Is There A Valid Arguement For Barbles

[DonAndersen]

Folks,

 

It sure isn't biological and your bad casting is more of a learning tool for you.

As far as I can see, the only reason for barbless is not destroying the look of the fish.

I caught an elderly cut outta the livingstone a couple of years ago with a broken jaw, one eye missing, both mandibles gone. This fish was really beat up.

With barbless, some if not all the damage wouldn't have happened.

After all we go it pretty places to fish, perhaps we want to catch pretty fish.

FF is mostly about esthetics, there are a lot of ways to catch to catch fish easier.

Are not pretty fish part of it.

 

Don

[bcubed]

I'd disagree that it's not biological, as the science behind it seems a bit skewed (would love a link to the 'definitive' study). When you're testing for increased mortality, but using people who are very proficient at removing barbed hooks, you won't notice a significant difference.

 

However, the number of anglers who have never removed a barbed hook and struggle with a fish for minutes out in the air would almost certaintly have a significant difference in mortality rates (just look at how mortality correlates with time out of water). Barbless isn't going to fix inexperience and the urge to take another photo of a stereotypical trout, but it wont hurt...

 

 

Barbless doesn't negatively effect fish more than barbed, while barbed may just. Isn't that reason enough?

[albertatrout]

I agree with you for the most part, as I've seen no peer reviewed evidence that would suggest barbed hooks will benefit any fishery, this includes studies which take handling time into consideration; The obvious doesn't always translate into an actual effect or impact. I really dont think barbs are the reason for deformed fish either though, ive seen some fisherman do a lot of damage removing barbless hooks as well. I think the only way to ensure "pretty" fish is to have minimal fishery pressure and access to seldom known remote lakes. A difficult goal to realize in many parts of Alberta.

[TerryH]

.....................Barbless doesn't negatively effect fish more than barbed, while barbed may just. Isn't that reason enough?

 

That's good enough reason for me. Although I've been fishing barbless for years, I don't recall any difference in my catch rate when I made the switch to barbless. Therefore, I'll be fishing barbless forever, regardless of what the regs say. Terry

[fishinglibin]

I too fished barbless for years, and did find a diff in my landing rate, but will still go barbless. It was not a huge diff though.And I can remove a barbed hook without doing much harm. Barbless all the way.

[Chadillac]

I am with you 100%. I will never use barbs regardless of regs. doesn't matter size 20+, or size 8. All I can do is attempt to leave the least amount of impact on the fish I catch, and imo that means not using barbs.

[dryfly]

Am I just 'slow' or can't read properly? (Now there's an opening... )

 

Don said, I caught an elderly cut outta the livingstone a couple of years ago with a broken jaw, one eye missing, both mandibles gone. This fish was really beat up. With barbless, some if not all the damage wouldn't have happened.

 

I don't get these sentences. We were barbless a couple of years ago and for many years before that. So this means barbed or barbless, there will be fish damage. It's about the handling and cumulative effects of C&R. That fish had probably been caught 30 times in five years. Who knows?

 

Before everyone jumps all over me, I debarbed years before it was law...at least hooks larger than about #14..whatever. (Thank god, as about 20 years ago I embedded a 3/0 pike fly hook in the back of my hand..down to the bend! It popped out easily.)

 

I continue to debarb hooks. I'll have to think about it again when I tie some #20 BWOs...but then again I have 200 tiny PMDs, chocolate spinners and BWOs in my fly boxes and they are all debarbed.

 

I think we have bigger fish to fry ... more important stuff than spending time and money to regulate a barbless law. Folks are openly using bait, and ignoring the size and day-limit regs in the upper Oldman and it will just get worse with the new "zero-trout" limits.

 

Kinda silly wasting time busting asses because some guy didn't pinch down the barb on a #16 mayfly.

 

dutchie said it well recently: do what your heart tells you to do.

 

And let the fish cops worry about more important stuff.

 

If we are so damn concerned about fish damage then we should stop fishing ... or at least ban C&R.

 

Wait for it.

 

Clive

[bcubed]

Clive,

I think that the barbless law is a good thing for enforcement, as it gives every CO an opportunity to go investigate someone.

I also highly HIGHLY doubt any CO's are actively pursuing guys to check for barbs, rather then looking for larger offences. I'm pretty sure they are worrying about the more important stuff as possible

[dryfly]

bcube

 

I spent a few hours with a Stream Watch officer in 2008 or 2009. Was a lot of fun and educational.

 

"it gives every CO an opportunity to go investigate someone." Yes, that's a reasonable point but can also force the officer to waste time. What I learned during my ride-along was that officers can see a lot from the bush with a pair of binoculars. They can quickly get a sense about technique. i.e whether bait is being used. They can't check licenses from a distance nor see a stringer of fish in the bush...but they can get a sense of probabilities and make a decision to move in to investigate .... or move along to the next hole.

 

They can probably get a bigger bang for their efforts if they do not have to approach every angler to check for barbs. They can make a fast call based on probabilities and years of experience. From a distance...what is the likelihood that guy/gal in waders and a fishing vest and spinning rod with a Mepps on the line has a stringer of fish in the bush .. compared to (say) a guy with a lawn chair and forked stick. They can see this stuff from 400 m off. Their decisions are obviously not always correct. An officer who does not check every angler can spy on 30 anglers a day. An officer who checks everyone might only see ten anglers per day. I am making these numbers up. Let's say 10% of ALL anglers are breaking a law. An officer approaches ten per shift and busts one. But an officer who mainly spies may see 30 anglers and decide to approach just 3 or 4 high-risk anglers ... and he might bust two or three of them. Get my point?

 

That's basically what the officer I drove with did: observe; decide; move in or move along. (And he did that even when barbs were banned.) Probabilities. Cost benefit.

 

Was interesting though....dress and gear was no indication of barb or debarb. We met a couple of Orvis-catalog-model types who forgot to debarb. "Oh gee,I always debarb officer. I just put this one on and .. blah blah grovel" Was funny.

 

Clive

[bcubed]

Clive, with the barbless law, it is still up to the discretion of the CO on who he approaches. I've had numerous encounters while fishing where the CO gives me a wave and keeps driving by..I don't see the barbless reg as increase the amount of stops at all, but it does give the CO opportunity to go investigate if he feels it necessary...

 

As you stated, the CO did that when barbs were banned. Why would the reintroduction of the ban suddenly change their discretion on who to check?

[lad]

"They can make a fast call based on probabilities and years of experience". I have met a couple Stream watch people but the ones I met were very young(boys and girls). Did not no the rules very well and were being mentored by F&W. I thought they were using Stream watch as a stepping stone to get into F&W or related fields? This was my experience and may be just the area I am in? As for Barbed or Barb less I resign myself to always being lawful and not trying to impose myself and be respectful of other peoples business. If they are poaching -git em. If they are barbed or barb less that is their business, not mine.

[Pipestoneflyguy]

Well, we seem to debate this in one way or another every year - Parks Canada's decision to allow barbed hooks is based on analysis of mortality rates, not sure asthetics were ever a concern LOL - excuse the expression but I think we have bigger fish to fry, in terms of fisheries impact issues.

 

The requirement to carry a valid fishing permit is all the opportunity a CO needs to investigate an angler.

 

Don, what you described sounds like it could also be from aggressive hook setting - how do you legislate prevention for that !?!?

[DaveJensen]

Stopping myself from jumping out of my desk like Arnold Horseshack...

The answer is no.

Every bit of our science and management is based upon live fish and the study of population and their dynamics.

If you want fisheries by beauty and fad contests, simply let Chuck Woolery, Simon Cowell, and Tyra Banks manage your fisheries.

Boo boos may be a leading indicator of trends in populations, but the second you bring beauty into the equation you immediately open the door to fly fishing only, guide allocations/rights, etc... and you don't want that because they're the scurge of the earth.

 

The only reason I replied to this silliness is that someone out there is going to read that Don Andersen says it's a good idea, and completely miss how our fisheries are managed. Science. Data points. Data collection. Population study. You want lipstick, check your grandma's pig.

 

Keep coming back to science. But of course, Don, then you'd also have to look at our Fisheries Mgt system and see if it could improve, but that would begin a cross forum discussion. And apologies, I haven't looked at any replies since my last post on that subject at AO. Been busy.

 

Don, we should do a comedy show. We'd almost be perfect for each other.

[bcubed]

Dave, you keep quoting the science, so here's some.

 

 

 

Casselman, S. J. 2005. Catch-and-release angling: a review with guidelines for proper fish handling practices. Fish & Wildlife Branch. OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 26 p

 

Barbless hooks are often recommended as an alternative to barbed hooks to decrease catch-and-release mortality. In fact, Manitoba and Alberta have regulat ed that only barbless hooks may used for angling in those jurisdictions to reduce catch-and-release mortality. Barbless hooks have been demonstrated to reduce handling time through ease of removing the hook, thereby decreasing associated mortality (Cooke et al., 2001). Schaeffer and Hoffman (2002) also demonstrated that the unhooking times of barblesshooks were significantly shorter than barbed hooks, however, the same study indicated that anglers landed 22% more fish using barbed hooks than barbless hooks. Similarly, the use of barbless hooks has been found to significantly reducemortality in trout (Taylor and White, 1992)

 

 

And yes, i can find reports that show the opposite. However, shouldn't fisheries management follow the basic theory of the precautionary principle?

[albertatrout]

Dave, you keep quoting the science, yet i'd like to see the source..

 

 

 

Casselman, S. J. 2005. Catch-and-release angling: a review with guidelines for proper fish handling practices. Fish & Wildlife Branch. OntarioMinistry of Natural Resources. Peterborough, Ontario. 26 p

 

 

And yes, i can find reports that show the opposite. However, shouldn't fisheries management follow the basic theory of the precautionary principle?

 

Not responding for Dave but ive heard your arguments lots, I fish barbless 99% of the time but still look at the big picture on issues like this. If we're going to follow precautionary principles all forms of angling should be banned, as should walking in streams, building roads, boating, etc. Its called managing risk and in Alberta its directly related to available resources. Why waste money checking for barbs when officers could focus on illegal harvest, habitat damage by ATV's, fishing in closed waters etc?

[DaveJensen]

Doesn't science essentially say that the difference is negligeable between barbs/barbed, depending on what aspect of it you look at?

But wasn't the question in this thread asking if Vanna White was sexier than Roseanne Barr, and if we want to keep more Vanna Whites in our rivers, shouldn't we make sure we don't mistreat them, as a basis for something that - as you and we all point out by mortality rates and studies - has nothing to do with fish populations and dynamics? If our fisheries are managed based on one thing, then how in the world can you impose the Vanna White clause as a basis for new regulation?

 

And yes, here we are discussing Vanna White vs Roseanne Barr while there are far more valuable things we could be doing with our time... like ensuring we continue to get meaningful data collection and true biology in our rivers so we have a time observation of cause and effect? That's just one idea... But don't worry, stuff like that won't get air time at Saturday's mtg. I'm sure it will run over time as discussion continues on the subject of barbed hooks.

 

But if it's precautionary management you want, then why do bull trout and brown trout streams open April 1? Let's look at that... fish spawn in the fall and are at the lowest energy levels of the year. They hit their wintering pools at a time they're skinny and beat up, scarred up. The ice comes on and insect activity is low. They stay that way yet streams open April 1. Water levels remain low, but the food chain doesn't improve much until early - mid May. Most trout caught have spawning scars, are thin, still have dark remnants of spawning color and are generally lethargic. And because there is no food available and because the water levels keep them in their pools, where can they go? So, April 1 comes along. It's as easy a time of year to catch as many as you have time for. Would't precautionary suggest you close those rivers until May 15 or 31, when they've had a chance to eat a few bugs and regain their energy levels?

 

The trouble is that if you do your fisheries management based upon precautionary measures, you will end up closing pretty much every trout water for all but maybe 6 weeks of the year, by the time you account for wintering habitat, pre-spawn-post, floods, droughts, etc. And that is the dicey slope.

 

If you do management by what is, by collected data sets, you can make adjustments.

 

But, as I mentioned in that AO thread where Don & I would actually agree on many things, you need science to be a verb and not a noun. And that means ensuring we get ongoing, meaningul data collection.

[Guest Grinr]

 

The requirement to carry a valid fishing permit is all the opportunity a CO needs to investigate an angler.

 

 

Bingo!Exactly what I was thinking as I was reading previous posts.They can check whomever they want whenevr they want,suggesting the idea that barbless regs gives them a reason to check anglers for compliance to any and all regs has no merit.

 

Quoting statements from ON that are quoting regs from MB and AB is not science.Just because AB and MB have barbless regs,doesn't make it gospel.

 

Regarding barbed vs. barbless mortality rate studies,I'm skeptical of any findings or conclusions arrived at either way.What set of controls are used for these studies?What kind of hooks? What size of hooks?What kind of environment,wild habitat or captive fish?How da hell do they know what percentage of wild fish survive either barbed or barbless?Experienced,conscientious anglers or fork stick bubbas?Flyfishing vs. baitfishing vs. trebled jewelry?Too many variables IMHO.

Obviously barbless hooks are a wee bit easier to remove in some cases,alot easier in others(treble hooks for example).But for smaller single hooks common to flyfishing,and I'm not even sure where the cutoff size should be,but let's say <#10(?),I'm not convinced at all that it makes a pittance worth of difference if fish are handled and released in a timely manner.I'd go so far as to say it's ridiculous to claim that <14 barbed hook is any more harmful than a barbless 14 and smaller,for the extra 2-5 seconds that it "might" take "on occasion" to unpin a trout from barbed 16 vs. a barbless 16....I ain't buyin it.

Treble hooks and bait fishing are both exponentially more lethal to trout than any barbed #8 woolybugger will ever be.

[bcubed]

The trouble is that if you do your fisheries management based upon precautionary measures, you will end up closing pretty much every trout water for all but maybe 6 weeks of the year, by the time you account for wintering habitat, pre-spawn-post, floods, droughts, etc. And that is the dicey slope.

 

It's a dicey slope if you're worried about making income off these rivers, rather then being concerned about their protection...

 

 

 

Quoting statements from ON that are quoting regs from MB and AB is not science.Just because AB and MB have barbless regs,doesn't make it gospel.

 

Regarding barbed vs. barbless mortality rate studies,I'm skeptical of any findings or conclusions arrived at either way.What set of controls are used for these studies?What kind of hooks? What size of hooks?What kind of environment,wild habitat or captive fish?How da hell do they know what percentage of wild fish survive either barbed or barbless?Experienced,conscientious anglers or fork stick bubbas?Too many variables IMHO.

 

 

I quoted a review paper, that has referenced peer reviewed scientific papers...go read them if you want this information, instead of assuming that they have bad science. Not once did i say it was gospel, however if we're going to keep quoting science as something that proves one thing, should probably also show the other side of the story.

 

Heres the same sentence without the mention of Alberta or Manitoba..doesn't change the content:

 

Barbless hooks have been demonstrated to reduce handling time through ease of removing the hook, thereby decreasing associated mortality (Cooke et al., 2001). Schaeffer and Hoffman (2002) also demonstrated that the unhooking times of barblesshooks were significantly shorter than barbed hooks, however, the same study indicated that anglers landed 22% more fish using barbed hooks than barbless hooks. Similarly, the use of barbless hooks has been found to significantly reducemortality in trout (Taylor and White, 1992)

 

 

 

 

and that's enough for me on this subject

[lad]

Bingo!Exactly what I was thinking as I was reading previous posts.They can check whomever they want whenevr they want,suggesting the idea that barbless regs gives them a reason to check anglers for compliance to any and all regs has no merit.

 

Quoting statements from ON that are quoting regs from MB and AB is not science.Just because AB and MB have barbless regs,doesn't make it gospel.

 

Regarding barbed vs. barbless mortality rate studies,I'm skeptical of any findings or conclusions arrived at either way.What set of controls are used for these studies?What kind of hooks? What size of hooks?What kind of environment,wild habitat or captive fish?How da hell do they know what percentage of wild fish survive either barbed or barbless?Experienced,conscientious anglers or fork stick bubbas?Too many variables IMHO.

Obviously barbless hooks are a wee bit easier to remove in some cases,alot easier in others(treble hooks for example).But for smaller single hooks common to flyfishing,and I'm not even sure where the cutoff size should be,but let's say <#10(?),I'm not convinced at all that it makes a pittance worth of difference if fish are handled and released in a timely manner.I'd go so far as to say it's ridiculous to claim that <14 barbed hook is any more harmful than a barbless 14 and smaller,for the extra 2-5 seconds that it "might" take "on occasion" to unpin a trout from barbed 16 vs. a barbless 16....I ain't buyin it.

Treble hooks and bait fishing are both exponentially more lethal to trout than any barbed #8 woolybugger will ever be.

Exactly!

[Guest Grinr]

Regardless if it's good science or bad science,it's the nanny state mentality of having to regulate all due to the actions of some.The conservation minded flyfisher that cares for the resource and employs proper C&R techniques isn't doing any harm,but he can't use barbed hooks because of the worm drowning forked stick bubba that sits on his cooler fulla beer,rips trebles outta gills,and "tosses" them back.

No different really than the oppressive gun laws here in Canuckistan is it?Responsible gun owners and hunters nationwide have to suffer because of "9" toting gangbangers in Toronto or some sexually disfunctional Montreal wacko that shoots up a school full of women.

[DaveJensen]

BCube - I wasn't actually arguing against your point at all, not judging bad science, etc. I'm simply saying that by the time you examine all, referencing what you did and other studies, in the end it is a wash between hooking fish deeper with barbless fish and having a higher landing % and thus stressing/exercising fish more up against the supposed man-handling stress of barbed hooks. It's as close to a wash as you'll get differing agendas to agree on.

 

But even at that - we all have to giggle at the fact that the studies you reference refer to Alberta mgt uses barbless because it's shown to reduce stress, etc, etc... when in fact it was a self important premier smokescreening Alberta anglers by imposing his will on a system, completely usurping process and tossing the depts good staff under the bus as he did, all so he could have the appearance of doing something positive on one hand while handing out FMAs, coal mines, and O&G leases like Halloween candy with his other.

[bcubed]

Guess you want the right to not wear a seatbelt, drive after a few drinks, go 200 km/hr on the road, fish 9 flies at once, own a bazooka etc etc...

 

 

nanny state mentality of having to regulate all due to the actions of some

 

.Regulations work that way. Get over it.

 

 

 

we all have to giggle at the fact that the studies you reference refer to Alberta mgt uses barbless because it's shown to reduce stress, etc, etc.

Re-read the post. I quoted a review paper that mentioned alberta, and then mentioned seperate studies, all of them done before Alberta started the barbless regs..

[Guest Grinr]

I have no desire to own a bazooka,but I'd love to have a .454Casull on my hip for peace of mind backcountry camping with my young son.

I don't want a sawed off 12ga to rob liquor stores with,but I'd love to have a sawed off .410 in a back scabbard for popping grouse while I'm bowhunting.

Ask me why it's ok for me to drive down to WSS right now and be back home in 1/2hr with a brand new Rossi Ranch Rifle in .45Colt,buts it's absolutely forbidden for me to take an old 45/70 Marlin Guide Gun and saw it down to RRR size for some serious grizzly stopping power?

Oh that's right....I don't why neither??

Don't even get me started on the senseless gun laws in this country,this forum doesn't have the bandwidth capacity for the rant I could compose.

[midgetwaiter]

If Cletus drags a fish up on a sandbar, holds it down by stepping on it and then takes 11 pictures before release does barbed / barbless really matter? Likewise a miss id'd and retained Bull Trout is dead either way.

 

There are more important factors than barbs and I think it makes sense to have COs out on the water than filling paperwork or in court testifying about $100 fines for barbed hooks. This always was a political thing, it looks like you're doing something and it's "easy" to implement, who cares if it actually has any impact on the water.

[bigbowtrout]

when in fact it was a self important premier smokescreening Alberta anglers by imposing his will on a system, completely usurping process and tossing the depts good staff under the bus as he did, all so he could have the appearance of doing something positive on one hand while handing out FMAs, coal mines, and O&G leases like Halloween candy with his other.

 

Hey Dave lets ask Ralph. Ohhh ya he died two weeks ago.