Hahaha.
I am playing catch up too.
I have to remind myself that messageboards are representation of a community. I am certainly glad that there has been a transition towards personal responsibility and conservationism.
In my past life, I was a researcher. The original post premise of 'barbed hooks are equivalent to barbless because fish released after being caught with a barbed hook are probably as likely to survive as a fish caught with a barbless hook'.
It is quite simple:
- Scientifically: how can anyone truly monitor the long term health data of a fish that was caught. 'Dead vs. Not-Dead' is a truly myopic measurement of health.
- Practically: pulling out a barbed hook causes much more damage than a barbless hook. Why would anyone want to unnecessarily hurt a fish that we must release? As mentioned, pulling out a barbed hook from human flesh is way worse than pulling out a barbless hook.
The argument becomes equivalent of 'people who have their legs broken are as likely to live as long as someone who has not had their legs broken'. But seriously, who wants a broken leg?
- Intuitively: How could a barbed hook be better for a catch-and-release fish than a barbless? It just seems kind of sadistic.
I landed a 22" rainbow last week with 2 barbed hooks in his mouth. I seriously doubt that fish lived a better life with a rusty barbed hook in its mouth. A barbless hook would have fallen out...eventually. I know that it is not a great picture, but the hare's ear in the front is mine, and the pink size 8 in the back still has a piece of mono tied to it.
Trout_multipleHooks.jpg