Ask MidCurrent: Barbed vs Barbless Hooks Round 2

Tie and image by Keith Reeves

Question: Some of us don’t think you answered the question. So barbed or barbless—which hook style is better for the fish and the fly fishing experience?
~ MidCurrent subscribers responding to last week’s column

Answer: It depends.

We heard the request for solid science. We read opinions of both the enlightened and the utilitarian fly angler. We found the anecdotes interesting and applicable to the debate at hand. And gauging by the flood of responses, what should be crystal clear to all of us is that treating the barbed versus barbless hook discussion as a binary issue totally misses the layered reality of modern fly fishing.

As one reader pointed out, we did not link to any research to support either barbed or barbless in the article, implying we had not done our homework in the quest for that most elusive prize—The Truth. But as other readers pointed out, a voyage in search of the “truth” means riding wave after wave of contradiction on a sea of shifting variables. We all know it’s not difficult to find a research article supporting your particular opinion about anything. Sometimes that research is tethered to reality. Sometimes not. We believe that in the barbed vs barbless debate, there is merit and validity on both sides and trotting out article after article in defense of either argument would be pointless. Pun intended.

No doubt about it, a black and white answer—barbed or barbless hooks for every fly fishing situation—would make things easier for everyone. But as with so many other subjects, no such answer exists. The truth lives in that complex and murky gray area where species, situations, and personal priorities collide. 

Different Fish, Different Demands

Think about the armor-plated mouth of a tarpon versus the gossamer-thin lips of a 10-inch brook trout. These anatomical differences alone dictate wildly different approaches. Saltwater anglers chasing tarpon, permit, or redfish often lean toward barbed hooks not just for better holding power, but because these titans of the tide can shake loose even the most firmly set barbed hooks. The physical impact of hook removal becomes less significant when dealing with these larger, more resilient species.

Trout anglers, particularly those dancing dry flies across mountain streams, often find barbless hooks not only sufficient but superior. The delicate mouth structure of a trout means that a barbless hook can slip in more cleanly, and the minimal damage during hook removal takes on special significance when handling smaller fish where every subtle factor affects survival.

Bass occupy a middle territory. Their leather-tough mouths that enable their vicious strikes can handle either hook style effectively, making the choice more about the angler’s philosophy than the fish’s welfare. Some bass fly fishers swear that barbless hooks actually penetrate better through the harder mouth structure, while others won’t consider surrendering the insurance policy of a barbed hook when a heavyweight thrashes near the surface.

Pike and musky anglers face a distinct calculus altogether. These toothy predators often demand wire leaders and substantial flies, where hook size and strength typically overshadow barb considerations in terms of fish impact. However, the challenge of unhooking these powerful adversaries safely drives some anglers toward barbless options, particularly when dealing with deeply hooked fish.

The Environmental Equation

Fishing environments shape this decision profoundly. Consider a high-mountain cutthroat stream in August, where low flows and warm temperatures already stress the fish. Here, barbless hooks might provide that extra margin of survival for these sensitive trout. But switch to a tailwater with steady flows and consistent temperatures, and the equation shifts. These more stable environments often allow fish to better withstand the minimal additional stress a barbed hook might create.

Fast-moving trout streams create different tension dynamics than still waters or heaving ocean swells. In swift currents, maintaining optimal pressure becomes more challenging—the force of the water itself can work against hook holds. Some anglers argue this demands barbed hooks for secure connection. Others counter that proper tension matters far more than the barb, and swift water actually demands refined technique rather than hook modifications.

Then there’s the matter of fishing pressure. Heavily trafficked waters, where fish might be caught multiple times per season, make a stronger case for barbless hooks. Remote backcountry streams, where fish might see a fly once a year, present different considerations. The cumulative effect of multiple catches with barbed hooks could impact fish health more significantly than isolated encounters.

Beyond Science

While scientific studies offer valuable insights, they often create as many questions as answers. The staggering number of variables—hook size, fish species, water conditions, angler skill level, fighting time, landing methods, and handling practices— makes definitive conclusions as elusive as a permit on the flats. Studies can’t possibly account for every scenario an angler encounters.

Consider just the complexity of hook placement. A trout caught on a dry fly with a barbed hook in the corner of the mouth represents an entirely different scenario than one deeply hooked on a barbless streamer. The same fish species, same river, same day—yet two completely different situations that defy statistical analysis. Now multiply those variables across different species, seasons, and water types. A truly comprehensive study would require thousands of fish caught under countless conditions.

Then there’s the challenge of studying delayed mortality. While we can observe immediate survival rates, tracking what happens to released fish days or weeks later poses significant challenges. A fish might swim away seemingly healthy but succumb to secondary infections or stress-related complications that never appear in our data. The ethical implications of extensive mortality studies also limit our ability to gather comprehensive data.

The human factor further complicates any scientific assessment. Two anglers using identical gear might have vastly different fish landing and handling techniques. One might bring fish to hand quickly and execute a clean release, while another might extend the fight and handle the fish extensively. These differences in approach could impact fish survival more significantly than the presence or absence of a barb.

Even the definition of “successful release” varies among studies. Some researchers focus solely on immediate survival, others track short-term mortality, while still others attempt to monitor behavioral changes. This lack of standardization makes comparing studies and drawing concrete conclusions problematic.

As one reader astutely observed, the absence of comprehensive, species-specific research transforms this from a matter of pure science into one of informed personal choice, where anglers must weigh available evidence against their own experience and priorities. Perhaps this is why the barbless debate persists—because both sides can point to studies and personal observations that support their position while acknowledging the gaps in our understanding.

A Personal Equation

The “enlightened angler” argument for barbless, suggesting that true sportsmen should embrace a high loss rate, misses something fundamental: the desire to bring fish to hand isn’t always about ego or Instagram moments. Close observation of caught fish enriches angler education and often deepens conservation commitment. There’s also the practical wisdom that a quickly landed fish on a barbed hook might endure less stress than an extended battle with barbless hook sets.

Maybe the most honest approach is to view the barbed versus barbless choice as a personal decision balancing multiple factors: target species, fishing environment, angler goals, and local regulations. An angler might choose barbless dry flies for summer trout but opt for barbed hooks when pursuing winter steelhead or saltwater species.

Instead of hunting for a universal answer, modern fly anglers might better serve both the sport and the resource by making thoughtful, situation-specific decisions. This could mean carrying both barbed and barbless options and choosing based on conditions and quarry. It might mean going barbless during peak spawning seasons but using barbed hooks in high-current situations where prolonged fights could prove more taxing to fish than clean hook removal.

The intricate nature of this issue mirrors the essence of fly fishing itself—a pursuit that demands constant adaptation, nuanced decision-making, and a delicate balance between sporting opportunity and resource conservation. In the end, each angler must weigh the variables, consider their priorities, and make choices that align with both their fishing goals and their conservation ethic.

Like many aspects of fly fishing, the barbless debate ultimately guides us not to absolute answers but to deeper questions about how we pursue our sport and interact with the waters and fish we cherish. Perhaps that’s exactly as it should be.