|
|
|
|
|
I use both barbless or microbarbed, depending on the rules and/or situation
|
|
|
|
Doesn't bother me to be honest, I I keep a few packets of barbless for day-tickets for the sake of the rules.
When I held a syndicate ticket, the complex was quite weedy, I fished with crushed barbs and filed them smooth so it was barely a bump.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
I fish a water that is barbless hooks only it's very weedy
In the hight of summer I've had no trouble with fishing such
Hooks I keep the pressure on all the time and the carp I've had
Are all in fantastic condition no mouth damage
I'd prefer to use a barbed hook but it's more a state of mind
There are excellent hook patterns out on the market
In today's market I don't think there's anything in it to be honest
We can argue until the cows come home on the issue of one over
The other .. but there are so many different things to take into consideration
I'd say don't be put off from using barbless hooks.
That's my take on it
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #17
Exactly this, how many times do you see someone with a fish in the net still hooked, and they then proceed to roll up the net to lift the fish out, line rolled up in the net, lift fish which tightents the hook length = mouth damage.
|
|
|
|
Personally I believe that most mouth damage occurs when the fish are very young, or in the landing net, or when they get tethered.
IMO a fish should always be either unhooked in the net, or the line cut close to the lead arrangement before they are removed from the water, this is a rule on my place.
Unfortunately tethering happens way more than most of us realise. Many years as a club bailiff proved this to me.
When I bought my lake (an ex club water) some of the mouth damage was truly shocking. I removed those fish with bad damage, stocked some new fish and brought in a barbless only rule. Almost eleven years on and I don't have a single fish with noticeable recent mouth damage. There are at least a couple of members on here that can confirm this.
Fish do get lost, of course, but it's certain anglers who seem to suffer most of these. The rest of us lose very few.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #15
It's not that i struggle with it, but there is a moral dilemma to our hobby, it's silly to deny that. And sometimes i think some more about it, and about history, and about the relation of man and nature, and nature itself and then i go enjoy my fishing.
Crushed barb btw, for decades.
|
|
|
|
Here’s the dilemma I always have
We can’t decide if a barbed or a barbless hook is better for an animal that we are sticking a lump of metal into its face and dragging it into the bank and then taking it out its natural habitat just to take a photo and then put it back to be repeated.
We wouldn’t stick a hook in a dogs mouth and drag it around but it’s ok for a fish?
Yes we look after them as well as we can but we are still hooking an animal for our own selfish interests.
I prefer not to catch if I’m honest it means my demons are silenced lol
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #4
Framey perfectly said it.... Many fisheries have to account for the lowest form of angler.
There are many pro's and con's to both, its a argument that will never be settled.
Imo - Barbed all the way, but I respect any rules that require barbless
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
I'm barbless now and wouldn't change back, there is always the chance of causing damage regardless of hook type, but stick a barbed hook into your finger past the barb and try and get it out, then tell me barbed are better. I've not noticed any difference in fish loss on barbless but am happy in the knowledge that the can spit them out if needed, they often do in the landing net which is where i think a lot of mouth damage is caused.
|
|
|
|
|
IMO barbed hooks are far more brutal and unnecessary. They should be considered as poor practice these days, in the same way as not using a mat.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
Barbed hooks should be banned. Less likely hood of a fish being tethered with barbless
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #9
Far easier to remove a barbless hook whilst a fish is in the net too. I am usually able to detach the fish from the mainline before taking out of the water, either by unhooking them or detaching / cutting something. Completely agree that mouth damage is caused by people who don't know how to remove barbed hooks properly.
|
|
|
|
|
Given the choice, I go for barbless. And I rarely lose fish. I just like the fact that it's so easy to unhook them. Gather the net and fish up, onto your cradle, unhook, then put fish and net straight back in the water. Fish recovering while you faff around with camera and weighing kit.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
I just cannot get my head round losing fish in weed with a barbless hook yet alone the damage of slipping during the fight meaning possibly more than 1 hookhold,if that happens?
For me the main reason for a barbless hook to move during playing is lack of pressure on the hook, the exact reason you want to use them in weed, ie its much easier for a fish to lose the hook. That's not a problem with the hook itself, it's a problem with the anglers playing technique and the hook they're using.
With large fish a hook may also move if too small a hook is used, irrespective of barb, as the hook doesn't get firm purchase.
I've always used barbless, but I have used micro barbed when required. I've very little experience of barbed, but my own view is they're not designed to come out, as such they must cause more damage by being removed than a hook with reduced or no barb, and that makes them less suitable for a fish subjected to repeat capture.
Edit, just to add, if a fishery owner can show me barbed don't cause more damage than any other hook (just like some barbless owners can) why wouldn't I use them on that water. You also have to question given those facts if the hook type is actually the problem.
|
|
|
|
Personally I don't buy the arguement regarding barbless doing more damage due to tearing or general movement of the hook hold. The barb isn't going to stop the hook rotating or tearing in the mouth, only stop it sliding back out the way it went in -as long as pressure is maintained there shouldn't be an difference in this regard.
I've never noted any mouth damage in my own extensive experience of fishing with barbless hooks that I could attribute to the lack of a barb.
I'm firmly of the belief that the link between barbless and mouth damage is based on most runs waters/those frequented by new or poorly skilled anglers being barbless only. The general fish care, unhooking skills and frequent captures on these waters produce mouth damage which is blamed on the lack of barbs.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #5
Barbed for me
Some of my waters will allow a crushed barb so happy medium
If I have to use a barbless it will always be a curve or in turned point as I think it helps.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #4
So which do you prefer framey?
|
|
|
|
Crazy really when most hooks now are really micro barbs not like the old gaffs of yester year.
But unfortunately fisheries
Have to account for the lowest form of angler.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #2
Good point but not relaxing fishing like that,not for me anyway.
|
|
|
|
In reply to Post #1
Isn't it only problem if your rig is checked?
|
|
|
|
I have just refused a club ticket due to the barbless rule,I just cannot get my head round losing fish in weed with a barbless hook yet alone the damage of slipping during the fight meaning possibly more than 1 hookhold,if that happens?
In defence of bluebell for example (barbless) their fish look immaculate as do linears who allow barbed so evidence is conflicting to a normal angler like myself. I would love to fish bluebell more won't because of their barbless rule.
|
|
