy to the stresses of prolonged barotrauma. Now imagine possibly doing this repeatedly with many panfish, and performing an unknown massacre right under your feet. This scenario is not delayed mortality. It is moreso immediate. Delayed mortality is considered to be later, and somewhat unforeseen. It is very reasonable to assume that there would be a higher % of delayed mortality on a fish that has been subjected to a large pressure change (being caught from deep water) but this is very difficult to measure, as containing a fish to inspect its ongoing health, often subjects the fish to more health risks, than an angling event itself. (ie. the MN DNR study we are talking about). My video and the MN DNR study are focussed on short term survival. As in, did the fish swim away and immediately survive the angling event. Neither scenario measures delayed mortality. Yes, the MN DNR study watched the fish for a longer period of time, but if you review their methodology, they actually say they had some fish recover in that period.... as in, monitoring them for a longer period of time did not drive their mortality % up by accounting for delayed mortality - if anything, it did the opposite, and allowed some fish that were initially unable to swim away, to recover (I am basing that off their commentary and suggestion that they were surprised all the fish weren't dead). From the visuals in their study, it appears the fish were not able to get down to depth, and struggled within the surface region - this is inkeeping with the fear I mentioned at the beginning - and it is also why, I considered it a success that all 12 of my subjects returned to 25+ ft. A couple I lost track of while talking, and many could be seen swim right back to amidst the other fish suspended 2-3 feet off bottom. This should be considered a successful release by anyone. However, it does not speak to delayed mortality, and neither does their study, and neither does any release of a fish in any scenario. Certainly more efforts towards the goal of their study are needed, and a methodology for monitoring crappie for days and weeks, without impeding their movements, and causing their death with the a study's methodology itself. It is understandable that even with roughly the same methodology on the other two studies, that the shallower-caught fish would do much better. This is because the net did not kill the fish. The barotrauma DID kill the fish, but the net stopped the fish from swimming back down to depth, and subjected the fish to ongoing barotrauma. As I described in my video, the fish caught from deepwater are in a vulnerable position and need efforts from an educated angler to be able to facilitate the best chance of a perceived successful release. If an angler overhandles a fish in this scenario with a long photoshoot or if restrictive netting from a fish study impedes its swimming, the fish will not successfully swim away to begin its recovery. Also, take note: the cylinder net used was clearly larger in the second half of the video, the anglers were clearly fishing much closer to the study area, and the biologists appeared to be working faster together on the fish handling. That is 3 improved conditions in addition to a smaller change in the pressure change impact. So it should not be surprising how different (improved) the survival was, and is also why I wanted to specifically catch deeper fish, so that there was no perceived improvements in my study, besides the fish handling. So much of our fish handling practices hinge on CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. This is the affect of many effects. As in, no single thing usually kills a fish, but a combination of things extend handling times, and then if the water is warm, or the fish is caught from deep water - it just keeps adding up to increased mortality. One final comment about any criticism of "what happened later" with the releases in my video. That could be said of absolutely any catch and release event, except I actually demonstrate healthy swimming of the fish for 1-3 minutes after release, which is more info than anyone else ever has. It is also striking that the most struggled release shown was from the fish that I handled the longest. So anyone watching this that handles a fish longer than I did and takes more pictures, can expect that their own releases are compromised, regardless of depth-caught.
Good discussion. I agree with the cumulative effects. Another aspect that I thought of that might have changed the results... It looks like the DNR study was done last year and MN had a very early ice/snowfall. If this study was done in Feb/Mar, then the fish already had two strikes against them as the O2 levels would be low. Did anyone find a paper on the MN study?
That's crazy because I just watched that. And being a livescope owner. We let big crappies go all the time and watch them swim down. Rarely does 1 float back up. Perch really struggle more. Great video. Glad to have you back. Keep em rolling brother
Glad to have you back Aaron! Thanks for dispelling some misconceptions about barotrauma and the impacts of livescope technologies. Keep the content coming. Always enjoy your perspective and entertaining method to educate the fishing community!
Excellent critical thinking and criticism of the study, Aaron! And great job performing your own comparative "study." Very true point that observation, story telling, and personal experience are necessary parts of regulating and managing, essentially, how we live. The human aspect is often ignored in the face of what science yields.
Im enjoying this episode, however all you're showing is immediate results. Studies have been done where it'll have fish swim away looking perfectly fine only to die up to and including 5 days later. Perhaps you'd be able to get in contact with a university or your ministry of fish and wildlife to get a more comprehensive study with radio tags to track long term survival. Walleye and sauger as well?
I'm so glad you made this video. I love that you came back to help teach and educate because of something you found that was a biased. I hope Linders re-do that study.
Biologically speaking, a quick release, getting the air out of the mouth, and closing the mouth has no effect on the swim bladder of a physoclistous fish like a crappie. It may or may not help with other aspects, especially stress, which is what you were talking about. That being said, your criticism of their methods is fair. It would be interesting to try the study without an immediate release and no nets. One thing their study addressed that you didn’t talk about is delayed mortality, i.e. the fish can swim away but dies within a day or so due toto injures
And apparently you didn't watch the one Aaron took longer to release to your point. 12 out of 12 successful releases cannot be argued. While I understand what you saying about the swim bladder, you missed the point about giving the fish the best opportunity to get back down. If emptying the air out, closing the mouth and reorienting the fish down gives it that extra percentage to make it, it is completely worth it! We all need to keep an open mind and let science and experience teach us.
Getting the air out of their mouth helps with the initial kick down, if you listened you would have payed attention to the momentum required after the fish has used most of its energy. Closing the mouth is to make sure you dont get ice or snow in their mouth which could hinder breathing in those first few kicks.
Closing the mouth of the crappie and getting the air out, if this is critical to their fishes survival, this should be posted everywhere and every fisherman should be doing this. My question is, if Aaron were to do this experiment again, but release the crappie like all angler do - would he see the same results
Welcome back Aaron !!! and with the best video of all time! Learning from past mistakes from everyone and what to do better FOR these fish ! That we can keep on fishing !!!!!!! Love ya. Miss you. Glad to see you back!😊
First off a lot of good observations from the MNDNR video, and about how the net they used wouldn’t let the fish naturally swim to the bottom. However, they were checking mortality 24 hours after the fact as well. We can’t just assume any of the fish you released survived after 24 hours. They definitely got to the bottom, but did any float back up 6, 12, 18 hours later? We don’t know from this video.
Just have to echo the other comments that (1) amazing to have you back and hope you keep it up, (2) to use the very device called out as a risk factor to totally debunk it as one is surely the best irony, and (3) A BIG THANK YOU from an angler who gets and appreciates that you would take the time to do this. All the best to you!
So stoked to see you back. Sorry but I'm anti- Live Scope. For educational, entertainment and fish management...great. However, it will over time take a toll on our fisheries. At the start you stated youth today require this video technology. I disagree. With a passionate, old school angler they will come to appreciate enjoying nature and learning how to "fish " not stay glued to yet another screen. Aaron, be well and keep posting.
I've never click a video so fast. I always learn new things from this channel. Really glad to see you back. Hope to see more content from you. We all miss you.
You generate some interesting points here. But you are measuring immediate mortality and the MN DNR study is measuring delayed mortality (after ~24 hours). Plenty of your fish that swam off fine could have died later. Also if the tube net was killing fish, you would have seen it in the shallow water as well. Furthermore, the DNR study was merely a pilot study, to see if more study was warranted and some considerations could have been made to save time, money, etc. The only true way to evaluate the study is by using the same methodology and then comparing your results to the final, published study results, otherwise you are comparing apples to astronauts!
Years ago, I caught a PB 15 inch crappie through ice over 30 feet over water. I contemplated keeping it for a few seconds, but ended up releasing it. It swam down the hole but to my dismay I could not trace its descend on my sonar (unlike a walleye or bass). I thought for sure it died and was lost from sonar signal because it floated up under the ice. Aaron, you video not only fundamentally changed our understanding of responsible catch & release but provided me with a heartfelt closure that my PB crappie likely survived. You are not the hero the fishing community deserve but the hero we need.
Hi Aaron! Thought I’d chime in here as someone with a PhD in Fisheries Science (I have been involved with several recreational angling-related studies) and that works at a Canadian university teaching courses on fisheries ecology, critical inquiry, and science communication… all topics that converge here. I’d like to offer a challenge to your perspective. First off, critiquing this pilot study (it is a pilot study BTW, didn’t hear that mentioned in the video) is totally fair, but your critique reflects 1) unrealistic expectations , 2) a misunderstanding of study design, and 3) a fixation on small elements of the study that are unlikely to have a major impact on the results. It is totally fair to critique the net pen they used, which seemed small to me, but you also can’t expect them to make something that’s 10,000 sq ft or whatever would qualify as “big enough” (what would qualify?). They have to work with what’s feasible from both a logistical and financial aspect. You have to think about the study design from their perspective as it relates to defensibility with the fisheries science community and the public, who should expect it to pass peer review within the fisheries science community. Your method of watching fish descend on Livescope and claiming them to be successful releases is less defensible than placing fish in an enclosure and monitoring each individual over a set time period. Is their approach perfect? No! Expecting it to be flawless methodology is unreasonable. There are always trade offs in science and there are always going to be things that could potentially influence your results. A scientist’s job is to weigh the pros and cons of one approach over another. There are also reasons why they did things like take lengths. That’s a standard form of data and can be used to analyze the impact of size on whatever outcome is being studied. Maybe smaller fish react worse to the angling event. Maybe larger fish do. Is that not valuable information, especially if we could come up with recommendations to ensure those fish are released successfully and live to spawn next season? Your fixation on the fin clipping is akin to making a mountain out of a mole hill. They need to mark the fish somehow to follow the outcomes for individual fish. Their options are a small fin clip, Floy tag, PIT tag, surgically implant a radio tag (or acoustic), or a visible elastomer injected somewhere on the body. Of all those options, the only one that doesn’t require jabbing something into the fish and doesn’t require large sums of money is fin clipping. And that small clip is unlikely to make a big difference in swimming performance. The DNR is tasked with protecting fish populations. Here they are exploring the possibility of maybe proactively managing fisheries by getting ahead of a hyper-effective technology. Would you rather they be REactive? There are times when the application of the precautionary principle is not appropriate, but considering their mandate and the effectiveness of this technology, I think it’s absolutely appropriate to be exploring the possibility of limiting this technology OR reducing bag limits if the latter would be easier to enforce. Technological advancements in fishing have always come at the detriment of fish. The only protection (aside from our regulations) fish have from anglers is to hide, and this technology makes it much much much harder for them to do that. I do hope you share your concerns directly with the DNR about their pilot study. We (fish scientists) do listen to the public and I think there are some valid criticisms that you raise. If it were me, I’d be interested in hearing directly from you. As fisheries scientists, we want the public to trust our work and findings, and if an influencer such as yourself (sorry if that makes you cringe) has some input that could lead to a more refined study design and thus more trustworthy results that you could share with your followers, then I’d want to listen to what you have to say.
Sean, I appreciate your lengthy, thoughtful commentary regardless of whether you have a PHD or not. How do I summarize my comparative credentials? In your world, the distinction of "pilot study" vs "published study" matters. It has no bearing on the impact on public perception with the news cycle this already received. Also, with the countless people, time, and money involved in this study, there is no reason to think they would have done a notably better job on the real thing. I have seen many examples of published studies riddled with madness - the peer review stages do not serve as the quality control they're aimed to, in many instances - and part of it is because your community would not consider me a peer in this regard, because I do not have a PHD (your commentary is clear that you see that differently, and thankyou). I feel there are way too many pressures on these studies to have some results and not an easy enough trash can option - which should be a routine endpoint, as it is with experimentation in all practical parts of life. Furthermore, on the "pilot" study excuse, they clearly state how happy they were with how it went, and I think it is fair to say they would not have pushed it around the Internet if they were rethinking the entire thing. Is it "unrealistic and misunderstanding of study design" for me to casually watch a video and quickly identify many things spoiling their study that seemingly none of the many people, months, and dollars were able to identify and troubleshoot before, during, or after? I understand that there is many limitations, challenges, and frustrations with monitoring fish over time. I would love to work on these. But if the holding pen is going to restrict the recovery and spoil the entire result, then why can't we just throw the whole thing out (before, during, or after), and go back to working on those challenges, rather than using them as an excuse for why it was done so poorly. My fixation on the tailfin clipping? Do you know why they did the tailfin clipping? I am guessing that since there appeared to be only two options, top or bottom lobe clip, maybe they were identifying between 28-30 or 30-32 feet. If I am correct, is that a worthwhile distinction, for the purposes of this study, Sean? And you said it "probably wouldn't make a big difference", well how much would it have to be clipped for it to make a difference? There have been studies done that showed tail clipping like that doesn't affect swimming, and studies that have shown it does affect swimming. Would it be fair to say that a specific situation where the concern from outset and the results are that "crappie do not have the propulsion energy needed to overcome swim bladder overinflation to return to depth" would be the exact situation where clipping the tail could make a difference? You have already said "probably not", so you do not need to answer that. You said it is unlikely to make a big difference, but you also said that I am making a mountain out of a molehill. So I think it would be fair for you to say it "definitely" had no affect - because this study is not about whether or not the tail was a factor, and it also did not need to distinguish whether the fish were caught from 29 or 31 ft. In the same way it did not need to distinguish the length of the fish. If it was supposed to represent an angler-caught and released crappie, please tell me if you know anyone that measures 10" crappies or trims their tails prior to release. Any science interaction already inevitably battles with impeding the results with the science itself, so that is why I am "fixated" on the summation of all of these unnecessary extra things, as the totality of them do become measurable cumulative effects, and my demonstration clearly shows that the cumulative effects of their science did take a toll - it appeared many of their fish barely even tried to swim away, but yes that is hard to analyze from the limited footage. I do not agree that livescope is exploitive and requires pre-emptive regulation. I believe livescope is highly effective in trained hands and with effort, but not with casual ease and not with devastating results. I outlined the effectiveness of mapping and general sonar, because I feel these advancements would moreso rate as exploitive if they were being evaluated from a starting point of having nothing. Many of the benefits I see realized with livescope are in fishing situations where the fishing is hard - as in, it elevates a 0/10 day to a 5/10 day. But for an angler that's already using mapping and general sonar to their benefit, a standard good or great day becomes only a bit better. Did you acknowledge that for the first 9 fish I caught, the livescope served no advantage, and I would have caught the same amount of fish with a flasher - agreed? It wasn't until I went to the second location and had to WORK with the livescope to catch 3 more fish - how is that exploitive? Do you have extensive personal experience with livescope? If not, why are you even voicing your opinion on whether it needs to be regulated? Your PHD doesn't weigh here. Do you trust my opinion on this specific matter? If not, why not? If you think it is for personal interests, Id like to relate that the 2.5 hours of fishing in this video represents the bulk of my fishing efforts in the last two months. I care about fish and fisher people, more than I care about my own fishing. I know my attitude came across strong in the video against biologists, and the tone of my PHD mentions in this response. I do admire the sacrifices and knowledge that comes with it. I do not, however, appreciate the arrogance that it is often spoken from when discussing matters that I do feel I am an expert on - and despite my dripping arrogance, I am self aware enough to know THERE IS SO MUCH I DO NOT KNOW, and WILL NEVER KNOW on these matters. But if science, regulation, and management does not lean in to hear what field experts like I have to say, then they are methodically fumbling through matters that we need to work together on - which I realize is exactly what you called for in your final paragraph, and I appreciate that, but that is just not how it works anywhere I have observed. I am essentially told regularly that I know nothing because I am not a biologist, so yes I am overcompensating with my sharp tone about the scientific community in response. I have heard good things about the collaborations in Ontario with FMZ advisory councils. Thanks for your time, and efforts toward your craft, career, passion, and bettering our fisheries.
@@uncutangling This was one of the most thoughtful rebuttals to anything I've ever posted to the Internet and it speaks to your depth of knowledge and thoughtfulness that are reflected in this and other videos you've posted. So thanks for that. FWIW, I only mentioned my PhD to add to the diversity of voices that have posted here (high school science teachers, students in fisheries programs,etc.) Those that know me know I could care less about someone's academic credentials. I have followed your career since the beginning of Uncut (even hired Jay as our wedding photographer) and you are in a class of angler that is equivalent to Full Professor at a university (can't go any higher than that)... which is above my own job level! I am entitled to my opinion about this technology regardless of my level of experience with it. But in the interest of transparency, to answer your question I do not own one and my only experience with it is using it a few times with a friend. If you and others want to dismiss my voice and opinion based on that then that's your prerogative, but I would hope you wouldn't be that close-minded. There is this perception that anyone with a PhD is an "elitist" and out of touch with reality, but I would say that's a totally unfair and intolerant opinion that doesn't reflect reality. In all, I hope you don't interpret my note about my own credentials as condescending. I would agree with virtually everything you say in your rebuttal. The pilot study has no bearing on public perception; I only point that out because pilot studies are meant to test an idea and see if anything needs to be adjusted to scale up to a full study. So, they're at a phase where your input would actually be really valuable... if they would listen. They've already set a precedent re: working with field experts by partnering with the Lindners. I do agree that widely publicizing the results of a pilot study is eyebrow raising to me. It's akin to publicizing pre-prints of academic papers that have yet to undergo peer-review. We saw this during the pandemic and it caused problems... and ultimately just results in less trust in science when significant issues are flagged. I also agree with you that the peer-review process is not infallible (I never said it was) BUT it is necessary and, when done right, is extraordinarily helpful. I still maintain that there is only so much the biologists can do to minimize handling effects when also trying to study this problem in a manner that is robust and useful. As an example, we conducted a study to look at the lethal and sub-lethal impacts of handling practices on angled muskies and had to draw blood and attach a radio transmitter to the fish to do so. No angler is going to do that but there is no other, defensible way to study the issue without at least monitoring the fate of individual fish. So we had to weigh what procedures we could get away with that would allow us to accomplish our study objectives without being so stressful on the fish that it would impact their survival. Re: exploitation. That's maybe a somewhat inflammatory word to some, but any use of the resource is by definition exploititive. Turning a big ole skunk of a day into a 5/10 outing is a significant evelvation of CPUE due, in your example, to FFS. So all those zeroes that would otherwise be recorded could turn into 1s, 2s, 5s, 10s, 20s... that matters a lot when it comes to a fishery that is as coveted as crappies are because, unlike muskies that almost 100% of people release even when of legal size, people LOVE to eat crappie (myself included). I am not at all dismissing your opinion on this matter because you don't have X level of education. I really really really really REALLY want you - and anyone reading these comments - to know that. Others out there might, but I don't. I work extremely closely with the angling community, specifically muskie anglers, the vast majority of whom don't have a PhD. I could give a shit less what level of education someone has. Like you, I am self-aware enough to know there is more that I don't know about fish and fish behaviour than I could ever hope to learn from reading textbooks or science papers. There is no substitute for time on the water so your experience matters to me just as much as a colleague with a PhD. The tone of my comment perhaps reflects my frustration more with the comments I was reading about people's lack of trust in science than your own tone in the video (though I do think it was heavy-handned at times, as you admit, but I understand it comes from a place of passion and advocacy). It seems like many expect science to be a flawless process and for money spent on scientific studies to only be for the most pressing issues humanity faces (you don't state this, but LOTS of comments do). I appreciate those sentiments, but that's just not reality and lots of science is aimed at tackling smaller, more local issues like this. I don't disagree with commenters expecting scientists to conduct studies free of bias, but I think that's a really complicated thing to address. Everyone possesses some sort of bias. If you and I, for example, teamed up to execute our own barotrauma study then one could point to this video as evidence that we could be biased toward wanting to find negative results (i.e., that crappie release and survive just fine after being caught)... just the same as someone that sees the DNR team up with the Lindners who have been so vocal about their suspicions that FFS + deep-water crappies = dead fish. Re: your comment that it's been your experience that the science community doesn't listen to people like you, much less want to work together on a project. All I can say to that is that there are people, like me, who actively listen AND work with folks in the angling community to "co-produce" knowledge. I don't know if it's a government thing, but academia seems much more willing to work with folks like yourself. In fact, I have been texting this morning with a friend and colleague about your video and we both would like to extend an offer to work together on this or any other topic you feel could use addressing. If you're interested, ask Jay for my contact info. I appreciate everything you do for the sport and for all the excellent content you produce. I genuinely mean that.
Glad to see ya @uncutangling Shoulda tried alley ooping a few dinks while sitting on a bucket (classic move) without proper burping/mouthclosed procedures just to see if it truly makes the difference.
Love Uncut Angling! Love to see new content. However, not in love with this one . . . 1. The DNR study is a pilot. It was never intended to end the discussion, just to experiment with methodology. It's results are highly qualified, as was discussed towards the end. 2. You didn't discuss the 2nd part of the DNR video. Shallower water = most fish survived. This is evidence that the way they handled fish in itself did not necessarily cause mortality. (I do agree that it was excessive however). 3. You observed released fish briefly digitally. No way of knowing if any delayed mortality occurred. Were they acting normally after release? Interesting to drop down a camera but it'd probably be near impossible to identify individual released fish. Not saying what you did wasn't interesting or informative; just doesn't settle anything (as the DNR study didn't settle anything). 4. The science on this topic isn't close to settled. No one has claimed it is. Unanswered questions include how does geography, water chemistry, species, etc. impact all this. Caution at this point is good (as you've mentioned). Overall, I like the general message. What I don't like is the insistence that scientist = dopey nerd. Painting a pretty broad brush and very unfair IMO. Looking forward to more from Uncut!
Collin, the way the results of their study were broadcasted already, it may as well have been a legit study and not a pilot. They will never do justice to a “reprint” correcting the misinformation that has been spread. That’s never how news cycles work. In regards to their shallow study, I didn’t want to further scrutinize their efforts - but it is very concerning to me that they are clearly using a wider diameter net cylinder in the shallower study - is this coincidence and poor inconsistent methodology or did they begin to troubleshoot the issue with their own methods - yet not mention that adjustment to us? How can you change a variable like that if the comparison is supposed to be just the depths???? Also, you’ll notice the anglers appear to be fishing much closer to the biologist, and the biologists appear to be working together and faster in the second study. All of these contribute to better results and none were mentioned. I said countless times in the video to avoid deep water as there are many unknowns - I don’t think I could have stressed that more - I did not claim whatsoever that this proves it is safe to target and release deep crappies (I said the opposite repeatedly) - the point is that the MN DNR study was conducted in a way that made their results predetermined. They published 76% mortality and did NOT mention any possible errors in their methods - whereas I showed 0% mortality but specifically said there are many unknowns and it is best to avoid deep water fishing. I said it so many times that I’m confused how you could miss that and suggest otherwise. There were dozens of people and massive funding involved with their study, they don’t need you to defend them.
@@collinnienhaus3661I didn’t mean to pile on you, I appreciate your analytical in-depth commentary. Delayed mortality is very hard to monitor for any scenario… I have lots of ideas of how it can be done better but I’m not allowed to do anything like that because I am not a biologist….there’s been lots of frustrations with the fisheries department up here that have led to my extreme comments against biologists. There are some very good ones but it’s ridiculous that I am invalidated in all discussion (by them) just because I didn’t spend a few years in a classroom.
I totally get your point of view. Just sharing mine also. It's all good. You've done much more than your fair share to advance the sport and conservation. Best to do it IMO. Cheers 👍
What a pleasure to watch. Absolutely the best representation of what anglers should aspire to. I can’t say enough good things about this guy. He’s got that “it” factor.
My face dropped when I opened up TH-cam and I seen a notification that Aaron made a new video. I literally was depressed and thought this guy stopped uploading but of course just when I thought this dude couldn’t get any more amazing, he’s been out here doing research to benefit everybody. Keep making amazing content. You’re awesome buddy!💪🏽
Hey Aaron, I’ve been a guide on Lake of the Woods for over 50 years and a licensed Scuba diver since 1981. One atmosphere of pressure here what I always used is 32’ and so is the main thermocline in Bigstone Bay. Your method of decompressing crappie is brilliant I never really thought of that. I’ve done the needle fiz and it works, but can cause infection. I’m going to use your method on pike, perch, bass, walleye all species that can’t purge like a bubble burping Laker. Thank you for this. As your non political science is much needed in Ontario where the taxpaying sportsmans rights are being severely impacted by 2024 regulation changes. Warning to old farts like me that use inches instead of centimeters a 17”walleye is over 43 cm.
Disagree with you on this one. Barotrauma is a significant factor in fish mortality when caught deep. Don't just look at that angling buzz video but read other studies and literature. And the livescope debate does pose a risk to fishing, as does any technology that makes locating fish easier. The bag limit on many fish species are less than half what they were 10 years ago. As fishing gets more effective the limits will need to be reduced further.
I said countless times in the video that there are unknowns with delayed mortality in deep water fishing and it is best to avoid it. However, the unknowns could actually amount to only 1%, and mainstream angling media just told us that it’s 76% within 24hrs, which isn’t even getting to the timeframe that I would consider “delayed” mortality.
A north dakota dnr study kind of contradicts this. They caught and released a few dozen walleyes deeper than 30ft and tagged them, all fish swam away, and within 72 hours 80% were dead. Those crappies likely died a day or two later even though they swam away fine.
@@uncutangling I will search for the article, it's been about 6 months since I've read so I will admit if I missed anything. I do wonder about survival with your method, as I do believe the way you released the fish gave them the absolute best chance at survival versus just tossing them down the hole. The 72 hour mark in their study was just their benchmark I guess. They very well may have had a flawed study like you pointed out in the MNDNR one
@@uncutangling I found the study. It was south dakota game and fish. The one I absolutely missed when I originally read the article, is that another 40ft pen was used. So to your point, that makes a difference for using their energy. I almost exclusively fish LOTW, and I will practice your release trick this winter if I find myself past 30ft. Maybe someday we'll have a legitimate study on barotrauma with no pens involved.
No sign of Aaron in years and he reappears specifically to fight for anglers rights and good science. Aaron is a national treasure.
100% goat status!!
Amen
It’s been a year???
*Global treasure
The GOAT returns
#oldheadsagainstlivescope. Always a good day when Aaron blesses the tube with his content 🙏
damn right googan guy! were a big fan of you as well man!
googan guy hahaha@@Mehoyboi
Good vid. Glad to see you back. Hope your doing well
"This message is sponsored by Garmin"
The legend returns! Hope all is well, glad to see content again.
On a positive side, I'm glad that Aaron is ADDING TO THE CONVERSATION. The reality is that fishing looks very different today and going forward, everyone needs to start prioritizing ethical harvest, practices, and conversations. This is not a yes or no discussion, this is lots and lots of education on the part of the experts all the way down to the new and young anglers. I agree fully with Aaron (and Jay, any Clayton, etc) on the livescope issue itself. I think its better we start talking about fishing issues holistically and not each issue in a vaccum, like Aaron does here.
This is the type of person we need heading the fishing community. Extremely knowledgeable and plenty of experience to back it up. Teaches and entertains at same time
Yeap, it’s great when someone can this easily identify the flaws in what some will blindly accept as “science” and be able to articulate it and make his point where it makes sense.
Maybe you should go buy the 100 ft diameter net to prove you are correct. I when they released all these fish in the Angling edge study the fish swam down down to the bottom. The NEXT day, they were dead. not when released. Sure the fish swim back down to the bottom, within 2 minutes. The small part of the tail that is remove does not change the ability of the fish to swim. I grew up one block from a national hatchery, I learn so much about fish. Even helped with egg taking of Northern Pike and Walleye.
@@MrJigginjimI think I'll believe the guy that has dedicated the last ten years to fish conservation over the guy that grew up down the road from the hatchery😂
@@Depressingburneraccount I didn't just live down the block I have been fishing for over 60 years. I have been on lakes where thousands of fish were laying on the bottom dead, due to lack of Oxygen. My only guess is what happens to the fish a day later? What would happen if the study was done with a extra large net. The idea is do all fish survive if caught from deep fish?
@@MrJigginjim you should watch the video, he talks about delayed mortality.
Glad to see some content man! As a high school science teacher, I wanted to point out that while this video was somewhat framed as you vs the scientists, what you were doing was a key part of all scientific study. Scientists publish their work and other scientists (you in this case!) review it to criticize their methods and conclusions. This allows the body of scientific knowledge to approach the truth as closely as we can! Much like you were concerned with the implications of the other guys video that LiveScope was a threat (just got mine and can’t wait to use it!), I was concerned with the implications in your video that science, in part or as a whole, is an untrustworthy enterprise. Especially when the result of your video was science in action! We live in a wild time where people who are surrounded by scientific marvels understand science so little that they can be manipulated into making decisions based on some talking heads on the TV. Even with the implications of untrustworthy science, I love the video, and I’m hoping to use it next year while teaching about the scientific method. Thanks for all you do for fishing. And enjoy the hard water this year. We’ll be waiting for the next video!!
Agree 100%. Aaron is absolutely doing science by identifying flaws in others work, and designing an alternative testing procedure to reduce variables and produce more rigorous results
Exactly. Aaron did a wonderful job highlighting the flaws in the design of the Minnesota DNR’s experiment. That IS science.
no see as of recently, this is science denial. science is a religion now. no longer the method of understanding it once was.
I think it does science an injustice to talk about the angling buzz video as if it were accepted science. It was more of a demonstration that was conducted within a lot of constraints and then presented by a 3rd party media outlet. He addresses the 2 major concerns I saw in the angling buzz video; handling time and the restrictions in their release. But he’s also guilty of working backwards to support a previously existing opinion. He started with the idea that they were wrong and worked on demonstrating that belief. Neither video fully goes through the scientific process.
@@danielweber7980fair points!
He might not be putting out the entertaining content that we want / love, but he's putting out what's needed, thanks Aaron !
How was this not entertaining for you!?
Aaron !!! We missed you man.
We're all rooting for ya and hope you're doing good bud
I have a degree in natural resource management and I was so unimpressed with the angling buzz methodology in their “experiment”. I appreciate what you did in the vid and am looking forward to what you may have coming!
It wasn't the angling buzz methodology, it was just angling buzz reporting on the Minnesota DNR methodology. BIG difference.
Its one of the main things that annoys me about governmental science projects is how narrowminded they are. All It took was an amazing weird Canadian guy with a livescope to provide a legitimate counter evidence to the work of professional scientists.
Holy man it’s happening. So happy to see ya.
What an amazing dad Aaron has been an amazing part of my fishing growth and success, what end of year video suprise.
Brother man, first off we all missed you. We need your content back because it’s some of the best out there! Secondly, this type of content is what we need to educate and spread knowledge in the fishing industry. Please keep doing your thing man. We are all here to support it. Just want to say thanks for all your hard work and commitment to the sport of fishing that we all love!
He is like the dad who finally came back with the milk after a decade🎉🎉🎉🎉
brutal but funny
But instead of bringing the milk, he brings home bait and says let’s go fishing son.
Really enjoyed your video! Some of your criticisms of the MNDNR study are spot on! Specifically, there is a need to redo that study without the straight vertical release and reduced handling time. Also keeping some fish that have been caught at depth and looking for pathological changes like broken blood vessels and nerve damage would be really helpful to understand the potential long-term effects of barotrauma on fish- I really appreciate how you focused on caution since we don’t know everything yet!
I wanted to add to this comment though that - the criticism of the MNDNR study being bad science is not correct. The work done in that project is called a "pilot study" - pilot studies are intended to examine the methodology of a proposed experiment - another name for this is a "feasibility" study. Good science is an iterative process that relies on a weight of evidence after repeating experiments and correcting for flaws in methodology. - your video was helpful in exposing some of the flaws in methodology (Which is great!), but the task of determining angling mortality is complicated and will require some time and repetition.
This is probably the most educational fishing video I've watched in years. Really enjoyed this type of content. I appreciate the care taken to make sure the fish being released is ok, we need more of this in the youtube fishing community. Don't get me wrong, I like seeing the various species and sizes people are catching, and on what baits, but this is next level. Well done, keep it coming.
Indeed.
We need more of this that we can fish in the years ahead of us to come.
DNR can’t restock everything.
Had to pause in the middle of this video to say, “Aaron, well done good sir” It is so refreshing to hear a fisherman of your status (likely the best, and I’ve seen to many to count) articulate, analyze, and depict your concerns and with so many of the factors that seemingly and coincidentally flew right over the heads of these “pro anglers”and biologists. It’s Awsome to hear from you again! Your honestly the one I’d rather watch, learn, and be entertained by then any other in the industry. Keep up the amazing work and keep teaching us. We love it man.
This is great but I do have a few questions/comments.
1. The MN study checked on the fish after 24 hours. While agree the net was limiting as well as the time out of water, I wonder what has happened to these fish you caught 24 hours after you caught them?
2. Live sonar isn't exploiting the resource but you can't deny it makes it much easier. Drill a hole over the basin and turn your transducer until you find what you're looking for. In the past the guy with the vexilar may have had to drill multiple holes to find them. Maybe they never would have?
Appears to me they never reacclimatized the depth and left them at the surface. Also, realize how Aaron covered the energy consumption the fish generates trying to get down. If there was a way to quickly tag with a transmitter that wouldn’t impede the fish, it might truly answer the million dollar question.
The fish skeleton with the bag at the beginning of the video shows that once they are back down there they are good
@jonesyrules15
1. In the MN study, they show/said that some of the fish that they left floating on the surface actually recovered overnight, and the mortality at 76% wasn't as bad as they were expecting (they were expecting 100% mortality). So this would not suggest that the fish I released, which were viewed going back to happy depth, would trend in the opposite (negative) direction. Yes, some of the fish I released could have died 5 mins, 5 hours, or 5 days later. But their fish were left floating on the surface and actually improved condition (the 24hr monitoring is not what contributed to their 76% by adding delayed mortalities that I didn't account for). Leaving the fish floating and stressed on the surface would contribute greater to long term delayed mortality than facilitating them getting back down to happy depth. So, if we were to say that there would be a delayed mortality of X% on the fish I released, presumably that would also be at least an ADDITIONAL X% to their 76%, and is not apart of the 76%. Am I making this more confusing or do you understand what I am trying to get at?
2. Live sonar does make it "easier" but all benefits of live sonar come with work, and even then, the fish can move or not bite. Live sonar in the hands of most users does not end up working as smoothly as is demonstrated in my videos - partly because I am a trained professional and partly because I wouldn't showcase all the times it doesn't work smoothly, as that wouldn't make for very exciting content. Furthermore, if you look closely in the aerial shot of their study, you can see that there is an expansive gridding of holes that was drilled by this group of 13 anglers, as in, it is not just drill one hole and "BOOM, there are all the fish". Furthermore, I outlined the mapping and general sonar elements of crappie targeting, because those would be single handedly more exploitive than the increased edge of Live sonar. If crappie are amassed in a predictable locations, then skilled anglers will typically find them eventually with or without live sonar. The true benefits of live sonar are realized when fish are scattered in more featureless areas, and then it becomes chasing and working for each bite - not what I would consider exploitive. The second location in my video demonstrated this.
The barotrauma study and topic needs to be done properly, and not because of live sonar, but because it was already an important topic - as relayed by the first video that was done by Angling Buzz, pre-live sonar.
@@uncutangling I agree more information needs to be good. I'm pro live sonar and use it. I appreciate your effort on this topic and your contributions to it.
@@uncutangling How critical is getting the air out of there mouth when you are releasing these crappies? I've never seen you or any other fisherman ever release a fish like this, by backing them down and taking the air out of their mouth. If this is critical, then we have a problem across the board. If its not, well, your study makes me feel good. We my need to do another study where you release the crappies as every other fisherman does and then release them using the backing down and get the air out and monitor if they survive the same.
This is LITERALLY what we needed waiting for ice. So glad you’re doing ok Aaron and PLEASE keep posting! I have admin multiple fishing groups, one of which has 380k members on FB and I’ll share you with every single time guaranteed! The king is back! 🙏
I cannot express how happy I am to see an Uncut Angling video. We love you man. So glad to see you back ❤
Aaron, a big thank you for all your efforts towards a more educated angling community. Much Appreciated! 👍🍻🎣
This is a great example of a funded study verses a independent study based on passion. One side has a financial gain attached to the study and the other is self funded and losses money but shows what a PhD is really worth. Experience is worth its weight in gold, Thanks Aaron! Can’t wait for the next one!
The mn DNR gets most/some of their funding from license sales. Not sure what they would gain by the results they had.
It’s not even so much that it’s “funded” it’s that it’s biased where they had a desired outcome before they even started looking.
@@ChadHooverFishingI mean this video is also monetized for Aaron, and he used it as an add for Frostbite too, so it’s definitely not cut and dry.
Also, Aaron showed bias in assuming all the fish he released lived. The MNDNR study checked mortality after 24 hrs, which was completely ignored in Aaron’s experiment. We can’t assume all or any of the fish he released survived, because we just don’t know.
You must have missed the part where he transported 50 to another lake 15 years ago , and only 1 died ... the study that dnr did was a joke , quickly putting a transponder in/on the fish and releasing would have been interesting data vs putting them in a NET 😵💫
@ChadHooverFishing
You’ve got to see the irony in calling out “bad science” and confirmation bias with a video using “bad science” and conformation bias
Thanks Aaron for this awesome video man, thank you for informing anglers of all ages and leaving this huge impact in the fishing community! Keep doing what you love and believe in, we will all be here. Hope this new science you have tested yourself comes to a bigger light!
Man I missed your show. You pioneered all these other channels, and I still come back to your content.
I was thinking the same thing watching our DNR video. When I saw a 3 foot vertical hoop net I knew those crappie had no chance to work their natural way down and re-stabilize.
I keep a 1 oz barbless jig I use with a line tied to apex of hook that I use to sink down crappies that don’t have the energy to kick down. Once I sink them down about 15 feet they take off. Coastal anglers been using descending devices successfully for years.
Wow! Just wow! THIS is what TH-cam can be at its best. Entertainment but so much more. Allowing us be more informed and thoughtful about what we do.
Not bad for an uncut angling debut ehh, any update on those micro chips??
@staggontheline , yes! Data is flowing in indicating that Miss Vicki's Salt and Vinegar remain crisper in most field conditions.
Love you Aaron! You are truly blessed. Thank you for what you do for the fishing community. Know that you could lead an army.
Finally someone who knows what they're talking about with the evidence to prove it . Thanks for the truth and your passion to share it 👍🏼
Aaron you will break TH-cam with this video!
Unreal thank you so much for teaching us and fighting for our rights as a fisherman! You are truly inspiring, and so happy to see you making a video’s again! Thank you
Glad to see a post from you again!
I definitely agree that netting may have helped kill the fish. However, watching the fish return down to that depth isn't proving they aren't dying in post-release mortality either. In my opinion, it's entirely possible the fish could make its way back down and then die in a few hours or days from internal damage as well, and I think that's also something that should be looked into.
Yes I totally agree with you @Jersey_Fishin, I am currently studying wildlife resource management and I think there were some major problems with the dnr study. Just because the fish got back down to depth doesn’t mean that it will survive either as you said. More studies definitely must be done on barotrauma. 18:52
Look at the studies on fizzing bass. More fish are killed by idiots sticking needles through the guts of the fish than from barotrauma. Largemouth bass are so rarely fished for at depths which would even require it that it's insignificant but the powers that be promoted fizzing which was a disaster. Took a couple days for infection to set in and those fish to die, but they would have been totally fine if that didn't have their air bladders destroyed or their intestines skewered.
Working for DNRs or the feds, you're going to learn that 99% of what they do is pointless and they never actually do the right thing all the way because it's all about increasing that annual budget, increasing regulations and power, and ensuring their continued existence. If you can stomach it, go for it. Be the change you want to see in the world--but don't drink their koolaid and you'll keep your soul.
Phenomenal video. Very entertaining and well said. Aaron clearly has his heart and mind in the right place. Demonstrating once again that you're one of the premiere ambassadors for natural resources, the sport, and fishing industry.
Siding into 2023 in the dying seconds of overtime to get the yearly upload in!
Hope you're doing well, man!!!
The tag team we need! Hammering big mammas!
An inspiration Aaron! Not only the best fishing video creator out there, but also a forward thinking angler that deeply cares about the environment and our fishing as a part of it. Love this new project and keep doing you my man
This was a great video! You exposed some clear issues with how the MN DNR handled their study. I avoid fishing deep but from time to time, I do. This gives some great information for release. Thanks again Aaron, missed you and happy you are doing well and it’s great to see new content!
Another thing to add to this is that people can use mapping to locate said basins and still catch those fish out of that deep water, no matter what forward facing technology / livescope is not to blame and it would be ridiculous for them to take away mapping for obvious reasons, people just love to find some stupid reason to knock down livescope users. Love your videos bud and so informative ! Keep up the good work Aaron !
This is one of the best, and certainly most important videos I’ve seen in years. Not only discussion of how the studies by the MN DNR are flawed, but also a trip to the lake to do an independent demonstration. Amazing work Aaron, you’ve been missed.
Loved your video. Don't knock the word science too much. You are 100% right that they botched the experiment in Minnesota and you proved that better science is what was needed.
Exactly this video came off as more of a fuck you to the guys in that video and to science. You can’t discredit science just because these guys didn’t know what they were doing.
I appreciate your remarks. I would love to see fisheries policies driven by sound science. But the frustration comes from REPEATEDLY seeing government departments using dramatically flawed or biased research to implement their desired policies. The departments use the bludgeon of "science" to implement regulation. And the general population is left feeling powerless and unengaged. Even though they know the information is flawed or erroneous it is so difficult to dispute those who have degrees and government funding to lend weight to their flawed rational. I hope and believe that this video can be a beginning to a more inclusive conversation and dialog.
Nice 2 See you again! Here in Germany, Livescope has already been banned on several bodies of water. Technological progress is seen as a risk to fish stocks. I'm not just a Garmin fan, I also work for this company and not being able to use Livesopce in my home waters anymore is extremely frustrating.
Germans are insane.
Wow , what bodies of water are they banning it & what are the "fines" crazy if true
Good to hear!!
@@Chad71174 It is already banned on many lakes, but if you use it anyway and get caught, you will be charged with fish poaching (can also be construed as theft), receive a prison sentence of up to 2 years or a fine. Normally you will then be personally banned from this body of water for several years. Here are the regulations for Lake Chiemsee chiemseefischerei.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Bestimmungen-Sportfischerei_2021-1.pdf under point 13 you will find the ban on live sonar technology. This lake is the third biggest in germany.
Great info! Neighbor just got back from a Canadian fly In trip targeting large lake trout. Ball jigging 80-100 ft. He managed pic and release protocol precisely. On questionable fish he would clip a fish with a spring clamp attached to an anchor and rope. Get them back to max depth fast, quick jerk of rope fish was released and swam away. All confirmed with live scope. Brilliant
Love you passion, it drew me to your show over a decade ago. Your da goat
Welcome back Aaron! I don't yet have a livescope, but I agree with what you are saying, thanks for fighting us.
Great work Aaron! As a Fisheries Biologist myself I can see how a mind frame of we have to do this and that to set up our study can be very limiting (example here in the DNR study measure and mark fish) and not really thinking outside the box. Perhaps the best thing the DNR could think of for following the fate of Crappie was a netted tube which you so well pointed out the flaws in that. It is very easy to do bad science at the cost of time, money, and potentially implementing poor regulations. You got me thinking and I've shared this with other colleagues of mine. Again great video and glad to see you uploaded again!
I hope for the sake of government agencies, the use of public money, and science in general that you are not an actual fisheries Biologist that works for any decision making body. If you are, it's probably why we are having such a distrust in government and science today. As a fisheries biologist myself, I am saddened by your comment.
If the netted tube was an issue the shallow caught crappies would have died in it as well.
@reidsimonson Thank you for your concern. It appears my comment was not clear. In essence I thought Aaron did a great job using his tools to critique a barotrauma study. As scientists we use our tools to the best of our ability to learn about our world. Sometimes we can get so caught up in or comfortable with our methodology that we don't think to ask if this is an appropriate method for answering the question we have. Bad science can happen when the methodology is not appropriate for the question at hand. As I said it's easy to do. People make mistakes it doesn't mean that they're dumb. Finally, I am a Fisheries Biologist in the Pacific Northwest mostly focused on Conservation of Native Fish. I got into this because I have always had a strong passion for the natural world and love fishing. That's awesome you're a Fisheries Biologist too. I would guess you got into this for many of the same reasons I did. It is a very wonderful and fulfilling job.
Thrilled to see you back, Aaron. I hope the videos keep coming with regularity. I'm a big fan and have been for quite some time.
I have some issues here though. I'm on board with most of the statements here, but the questions of science are a bit concerning. I agree with your criticisms of the processes represented, full stop. However, those criticisms themselves are also science. Peer review is a critical part of the scientific process and studies like those shown in the video typically get thrown out of meta-analysis for the reasons you cited. They aren't isolating variables and they're doing sloppy work that will affect the exact phenomena they're categorizing. This lone representation of bad science isn't a reason to generalize against scientific analysis as a whole though.
Bluntly, any reliable data leading one to a conclusion on this or any subject is science and part of the scientific process. If the data wasn't collected in a scientific manner, it's anecdotal and as bad or worse than the Lindner featured study.
Additionally, while checking that they were able to reach the bottom is one indication of improved condition, you mention delayed mortality being a concern. The problem here is that just watching that they get back down gives no indication as to whether or not they were fatally injured. In the studies I've read about barotrauma, delayed mortality is typically cited as the primary issue, not some secondary low odds condition. Following this, just showing that they reach the bottom, doesn't actually prove much other than that the quick release left them with more energy. That definitely gives them a better chance, but it's far from conclusive and not addressing the primary concern.
I also strongly agree with your statements of needing knowledge diversity in study groups. Your video is a great example of why. The lack of oversight for the featured scientific study showed how poorly some studies are conducted even by those that are highly educated in the scientific process. Something where the keen eye of a fishing enthusiast was readily able to spot multiple problems. This can also go both ways though where science conducted by the fishing enthusiast lacks the scientific acumen to measure infallible data related to their point. While I'm aware this is meant to be an educational video for regular people and not an academic biological study, some of the shortcomings I mentioned highlight how a scientist aiding might be able to make your data more airtight and clean up the arguments being made. Specifically, advocacy for new tech will likely require both the appeal of enthusiasts in tandem with properly measured scientific data to sway regulatory opinion.
Anyway, I don't want to come across as too negative here, my primary criticism is with your criticisms of science. I think it's rooted more in misunderstanding than anything problematic. Of all your videos I've watched this is the only I've had any significant criticisms that I can remember. Keep doing what you're doing. Unsure if you'll read this, or this far into my novel of a comment, but also, if you are interested in discussing the scientific process and its strengths/shortcomings with someone that spent time directly working in that field, feel free to reach out.
Again, love the channel, hope all is well with you.
"Phoenix sit," my dog looks at me a sits. Aaron has command even through the screen. Great video Aaron and thanks for taking on topics like this and challenging MNR's and other "experts". Your aloofness masks a fierce defender of knowledge and rights.
Educational and entertaining! Wouldn't expect any less from Aaron! Great job man.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. So much more to say on this, but we need someone like you as a voice of reason. Nice to see you back here on YT!
Always love seeing a new video from you Aaron, I completely agree with your argument about the other group confirming their biases, however I would like to point out that your peer review/ subsequent experiment, is how the scientific process works, so science isn't the problem, publishing insufficient data is. It would be really nice if these guys you're talking about see your video and conduct another experiment or at least release a correction to their faulty experiment. PS I love your devotion to conservation, and educating people on how to be better at it, I would never have considered letting the air out of their mouths upon release.
Thank you for asserting barotrauma into the limelight and creating awareness across this platform. No matter peoples exp level or opinion or location it is all relevant. It shows that more work is needed from ALL PARTIES. And not one group runs the show, aaron please continue to be constructive and think outside the norm. No matter what side you stand; for or against; this video raised awareness and taught some facts from both studies. Also thanks for the continued talk on fhf. Nothing but respect from Indiana.
I think science is effective at answering a lot of questions like this but you have to do the science right. If you have someone doing bad science making errors like you highlighted then the study becomes useless. You did a nice job showing that they can make it down to bottom just fine. My only question would be if they survive indefinitely once they get to bottom or if they die after an hour or two. That's what I think of when I think of delayed mortality.
From countless other studies on fish survivability, if they survived to make it down to the bottom in 35' of water it's like 99.99% they'll live except if it's studies on fizzing bass which decreases their survivability because it damages their swim bladder, so they sink until they hit bottom and then they succumb to infection 2-7 days later.
Yes, you are so right. Some guy in the middle of Canada with maybe a highschool degree who fishes once in awhile for fun is going to know so much more about the scientific method, understanding, math, results, data management, etc. than a team of people who not only have studied and have advanced degrees, but literally do it everyday professionally. I bet on monday you know exactly what your NFL team did wrong and how they can fix it if only they would make you coach.
A comeback video that shows why we all have been checking your channel for almost a year every week waiting for the next video. And one that makes so much sense for everyone to see. Great work man!!
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 yay, Aaron is back! 🎉🎉🎉🎉 you've been dearly missed. ❤ I love your videos- you have a way of explaining tactics and other insights in a way that is approachable and fun. My favorite vid is the ice safety one- I fell through a few years ago....haven't had the courage to get on the ice since (ground is sound!), but I watch that video and can feel the itch to try again. Maybe this season? Anyhoo...glad to see you back. ❤
Whoa, haven't gotten a Uncut notification in a minute!!
Just to clarify, Gussy caught more than 12 bass at the classic. There was an 18" minimum size slot limit on that lake. He caught 12 over 18".
Glad to see you uploading a video.
We all want to see more.
Thank you Aaron!
I specifically said 12 "keepers". Also, he won another event on the same waterbody in 2021 without FFS (his sponsor Humminbird didn't have the technology yet), even though many other anglers had livescope already at that point....and he beat them without it. If the technology was as exploitive and as much of an unfair advantage as described, how could someone win a high level tournament without using it, while competing against anglers that are using it? It is a great tool, but it is not a weapon of mass destruction.
Thanks for replying Aaron. I'm not against FFS, but it is a definite advantage to anyone who uses it competitively or recreationaly.
Gussy winning those derbies could be seen as a testament to his abilities catching smallmouth just as much as a perceived electronic advantage or disadvantage.
Overall FFS is a major factor in competitive bass fishing today, I'd be willing to bet very few derbies have been won since where FFS didn't play a role. It's not a weapon of mass destruction, but it can't be argued that it's an advantage in many different ways.
Overall I agree with you and I enjoyed this video. Though it was more educationally focused, it still featured your wit and charm. Though you're experiment has flaws (they all do) it was well thought out and explained well in the video. I'm looking forward to more in the future. Thanks again!
It’s important to note that we don’t know if any of these fish faced a delayed mortality from the catch and release or any long term effects from the barotrauma. We are only seeing the first minute of their release. I guess the only way to know would be to have a closed study on a location where you could check all of them in the future. Would be awesome if Aaron worked together with the other channel to further the research together with checks and balances on the “scientific” study. I wouldn’t have an ethical issue fishing deep as long as I am focused on the quick release or kill of the fish. I learned a lot from this video with getting the mouth air out and closing the mouth and pointing down .
Thank you ! That is the main issue the delayed mortality. There are studies out there that show this with bass the majority of the fish that die will be from the delay . This video was e no better then the one he dogs on
Joe you saw into the future! The next video shows him observe them for four days after catch. I watch your videos too and this got me thinking how deep lake trout are affected by barotrauma
@@robgray6447 Lake trout are not affected by it they burb themselves
@@cambeck2152gotcha, good to know, thanks for the reply. Is there a way to help them burp?
@@robgray6447 no need they will just do it on their own. watch some videos of guys fishing for them and you can see them burb on the sonar
The Legend returns and oh how you have been missed. I couldn’t agree more with your sentiment on forward facing sonar and how we need to demonstrate that it is not a threat to fisheries but can be used for good! Thanks for the tips on how to get the slabs back down to their home depth. I will keep that in mind and put it into practice if I’m ever in that situation!
Thanks for your expertise and passion, and for educating those around you in such a significant way!
So much respect for you Aaron. Putting out the content that doesn’t just entertain and educate, but challenge and set the bar.
Love to see you are back!!!!!
Good Job Aaron,
Good idea how you decompress by allowing the air out then closing the mouth before the release on fish that can’t purge fish like a lake trout can
Hey Aaron,
Great video on fish barotrauma - crucial info for anglers. I agree on the importance of science, but remember, it's a dynamic field… While your video dispels the DNR’s finding, it;s important to know not all findings and conclusion to the studies are fact… research is built upon research. Keep up the informative content!
P.S. forward scanning sonar companies should pay you because i think this video may very well increase sales. 😂
Great conversation piece @uncutangling! Good to see you back, and looking forward to some more vids.
Aaron is back! The long wait is over! So glad to see you back!
One thing I have always liked about Aaron is the factual information he constantly provides. Such a knowledgeable individual. Love the vid! Keep em coming.
I will add that the comments against science aren't necessarily correct in the standpoint that they are finite. You are performing your own scientific study (probably with it's own subset of errors) to counter. That's the scientific method at work. Hypothesis, followed by experimentation, and using those results to gather understanding.
I would say the fault of Angling Buzz and the DNR is more along the lines of them thinking they are end all rather than just another step in the road to figure out what actually happens with barotrauma.
Well said.
As the DNR guys said multiple times in the video, the test they did was not a full study and was in no way conclusive. They said that it was simply a pilot study to see if it is worth looking into before beginning a proper study.
So good to see you again. As a deep sea fisherman I use descending devices to put fish back down to depth safely. It insures our resources as fisherman. But I find the same issues with agencies with agenda's and poor science and pushing regulations with bad data. Keep up fight for truth it helps us all
Thanks for doing this Aaron! The amount of doom and gloom I keep seeing online about front facing sonar being the end of all of our fisheries.
I didn’t hear these people complain about detailed charts which are much more useful in finding fish. Not to mention auto chart mapping. Side imaging. Reels with gear ratios, the internal combustion engine. All of these technologies have made fishing much easier for us.
I would argue the most damaging thing for fishing has been social media itself!
I have FFS and played around with it with my musky fishing but generally it’s more of a hinderance than a help.
It’s a very fun thing to use on the ice, saves me punching as many holes but it certainly isn’t going to ruin the fisheries!
Half the people out there don't even know how to use their smart phones properly lol, or to the full potential of the technology. I wouldn't be too concerned about FFS, most anglers wouldn't be able to use it effectively enough to cause a problem. Maybe 15 years from now when a new generation of anglers learned by only using FFS, than maybe slots and regulations may need to be tweaked, but not to banning new and fun technologies.
I would agree social media has been the biggest destroyer of certain fishing destinations, in that department we do have to embrace old school and not flaunt our favourite fishing holes to the entire world via the internet.
I have a question 🤔
With barotrauma, does it make a difference on how quickly you reel them up?
AND... we are so happy to see you!
So much knowledge!
🤓
I thought I was tripping when I saw an Uncut Angling notification on my phone! Bro, the cylinder release net had me dying 💀. Just a crappie tomb is all that was! 🤣
So great to see that smile on your face. God has given you a platform to teach and entertain and I pray you will use it to bless us and glorify Him. Soo good to have you back!!!!
Great to see you brother. Hope your doing well. Informative video and easy to follow
Would love to see more of this content. You taught me the importance of getting fish back quickly and for that I'm forever grateful. Great job.
I'll wait another year for a SWEET and INFORMATIVE video like this Aaron! We missed you buddy keep up the good work! #makeuncutgreatagain
Always a great day of the year when Aaron posts his video...the GOAT for sure. Now...if we can only teach everyone to not handle the fish too much, then grab the crappie by the lip, put it in the hole tail first, wait for the bubbles/air to come out, close the mouth, turn it around before releasing it head first all would be good LOL.
The issue I have is the "easy harvest" with Livescope". In my area I have watched a guiding business in the winter with 10 customers, with the guides using 2 LiveScopes every outing and quickly pulling 200 crappies out of the lake...then doing it for another group of 10 in the afternoon...that's 400 crappies every day (and these are medium sized lakes in MN, not huge Canadian Lakes). I talked with another well known walleye guide in my area and he said "fish no longer have a place to hide". He also said he can now take two people out in his boat in the morning and catch a limit and again in the afternoon, where in the past it was an all day grind for one group and they may not even get a full limit. There is a reason Pro Tours are now announcing that Livescope will no longer be allowed. I know they are here to stay but it won't make the youth into fishermen, they either love the outdoors or they like to play video games...and maybe both...but Livescope is not going to bring more youth into the sport....period.
a simple proof to your point Aaron is in open water fishing never have I seen a bunch of dead floating fish, despite catching dozens of fish while angling with multiple other boats in the same deep area. I also do a lot of lake trout fishing and they always swim down, but I only bring maybe 1 out of 20 into the boat . boat side release is a sure way to make sure they swim again another day.
Lake trout have the ability to self regulate their swim bladder. See plenty of dead eyes and sauger coming out of scour holes by dams
Most fish that die never float
@@squishy1127 we are talking about fish that die of barotrauma here... get with the program dude
@vwdiesel101 absolutely are. Barotrauma can take several days to die and floating is a single symptom. Barotrauma is more than an inflated swim bladder and bulging eyes. Barotrauma also causes burst nerves, capillaries, cells, and ruptured organs. I partook in a study with the University of Oregon in 2018 about Barotrauma where I used a descender tool and reported on my observations with crappie and walleye. I too could only report on immediate outcomes not long term which was a study they planned for the future. The NDFG and USFW teamed up for a Barotrauma study in 2016 on lake Sakakawea walleye. Their study showed an 80% mortality rate at 25ft that only went up as depth climbed. They through radio tagging found it took up to 5 days to kill fish with most swimming away fine and most died on the bottom. So yes "I am with the program.".
@@squishy1127 did you even watch the video lol?
The world is better when Aaron is on the Tube...
This is stellar video showcasing a deeply flawed application of science. ...Loved the observation and noting the released fish bumping into the net tube on their way down the water column. And....clipping the Caudal fin... It's like they were purposefully sabotaging their experiment for a desired result...
Good work. But remember this is only one piece of the puzzle. Livescope = more fish caught. More fish caught = more fish dead. Plain and simple. In the case of targeting open water muskies you can do the math. If 50% of the fish in the lake are caught post livescope vs. 10%, you have 40% more fish caught. That means the potential for those fish to die. And you are talking about winter where the water temperature is the same throughout the water column. Summer is different with the thermocline. Like you said, science doesn't do much when you think you know the outcome. So let's rely on visual observations. I agree. But what I visually observe is more dead muskies floating on the surface since livescope. I also observe fish that are less willing to bite. Probably because they've been caught already this year, maybe multiple times.
Well said. Ethics and self-control are major factors that need to be mentioned. It cannot be ignored that anglers with FFS can do significantly more damage in a much shorter amount of time. There's no coincidence we have seen a surge in state-record caliber muskies come out of Mille Lacs in the last few years....
Dead wrong about livescope = more fish caught. I was using a vex and out fished my brother in law using livescope. Apparently you still have to be good at fishing.
And this is exactly why we love you man...Glad you are back! Hope you continue the campaign of truth and dispeller of misinformation with that special dash of wit. Thanks for caring and sharing!
I haven't seen an uncut angling I didn't thoroughly enjoy - until this one. I had to find the other video but could not find any writeup of the experiment. To review...
The MN DNR did 3 separate depth studies of 50 fish each - presumably looking for the depth where barotrauma becomes an issue. In each case it looks like they gathered some information and returned all fish to the 3' vertical netting. In the ~22' study, 2 fish died. In the ~24' study, 4 fish died and in the ~30' study, 38 were dead or would have died. Clearly the release net doesn't prevent crappies from living - or all studies would have similar mortality.
I missed in the DNR study where they said that all fish made it to the bottom before dying in the next 24 hours? It looked to me that a LOT more were laying on the surface (than in the shallower groups). As others have pointed out, we know that Aaron's fish made it to the bottom - no way to determine if all died/lived for the next 24 hours.
So, what should 'science' do next? Concentrate the next studies on the 30' fish to determine if barotrauma is the cause and if there is anything that can be done to prevent 24 hour death in the deeper caught fish - which was what the DNR guy said at the end of the other video.
What I fear most of the viewers of Aaron's video will take from it is you can release 30 foot or deeper fish and they will all live - and we just don't have the data to know that (because he wasn't able to monitor them for 24 hours).
Aaron is right that the new sonar has the possibility to change fishing regulations - either to fish limits or technology limits. I fail to see how the current (and forthcoming) DNR studies won't help to provide needed data to make informed decisions.
Last point. Others have mentioned this. This is EXACTLY how science works. Study, refine, study again. To be science is to allow it to be questioned and refined (to figure out why there are more deaths in the fish over 30').
Good to see you back, Aaron.
I will try to add a bit more context to this. For most considerations and discussions, "delayed mortality" is referring to days later, and not hours later. A fear with releasing a deep-caught stressed fish through an ice hole is that it has energy to go out of sight, a few feet down, and then could struggle unbeknownst to the angler, and float back up against the underside of the ice, where it's chances of survival are low, because it has exhausted its energy and now continues to use and lose energy to the stresses of prolonged barotrauma. Now imagine possibly doing this repeatedly with many panfish, and performing an unknown massacre right under your feet. This scenario is not delayed mortality. It is moreso immediate. Delayed mortality is considered to be later, and somewhat unforeseen. It is very reasonable to assume that there would be a higher % of delayed mortality on a fish that has been subjected to a large pressure change (being caught from deep water) but this is very difficult to measure, as containing a fish to inspect its ongoing health, often subjects the fish to more health risks, than an angling event itself. (ie. the MN DNR study we are talking about).
My video and the MN DNR study are focussed on short term survival. As in, did the fish swim away and immediately survive the angling event. Neither scenario measures delayed mortality. Yes, the MN DNR study watched the fish for a longer period of time, but if you review their methodology, they actually say they had some fish recover in that period.... as in, monitoring them for a longer period of time did not drive their mortality % up by accounting for delayed mortality - if anything, it did the opposite, and allowed some fish that were initially unable to swim away, to recover (I am basing that off their commentary and suggestion that they were surprised all the fish weren't dead). From the visuals in their study, it appears the fish were not able to get down to depth, and struggled within the surface region - this is inkeeping with the fear I mentioned at the beginning - and it is also why, I considered it a success that all 12 of my subjects returned to 25+ ft. A couple I lost track of while talking, and many could be seen swim right back to amidst the other fish suspended 2-3 feet off bottom. This should be considered a successful release by anyone. However, it does not speak to delayed mortality, and neither does their study, and neither does any release of a fish in any scenario. Certainly more efforts towards the goal of their study are needed, and a methodology for monitoring crappie for days and weeks, without impeding their movements, and causing their death with the a study's methodology itself.
It is understandable that even with roughly the same methodology on the other two studies, that the shallower-caught fish would do much better. This is because the net did not kill the fish. The barotrauma DID kill the fish, but the net stopped the fish from swimming back down to depth, and subjected the fish to ongoing barotrauma. As I described in my video, the fish caught from deepwater are in a vulnerable position and need efforts from an educated angler to be able to facilitate the best chance of a perceived successful release. If an angler overhandles a fish in this scenario with a long photoshoot or if restrictive netting from a fish study impedes its swimming, the fish will not successfully swim away to begin its recovery. Also, take note: the cylinder net used was clearly larger in the second half of the video, the anglers were clearly fishing much closer to the study area, and the biologists appeared to be working faster together on the fish handling. That is 3 improved conditions in addition to a smaller change in the pressure change impact. So it should not be surprising how different (improved) the survival was, and is also why I wanted to specifically catch deeper fish, so that there was no perceived improvements in my study, besides the fish handling.
So much of our fish handling practices hinge on CUMULATIVE EFFECTS. This is the affect of many effects. As in, no single thing usually kills a fish, but a combination of things extend handling times, and then if the water is warm, or the fish is caught from deep water - it just keeps adding up to increased mortality.
One final comment about any criticism of "what happened later" with the releases in my video. That could be said of absolutely any catch and release event, except I actually demonstrate healthy swimming of the fish for 1-3 minutes after release, which is more info than anyone else ever has. It is also striking that the most struggled release shown was from the fish that I handled the longest. So anyone watching this that handles a fish longer than I did and takes more pictures, can expect that their own releases are compromised, regardless of depth-caught.
Good discussion. I agree with the cumulative effects. Another aspect that I thought of that might have changed the results...
It looks like the DNR study was done last year and MN had a very early ice/snowfall. If this study was done in Feb/Mar, then the fish already had two strikes against them as the O2 levels would be low.
Did anyone find a paper on the MN study?
That's crazy because I just watched that. And being a livescope owner. We let big crappies go all the time and watch them swim down. Rarely does 1 float back up. Perch really struggle more. Great video. Glad to have you back. Keep em rolling brother
I was wondering if this same technique would work on perch. caught in 40-50 feet? I don't have live scope to test the theory.
Another Uncut Angling Video! Christmas miracles do happen!
Glad to have you back Aaron! Thanks for dispelling some misconceptions about barotrauma and the impacts of livescope technologies. Keep the content coming. Always enjoy your perspective and entertaining method to educate the fishing community!
Excellent critical thinking and criticism of the study, Aaron! And great job performing your own comparative "study." Very true point that observation, story telling, and personal experience are necessary parts of regulating and managing, essentially, how we live. The human aspect is often ignored in the face of what science yields.
Aaron so happy to see you back at it. Your videos mean the world to so many people, please keep it up!
Im enjoying this episode, however all you're showing is immediate results. Studies have been done where it'll have fish swim away looking perfectly fine only to die up to and including 5 days later. Perhaps you'd be able to get in contact with a university or your ministry of fish and wildlife to get a more comprehensive study with radio tags to track long term survival. Walleye and sauger as well?
Yeah. Hard to study this with something other than a net but it's an incredibly important aspect of the study.
I'm so glad you made this video. I love that you came back to help teach and educate because of something you found that was a biased. I hope Linders re-do that study.
Biologically speaking, a quick release, getting the air out of the mouth, and closing the mouth has no effect on the swim bladder of a physoclistous fish like a crappie. It may or may not help with other aspects, especially stress, which is what you were talking about.
That being said, your criticism of their methods is fair. It would be interesting to try the study without an immediate release and no nets. One thing their study addressed that you didn’t talk about is delayed mortality, i.e. the fish can swim away but dies within a day or so due toto injures
Apparently you don’t know biology.
And apparently you didn't watch the one Aaron took longer to release to your point. 12 out of 12 successful releases cannot be argued. While I understand what you saying about the swim bladder, you missed the point about giving the fish the best opportunity to get back down. If emptying the air out, closing the mouth and reorienting the fish down gives it that extra percentage to make it, it is completely worth it! We all need to keep an open mind and let science and experience teach us.
Getting the air out of their mouth helps with the initial kick down, if you listened you would have payed attention to the momentum required after the fish has used most of its energy. Closing the mouth is to make sure you dont get ice or snow in their mouth which could hinder breathing in those first few kicks.
Closing the mouth of the crappie and getting the air out, if this is critical to their fishes survival, this should be posted everywhere and every fisherman should be doing this. My question is, if Aaron were to do this experiment again, but release the crappie like all angler do - would he see the same results
Welcome back Aaron !!! and with the best video of all time! Learning from past mistakes from everyone and what to do better FOR these fish ! That we can keep on fishing !!!!!!!
Love ya. Miss you.
Glad to see you back!😊
First off a lot of good observations from the MNDNR video, and about how the net they used wouldn’t let the fish naturally swim to the bottom.
However, they were checking mortality 24 hours after the fact as well. We can’t just assume any of the fish you released survived after 24 hours. They definitely got to the bottom, but did any float back up 6, 12, 18 hours later? We don’t know from this video.
Just have to echo the other comments that (1) amazing to have you back and hope you keep it up, (2) to use the very device called out as a risk factor to totally debunk it as one is surely the best irony, and (3) A BIG THANK YOU from an angler who gets and appreciates that you would take the time to do this. All the best to you!
So stoked to see you back. Sorry but I'm anti- Live Scope. For educational, entertainment and fish management...great. However, it will over time take a toll on our fisheries. At the start you stated youth today require this video technology. I disagree. With a passionate, old school angler they will come to appreciate enjoying nature and learning how to "fish " not stay glued to yet another screen. Aaron, be well and keep posting.
I've never click a video so fast. I always learn new things from this channel. Really glad to see you back. Hope to see more content from you. We all miss you.
You generate some interesting points here. But you are measuring immediate mortality and the MN DNR study is measuring delayed mortality (after ~24 hours). Plenty of your fish that swam off fine could have died later. Also if the tube net was killing fish, you would have seen it in the shallow water as well. Furthermore, the DNR study was merely a pilot study, to see if more study was warranted and some considerations could have been made to save time, money, etc. The only true way to evaluate the study is by using the same methodology and then comparing your results to the final, published study results, otherwise you are comparing apples to astronauts!
Years ago, I caught a PB 15 inch crappie through ice over 30 feet over water. I contemplated keeping it for a few seconds, but ended up releasing it. It swam down the hole but to my dismay I could not trace its descend on my sonar (unlike a walleye or bass). I thought for sure it died and was lost from sonar signal because it floated up under the ice. Aaron, you video not only fundamentally changed our understanding of responsible catch & release but provided me with a heartfelt closure that my PB crappie likely survived. You are not the hero the fishing community deserve but the hero we need.
Hi Aaron! Thought I’d chime in here as someone with a PhD in Fisheries Science (I have been involved with several recreational angling-related studies) and that works at a Canadian university teaching courses on fisheries ecology, critical inquiry, and science communication… all topics that converge here. I’d like to offer a challenge to your perspective. First off, critiquing this pilot study (it is a pilot study BTW, didn’t hear that mentioned in the video) is totally fair, but your critique reflects 1) unrealistic expectations , 2) a misunderstanding of study design, and 3) a fixation on small elements of the study that are unlikely to have a major impact on the results. It is totally fair to critique the net pen they used, which seemed small to me, but you also can’t expect them to make something that’s 10,000 sq ft or whatever would qualify as “big enough” (what would qualify?). They have to work with what’s feasible from both a logistical and financial aspect. You have to think about the study design from their perspective as it relates to defensibility with the fisheries science community and the public, who should expect it to pass peer review within the fisheries science community. Your method of watching fish descend on Livescope and claiming them to be successful releases is less defensible than placing fish in an enclosure and monitoring each individual over a set time period. Is their approach perfect? No! Expecting it to be flawless methodology is unreasonable. There are always trade offs in science and there are always going to be things that could potentially influence your results. A scientist’s job is to weigh the pros and cons of one approach over another. There are also reasons why they did things like take lengths. That’s a standard form of data and can be used to analyze the impact of size on whatever outcome is being studied. Maybe smaller fish react worse to the angling event. Maybe larger fish do. Is that not valuable information, especially if we could come up with recommendations to ensure those fish are released successfully and live to spawn next season? Your fixation on the fin clipping is akin to making a mountain out of a mole hill. They need to mark the fish somehow to follow the outcomes for individual fish. Their options are a small fin clip, Floy tag, PIT tag, surgically implant a radio tag (or acoustic), or a visible elastomer injected somewhere on the body. Of all those options, the only one that doesn’t require jabbing something into the fish and doesn’t require large sums of money is fin clipping. And that small clip is unlikely to make a big difference in swimming performance.
The DNR is tasked with protecting fish populations. Here they are exploring the possibility of maybe proactively managing fisheries by getting ahead of a hyper-effective technology. Would you rather they be REactive? There are times when the application of the precautionary principle is not appropriate, but considering their mandate and the effectiveness of this technology, I think it’s absolutely appropriate to be exploring the possibility of limiting this technology OR reducing bag limits if the latter would be easier to enforce. Technological advancements in fishing have always come at the detriment of fish. The only protection (aside from our regulations) fish have from anglers is to hide, and this technology makes it much much much harder for them to do that.
I do hope you share your concerns directly with the DNR about their pilot study. We (fish scientists) do listen to the public and I think there are some valid criticisms that you raise. If it were me, I’d be interested in hearing directly from you. As fisheries scientists, we want the public to trust our work and findings, and if an influencer such as yourself (sorry if that makes you cringe) has some input that could lead to a more refined study design and thus more trustworthy results that you could share with your followers, then I’d want to listen to what you have to say.
Sean, I appreciate your lengthy, thoughtful commentary regardless of whether you have a PHD or not. How do I summarize my comparative credentials?
In your world, the distinction of "pilot study" vs "published study" matters. It has no bearing on the impact on public perception with the news cycle this already received. Also, with the countless people, time, and money involved in this study, there is no reason to think they would have done a notably better job on the real thing. I have seen many examples of published studies riddled with madness - the peer review stages do not serve as the quality control they're aimed to, in many instances - and part of it is because your community would not consider me a peer in this regard, because I do not have a PHD (your commentary is clear that you see that differently, and thankyou). I feel there are way too many pressures on these studies to have some results and not an easy enough trash can option - which should be a routine endpoint, as it is with experimentation in all practical parts of life.
Furthermore, on the "pilot" study excuse, they clearly state how happy they were with how it went, and I think it is fair to say they would not have pushed it around the Internet if they were rethinking the entire thing.
Is it "unrealistic and misunderstanding of study design" for me to casually watch a video and quickly identify many things spoiling their study that seemingly none of the many people, months, and dollars were able to identify and troubleshoot before, during, or after?
I understand that there is many limitations, challenges, and frustrations with monitoring fish over time. I would love to work on these. But if the holding pen is going to restrict the recovery and spoil the entire result, then why can't we just throw the whole thing out (before, during, or after), and go back to working on those challenges, rather than using them as an excuse for why it was done so poorly.
My fixation on the tailfin clipping? Do you know why they did the tailfin clipping? I am guessing that since there appeared to be only two options, top or bottom lobe clip, maybe they were identifying between 28-30 or 30-32 feet. If I am correct, is that a worthwhile distinction, for the purposes of this study, Sean? And you said it "probably wouldn't make a big difference", well how much would it have to be clipped for it to make a difference? There have been studies done that showed tail clipping like that doesn't affect swimming, and studies that have shown it does affect swimming. Would it be fair to say that a specific situation where the concern from outset and the results are that "crappie do not have the propulsion energy needed to overcome swim bladder overinflation to return to depth" would be the exact situation where clipping the tail could make a difference? You have already said "probably not", so you do not need to answer that.
You said it is unlikely to make a big difference, but you also said that I am making a mountain out of a molehill. So I think it would be fair for you to say it "definitely" had no affect - because this study is not about whether or not the tail was a factor, and it also did not need to distinguish whether the fish were caught from 29 or 31 ft. In the same way it did not need to distinguish the length of the fish. If it was supposed to represent an angler-caught and released crappie, please tell me if you know anyone that measures 10" crappies or trims their tails prior to release. Any science interaction already inevitably battles with impeding the results with the science itself, so that is why I am "fixated" on the summation of all of these unnecessary extra things, as the totality of them do become measurable cumulative effects, and my demonstration clearly shows that the cumulative effects of their science did take a toll - it appeared many of their fish barely even tried to swim away, but yes that is hard to analyze from the limited footage.
I do not agree that livescope is exploitive and requires pre-emptive regulation. I believe livescope is highly effective in trained hands and with effort, but not with casual ease and not with devastating results. I outlined the effectiveness of mapping and general sonar, because I feel these advancements would moreso rate as exploitive if they were being evaluated from a starting point of having nothing. Many of the benefits I see realized with livescope are in fishing situations where the fishing is hard - as in, it elevates a 0/10 day to a 5/10 day. But for an angler that's already using mapping and general sonar to their benefit, a standard good or great day becomes only a bit better. Did you acknowledge that for the first 9 fish I caught, the livescope served no advantage, and I would have caught the same amount of fish with a flasher - agreed? It wasn't until I went to the second location and had to WORK with the livescope to catch 3 more fish - how is that exploitive?
Do you have extensive personal experience with livescope? If not, why are you even voicing your opinion on whether it needs to be regulated? Your PHD doesn't weigh here. Do you trust my opinion on this specific matter? If not, why not? If you think it is for personal interests, Id like to relate that the 2.5 hours of fishing in this video represents the bulk of my fishing efforts in the last two months. I care about fish and fisher people, more than I care about my own fishing.
I know my attitude came across strong in the video against biologists, and the tone of my PHD mentions in this response. I do admire the sacrifices and knowledge that comes with it. I do not, however, appreciate the arrogance that it is often spoken from when discussing matters that I do feel I am an expert on - and despite my dripping arrogance, I am self aware enough to know THERE IS SO MUCH I DO NOT KNOW, and WILL NEVER KNOW on these matters. But if science, regulation, and management does not lean in to hear what field experts like I have to say, then they are methodically fumbling through matters that we need to work together on - which I realize is exactly what you called for in your final paragraph, and I appreciate that, but that is just not how it works anywhere I have observed. I am essentially told regularly that I know nothing because I am not a biologist, so yes I am overcompensating with my sharp tone about the scientific community in response. I have heard good things about the collaborations in Ontario with FMZ advisory councils.
Thanks for your time, and efforts toward your craft, career, passion, and bettering our fisheries.
@@uncutangling This was one of the most thoughtful rebuttals to anything I've ever posted to the Internet and it speaks to your depth of knowledge and thoughtfulness that are reflected in this and other videos you've posted. So thanks for that.
FWIW, I only mentioned my PhD to add to the diversity of voices that have posted here (high school science teachers, students in fisheries programs,etc.) Those that know me know I could care less about someone's academic credentials. I have followed your career since the beginning of Uncut (even hired Jay as our wedding photographer) and you are in a class of angler that is equivalent to Full Professor at a university (can't go any higher than that)... which is above my own job level! I am entitled to my opinion about this technology regardless of my level of experience with it. But in the interest of transparency, to answer your question I do not own one and my only experience with it is using it a few times with a friend. If you and others want to dismiss my voice and opinion based on that then that's your prerogative, but I would hope you wouldn't be that close-minded. There is this perception that anyone with a PhD is an "elitist" and out of touch with reality, but I would say that's a totally unfair and intolerant opinion that doesn't reflect reality. In all, I hope you don't interpret my note about my own credentials as condescending.
I would agree with virtually everything you say in your rebuttal. The pilot study has no bearing on public perception; I only point that out because pilot studies are meant to test an idea and see if anything needs to be adjusted to scale up to a full study. So, they're at a phase where your input would actually be really valuable... if they would listen. They've already set a precedent re: working with field experts by partnering with the Lindners. I do agree that widely publicizing the results of a pilot study is eyebrow raising to me. It's akin to publicizing pre-prints of academic papers that have yet to undergo peer-review. We saw this during the pandemic and it caused problems... and ultimately just results in less trust in science when significant issues are flagged. I also agree with you that the peer-review process is not infallible (I never said it was) BUT it is necessary and, when done right, is extraordinarily helpful.
I still maintain that there is only so much the biologists can do to minimize handling effects when also trying to study this problem in a manner that is robust and useful. As an example, we conducted a study to look at the lethal and sub-lethal impacts of handling practices on angled muskies and had to draw blood and attach a radio transmitter to the fish to do so. No angler is going to do that but there is no other, defensible way to study the issue without at least monitoring the fate of individual fish. So we had to weigh what procedures we could get away with that would allow us to accomplish our study objectives without being so stressful on the fish that it would impact their survival.
Re: exploitation. That's maybe a somewhat inflammatory word to some, but any use of the resource is by definition exploititive. Turning a big ole skunk of a day into a 5/10 outing is a significant evelvation of CPUE due, in your example, to FFS. So all those zeroes that would otherwise be recorded could turn into 1s, 2s, 5s, 10s, 20s... that matters a lot when it comes to a fishery that is as coveted as crappies are because, unlike muskies that almost 100% of people release even when of legal size, people LOVE to eat crappie (myself included).
I am not at all dismissing your opinion on this matter because you don't have X level of education. I really really really really REALLY want you - and anyone reading these comments - to know that. Others out there might, but I don't. I work extremely closely with the angling community, specifically muskie anglers, the vast majority of whom don't have a PhD. I could give a shit less what level of education someone has. Like you, I am self-aware enough to know there is more that I don't know about fish and fish behaviour than I could ever hope to learn from reading textbooks or science papers. There is no substitute for time on the water so your experience matters to me just as much as a colleague with a PhD.
The tone of my comment perhaps reflects my frustration more with the comments I was reading about people's lack of trust in science than your own tone in the video (though I do think it was heavy-handned at times, as you admit, but I understand it comes from a place of passion and advocacy). It seems like many expect science to be a flawless process and for money spent on scientific studies to only be for the most pressing issues humanity faces (you don't state this, but LOTS of comments do). I appreciate those sentiments, but that's just not reality and lots of science is aimed at tackling smaller, more local issues like this. I don't disagree with commenters expecting scientists to conduct studies free of bias, but I think that's a really complicated thing to address. Everyone possesses some sort of bias. If you and I, for example, teamed up to execute our own barotrauma study then one could point to this video as evidence that we could be biased toward wanting to find negative results (i.e., that crappie release and survive just fine after being caught)... just the same as someone that sees the DNR team up with the Lindners who have been so vocal about their suspicions that FFS + deep-water crappies = dead fish.
Re: your comment that it's been your experience that the science community doesn't listen to people like you, much less want to work together on a project. All I can say to that is that there are people, like me, who actively listen AND work with folks in the angling community to "co-produce" knowledge. I don't know if it's a government thing, but academia seems much more willing to work with folks like yourself. In fact, I have been texting this morning with a friend and colleague about your video and we both would like to extend an offer to work together on this or any other topic you feel could use addressing. If you're interested, ask Jay for my contact info.
I appreciate everything you do for the sport and for all the excellent content you produce. I genuinely mean that.
Glad to see ya @uncutangling Shoulda tried alley ooping a few dinks while sitting on a bucket (classic move) without proper burping/mouthclosed procedures just to see if it truly makes the difference.
Love Uncut Angling! Love to see new content. However, not in love with this one . . .
1. The DNR study is a pilot. It was never intended to end the discussion, just to experiment with methodology. It's results are highly qualified, as was discussed towards the end.
2. You didn't discuss the 2nd part of the DNR video. Shallower water = most fish survived. This is evidence that the way they handled fish in itself did not necessarily cause mortality. (I do agree that it was excessive however).
3. You observed released fish briefly digitally. No way of knowing if any delayed mortality occurred. Were they acting normally after release? Interesting to drop down a camera but it'd probably be near impossible to identify individual released fish. Not saying what you did wasn't interesting or informative; just doesn't settle anything (as the DNR study didn't settle anything).
4. The science on this topic isn't close to settled. No one has claimed it is. Unanswered questions include how does geography, water chemistry, species, etc. impact all this. Caution at this point is good (as you've mentioned).
Overall, I like the general message. What I don't like is the insistence that scientist = dopey nerd. Painting a pretty broad brush and very unfair IMO.
Looking forward to more from Uncut!
Collin, the way the results of their study were broadcasted already, it may as well have been a legit study and not a pilot. They will never do justice to a “reprint” correcting the misinformation that has been spread. That’s never how news cycles work.
In regards to their shallow study, I didn’t want to further scrutinize their efforts - but it is very concerning to me that they are clearly using a wider diameter net cylinder in the shallower study - is this coincidence and poor inconsistent methodology or did they begin to troubleshoot the issue with their own methods - yet not mention that adjustment to us? How can you change a variable like that if the comparison is supposed to be just the depths???? Also, you’ll notice the anglers appear to be fishing much closer to the biologist, and the biologists appear to be working together and faster in the second study. All of these contribute to better results and none were mentioned.
I said countless times in the video to avoid deep water as there are many unknowns - I don’t think I could have stressed that more - I did not claim whatsoever that this proves it is safe to target and release deep crappies (I said the opposite repeatedly) - the point is that the MN DNR study was conducted in a way that made their results predetermined. They published 76% mortality and did NOT mention any possible errors in their methods - whereas I showed 0% mortality but specifically said there are many unknowns and it is best to avoid deep water fishing. I said it so many times that I’m confused how you could miss that and suggest otherwise. There were dozens of people and massive funding involved with their study, they don’t need you to defend them.
Thanks for the response. Like I said, always love the videos and keep them coming!
@@collinnienhaus3661I didn’t mean to pile on you, I appreciate your analytical in-depth commentary. Delayed mortality is very hard to monitor for any scenario… I have lots of ideas of how it can be done better but I’m not allowed to do anything like that because I am not a biologist….there’s been lots of frustrations with the fisheries department up here that have led to my extreme comments against biologists. There are some very good ones but it’s ridiculous that I am invalidated in all discussion (by them) just because I didn’t spend a few years in a classroom.
I totally get your point of view. Just sharing mine also. It's all good. You've done much more than your fair share to advance the sport and conservation. Best to do it IMO. Cheers 👍
What a pleasure to watch. Absolutely the best representation of what anglers should aspire to. I can’t say enough good things about this guy. He’s got that “it” factor.
These are also the same DNR/Biologist that say the boom of MN wolf populations isn't affecting our deer herds...
My face dropped when I opened up TH-cam and I seen a notification that Aaron made a new video. I literally was depressed and thought this guy stopped uploading but of course just when I thought this dude couldn’t get any more amazing, he’s been out here doing research to benefit everybody. Keep making amazing content. You’re awesome buddy!💪🏽
The immediate counter I can see people saying to you, is that you don’t know if the fish survived the next 24 hours.
Hey Aaron,
I’ve been a guide on Lake of the Woods for over 50 years and a licensed Scuba diver since 1981.
One atmosphere of pressure here what I always used is 32’ and so is the main thermocline in Bigstone Bay.
Your method of decompressing crappie is brilliant I never really thought of that.
I’ve done the needle fiz and it works, but can cause infection.
I’m going to use your method on pike, perch, bass, walleye all species that can’t purge like a bubble burping Laker.
Thank you for this.
As your non political science is much needed in Ontario where the taxpaying sportsmans rights are being severely impacted by 2024 regulation changes. Warning to old farts like me that use inches instead of centimeters a 17”walleye is over 43 cm.
Disagree with you on this one. Barotrauma is a significant factor in fish mortality when caught deep. Don't just look at that angling buzz video but read other studies and literature. And the livescope debate does pose a risk to fishing, as does any technology that makes locating fish easier. The bag limit on many fish species are less than half what they were 10 years ago. As fishing gets more effective the limits will need to be reduced further.
I said countless times in the video that there are unknowns with delayed mortality in deep water fishing and it is best to avoid it. However, the unknowns could actually amount to only 1%, and mainstream angling media just told us that it’s 76% within 24hrs, which isn’t even getting to the timeframe that I would consider “delayed” mortality.
@@uncutangling what depth would you suggest?
A north dakota dnr study kind of contradicts this. They caught and released a few dozen walleyes deeper than 30ft and tagged them, all fish swam away, and within 72 hours 80% were dead. Those crappies likely died a day or two later even though they swam away fine.
How can I find the study? Are you sure it was 72 hours?
@@uncutangling I will search for the article, it's been about 6 months since I've read so I will admit if I missed anything. I do wonder about survival with your method, as I do believe the way you released the fish gave them the absolute best chance at survival versus just tossing them down the hole. The 72 hour mark in their study was just their benchmark I guess. They very well may have had a flawed study like you pointed out in the MNDNR one
@@uncutangling I found the study. It was south dakota game and fish. The one I absolutely missed when I originally read the article, is that another 40ft pen was used. So to your point, that makes a difference for using their energy. I almost exclusively fish LOTW, and I will practice your release trick this winter if I find myself past 30ft. Maybe someday we'll have a legitimate study on barotrauma with no pens involved.
It’s a Christmas miracle
Glad to see you back Aaron! We have missed you! Hope all is well!