Barbless hooks

[Bryon Anderson 0]

 

I fish barbless because I believe that to use barbed hooks for catch-and-release fishing is to prioritize the landing of the fish and the opportunity to handle it (both of which further decrease the chance of post-release survival, by the way) over the well-being of the fish and, by extension, the fishery. Of course, you could say the exact same thing about the very act of fishing (with any kind of hook), period, so we all have to decide for ourselves how to reconcile

 

where are you coming from, or going to with that? Apparently some folks use flies with the entire hook bend cut off. Supposedly the strike is the pinnacle of their idea of the sport... but it has been conclusively proven in peer-reviewed studies that such methods severely, and permanently damage the fishes' self esteem. After the strike, they feel sorry for themselves for being duped by a ball of fur and feathers, and feel depressed forever.

 

I fish barbless almost all the time, and I fish barbed hooks too, but only rarely. I have experienced absolutely NO difference in losing fish with barbless, and I fish for just about everything not just the Holy Trout. I see a large difference in the damage done to fish by unhooking barbed vs barbless hooks. I have caught more than a few bass with mangled, scarred, damaged mouths which were obviously caused by idiot fishermen ripping hooks out. I've seen them do it.

I'm not sure what you mean by your opening question, but I'll try to clarify. What I meant was:

 

1. It doesn't make sense to me to use barbed hooks if you intend to release the fish you catch. If you're releasing the fish, presumably you want it to survive. Barbed hooks are harder to remove, which means you have to handle the fish more and subject it to more stress to get the barbed hook out. The more you handle and stress a fish, the less the likelihood of its survival.

 

2. Fishermen who fish barbed hooks usually do so because they believe barbed hooks decrease their chances of "losing" the fish. Therefore, to fish barbed is to say, effectively, that it's more important to us to get to land and touch the fish than it is to give the fish its best shot at surviving the encounter, HOWEVER...

 

3. You could also make the argument that if the fish's survival was truly our top priority, we wouldn't be fishing for them at all, because even the most skillfully played and released fish still goes through the stress of being hooked and fought, which decreases its chances for survival. THEREFORE...

 

4. Since all catch-and-release fishermen--no matter how great their desire to see the fish survive--still fish, we each must have a rationale that we carry around that spells out to just what degree it's acceptable to endanger a fish's life in order to allow us to have our fun. For some of us, that means barbed hooks, for some barbless, for some (as you pointed out) hookless, and who knows what else? For me, it means barbless hooks except on the few occasions when I forget to crimp the barb. It also means breaking or cutting the line if I hook a fish that's too big and strong to be landed quickly with the tackle I'm using.

 

Finally --and I can't stress this enough--this is just my opinion. It's what I've decided feels right for me. As long as they're not breaking the law, I have no issue with what other people do. I might not like what they do, but I don't feel that my way is superior. It's just what allows me to keep fishing with a relatively clear conscience.

[SilverCreek 0]

Finally --and I can't stress this enough--this is just my opinion. It's what I've decided feels right for me. As long as they're not breaking the law, I have no issue with what other people do. I might not like what they do, but I don't feel that my way is superior. It's just what allows me to keep fishing with a relatively clear conscience.

 

Here's the rub.

 

There are still fisheries with barbless only regulations presumably to preserve the fishery. My problem with that is that the modern fishery research has shown that barbless regulations have no advantage over regulations that allow barbed hooks.

 

For example, in my state of Wisconsin we have a special early season that is C&R only. When the research came out that barbless had no effect on overall trout populations, our DNR asked for our state council of TU to support removal of the barbless regulation. Fly fishers were unnecessarily being fined for forgetting to pinch down their barbs.

 

Now that barbless only regulation has ben removed with no harm to the fishery, our wardens can check for poachers rather than check barbs on hooks. Common sense should reign.

 

If there were no barbless only regulations, I would agree with you. Let us use all legal means. The problem occurs when the laws are based on false beliefs and outdated prejudices.

 

The basis for sound fishery and hunting regulations are to preserve the resource and to manage resource populations. The fact is that the 0.3% difference in hooking mortality between barbed and barbless hooks (mean hooking mortality was 4.5% for barbed hooks and 4.2% for barbless hooks) makes no difference when natural mortality is 30% - 65% in the average trout population.

 

Natural trout mortality is very high and the difference between using barbed and barbless hooks simply has no impact, even when fish are caught multiple times in a season.

 

So I say remove unnecessary regulations and let the game wardens spend their time on enforcing regulations that do make a difference such as bag limits and undersized fish harvesting.

 

I believe that all regulations should have a well defined purpose and that there should be evidence that the purpose is accomplished.

 

Any fishing regulation requires enforcement and fines and/or punishment. Regulations place a burden both on the public and the wardens. Therefore, regulations that cannot and have not been demonstrated to be of benefit beyond their cost, should not be enacted. I submit that barbless hook regulations are an example of just that type of regulation.

 

Finally, personal freedoms are important, even small ones. Barbless hook regulations are an unnecessary abridgment of a personal choice. I am not asking anyone to give up their ability to choose a barbless hook, but mandatory barbless regulations ask others to give up their ability to choose a barbed hook. Therefore it is incumbent that it be shown that barbed hooks significantly reduce fish populations over barbless hooks. One must not abridge another's personal freedom on the basis of an opinion or a personal preference.

 

There has been ample time to provide such proof, and none has been forthcoming. If barbless hooks were effective, there would be ample published evidence that the institution of barbless regulations improved fish populations. In the absence of convincing evidence that barbless is better than barb, there is no reason to place a restriction on hook type.

 

My belief is that the members of this BB are logical and believe in rationality and the scientific method. A strong interest in fly tying attracts analytical people. Hence, it surprises me that some choose not to believe the science and hold onto a belief that has been demonstrated scientifically incorrect. I believe this is an example of cognitive dissonance in which the intellect must bring the two conflicting views into agreement. Thus the stance that the science is correct but just not in "my" case.

 

"Cognitive dissonance theory warns that people have a bias to seek consonance among their cognitions. According to (Leon) Festinger, we engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which he said could be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors."

 

Hence the view that the barbless hook research is either flawed or does not apply to my case. The view that the research does not apply is a fallacious argument called special pleading. This is the view that the general research may be correct, but my case is special and is exempt from the general rule.

 

I was taught and also once believed that barbless hooks preserved the fishery. Everyone said and so it must be so; and it is a perfectly reasonable belief. It had to be so.

 

But as a physician and scientist, I must choose between reason and research or an unproven but seeming obvious belief. To reduce my own cognitive dissonance, I did what Leon Festinger predicted, I decided to believe the research and to discard the barbless hook theory.

 

Two conflicting beliefs cannot be correct. In the absence of evidence for the barbless hook theory and the presence of evidence for the contrary view, I chose to believe what has been demonstrated as true.

[williamhj 0]

Based on what Silver writes there may not be a reason for using barbless when it comes to fish mortality. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary seems tough to argue against.

 

However, I'll generally use barbless based on 1) ease of removing from myself and my clothing 2) ease or removing from my net when fishing multiple flies and 3) I generally can release a fish more quickly, often without handling. Whether or not this improves fish survival it simplifies the process for me.

[Bryon Anderson 0]

Based on what Silver writes there may not be a reason for using barbless when it comes to fish mortality. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary seems tough to argue against.

 

However, I'll generally use barbless based on 1) ease of removing from myself and my clothing 2) ease or removing from my net when fishing multiple flies and 3) I generally can release a fish more quickly, often without handling. Whether or not this improves fish survival it simplifies the process for me.

+1. Well said.

[SilverCreek 0]

I also agree with the above. If you hook yourself or your clothing, barbless is better. I use a rubber net so I have no problems there.

 

One of the reasons that I am so passionate about barbless hook regulations is the deep seated prejudice that has been ingrained into fly fishers by years of hearing that barbless hooks preserve trout fisheries. I was among those who believed this was true, How could it not be so? Once I read the what modern fisheries research has discovered, I changed my mind. I can remember the moment this happened.

 

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 article I quoted from 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."

 

In response to the failure of the anglers in the State of Idaho to follow the recommendations of their own staff, Dr. Robert Behnke wrote this editorial on pg. 56 in the Fall 2007 issue of TU's Trout magazine.

 

It is titled "Trading Stubborness for Science" and discusses the barbless hook fallacy. 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……"

 

My primary concerns are the public fisheries which are paid for by public tax revenues and fishing licenses. My position is that restrictions should have a scientific biologic basis or be based on related issues such as public safety. Otherwise sportsmen and women should be left to enjoy the resource as they wish.

 

There are many fisheries in the USA that have barbless hook regulations based on the mistaken premise that it maintains the carrying capacity of the fishery. Fines are levied on fishermen who forget to de-barb their hooks and time is wasted by wardens checking the flies to see if they are de-barbed. This is a waste of the warden's time and the public trust. They should be pursuing violations that actually make a difference.

 

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.

 

In a very real sense, these are well meaning but totally ignorant and arrogant fishers who fail to understand that our fisheries would be better protected if wardens did not have to check the barbs on hooks.

[Flyunder 0]

Nut shelled:

Easy in, easy out, of everything.

I've been using pinched down barbs for so long that I don't even think about.

[rainbow27 0]

the hook penetraits deeper and faster and comes out easier but you may lose more fish. Btw i am new to this fourm can somone tell me how to start my own topic

[mikechell 0]

the hook penetraits deeper and faster and comes out easier but you may lose more fish. Btw i am new to this fourm can somone tell me how to start my own topic

Click into the forum you wish to post in, I.E. "Fly Fishing" or "Beginners".

Once there, at the upper right hand corner, you'll see a box that says, "Start a new topic".

[Sundance 0]

The "scientific" evidence in this debate is of only marginal value. Experienced, skilled people can release a fish with minimal damage with either type of hook. Inexperienced, careless people can damage a fish no matter what they use. That said, barbless hooks are much easier and faster to get out and can be extracted without ever having to touch the fish or keep it out of the water. Nor do they cause fewer fish to be landed.

 

But a really good reason to use them... check out the display board at the hospital in Ennis, MT to see all the stuff the doc there has taken out of fisher people and then add that to all of the torn clothing guides have from clients who cannot cast and the answer should be obvious.

[Simplejack 0]

I have had little pan fish and little trout die from not being able to get the hook out with a barb. Not fly, but standard hooks from gear fishing. Depending on where the hook is set into the fish, it just doesn't wanna come out..

[flytire 0]

Btw i am new to this fourm can somone tell me how to start my own topic

[bassmaster876 0]

barbless hooks allow the hook to be removed easier and cause less damage to the fish .

if you were to hook yourself its much easier to remove the hook.

there has been specualtion that barbless hooks make it easier for the fish to unhook itself but if u keep the line tight u have nothing to worry about

[JSzymczyk 0]

add that to all of the torn clothing guides have from clients who cannot cast and the answer should be obvious.

 

Oh good God OF COURSE, we should all lose sleep over the pristine sanctity of the guide's clothing!

 

Holy s***. Not that I'll EVER again pay my hard earned money to fish with a "guide", but that comment makes me want to start leaving the barbs on my flies again.

[flyderaght 0]

It is a personal choice that fishers make. I like barbless and the it was mandatory in BC when I was out there made no difference. I have lost very few fish using them. I have even used them in the salt and caught 30-40 pd halibut. you just have to keep the pressure on em.

marc

[afraid not 0]

This is probably the wrong place to wade in with my first post, so, based on two other comments I have deleted it.