Yeah, that's right. The new regs state that all hooks used in areas 5-13 are required to be barbless, no matter what species you're fishing for. The only exception is for multi-hook herring jigs. This is going to cause a real problem for people who fish with bait for species other than salmon and those who are stuck casting from shore. When you hook a rock cod or ling, half the time the first thing they do is shoot into the rocks, where you have to give them slack line and wait until they come out. If there's no barb, what's to keep the hook from falling right out? Soft baits such as pile worms just slide right off barbless hooks when you cast. IMHO it's a totally stupid and pointless rule.

So, why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel about it...

What we have are two items, 1)Your wants 2)The resources [fishes] NEEDS. I think they are trying to protect the resource, however late in the game it might be. You can cut little squares of rubberband and push it over the hook point to just past the pinched barb[ you do this after putting the bait on], this will keep the baits from coming off. This works for floating herring for coho on the beach.

Or you can cut a PowerWorm into little discs and put them on the hook after the bait. May as well add some scent. Jack

I'm more concerned about keeping the fish on after he's hooked. As I pointed out earlier, with some species, it's just not possible to keep a tight line all the time. And what about the research that has been done that shows that barbless hooks make diddly and squat difference? The overwhelming factor in fish mortality is if bait was used or not. Fish hooked on lures tend to get hooked in the lip or other non-vital spot, whereals when bait is used, the fish is more likely to swallow the hook and be mortally wounded. I suppose to protect the resource we should outlaw bait too? That would make a lot more difference in 'protecting the resource.' Mandating barbless hooks for all species is just silly and pointless.

If the fish swallows your bait then the hook can't fall out can it? It is much easier to release a fish if the hooks are barbless .

yet another restriction placed on the user group that has the least impact on the resource

this season will be just another year where indian nets continue to rape the rivers unchecked, while i get stopped on the ramp at alki to make sure my hook conforms to proper regulation, while we go after our 1 or 2 fish limit, then drive home past the green river and the piles of dead salmon dumped on the side of the road...

yeah, i cant wait until summer...

It's amazing to me how many fisherman feel that they have little or no impact on the resource. Yes, it's true, some user groups have a much larger impact than the sports fisherman, that still does not obsolve us from doing our best. It's a fact we have sacrificed the most for the fish, I would rather do that than be part of the abuser groups.

Have those that complain about barbless hooks ever tried them? Been using them in both fresh and salt for years, and while I can't say I have never lost a fish as a result, I sure don't lose many. The other fact is that release with these hooks is very easy, with no jerking and tearing. Don't really understand the complaint. However small you think the sportsmans impact, isn't anything you can do better than nothing?

Amen, A.M.!
United we bargain, divided we beg!

I think the WDFW missed the forest for the trees on this one. If the intent is to protect salmon that are required to be released, why not implement a reg that makes it illegal to remove from the water any salmon not legal to be kept. It is easy to release these fish by tailing and using a pair of long handled pliers to pop even a barbless hook out. I have seen many "protected" chinook in Area 10 over teh last few years that are caught (presumably on barbless hooks), then netted, pulled aboard, dumped out, de-hooked, passed around for a couple of minutes for pictures, then released. I suspect may more salmon are killed this way than through using barbed hooks.

The stated intent was to simplify rules and to make enforcement easier. They did not want people claiming they were fishing for bottom fish when they were really mooching for salmon with barbed hooks.

The rule was put into place for the benefit of salmon, not other marine fish. The impact barbs have on the other marine fish anglers target is insignificant.

No, it's barbless!

I think it is a good rule!
I always use barbless, well 95% of the time.
As aunty pointed out though, different strokes for different folks.
Two ways to look at it:
1. Rules are rules
2. Rules are made to be broken

I prefer to go with #1 but that is just me.
It is more challenging with barbless, but really just getting used to it.

My barbless experience is mainly based on salmon and steelhead, and trout, so it is somewhat limited on the bottomfish advantages/disadvantages.
My .02 cents
Woodsy Wayne

Aunty,

Actually, if you look up the ESA listed stocks for Puget Sound, I believe that it's the SPRING chinook that are in the most trouble. Areas 5 through 9 are the migratory route for these listed fish, and this is the time of year that they migrate. (remember the 30" maximum on chinook through June 15 reg.) Not to mention the size limit on lingcod, which means that undersized fish must be released. Regardless of opinion, barbless hooks facilitate easier release. I believe that barbless circle hooks are also available which should solve the halibut issue. I highly doubt that there is a divide and conquer conspiracy being perpetrated on sportfishers at the WDFW. (Ignorance in decision-making maybe, but malicious intent?) While many of us may not fully understand the reasoning behind some of these seemingly illogical regulations, I personally don't think the State is "Out to get us."

Last June as I was dropping my 8 oz. dart to the bottom for the Butt's I got a monster hit about 80 ft. from the bottom, almost jerked the rod out of my hand and then it was gone! Big salmon I think.

I have caught 12lb black mouth in five feet of water casting bait with barbless hooks,no problem,as long as I was using A LONG ROD!!!

I agree AuntyM, keeping the rule in place for halibut was stupid. The state sportfishing advisory council thinks it is stupid too.

Even if it were to happen that someone did accidentally catch a salmon when halibut fishing, who cares, just let the fish go. The point is that your not going to find people fishing for halibut with a 6 ft rod and 2 pounds of weight. The only reason that I can see this being applied to halibut is that trolling for halibut with downriggers has gained some popularity. But they could have easily made the rule applicable to all downrigger fishing and left halibut out of it.

Aunty,

Maybe my glasses do need a bit of cleaning. I am not necessarily defending the regulation, merely looking at the motivation behind it. How about we delve into the hypothetical for just a moment? Let's say that the barbless hook regulation really is a politically motivated plan to keep the different factions of the sportfishing community at odds with each other. Again I ask you, what's the payoff? Is there a fear among commercial fishers that sporties may someday unite and effectively end commercial fishing altogether, so they've exerted their influence (politically and financially) on those who set wildlife policy in this state to create this particular regulation? I don't think that this is the case. We all know that sportfishers hold no political influence, therefore what do the commercials really have to fear? Mike Gilchrist provided the state's reasoning above. Personally, I'll take it at face value. As I said before, a lot of these regulations do not seem to have any logical basis, and WDFW definitely has a reputation of not always having the resource's best interest at heart. But in this case, I think a little too much is being read into it.

Aunty,

You have a valid point, and even though we may not see exactly eye to eye, I respect your opinion and concern for the benefit of sportfishers.