Barbed Hooks

[Rob Hale]

IMHO a far bigger factor is anglers not taking care in playing the fish correctly and "hauling" the fish in.

I've only ever heard of the "reports" into barbed vs barbless and never seen any conclusive evidence.

In the most part, the "evidence" seems to consist of comparisons between hard-fished commercial runs waters fished by inexperienced anglers and low density specimen waters fished by far more experienced anglers where fish are caught far less frequently.

I've had my fair share of fish over the years and used barbless almost exclusively. None of the fish I've caught have had mouth damage from the hookhold.

In my experience & IMHO, the real motivator for anglers to use barbed hooks is to reduce the number of fish lost. Personally, I am far more concerned that if the end tackle fails, the fish can shed the hook almost immediately.

Always willing to change my opinions though if someone has an actual copy of the report they would be kind enough to share with me?

 

[Graham Whatmore]

"Always willing to change my opinions though if someone has an actual copy of the report they would be kind enough to share with me?"

I suppose you would keep that alongside the scientific evidence that says barbless are less damaging to fish?

 

[Cakey]

modern hooks being ultra sharp could be the cause of a lot of probs i.e. a hook pricks a carps mouth and makes it run the hook wont of gone in and out if you know what I mean so to me this is the point when damage can get done
a hard strike the hook is going to cut like a knife .....whereas a lift in to it is not going to do the same damage
I just think that modern hooks and rigs striking is obsolete as such.....not like the turkey I saw the other day who not only struck real hard but was going backwards up the bank at the same time then said "missed it !" no more like pulled straight out leaving another damaged mouth

p.s. only my opinion and I would rather lose or "miss " a fish than think Im doing damage to a fish

 

[Rob Hale]

Graham Whatmore said "I suppose you would keep that alongside the scientific evidence that says barbless are less damaging to fish?"

If you re-read my post Graham you may notice I'm not saying I think they do less or more damage. I'm simply stating that I've seen no evidence and I'd rather be fishing with a hook I know the fish can shed instantly if the line breaks or if it gets snagged. I'm presuming you don't have access to the document and are simply making the same conclusions on, IMO, misleading evidence.

I think Cakey has hit the nail on the head, I would also add to this the factor of the ever increasing B.S of line and hooklinks which gives some anglers more confidence to put more pressure on.

Anyway, just my 2p's worth - Graham - if you do have the report I'd very much like to read it.

 

[Graham Whatmore]

Non whatsoever Rob mainly because there isn't any. Looking back my post was a bit abrupt but I didn't intend it to be, sorry.

It is a matter of choice which you use, given the choice I happen to think that barbed are less damaging to fish whilst acknowledging that they are harder to remove for the inexperienced but it isn't that much of an art to learn how to remove them safely.

Barbless are a blessing though when the hook is ejected by the fish as it goes in the landing net and gets caught up, incidently have you noticed how often that happens when using a barbless hook and just shows how easily a fish can eject a barbless hook.

 

[Alan Tyler]

Re Cakey's point, in the 1970s, VMC made a barbless hook with a knife point.(I think Geoff Bucknall imported them for the first "New wave" of pole anglers). Unfortunately, the "Blade" part was on the inside of the bend, and after a couple of cuts to the inside of roach's mouths, I stopped using them. A great shame; they were the first "sticky sharp" hooks I ever met. I was tempted to try un-tempering them and bending them back the other way, but never did.
Modern chemically sharpened hooks are round in section, so I don't think that's the cause - unless it's down to the strength of modern carp tackle.

 

[Phil Heaton]

I believe that other elements of the tackle should be considered as well as the hooks we use. The hook damage I have observed on a water that I fish regularly is definatley on the increase and I am certain that barbless hooks are not the culprit.
One of the lakes has a decent head of good sized tench present and it attracts anglers wanting to catch 'big' fish. Due to the high weed levels many of the anglers fish with carp gear or strong margin poles and 20+ elastics so that fish can be pulled free if they get weeded up. This results in tears where the hooks have been pulled free, this sort of damage would occurr irrespective of being barbed or not.
Probably a bigger factor in a hook being able to tear along a fishes mouth is its diameter, the smaller diameters will obviously cut easier as there is a smaller surface area in contact.

 

[Clive (Compact Angler ACA)]

Sorry but this promises to be a long post!!!!

The points put forward by you all make a great deal of sense but do not draw one to any firm conclusion. Having re-read your comments and those of Graham Marsden in a perevious thread. I have spent a good few hours on the internet over the last couple of days trying to find qualified structured opinion on the matter and no matter where I look the story is the same a 50/50 split in opinion.


I think that the only piece of research I have read so far is the following. American I know but still a qualified and rational argument.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 1997;17:873?881

Barbed Hook Restrictions in Catch-and-Release Trout Fisheries: A Social Issue
D. J. SCHILL and R. L. SCARPELLA

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 1414 East Locust Lane, Nampa, Idaho 83686, USA

Abstract.?We summarized results of past studies that directly compared hooking mortality of resident (nonanadromous) salmonids caught and released with barbed or barbless hooks. Barbed hooks produced lower hooking mortality in two of four comparisons with flies and in three of five comparisons with lures. Only 1 of 11 comparisons resulted in statistically significant differences in hooking mortality. In that instance, barbless baited hooks caused significantly less mortality than barbed hooks, but experimented design concerns limited the utility of this finding. Mean hooking mortality rates from past lure studies were slightly higher for barbed hooks than barbless ones, but the opposite was true for flies. For flies and lures combined, mean hooking mortality was 4.5% for barbed hooks and 4.2% for barbless hooks. Combination of test statistics from individual studies by gear type via meta-analysis yielded nonsignificant results for barbed versus barbless flies, lures, or flies and lures combined. We conclude that the use of barbed or barbless flies or lures plays no role in subsequent mortality of trout caught and released by anglers. Because natural mortality rates for wild trout in streams commonly range from 30% to 65% annually, a 0.3% mean difference in hooking mortality for the two hook types is irrelevant at the population level, even when fish are subjected to repeated capture. Based on existing mortality studies, there is no biological basis for barbed hook restrictions in artificial fly and lure fisheries for resident trout. Restricting barbed hooks appears to be a social issue. Managers proposing new special regulations to the angling public should consider the social costs of implementing barbed hook restrictions that produce no demonstrable biological gain.

I told you this was going to be a long post!!!

Ok lets say that the article is accurate. If we are going to avoid damaging fish then surely we have to look further than the barb to find an answer to the problem.

Some interesting points for discussion are:-

1, Circle hooks - no striking and 95% self hooking and only in the jaw area.

2, hook size - what is the point of using a size 20 hook to catch a fish that can swallow a bait the size of your fist.

3, Striking - possibly the most abused action in fishing and can rip the hell out of the fish.

4, Fine wire hooks - do these cut into the fish's flesh more tham heavier hooks.

5, Disgorging - whoever said that you should not try to disgorge a swallowed hook because if you cut it off the fish will simply shed it. Every fish biology report that I have read recently says that this is piffle and that the hook should be removed if the fish is to survive (back to the barbed or barbless hook argument again.

What should we be really looking at here. barbed or barbless hooks or taking a more generalised and rational look at the tools we use to catch and often damage fish?

Clive

 

[BAZ (Angel of the North)]

I don't strike into any of my fish when the baitrunner goes off, and this is useing ordinary hooks and running leads. Or when quivertipping on the river. I find they are already hooked.

In answer to Nigels earlier question. Some clubs allow barbed hooks to be crushed down, and then they are deemed as barbless, as long as you can stick the hook in a pullover or something similar without the point getting caught in the weave.

 

[stikflote]

BAZ
i never find the fish hooked themselves, when quiver tipping ,so what am i doing wrong ? an honest answer may help me put a few more fish in the net ,,,,,,,thankyou

 

[BAZ (Angel of the North)]

an honest answer may help me put a few more fish in the net

So what you are saying is that I am dishonest then?

 

[BAZ (Angel of the North)]

Here we go then.
When you get a bite when quiver tipping on a river, the rod will bend almost double. That tells me that the hook has penetrted the fish's lips otherwise i twould simply spit the bait out. I just lift the rod and don't strike when this happens.

The same when fishing a baitrunner on a stillwater. When the reel is churning away, again the fish is aobviously already hooked, so I gently lift the rod, no striking is needed as you see a lot of people do.

 

[Chevin]

Alan Tyler says

*I was tempted to try un-tempering them and bending them back the other way, but never did.
Modern chemically sharpened hooks*

Un-tempering hooks would only make them more brittle because you would have to harden them again. The process of tempering is to reduce the hardness/brittleness of a metal. If you want to make them softer simply heat them to red heat and let them cool. That process is called annealing.

Chemically sharpened hooks are good if there is a chance that a fish may escape with a hook in its mouth. They corrode very quickly and will rust right through at the thinnest point - where the barb is - in a very short space of time. When fishing for stingrays mates of mine and I use chemically sharpened hooks because we often have to cut the fish free rather than risk dealing with them. In salt water those chemically sharpened hooks only last a few days!

 

[Ray Daywalker Clarke]

stikflote,

If you up stream ledger you will find the fish hook themselves 99% of the time.

 

[Gary Dolman]

With my origins being in match fishing I have always used barbless, on the principal that it is much quicker & easier to unhook fish, clothing & nets, which are all encontered during most sessions.

By far the biggest factor IMHO is frequency of capture. There are many more specialist anglers fishing for large fish of every species, and because of efficient self hooking rigs, and longer hours spent in pursuit, more fish are hooked and landed.

Combine that with 15lb line and 2.75lb test curve rods, the pressure on the fishes mouths is significantly increased.

Perhaps a move to lighter more balanced tackle, coupled with smaller hooks, and lighter lines could be a positive move. I personally am appalled by the proliferation of adverts for hook & haul gear for huge nets of commercial carp, and this in itself cannot be good for the image of the "sport"

 

[Andy "the Dog" Nellist (SAA) (ACA)]

The best restriction of these fisheries would be to restrict the breaking strain of the hook i.e. allow anglers to only use hooks that will open at a maximum of say 6lbs pressure.

 

[Gav Barbus]

I would definatly go along with the argument that it is the strenght of tackle being used, rods and lines that has got alot to do with mouth damage especially with tench as Phil pointed out.It is the hit and haul that does all the damage I was once tench fishing at close range and with ample tackle to stop the fish and just for once I did stop the fish in its tracks the result was a damaged mouth pretty conclusive evidence for me not to do the same again,Clattercotes boards adds more weight to the argument as well.

 

[Cakey]

Dont be silly Andy ........they would have to learn to play a fish then !