Mille Lacs – Barbless Hooks

As technology improves we will see hooks made of materials that will react to a fishes body chemicals and dissolve. It’s only a matter of time. The things people can invent is astounding.

Quote:

---

The new studies about barbless being as lethal as barbed also disproved that cutting the line does any good. They did long term captivity studies if the hook doesn’t pass most fish succumb to it from infection etc. Some do survive though. The thought now are that if you can get it out quickly you are better to do that. Most hooks are not plain steel. They have coatings,platings or are blends of metals otherwise they would rust in your tackle box or hanging on your rod immediately. Therefore they are not going to dissolve in a fish’s throat. Saltwater studies are different and they have proven non plated hooks do corrode quickly in fish with little apparent harm to the fish. I think this is were cutting the line and the hook will dissolve stories come from. Some of these hook removal studies were in back issues of Bassmaster and some were reported by studies done on trout in hatcheries out west where they can be watched for months rather than some studies done after tournaments in holding nets for a few days these watched them for months.

Mwal

---

Do you have a link to the study info you’re citing? I would be curious to see it if you do.

Will,

I will try to find it in my back Issue’s of Bassmaster’s and will try to surf and find the trout stuff. I was surprised when I read it as well. Then it made sense why some places were backing off barbless and live bait bans and going to circle hooks. I have gone barbless on cranks for my benefit Musky and smally fishing as I fish alone alot and have been stuck more than once handling a fish. Also can water release or in the net easily. I know on a Lac Suel trip we got into the pike and it made it a breeze to release them and to release me twice LMAO

Mwal

A Barbless study done in Idaho
Barbed Hook Restrictions in Catch-and-Release Trout Fisheries: A Social Issue

D. J. SCHILL and R. L. SCARPELLA

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 1414 East Locust Lane, Nampa, Idaho 83686, USA

Abstract.—We summarized results of past studies that directly compared hooking mortality of resident (nonanadromous) salmonids caught and released with barbed or barbless hooks. Barbed hooks produced lower hooking mortality in two of four comparisons with flies and in three of five comparisons with lures. Only 1 of 11 comparisons resulted in statistically significant differences in hooking mortality. In that instance, barbless baited hooks caused significantly less mortality than barbed hooks, but experimented design concerns limited the utility of this finding. Mean hooking mortality rates from past lure studies were slightly higher for barbed hooks than barbless ones, but the opposite was true for flies. 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. Managers proposing new special regulations to the angling public should consider the social costs of implementing barbed hook restrictions that produce no demonstrable biological gain.

from 2008 Outdoor new WI DNR about barbless
While Meyer was adding barbless hook rules to muskie and bass fishing, the DNR was looking at removing barbless hook requirements from its trout rules.)

Research

For decades, researchers across the United States have conducted studies to find out whether the use of barbless hooks (instead of barbed hooks) significantly increases the ability of fish to survive after being released.

Though most research on this issue has been done on cold-water fish such as trout, it is likely that those results could be duplicated if biologists were to conduct similar studies on bass and muskies.

DNR Coldwater Fisheries Ecologist Larry Claggett said he studied the effects of both styles of hooks and found that barbless hooks do not reduce mortality enough for the DNR to require their use.

“The literature (on trout and salmon) is pretty unequivocal,” he said. “There have been several different studies, and if there is a difference between barbed and barbless hooks, it’s minute. It’s meaningless.”

Though Claggett said after his studies on the issue, his stance is unlikely to change, he did not rule out the possibility for future research.

“I guess there’s a chance for a study on an an isolated species to show (a different) effect,” he said. “But the summaries I’ve seen show that it is not substantial.”

Claggett said there is no difference in mortality regardless of hook type because once any hook penetrates a vital organ, it doesn’t matter if the hook is barbed.

“What really harms the fish is not so much how long it’s out of the water being unhooked, or not so much how it’s handled,” he said. “It’s where the hook penetrates.

“(What matters) is if it causes bleeding, where it causes bleeding, and what organ it causes bleeding in. That happens regardless of whether it has a barb on the hook.”

Until the rule change requiring anglers to switch to barbless hooks during this spring’s release bass season, the only time the use of barbless hooks has been enforced in Wisconsin has been for trout.

This is a Start Will

Good post, Drew. We think a lot alike. Not the end of the world if a fish or two get off. I have never fished barbless, but will be giving it a shot this year. Do you go barbless on jig/plastic for P2 walleyes too?

-J.

Thanks MWL,

As I mentioned before, removal of the barbless hook rule is in the works at the MN DNR (for trout).

Forget if it helps the fish or not, it’s just easier for the fisherman.

Would barbless be more of an issue with the ice fisherman? As far as catching the fish. Seems the use of smaller tackle might make it more difficult. Thinking out loud on this one.

Will

Here is the article on whether to leave or remove hook in deeply hooked fish by Ralph Mann
Deep Hooks: In or Out?

by Ralph Manns

Those of us who try to share the findings of scientific study with non-scientists are often frustrated.. It seems very difficult to get the word out. We write about some important discovery, but find anglers, particularly the influential professional and TV bass anglers, either don’t read the new information or dismiss the new scientific insights because they conflict with beliefs the anglers already hold.

Professional and TV anglers aren’t the only ones to be slow in learning and applying the latest “word” from scientists. Biologists, particularly state fisheries workers are often too busy with their own assigned tasks to read all of the literature produced by other scientists. They continue to advise anglers to handle fish using outmoded procedures.

The recommendation that anglers cut the leader close to the hook when bass are “deep-hooked” is a good example. It is hard to find a publication on catch-and-release (C&R) techniques that doesn’t pass on this poor advice. Yet, recent research on release techniques strongly suggests there is a better way.

Some years ago, Doug Hannon noted that most magazine articles and state publications recommend leaving hooks in bass and other fish to “rust” out. He reported that hooks don’t rust fast enough, even in salt water; and suggested that the shank of a hook pointing up the throat of a bass acts like a lever or trap door that prevents swallowing. Bass can die of starvation while waiting for normal body processes to eject the hook. Food coming down a bass’ throat will bypass a hook-shank, IF the shank lies tightly against the side of the throat where the barb is lodged. However, if the shank protrudes into the throat, food coming down can push the shank across the esophagus, blocking it. Deep-hooked bass may even feel pain as the food rotates the barb and regurgitate the food.

Recently, Hannon’s observations have been scientifically verified. John Foster, Recreational Fisheries Coordinator for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, studied striped bass at Chesapeake Bay. His researchers held throat-hooked stripers between 16- and 28-inches long for observation in half-strength seawater so that hooks had ample opportunity to rust away. Size 1/0 and 2/0 stainless steel, bronzed, nickel, tin, and tin-cadmium plated hooks were hooked in the top of each fish’s esophagus, with an 18-inch length of line connected to the hook.

After four months, 78 percent of the hooks were still imbedded. Cadmium coated hooks poisoned 20 percent of the fish, and production of these hooks has been stopped. Bronzed hooks were less likely (70%) to be retained than tin-cadmium (80%), nickel (83%), or stainless steel (100%) hooks. In a second test, the line was clipped at the eye of the hook, as advised by most existing C&R guides. One-hundred percent of the stainless hooks were again retained, while 56 percent of tin, 76 percent of bronze, 84 percent of tin-cadmium, and 88 percent of nickel hooks remained. Fish mortality was greater when all line was trimmed. Foster suggested that the lengths of line hanging from a fish’s mouth kept the hook-shank flat against the side of the esophagus and allowed food to pass. Without the line, food could move the hook and close the throat.

Hooks rusted slowly in stages, and the bend and barb became smaller very gradually. Stripers formed scar tissue around imbedded hook points, a typical reaction of body tissue to foreign matter. Foster noted, however, that once the tough scar tissue formed, hooks became more, not less, difficult to remove. Months after fish were hooked, infections sometimes developed around points, causing some deaths.

Based on his research, Foster recommended anglers carefully remove even deeply imbedded hooks. If the hook can not be removed, then it seems better to leave about 18 inches of line attached. Perhaps, someday, these findings will reach C&R anglers, the biologists who are researching C&R and publish C&R guidelines, and TV anglers who teach by their example.

One option is to carry strong wire-cutting or needle-nose pliers. Cut off or crush down barbs and a hook shank rotates free more easily. Removal is usually best for a released bass. But, the hook should be easily reached. To be strong enough to cut or crush down the barbs of heavy hooks like True_Turn Brutes the tool usually must have heavy jaws and long handles. Forcing such a tool into the gullet of small bass can do as much damage as leaving a hook in place.

Best for the fish is using barbless hooks. They greatly reduce hook damage to all mouth tissues and rotate out easily. (See the through-the-gills comments below).

Texas researchers recently compared the mortality of largemouth bass hooked with live bait and artificial lures. Their main finding: “there is no biological justification to regulate use of live bait to catch bass” has been widely publicized. Their other findings may help anglers make appropriate adjustments in technique.

In two separate tests, largemouth bass in a private water were landed by TPWD anglers using Carolina-rigged scented plastic worms, crankbaits with multiple treble hooks, and live carp fished with either a Carolina rig or a float. To simulate normal fishing conditions, anglers with different levels of expertise were used.

While fishing with floats, anglers were instructed to delay hooksets until floats went completely under, simulating the way typical amateur anglers fish with unattended rods. Under all other conditions, anglers were to strike immediately upon feeling a hit. Captured bass were immediately examined to identify hook-related injuries. When bass were hooked deep in the throat, the line was cut and hook left in place. (TPWD did not identify whether the cut was made in the traditional way near the hook, or with line remaining outside the fish’s mouth.) Bass were then kept in a large holding net over a 72-hour observation period to determine short-term mortality rates. Sixty bass were taken using each method. Tests were made in August, when water was warm and stress and mortality are normally high.

The average mortality under these worst-case conditions was 22 percent. Carolina rigs with flavored worms caused the highest mortality, followed by live carp used under floats, crankbaits, and Carolina-rigged carp minnows. TPWD biologists concluded that the timing of the hookset appeared more critical than the type of bait used in the determination of short-term death rates. The data show bass hooked in the throat had poor survival odds. Evidently, largemouth bass took both lures and live bait fully into their mouths almost immediately. The bass pros’ advice to strike without delay is important to reduce mortality. Angling techniques that delay hooksets should be avoided.

Carolina-rig and worm combos likely killed more fish because the lengthy leaders prevented immediate detection of some strikes and flavored worms are easily swallowed or held in the back of a bass’ mouth. Eighteen percent of bass taken on Carolina rigs with worms were throat-hooked. In contrast, Carolina rigs with live bait and live baits under floats caused less mortality, likely because live preyfish are often held in a bass’ mouth for a few seconds, killed, and turned to be swallowed headfirst. This gives anglers a few seconds more to detect hits before baits are ingested. The decision to delay hits when live baits were used with floats and to strike immediately with Carolina-rigged baits likely caused the different mortality rates of these two techniques. Nevertheless, 10 percent of bass hooked on Carolina-rigged live baits were hooked in the esophagus.

It is no surprise that crankbaits are less likely to be swallowed, as their artificial nature is immediately detectable to fish. When fisheries are managed primarily for C&R or trophy bass production, it may be appropriate to ban use of multiple rods to reduce delayed hooksets, or to limit lures to items unlikely to be swallowed. In any case, C&R sportsmen will want to avoid techniques that delay hooksets, like fishing with unattended rods.

The TPWD study showed that bass hooked in the tongue and esophagus had about a 50 percent chance of dying, while bass hooked in the lips mouth, jaw, roof of mouth had 25 percent or less mortality. Interestingly, only 12.5 percent of gill hooked fish died. This finding suggests anglers who kill and eat or mount gill-damaged bass because “they are unlikely to live” are in error. TPWD also compared the survival of bass when they were bleeding and when leaders were cut and hooks left in the fish. Removing hooks improved bass survival when bass were not bleeding. But there was little difference in mortality when bass were bleeding or hooks were left in the fish.

Then I read that some anglers removed hooks by working through the gill slits several years ago, I reacted negatively, assuming excess damage would occur. But, upon reflection on the normal function and resistance of gills to external damage, I decided to test the procedure for myself. In a private pond with barbless hooks I’ve now made over a hundred gill-slit removals of barbless hooks without any observed fish deaths or apparent bleeding or gill damage. Several individual bass with identifying marks have been caught again and again. Although some unobserved delayed deaths are likely, if the procedure was exceptionally hazardous, I likely would have seen several floaters.

Despite their fragile appearance, the gills of bass are one of the strongest and most disease resistant structures of the bass, equivalent in resistance to skin of the lower jaw that we grasp so handily. After all, the gills are constantly exposed to outside influences. The prey the bass eats brush against them, and many prey are caught because they are sick and carrying diseases. Prey with spines cut and stab bass in the gill areas. With food, bass often ingest goop and disease laden muck from the bottom. Moreover, each breathing gill movement brings whatever bacteria, viruses, and dirt is in the water over the filaments. To function, gills must be tough.

Still caution is needed. Gill filaments, the red comblike elements, are not reversible. Like a flag, they naturally stream with the flow. They never should be forced back toward the mouth by a tool or by reverse water pressure. Swishing a bass or any other fish back and forth to “revive it”can do more harm than good. If the fish need to be revived by more oxygen, move it slowly forward through the water. But, do not force water down its throat by moving it rapidly into a current.

However, light contact isn’t likely to damage gills or introduce disease. They are as resistant as the fish’s skin to light contact.

By using barbless hooks that reverse easily, an entry through the gill slit can often be used when entry through the mouth is impractical or impossible with typical tools. A small, narrow pair of long_nosed pliers should be used, so the tool can be rotated without putting pressure on the gill arches. If an angler is particularly clumsy, or careless, the procedure could cause significant damage, making leaving a hook and long leader in the bass a better option with higher odds of survival.

Anglers practicing C&R rather than eat legal bass or legally abiding with a slot limit might note these findings. Fish caught with only superficial wounds are likely to survive release. Small, deeply-hooked, bleeding, and legally kept bass likely should be eaten, rather than released to die later. Slot bass must be released in as healthy a condition as possible. And lunker bass larger than 24 inches are so rare and valuable in any fishery that they should be immediately released, even if they are bleeding or deeply-hooked. Remove the hook if possible. Leave an 18-inch leader if you can not remove the hook.

(Note: My articles on the BFHPs are protected by copyright, and may be reprinted for public use only with my written permission. However, I want the information in this article to get maximum exposure to other anglers, so reprinting of this specific article is authorized as long as the text isn’t modified. Informing me of such re-use is appropriate. [email protected] )

Kinda makes you think, doesn’t it?

Well, until next time, See Ya,

Steve Editor in Chief OutdoorFrontiers

They imposed something similar in the Gulf of Mexico. Barbs are still ok, but you must use circle hooks. When we fish out of the keys, you can choose if you want to fish on the side that allows normal hooks, or go to the Gulf and use circle.

Circle hooks are made so that the point is turned perpendicular to the shank to form a circular or oval shape. Research has found that circle hooks are 90% more likely to hook fish in the mouth instead of in the esophagus or stomach. This reduces internal harm to the fish by decreasing de-hooking time for the angler, and decreases the chances of a hook getting lost in the fish. Non-offset means the end of the hook is in line with the shank of the hook – rather than being angled sideways away from the shank.

Quote:

---

The TPWD study showed that bass hooked in the tongue and esophagus had about a 50 percent chance of dying, while bass hooked in the lips mouth, jaw, roof of mouth had 25 percent or less mortality. Interestingly, only 12.5 percent of gill hooked fish died.

---

Some one explain this to me I’m missing something. They saying up to 1/4 of fish caught died even from normal hook sets? And gill caught was even lower?

If that were true, this while idea is rather meaningless and another closed season during the summer might be more fitting.

It would sure make removing hooks from myself a lot easier too….

I would support a Mille Lacs-only walleye stamp to help stock the lake- if the tribes would pay their share to restock the percentage they take out.

I don’t fish Mille Lacs but I voted yes anyway. With my experience with barbed hooks is they’re harder to remove and sometimes I would just cut the line bc I can’t get the hook out.

Quote:

---

Not the end of the world if a fish or two get off. I have never fished barbless, but will be giving it a shot this year. Do you go barbless on jig/plastic for P2 walleyes too?

---

I am usually not too concerned about it when fishing plastics on the river. Generally, the water temps are quite a bit lower when using plastics on the river, and the fish can handle a few extra seconds out of the water. But yeah, I probably should not hold a double standard.

I have started this post twice and not sent as I did not want to pile on to businesses in the area. But I think they need to be in on this conversation.
The action on the launches. Now I don’t want to implicate all in this as I have only witnessed a couple of times as just started last year fishing ML a lot.
But last year during the late June and early July bobber bite, what I witnessed on a couple of launches made me sick to my stomach. Take this from a person who has been pretty close to a 100% C&R for 20+ years and taking any fish out of the water pains me.
Out on 3 mile the bobber bite was very hot. On a couple of occasions in my boat, a couple of us did not fish, were kept busy baiting, netting, unhooking, etc….
Now consider the launch with +20 people and only 1 launch person. Witnessed a disaster. As in my boat, there were times with doubles, well not only doubles on the launch, but triples, etc…
The launch operator would net the fish, take to the measuring/recording station, give to the novice who would drop, then a picture, oh wait, is that a friend with a fish, how about netting, measuring, holding, dropping again, get a buddy picture. Oh now smiles around, lots of hand clapping, then toss over board. Yes this happened multiple times. The mortality had to be very high.
While I understand the goal is to make happy customers to stay in business having a single launch hand is not enough. I had wanted to call the operator but one night I left the dock with out leaches, and as a bit of a hike back, another fisherman gave me a few. It did not take long and I was out and the launch operator donated to my cause. So pretty hard to call and complain on what I was witnessing.
But I am guessing that this same scenario may play out a lot on ML launches and thinking that there may be opportunities for businesses to help their own cause a little. Be it barb less hooks or just plain better care of fish.
Thoughts from others!

This is NOT a solution to the problem. The problem is no small males in the population. If those are caught they are kept due to the slot size. We are protecting the wrong fish with this regulation. Someone else said it already, but poor handling and keeping the darn fish out of the water for 1-2 minutes kills a heck of a lot more fish that a barbed hook BUT again we are protecting the wrong fish and sweeping the real problem under the rug. This is very irritating!!!! Make the keeper slot 22-26″ and get people off the lake sooner and leave the hooks alone.

T-bone,
After reading your post I was not sure what your flame was all about. But after reading my post, maybe a little confusion. I was not trying to imply that the launch problem was due to barbs, but due to the poor handling that I had seen.
I think in all the posts/topics, folks are looking for better ways to help support a comeback of a strained resource.
And as someone who already pinches the barbs for not only walleyes but also bass, I voted yes.

Barbless hooks aren’t the answer and are not needed. I think the hooking mortality numbers are over-exaggerated, but anything we can do to minimize this number will help.

I’m curios how many people feed the fish line while rigging. Years ago I would feed them line for as much as 30 seconds. I was constantly cutting off swallowed hooks. For the past several years I have started dropping the rod tip and hitting them right away or giving it to them for a few seconds tops. I think it has helped my catch rate because I don’t have the occasional fish that drops the bait anymore. Swallowed hooks are very rare now, so I can pop the hook out quick and get them back in the water.

Several years ago I fished with Derek Johnston and he told me that fish don’t have hands so if you feel them on the line that means the hook is in the mouth, so set the hook. Hmm…smart guy.

Quote:

---

I’m curios how many people feed the fish line while rigging. Years ago I would feed them line for as much as 30 seconds. I was constantly cutting off swallowed hooks. For the past several years I have started dropping the rod tip and hitting them right away or giving it to them for a few seconds tops. I think it has helped my catch rate because I don’t have the occasional fish that drops the bait anymore. Swallowed hooks are very rare now, so I can pop the hook out quick and get them back in the water.

---

Agreed! 10 years ago I switched all of my crawler rigs to #4 and #6 Tru Turn hooks. They practically set themselves as the hook set can be almost immediately. Of the hundreds of fish caught, 99% are hooked in the upper lip. Same with circle hooks on bobber rigs. Once you figure out not to set them, no more gut hooked fish. In Alaska all halibut fishing is done with circles. After 12 trips I never saw one gut hooked. On one charter they actually prevented us from removing the rods from the rod holders until a hookset was verified, relying on simply reeling in the line to set the hook. It works.

Quote:

---

Fish in Manitoba where barbless is the law and pinched many of my barbs off lures. Use these lures here in MN and really do not notice any difference except much easier to unhook the fish. If it saves some wear and tear on the fish I do not think it is unreasonable

---

BINGO ! me too !

Quote:

---

T-bone,
After reading your post I was not sure what your flame was all about. But after reading my post, maybe a little confusion. I was not trying to imply that the launch problem was due to barbs, but due to the poor handling that I had seen.
I think in all the posts/topics, folks are looking for better ways to help support a comeback of a strained resource.
And as someone who already pinches the barbs for not only walleyes but also bass, I voted yes.

---

Gonefishin, my post was in no way referring to yours, sorry if it looked that way. My flames were in regard to how people handle fish, actually agreeing with you.