The Case for Barbless Hooks, Even Where They’re Not Required

A lot of the waters I fish don’t actually require barbless or micro-barbed hooks by rule – it’s an option, not a mandate. I use them anyway, on essentially all of my fishing now, and I think the case for doing so is stronger than the “it’s only necessary where required” attitude a lot of anglers still hold.

The most obvious argument is fish welfare – barbless hooks cause noticeably less tissue damage on removal, and unhooking time (which matters for fish recovery, particularly in warmer water with lower dissolved oxygen) is meaningfully faster. That alone should be reason enough, but there’s a second, more selfish argument too: barbless hooks are genuinely easier and quicker for the angler as well, meaning less handling time and a faster return to fishing.

The counterargument I hear most often is that barbless hooks lose more fish during the fight, particularly on species prone to headshaking like pike or on long-range casts where a moment’s slack line can lose contact. In my experience this is a real but manageable trade-off – maintaining better constant tension through the fight largely compensates, and the small number of fish lost to this is, in my view, worth it for the welfare and handling benefits across every other fish landed.

I’m not arguing barbed hooks should be banned everywhere – there are situations, like some sea fishing with big baits at range, where the calculation is different. But for the majority of UK coarse and game fishing situations, I think barbless deserves to be the default choice, not just the compliance-driven one.

Leave a comment