Going Barbless

[Peterjay 0]

I went completely barbless 20 years ago when we lived in Idaho - it's mandatory on just about all the top streams I fished out there. Since then, I've never noticed the slightest difference in my landing rate, and it makes unhooking the fish a snap with little or no obvious damage. I can't think of a single reason to use a barbed hook in fresh water or salt. Lou Tabory mentioned in his first book that he even uses them on tarpon with a great deal of success.

[FlyFishin'Jam 0]

Hey guys, just thought i'd add you should probably go barbless for your own safety as a few have said previous. A pair of hemostats or leatherman etc etc will take care of barbs. Cross winds and double hauling can create new unwanted piercings.

 

I remember fishing a fly i forgot to debarb, and it got stuck on my sweater right in the middle of my back where i couldn't reach it, i looked like a dog chasing it's tail.

 

Now i heard this somewhere, but the barbs are on the hook not for what you think but instead it is a part of the forging process hence why buying barbless hooks is more expensive?

[SilverCreek 0]

I summarized the current research on barbless vs barbed hooks in this post on another BB.

 

http://www.theflyfishingforum.com/forums/general-discussion/300488-barbless-flies-2.html

 

I think what Perchjerker is getting at is that the best research on whether barbless hooks preserve fish populations indicates that they do not.

 

http://tinyurl.com/cstlgko

 

This research confirms the earlier work (1987) of Robert Behnke, the leading trout researcher in the USA.

 

Behnke, 1987. Catch and Release Fishing, A decade of experience. Proceedings from USA National Sport Fishing Symposium.

Summary of Catch and Release based research over previous 10 years for National Sports Fishing Symposium, USA. “consistent agreement among hooking mortality studies that demonstrate no significant difference in mortality of fish caught and released on single, treble, barbed or barbless hooks.”

 

 

 

Robert Behke is the foremost authority on trout and salmonids in the USA.

 

Dr. Robert Behnke: A Life With Trout | MidCurrent

 

"Behnke is widely recognized as the world's foremost expert on North American trout and salmon species. He is the author of several books, including "About Trout: The Best of Robert J. Behnke from Trout Magazine," and more than 100 scientific articles."

 

Colorado State Professor Emeritus Bob Behnke Endows Fellowship for Cold-Water Fisheries Research - News & Information - Colorado State University

 

 

 

When the state of Idaho tried to remove barbless regulations based on the research of their own fisheries staff, they could not persuade the fishing public to go along. The research I referred to earlier by Scarpella and Schill was originally funded by the Idaho Fish and Game. D. J. Schill is a Principal Research Biologist and R. L. Scarpella is a Senior Fishery Technician for the state of Idaho's Fish and Game Department.

 

Here are the recommendations based on their study:

 

"RECOMMENDATIONS

 

1. Inform anglers of the lack of biological justification for barbless hook regulations.

 

2. Discontinue practice of requiring barbless hooks on new special regulation waters in Idaho.

 

3. Consider deletion of barbless hook requirements on Idaho waters where socially feasible."

 

Here is their original report:

 

https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/Fisheries%20Research%20Reports/Res95-37Schill1995%20Wild%20Trout%20Regulation%20Studies.pdf

 

 

 

When the fly fishers in Idaho did not remove barbless hook regulations, Dr. Behnke wrote the following editorial on pg. 56 in the Fall 2007 issue of TU's Trout magazine titled "Trading Stubbornness for Science". Trout Unlimited is dedicated to the preservation of cold water fisheries. To their credit, they did due diligence and refused to perpetuate the lie that barbless hooks improves the fishery.

 

To quote Dr. Behnke, ".....statistical analysis of many hooking studies performed over many years agreed that the type of hook was insignificant in determining mortality. Several state agencies, without an understanding of this scientific data instituted barbless-only restrictions on special regulations waters. When angling violations records were examined in Idaho and Oregon, the barbless violations were the most common. Almost all of these violations were accidental; a fly is broken off and in a moment of excitement, a new fly, not fitting the narrow legal description of barbless, is tied on and the angler commits a violation."

 

"In view of the fact that there is no scientific or biological justification for the barbless hook regulations, a change in the law in Idaho and Oregon was proposed. Public meeting were held. The hard core, no-kill, barbless-only fanatics generated lots of heat, but no light, in a passionate defense of an irrational opinion."

 

"I have characterized such irrational behavior by some anglers as a trivial pursuit and the arrogance of ignorance......"

 

 

 

Here's another editorial by Dr Behnke.

 

From About Trout: The Best of Robert Behnke from Trout Magazine

 By Robert J. Behnke, PhD

 

http://tinyurl.com/99p94vz

 

“The fisheries research studies in Yellowstone Park have also helped to dispel some long-established beliefs. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not necessary to restrict catch- and-release fisheries to barb-less flies only. A large proportion of Yellowstone anglers have only casual interest in fishing and are not highly skilled or experienced. Many use large treble hook lures. The trout they catch are frequently left flopping on the bank while a camera is dug out and photos taken. Yet survival of the released trout is exceedingly high (99.7 per cent) based on the 1981 study. Most all detailed comparative studies on hooking mortality have demonstrated no significant differences in mortality between trout caught on single, treble, barbed or barb-less hooks.”

 

This is also summarized in this TU newsletter.

 

http://www.thamesvalleytu.org/newsletters/TVTUMay06.pdf

If any requirement of C&R fishing is to adversely impact fish population, it must, either in whole or in part along with other practices, be sufficient to adversely impact the fish populations above the natural mortality level. It is only then that the trout population will be below the river's carrying capacity.

 

The are reasons to be gentle on trout that will be released, but let us not forget that what is important is that trout populations are present at the carrying capacity of the river. Sometimes this means harvesting fish, other times releasing fish, and that barbless vs barbed hooks has no effect on fish populations.

[ShortyB 0]

Using barbless hooks not only prevents damage to the fish but damage to the fisherman as well. I have had a number of instances when I managed to stick myself but got the hook out without much damage. Had I been using barbed hooks it would have been a much different outcome.

[JSzymczyk 0]

 

Can't say I agree with the thought that barbless hooks create bigger holes in fish vs barbed.

I've seen way more fish mouths torn up with barbed hooks than with barbless.

 

I don't think it was a "thought". Piker20's comment clearly infers that this is based on hard data. If so, then it is not a "thought".

 

I don't want to start an argument, but do you have "hard" data to support your claim relative to mouths being torn up by barbed vs barbless hooks? If so, can you provide a reference? As a retired fisheries biologist, I am curious about this claim (I turned my literary interests to other fields when I retired 14 years ago).

 

Thanks,

Frank

 

No Frank, no hard data just a lifetime of experience and observation. I am quite certain (again with no hard data) that the fish I choose to release from my barbless hooks are less physically damaged than SOME of the fish I see released from barbed hooks.

 

MY impact on the fish population at large is overwhelmingly meaningless. However, I have just this year on the Susquehanna River caught 7 smallmouth bass with badly damaged mouths which seem to have been caused by fishermen (the Susquehanna where I fish is now catch and immediate release only). Those fish were obviously alive and trying to feed, but there is no way to know whether those injuries eventually cause mortality. Injuries certainly did cause mortality in the bass I've seen floating downstream from people who ripped and tore large barbed hooks out of bass, while also mishandling them in other ways.

 

One would LIKE to think that if a fisherman is competent enough to want to pay attention to barbless regulations then that fisherman also is caring and ethical. I know (without hard evidence) that is not true though.

 

If barbless hooks are really no more traumatic to the fish, they ABSOLUTELY are less traumatic to ME when I get one stuck into my flesh. It happens. That is reason enough for me to prefer barbless hooks.

 

I'm normally in close agreement with what you post.

[Piker20 0]

If barbless hooks are really no more traumatic to the fish, they ABSOLUTELY are less traumatic to ME when I get one stuck into my flesh. It happens. That is reason enough for me to prefer barbless hooks.

 

I agree totally on the self trauma aspect. My hooks for all forms of fishing are around 70% barbless to 30% barbed. But I think that barbless hooks alone are no use in protecting our fish stocks if fish are handled poorly. Mandatory barbless areas do not replace good education and practice with someone who knows best practice and can pass that knowledge on. I used to fish for pike with barbless hooks solely but I had issues with large 1/0 upwards singles which would penetrate far deeper than the barbed alternative, at times sticking right through the poor pikes top jaw. I've read this has happened to several others including Mick Brown (a professional UK predator angler) and now only use hooks with a micro barb when that size. I have also noted that crushing the barb so the hook has that little hump is best of both worlds.

[zimmett 0]

Try Har-Lee Rod on Ebay. I do not know if they have barbless hooks or not but their Mustad Hooks are quite cheap.

[oarfish 0]

I was told, in California, that the game wardens check for "barbless" by dragging a piece of cotton across the hook, from bend to point. If the barb grabs any cotton, it's not barbless. I used a pair of pliers and successfully crimped the barbs on several lures without snapping off a single point. If you have a dremel with a very small diameter grinding stone, you could dress the barb off. Or, you could dap a small amount of UV resin on there and just cover the barb.

As long as it doesn't grab the cotton, it's barbless.

 

I've never had a Fish & Game warden in California use a piece of cloth to ck the hook for being barbless, they have used there thumb nails. My hooks have been cked while I was fishing in the Monterey Bay and Nor-Cal rivers manny times after the laws changed, I have not nor any of the casters I've known been cked in quite a few years. I buy barbless hooks or file down all barbs to be within the law.

[perchjerker 0]

Silvercreek hit the nail on the head! The various and sundry scientific studies on hooking mortality of barbed hooks vs barbless have all shown no significant difference between the two hook types. The REAL value of barbless hooks is hook damage, or lack thereof, to humans. We all have our 'horror' stories about the damage done to a friend or loved one,or even to ourselves, by a barbed hook.

 

As far as hook-damaged mouths, etc., are concerned, if the wound has healed, there obviously was minimal damage done, other than to it's appearance, as the fish has been able to successfully feed and go on about it's business. Is this any more serous than the 'scars' left by unsuccessful predators, i.e., bite marks from attacks by other fish, large chunks of flesh (and scales) missing from various areas of the body due to attempted predation by birds, crabs, etc.?

 

Yes, it is d----d irritating to see a nice plump 19" brown trout laying dead on the bottom of a stream; the 'by-product of catch and release' (I have seen more of this than I care to think about!); it's eyes still glassy and it's gills still bright red. But to conclude that this is an example of the vagaries associated with the use of barbed hooks is erroneous, and too many are are too quick to draw such an erroneous and misleading conclusion.

 

Based on my own personal, and anecdotal, observations, I am of the opinion that "Catch and Release" possibly kills more trout annually that those killed by the use of barbed hooks! Yes, I fully realize that such an opinion is heretic; but, I suspect that the truth of the matter is that the real culprit behind these mortalities is "poor handling". Just because someone is fishing "barbless" does NOT automatically mean that they will properly handle a hooked fish. I fish barbless only where required, and typically practice catch and release regardless of whether it is required or not, and I can honestly say the same thing about the survival of my released 'victims'. This last point is strictly anecdotal, and is based on 70 years of fishing experience.

 

Thus, with respect to the overall benefits to the fishery itself, there is no real benefit to fishing 'barbless'; at least as I see it. Again, in my opinion, we should focus our attention on the fishery as a whole; not on a single random fish. Old wounds and scars of past 'encounters' are all signs of a very hardy specimen.

 

I fully respect any and all opinions and comments, and agree with most. We learn by open dialogue.

 

Cheers!

Frank

[Piker20 0]

Off the topic of hooks but staying with mortality, I'm sure I have read that here in UK stocked rainbow trout have an expected live of 5 years max. So when you take into account the stress of being caught and released, is it any suprise that we see a higher average number of trout die after being returned than other species? In the UK species like carp, tench, bream roach etc have been caught and released for years. Even in match venues where the fish are held in a net for the duration of the match. Many individual large specimens earning nicknames from the anglers catching them.

Do you have the same problem with SM/LM panfish etc turning belly up after being caught?

Maybe trout are just weak fish and we should eat more and be happy about it?

[SilverCreek 0]

What kills fish is the very act of fishing. We can argue whether 2% or 4% of released fish die, but the fact is that a certain percentage of fish die. As Perchjerker states, what kills C&R fish has more to do with where the fish is hooked, than what type of hook (barbed or barbless) was used. Fish mortality is more affected by how quickly the fish was subdued and how it was released, than what type of hook was used.

 

I can provide study after study that have been published in peer reviewed North American fisheries journals.

 

Study after study, in trout, other freshwater fish, and ocean fish have shown that there is negligible difference between barbed and barbless hooks. Our own University of Wisconsin conducted a study that confirmed that barbless regulations are not needed, and in fact, are a waste of Fish and Game warden's time and resources. They also foster ill will amongst the fishing public. The most frequent ticketed violation in our barbless fisheries was the use of a barbed hook. Most of these violation were inadvertent, when either a barbless fly was lost and a new barbed fly was used or when the barb was not pinched down sufficiently.

 

From the UW study:

 

http://www.moucheur.com/divers/TroutHooking.pdf

 

"Managers of stream trout fisheries must often make regulatory decisions based on incomplete or contradictory information, and if these regulations do not produce the anticipated biological advantages, agency credibility can suffer. Unnecessary regulations that restrict angling opportunities without producing biological gains can be particularly damaging, especially in the current national situation of stagnant or declining license sales in most states."

 

Several years ago, the Wisconsin DNR proposed that barbless flies only regulation be removed from our early trout season regulation. Modern fisheries research has shown that barbless hooks do not result in improving the number of catchable fish.

 

At the Wisconsin TU State Council meeting, we supported the Wisconsin DNR proposal to remove the barbless regulation.

 

Regulation changes in my state goes before a public vote of all sportsmen called the Wisconsin Conservation Congress. Here is the actual text of the DNR proposal as submitted to the Wisconsin State Conservation Congress.

 

"QUESTION 6 ? Eliminate barbless hooks restriction during early trout season.

 

Numerous scientific studies have been conducted showing that the use of barbed versus barbless hooks has little effect on trout mortality following release. In a 1997 study published in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management, for flies and lures combined, the average hook related mortality was 4.5% for barbed hooks and 4.2% for barbless hooks. Because natural mortality for wild trout range from 30-65% annually, the 0.3% difference in the two hook types is irrelevant at the population level, even when fish are subjected to repeated catch and release.

 

Most biologists agree that how deeply a fish is hooked has more to do with mortality than what type of hook is used. Despite the scientific evidence, anglers are required to use barbless hooks only during the early catch-and-release trout season. Elimination of that restriction would simplify trout fishing regulations and eliminate law enforcement issues.

 

The use of live bait will still be prohibited during the early catch-and-release trout fishing season. If adopted, this proposal will take effect on the first day of the month following publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register.

 

Do you support allowing the use of barbed hooks during the early catch-and-release trout season in Wisconsin?

 

6. YES_______ NO_______"

 

 

The measure passed because if you educate sportsmen they can make the right choice. Notice that the Wisconsin DNR specifically referred to the finding of the Scarpella and Schill study as the reason to make this change. Their study is the current gold standard comparing barbed and barbless hooks for fish mortality.

[Piker20 0]

I don't think we can say the very act of fishing kills fish. If that was the case, Coarse fishery owners in the UK would soon go out of business if twice weekly, 5hour long fishing matches plus the other 5 days of the week pleasure anglers meant the fish that are ALL c&r died.

I think that some species are more hardy than others. In a book I own from the 1940's tench are being moved from one water to another in wet newspaper. Carp and Tench can tolerate low levels of oxygen very well. Try that with a trout and its your lunch wrapped in the paper.

 

I am not against barbless hooks or C&R. 70% of my hooks must be B/L and 95% of my fish go back but I think B/L only rules do nothing to help the fish populations long term. That relies on better education of handling fish and people on the ground to police it. Which in the UK is impossible.

[perchjerker 0]

I am NOT against barbless hooks. I just think the regulations requiring them are antiquated and need to be abolished. The numerous studies that have been conducted on the effectiveness at decreasing hooking mortality clearly support this opinion of mine.

 

Just for a anecdotal side bar, back in the early 1980's I was responsible for a three-year tag and release project, in conjunction with our Texas Parks And Wildlife Department's Marine Fisheries Division, targeting redfish. We had a 'semi-closed' brackish water pond that was teeming with redfish. There was egress capability, but no 'of their own volition' ingress. We had two objectives in mind: 1) determine whether or not the fish did, in fact, leave the pond; and, 2) get an idea of the size of the population in the pond itself.

 

To accomplish this task, we solicited the assistance of members of the founding chapter of the old GCCA; now simply CCA. We also had school groups assist. All fish were caught with conventional coastal bay area tackle had an abdominal cavity implant streamer tag inserted, and released. Admittedly, redfish are a very tough fish; in more ways than one. We tagged and released over 5,000 fish in just over three years. We did NOT do any "hold" studies to ascertain their survival rate. The level of tag returns provided a significant insigh into thist; we had the highest % of tag returns of any tagging program the state had conducted up to that point in time; something over 70% as I recall. It was obvious at the outset that some tags would never be returned, as the tagged fish were over the maximum legal size limit. Unfortunately, most of the fishing public was (is ) unaware that size limits don't apply to tagged fish.

 

Very clearly, the less than 'professional' handling of many by the individuals catching them (though we made an overt effort to provide as much assistance as possible) and the trauma of having an incision made in the abdominal wall, and cavity implacement of a tag, had a very low negative long term effect on them. Tags came in quite frequently from fish that had been tagged a year or more prior.

 

This only shows that some fish are much more resilient than many think.

 

Cheers!

Frank

[netabrookie 0]

My biggest gripe is how long it takes someone to unhook and release a fish. With a barbless hook this is usually an easy matter but by using a barbed hook it often turns into a whole different matter. You wind up trying to remove the fly with the poor fish twisted to every angle while you grope around for your hemo's and try to clamp onto the fly without destroying it...how long has it been out of the water now? You tug or jerk the fly out of its lodged position if you are lucky but a lot of times you have to get another bite on the hook because the hemo's slipped...how long has it been out of the water now? With a barbless hook you usually don't even have to get the fish out of the water. I usually just slide my hand down the tippet and slightly push backwards on the fly and it free, that is if it hasn't already thrown the fly loose it the net. If it has thrown it just be sure its hooked in the net and not back in the fish. I grump and complain about anyone hurting a brookie, but I so sensitive in that area because if you are catching little natives that usually only measure well under a foot and then use a larger fly with a barb, it has to be worse on them than a barbless hook. That dosn't have a thing to do with science, thats just common sense.

[Byron 0]

It seems like a "no-brainer" to fish barbless for 2 reasons:

 

1. Less potential to hurt the fisher. At least once a season, the wind gusts and I catch myself on the forward cast;

 

2. Even if it is BARELY better for the fish, why not do it. It surely allows the fish to be released more quickly than a barbed hook.

 

It's a bit like the debate over lead in terminal tackle - used by nymph fishers. Why take a chance? Just use a substitute.