2013 Fishing Regs...no Note Of Barbless Hooks.

[Chadillac]

Just looking through the regs for 2013 and it has come to my attention that there is no mention of debarbing hooks. Although some may argue that barbs and no barbs have similar mortality rates, I have always been and always will be an advocate for no barbs on hooks as to reduce the trauma and for an easy hook removal. Im a pure C&R fisherman with a conservation attitude and frankly i'm a little miffed about barbs being reinstated.

 

Cheers,

 

Chad

 

[Hawgstoppah]

I got in trouble on another thread about this but I think it's not such a bad thing to be able to take your kids out and if they are having a lot of trouble to be able to tie on a barbed fly so they can see the odd fish they hook instead of getting frustrated and upset when they go 2 for 20. It's hard enough to keep their interest levels these days what with iPods and all the rest being there social life...

 

I will still use barbless for 99.9 % of my fishing. The other 0.1% will be my eight year old daughter and her horrible line control.

[Guest Wrecker]

Just looking through the regs for 2013 and it has come to my attention that there is no mention of debarbing hooks. Although some may argue that barbs and no barbs have similar mortality rates, I have always been and always will be an advocate for no barbs on hooks as to reduce the trauma and for an easy hook removal. Im a pure C&R fisherman with a conservation attitude and frankly i'm a little miffed about barbs being reinstated.

 

Cheers,

 

Chad

 

The fact remains that study after study shows no increase in fish mortality with barbed hooks.

 

There should be bait bans before barb bans, SRD had it backwards.

 

I believe (anecdotal) that increased fish mortality is caused by not bringing in a fish in a timely way, and the grip and grin photo op after the fact.

[dryfly]

There are two mentions in this year's regs.

 

Legaly there is no barbless law in Alberta anymore.

 

Minister's message Page 2

 

We have always valued the strong conservation ethic of Alberta’s anglers. This year, we are asking for your help by continuing to use barbless hooks while we evaluate options to address the barbless hook regulation.

 

Important Changes and Notices for 2013 Page 4

In 2012, during an amendment of the Alberta Fishery Regulations, 1998,
the Federal government inadvertently removed the provision prohibiting
the use of barbed hooks. This rendered the barbless-only requirement
when angling in Alberta unenforceable. The intent is to restore the
legislation at the earliest opportunity. Until this occurs, anglers are asked
to continue to voluntarily comply with the spirit and intent of the
barbless-only regulation and refrain from the use of barbed hooks.

[dutchie]

do what your heart tells ya is right

 

i think the handling of the fish after the catch is way more important then a hook thats barbed or de barbed , i see nothing wrong with taking a picture in my opinion , just not out of the water for 5 mins , and i also think taking your time to hold that fish in the water and make sure he's healthy and revived before just letting him go ,

 

it does make a diff , another good reason for a big net , let him rest up while you enjoy the moment

[Toirtis]

Three big things impact fish mortality:

 

1. Fish identification....most anglers suck at identifying fish, particularly young ones, so far more bulls, cutts, etc get harvested than should.

 

2. Fish handling...the brutality that a large percentage of anglers inflict on their catches is horrific.

 

3. Bait.

 

Honestly, I believe that all recipients of fishing licenses in Alberta should first pass a fish ID and handling test.....but then, I am silly and think that to vote in elections, you should know something about the parties and candidates, too. Honestly, if hunters need to pass courses/tests for licenses, there is no reason anglers should not.

[DaveJensen]

What ^^^Toirtis said^^^

 

If you know how to handle fish you can catch the same cutthroat trout 50 times in 10+ yrs and see it swim off happily enough. You can catch the same brown trout from the same shoreline bucket 15 times this coming season and anticipate seeing it again. Run your hand down the leader, grab the fly at the mouth, flip the fish upside down to settle the fish & take the fly out. Roll it for a quick pic or not, tuck into the current.

 

That said, the irony is on the NZ Forum over this season, a fellow was wondering how he could improve his landing % of hooked fish. More than one person said to go barbless to increase the landing % as the hook embeds deeper - as long as you kept tension the deep embedding will help keep you hooked up.

 

Many, many perspectives.

 

I am fully on the side of user decides if for no other reason than we're now going backwards and using finite resources squabbling over things that are of little conseqeunce and are truly a feel good issue. There are far, far more pressing issues in our fisheries than debating the 2-3% difference in hooking mortality as it pertains to 97% of our trout fisheries. Let's spend our time getting a fish ID test so bulls can be distinguished from brookies, let the COs actually enforce habitat issues, ensure TransAlta doesn't run rivers dry during brown trout spawning season, etc, etc.

[Chadillac]

i agree that the handling and identification of fish species is first and foremost when it comes to mortality rates. It was an observation worth noting as it was absent from the regulations we all follow. If i were to be stabbed in the mouth i would much prefer a sharp shiv as opposed to a barbed harpoon. It is personal choice for the time being, I agree.

[dryfly]

Preface: I had debarbed all FF hooks larger than about #12 for years before the barbless regs. Lots of folks were doing this. It made little sense to debarb a #18 midge dry or pupa hook. It sitll makes little sense.

 

We had all learned to live with barbless, but since the debate has been opened again why not discuss it? IMHO, it would be folly for ESRD to waste time re-implimenting the barbless reg that had no (or little) basis in the scientific literature anyway especialy compared to the effects of bait on fish nortality. That's why there has been a bait ban in a lot of mountain streams for decades. Our bios knew how destructive bait was to fish.

 

Barbless makes little sense when we consider that Alberta allows the use of bait where there are size limits in effect. Lakes containing pike are the most obvious example here. But way back when walleye all of a sudden "collapsed," many lakes had zero limit on walleye but of cousre bait was still allowed. The walleye dudes said they only tight lined so walleye never took the hooks deeply when they were using leeches on the bottom bouncers. Yeah, whatever.

 

Bait and zero limits or bait and size limits are a huge contradiction. But by God we had to debarb hooks.

 

How many of you know you can legally still use bait on the Crowsnest River? Yup, tis so. From the 2013 regs:

the river upstream of East Hillcrest Bridge ... l Aug. 16 to Oct. 31 – Trout limit 2; Cutthroat and Rainbow over 30 cm; Mountain Whitefish limit 5 over 30 cm; Maggots are the only bait allowed and only in the river.

 

You could put six maggots in a barbed #12 treble hook and fish legally in the Crowsnest River (as described above.) And if you caught a 28-cm rainbow on this rig you would have to release it. (That no one does this is not the point: the point is that it is legal.)

 

In Alberta, it is still legal to use bait (say) for pike when there are size limits which of course is utter nonsense and has always been since 1998 or so when the size limits for pike were put in place. I am not knocking the use of bait so much as knocking the fact that allowing bait in water where there are size limits is nonsense.

 

Yet, until recently (and for many years) all hooks had to be debarbed. I made the photo below years ago when the regs were changed and it exemplifies the idiocy of some of Alberta's fishing regulations. (Don't get me going on the "spring closure." Why am I still bitching about his nonsense after 15 years? A big WTF.)

 

This is a FF board, but the story below exemplifies some of the problems with fishing regs. And we can't blame ESRD/FMB staff. They are pressured by angling groups.

 

Here's how the "slack line" fishing method works. (Years ago this is how most bait anglers fished from shore in the Brooks area. I cannot say how widely it is used today.) An angler impaled a 8-inch smelt on a huge treble hook and tossed it out and fed out extra line so the line was slack. The angler would watch the line for movement and sometimes would attached a piece of flagging tape to the line. If they detected a pike taking the bait, they watched the line and waited until several feet of line had been taken out thus indicating the pike had swallowed the bait. Then they set the hook. If the pike was under 63 cm it had to be released. (Ever tried to removed a treble hook from the gullet of a pike? Without blood?) All legal. Unless of course the 5/0 treble had barbs ... well not any more.

 

The photo captions assumes that barbs are illegal.

[darrinhurst]

I will still continue to debarb my hooks. Regardless of what the regulations say.

[bcubed]

I will still continue to debarb my hooks. Regardless of what the regulations say.

Yup.

The amount of fish I've seen on the bow get absolutely man handled because joe guy forgot his forceps is appalling. And I guess we won't have to worry about those cutthroat around the Oldman to ever have mandibles anymore!

Screw the science (which is highly skewed), help the fish.

Hell, this reg was at least good in that it gave every CO a reason to come check what people were doing.

[Guest Grinr]

I have a hard time beleiving that mort rates are virtually the same with barbed vs. barbless,mainly because it's a no-brainer that removing barbed hooks from a fish one intends to release can be quite difficult at times,which means extra/excessive handling of said fish and the stress related mortality that inevetably accompanies poor handling/release techniques.

 

That said,while I'd support barbless regs for trebles,the fact that I flyfish only and never use trebles anyhow aside,I really doint see the point(no pun intended)in debarbing flies in smaller sizes?Problem is,both from a personal choice or from an enforcement standpoint,I'm not sure what size that barb/no barb cutoff size should be set at?I'd like to say #12 and smaller barbed makes little to no difference wutsoever,and fish are easily released from such small hooks.On the other hand,I've released hundreds upon hundreds of brookies from barbed #8 buggers,most of those without ever actually touching the fish,just slide hand down the leader,grab the fly shank,hold it with the bend skyward and shak'em off.

 

Bait is a no-brainer and should only be allowed on barbless hooks (if at all?)within put-and-take stocked lakes,and agree with previous posts,NEVER where there is size limits in place.

[Toirtis]

I will still continue to debarb my hooks. Regardless of what the regulations say.

As will I....make the hooks easier to remove from the fish (and myself), and if itt makes bringing a fish in a bit more difficult, it will hone my skills.

[Gil]

I've heard there are a number of studies that show jamming a big ass streamer in your hand with a barb is less painful than barbless. I've also heard of several studies which aren't worth the paper they were written on.

[Guest Wrecker]

funny how people only quote fact, cite studies and science when it furthers their personal beliefs.

 

Oh- and fish taken on a dead drifted nymph under a corkie will on average take a fly much deeper than on streamers and dry flies. But lets not talk about that either...

[Taco]

Talk to your local SRD fisheries biologist about the barbless regs, you may be surprised at the answer you'll receive . The original barbless regulation was a political decision from the office of the minister and not one based on science from the SRD biologists

[Hawgstoppah]

funny how people only quote fact, cite studies and science when it furthers their personal beliefs.

 

Oh- and fish taken on a dead drifted nymph under a corkie will on average take a fly much deeper than on streamers and dry flies. But lets not talk about that either...

The thousands and thousands on hours I have on stream would actually indicate the opposite, though I do have a very snappy quick strike when nymphing that many others do not use. Could make a diff I suppose. hit 'em hard and fast. The only fish I have actually ever hooked real deep have in fact been on streamers.

[darrinhurst]

funny how people only quote fact, cite studies and science when it furthers their personal beliefs.

 

Oh- and fish taken on a dead drifted nymph under a corkie will on average take a fly much deeper than on streamers and dry flies. But lets not talk about that either...

Actually, the fish that I can recall taking one of my offerings the deepest, back of the throat deep, was on a dry fly. I would surmise that about 90% of my fishing is "dead drifted under an indicator" and have never had to struggle getting the fly out the way I did with that brown on the dry.

[Mykiss]

Isn't a dead drift under a bobber in reality bait fishing anyhoo?

[Gil]

Isn't a dead drift under a bobber in reality bait fishing anyhoo?

I think the important distinguishing factor is indicated by the word "bait"...

[dryfly]

Kinda funny how we ALL (me included) worry about the dear little fishies when (to quote others) C&R fishing is really a blood sport that involves fish being injured and dying intentionally or not. (I rant on about silly barbless laws and the use of bait where there are size limits. Others say "my" way is better than "your" way.)

 

Yet we are all maiming and killing fish one way or another. (Yeah me and you.) Efforts to mitigate fish injury and mortality are welcome, but if our hearts were really in the best interests of fish, we'd not fish other than for sustenance. Right? Bastards all of us.

 

Oh right, we are the environmental "hall monitors" who keep track of the fisheries because fish health is the indicator of environmental health. It is our duty and there are costs involved in this important work. Yeah, that's it.

 

Is it spring yet?

 

 

[Chadillac]

Kinda funny how we ALL (me included) worry about the dear little fishies when (to quote others) C&R fishing is really a blood sport that involves fish being injured and dying intentionally or not. (I rant on about silly barbless laws and the use of bait where there are size limits. Others say "my" way is better than "your" way.)

 

Yet we are all maiming and killing fish one way or another. (Yeah me and you.) Efforts to mitigate fish injury and mortality are welcome, but if our hearts were really in the best interests of fish, we'd not fish other than for sustenance. Right? Bastards all of us.

 

Oh right, we are the environmental "hall monitors" who keep track of the fisheries because fish health is the indicator of environmental health. It is our duty and there are costs involved in this important work. Yeah, that's it.

 

Is it spring yet?

 

Truth man, all truth:)

 

armchair fishing isn't half as fun as real fishing. COME ON SPRING!