Pliers and fingers. Just t-ing it will work but you really want to something I've heard called "crow foot" which not only t's the hook but also twists the points.

However, with the bait in question it really doesn't make much of a difference on the hooks hanging up – much like a Suick.

I do a light Crow Foot on my Slasher hooks and all of the Rippin shad and large lures. This helps keep the points from digging into the side of the lure causing deep rash which become grooves. Also using a smaller size but triple split ring will stop some of the hang ups. Hooks with shorter shanks coupled with smaller diameter split rings will both reduce the hooks reach thus stopping hook hangup on the top of the bait but not knowing what lure you having problems with kind of leaves me with guessing game.

For me I wish I had a source of 3 to 4 x hooks with short shanks in 6/0,7/0,and 8/0 sizes. I have to use 3551 to get big enough hooks and they have a pretty long shank.

Doing a crow foot takes two pairs of needle nose pliers. and you would have to see it done to do it. You have to bend all three barbs putting the eye at a 90 degree angle from where it was in regards to the belly hook holder. I never poke my fingers doing crows foot bends on hooks. I did my weagle in crows foot and it works great.

I think Trolling lures get more hook rash then casting lures. Ive seen BK Chubbies with inch deep cuts in the sides from the belly hooks. Note that Loke used double frog hooks on the belly and these do not contact the side or top of the bait.

Not using split rings also can stop hooks from swinging up and making contact with the top or sides of the lure. This however starts the debate over fish getting leverage on the hooks due to no ring. I think Lokes were good hooking lures even with the frog hooks on the belly positions. To tell you the truth I have never tried these type hooks on a casting lure. This could be an option.

It is an age old problem and there are lots of solutions. Good luck. Mike

Tools also depend on the hooks. With hooks like the mustad 3/0 RB shown above on the weagle or 3551 6/0 or less you can T those without tools. That is, unless you're doing more than one lure at a time in which case you'll get some sore fingers after doing 20 hooks. Then again I open Bucher rings all day with my fingernails so maybe I'm not the best example of using the right tool for the job…

"detroithardcore" said:
Very cool and interesting topic… Crows foot hooks look like they could be a very good idea. I've lost a good amount of fish on Wabull/Weagles and thinking this could improve my percentage on lost fish with these baits.

I've heard Dahlberg talk about adding 2 split rings to a glider which will then prevent less leverage of the fish twisting the hook against the bait thus freeing itself. I've seen Larry connect two spilt rings (2 split rings connected together and then attach to bait and hook) several times on his show. Thoughts on this technique??

I've caught plenty of fish on baits without split rings between the hook and hanger, suicks, reef hawgs, etc. The leverage from a twisting hook doesn't seem to make a huge difference, adding distance between bait and hook point probably has more merit (not that I'm saying the old guitar player is wrong).

YES, you MUST bend the hooks on wabulls and weagles!

"detroithardcore" said:
Good info Will. Thanks. You start to wonder if bait manufactuers or hook companies would start molding hooks this way right out of the box? You would think someone has decided to tackle this job by now?

Sorta like the bass hooks on the market that rotate 360 degrees. They are designed in a way that a treble can spin freely around and around creating less leverage for the fish to spit hooks.

Treble hooks are inherently wrong for belly positions on lures when split rings are used. Treble hooks are not molded but brazed or welded together one double(frog hook) and a third shank. They are balanced and straight without a split ring in between the belly holder and hook. This is why I crow foot my hooks. Not only does it bend the hooks to line up with the belly holder but turns the points out and keeps them from eating the lure. They could build treble hooks a little different like three separate shanks all welded together with an eye positioned to line up with the belly holder. However they don't. Frog type double hooks can be ruined in the net pretty easy but generally dont have trouble holding fish. I have to agree with Will, I really dont see the need for split rings on the bellies of some lures. My new 8 inch stubbies have been designed not to need split rings . I put them on if guys want them but I dont think they needed. Mike

"vano397" said:
Haha thanks a bunch guys. I think ill try the frog hooks in the front. The back doesnt seems to hang up at all… hopefully that wont screw with the balance at all.

I'll keep this simple… Don't try the Frog hook. Sounds and looks good in theory but doesn't work on a jerk bait.

"Chasin50" said:
I echo Mikes suggestions, i have been using the crow foot for many years, especially on trolling baits.

I remeber Don Miller being a big fan of this many years ago. He said you have to throw everything you have at thos "bitches" if you want to get them in the boat. lol…

I watched Miller demonstrate crow footing a hook. That's how I learned it. I never tried a double Frog hook on a jerk bait. They work great on trolled lures but jerk baits are different. Use a crow footed treble. Mike

In the case of our NILS masters a crow foot treble in the rear position did make the hang up problem worse. In fact they would get so stuck I had to use pliers to get the hook off the body. The NILS is so damned skinny at the tail any treble just flips up and hangs there. This why we went to the Loke hook on them. I dont know what type of Jerk bait he is having trouble with but I am sure it can be solved with the right hook and split ring combination. He just needs to limit the travel. Mike