BARBED HOOKS!!!!!!!!

[poledark]

Gaffer, I had a rethink on the Hard playing of fish, and have to say that I have not seen it with big carp, but Yes, I have seen it a lot with carpers who hook tench and bream and haul them in. And yes I have seen severe mouth damage as a result.

 

Regarding forceps, page 13 of the NAA code of conduct lists forceps as "Essential Equipment", I would question this and say that if you need forceps to remove a hook, then your barbs are much to big.

 

Always excepting toothy critters,

 

Den

[Peter Sharpe]

I hate to disagree with Poledark, seeing as he's just become my bestest fried, but I always use forceps anyway. They just seem to be the right tool for the job, regardless of whether the hook is barbless or otherwise. I can't say that I play carp in any way differently when using a flattened barb hook, it's just what ever comes naturally. I do try to get them in as quickly as possible though, as I can't see any merit whatsoever in playing a fish to a standstill. In other words, apart from the ease in unhooking, there is no difference in using hooks with a squashed barb, (I thought I had better qualify that, as I have never used barbless hooks in the purest sense of the word - always completely flattened).

[phonebush]

Steve B.,

(barbless) banned on #8 and up" or something to that effect.

 

A point of interest. "UP" could mean a higher number as in a #10 (which would be a smaller hook) or "UP" could mean just a larger hook than #8, say a #6 which is a smaller number but larger hook.

 

Phone

 

PS When this thread winds down I am sending it off to a friend in the R&D department of the US's largest hook manufacturer. I'm sure he will be most interested. R&D on C&R fish damage is a hot potential marketing advantage and any manufacturer would like to be able to say, according to (?) our hook model (?) is "best" when it comes to reducing - - - (whatever).

 

Phone (again)

[Gaffer]

phonebush:

PS When this thread winds down I am sending it off to a friend in the R&D department of the US's largest hook manufacturer. I'm sure he will be most interested.

Hi Phone, any chance you could report back to us his reaction and thoughts to this thread?

[mpbdsnu]

One or two fellow posters know which type of hooks I prefer to use, and I'm not prepared to enter heavily into yet another debate on the pro's and con's of barbed or barbless hooks.

 

However, I would like to throw more questions into the pot for your consideration if I may:

 

When examining a fish's mouth, other mouth damage is found besides that created by the hook hold, has anyone considered the possibility that said 'extra' mouth damage could have been caused by a 'previous' capture?

 

Could it therefore be possible that the pressure applied to land the fish has re-opened these wounds?

 

I don't know how long it takes for wounds caused by hooks to heal thoroughly? Does anyone?

 

If the above is possible, then could it be that this extra mouth damage is not after all caused by movement or repenetration of the hook at all - be it from barbed or barbless hooks?

 

In this situation it would not perhaps make any difference at all!

 

I remain open minded on the "Barbed v Barbless" debate, and I am prepared to be swayed either way. However, at the moment I fish using a hook pattern that I am confident in using - with the welfare of the fish at heart.

[phonebush]

Gaffer,

Sure,

Do you think the thread has about run the gamut?

Phone