• You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...

Barbel conservation thoughts?

Richard Barrett

Senior Member
Hi Guy's.

I'm not looking to be 'holier than thou' but have a few thoughts I 'd like to share.

Since I started fishing for barbel on the Trent, I've come to realise these fish are under constant pressure from people like me. Many of the popular swims are in constant use, and clearly the same fish are being caught over and over again despite many thinking different.

Barbless hooks; I've fished with barbless hooks for about 20 years now for all species, and never found a problem. I cannot think of any occasion when a barbless hook has caused a lost fish. Operator error has, but not the hook.

The benefits are many. Little damage to fish that are constantly being hooked. Easy to unhook, in fact most times the hook falls out in the net. And if you do happen to hook yourself, it comes out easy. I'm preserving the fish for my own future fishing, keeping them in good condition.

I'm sold on barbless hooks, is anyone else?

Richard.
 
No, if they are better than barbed why have they been banned on some fisheries, fisheries that are owned by anglers that know what they are doing.
 
I've no particular objection to barbless hooks, though I'm not completely sold on them being especially beneficial. Whether or not it's purely down to the hooks is debateable, but I've seen a few too many barbless only venues where horrendous mouth damage is common. I'm also aware that more than the odd big carp fishery is actually banning the use of barbless hooks. In addition, I don't recall ever seeing a barbel with mouth damage. The odd one that's been lost and left with a hook in its mouth, but not a damaged mouth.

There are also certain species (grayling especially) that I simply wouldn't fish for if I had to fish barbless only. Even the best anglers would lose a fair number of hooked grayling if they were forced to use barbless hooks.
 
I can't say I've caught a barbel that had mouth damage either, although I've caught plenty of carp with mouth damage from barbless only venues.
 
Richard. you will find many differing views on this subject.
My own mirror the comments above and the fact that barbless hooks penetrate deeper, twist in the mouth more easily and actually cause more damage than barbed.

A number of times I have witnessed barbless cut in so deeply that the eye of the hook cannot even be seen.

Graham
 
I've seen this debate on here before and it always seems to be the same people who object to it.
I've caught a fair few barbel this season using barbless hooks and all this "bigger deeper cuts caused by barbless" i've seen absolutely nothing of.
Plus if you break off will playing a fish there is more chance of the hook coming out, hate the thought of leaving a hook in a fish.
 
I've seen this debate on here before and it always seems to be the same people who object to it.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't object to you, or anyone else, using barbless hooks. I'd just like to be left alone to make my own informed choices where that choice is not enforced.
 
I can only speak from my own experience and like some have said, I don't recall ever seeing mouth damage on a barbel I have caught. However, I have seen some quite gruesome sights when fishing for carp, especially day ticket commercials. These do generally have a barbless hook only policy. What I couldn't say for certain of course is whether it's the barbless hooks themselves or just very poor and careless angling. On some lakes I have fished, I would say a good 80% of the fish I have caught have had some degree of mouth damage, sometimes it's quite severe. See the attached photo for example.
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    96.3 KB · Views: 257
This will no doubt be controversial but I think the power of a carp combined with its soft, delicate mouth makes it almost inevitable that it will receive mouth damage if hooked often enough, regardless of what hook you use.
The advantage of barbless is there's a chance of the hook falling out should you get broke. Personally I use barbed and often pinch the barb down a little, certainly agree with Chris when it comes to grayling, learnt that the hard way!
 
If you're pinching barb down why not just buy barbless, the job is already down for you.
As for so called commercials, they're just there so people can just go and "bag up" as they say, really feel sorry for the fish in these places.
 
It's more a case of reducing the barb if that makes sense? It still leaves 'something' there which I think helps to retain the hook hold, though I might be kidding myself with that! I don't always do it anyway so it gives me the option without having to change the hook.

I seem to remember someone releasing a pinch barb hook a few years ago, don't know why they stopped.
 
Pinch the barb = small blip or irregular 'smoothness' to wire, which could present some resistance to a hook drop out. Some barbs fracture on pinching leaving a blib.
There are some new hooks that just have appeared which may perform as barbless but have a number of gripping grooves - Pallatrax GRIPZ. Whether these are effective and offer advantages over barbless, barbed, micro barbed remains to be seen.

One thing that worries me - are pinched barbs technically barbless and classified as such on fisheries?
For the record I almost always choose barbed.
 
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't object to you, or anyone else, using barbless hooks. I'd just like to be left alone to make my own informed choices where that choice is not enforced.

And i don't object to you using barbed, but when this subject comes up some people, and i'm not saying you, make barbless out to be some sort of medieval bit of kit.
If people feel more secure using a barbed hook then fine but don't make out i'm using some sort of more damaging piece of equipment.
 
I do not fish commercials but wonder if it the rate of recapture that leads to the issues and would they be the same whether barbed or barbless? i have fished both and currently it it barbed. I have not seen any barbel damage but have seen some with chub over the years but they have a less tougher lip area.
 
Ian grant explained a few years ago why certain types of barbless hooks cause serious mouth damage,with a simple experiment,anyone can do. Make a fist with your left hand then insert your right hand index finger in the hole your left index finger and thumb makes.If you move your finger about it will create only the hole that your finger can make.Now crook your right index finger,if you now move it about you get the point in your palm and that's how it can cut and why a beaked point barbless hook can do serious damage,the point will cut through because its at an angle.Smaller fish thrash about a lot and can cause massive damage. If you add a barb to the hook it stops the rotation.The point is if you use a Barbless hook you would be advised not to use one with a severe beak to it,try to use straight point hooks.Sadly a good many years ago i severly damaged 2 small carp using just such a fox hook ,on a very light rod and 6lb line,when the water rules stated barbless.
 
I use a beaked barbless, i've not had any badly wounded fish and i really don't see your point about the fist and fore finger.
What about when you barb goes in and then you have got to get it out, the nature of the shape of a barbed is naturally going to drag more flesh out makeing bigger hole and what about when the barb gets a really good hold and you've got to pull the whole lot through, which i've witnessed on the bank.
If you're suggesting that a barbless makes more mess going in, which i really do not agree with, a barbed is going to make more coming out.
 
Russell.
I dont think anyone suggested that a barbless makes more mess going in.

My suggestion was that the barbless has nothing to stop it moving around duting the fight or from burying deeper into the mouth or throat of a fish.
I accept that a barbless can normally be removed easier but its the movement of the hook that in my opinion can causes greater damage by sideways slicing.

By all accounts go the way you wish, but don't discount others views.

Indeed having caught barbel for near 50 years I am as entitled to my view and experiences as you are to
yours.

.
 
Russell.
I dont think anyone suggested that a barbless makes more mess going in.

My suggestion was that the barbless has nothing to stop it moving around duting the fight or from burying deeper into the mouth or throat of a fish.
I accept that a barbless can normally be removed easier but its the movement of the hook that in my opinion can causes greater damage by sideways slicing.

By all accounts go the way you wish, but don't discount others views.

Indeed having caught barbel for near 50 years I am as entitled to my view and experiences as you are to
yours.

.
Not discounting your views at all i'm just reacting to the usual people who discount barbless as if they are some sort of big gaff because my experiance says otherwise.
If people feel more secure using barbed go ahead just don't try and make out barbless are a bad thing.
 
Russell, as Graham says its the movement once in, that can cause the cutting which mostly seems to occur on smaller fish which thrash about.I have only seen the problem on small carp.On the two fish i mentioned the damage was terrible,and i never went back. I stopped using those fox beaked razor sharp barbless hooks.I fish some barbless only waters and have never seen an issue with my straight point barbless ,though have caught Barbel on those waters with mouth damage.
 
I think any hook, barbed or barbless, will cause some damage to a fish. It seems that this is a debate about what level of damage is acceptable to inflict.
 
Back
Top