Personally, I'm for no more restrictions. Currently, sportsmen pay more and get less every year. Here is a section from an article I've read about barbless hooks.


Anglers also often are mistaken when they assume that barbless hooks increase the survival of released fish. Not true, Goeman said.

"There's been a lot of research done on this, including with trout fisheries out West," said Goeman. "It started to come out 10 or 15 years ago that barbless hooks didn't decrease mortality, and it was a shock to the scientific community. It makes sense to the layman that barbless hooks would be the answer, and it even makes sense to scientists, but the science doesn't bear it out."


Barbless hooks accomplish one thing — they aid the angler in removing the hook and perhaps reducing the time the angler spends holding the fish. But, all things considered, the fish still fights and can sustain injuries that ultimately could kill it after it's released.

"Barbless hooks do not reduce hooking mortality, period," Goeman said.


The entire article can be read here

Why should the group that does by far, the least damage, continue to get the most restricions and penalties? When I go fishing, my goal is to hook and land a fish. Communing with nature, getting fresh air, etc is just a bonus. I want to catch fish and whatever benefits I can give myself, the better.

Some may argue that since we can't stop netting yet or bring down dams we should at least do "our part". Well, in the big picture, "our part" doesn't mean jack ****. If every sport caught native was released in perfect health, the runs would continue to diminish almost just as quickly as they are now because, pay attention now, sportsmen are not the problem.

[ 12-28-2001: Message edited by: JacobF ]