fine reversed for barbs

[shanks]

got a cheque back in the mail for a fine that was issued to me for fishing with what the FW officer said was a barb on one of my treble hooks. just FYI the letter states as on sept. 22 2011 the law was supposed to be reversed and the charge was quashed. In my opinion there was no barb but i guess those guys are the pros.

Pro Barb

[Shmag]

I guess that means your buying drinks tonight....Lets celebrate!!!:sHa_sarcasticlol:

[winger7mm]

got a cheque back in the mail for a fine that was issued to me for fishing with what the FW officer said was a barb on one of my treble hooks. just FYI the letter states as on sept. 22 2011 the law was supposed to be reversed and the charge was quashed. In my opinion there was no barb but i guess those guys are the pros.

Pro Barb

Yup they really screwed up that one. Most F&W didnt even know the law was changed. They will be paying back fines that were taken, giving back equipment that was seized, and reimbursing for stuff that was destroyed. And itll be stricken from the record ;)

[huntsfurfish]

got a cheque back in the mail for a fine that was issued to me for fishing with what the FW officer said was a barb on one of my treble hooks. just FYI the letter states as on sept. 22 2011 the law was supposed to be reversed and the charge was quashed. In my opinion there was no barb but i guess those guys are the pros.

Pro Barb

Good to here.

[linger]

that was about as stupid as the gun laws glad to see it go. :)

[bdh]

so yoyu can use barbed hooks now ? im cunfused

[MoFugger21]

so yoyu can use barbed hooks now ? im cunfused

http://mywildalberta.com/Fishing/Regulations/BarblessHooks.aspx

Barbless Hooks
Fishing
The Government of Alberta is asking Alberta’s anglers to keep barbed hooks out of our waters.

Last fall, an inadvertent federal amendment to the Alberta Fishery Regulations removed the barbed hook ban. The omission was not immediately noted and has affected about 600 Albertans who were ticketed for using barbed hooks.

Officials from ESRD and Justice and Solicitor General are working to rectify the problem by withdrawing charges and reversing wrongful convictions and fines for those individuals affected since September 2011.

We’re working with the Government of Canada to determine the appropriate next steps as we consider the current lack of a barbed hook ban.

In the meantime, we encourage Alberta’s anglers to continue to use barbless hooks and remember that we are promoting proper handling techniques for all fish to best ensure their survival once released.

[shanks]

so yoyu can use barbed hooks now ? im cunfused

you can use barbed hooks!!!!

[davebuck]

I still pinch mine a lot better to release . Just my opinion

[huntsfurfish]

Good for you, makes little difference, so I dont.:)

[catchandeat]

You can definetely use barbs now, but they may change it back to barbless in the future. I'm not even totally sure if all co's even know about the barbless no longer being mandatory. Had one come up to us at spray lakes a few weeks ago and ask if we were fishing barbless....

[hiddenwalleye]

:mad0100:..Good on them, the ones that we see on the ice are just power trippin all over with "cotton tests" on barbs, give me a break!!

Looks good to see the worm has turned and now they can rub the Egg off their Faces!!..:sHa_sarcasticlol:

Tight Lines Every Body and Sharpen those Hooks and don't pinch those Barbs, catch more fish that way!!..;)!!


:acigar:


HW

[pikergolf]

Good for you, makes little difference, so I dont.:)

I am in the camp of the barbed so to speak, or was. I fish a special management fishery a lot, I've seen a lot of lip damage on fish. Not sure if it's guys using barbs or if the damage is from debarbed hooks, none the less in this type of fishery I think debarbing hooks makes sense. Still favor barbs in other situations though. I read an interesting study years ago published in infisherman about barbed hooks. I forget what state did it but the conclusion was that barb-less killed more fish than barbed because of the hook coming out and re'embedding in a different place of the mouth. Don't remember which lake or species was studied.

[EZM]

You can definetely use barbs now, but they may change it back to barbless in the future. I'm not even totally sure if all co's even know about the barbless no longer being mandatory. Had one come up to us at spray lakes a few weeks ago and ask if we were fishing barbless....

Your story is not uncommon - my neighbor was checked for barbless as well and was told the following;

To be clear, the "definition" of a barbless hook, along with some illustrations, under the section of banned hooks was removed.

The law, itself, was never amended, changed or overturned. As confusing as this sounds, barbless is still, actually and ironically, still against the law in this province. Law enforcement simply cannot uphold the charge in court and therefore will not try to charge anyone.

Simply stated, they have no point of reference, description, or way to determine "what a barb is" or "what constitutes a barb" ...........

This is why they will not charge or convict anyone unless there is a measurable or documented description of a barbless hook (and fancy picture).

[Dust1n]

I wonder if their going to change the laws to keep trout streams barbless.

[catchandeat]

Your story is not uncommon - my neighbor was checked for barbless as well and was told the following;

To be clear, the "definition" of a barbless hook, along with some illustrations, under the section of banned hooks was removed.

The law, itself, was never amended, changed or overturned. As confusing as this sounds, barbless is still, actually and ironically, still against the law in this province. Law enforcement simply cannot uphold the charge in court and therefore will not try to charge anyone.

Simply stated, they have no point of reference, description, or way to determine "what a barb is" or "what constitutes a barb" ...........

This is why they will not charge or convict anyone unless there is a measurable or documented description of a barbless hook (and fancy picture).
That's interesting. Makes sense to me though, as the co told us that it still says it's illegal in the regs, so that's what she was going on. However, she did tell us she couldn't charge us for it..... but kinda makes you wonder why they're still asking if your fishing barbless if they can't charge you for it????

[BeeGuy]

I wonder if their going to change the laws to keep trout streams barbless.

Maybe, but it would make more sense to make trout streams single-point only as trebles have a measurable impact on trout <50cm, whereas barbs do not.

Science!

[BeeGuy]

That's interesting. Makes sense to me though, as the co told us that it still says it's illegal in the regs, so that's what she was going on. However, she did tell us she couldn't charge us for it..... but kinda makes you wonder why they're still asking if your fishing barbless if they can't charge you for it????

I've written this several times before,

The Regulations Manual is NOT a legally binding document.

Page 1

The Alberta Guide to Sportfishing Regulations is neither a legal document nor a complete listing of current sportfishing regulations. It is a summary of the federal and provincial fishery regulations and is intended to assist those interested in sportfishing.

[Gust]

When you get reimbursed, did they include interest/compounded?

[EZM]

I've written this several times before,

The Regulations Manual is NOT a legally binding document.

Page 1

I assume the C.O. was referring to the law ....... I don't think he said anything about the "guide to the sport-fishing regulations".

I think most of us know and understand the "guide" is just that ..... and not a legal document.

Either way ........... that's the five people now, at least three from the forum who were approached and questioned about barbless hooks.

I think this makes more sense as the provincial laws and amendments are likely underwritten and/or appropriated and ratified amendments to to the federal fisheries management statutes.

I'm 100% sure on how that exactly works .... but now it is making more sense to me now.

[safcforever]

I am in the camp of the barbed so to speak, or was. I fish a special management fishery a lot, I've seen a lot of lip damage on fish. Not sure if it's guys using barbs or if the damage is from debarbed hooks, none the less in this type of fishery I think debarbing hooks makes sense. Still favor barbs in other situations though. I read an interesting study years ago published in infisherman about barbed hooks. I forget what state did it but the conclusion was that barb-less killed more fish than barbed because of the hook coming out and re'embedding in a different place of the mouth. Don't remember which lake or species was studied.

I caught a fish last summer and it fought well. Eventually the line went really loose really quick, I couldn't keep up with it. Then it went really tight again and when I finally got it to the bank it was caught in its eye. I think the line popped out and hooked him there in the struggle. A barbed one wouldn't have popped out.


I'm in the barbless camp still.

[EZM]

My fishing partner TrophyPikeHunter caught himself with two barbless trebles shank deep while wrestling a hammer handle at Wabamun.

Despite being barbless, we couldn't get the hooks out as both fingers were neatly pierced (one straight and one bent) in such a way so that removing one hook would have driven the other deeper.

A required a trip into Stoney Plain hospital and a round of bowel cleansing antibiotics were the result.

He is still barbless .............. lol.

[BeeGuy]

So, I spent the time to read through the amended Alberta Fishery Regulations in order to understand what change had occurred.

Basically, there is still the provision in Schedule 9 Item 24 to fine $100 for the use of a hook, except a barbless hook (ie a barbed hook).

However, they fail to identify/define non-barbless hooks as prohibited gear.

Without defining them as prohibited gear, they can not fine you.

That is my take anyhow.

[yardape]

still think everybody should stay barbless, makes it a lot easier to release undersized fish and remove hooks from your finger. If you are a good fisher person barbless does not mean looseing more fish maybe a few but we shouldn`t keep everything we catch.Limit our catch not catch our limit To preserve the resource for generations to come

[shanks]

When you get reimbursed, did they include interest/compounded?

no....and it said i was convicted back on july 22....it should have said wrongfully....anyway i have a hundred dollars to spend at the fishing hole!

[huntsfurfish]

still think everybody should stay barbless, makes it a lot easier to release undersized fish and remove hooks from your finger. If you are a good fisher person barbless does not mean looseing more fish maybe a few but we shouldn`t keep everything we catch.Limit our catch not catch our limit To preserve the resource for generations to come

If you are a good fisherperson, you shouldnt be getting hooks in your finger either .:lol:

[catchandeat]

I've written this several times before,

The Regulations Manual is NOT a legally binding document.

Page 1

No I totally understand that, maybe I didn't word it properly by saying "illegal".... But i'm just curious as to why they're still asking about barbless if they're no longer able to fine us. The CO that talked to us wasn't even completely sure about it, and told us she'd have to follow up on it with her office...:confused:

[Mutter87]

Makes no sense to give the money back. No one knew the law had changed, so they were under the assumption they were breaking the law and should have to pay anyways.

[huntsfurfish]

Makes no sense to give the money back. No one knew the law had changed, so they were under the assumption they were breaking the law and should have to pay anyways.

LOL somebody trolling:)

[Mutter87]

LOL somebody trolling:)

Not trolling at all, If you are under the assumption you are breaking the law, regardless of what the law is, you should be penalized.

[huntsfurfish]

So if I think i am breaking the law even if I am not, I should be penalized.
Roflmao.

Ya your trolling:)

[Guitarplayingfish]

How do I know if I am getting a refund?

I got a ticket a while ago (can't remember date) for a "barbed" hook. It was not barbed, I am 100% sure... I argued with the CO about it for some time, but he was young and power-driven.... He was one of those CO's who shouldn't be a CO. He treated me like a criminal the entire time. I still believe I was wrongly ticketed, but I could not make the court appearance date due to other commitments.

Anyway, I payed the darn thing... When will I find out if I am getting money back? Can I call someone to find out?

[Mutter87]

So if I think i am breaking the law even if I am not, I should be penalized.
Roflmao.

Ya your trolling:)

If your doing it willingly. Yes

[huntsfurfish]

If your doing it willingly. Yes

LOL


But you made me do it.:)

Or was it the devil?:evilgrin:

[huntingd]

LOL


But you made me do it.:)

Or was it the devil?:evilgrin:

Government agents.

[huntsfurfish]

Government agents.

You mean the MIB.

[BeeGuy]

Makes no sense to give the money back. No one knew the law had changed, so they were under the assumption they were breaking the law and should have to pay anyways.

Not trolling at all, If you are under the assumption you are breaking the law, regardless of what the law is, you should be penalized.

You demonstrate that you have no idea how the law works.

[Sundancefisher]

If you are a good fisherperson, you shouldnt be getting hooks in your finger either .:lol:

Teach your kids to flyfish and see if you like barbless better. :sHa_shakeshout:

[huntsfurfish]

You demonstrate that you have no idea how the law works.

Exactly.

[huntsfurfish]

Teach your kids to flyfish and see if you like barbless better. :sHa_shakeshout:

No pain no gain.:)

Sides, the barbs are for the fish not the angler.:)

Hint: dont stand so close when they are learning.:sHa_shakeshout:
and/or clip the hook off completely

[pikergolf]

Maybe, but it would make more sense to make trout streams single-point only as trebles have a measurable impact on trout <50cm, whereas barbs do not.

Science!



I wonder if their going to change the laws to keep trout streams barbless.

Both of these makes sense on C&R and Special Fisheries waters.

[Mutter87]

You demonstrate that you have no idea how the law works.

I never said I was confused or asked why, I said it makes no sense. I have an understanding of how the law works, I just don't agree with it. There is a difference.

[shanks]

Not trolling at all, If you are under the assumption you are breaking the law, regardless of what the law is, you should be penalized.

Actually in the 20 plus years i have been fishing with a licence i have never been fined and make sure to report things i see that are illegal. It was one of the three barbs that was at the descretion of the officer and i made an obvious attempt to pinch them all. I also feel that if you have the power to fine people and are the final word in a paticular industry, you better have your ducks in a row. What if the fine would have involved my truck and cost me my job. guess it still would have been as clean cut as you indicate.

[Mutter87]

Actually in the 20 plus years i have been fishing with a licence i have never been fined and make sure to report things i see that are illegal. It was one of the three barbs that was at the descretion of the officer and i made an obvious attempt to pinch them all. I also feel that if you have the power to fine people and are the final word in a paticular industry, you better have your ducks in a row. What if the fine would have involved my truck and cost me my job. guess it still would have been as clean cut as you indicate.

You made the attempt, that's the difference.
If you had said "iv'e been fishing for 20 years with barbs, never knew the law changed but glad I am getting some of my money back". It would be a whole different scenario.

The officers have to use better judgement.

Made the attempt to pinch? Let them go
Made no attempt to pinch and live in a world of lawlesness? Fine away.

[shanks]

You made the attempt, that's the difference.
If you had said "iv'e been fishing for 20 years with barbs, never knew the law changed but glad I am getting some of my money back". It would be a whole different scenario.

The officers have to use better judgement.

Made the attempt to pinch? Let them go
Made no attempt to pinch and live in a world of lawlesness? Fine away.

yeah and thats what got me about this one? the effort was clearly there and still they fined me. anyway i digress

[Denny Boy]

I still believe in barbless hooks

[L.O.S.T.Arrow]

:D got this in an E-mail recently...probably been posted before but for referance...

Column: OUTDOORS
Byline: BOB SCAMMELL


Some readers say thanks for sticking to my opposition to the annoying and useless regulation that, for 15 years, has forced all anglers in Alberta to use barbless hooks in all their fishing... "now that we're finally rid of the rule," they say.

But other readers realize the fact that, since Sept. 22, 2011, we have unknowingly been able, legally, to fish with barbed hooks in Alberta, is not a change in policy, but rather pure serendipity, a happy accident, and funny as a man slipping on a banana peel, more hilarious, perhaps, since "someone" merely made an horrendous mistake.

Funnier yet, Wildlife Officers, not knowing the law was gone, kept on charging anglers for using barbed hooks, and now the government has to make a court application to quash some 600 wrongful convictions and refund between $60,000 to $120,000 of fines and return seized items to those convicted under a law that didn't exist.

Yet, instead of accepting that the gods may have been telling them something important, and letting a bad law stay dead, the government is actually considering resuscitating it.

Carrie Sancartier, a spokesperson for Alberta Environment, and presumably also Sustainable Resource Development, is quoted in The Medicine Hat News as saying "we certainly encourage people to use barbless hooks, because there are benefits; it helps maintain healthy fish stocks for current and future anglers."

Ms. Sancartier's qualifications must be purely in PR, because fisheries biologists know that every scientific study done since 1932 shows that barbless hooks do not increase the survival rate of released fish, and thus do nothing to help "maintain healthy fish stocks."

Forcing anglers to use barbless hooks for no valid scientific reason, in a province where it is practically impossible to buy barbless hooks and lures, caused an estimated 80 percent of Alberta anglers to hate the barbless regulation.

They disrespect it and it even brings into disrepute other more valid regulations. Ultimately many disobey it, to the extent that use of barbless hooks quickly became Alberta's most charged fishing offence.

It diverted too much enforcement time from regulations that might actually do some good, and became such a cash cow that embarrassed officials had the specified penalty reduced to $100 from $200.

The majority of anglers hates the fiddling, the "pinching" down of barbs on flies, and spending up to an hour filing down the nine unpinchable ultra hard barbs on some three treble-hook plugs, knowing that obeying the law will cause even the most skilled anglers among them to lose up to half the fish they hook.

Albertans abhor being forced to use even "stuff" alleged to be for their own good, but grudgingly accepted mandatory seatbelt use, because it was scientifically proven that they prevent injuries and death.

Many of us wonder why adult Albertans are not forced by law, as they are in the rest of Canada, except B. C., to use helmets on bikes, ATVs and snowmobiles. Yet we reconsider forcing anglers to use barbless hooks when it does no scientifically proven good, either to the fish or the fishery; as blatantly un-Albertan as it gets.

The majority of Alberta anglers must not let government off the barbed hook on this one.

They must not "Study to be quiet" on this, as our saint, Izaac Walton advised us to do in our fishing.

The 'Hat News article has Ms. Sancartier saying that there will be a noise-making opportunity: "we propose consulting with Albertans and Alberta sportfishing to review the need for a barbed hook ban."

Rest assured the 20% of Alberta anglers who like barbless will not study to be quiet.

Barbless is a religion with them, based on the unholy writ of the only study, back in 1932, that has ever found that use of barbless hooks in angling increases the survival rate of released fish, and which has been discredited by every study done since.

The Unbarbites have a touching, misguided, and erroneous faith that there must be some barbless hook benefit to fish and fishery, so their religion, the mandatory use of barbless hooks, must be forced down the throats of the majority of Alberta's anglers.

Why wait to be consulted about the need for a barbed hook ban? There is no rational or scientific need, and anglers should start making noise now to the head at the top of the government totem pole: The Honourable Alison Redford, Premier of Alberta, 307 Legislature Bldg., 10800 - 97th Ave., EDMONTON, AB T5K 2B7, or premier@gov.ab.ca.

Respectfully request that the government not re-enact the ban on barbed hooks in Alberta, because there is no scientific proof that it increases the survival rate of released fish - proven benefit being the only valid justification for coercive mandatory "usage" laws.

Democracy will be served: the majority will have been heard, the fish and the fishery will not be harmed and, since barbed hooks are not now mandatory, the Unbarbites remain free to practice their religion and all its rites, including pinching and filing down barbs until their eyeballs and fingers bleed.

Contrary to the hype, barbless hooks do not increase the survival rate of released fish. Below: It can be long, hard work: filing down the nine hard steel barbs on a Rapala plug. You can't buy them barbless.

[huntsfurfish]

Thanks for posting, LOST Arrow!

It is unbelieveable that they would even reconsider reinstating a barbless law!

I understand some prefer it. But find it sad that based on their humble opinions it is better for the fish, when science says it aint really so.

If you want to pinch your barbs - good for you. But I feel the rest of Alberta should have the choice to pinch or not. And it does not hurt to recommend in the fishing guide to pinch barbs, but thats as far as it should go.

[EZM]

:D got this in an E-mail recently...probably been posted before but for referance...

Column: OUTDOORS
Byline: BOB SCAMMELL


Some readers say thanks for sticking to my opposition to the annoying and useless regulation that, for 15 years, has forced all anglers in Alberta to use barbless hooks in all their fishing... "now that we're finally rid of the rule," they say.

But other readers realize the fact that, since Sept. 22, 2011, we have unknowingly been able, legally, to fish with barbed hooks in Alberta, is not a change in policy, but rather pure serendipity, a happy accident, and funny as a man slipping on a banana peel, more hilarious, perhaps, since "someone" merely made an horrendous mistake.

Funnier yet, Wildlife Officers, not knowing the law was gone, kept on charging anglers for using barbed hooks, and now the government has to make a court application to quash some 600 wrongful convictions and refund between $60,000 to $120,000 of fines and return seized items to those convicted under a law that didn't exist.

Yet, instead of accepting that the gods may have been telling them something important, and letting a bad law stay dead, the government is actually considering resuscitating it.

Carrie Sancartier, a spokesperson for Alberta Environment, and presumably also Sustainable Resource Development, is quoted in The Medicine Hat News as saying "we certainly encourage people to use barbless hooks, because there are benefits; it helps maintain healthy fish stocks for current and future anglers."

Ms. Sancartier's qualifications must be purely in PR, because fisheries biologists know that every scientific study done since 1932 shows that barbless hooks do not increase the survival rate of released fish, and thus do nothing to help "maintain healthy fish stocks."

Forcing anglers to use barbless hooks for no valid scientific reason, in a province where it is practically impossible to buy barbless hooks and lures, caused an estimated 80 percent of Alberta anglers to hate the barbless regulation.

They disrespect it and it even brings into disrepute other more valid regulations. Ultimately many disobey it, to the extent that use of barbless hooks quickly became Alberta's most charged fishing offence.

It diverted too much enforcement time from regulations that might actually do some good, and became such a cash cow that embarrassed officials had the specified penalty reduced to $100 from $200.

The majority of anglers hates the fiddling, the "pinching" down of barbs on flies, and spending up to an hour filing down the nine unpinchable ultra hard barbs on some three treble-hook plugs, knowing that obeying the law will cause even the most skilled anglers among them to lose up to half the fish they hook.

Albertans abhor being forced to use even "stuff" alleged to be for their own good, but grudgingly accepted mandatory seatbelt use, because it was scientifically proven that they prevent injuries and death.

Many of us wonder why adult Albertans are not forced by law, as they are in the rest of Canada, except B. C., to use helmets on bikes, ATVs and snowmobiles. Yet we reconsider forcing anglers to use barbless hooks when it does no scientifically proven good, either to the fish or the fishery; as blatantly un-Albertan as it gets.

The majority of Alberta anglers must not let government off the barbed hook on this one.

They must not "Study to be quiet" on this, as our saint, Izaac Walton advised us to do in our fishing.

The 'Hat News article has Ms. Sancartier saying that there will be a noise-making opportunity: "we propose consulting with Albertans and Alberta sportfishing to review the need for a barbed hook ban."

Rest assured the 20% of Alberta anglers who like barbless will not study to be quiet.

Barbless is a religion with them, based on the unholy writ of the only study, back in 1932, that has ever found that use of barbless hooks in angling increases the survival rate of released fish, and which has been discredited by every study done since.

The Unbarbites have a touching, misguided, and erroneous faith that there must be some barbless hook benefit to fish and fishery, so their religion, the mandatory use of barbless hooks, must be forced down the throats of the majority of Alberta's anglers.

Why wait to be consulted about the need for a barbed hook ban? There is no rational or scientific need, and anglers should start making noise now to the head at the top of the government totem pole: The Honourable Alison Redford, Premier of Alberta, 307 Legislature Bldg., 10800 - 97th Ave., EDMONTON, AB T5K 2B7, or premier@gov.ab.ca.

Respectfully request that the government not re-enact the ban on barbed hooks in Alberta, because there is no scientific proof that it increases the survival rate of released fish - proven benefit being the only valid justification for coercive mandatory "usage" laws.

Democracy will be served: the majority will have been heard, the fish and the fishery will not be harmed and, since barbed hooks are not now mandatory, the Unbarbites remain free to practice their religion and all its rites, including pinching and filing down barbs until their eyeballs and fingers bleed.

Contrary to the hype, barbless hooks do not increase the survival rate of released fish. Below: It can be long, hard work: filing down the nine hard steel barbs on a Rapala plug. You can't buy them barbless.

To be clear I am pro-choice here.

This article has many errors - I will call them errors instead of using stronger language to describe misinformation, or to present misleading information based on opinions instead of scientific facts, etc....

The truth of the matter, and FACT is, based on numerous credible studies from many credible institutions "barbless hooks do, in fact, reduce mortality" period.

I have seen ZERO scientifically credible studies to suggest otherwise and/or to support the above article.

Consider - control groups, variables, sample size, methods, qualifications of people performing the study, etc....

I do, however see many credible and scientifically sound studies to suggest that barbless hooks do, in fact, reduce mortality.

The real question or argument is "is this reduction statistically measurable or significant enough to warrant a restriction on the use of barbed hooks in most scenarios" ...........the answer is simply "in most cases barbed hooks will not have a dramatic effect on a watershed or species".

I am cool with anyone choosing to do what they want as long as it's legal and ethical ............ no worries.

I think we just need to be smart enough to judge the difference between an article written based on an opinion we like versus a credible study. This leaves us looking like a bunch of silly hillbilly's cheering wildly every time the speaker yells "God bless 'Merica" ............

[huntsfurfish]

quote from EZM
"The real question or argument is "is this reduction statistically measurable or significant enough to warrant a restriction on the use of barbed hooks in most scenarios" ...........the answer is simply "in most cases barbed hooks will not have a dramatic effect on a watershed or species"."


Thats the whole point.

[EZM]

quote from EZM
"The real question or argument is "is this reduction statistically measurable or significant enough to warrant a restriction on the use of barbed hooks in most scenarios" ...........the answer is simply "in most cases barbed hooks will not have a dramatic effect on a watershed or species"."


Thats the whole point.

If the point on weather or not it should be the law .... I agree 100% with you.

It makes little difference in most cases. Maybe in some critical and vulnerable watersheds it makes sense - I don't know.

I guess my point was, I hear, too many times, people saying "no study" or "it's been proven that" or "does not" type of language to make their opinion a fact.

I just hate it when the masses get manipulated by cleaver, yet popular, opinions.

It is human nature to "want to believe" what we "want to believe" and I'm simply a pretty cautious guy.

Having said that ........ "God Bless Merica" !!!!

[AxeMan]

Column: OUTDOORS
Byline: BOB SCAMMELL

"The majority of anglers hates the fiddling, the "pinching" down of barbs on flies, and spending up to an hour filing down the nine unpinchable ultra hard barbs on some three treble-hook plugs, knowing that obeying the law will cause even the most skilled anglers among them to lose up to half the fish they hook. "

:lol::lol:

Holy cripe, if this "skilled angler" is losing half the fish he hooks with his 9 pronged triple treble hooked porkupine, I think barbed or barbless isn't going to help him.

Pretty hard to take this article seriously! :sHa_sarcasticlol:

[huntsfurfish]

I try to put it: as little significant difference. It is easy for people (me included) to say it makes no difference. Not correct as you say.

Talk to your local bio, I believe most will say its not "significant" in most cases.

It is also not practical to expect the majority of anglers to comply with a law that is not clearly helpful/beneficial to the fishery. It is also an unpopular and extremely hard to enforce law. Which also makes compliance a joke.

As I said, I hope it goes the way of the dodo.

[pikergolf]

Mr Scammell's talking out his bung... LOL
If the barb is unpinchably hard, no way a file is going to touch it. I'd like to see a barb a set of good pliers won't take off. Loosing half of the fish is rich as well.
Causes are not helped by people playing loosely with facts.

The majority of anglers hates the fiddling, the "pinching" down of barbs on flies, and spending up to an hour filing down the nine unpinchable ultra hard barbs on some three treble-hook plugs, knowing that obeying the law will cause even the most skilled anglers among them to lose up to half the fish they hook.

[huntsfurfish]

Mr Scammell's talking out his bung... LOL
If the barb is unpinchably hard, no way a file is going to touch it. I'd like to see a barb a set of good pliers won't take off. Loosing half of the fish is rich as well.
Causes are not helped by people playing loosely with facts.

The majority of anglers hates the fiddling, the "pinching" down of barbs on flies, and spending up to an hour filing down the nine unpinchable ultra hard barbs on some three treble-hook plugs, knowing that obeying the law will cause even the most skilled anglers among them to lose up to half the fish they hook.

Actually there is some/lotta truth to that:)

[jaystev]

I have always fished barbless and will continue to do so. Im not necessarily against barbed hooks but this is my view on the subject. If youre going out to lake x for a limit of whites or perch for a fish fry and youre keeping em, have at er barbs or barbless dosent matter. But when guy goes to wab pulls six pike out puts em all back bleeding and torn(which i saw just a couple days ago) I think cnr lakes should be barbless. I dont care what the studys show I know from what ive seen that barbs do more damage than barbless hooks any day of the week. Ever tried to pull a barbed hook out of your finger? I know its been said before, but its true. And to all who think cnr dosent work, I beg to differ. A friend of mine has an aerated dugout with a handfull of trout in there. Ive pulled the same one out five to ten times a year for the last five years and shes no worse for the wear.

[Gators]

Is it really that important to land every fish you hook. They spit the hook big deal it's what makes fishing fun. I find it much easier to remove a barbless hook so I will continue to pinch barbs. It only takes a few seconds and it's easy to do. A ban on gorge hooks would be a good idea too.

[huntsfurfish]

I have always fished barbless and will continue to do so. Im not necessarily against barbed hooks but this is my view on the subject. If youre going out to lake x for a limit of whites or perch for a fish fry and youre keeping em, have at er barbs or barbless dosent matter. But when guy goes to wab pulls six pike out puts em all back bleeding and torn(which i saw just a couple days ago) I think cnr lakes should be barbless. I dont care what the studys show I know from what ive seen that barbs do more damage than barbless hooks any day of the week. Ever tried to pull a barbed hook out of your finger? I know its been said before, but its true. And to all who think cnr dosent work, I beg to differ. A friend of mine has an aerated dugout with a handfull of trout in there. Ive pulled the same one out five to ten times a year for the last five years and shes no worse for the wear.

Perfect case! (dont care what the studies say)

Ya ever think it was the hook point or a mouth full orf trebbles that caused the bleeding! And your comment actually shows you dont know.

Yes I have pulled a barbed hook out of my finger, came out ok, quick twist with pliers - little hole goin in, little hole after removed!

I have been practicing catch and release for over 40 years. Most of that with barbed hooks.

You could likely do the same with a barbed hook. Ive done almost the same with walleye in the river. Dont you get tired of barrel trout

[huntsfurfish]

How many guys on here that have posted use bait? Or trebbles, or fish in deep water?

Each one of the "for" barbless guys please speak up.

:)thats ok I really do not think you would admit to any of that:)

Fly fishermen dont use bait, alot of hardware trout fishermen dont use bait either(yours truly included).

Those points(bait, trebbles, deep water) all have science to back it up - they all have a noticable/great impact on mortality rates. That is the difference!

PS-this is something I feel quite strong about as Im sure most have noticed by now.:)

[jaystev]

No i will never tire of seeing a 7+lbs trout take my newest creation from the edge of the grass. I use his trout to test flys and plugs. If you had access to a trout off the back porch youre telling me you wouldnt? All i was saying is that cnr lakes IMHO should be barbless. In a perfect world id even say Trebleless lol. this guy was using 4/0 trebles at least. id like to see the "little hole" youd get from one of those.

[EZM]

How many guys on here that have posted use bait? Or trebbles, or fish in deep water?

Each one of the "for" barbless guys please speak up.

:)thats ok I really do not think you would admit to any of that:)

Fly fishermen dont use bait, alot of hardware trout fishermen dont use bait either(yours truly included).

Those points(bait, trebbles, deep water) all have science to back it up - they all have a noticable/great impact on mortality rates. That is the difference!

PS-this is something I feel quite strong about as Im sure most have noticed by now.:)

I'd agree with you ...... bait, trebles and deep fishing certainly has a greater impact on mortality rates, in most cases, and in most credible studies, I've read.

To suggest, that there is no scientific evidence to say barbless reduces mortality, as the author is leading his readers to believe is either ignorant or a bold face lie. period.

The more I read his article, the more incredible the author became. He's clearly out of his element and reminds me of a lunatic ranting and babbling silly conspiracy theories.

I am going to stay barbless for my fishing - period. That's my choice and I'm cool with your choice to keep your barbs.

All things being equal, I want to do everything I can to reduce my impact - no big deal.

and BTW ...... I use trebles, deep fish and bait in some circumstances - so I guess I'm a hypocrite maybe ........ I dunno ........ maybe I am as you suggest.

[huntsfurfish]

I have a couple of autographed books by Bob Scammell. He is a good writer. EZM try reading it with out the anger:), in it other than saying there is no evidence which realisticly (big picture)there isnt (marginal at best). What he said is actually mostly all true. If you overlook that try reading again.

Sides as we get older we get crankier:) least I am.

I actually wanted to be an outdoor writer and had a well known sports writer offer to sponsor me. Unfortunately, I did not follow through. If that person is reading this, thanks again for that.

But, as a wise moderator once said look what TJ had to go through(TJ left).

Anyway read it again.:)

[BeeGuy]

Everyone who is referencing these magical studies please feel free to post the author and title, or even better a link.

I can only assume that if you've read these papers than you can easily provide them.

Otherwise, your "facts" are a load.

Also keep in mind, that scientific experiments do not find magical facts. They only either support a hypothesis, or a null hypothesis.

The papers I have examined have only ever supported the null hypothesis.

[Mutter87]

What a ridiculous argument. Take 2 hooks, 1 barbed and one Debarbed, stick them in your arms, then take them out. Document which one causes more damage, share your findings then explain how it is different for fish.

[catnthehat]

What a ridiculous argument. Take 2 hooks, 1 barbed and one Debarbed, stick them in your arms, then take them out. Document which one causes more damage, share your findings then explain how it is different for fish.

Uh, I've already done that , not by intention however :sHa_sarcasticlol: - NO comparing the two at all!!:scared0015:
Cat

[pikergolf]

Everyone who is referencing these magical studies please feel free to post the author and title, or even better a link.

I can only assume that if you've read these papers than you can easily provide them.

Otherwise, your "facts" are a load.

Also keep in mind, that scientific experiments do not find magical facts. They only either support a hypothesis, or a null hypothesis.

The papers I have examined have only ever supported the null hypothesis.

Quit a few studies, google it. In my opinion the way we handle fish has far more impact. Fish rolling around on the ice or dirt etc. out of the water for pics, show friends etc. plays a bigger roll. In the summer I don't even take the fish out of the water, just remove the hook and release. I bite my tongue a lot with some of the photos I see. I read somewhere and go by this, when you remove the fish from water take a breath and hold it till you let the fish go. Right or wrong i think it's a good guide, bugs me to see fish laying on ice or dirt before releasing. Just because they swim away doesn't mean all is good. Here's an interesting read.

http://forum.skagitmaster.com/index.php?topic=330.0

[BeeGuy]

I googled it, thanks.

I have not found these magical studies and facts that have led posters to make authoritative statements in bold font.

I would very much like to see these "studies" they are alluding to.

[BeeGuy]

If there are "quite a few" studies (your words), please post the one you think is the best.

It will greatly inform this discussion.

[pikergolf]

I googled it, thanks.

I have not found these magical studies and facts that have led posters to make authoritative statements in bold font.

I would very much like to see these "studies" they are alluding to.

Which way you want to see, yah or nay? The posted article is very good by the way.

[braggadoe]

if you believe that barbless hooks DON'T make a difference. all you have to do is take two hooks. one with, and one without a barb. tie about 3 ft of line on too them and then tie'em to a door knob on an open door. place one hook in a corner of your own mouth, and the other in the other corner.


slam the door yourself, better yet get someone else to do it.

report back which one comes out easier.

[pikergolf]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy
I googled it, thanks.

I have not found these magical studies and facts that have led posters to make authoritative statements in bold font.

I would very much like to see these "studies" they are alluding to.

Which way you want to see, yah or nay? The posted article is very good by the way.

I see where your going with this, lots of studies cited but a person can't access any of them. Because they are protected property? The article I posted is still worth a read.

[BeeGuy]

Which way you want to see, yah or nay? The posted article is very good by the way.

That article has nothing to do with the impact of barbed hooks on fish mortality. The numbers the author uses are made up to support his argument.

[pikergolf]

That article has nothing to do with the impact of barbed hooks on fish mortality. The numbers the author uses are made up to support his argument.

You are correct, the article has everything thing to do with my little derail, sorry everybody.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy
I googled it, thanks.

I have not found these magical studies and facts that have led posters to make authoritative statements in bold font.

I would very much like to see these "studies" they are alluding to.

Which way you want to see, yah or nay? The posted article is very good by the way.

I see where your going with this, lots of studies cited but a person can't access any of them. Because they are protected property? The article I posted is still worth a read.

Amazing that one could quote studies they have never read, nor have access too.

I DO have access and would be happy to provide insight on any study that supports the suppositions being made.

Though you may not have access to an entire article, the abstract will outline the findings, if any.

Post away.

wrt Tuft's findings in the essay you linked to, you will find that wild fish and field conditions are much different than his experimental setting. 7/10? Not in the wild, thankfully.

[EZM]

I have a couple of autographed books by Bob Scammell. He is a good writer. EZM try reading it with out the anger:), in it other than saying there is no evidence which realisticly (big picture)there isnt (marginal at best). What he said is actually mostly all true. If you overlook that try reading again.

Sides as we get older we get crankier:) least I am.

I actually wanted to be an outdoor writer and had a well known sports writer offer to sponsor me. Unfortunately, I did not follow through. If that person is reading this, thanks again for that.

But, as a wise moderator once said look what TJ had to go through(TJ left).

Anyway read it again.:)

No, lol, Huntsfurfish, there is zero anger in me. Again, a good example of how the written word comes across sometimes - lol.

:argue2:

I am trying to articulate how ludicrous and silly it seems to me someone of Scamell's influence can wield so much influence with little truth to his argument. That's all I'm saying. Facts are Facts. I have posted the link before on a few threads as have others. These are scientifically sound studies.

:mad0100:

I guess I get pretty passionate about some stuff - like fact based science. My first undergrad degree was in biology (environmental science) so i really can pick out junk studies versus good studies. I went on to study engineering and, quite frankly, it's not my passion ...... just more money in engineering ...lol.

I still troll around the net looking at fisheries and wildlife studies and stuff .... that's how I roll.

:bad_boys_20:

It just drives me nuts when anybody can look at a junk study and say here .......look ........... this study says this ............ and they simply don't have the ability to determine the validity of the information they are looking at.

I think we had this same discussion a few times before and I'm pretty sure we respect each others opinions on this.

I just hate to see misinformation taken as truth.

BeeGuy, who is one of the other guys I hold in high regard because of knowledge base but we do not agree on this topic, which is cool.

I'd have a beer with you guys any day .....

The bottom line is, pretty simple, barbs do increase mortality in all fish I've seen scientifically credible studies on. Trout and Salmon specifically exhibit even higher mortality rates.

Having said that - trebles are much worse .........than barbs. That same info is outlined clearly in one of the better studies from Oregon State where they had several control categories such as barbless single, barbed single, barbless treble and barbed treble.

I won't use trebles for Salmon or Trout period. I prefer singles for most of my fishing.

For most species in Alberta there will very little appreciable difference (or improvement in) mortality rates using barbless ..... but to be clear, there is an improvement.

I don't want to make this a repeat of the same thread where I present the exact same facts to the forum. I'm just trying to combat the danger of misinformation and opinion.

You guys come up to Edmonton and I will take you out and we will catch some fish. Use barbs, I'm cool with that, I won't be using them, but if you start poaching or using dynamite I'm turning you in .....lol

:shark:

[greylynx]

Here we have arguments about barbed hooks when Don Anderson observes the Stauffer turning to another cow pasture creek.

Please look at the big picture instead of pretending you are more holy than the other fisher person for pinching a barb.

Barbed or Barbless is not going to save any fish populations in Alberta.

I am probably just wasting my time posting this.

[EZM]

here's one (the summary of the study by the state)

http://0101.nccdn.net/1_5/041/090/1a9/Barbless-review.pdf

enjoy ........

[pikergolf]

Amazing that one could quote studies they have never read, nor have access too.

I DO have access and would be happy to provide insight on any study that supports the suppositions being made.

Though you may not have access to an entire article, the abstract will outline the findings, if any.

Post away.

wrt Tuft's findings in the essay you linked to, you will find that wild fish and field conditions are much different than his experimental setting. 7/10? Not in the wild, thankfully.

I don't remember ever quoting studies, maybe you could help me find that.;)

[EZM]

here's another

http://recfishingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/are-barbless-hooks-better.pdf

keep reading

[BeeGuy]

Common EZM

Neither of those are studies. They are review articles.

Where is the research?

[EZM]

here's one that's says "it's not that much different"

http://www.moucheur.com/divers/TroutHooking.pdf

you will like this one

[BeeGuy]

here's another

http://recfishingresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/are-barbless-hooks-better.pdf

keep reading

To bring the point home (couldn’t help it), the
information available on whether barbless hooks
reduce fish injury, increase survival in released fish,
or impact on angler catch rates suggest that
barbless hooks may be better for some fish species
in some situations, but perhaps not across the
board.

Even in a biased review by an NGO, they can not help but identify that the findings are inconclusive.

[EZM]

Common EZM

Neither of those are studies. They are review articles.

Where is the research?

yes these are summary / reviews.

I just yanked any old thing off the internet to try and fabricate evidence to support my position....lol

You are a smart guy, you have access to this stuff too.

I think I posted it in a previous thread ..... I will try and find the actual study ...... hang on BEE

[BeeGuy]

here's one that's says "it's not that much different"

http://www.moucheur.com/divers/TroutHooking.pdf

you will like this one

I don't have an investment in the findings.

I also don't care if I use barbs or not. I catch fish either way.

The issue here is what the research has found, and although people are quick to "state the facts of numerous studies" to my knowledge those facts dont exist and neither do those numerous studies. Those who claim such things would quickly and easily to able to identify those critical pieces of research that support their suppositions.

I have done my own research, and the findings I have read identify that the research is inconclusive.

[huntsfurfish]

Everyone who is referencing these magical studies please feel free to post the author and title, or even better a link.

I can only assume that if you've read these papers than you can easily provide them.

Otherwise, your "facts" are a load.

Also keep in mind, that scientific experiments do not find magical facts. They only either support a hypothesis, or a null hypothesis.

The papers I have examined have only ever supported the null hypothesis.

well said and have to agree

[BeeGuy]

The truth of the matter, and FACT is, based on numerous credible studies from many credible institutions "barbless hooks do, in fact, reduce mortality" period.

I have seen ZERO scientifically credible studies to suggest otherwise and/or to support the above article.

Consider - control groups, variables, sample size, methods, qualifications of people performing the study, etc....

I do, however see many credible and scientifically sound studies to suggest that barbless hooks do, in fact, reduce mortality.



I guess my point was, I hear, too many times, people saying "no study" or "it's been proven that" or "does not" type of language to make their opinion a fact.

I just hate it when the masses get manipulated by cleaver, yet popular, opinions.




To suggest, that there is no scientific evidence to say barbless reduces mortality, as the author is leading his readers to believe is either ignorant or a bold face lie. period.

The more I read his article, the more incredible the author became. He's clearly out of his element and reminds me of a lunatic ranting and babbling silly conspiracy theories.


Studies guys?

I encourage any of the hackle hucking hosers (joking) to post up any studies as well.

[EZM]

I don't have an investment in the findings.

I also don't care if I use barbs or not. I catch fish either way.

The issue here is what the research has found, and although people are quick to "state the facts of numerous studies" to my knowledge those facts dont exist and neither do those numerous studies. Those who claim such things would quickly and easily to able to identify those critical pieces of research that support their suppositions.

I have done my own research, and the findings I have read identify that the research is inconclusive.

I`m just trying to present what facts are out there - that`s it.

Feel free to enlighten us on your research ........ I`d be interested in seeing it.

This is yet another circle jerk on the same topic isn`t it.

Better yet .......... save yourself the effort ........ no point is there ....... I am exhausted.

I`m going fishing with Wayne .............

[huntsfurfish]

I had about 5 or so, cant locate. I believe one was out of Wisconsin, one from Idaho I think. Would that be where 2 of them were Beeguy? Unfortunately, they were on a computer that I did not have backed up. I might try a search on here they may have been posted on an "ancient" thread:)

Getting old dont remember lol:)




And yes we done this dance before.:)

[jrs]

Studies guys?

I encourage any of the hackle hucking hosers (joking) to post up any studies as well.

Guys on here will argue until their face's turn blue. Papers have demonstrated no "significant" increase in survival due to barbless. Lots of guys run on terms like "significant" saying that means it has a positive effect. Kind of like the corn debate, lots of know it all's that can misread the scientific literature to prove their points.
Know what the best way is to lower hooking mortality rates? Sit at home and drink beer....

[huntsfurfish]

11-04-2011
huntsfurfish Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,464



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by


Got any links to these studies there?

I highly doubt the barb killed the fish Very likely poor fish handling skills.

And sorry but I no longer have the links - computer crashed and they were lost.
Convenient eh. But they are out there. I will however repeat that there appears to be no significant difference between barbed and barbless when it comes to fish mortality. I believe that was even admitted by some of the Bios prior to it becoming law. So why have a law that has no real reason to exist?
Its just a feel good law to help us feel all warm and fuzzy.

From an earlier post , at least part of my memory works:)

But I will keep trying to find em.

[BeeGuy]

Here is a meta-analysis of previous work on the impact of barbed hooks on trout mortality.

Schill and Scarpella 1997. Barbed hook restrictions in catch-and-release trout fisheries: a social issue.

Link (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8675%281997%29017%3C0873%3ABHRICA%3E2.3.CO%3B2?jou rnalCode=ujfm20#preview)

[pikergolf]

How did you pull that up? I'm pretty sure that's the one infisherman was referencing. I went into the state of Wisconsin archives and they referenced that, but I could not even get the abstract. Just tried it again and I get zip, not allowed.

[huntsfurfish]

Thanks BeeGuy.

[EZM]

Here is a meta-analysis of previous work on the impact of barbed hooks on trout mortality.

Schill and Scarpella 1997. Barbed hook restrictions in catch-and-release trout fisheries: a social issue.

Link (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8675%281997%29017%3C0873%3ABHRICA%3E2.3.CO%3B2?jou rnalCode=ujfm20#preview)

Surely you read the initial summary?

Isn't that exactly what I was saying?

Your link just underpins my position on this to the tee does it not.

I will, give you, my position on this, the more I read about it over the last year or two, has definitely softened, but it does not change the statistics.

Either way ............ we are not going to change each others minds ....... that's cool ........ "GOD BLESS 'UMERICA"

[BeeGuy]

How did you pull that up? I'm pretty sure that's the one infisherman was referencing. I went into the state of Wisconsin archives and they referenced that, but I could not even get the abstract. Just tried it again and I get zip, not allowed.

you can not likely view the entire article.

I just linked to the preview which I think only shows the first page.

[huntsfurfish]

I believe I read some of those ones listed in your link BeeGuy.
I think one might have been the oregon one, that mentioned in the summary it was also a poor idea to go ahead with it because it would be a very unpopular law and compliance would be low. Have you read that one? I cant seem to find em.

[#249]

Here is a meta-analysis of previous work on the impact of barbed hooks on trout mortality.

Schill and Scarpella 1997. Barbed hook restrictions in catch-and-release trout fisheries: a social issue.

Link (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8675%281997%29017%3C0873%3ABHRICA%3E2.3.CO%3B2?jou rnalCode=ujfm20#preview)

Thanks for posting this link.

Based on the following excerpt from Schill and Scarpella's abstract, it seems pretty clear to me that there is no justification for forcing anglers to use barbless hooks.


"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."