The move towards barbless hooks appears to be gathering pace but the supply of flies tied using barbless seems to be lagging behind. With an increasing number of anglers seeing the benefits of catch and return it would seem to be an opportunity for some aspiring business to make a real dent in the market.
Does anybody know of a good supplier who uses barbless hooks for their patterns? Flattening barbs is an option that is not without risk if the integrity of the hook is to be preserved. Couple this with the (alleged) easier penetration obtained by barbless hooks and the arguement for commercially tied barbless flies is compelling.

good to see someone from backhome!!!
fulling mill do a basic range of patterns, places like sportfish will sell them.
decent prices, and bought in packs of three to save money. they are all standard bronze hooks however, i do believe that celtic flycraft sell a few on the new knapek barbless hooks- well worth a look as some of the other users of the forum will tell you.

tightlines

After...well, too long, I've never had an issue with flattening barbs on hooks. However, hooks designed as barbless would definately be better.

I don't think it will be too long before the abomination of barbed hooks are made illegal, just like knotted landing and keepnets and such. At least I live in hope!!

Barbless hooks: Do They Really Make a Difference?
I encountered an interesting scientific article recently regarding the difference in mortality between barbed and barbless hooks used in recreational fisheries. Dan Schill an R. L. Scarpella (1997) conducted a literature review and meta-analysis on all studies comparing the use of these two hook types, and came up with some very interesting results.

In the first study comparing barbed vs. barbless, Westerman (1932) concluded that barbed hooks caused higher mortality than barbless hooks, however, he did not use any statistical analysis to test these results. Since then, a number of different studies have taken place. Taylor and White (1992) summarized datasets from these studies using meta-analysis, and concluded that barbed hooks caused higher mortality than barbless as well.

Upon reviewing the Taylor and White review, Schill and Scarpella noticed that some previous studies were NOT included in the the analysis, and furthermore, the approach of statistical analysis in the review was questionable. They therefore decided to use a more common approach to the meta-analysis, and use all the existing available data up to 1997.

Using a more thorough data set and better methods of statistical analysis, Schill and Scarpella determined in 1997 that barbless hooks showed NO EVIDENCE OF REDUCING FISH MORTALITY IN COMPARISON TO BARBED HOOKS. Some studies did show higher mortality rates using barbed hooks, and others showed the opposite. However, the differences were so small (usually just a couple of percentage points) that they did not overcome the difference that could have been caused simply by random error.

Since the Schill and Scarpella paper in 1997, a number of other studies have examined the difference between barbed and barbless hooks. The results of all the studies I could track down are as follows:

Dubois & Dubielzig (2004) - showed no biological advantage in using barbless hooks

Dubois & Dubielzig (2004, different study) - no difference between barbed and barbless, except when fish deeply swallowed the hooks, in which case barbless were better.

Schaeffer & Hoffman (2002) - no significant difference in mortality between barbed and barbless. Barbed hooks landed 22% more fish. Quicker hook release time with barbless.

Meka (2004) - higher injury rates with barbed hooks, however she did not compare mortality, so results are not applicable.

Clearly, there has been no demonstrated evidence that barbless hooks cause lower mortality rates than barbed hooks. However, barbless hooks are becoming a more and more popular regulation in recreational fisheries. Why is it that these regulations persist? Even in Idaho, where Schill and Scarpella demonstrated the facts, barbless restrictions exist in many waters. I believe that the barbless regulation is simply a feel-good regulation. People are still convinced that barbless hooks “must” be better than barbed, despite what the science says.

Simply put, a mouth hooked fish, handled properly, has a very miniscule chance of dying whether or not the hook used is barbed or barbless. Mortality issues arise when the hook is swallowed and significant bleeding and tearing occur, as well as when a fish is improperly handled and held out of the water for too long. Therefore, we should quit worrying about the little barb that helps anglers land more fish, and start thinking about ways to improve other facets of angling mortality, particularly how we handle the fish once caught.

One final note: Schill and Scarpella quote the annual estimated NATURAL mortality of trout in streams to be between 30% - 65%. With such an incredibly high mortality rate already occuring, most fishing mortality is probably compensatory (the fish would have died naturally by the end of the year, whether or not you killed it). Therefore, how can we be justified in griping about a 0.3% mortality difference between barbed and barbless hooks?

This entry was posted on Sunday, June 10th, 2007 at 12:51 pm and is filed under Fishing Regulations, General.

__________________
WHEN YOU LEAVE THE RIVER, TAKE NOTHING, AND LEAVE ONLY FOOTPRINT'S!!!

THA CAN TELL A YORKSHIREMAN ,BUT THA CAN'T TELL HIM MUCH !!

Bruce

I would say that the key part of your statement is "handled properly"

Simply put, a mouth hooked fish, handled properly, has a very miniscule chance of dying whether or not the hook used is barbed or barbless.

The trouble is too many anglers still don't do this. The absence of a barb simply assists. Early, speedier release of a fish to be returned MUST help.

I would also dispute the figure of 22% fewer fish being landed with barbless hooks - the key again is "when fished properly"

Interesting figures on natural mortality of trout. Was this for an all wild trout population? - hard to believe.

P

__________________
Trout fishermen revere the trout; trout, on the other hand, unaware of their sublime standing in man's world, revere nothing, including man, a creature they seem to view with special contempt. Nihilism is a rare trait in fish but trout are full of it. The old men liked that.

Surley, it's not just mortality were talking about here either. Barbed hooks cause more damage than barbless and that's definate - don't need a study to confirm that. How many fish with badly damaged mouths have you seen due (mainly) to careless barbed hook removal. How many times have you had difficulty removing a badly placed barbed hook etc. etc. Like I've said before I've even seen people return a fish to the net to give them a "breather" before attempting further sugery...this can't be good. I know going barbless doesn't stop this but it goes a long way to help.

Well said MrP. I think that, in a nutshell, is what the whole barbless issue is about.

Going back to the original query;

Phil Holding AKA Spiders Plus - who posts on here - ties some very nice river flies on barbless hooks.

__________________
"In wine there is wisdom. In beer there is strength. In water there is bacteria." - German proverb
JH based near Southampton

Going back to the original query.

It is a pity that barbless hooks aren't the norm by now and that barbed are the rarity. Even de-barbed are not quite good enough. Handling is undoubtedly the key factor here and it is impossible to remove a barbed hook with the same ease as barbless, so there is going to be more pressure on the fish at this stage. I can't see any justification for this whether the fish is being returned or knocked on the head. Having fished some commercial coarse fisheries where barbless or de-barbed are compulsory, I have been shocked and dismayed by the number of mouth deformities in fish I have caught. So much so that I no longer go to these places. This can only be due to careless and rushed handling, I assume by match fishermen. Alan

Devising a controlled experiment to establish fish mortality from barbed and barbless hooks (Bruce's comments earlier) would be beset by such a number of uncontrolled variables as to make the results of little value. Surely there can be no arguement as to the most humane and effective method of catch and release. Having had both kinds of hooks penetrate my fingers over the years I can offer experimentally substantive data as to which I found most humane and effective for the purpose of freeing said digit!