What's the point ...

[JohnScott]

... or maybe, more aptly, where's the point ??

For me, fly angling is mostly about hunting trouts - finding them and getting them to come to the fly, whether it is sight fishing with dries or nymphs, fishing to rising fish, or reading the water and fishing it effectively with whatever fly seems right for the situation. Landing fishies is not a high priority, although I do like to document my outings with some pix.

Been thinking about trying this on and off for the past couple years. Fishing with flies with the hook cut off just about where the back of the barb is. This morning, when tying some FEB salmonflies for today's outing, I cut one hook off just behind the barb before putting it in the vice and tying the fly.

The weather was cold and the fishing was pretty slow ... until I started fishing the "pointless" FEB salmonfly mid-afternoon.

At the point I went pointless, I got onto a little pocket of water that can be really good, although a couple days ago I only had one fish rise to and take the salmonfly there.



Today, the water was a bit lower and the pocket a bit better defined. In a matter of twenty minutes or so, I had between 12 and 15 fish hit the fly, and most of them tried to eat it but didn't hook up because there was no real hook to hook up with. I did have a fair number on for a short tussle, and came close to landing two of them.

Before I quit this little pocket, I put on a pointy hook and landed this nice little fishy. He's pretty typical of the fish that hit the pointless fly. A few were somewhat larger.



On the way home, I tried another spot which can be really good, but hasn't been so far this year. Before my stop there, I talked to an acquaintance who told me he had fished it hard with both nymphs and dries for a couple hours earlier in the day. Only one pocket was full - like with half a dozen trouts that tried to eat the pointless salmonfly in the space of about ten minutes.

Kind of a mixed reaction to the experience. Landing fish is so ingrained that there tends to be a moment of disappointment when there isn't a solid hook up.

But the good news is - catch and release is a "given." And no fishing time is wasted with all that catching stuff. The action in both places really was fast and furious. The fishies weren't disturbed by having their buddies charging around the pocket with a strange object in their jaw, and they just kept on coming to the fly. It occurred to me at one point that some of the fish that weren't really nicked / scared may have come back for a second shot at the meal they missed ??

Bottom line. I plan to keep on fishing pointless hooks some of the time, and regular pointy things the rest of the time. At least for the time being.

John

[Marco]

Hey John,
I too once did the "pointless" thing. Although under totally different circumstances, in Canada. This was a very thick weedbed just begging to snatch my lure, and I just knew there were huge Northern Pike lurking thereunder. I totally removed the treble hooks from a "Daredevil" and proceeded to cast over the weeds. What followed were countless strikes , almost on each cast and retrieve. The bait may have been pointless but the experience was not.

Mark

[Panman]

Make sense to me. A lot of us hunt deer, ducks and geese year around and never break the law.

Tim

[Bobinmich]

I have practiced shoot and release on ruffed grouse for years. My dog always enjoys a good laugh.

Actually landing a fish does not mean nearly as much to me as the overall experience of fooling one into hitting something I have created. Catch and release is easier if I don't have to catch. I am especially happy if a fair hooked fish gets off a barbless hook before I land him, provided nothing gets torn off him in the process. So a hookless hook makes sense to me.

Bob

[ducksterman]

Since the fish must feel even the blunt end of the hook.....I wonder if there would be an advantage to cutting the whole bend of the hook off...at the beginning of the bend...maybe the fly would not float properly?

[NJTroutbum]

I guess that's sorta like realizing that your nymph has snapped off....and wondering just how long you'd been fishing without a fly?.....I hate it when that happens. LOL

I'll stick to hooking, landing, holding, and letting go. That, I like. The holding and letting go part is a big part of the "circle" for me.

[JohnScott]

... that gives up fishies at some interval and slowly, this approach probably wouldn't be nearly as much fun.

In the two places I tried it yesterday, it is not unusual to pick up a lot of fish in a hurry.

BUT what the hookless approach does is really compress or concentrate the action into a much shorter time span. If I had been fishing a regular pointy thing, I probably would have spent close to an hour in the first pocket and landed a dozen or more fish, and close to half an hour in the second pocket and landed a half dozen or so.

It really was fascinating to see / feel so many fish in such a short time span, to realize just how fast and furious the action can be when you don't have to deal with landing and catching the fishies.

This approach definitely isn't for everyone, and not for every situation, but as Mark said in his post, the hook "may have been pointless but the experience was not."

John

P.S. Duck - having the shorter bend with a blunt end lets you feel the take whereas a completely bendless hook probably wouldn't. It also gives you a shot at landing the fish, if that is what you decide you want to do. But landing a fish is really difficult, because as soon as pressure is released, so is the fish. What I noticed on the two that I almost landed was that when I got them quite close and the rod was close to vertical, they were gone - I think because the flex of the rod released the pressure I had been able to maintain up to that point.

Just removing the part of the hook from the back of the barb to the point didn't really alter the position of the fly on the water. Removing the entire bend might. Might experiment with that next time out.

[jszymczyk]

maybe you should take up golf, but without the balls?

[MSD53X]

John;

I really enjoy your reports (hope to do the same, some day) And I was wondering if you ever take a fish home to eat,.

I, like you, love to fish, and every now and then I will take one. Do you ??

[JohnScott]

John;

I really enjoy your reports (hope to do the same, some day) And I was wondering if you ever take a fish home to eat,.

I, like you, love to fish, and every now and then I will take one. Do you ??

Haven't kept a fish in years. When I was down in Idaho, the wife of one of my good friends loved brown trout for dinner, so when I could keep one for her, I would. Same for my next door neighbor and their kids. "When" depended on how long it would be from the time I caught the fish to when I could deliver it. That was easy in the winter - pack it in ice and snow and keep on fishing.

Personally, I never much cared for the taste of brown trout, and stream rainbows didn't do much for me, either. Cutthroat have generally been C & R everywhere I've fished, and brook trout are either very small or not many of them. I did have some rainbows from a small lake down in eastern Nevada that were delicious - pink meat and more like salmon than rainbow trout.

John