Barbed vs. barbless

[OregonSalmon]

Since my four year absence from the Oregon coast the regulations have changed from barbless only to allowing barbs. The rational is that barbed hooks do less damage than a barbless hook. Something about penetrating less deep. Seems like a load to me and it ignores the extra damage done releasing the fish (can't keep the wild boys even in this heathen packed area) so I can't understand this great leap backward.
Does anyone out there know why Fish and Wildlife would do this? Sure a mystery to my noggin'. I'll figure this one out right after I find Jimmy Hoffa!!!

[Darian]

Hey Galen,.... It appears that Oregon is not the only State involved in that particular devolution..... :(

Down somewhere in the bowels of this forum is a topic concerning a study to determine the efficacy of regulations regarding landing of fish on barbless/barbed hooks by the California DFG.... (couldn't find it earlier but it's there). 8) DFG said they wanted to consider whether they should change the regs to allow increased use of barbed hooks.... :? :?

Kinda sounds like change for change sake but there has to be an internal desire to do this.... Soooo,.... :? :? :?

[Eyecatch Tinytrout]

Barbless hooks do more damage than barbed? Say what?! What could their motivation be for making policy using such an obvious falsehood?

[bubzilla]

We have a patchwork of barbless regulations here in Oregon, actually. And, I once read that a huge percentage of the citations given to anglers in the state are related to the use of barbed hooks where barbless are required. So it’s always wise to check the current regulations before fishing.

Most of the stuff I’ve ever read, as I’m sure is the case for everyone else here, has suggested that barbless hooks decrease catch-and-release mortality by reducing handling time and by reducing tissue damage. But I guess there’s some evidence that barbless hooks can penetrate more deeply; potentially piercing into gill rakers, eyes, and even the brain--particularly with smaller salmonid.

My sneaky suspicion is that the regulation changes in Oregon allowing barbed hooks in places where they were once prohibited, especially on anadromous fisheries, has far more to do with placating complaints by some anglers than anything else. Unfortunately, this state has a real track record of doing that. If you’re a persistent and whiney enough special interest in this state, you can generally get your way. You’d think that after the experience with our big game herds of the last fifty years, members on the Commission would realize that the natural and probable consequences of letting well organized special interests push for regulation changes irrespective of what science might suggest are frequently disastrous. But I guess not.

As an aside that's related to changes in regulations to satisfly special interests, there was recently a successful effort by a group of gear guides to extend the bait boundary downstream on the Upper Rogue after November 1 of each year. Despite undeniable evidence--based on virtually every scientific study of the issue for decades--that fishing with bait increases catch-and-release mortality substantially, the Game Commission adopted the extended bait allowance on a fishery where release of native steelhead is mandatory. Hopefully some of you California guys that like to come up and fish the Rogue during the fly season–and the period immediately after–will be vocal opponents when the same group of guides attempts to extend the bait section further in upcoming years. A few of them have even begun grumbling about the fly season itself in a more public manner. And while I personally don’t support fly fishing only regulations as a general proposition, restrictions on the use of bait–and even artificial lures in some circumstances–has a well-documented conservation effect.

[jbird]

Well said Grant...as always :)

[Darian]

If I understand the info I've received from DFG correctly, the study is to establish whether use of barbed hooks makes any difference in landing a fish; Not hooking it. 8) The info derived will determine if the Regs should be amended to allow increased use of barbed hooks for those that want to use them. :?

I read that to mean that some waters that require use of barbless hooks now, will be changed to allow use of barbed hooks. :? Since this change does not attempt to assess damage to fish that are hooked, it follows that dfg, also, will change catch limits for those waters in order to allow people to keep the fish that're unreleasable due to injury.... 8)

Then it really becomes a matter of conscience whether fish are kept or not. 8) 8)

[OregonSalmon]

Real science takes a backseat to politics these days, that's for sure. The change back to barbs smells as bad as what the old smelly dog at my feet just released. If it is damage to the gill or brain, how about a size hook regulation? Since I'm a Liberal Democrat and Love Big Government how about doing a catch and release class to each person buying a license. Hey, there are hunter safety classes. I know, won't fly, so I'll stick with trying to get barbless back.
Durn it, if the guides can lobby for something bad, I know a few tree huggin', poor smellin', Grateful Dead lovin' buggers who can speak up. Led by a drunken Irishman who loves fish, I think we might make a difference. Usually people cave to my thinking just to get me out the door, so the facts would be the other barrel in my shotgun of truth, justice and least harm to our swimmin' pals.
My motto: "if it don't make no sense, get incensed"!!! Speaking of incense....damn that dog.

[alaskanfish]

Your battle for barbless hooks is similar to many we fight here in Alaska. We call it "ballot box biology." For example, wolves are very efficient killing machines as far as moose and caribou are concerned. The way to help maintain a stable population of moose and caribou is to control the wolf population (which by the way were imported in many areas of the state and are not a naturally indigenous predator). However, many (who I will say like to hug trees and bunnies...) started a campaign to save the cute, furry wolves, petitioned the voters on the premise that these poor defenseless creatures were being wiped from the face of the globe, and got this initiative on the ballot to ban wolf hunting from an airplane (which by the way is probably the only effective way to manage wolves). This initiative passed in spite of sound biology. And to make matters worse, my tax dollars were spent to perform surgical sterilization on these wild animals (another way to control the population)...How preposterous is that?!?!

O.K. I'll step off of the soap box. I am a supporter of barbless hooks for C&R, particularly for trout and grayling (even as a guide). Studies after studies have shown that the post release mortality is greatly reduced with barbless hooks. I have seen (guided and unguided) fishers struggling to release a fish caught with a barb, that resulted in extended times out of the water, extensive handling, and tangles in nets. Most of this is avoidable with barbless hooks.

Let the biological research speak for itself. Let the fish and game managers do the work that we are paying them for... that is to make decisions based on facts, not emotions.

By the way, I use barbed hooks for salmon. I don't know of anyone (on the Kenai or other areas of Alaska) who is using barbless. I find that salmon have an uncanny ability to spit the hook, even with barbs. The depth of the hook set (an argument used for barbed hooks) has never been an issue with these fish.

[jbird]

I am an avid outdoorsman and support hunting and fishing whole heartedly. I dont know the ins and outs of the wolf population/problem in alaska, but shooting them from an airplane sounds more like population control than hunting. IMHO.

I totaly agree with the barbless thing. There have been a lot of times Ive been having a good day on the water where there werent barbless regs. After a few fish I start pinching barbs and man what a difference, upon landing a fish, the hook comes out 10 times easier, with no noticable change in the hook/land ratio. Also when fishing small delicate flies, your fly lasts 10 times longer too. A LOT of damage is done to your fly trying to free it from a fishs' jaw. Also a thing to consider is how much easier a fish can expell your hook if he steals the fly.

Jbird

[sculpin]

Jbirds right about the hooks being easy to remove from fish with the barbs pinched. The heck with the fish ,how about guests or yourself. I am the worst for remembering to pinch barbs. Both Jbird and Bubz got nailed unhooking fish for me last year. On Jbird I didn't remember to pinch the barb when he got nailed. He was tough and pushed it through. Now Bubzilla was a different story. I had pinched it but the barb broke and left a burr that I didn't notice and he was hooked in a more tender spot of the hand. He was squeeling like a pig before I got it out.At least he didn't pass out or piss himself although I may have noticed a tear or two. Boy is he going to be pissed when he reads this. :D :D The bad thing is now they each owe me one and I don't know when it's going to happen.

Mark

[Darian]

Hey Sculpin,.... Just hope it doesn't happen when you're down here fishin' in the Delta. Those flies are all 1/0 and larger.... :lol: :lol: :wink:

[alaskanfish]

Jbird,

You are absolutely correct. It is most certainly population control. Wild game is so important to many who live in Alaska, not only for hunting, but for subsistence. The wolves are so effective at killing moose and caribou, particularly in the deep snow, that they can literally decimate a stable herd in a winter. When the wolves eat good they make more wolves.

Besides hunting with an airplane (by the way an airplane is often considered the family car in Alaska, particularly in the bush), there is not an effective way to keep the wolf population in check. Sure there are trappers who find marginal success at best, and then the sport hunters who may, if they are extremely lucky, see one wolf during hunting season. That is why the biologists were left with the option of surgical sterilization of wild animals...

Don't get me wrong, I love to see wolves in the wild. They are majestic and mysterious. Nevertheless, they need to be controlled.

Now that being said, my main point was simply the fallacy of ballot box biology and how this emotion based management system will change the way we enjoy our sport.

Just look at the posts on this forum related to PETA and their views of fishing. Who are they targeting? Our children! Who will be voters before we know it. They are trying to convince our kids first of all that sport fishing is cruel and secondly that eating fish is poisonous....neither of which is based on biological facts, but rather emotions and special interests.

The fact that for no better reason than to placade the special interest groups (guides in this case?), the fish and game managers went contrary to logic and biological studies to allow for barbed hooks in a catch and release area is simply bad management.

[bubzilla]

He was squeeling like a pig before I got it out.At least he didn't pass out or piss himself although I may have noticed a tear or two.

How do you know I didn't piss myself? :lol: As I recall someone, who shall remain nameless, had to use both hands, a lot of pressure, and a pair of rusty needlenose pliers to push the fly all the way through the palm of my hand so that he cold cut then end of the hook off. I don't think said perpetrator of pain even offered me a cold beer afterwards. Geeze. :lol: That's why I was crying!

[jbird]

Mark

If I recall correctly, you audibly warned me about the trailer fly and I went "Duh, I know........yeeeeeeeoooooowwwww!!!!" Now, as the story plays back in my head of you and Grant, the scenario was identical. :lol:

J

[OregonSalmon]

Other than thinking about the fish, there are some human side benefits to barbless which you boys have pointed out. My idea, and possibly the only smart thing I do, is to pinch the barb before that hook even takes a look at the vise. Three times I've sunk a barbed hook into my thin skin and didn't enjoy the experience once. Not once. To the best of my recollection, it SUCKED everytime!!! My surgical gear was fly tying scissors, my anasthic <sp.) was beer, and my talent did not come out of the Stanford Medical School. Self surgery is no fun, even with a case of beer.
Thanks for all the info on those basterd barbed hooks. Think I may do some lobbying for a change back to reasonable. My strategy: file a class action suit on behalf of the fish. Still a few of those around, and Fish and Wildlife has a rough estimate of the population. "Your Honor, my clients don't want money nor pity, just a bit of respect in the fight without having to dislodge a barbed hook...oh...and a freakin' place to have sex in the wild!!!
I didn't graduate from Stanford Law School either.