bleed out problem

Hi All,

I have caught about 60 trout out of my favorite
river this year. I have noticed on two trout
this year that I hooked in the lower mouth to
the side of their tongue, that they act completely
normal -- jumping, running, splashing around, dirty
looks -- until I pull my TMC 200BL size 12 barbless
hook out of their mouth.

Then, suddenly, they bleed like hell (a lot of blood),
roll over on their back and act really weird. I
pushed both of them out of the water with my rod tip.
They manager a little wiggle here and there but
no forward movement. (They both wound up on my
dinner table.)

Anyone know enough about trout anatomy to say what
is going on here? Did I puncture a main artery
and the hook just kept it plugged? Did
pulling the plug stun them? Any ideas?

It is better than gut hooking the other 58 with
bait, but I am a bit puzzled. Maybe the Lord
wants me to eat a few of them every so often.
He did make them awfully yummy after all.

Many thanks,
-T

Todd wrote:
snip
Maybe the Lord
wants me to eat a few of them every so often.
He did make them awfully yummy after all.

The Lord wants you to become a Democrat and campaign for
your president who is the best advocate for Christian values
this country has seen in many years.

Many thanks,

You're welcome.

--
Ken Fortenberry

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

You're welcome.


:-)

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The Lord wants you to become a Democrat and campaign for
your president who is the best advocate for Christian values
this country has seen in many years.

Ken,

You really, really need to go fishing! (Me too!)

-T

On Sep 6, 6:11*pm, Todd wrote:
Hi All,

I have caught about 60 trout out of my favorite
river this year. *I have noticed on two trout
this year that I hooked in the lower mouth to
the side of their tongue, that they act completely
normal -- jumping, running, splashing around, dirty
looks -- until I pull my TMC 200BL size 12 barbless
hook out of their mouth.

Then, suddenly, they bleed like hell (a lot of blood),
roll over on their back and act really weird. *I
pushed both of them out of the water with my rod tip.
They manager a little wiggle here and there but
no forward movement. *(They both wound up on my
dinner table.)

Anyone know enough about trout anatomy to say what
is going on here?

The short answer: No.

Did I puncture a main artery
and the hook just kept it plugged?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Did pulling the plug stun them?

Probably not.

Any ideas?

One thing you'd think we would never run short of here. The problem
is that there are really only half a dozen or so (and 95% of those are
undeniably bad) that are continuously recycled in various transparent
guises.

It is better than gut hooking the other 58 with
bait,

Depends on the intended goal.

but I am a bit puzzled.

Knowing that puts you far ahead of the vast majority of your erstwhile
tutors.

Maybe the Lord
wants me to eat a few of them every so often.

You'll have to ask the Lord.....or her spokespersons.....about that.

He did make them awfully yummy after all.

She didn't make them at all, after all. She just has some effective
press agents.....which is to say that she has an acutely credulous
audience.

Many thanks,

You're welcome.

Meanwhile, a couple of points which may or may not be worth
considering. First, fish don't have fingers.....or none that anyone
has noticed and reported in the scientific literature thus far,
anyway. Visual, auditory and olfactory equipment are fairly standard
(insofar as we can assume they are correctly identified and
understood) for vertebrates. Likewise, tactile gear presents no
obvious and immediately observable surprises. The simple fact is that
once fish have discovered a foodlike substance, or what appears to be
such, final confirmation.....or rejection.....would appear to depend
on what we can call, for simplicity's sake, tactile and flavor
receptors in, on, and around the tongue. I, for one, would not be
much surprised if this correlated with a high degree of
vascularization and ennervation in and around the region of the tongue
(for reasons that should be immediately obvious to anyone who feels
even remotely qualified to consider such issues.....let alone hold
forth on them). Thus, it would also be no surprise if a sharp steel
barb penetrating membranes in this region caused a good deal of
distress.....and bleeding. Beyond that, it wouldn't be quiet accurate
(or even marginally so) to say that anyone's guess is as good as
anyone else's......but it would certainly be fair to say that most
would be just as puerile as most others.

That said, I'd guess that exhaustion (however one cares to define it)
plays a larger role in the behavior of fish immediately after the kind
of struggle entailed in trying to escape after being hooked than does
bleeding. In the long run, bleeding MAY be a greater cause of
mortality than other physiological stresses or damage but.....nobody
here (or anywhere else, I suspect) knows.

Others may disagree. In fact, many will. That's all well and good.
It is, in fact, the way things should be. However, it pays to
remember that where Usenet is concerned, most of those others will be
ignorant (not only in terms of the matters under consideration here,
but also in general), uninterested in discussion (not to mention being
bereft of any idea of what discussion entails), and phenomenally
stupid. All of which can easily be understood if one remembers that
they come here primarily to find someone to hate more than they do
themselves......which, naturally, causes them perpetual consternation.

In any case, the fish die.....or they don't. If you're really
interested in which is the more likely outcome.....and why.....you're
going to have to get yourself something a whole lot better than a mere
PhD in icthyology.

g.

In message
,
Giles writes
On Sep 6, 6:11*pm, Todd wrote:
Hi All,

I have caught about 60 trout out of my favorite
river this year. *I have noticed on two trout
this year that I hooked in the lower mouth to
the side of their tongue, that they act completely
normal -- jumping, running, splashing around, dirty
looks -- until I pull my TMC 200BL size 12 barbless
hook out of their mouth.

Then, suddenly, they bleed like hell (a lot of blood),
roll over on their back and act really weird. *I
pushed both of them out of the water with my rod tip.
They manager a little wiggle here and there but
no forward movement. *(They both wound up on my
dinner table.)

Anyone know enough about trout anatomy to say what
is going on here?

The short answer: No.

Did I puncture a main artery
and the hook just kept it plugged?

Maybe. Maybe not.

Did pulling the plug stun them?

Probably not.

Any ideas?

One thing you'd think we would never run short of here. The problem
is that there are really only half a dozen or so (and 95% of those are
undeniably bad) that are continuously recycled in various transparent
guises.

It is better than gut hooking the other 58 with
bait,

Depends on the intended goal.

but I am a bit puzzled.

Knowing that puts you far ahead of the vast majority of your erstwhile
tutors.

Maybe the Lord
wants me to eat a few of them every so often.

You'll have to ask the Lord.....or her spokespersons.....about that.

He did make them awfully yummy after all.

She didn't make them at all, after all. She just has some effective
press agents.....which is to say that she has an acutely credulous
audience.

Many thanks,

You're welcome.

Meanwhile, a couple of points which may or may not be worth
considering. First, fish don't have fingers.....or none that anyone
has noticed and reported in the scientific literature thus far,
anyway. Visual, auditory and olfactory equipment are fairly standard
(insofar as we can assume they are correctly identified and
understood) for vertebrates. Likewise, tactile gear presents no
obvious and immediately observable surprises. The simple fact is that
once fish have discovered a foodlike substance, or what appears to be
such, final confirmation.....or rejection.....would appear to depend
on what we can call, for simplicity's sake, tactile and flavor
receptors in, on, and around the tongue. I, for one, would not be
much surprised if this correlated with a high degree of
vascularization and ennervation in and around the region of the tongue
(for reasons that should be immediately obvious to anyone who feels
even remotely qualified to consider such issues.....let alone hold
forth on them). Thus, it would also be no surprise if a sharp steel
barb penetrating membranes in this region caused a good deal of
distress.....and bleeding. Beyond that, it wouldn't be quiet accurate
(or even marginally so) to say that anyone's guess is as good as
anyone else's......but it would certainly be fair to say that most
would be just as puerile as most others.

That said, I'd guess that exhaustion (however one cares to define it)
plays a larger role in the behavior of fish immediately after the kind
of struggle entailed in trying to escape after being hooked than does
bleeding. In the long run, bleeding MAY be a greater cause of
mortality than other physiological stresses or damage but.....nobody
here (or anywhere else, I suspect) knows.

Others may disagree. In fact, many will. That's all well and good.
It is, in fact, the way things should be. However, it pays to
remember that where Usenet is concerned, most of those others will be
ignorant (not only in terms of the matters under consideration here,
but also in general), uninterested in discussion (not to mention being
bereft of any idea of what discussion entails), and phenomenally
stupid. All of which can easily be understood if one remembers that
they come here primarily to find someone to hate more than they do
themselves......which, naturally, causes them perpetual consternation.

In any case, the fish die.....or they don't. If you're really
interested in which is the more likely outcome.....and why.....you're
going to have to get yourself something a whole lot better than a mere
PhD in icthyology.

g.

In short (if you know what that means) - you don't know the answer to
his question!
--
Bill Grey

On Sep 7, 3:30*am, Bill Grey wrote:
In message
,
Giles writes





On Sep 6, 6:11*pm, Todd wrote:
Hi All,

I have caught about 60 trout out of my favorite
river this year. *I have noticed on two trout
this year that I hooked in the lower mouth to
the side of their tongue, that they act completely
normal -- jumping, running, splashing around, dirty
looks -- until I pull my TMC 200BL size 12 barbless
hook out of their mouth.

Then, suddenly, they bleed like hell (a lot of blood),
roll over on their back and act really weird. *I
pushed both of them out of the water with my rod tip.
They manager a little wiggle here and there but
no forward movement. *(They both wound up on my
dinner table.)

Anyone know enough about trout anatomy to say what
is going on here?

The short answer: No.

Did I puncture a main artery
and the hook just kept it plugged?

Maybe. *Maybe not.

Did pulling the plug stun them?

Probably not.

Any ideas?

One thing you'd think we would never run short of here. *The problem
is that there are really only half a dozen or so (and 95% of those are
undeniably bad) that are continuously recycled in various transparent
guises.

It is better than gut hooking the other 58 with
bait,

Depends on the intended goal.

but I am a bit puzzled.

Knowing that puts you far ahead of the vast majority of your erstwhile
tutors.

Maybe the Lord
wants me to eat a few of them every so often.

You'll have to ask the Lord.....or her spokespersons.....about that.

He did make them awfully yummy after all.

She didn't make them at all, after all. *She just has some effective
press agents.....which is to say that she has an acutely credulous
audience.

Many thanks,

You're welcome.

Meanwhile, a couple of points which may or may not be worth
considering. *First, fish don't have fingers.....or none that anyone
has noticed and reported in the scientific literature thus far,
anyway. *Visual, auditory and olfactory equipment are fairly standard
(insofar as we can assume they are correctly identified and
understood) for vertebrates. *Likewise, tactile gear presents no
obvious and immediately observable surprises. *The simple fact is that
once fish have discovered a foodlike substance, or what appears to be
such, final confirmation.....or rejection.....would appear to depend
on what we can call, for simplicity's sake, tactile and flavor
receptors in, on, and around the tongue. *I, for one, would not be
much surprised if this correlated with a high degree of
vascularization and ennervation in and around the region of the tongue
(for reasons that should be immediately obvious to anyone who feels
even remotely qualified to consider such issues.....let alone hold
forth on them). *Thus, it would also be no surprise if a sharp steel
barb penetrating membranes in this region caused a good deal of
distress.....and bleeding. *Beyond that, it wouldn't be quiet accurate
(or even marginally so) to say that anyone's guess is as good as
anyone else's......but it would certainly be fair to say that most
would be just as puerile as most others.

That said, I'd guess that exhaustion (however one cares to define it)
plays a larger role in the behavior of fish immediately after the kind
of struggle entailed in trying to escape after being hooked than does
bleeding. *In the long run, bleeding MAY be a greater cause of
mortality than other physiological stresses or damage but.....nobody
here (or anywhere else, I suspect) knows.

Others may disagree. *In fact, many will. *That's all well and good.
It is, in fact, the way things should be. *However, it pays to
remember that where Usenet is concerned, most of those others will be
ignorant (not only in terms of the matters under consideration here,
but also in general), uninterested in discussion (not to mention being
bereft of any idea of what discussion entails), and phenomenally
stupid. *All of which can easily be understood if one remembers that
they come here primarily to find someone to hate more than they do
themselves......which, naturally, causes them perpetual consternation.

In any case, the fish die.....or they don't. *If you're really
interested in which is the more likely outcome.....and why.....you're
going to have to get yourself something a whole lot better than a mere
PhD in icthyology.

g.

In short (if you know what that means) - you don't know the answer to
his question!

Right. That's what I said.

g.

Giles wrote:

Depends on the intended goal.

Catch and release. Unless I injure one too
badly, then you eat what you kill. (Bait
does not count.)


Maybe the Lord
wants me to eat a few of them every so often.

You'll have to ask the Lord.....or her spokespersons.....about that.

In English, "he" is both masculine and neuter. So, if I can put up with
being called an "it" ... Anyway, I doubt the Lord has a gender.
so in English, "he" would be the proper title. Unless you just
want to be politically correct or quarrelsome.

You would love German. A girl is referred to in the neuter (Das
Mädchen) until she gets married (Die Frau). I can see the
steam coming off the foreheads of the politically correct crowd
right now.


He did make them awfully yummy after all.

She didn't make them at all, after all. She just has some effective
press agents.....which is to say that she has an acutely credulous
audience.

Have you looked at a trout really closely lately? This is
my father's (and yours) doing. It breaks my heart when others
look into the eyes of nature and do not see or are not
humbled by enormity and wonder of the lord's hands. It
breaks my heart.

-T

On 2009-09-07 13:02:01 -0400, Todd said:

You would love German.

splork-mu-vang

On Sep 7, 12:02*pm, Todd wrote:
Giles wrote:
Depends on the intended goal.

Catch and release. *Unless I injure one too
badly, then you eat what you kill. *(Bait
does not count.)

Maybe the Lord
wants me to eat a few of them every so often.

You'll have to ask the Lord.....or her spokespersons.....about that.

In English, "he" is both masculine and neuter.

In English, "It" is neuter. "She" is feminine. "He" is most
assuredly masculine. The correct forms are often lost on the non-
native speaker. There are several reasons for this. Most prominent
among them is a carryover of more or less rigid and well defined
grammatical gender from their native languages. The few ragged
remnants of grammatical gender in English also help to confuse the
matter for them. In any case, "he" is not neuter in English despite
the fact that even many native speakers suppose that it is. Their
confusion most likely arises from an inadequate and dim understanding
of antiquated social norms.....not to mention their own language. Not
so long ago it was deemed perfectly normal to assume that any
unspecified individual was male unless known to be otherwise. In
fact, to be more precise, the habit of assigning maleness ran a great
deal deeper and stronger than mere assumption.....it was a nearly
universal habit born of male dominance and contempt for
women.....which goes a long ways toward explaining why a lot of folks
still believe tripe like the absurd notion that "he is both masculine
and neuter.

So, if I can put up with being called an "it" ...

It can put up with whatever it pleases.....or not.....we do not give a
rat's ass.

Anyway, I doubt the Lord has a gender.

Depends on which Lord we are talking about. The vast majority of gods
DO in fact have one gender or another.....or, sometimes, more than
one. Your Lord, as yet unspecified here, may or may not possess
gender. Obviously, we can't know. Give us a name.....maybe we can
help alleviate your doubts.

so in English, "he" would be the proper title.

Depends on who we are talking about. See above.

Unless you just want to be politically correct

I tend to lean toward political correctness, but am perfectly capable
of discarding it in a heartbeat if circumstances dictate.

or quarrelsome.

I can do that, too. Would you like to see an example?

You would love German.

Ya think?

A girl is referred to in the neuter (Das
Mädchen) until she gets married (Die Frau).

You should read Twain.

I can see the
steam coming off the foreheads of the politically correct crowd
right now.

Moron.

He did make them awfully yummy after all.

She didn't make them at all, after all. *She just has some effective
press agents.....which is to say that she has an acutely credulous
audience.

Have you looked at a trout really closely lately?

Not in the past few hours.

This is my father's (and yours) doing.

I was pretty busy with other things today.....I haven't the slightest
idea of what your father has to do with it.

It breaks my heart when others
look into the eyes of nature and do not see or are not
humbled by enormity and wonder of the lord's hands.

Well, I've looked at nature a couple of times and never noticed that
it had any eyes it could call its own. On the other hand, I have also
seen some enormous hands and yes, I have certainly wondered about
them. But no, I've never been humbled by them.....surprised, yes,
sometimes.....impressed, on occasion.....but never humbled. As for
your lord's hands, well, we're right back where we started from.....I
still don't know which one that is.

It breaks my heart.

Evidently it has also broken your head.

giles