Rudershausen et al A comparison between circle hook and J hook performance in the troll fisheries off North Carolina 
171 
Recreational Charter 
Circle J Circle J 
Hook type 
Figure 8 
Plots of the average proportion of fish retained (±standard error) on circle hooks (open 
bars) and J hooks (gray bars). Data for each species are from both directed and non- 
directed trips for that species. Plots are broken down by user group (recreational lleft 
column, panels A-C] and charter [right column, panels D-F]) and species (dolphinfish 
Coryphaena hippurus [A, D], yellowfin tuna \Thunnus albacares ] [B, E], and wahoo 
\Acanthocybium solandri ] [C, F]). The legend denoting fill pattern for each leader type 
applies to all panels. No bar for a particular hook-type+species + user-group + leader-type 
combination indicates no catch. 
ment new minimum size regulations for this species 
in the U.S. South Atlantic (SAFMC, 2011). However, 
managers should also consider that there can be a 
trade-off when using circle hooks. Although rates 
of deep hooking are relatively low on circle hooks, 
handling time and air exposure are increased while 
dislodging them from captured fish owing to their in- 
herently deeper bend than J hooks (Cooke and Suski, 
2004; senior author, personal observ.). Along with 
outreach efforts to encourage the use of circle hooks 
where appropriate, instructions should be available 
on how to quickly remove the hooks with little injury 
to the fish. 
Circle hooks remain vaguely defined. The federal 
definition of a circle hook (Federal Register, 2006) is 
somewhat arbitrary. Numerous circle hooks may meet 
the federal specifications, yet may not simultaneously 
reduce deep hooking in billfishes and maintain catch 
rates of non-billfishes. For example, some manufac- 
turers advertise circle hooks with parallel or nearly 
parallel point shanks and hook shanks (like a J hook), 
but which simply have the tip of the point bent 90° 
