Barbes vs barbless

[Torsten]

Paul,

I've read several studies about this subject. In most is only a small difference in hook mortality between barbed/barbless hooks cited. One example:

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... cial_Issue

"[..] 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. [..]"

The reason why I'm fishing barbless is rather self protection, I've hooked myself once with a pike fly - was happy to use barbless hooks.

[Paul Arden]

It’s not only about mortality for me Torsten, it also has to do with damage to the fish’s mouth. For example it’s really not nice to have lips ripped off. 4.5% is very high incidentally. If you take the Ribnik as an example some days there might be 1000 fish caught. That should result in the death of 45 fish. Multiply that by a month and that’s 1350 fish killed. Of course you see the occasional dead fish on any river but it’s the exception not the rule. There are a lot of factors that need taking into account. One of the main ones in the case of gamefish and particularly trout is the amount of time the fish is out of the water. Barbed hooks increase that time, maybe not enough to kill them, but really our goal should be the least harm possible. Temperature is another important factor as indeed length of fight and overall handling.

I know of fish that have been caught 20-30 times in a season. If they’re getting a ~5% mortality rate in their sampling then there is a problem somewhere. Possibly the water is warm, or the fish are being held out the water for too long - maximum should be 2 seconds done properly - or possibly there is a problem with how they are then monitoring the fish. Putting a fish in a cage is going to be different to putting the fish back to his normal environment.

I’ve caught about 50,000 fish in my life. While I know that I have accidentally killed fish in the process of fishing for them, I would be extremely surprised if I’ve killed 2,500 of them and I think I would have seen more dead ones as a result.

Some rivers I have seen large numbers of dead fish. White River and Little Red in Arkansas I saw large numbers of dead fish. However there they allow power bait fishing and the fish are often not handled well. Now in that river I would not be surprised at all if the mortality was 5% or even higher.

Cheers, Paul

[Graeme H]

4.5% is very high incidentally. If you take the Ribnik as an example some days there might be 1000 fish caught. That should result in the death of 45 fish. Multiply that by a month and that’s 1350 fish killed.

I think you missed the message there Paul. The difference cited is 0.3%.

So in your example, using barbless hooks still results in 1260 fish killed. 1260 fish is still a significant number so following logic, we should stop fishing for sport. (I don't agree with this last statement .... )

Cheers,
Graeme

[Paul Arden]

I was approximating, Graeme

We just don’t see those numbers of dead fish in the water. Dead fish are pretty easy to see. Trout turn upside down and have white bellies. On a hard fished river it would be impossible to miss them. Every pool would have a few of them.

Cheers, Paul

[Torsten]

Paul,

there are lots of independent studies with similar results - mortality between 1-18% depending on the conditions. I'm guessing that's unavoidable - but in nature there are losses related to other factors such as predation. As long as the recruitment is high enough this shouldn't be a problem.

[Paul Arden]

Hi Torsten,

1-18% is a massive difference. I once came across a bonefish study that claimed 100% mortality for all fish caught after a month. I agree there are a lot of factors involved and if the result was 4.5% then I would want to know why and more details. I would really be trying to get that down to 1% as a more acceptable figure. I have had a few fish keel over on me. One in particular I remember quite clearly. I caught it at night, it went back fine, but we found it dead in the morning - as I say, finding them dead is pretty obvious, particularly in crystal clear NZ water. That fish was very lean and not healthy so he wasn’t in good shape when I caught him.

Anyway I actually do agree that barbed hooks do not result in a significantly higher mortality than barbless. The reasons for fishing them IMO is that they cause less damage when removing them, removal time is quicker, if the fish breaks off it’s easier for it to spit the hook out afterwards, I think we hook more fish and of course if we hook ourselves it’s much less painful to remove. I once had a boat partner hook himself under his fingernail with a barbed hook. He got it out eventually but he didn’t seem to enjoy it much at the time and he complained about it even after he got the hook out. It was really quite distracting.

I fished barbed hooks for close to 20 years and barbless for 25. It’s just so easy to remove a barbless hook. With small fish you don’t even have to touch them. It’s much better all round, instead of having to extract a barbed hook the barbless just nudges out, in fact numerous times it falls out in the net on its own accord.

The main cause of mortality in trout is a result of asphyxiation. I can’t remember where I came across the study, but 20 seconds out the water big problem for the fish. 40 seconds and you’ve probably signed its death warrant. With a barbless hook you don’t have to remove the fish from the water to unhook them and if you want a quick photo, 1 second out the water and you’re done. Fishing barbless hooks IMO allows us to return fish in the absolute best way possible.

That’s how I see it anyway. From the stuff I see on YouTube or on lakes, there really does need to be some proper education on how to release fish in the best possible way. Many seem to care more about the photo than the fish and that’s wrong.

Cheers, Paul

[queenfish]

I use barbless
What pisses me off is some tv fishing programs they hold the fish with lures hanging of the fishes mouth
telling you stories while holding the fish.
I have no words for it.

[Geenomad]

Another barbless angler here. Good for fish, good for anglers. A couple of years back in Tassie a guy wandered into camp with a barbed fly stuck in his ear. He had tried several other boats and camper groups and they knocked him back. Took it out on an all-care-no-responsibility basis complete with betadine and bandaid. Gave him back the fly and suggested that squashing the barbs would be a good idea. He gave me a funny look.

Vince. Yep. The handling of fish on TV shows is another of those "don't get me started" topics.

Cheers
Mark

[Boisker]

I was using barbless hooks coarse fishing in the UK in my early teens (early 80’s)....
I was amazed when I started flyfishing 10 yrs ago, after a 20 year break from fishing that there was still any debate.
You don’t lose more fish and they are easier & quicker to unhook, they often unhook themselves if you let the line go slack....

[Mangrove Cuckoo]

Years back I did an experiment between barbed and barbless (smashed barb) hooks, specifically for "landing" small tarpon. I counted the number of fish brought to the canoe versus the number of fished hooked. I did it for lots of ten, to make getting a round percentage number simpler. I did this test a number of times, which is easy to do during the summertime.

With a barb I could bring close to 70% of the fish to the canoe, without the barb it was usually 30 - 40. Small tarpon are extremely acrobatic and shake their heads violently in the air. Having a barb definitely helps keep them hooked.

Consequently, I do not use barbed hooks for small tarpon as I am not concerned about numbers to hand, but I am concerned about the fish.

However, if I take someone out who has never "caught" a tarpon on fly I will suggest they use a barbed hook for the first one as it shortens the time involved. After that they have to go barbless.

There is another species around here that is similarly acrobatic, the tarpon's genetic cousin called a ladyfish. They are a lot of fun in their own right, but they are seriously more delicate and tend to inhale flies deeper. Barbed hooks for these great little battlers is almost a sin.

As far as other species I do not see any benefit for a barbed hooks on catch rates, in fact all is see are the negatives.

Anyone want to discuss the use of circle hooks in flies? I did some experiments with them too... and personally do not use them today. But I know others who do,and swear there are advantages to circle hooks in certain conditions that I seldom encounter, but apparently some others on SL do.