There are 3 possible scenarios being discussed here:
1. Statewide bait ban
2. Selective place and timing of bait bans
3. No bait ban(s)

A statewide bait ban is not supported by available science....some studies say bait causes excess mortalities and some say it doesn't have any significant effect. Proponents of either side can pick their 50% of the available science and argue til they're blue in the face. Simple fact is that the science is inconclusive...so until that issue is definitively decided all decisions will depend on politics.

Selectively applying bait ban as to time and place is a great idea but again there is no science...so again the decisions will be political.

No bait ban at all is also without scientific support....so again our decisions will be made in the political back room.

The issue of barbed versus barbless ...well same thing. Some studies say bad and others say not bad.

So it comes down to this... do we want politicians making decisions without any scientific backing? Personally I'd rather practice and encourage personal ethical choices.
If I was fishing a river and hooking smolts continuosly I would certainly make a switch to an alternative bait or lure.

As for socalled trout fishing its my understanding that nearly all rivers have a minimum size of 12 or 14 inches and require the fish to be finclipped if you kill one? But I do see many people taking stringers of 6 to 8 inch salmonids and calling them trout. On my home rivers these are either steelhead or coho smolts(notice the white stripe on the anal fin?). Problem is that the rules prohibiting this are in place...but guess what its the same old problem...NO ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS! So writing new rules are a zero effect solution.

Whoa haven't said that much in a long time.