Anybody hear of the Forest Service going to Barbless hooks in the BWCA?

Have not heard that. Wouldn't break my heart if they did.

Barbless is always a good idea imho.

This sounds to me like a baseless rumor. The state of Minnesota has jurisdiction over fish and wildlife. The USFS cannot regulate the method of take without the consent of the state.

"§ 293.10 Jurisdiction over wildlife and fish.
Nothing in the regulations in this part shall be construed as affecting the jurisdiction or responsibility of the several States with respect to wildlife and fish in the National Forests."

Code of Federal Regulations 36 CFR 293.10

Nope. Standard barbed hooks are legal in the BW.

For the record, barbless hooks, or barbed hooks with the barb pinched down, must be used in Quetico.

Nope but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. Its probably just a matter of time before someone at a meeting says "hey I have an idea".

Is it my imagination or are less people going to canoe country and thus even less pressure is exerted on a mostly catch and release fishery to begin with?

Barbless hooks benefit fishermen who get stuck and do little in the big picture to protect the resource IMO.

Won't ever happen, the MN DNR makes the rules and they recently did a long term study on barbless hooks on Mille Lacs on Walleyes and hooking mortality was slightly higher on Barbless hooks due to deeper hook sets. Barbless hooks cause more internal damage, barbed hooks cause more superficial damage. You can release a barbless fish sooner/easier, but if that fish is hooked anywhere else but the lip it is more likely to suffer delayed hooking mortality.

A cross sectional review of the literature reveals barbless hooks do not make any significant impact on fisheries.

There was a good article in the BWJ when the editor interviewed the Quetico Park Superintendent after they made the decision to switch to barbless. When confronted with the research the Park Superintendent admitted they were aware of the research and the barbless rules were put into place more to reduce the number of emergency rescue calls they get from inexperienced fisherman who hooked themselves. It has been a big cost saver for the Park. Which IMHO was a good reason to change.

I think barbless has increased my fishing success. How many times during a good bite have ya hooked a life vest and ya waste pressure minutes trying to get the barbs out :) it is also much safer for me and my family.

T

quote timatkn: "How many times during a good bite have ya hooked a life vest and ya waste pressure minutes trying to get the barbs out

T"

Never.

quote Huntindave: "

quote timatkn: "How many times during a good bite have ya hooked a life vest and ya waste pressure minutes trying to get the barbs out


T"

Never."

LOL your a better man than me then :)

I'll never forget being on Crooked lake catching Walleye after Walleye when my wife hooked the life vest in the seat in front of me, that mess took 15 minutes to get out and ended with me having to cut the fabric, by the time I got it settled and her back in the water the bite had slowed...

T

Thanks for the excellent post, Timatkn. Do you know what kinds of lures the barbless hooks were on in the study in question? I can see why someone might give a fish some extra time if using a Lindy rig or other live-bait rig, but I wonder why it would matter for an artificial like a Rapala, topwater, spinnerbait, buzzbait, etc.

It does seem like artificials come out of fishes' mouths much easier without barbs. Whether that makes any difference in survival, I don't know. I know it makes them come out of my hand (and the random life vest) more easily, though. :)

Logically, I would question the study. A higher fish mortality with barbless just doesn't make sense if the only variable is the barb since it is on the inside of the hook. Someone explain this to me?

quote mapsguy1955: "Logically, I would question the study. A higher fish mortality with barbless just doesn't make sense if the only variable is the barb since it is on the inside of the hook. Someone explain this to me? "

I've heard that barbless hooks tend to penetrate deeper.

Very informative post T, thanks.

quote mastertangler: "Nope but it certainly wouldn't surprise me. Its probably just a matter of time before someone at a meeting says "hey I have an idea".


Is it my imagination or are less people going to canoe country and thus even less pressure is exerted on a mostly catch and release fishery to begin with?


Barbless hooks benefit fishermen who get stuck and do little in the big picture to protect the resource IMO. "

Are less people going?

quote walleye_hunter: "

quote mapsguy1955: "Logically, I would question the study. A higher fish mortality with barbless just doesn't make sense if the only variable is the barb since it is on the inside of the hook. Someone explain this to me? "

I've heard that barbless hooks tend to penetrate deeper. "

So I suppose we are talking about bait hooks. However, when someone gut hooks a fish, it would absolutely be more difficult to get a barbed hook out, and it would create more damage in the removal. When someone sets the hook, isn't it pulling the the point and then barb through to the bend? If you aren't setting the hook you will probably have a greater chance of losing the fish. How could it possibly be deeper penetration unless you are not sharpening the point or setting the hook? Setting the hook literally makes the penetration as deep as it can get!!!

I think the study is BS and created by a bait fisherman using backwards science. It is absolute that a barbless hook will throw the BAIT more readily than a barbed hook, hence costing the fisherman more money or time in acquisition of bait. I think THAT is the point. When I have seen the damage to fish from barbs (especially treble hooks), including lip sets, it makes total sense for me to not use them. My gut feeling is that barbless hooks catch a few fewer fish and would be not be appreciated by meat fishermen. Someone is creating a study to prove that there is a problem with barbless hooks in order to justify/validate a myth.

If they really were worried about fish mortality, they would ban bait and multi hook artificials. People would figure it out.

That Mille lacs study did show a 45% less mortality with artificial bait vs baited of existing mortality and barbed vs barbless mortality was significantly the same. The sample size was relatively small using artificial in barbed vs barbless with artificials?
Also above 68 degrees on walleyes mortality goes up in catch and release.

Hooking mortality was most associated with water temperature, bleeding, fish length, hook location, and fish floating upon release.
Each species and size of fish will differ some. It did take extra time to release fish with barbs,and you have to realize people catching these fish were experienced fishermen and had proper gear(tools) to remove the fish.

As with any studies done on almost anything, I can go out hire two groups to do the study, one group being pro barbed hooks the other being pro barbless. When the studies are done, the pro barb community will swear by one study the pro barbless by the other. And neither will probably ever change.

quote mapsguy1955: "Logically, I would question the study. A higher fish mortality with barbless just doesn't make sense if the only variable is the barb since it is on the inside of the hook. Someone explain this to me? "

Basically if you look at all the studies, barb or barbless makes no difference in hooking mortality or delayed hooking mortality. The reason that studies differ is because the conditions and where the fish are hooked differ. Even when studies show when one way is better than another the difference is typically very small. Barely enough to say this difference couldn't have happened by chance. But there are two areas where it makes a difference for better or worse either way in the research so far.

Some studies (not produced by bait fisherman---that's gotta be one of the craziest things I've heard on here--unless I missed the joke) show barbless kills more fish. Not having a barb allows the hook to penetrate deeper and slice through tissue more. A barb won't go as deep, it prevents penetration--that's why some fisherman prefer barbless, you are more likely to get a hook set. If the fish is lip hooked it probably won't matter, but any deeper in the mouth than the lip or even further near the gill...which are not unusual with artificials will cause more arterial and internal damage---thus increased delayed hooking mortality. You can be a science denier or not on that one? It is what it is...

Some studies show barbless decreases delayed hooking mortality. The fish can be released more quickly, time out of the water is less...makes total sense. If you are fishing in hot weather it stands to reason a quicker release would allow the fish a greater chance for survival---but I haven't seen studies specifically looking at that and between barbless and barbed.

The problem is in the real world you can't predict where the fish will be hooked and how deep it will be hooked even if you only use artificials. It is always a mix, thus why in the long run it doesn't really make a difference in killing fish.

@Pinetree I can't give you specific numbers on the Mille Lacs study. I was not aware it was published yet. I am just repeating what was told to me by one of the researchers. They were looking into making Mille Lacs barbless and he said the barbless rate of delayed hooking mortality was higher. I've heard other DNR officials repeat it in community meetings and in interviews when asked about it. This is coming from the same DNR that tried to ban live bait on Mille Lacs so no special privileges to bait dealers/users.

T

. I will see if I can come up with exact number for 2016. Like I said sample size by some methods was small and barb vs barbless was significantly not much differed.
I will see if I can find a abstract or numbers on preliminary results.

This is the first study in 2003 by many of the same people. Time flies.
Hooking mortality was most associated with water temperature, bleeding, fish length, hook location, and fish floating upon release. Mortality increased as the water warmed above 18°C and was higher for fish that bled at temperatures less than 24°C but similar for both bleeding and nonbleeding fishes at temperatures of 24°C or more. Fish hooked in the throat or stomach died at higher rates than fish hooked in the jaw, inner mouth, or gills and those that were externally foul-hooked, especially when they were smaller. Although fish of medium length (300–600 mm) were more likely to be deep hooked, they died less frequently than walleyes of other lengths. Cutting the line did not significantly improve survival in deeply hooked fish. Mortality was similar between live bait jigs and live bait regular hooks. Most observed hooking mortality was caused by damage to major internal organs. Hooking mortality is minimized when anglers fish in cool water, use active fishing methods, and catch medium-length walleyes.
The first study also allowed excessive time after the fish bite before setting the hook.
Like mentioned above so many variable-lure size,hook size,handling etc. live bait on plain hook,jig,artificial-jig vs plug etc. Many gaps even in that study. Using plugs I think their sample size was very small from people who were doing the fishing that I know.

I'll look for real numbers.

So what you are basically saying agrees with me that bait fishing would have a higher mortality and it won't make any difference whether barbed or not on a gut hooked fish. However, with barbed, and every Quetico fisherman or artificial plug fisherman will probably agree, when using multiple hook lures, the time out of the water increases, hence increasing fish mortality. It is somewhat easier releasing (non gut hooked) hooks that aren't barbed.

I personally think any predominately catch and release fishery should be artificial (active) only. But that is simply my opinion. Notice that many of your best trout and Atlantic Salmon fisheries are fly only. I would think there is a lot of research into this.

PS: my comment did have a touch of sarcasm!

Personally for me in Quetico I troll plugs and barbless has cut down release time and when I unhook the fish I don't have to rip the hook out. It has cut down mortality for me on lake trout on plugs for sure. Also using a little bigger plug they don't usually swallow it.

I always have a sly smile when folk (other than those involved in this discussion) talk about he pain and cruelty associated with hooking a fish in its mouth. From what I can see it's just another day at the office for our finny friends......fish tend to eat other fish and that includes lots of sharp pointy hard surfaces like spines and scales and gill plates.

quote mapsguy1955: "So what you are basically saying agrees with me that bait fishing would have a higher mortality and it won't make any difference whether barbed or not on a gut hooked fish. However, with barbed, and every Quetico fisherman or artificial plug fisherman will probably agree, when using multiple hook lures, the time out of the water increases, hence increasing fish mortality. It is somewhat easier releasing (non gut hooked) hooks that aren't barbed.


I personally think any predominately catch and release fishery should be artificial (active) only. But that is simply my opinion. Notice that many of your best trout and Atlantic Salmon fisheries are fly only. I would think there is a lot of research into this.


PS: my comment did have a touch of sarcasm! "

Yes and no. Yes if you lip hook a fish a barbless hook will result is less hooking mortality although that percentage less is almost statistically insignificant. The no part is even with artificials many fish are not lip hooked. If it is hooked in the jaw, upper mouth or near the gills a barbless hook is more likely to result in delayed hooking mortality. Once again in most studies the difference is barely perceptible. One study shows barbless helps, one study shows it is worse---when you add them up it simply doesn't make a difference. I am strictly talking about studies specifically looking at artificial lures either single hook or multi-hook. I never once ever said anything about "gut hooked," barbless studies don't usually deal with this subject because they don't happen very often with artificials.

You can tell yourself barbless is better, maybe in your specific situation it is, but there is no science to back it up. I like barbless too--there are lots of reasons too, but the science guy in me can't cling to "thoughts or feelings" I look at the research. It's funny how people pick and choose to believe in science based on their own personal belief system.

T

I completely agree with your sentiment timatkn. I'm just trying to grasp the logic. Parts of this conversation, being on a BWCA site, deal with conditions there and the possibility of BWCA going barbless. I'm not sure whether any other location is applicable to this conversation and certainly bait fishing is a part of that. Would you say the mortality rate is higher in the Q or BWCA regardless of tackle used?

I think any governing decision should be based mostly on that and my preference means squat. Unless the Forest Service has a vendetta against bait fishermen or those who sell the specific terminal tackle, I would think they would be looking at sustainability of the resource in any decision like this which would include any method of catching.

I've seen BWCA You Tube videos of people with full stringers of fish that look like they are fishing to fill a cooler or two, but I would GUESS that those people are a tiny percentage of visitors. Maybe I'm wrong... There would be a lot of different objectives that would hopefully balance. I don't see how going barbless in the BWCA would do anything but help the fishery and at the same time would not reduce the active human participation in it.

Good discussion anyway!!

Either way,in the BWCA fisheries is under the Minnesota DNR and so they would be the ones doing the changing.

This is one forum we may have differing opinions on barb vs barbless but I like what I see in that 100% care about what is best for the fishery.