I've tried to read the Ontario fishing regs, but I still have a question... or two.  

We are going to Quetico in August...

1. I understand that we can just smash down the barbs on our hooks and that is acceptable. But can we have hooks in our tackle box that have not yet been barb-smashed?  Would we get in trouble for that if a ranger were to inspect our gear? (We'd like to practice just-in-time barb smashing to avoid smashing a hook that may not even get used on this trip.)

2. Also, I understand that live bait is prohibited. Presumably that is intended to avoid introducing invasive species. The way I read the regulations it is also against the rules to  use minnows or leaches you might catch on the same lake where you plan to use them as bait?  Do I have that right? No live bait, no matter where it comes from?

Can anyone clarify the nuances of these rules for me?

Thanks!!

No live bait in Quetico no matter where it comes from.

Barbs can be smashed just before you use them and yes you can have lures in your tackle box that do not have smashed barbs. This was verified by Quetico rangers to me just last week at Prairie Portage.

KF is correct about smashing barbs as they are used. It's what's attached to your line that matters. What does smashed mean? To me it's crushing the barb down as much as possible. Not so easy with the big hooks on bigger baits. There will still be a lump in any case. I actually prefer using the smashed barbs to their non-smashed originals.

Nothing live no matter where it comes from. In a way it would be kinda foolish to put live bait on a barbless hook anyway. Live also includes things that were once live like salted minnows, frozen smelt ....

Smelly type Power baits and Gulp are a good alternative. Has anyone tried that type of stuff on a slip-bobber? I know a fake leech on a spinner rig works.

FWIW - Lead is fine for the foreseeable future due to industry pressure.

Very helpful!! Thx

That brings to mind one more question... Are treble hooks also on the chopping block at some point in the future?

PJ

PJin, not only trebbles but electronics and ultimatly fishing will be on the chopping block.  For that matter, some would also like to see you and I out of there as well....since we are indeed alive.   Ok, I jest, somewhat.  There is a certain faction up there....

wally wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2010 at 11:31am:

PJin, not only trebbles but electronics and ultimatly fishing will be on the chopping block.  For that matter, some would also like to see you and I out of there as well....since we are indeed alive.   Ok, I jest, somewhat.  There is a certain faction up there....

It's no secret park usage is declining. As less and less paddlers who fish use the park, the small but vocal ones who would like to see the park use limited to photographs only will be looking to set the policy.
 
Nothing against the non-fisherman/women, I enjoy their work and like to take pics as well.

Remember the ban on bear hunting? Not driven by science, but by emotion, fanned by PETA folks from Toronto who had the money and political clout to get their agenda pushed thru.

Their video of a so called hunter violating the bear hunting rules made it seem like that was a everyday occurrence :(

Even though the legitimate sportsman's groups, biologists and outfitters and rural folk who's livelihood depends on the cash spent by hunters, cried foul, the damage was done.

The vast majority of people both here and in Canada are not sportsmen.  Many have the "Bambi" mentality when it comes to hunting and fishing. The seem to have no idea that whether you buy your meat/fish in a market, or catch it yourself, something dies so you can eat. There easily swayed by clever PR designed to show sportsmen as cruel and inhumane people who butcher living things, strictly for the thrill of it.

Peta's ultimate goal is too have everyone be a Vegan. Nothing the matter with being one, but that's a personal choice, not one that should be forced down our throats.

There sophisticated enough to their victory' a little here, a little there.
As less and less young people take too the woods and streams, their job gets easier and easier.  First it will be the ban on hunting and fishing in areas funded by the general public, then it will be the supermarkets and food combines that supply domestic fowl and meat.

Might seem ridiculous at first thought, but that's what the people who's livelihood depends on outfitting hunters, said about the bear hunting ban.

Science doesn't stand a chance when met by clever PR and emotion fueled by ignorance.

I've fished a lot with barbless hooks up in Manitoba. I accually didn't have a problem with it. I've caught the biggest fish in my life on barbless along with limits of nice Walleyes. But I agree with Solotripper on this, for those pushing for barbless... it's never good enough, it would be the next step. If barbs were hurting much they would have been outlawed years ago. If they were a problem it would be fish biologists or the like pushing for it. Not special interest.

How long has the barbless hook rule been in effect for Quetico?

I have no problem with a barbless rule.  I fish barbless anyway.  Same with live bait rules.

Yes there are groups that want to outlaw sportfishing.  They're in the nutjob minority and I trust officials & lawmakers know that.  Parks & the gov't make a lot of money off anglers and they know it.

I answered my own question ;)


  (You need to Login or Register

Just to set the record straight, I've been going Barbless way before the ban.

I started while stream fishing here in MI for trout. I noticed that my single hook spinners/lures were easier on the trout and my fingers.

That led too mashing down the barbs. I replace all my treble hooks with single barbless hooks when possible.

I don't think there's conclusive evidence, one way or the other on the barbless issue?
A lot of it has too do with how the angler catches /releases his catch, with or without barbs.  

I don't have a problem with the ban, but its' still a slippery slope.
By outlawing barbs, your giving the nut-jobs further ammo for their cause. They'll say it's to cause the fish less "pain", increase mortality.
If they can "feel" pain, then in their view, sport fishing is a form of " animal cruelty" and should be outlawed.

Sure sportsmen put a lot of money into the tax kitty, but their still a minority of voters. The people making the game laws are for the most part either elected or appointed by an elected official.  All politicians pay attention to the polls, science and logic be damned.

I'd rather see the sportsmen and local people who know the land and have a vested interest in keeping it cared for, staying ahead of the nut-job curve by being pro-active rather than re-active.

Preacher....if that were true, they wouldn't have made the changes they already have.  IMO, they have already taken a beating with much worse to come.

I believe they are not a small minority but a signifigant movement (yes a minority still) that has impressive political clout.  They can push a basless agenda through despite ill-toward financial side-effects.

the above is obvious opinion.

Quote:

How long has the barbless hook rule been in effect for Quetico?

wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2010 at 2:28pm:

I answered my own question ;)   (You need to Login or Register

Not that it matters much but I believe barbless restriction didn't actually take effect until 2008.

db wrote on Nov 30^th, 2006 at 4:52pm:

Q: On next years barbless hook regulation, can we crush down the barbs as we go or does everything in the tackle box have to be pre-crushed? A: "Our intent is that crushed hooks are fine and we expect that people will have regular hooks in their tackle box.  So long as they aren't used that's okay. Now having said that, it seems as though the legal drafters of the regulations (which are part of a much wider package of changes in Ontario) will likely not have sufficient time to get the legislation done by the start of 2007.   This may mean (probably will mean) that the changes will be delayed by another year. Of course we'd like people to used barbless hooks and not use live baits for what we believe is the long term benefit of the fish.......but that would be a request not a regulation."

The exact date really doesn't matter and I could be wrong ... I'm just saying people believe what they are inclined to and stop asking questions after they get an answer they like. If anyone seriously believes that some special interest group will take away their ability to catch and eat a fish ... DOH! (Enter BP to everyone's radar.) Timing is everything.

IMO - recent Q fishing restrictions make it more sporting than harvesting.  It's my vacation spot and remember Q doesn't stock. Will some other special interest group mess it up for ME in a way that is undoable?

Look at the rules for Sylvania over the years. How'd that happen? Ummm, super, special interest? How did the BW/Q become what it is today? Mining/logging, hunting, recreation ... a chain of bright ideas spawned by a few people with certain knowledge and an interest that seemed reasonable to others? ... hey wait a minute....

wally wrote on Jun 24^th, 2010 at 5:07am:

Preacher....if that were true, they wouldn't have made the changes they already have.  IMO, they have already taken a beating with much worse to come. I believe they are not a small minority but a signifigant movement (yes a minority still) that has impressive political clout.  They can push a basless agenda through despite ill-toward financial side-effects. the above is obvious opinion.

Oh it's all opinion until someone can site a reasonable source.

What seriously detrimental changes have been made?  I've sat around the campfire with folks who head out, catch & keep their limit, then complain that the fishing isn't what it used to be.  Sometimes only to see them eat the catch and head back out for more.

For me sportfishing isn't about filling the freezer.  I can buy frozen fish at the supermarket.  Heck I can buy fresh fish too, bass, trout, pickerel, whitefish.  It's about passing the time, catching a few, once in a while keeping what will be eaten that day.  Often it's simply a line in the water while I explore the lake.

I certainly don't ever need to keep more than I'll eat that day.  The very few exceptions have been fatally hooked fish, & I eat as much as I can.

Barbs & live bait are crutches imo.  I'm an angler, not a harvester.

an opinion (mine) would say that downtown Atikokan reveals the detriment.  The visitor numbers to Q reveal the detriment.  The US $$ spent reveal the detriment.

The economic times are rough up there (and everywhere)...and when the Park places further rules and restrictions like:

hooks, lead-ban, bait, future possible ban on electronics, increasing useage fees, and whatever else you want to lump in there....it all serves to exacerbate the existing tough times.  I bet the bottom line $$ of downtown Atikokan or the surrounding outfitters have not been served well by any of these changes.

They think they have the only jem in the jewel-box, but there are so many other places to go and spend your $$.  I argue that they pour gas on their own forrest fire and then wonder why they are burnt.

I might have some sympathy if there was any valid science behind any of these changes.  But someone who spits in their own wound....I just don't feel for 'em.

The buisnesman in me (I had to sell my buisness...going broke...HA), wonders why they don't encourage more diverse visitation to the park instead of restricting your customer base in times like these?

But in the end, it's their park/their rules.  And my bitchin' don't change a thing.  If they want to dig a deeper finacial mess to live in, more power to 'em.

(addendum)...I obviously subscribe to the point-of-view that rule changes have adversely affected $$ spent in their facility/area.

Parks do not exist to provide surrounding communities with revenue.  Parks exist first in their own right to preserve the ecology.  Parks exist secondly to provide all of us with the opportunity to enjoy the land.  If the BW/Q existed to provide revenue for the surrounding communities it would be mining, logging & hydro on the mandate.

Hooks - I haven't read any unbiased reports one way or t'other.  I have seen fish manhandled to death from folks trying to extract barbed hooks.  I have been among those folks, back before I switched to barbless.

Live Bait - It's well documented that live bait brings invasive species and spreads disease.

Lead - The toxic effects of lead are also well documented.

Electronics - Meh.  I've used them in the past with hit & miss results.  One amusing anecdote involved me telling the boat driver to stop.  He complained that we didn't get any pings.  I bargained for three casts.  Only needed one.  Caught the only fish of the day.  Electronics, imo, are like live bait.  A crutch.

User Fees - Fees could double again and it's still the cheapest vacation around.  If it serves to limit the number of users, the park is better for it.  There are plenty of other places, including free places, free places not far from Q.

The bottom line in these items isn't what's good for Atikokan.  That much is clear.  The bottom line is presumed to be what's good for the park.

It's all good Preach
I don't loose any sleep over it

I predict some will say...."canoes and people bring problems into our parks, lets keep them out".  In fact, it's well documented that all lead hooks are brought in by canoeists.  All overfishing is done by canoeists.  All campsite overuse and erosioin are done by canoeists.  In fact it's well documented that live bait (non-indigenous) is brought in by canoeists.

....So outlaw canoeists in the Q.  As you say, the park does not exist to provide a profit.  In your own words...the "park exists to preserve the ecology".  Keep the dam people out and it's "problem solved". ;)

Quote:

If it serves to limit the number of users, the park is better for it.

 According to the master plan, I thought the idea was to increase usage, not decrease. While parks might not exist solely for the financial benefit of the surrounding communities, any monies spent there by park users, helps not only the local economy, but keeps the communities from wanting to encroach on the parks for sources of revenue.  It doesn't have too be all or nothing.

When I first started going to the Q, the outfitter's got a break on camping fees. Reserve with them, you saved $4 or so for each night, over reserving thru park. That was per person. Say you have 4 people, that's $16 a night, times 7 days as an example, that adds up to $112.
Not a make or break figure for some, but for families or large groups it can/did make a difference.

My outfitter Q-Dave said that "savings" was often spent on outfitter gear. Tackle/bait/ rental canoes/ camping gear. When they took that away, it hurt the small outfitters the most. It also had a souring effect on paddlers who saw themselves getting less bang for their buck.

Not what the official park goal was, at least as I understand it? Isn't it true that revenue from the more accessible parks, helps pay for the more remote, less used ones?

The banning of imported live bait, because of invasive species makes sense, but why good old Canadian bait from Atikokan? Is there a difference between a Q- lake leech and the ones found outside the park :-?  It may be a crutch, but too many, a leech for Waldo's is a time honored tradition.  By the way, the live bait ban doesn't effect the Native People, the Indian guides I ran into on Wolseley were carrying leeches for their fly-in clients. So it can't just be about the dangers of live bait or they would of worked that out with the Native residents.

Since many here have found the hi-tech artificial's like GULP every bit as effective as live, what did the real live bait ban do, other than deprive local business's of revenue.

The best way too preserve Nature is by giving the people reasonable/affordable, hassle free access, balancing that against the damage human encroachment causes.

You can't fall in love with something, if you don't experience it first hand.
The vast majority of paddlers who visit the BW/Q fall in love with the area. They and they're children are the one's who will work to preserve it for future generations.

 What's reasonable too some, may be way over budget for others. Do we want economic prosperity to determine who gets too experience the parks, or do we want it open for everyone, at a rate that the average family/paddler can afford.

Teddy Roosevelt, the father of the American National Parks, wanted the wild places to belong too the people, not just the elite few for whom money wasn't a concern.

I know the locals had a say it the parks master plan, or at least that's the official line. I can't imagine all the outfitters were happy with the change in the camp fees I mentioned, or the bait/tackle places with the live bait ban. I'll bet like local politics here, the nays were swept under the carpet.  

An excellent post ST.



solotripper wrote on Jun 24^th, 2010 at 9:10pm:

When I first started going to the Q, the outfitters got a break on camping fees. Reserve with them, you saved $4 or so for each night, over reserving thru park. That was per person. Say you have 4 people, that's $16 a night, times 7 days as an example, that adds up to $112. Not a make or break figure for some, but for families or large groups it can/did make a difference. My outfitter Q-Dave said...

I never knew of this plan.  That's a great idea which should be renewed.  



Quote:

Isn't it true that revenue from the more accessible parks, helps pay for the more remote, less used ones?

Don't think so up here.  Parks are given a budget.  All revenue earned by parks goes into the general coffers, not back to the parks or even that ministry.  I'm not completely sure of this, I was pretty tired when it came up around a campfire.



Quote:

Is there a difference between a Q- lake leech and the ones found outside the park :-?

Yes there is.  That's how speciation works and biodiversity happens.  
In the long term, like millenia long, wholesale cross contamination of otherwise isolated organisms can hurt ecosystems.  Biodiversity is very good and ensures long term survival.
In the short term, perhaps the leech from outside the park have a disease or defect or advantage that the leeches inside the park don't have.  Whatever peculiarity affects the local population.
Invasive species come in all sizes.
  (You need to Login or Register



Quote:

You can't fall in love with something, if you don't experience it first hand.

QFT



Quote:

What's reasonable too some, may be way over budget for others.

There are free options, at least there are for me.  Crown Land is my land.  So long as I move my house so far every umpteen days I can stay there forever.  Pretty sure there are hard numbers for days & distance.



Quote:

...the nays were swept under the carpet.

I wouldn't be surprised, but that's not always a bad thing.  99.999% of the time everyone votes their own best interest.  Not always in the best interest of the park or whatever the subject at hand is.  Sometimes it's a travesty, but sometimes it's just nimby.   :-/

More often than not these plans go in favour of the locals.  Logging & mining jobs are the bread & butter.  One of the reasons Algonquin will never stop logging is because the political party that does it will lose the province with all the jobs lost.  The newer parks being made are often parks in name only, no protection, just fees.   >:(

...the Canadian "bait leeches" are US leeches.

From the master plan as stated in 1995:
"To preserve Quetico Provincial Park, which contains a natural environment of recreational and historical significance, in perpetuity for the people of Ontario as an area of wilderness that is not adversely affected by human activities".

Was there some sort of treaty re the Quetico Superior area in 1928 or was that just a gentleman's agreement?
  (You need to Login or Register

Where does this electronics ban myth come from btw? That's crazy talk. My imagination says logging would have a better chance than an electronics ban. Or is that simply intended simply to rabble-rouse as well? The cost and hoops of 4 otherwise useless passports was the straw that killed my last friends and family group trip plans. It came up late in the process and was a definite deal breaker. I assumed they knew.

all myths in this thread are clearly labeled as "opinion"

I'm 100% on the same page as Preacher, at least for his first few posts in this thread on conservation, barbless hooks, live bait, and electronics.

But I have to disagree with a couple of the statements in solotripper's last note, and not ... umm ... let him off the hook like Preacher did.

First and foremost, a $4 discount for outfitter permits is a subsidy, plain and simple, paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario. Canada has way too many handouts to special interest groups, and I can't let this get by without objection.

Yes, outfitters work hard at trying to make an honest living in an economically challenging business, but so do lots of other Canadians - should we give handouts to them all? Then who pays? I know I don't need to quote Karl Marx here, but I will anyway: "To each according to his need, from each according to his ability." We know how well that system works. Sorry, I'm starting to sound like Ayn Rand here. I'm not quite that right-wing on economic matters.

If you really agree with the position that parks should be for everyone, not just the rich, then you should support the budget-conscious visitors who buy or borrow a cheap canoe, tent, and sleeping bag, pack their own food, and do not spend any money on outfitters at all. I started out this way, and to all the other students, scout troops, church groups, and taxed-to-death Apu's taking a week off from the QuikkiMart, my only comment is "have a great trip".

Finally, what Canada's treaty Indians and Metis are allowed to do regarding live bait, motorized transport, and the like has nothing to do with conservation or Provincial park plans. This is handled at the federal level by the Department of Indian Affairs, but I feel my blood pressure starting to rise to the danger level again, so I will cut this rant off here and just say the issues are "complicated".

Quote:

First and foremost, a $4 discount for outfitter permits is a subsidy, plain and simple, paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario. Canada has way too many handouts to special interest groups, and I can't let this get by without objection.

I know Preacher is a Canadian, and I'm assuming from your blood pressure raising response too my comments, you are as well ;)

I know from talking to Q Dave and other Canadians I've met over the years, that those high tax rates you pay and the subsidies/handouts you mention are a source of anger/outrage by many of you.

Many here in the US, can sympathize! I know I do.
I'm guessing that your form of government, like ours will never eliminate them entirely.  I like too see my taxpayer subsidies go too groups that need a little help now and then, pay their taxes, work hard everyday, and contribute more than they take overall.

IF anyone deserves a little help, it's the little guys like the outfitters who are citizens and not the legal/illegal immigrants, many of them who take more than they contribute and plague your social system like they do ours. I know, it's not a PC thing too say out loud, but the figures don't lie :(  That $4 for the outfitters I mentioned works as a multiplier when it's spent in the local economy, a good investment in my book.

I've never had a conversation with a Canadian that when the subject came up, they didn't express anger to how generous your social system is too new immigrants.  

I'm of the opinion we/you should take care of our own, before we take on the plights of others.

My comment about the Native tribes use of live bait has nothing to do with whether it's their treaty rights or what agency handles it.
But if banning live bait, even bait obtained in waters outside the park but connected too it by innumerable small streams and no-name lakes is a biological necessity, then what's the point of it, if the Natives can bring in such bait?

Q-Dave had a leech/minnow supply from a little area behind his camp on Warner Lk. I find it hard too believe that his minnows/leeches were biologically different enough to pose a threat to the Q Eco-system?
Maybe those damn aggressive Ugly American leeches but surely not the local ones, served by the same watershed?

   I know people who don't like the wilderness who consider tax dollars spent on outdoor projects, unfair subsidies, since they don't see the need or use the resource.I started backpacking/canoeing on my own, with minimal if any outfitter contact. I use one now because I'd rather not leave my vehicle un-attended for that long, and frankly, I enjoy the rapport and knowing I've put some of my vacation money into the hands of someone who works as hard for his, as I do mine.

solotripper wrote on Jun 28^th, 2010 at 7:55pm:

Quote: First and foremost, a $4 discount for outfitter permits is a subsidy, plain and simple, paid for by the taxpayers of Ontario. Canada has way too many handouts to special interest groups, and I can't let this get by without objection. I know Preacher is a Canadian, and I'm assuming from your blood pressure raising response too my comments, you are as well ;) I know from talking to Q Dave and other Canadians I've met over the years, that those high tax rates you pay and the subsidies/handouts you mention are a source of anger/outrage by many of you. Many here in the US, can sympathize! I know I do. I'm guessing that your form of government, like ours will never eliminate them entirely.  I like too see my taxpayer subsidies go too groups that need a little help now and then, pay their taxes, work hard everyday, and contribute more than they take overall. IF anyone deserves a little help, it's the little guys like the outfitters who are citizens and not the legal/illegal immigrants, many of them who take more than they contribute and plague your social system like they do ours. I know, it's not a PC thing too say out loud, but the figures don't lie :(  That $4 for the outfitters I mentioned works as a multiplier when it's spent in the local economy, a good investment in my book. I've never had a conversation with a Canadian that when the subject came up, they didn't express anger to how generous your social system is too new immigrants.   I'm of the opinion we/you should take care of our own, before we take on the plights of others.

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.  Yes I too think the gov should spend money where I think they should spend money and I'll go further to say that the gov shouldn't spend money where I think they shouldn't spend money.
::)

All this over a barb on a hook?  Learn how to fish.  Make it sporting.  It is called sport-fishing isn't it?   ;)

"Fair" preacher would be you diving in and grabbing them.

Actually, it wasn't the new immigrants that caused the blood pressure rise - my experience is that 99%+ of all new immigrants to Canada work their tails off to make a life better than wherever they came from. They get nothing in subsidies, they just pay. As the son of immigrants who arrived in Canada after the war with nothing, I have never forgotten where my head start in life came from.

But I am surprised to see the regs on these boards so unhappy about rules that make catching fish harder. From what I've read on QJ, you guys never have trouble catching lots of fish, and lots of big ones. Shouldn't it be the ones with minimal fishing skills (like me) griping about barbless hooks and worms and similar?

Why do people complain.  Because it is easier to complain than to make a constructive comment.  Sure, Quetico is more expensive than the BWCA, as the saying goes, you get what you pay for.  Now I do have to say that I haven't been in the BWCA for about 20 years so my memory of the BWCA may not be valid today.  I only enter Quetico from the north.  I view paying higher fees for Quetico as a way of supporting provincial parks.  I don't think it so much that Quetico is over priced , but that the BWCA is underpriced and subsidized by taxpayers.  My 7 or 9 day trip to Quetico is a lot less expensive than my winter vacation and more enjoyable than my winter vacation.  But my winter vacation keeps my wife happy.

Westwood

Joe_Schmeaux wrote on Jun 30^th, 2010 at 1:20am:

But I am surprised to see the regs on these boards so unhappy about rules that make catching fish harder. From what I've read on QJ, you guys never have trouble catching lots of fish, and lots of big ones. Shouldn't it be the ones with minimal fishing skills (like me) griping about barbless hooks and worms and similar?

And then there are those of us who don't have any problem with it.  After all, it is call FISHING not CATCHING.  I've always prefered to "do battle" with the fish where the fish as a good chance of gaining an upper hand.  I suppose that is why I don't get any real pleasure in fishing in southern waters for largemouth bass where you select a line weight to insure you can muscle the fish out of his lair.  The only chance he's got is to quickly wrap you up on some submerged structure.  

BTW:  I only took in live bait once before it was banned, even then it was barely used.  Then, as now, I'm still looking for that favorite artificial lure that will kick it with the local fish population.

dd

Joe_Schmeaux wrote on Jun 30^th, 2010 at 1:20am:

But I am surprised to see the regs on these boards so unhappy about rules that make catching fish harder. From what I've read on QJ, you guys never have trouble catching lots of fish, and lots of big ones. Shouldn't it be the ones with minimal fishing skills (like me) griping about barbless hooks and worms and similar?

Actually, over the years here the barbless idea was originally hated but has pretty much become embraced and even extended to other places by those who normally use artificials. Live bait, slip-bobber aficionados? Well there's the rub, a problem I can understand all to well. First off it's a different type of fishing. That's why I asked about Gulp and slip-bobbers. Even if it produced as well, the challenge of keeping bait alive has become a useless art for Q fishermen & women.

im a huge fan of the barbless thing and i fish barbless everywhere i go. it definitely does help keep fish alive because not only the damage done by pulling the barbs out, but also saves a ton of time when the fish is out of the water. i also think theres a hidden element of protecting people by the barbless route because its much easier to just back a barbless hook out of your hand than it is to pull a barbed one through and nip the barb, then back out. i also tend to favor single hooks on spoons and baits of that nature because the treble hook can really do damage to fish.

thats my opinion and i favor the making it sporting and giving the fish a pretty good chance of beating me. i use light line, no barbs, single hooks, unscented soft plastic baits (i hate gulp with a passion) and i never once have had issues catching fish up in the Q or even around my home waters of wisconsin.

jaximus wrote on Jun 30^th, 2010 at 8:16pm:

thats my opinion and i favor the making it sporting and giving the fish a pretty good chance of beating me. i use light line, no barbs, single hooks, unscented soft plastic baits (i hate gulp with a passion) and i never once have had issues catching fish up in the Q or even around my home waters of wisconsin.

Pretty good chance of beating you?  Does the use of Gulp tip the odds into your favor?  The fish might disagree with ya.  Anyway, I always chuckle when folks seem to pat themselves on the back for giving the fish a better chance.

Nothing personal Jax.

The more I read this thread, the more I am convinced I just hate change....better or not.  Just leave me to the devices I've developed and I'm happy.  I don't like new concepts or ideas at all.  Even if a "better chance" for the fish.

db wrote on Jun 30^th, 2010 at 5:20am:

Actually, over the years here the barbless idea was originally hated but has pretty much become embraced and even extended to other places by those who normally use artificials.

Here in Alberta, all sportfishing is barbless. British Columbia freshwater regs specify barbless in rivers, but allow barbs in lakes. So Q isn't all that unusual.

jaximus wrote on Jun 30^th, 2010 at 8:16pm:

... i never once have had issues catching fish up in the Q or even around my home waters of wisconsin.

Please let me know where you're fishing.