bleed out problem

In message , George
Cleveland writes
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:11:46 -0700, 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? 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


I'd guess that you hit an artery. I have the same thing happen a
couple of times every year, usually on smaller fish. Its always a
shock when it happens. I've only had it happen on trout, BTW. Never on
bass or panfish. Since most of the fish I've had this happen to are of
illegal length they end up dining with the crayfish.

Geo. C.

It has been suggested that barbless hooks penetrate deeper than barbed
hooks hence the damage.
--
Bill Grey

George Cleveland wrote:

I'd guess that you hit an artery. I have the same thing happen a
couple of times every year, usually on smaller fish. Its always a
shock when it happens. I've only had it happen on trout, BTW. Never on
bass or panfish. Since most of the fish I've had this happen to are of
illegal length they end up dining with the crayfish.

Geo. C.

Hi George,

I noticed the size thing too. Both of mine were ~ 11 inches.

Haven't fished for bass or panfish in about 40 years.

-T

Bill Grey wrote:
In message , George
Cleveland writes
On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 16:11:46 -0700, 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? 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


I'd guess that you hit an artery. I have the same thing happen a
couple of times every year, usually on smaller fish. Its always a
shock when it happens. I've only had it happen on trout, BTW. Never on
bass or panfish. Since most of the fish I've had this happen to are of
illegal length they end up dining with the crayfish.

Geo. C.

It has been suggested that barbless hooks penetrate deeper than barbed
hooks hence the damage.

Barbless hooks are easier to release. But, come to think of it,
I never had a bleed out problem with a barb.

-T

In message , Todd writes
It has been suggested that barbless hooks penetrate deeper than
barbed hooks hence the damage.

Barbless hooks are easier to release. But, come to think of it,
I never had a bleed out problem with a barb.

It is a question of deep penetration, not easy release - which goes
without saying.
--
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.

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

On Sep 7, 8:53*am, Injun Joe wrote:


Joe the Elder thinks---pretty heavy stuff for an early rainy morning
reading--never realized the small salvelinus fontinalis *I pursue have
so many parts?

The parts are interesting enough in their own right, but studied
myopically (as is necessary for the purposes for which people study
them) they don't even hint at the glory of the whole.

Most of the ones I seek just flee under a rock and
later become food for kingfisher, raccoon, and water snakes.

As do we all.....eventually.....one way or another.

My N.C. wildlife folks now stock only with triploid brook trout *and
will not consider stocking trout on top of wildtrout populations, so I
have fewer and fewer days where I closely get to study the *death of
fish !

Ah, but you still have one of the most beautiful laboratories on God's
green earth to study them in!

Personally, my interests have led me astray from pursuing fish at all
for the past ten months or so.
By virtue of a most extraordinary chain of circumstances (a story for
another time) I've been sucked into a maelstrom of trees, trees, and
more trees......black walnut, butternut, Japanese walnut, a host of
walnut/butternut hybrids, American chestnut, Chinese chestnut, a
veritable blizzard of chestnut hybrids and back crosses, hazelnut,
white oak, red oak, etc.

g.
at play in the groves of the lord.

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:39:05 -0700, Todd wrote:

George Cleveland wrote:

I'd guess that you hit an artery. I have the same thing happen a
couple of times every year, usually on smaller fish. Its always a
shock when it happens. I've only had it happen on trout, BTW. Never on
bass or panfish. Since most of the fish I've had this happen to are of
illegal length they end up dining with the crayfish.

Geo. C.

Hi George,

I noticed the size thing too. Both of mine were ~ 11 inches.

Haven't fished for bass or panfish in about 40 years.

-T

Todd, you're missing a lot of fun! I fish almost exclusively for bass
and panfish (sunfish), due to the paucity of trout in my area, but
prefer them, anyway.
Charlie S.
RM2, USN-Ret.

(remove bluegill to email)

On 2009-09-08 11:03:03 -0400, Charlie S said:

Todd, you're missing a lot of fun! I fish almost exclusively for bass
and panfish (sunfish), due to the paucity of trout in my area, but
prefer them, anyway.
Charlie S.
RM2, USN-Ret.

Hi, Charlie. Your RM2 reminded me of the time my brother-in-law made
Chief. At his initiation there were several RMCs. I told him to say
this to one of the RMCs: "Three dits, four dits, two dits, dah,
Radiomen eat sxxt, rah, rah, rah." Of course he did and it was
welcomed with much laughter, especially when two of the RMCs picked him
up and put him in the trash barrel head first. That was many years
ago. Today's hazings are mild compared to back then.

Dave LaCourse, CTTC USN-Ret

Charlie S wrote:
Todd, you're missing a lot of fun! I fish almost exclusively for bass
and panfish (sunfish), due to the paucity of trout in my area, but
prefer them, anyway.
Charlie S.
RM2, USN-Ret.

I fished for them a lot as a kid. You are correct: total
fun. But, I have always loved to fish for trout. Not
sure why, but I am totally obsessed with catching them.

-T