Great thread.
I have never seen any empirical data which supports removal/non-removal of hooks. I looked through the In-Fisherman site, bought the January issue today and can't find the article. I would love to see the article and the backup material. If it's backed by solid science, count me in. If not... My opinions are simply that...based on a career of raising/observing fish. Fish that obviously bleed in the water usually die. I, too, have come across fish with torn gills, or scarred mouths. But, if those fish bled, I don't think they would have lived.
Regarding coagulating blood, if the tiny vesicles seal with coagulating blood, they heal. At the same time, I have watched too many bleeding fish give it up, especially bleeding from the gills. Layton, your point is well taken, loaded with common sense. It makes sense to me that fish blood must coagulate, but it has to be a mechanism that starts inside the wound, rather than at the surface, like our blood. I ain't never seen a scab on a fish. I have seen healing tissue, over a sore...and it doesn't look like coagulated blood. I ain't no expert about it. But, until proven to me otherwise, I'll believe cutting the line better than digging a deep hook out of a fish.
You guys are the best...thought provoking.
