Barbless hooks

[williamhj 0]

If you read Silver's posts you'll see he acknowledges there can be reasons to use barbless hooks. He's just responding to the argument that we should use barbless for the health of the fishery.

 

A quote from an above post:

 

I agree that there are reasons to use barbless hooks beyond the health of a fishery. They are easier to remove from clothing, nets, and human flesh. They do cause less cosmetic scarring of fish. However, the barbless hook regulations are not based on any of these reasons. The only reason that such regulations exist is the mistaken belief that they maintain the fisheries.

[mikechell 0]

This is probably the wrong place to wade in with my first post

You are absolutely correct, afraid not, this IS the wrong thread for your first post !!!

[Iroc_Jeff 0]

I use barbed hooks but on many smaller flies I just pinch the barb, like for ants, adams', or those rubber-band grubs that I use a lot. It's much easier to remove from a bluegill if they inhale it and whatnot. Most of my other stuff I keep them on.

[SilverCreek 0]

This is probably the wrong place to wade in with my first post, but I am baffled by the comments of Silvercreek ---especially because he is a physician. In his sourcing of materials that have formed his opinion (thanks, that always add credence) it is clear that barbed/barbless hooks have no difference in mortality. It also shows that there is no difference, statistically with hook retention. So, given these to facts, why not use barbless hooks? What is the advantage of a barb? It is also clear that barbed hooks do more damage to a fish upon hook removal that barbed hooks. Why hurt/injure the fish when it is unnecessary? Let me propose this to the doctor. If a patient came to you with a barbed hook embedded in their tumb, would you remove it without anesthetic? I am sure it would not hasten the death of the patient, but why make it unnecessarily painful? I think many of us apply the first principle of medicine to the fish we catch: First, do no harm. Clearly barbed hooks harm the fish.

 

You state, "I think many of us apply the first principle of medicine to the fish we catch: First, do no harm." That is a very, very interesting and telling statement on your part, since it points out a huge logical inconsistency in what you state you believe vs what you actually do. It indicates a large enough hole in your argument for me to drive right through.

First of all, you have decided to fish so clearly you have decided to harm fish. So if you are true to what you propose, I suggest you stop fishing.

 

Secondly, C&R fishing kills fish, so by fishing with barbless hooks, you have decided that not only harming, but killing fish is OK as well.

 

Thirdly, the fact that you actually wrote this is an instance of the logical fallacy of special pleading.

 

"Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking him/herself (or those he/she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption."

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

 

Fourthly, by comparing a hook in a fish vs a hook in a human thumb, you are equating a human with a fish. Moreover you are assuming that a fish can experience pain in the same manner as a human. Where is the proof? Just as the barbless hook fallacy, it is fallacious that fish can experience pain. Pain is an interpretation of a sensation, it is NOT the sensation itself. There are humans with CID (Congenital Insensitivity to Pain) that can feel touch but not pain. These two functions are located in different parts of the human brain.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain

 

Would it surprise you to know that fish DO NOT have the brain anatomy to interpret sensations as pain? Pain is interpreted in the more advanced neocortex brain anatomy. Fish do not have a neocortex.

 

Just as the absence of gills would not allow a fish to survive under water, the absence of the pain interpretation center, means fish cannot feel pain as humans feel pain. In fact, they also do not have the part of the human brain that is responsible for fear, so fish can not experience fear as human do.

 

"The detrimental effects of anthropomorphic thinking and the importance of an evolutionary perspective for understanding the neurobehavioral differences between fishes and humans are discussed. The differences in central nervous system structure that underlie basic neurobehavioral differences between fishes and humans are described. The literature on the neural basis of consciousness and of pain is reviewed, showing that: (1) behavioral responses to noxious stimuli are separate from the psychological experience of pain, (2) awareness of pain in humans depends on functions of specific regions of cerebral cortex, and (3) fishes lack these essential brain regions or any functional equivalent, making it untenable that they can experience pain. Because the experience of fear, similar to pain, depends on cerebral cortical structures that are absent from fish brains, it is concluded that awareness of fear is impossible for fishes."

 

http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/Fishwelfare/Rose.pdf

 

Here is an English translation of the consensus study of a group of international scientists that concluded fish cannot feel pain:

 

"During their research, the scientists from Europe, Canada, Australia and the U.S. come to the conclusion that fish most likely do not have the people like pain. The researchers found that fish, unlike humans, have no cerebral cortex and missing that further substantial sensophysiological condition for a conscious experience of pain. In particular, the key for the pain C Schadenszeptoren (nociceptors) are missing in all studied primitive cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays altogether, and they are extremely rare in all bony fish such as trout and carp. Also, fish species, no significant behavioral responses when they are confronted with horrendous human intervention. Most painkillers fail their service in fish. Prof. Dr. Robert Arlinghaus explained in conclusion that "bony fish have no doubt with simple nociceptors, and they show, of course, reactions to injury and other interventions, including. on the forward-avoidance responses. Whether they are seen to be more pain, is not known and quite unlikely according to our research."

 

http://tinyurl.com/kazkuyy

 

So it is now my turn to ask you, as a person that believes fish can feel pain as humans feel pain, how do you justify fishing? I have no problem since, my belief is that fish do not feel pain, so I am OK with using barbed hooks. Allow me turn your question on its head. The question is not how can I use a barbed hook. Indeed, it is how can you use any hook at all? May I propose to the non-doctor that it is a case of Cognitive Dissonance, in which you ignore in yourself, the self contradiction that you are hurting and KILLING fish vs what you profess to believe.

 

"When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid ( read as ignore) .... information which would likely increase the dissonance"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

The fact that you wrote what you wrote is proof that you are blind to your own behavior while thinking that my behavior is somehow wrong. I submit that with your self-confessed belief and your self-confessed behavior at odds with each other, you are the one whose behavior is inconsistent with what you profess is a personal ethic.

[mikechell 0]

"detrimental effects of anthropomorphic thinking"

 

Hear, hear !!!

 

Well typed, Silver ... well documented. And since your theories, thoughts, facts and opinions mirror my own ... Genius !!!

[SilverCreek 0]

"detrimental effects of anthropomorphic thinking"

 

Hear, hear !!!

 

Well typed, Silver ... well documented. And since your theories, thoughts, facts and opinions mirror my own ... Genius !!!

 

It always amazes me how a well meaning fly fisher can be totally brainwashed by the barbless is holy and untouchable lie. They somehow believe that Catch and Release fishing is a bloodless and deathless sport.

 

The truth is that catch and release fly fishers kill fish. And a further truth is that as we get better at catching fish, we kill more fish. The result and purpose of this very educational fly fishing bulletin board is that it teaches us to become better at catching fish which makes us better at killing fish.

 

Get used to it. Fishing is a blood sport and those who think they do not kill fish are fooling themselves and are very poor logicians to boot.

[mikechell 0]

On a brighter note ... There's no arguing that, barbs or barbless, catch-n-release kills fewer fish than catch-n-keep (which has a 100% kill percentage).

[SilverCreek 0]

I totally agree.

 

The purpose of fisheries management is to create and maintain a quality fishery in terms of numbers and size of fish AND to consider the desires of the citizens who are the actual owners of these waters. The key word is management. C&R is a management tool to lower the "kill" rate below the natural replacement rate so the fishery remains at it's carrying capacity.

 

Having said that, there is a proper place for catch and kill and slot limits in fisheries where the combination of the fish species and the river/lake system is so fertile that overpopulation results in a stunted population of fish. There is also a place for catch, kill and consume in order to give those who want to take some fish for a meal an opportunity to do that as well.

 

We are fortunate in the USA to have public waters, and C&R fly fishers are a minority sector of fisher persons. These are public waters; and they are for the benefit of all persons including those who want to spin fish and take fish for a meal. We do not have the right to demand that all or most fishing be mandatory C&R. We do have the right to demand that some waters be designated as C&R only, just as others have the right to have some waters be designated as catch and keep areas. Enlightened fisheries managers and fly fishers accept that this is a fair tradeoff in a democratic society.

[williamhj 0]

On a brighter note ... There's no arguing that, barbs or barbless, catch-n-release kills fewer fish than catch-n-keep (which has a 100% kill percentage).

 

That's true as long as someone knows how to handle and release fish. If someone catches 3, keeps them, and goes home they kill three fish. If they catch 20 on a day of fishing, put them down on rocks, hold them out of the water for long periods of time to get pictures, release them into fast water without reviving, etc etc they could kill more than 3.

[afraid not 0]

SiiverCreek I have read your response (and many of your other excellent posts.) One of the things I have always enjoyed about working and talking with educated people is the ability to discus issues where they disagree without dragging a lot of personal baggage into the conversation. Since I have been firmly disinvited to participate in this thread I will simply say, one and done.

[JSzymczyk 0]

1) I hereby pledge to not ever, EVER, argue science with SilverCreek !

 

2) I know dam' straight that I can feel pain (brain power aside... but I do have an MRI of my head, and I used it to prove once and for all to my wife that I do, indeed, HAVE a brain), and I get a hook stuck in my sweet flesh at least once or twice a year. That is the only reason I will give any more, for my preference of fishing barbless flies!

[SilverCreek 0]

Thank you both for the very kind words. It leads me to this post which has nothing to do with fly fishing and everything to do with civility during differences of opinion.

 

My belief has always been that I have been blessed with an education that others have not had. There is a difference between intelligence and education, but some educated folks behave as if a higher education means they are more intelligent. I have been blessed with intelligence as well, but that was a gift that had nothing to do with anything I did.

 

I also believe that if I cannot convince someone of the truth of my position, sometimes the fault lies with me and not them. I do the best I can. A very wise man (Ravi Zachiarias) told me that if you throw dirt, you will get your hands dirty and you will lose a lot of ground. He also often uses the Indian Proverb, “There is no point giving a man a rose to smell after you’ve cut off his nose.” Personal attacks often means that a person cannot defend his position any other way. So it is a sign of weakness and not of strength.

 

My education is in science but really, what I try to do is to use what I learned in my philosophy and logic courses at Stanford to examine my own position and the position of the other person. Each side of a discussion will have some presuppositions which are assumptions that the proponent takes for granted and never questions for validity. If the assumptions upon which the argument is based are faulty, the argument itself is faulty. So I examine whether my presuppositions can be defended as well as the opposition's.

 

Aristotle noted thousands of years ago that a person will usually argue from one or several of three positions. They are from morality (ethos), from logic (logos), and from emotion (pathos). If you look at arguments, you will see that Aristotle was correct. Almost every position is defended using morality, logic and/or emotion. The next time a politician gives a speech, I guarantee you that they will use one or more of these three methods to try to win you over.

 

http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html

 

http://uwc.ucf.edu/files/handouts/Three_Appeals_%20Argument.pdf

 

So I want to know the basis from which the person is arguing. The best way to get a person to change their mind is to match the type of argument that they are using. If a person is arguing mainly from morality, the most effective way to change the person's mind is to form a moral argument that is stronger that theirs.

 

I find that when I cannot change a person's mind it is because they are arguing from mainly emotion and I am arguing mainly from logic. Excessive emotional positions are the hardest for me to change.

[mikechell 0]

Thank you both for the very kind words. It leads me to this post which has nothing to do with fly fishing and everything to do with civility during differences of opinion.

 

My belief has always been that I have been blessed with an education that others have not had. There is a difference between intelligence and education, but some educated folks behave as if a higher education means they are more intelligent. I have been blessed with intelligence (Note 1) as well, but that was a gift that had nothing to do with anything I did.

 

I also believe that if I cannot convince someone of the truth of my position, sometimes the fault lies with me and not them. I do the best I can. A very wise man (Ravi Zachiarias) (Note 3, first part) told me that if you throw dirt, you will get your hands dirty and you will lose a lot of ground. He also often uses the Indian Proverb, “There is no point giving a man a rose to smell after you’ve cut off his nose.” Personal attacks often means that a person cannot defend his position any other way. (Note 2) So it is a sign of weakness and not of strength.

 

My education is in science but really, what I try to do is to use what I learned in my philosophy and logic courses at Stanford to examine my own position and the position of the other person. Each side of a discussion will have some presuppositions which are assumptions that the proponent takes for granted and never questions for validity. If the assumptions upon which the argument is based are faulty, the argument itself is faulty. So I examine whether my presuppositions can be defended as well as the opposition's.

 

Aristotle (Note 3, final part) noted thousands of years ago that a person will usually argue from one or several of three positions. They are from morality (ethos), from logic (logos), and from emotion (pathos). If you look at arguments, you will see that Aristotle was correct. Almost every position is defended using morality, logic and/or emotion. The next time a politician gives a speech, I guarantee you that they will use one or more of these three methods to try to win you over.

 

http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html

 

http://uwc.ucf.edu/files/handouts/Three_Appeals_%20Argument.pdf

 

So I want to know the basis from which the person is arguing. The best way to get a person to change their mind is to match the type of argument that they are using. If a person is arguing mainly from morality, the most effective way to change the person's mind is to form a moral argument that is stronger that theirs.

 

I find that when I cannot change a person's mind it is because they are arguing from mainly emotion and I am arguing mainly from logic. Excessive emotional positions are the hardest for me to change. (Note 4)

Note (1) ... says you !!! Rather arrogant, if you ask me. (I like that in a person ... if it's backed up with proof).

Note (2) ... I agree with you. Personal attacks online are useless, but they usually piss me off. Personal attacks mean the person will not agree with you no matter what proof you provide. In person, as in while driving ... I must say, they tempt me constantly.

Note (3) ... I think I like your man, Ravi Zachiarias. But Aristotle was an old fuddy duddy. I don't want to reveal my age, but he was a stuffy old coot who never could hold his wine.

And finally, Note (4) ... Um yeah !!! Mostly because those are the ones most likely to be based on some falsehood anyway. Those are the ones that MUST defend their position, no matter what, otherwise they have to admit to themselves that they were wrong ... and some people find that the hardest thing of all.

 

 

Just for the record ... I hope you know I am joking, mostly.