m.t.hands

the worst one i can remember was having a 4 pound bass flopping around with one of the trebbles stuck in him and the other stuck in the palm of my hand, man you talk about sore[:-][:@]

here is the best thing i could find, i have used it and like it the best, notice in one part it mentions you need nerves of steel, well i do much better pulling/yanking it out than i do driving it on thru, especially around fingernails






A less well-known technique for removing fishhooks was first described in 1961 by Dr. Cooke. (4) He had seen commercial fishermen in New Zealand remove hooks from themselves using only a piece of string. Nobody knows how long they have been using this technique, or who should be credited for its invention. But as Cooke pointed out, "fishers have long used the string flick technique because it allows them to remove the hook, dip the finger in the sea, and carry on fishing within a minute." (4 ) Dr. Cooke, a general practitioner from south Australia, published his account in an article titled, "How to remove fish hooks with a bit of string." Since then, it has been described multiple times with a few slight variations. (5,6,7,8) The basic principle is as follows (see figure 3):
[*]A piece of strong string/suture is tied to the bend of the hook.[*]The shank of the hook is depressed to disengage the barb.[*]While the shank is being depressed, the string is given a hard, sharp, decisive jerk in the direction in which the hook entered the skin. This extracts the hook along the path of entry. [/ol]

Figure 3
A
B
C

Since its initial description, this string technique has become the preferred method of fishhook removal for many emergency medicine and family physicians. (5,6,9) Some have proclaimed that all you need is a length of string and nerves of steel, deferring the use of local anesthetic. Several authors state that when the technique is performed correctly, it is "painless". (10) However, most authors do recommend the use of local anesthetics. (1,2,3,5,8, etc.) I would assert that for the uninitiated physician, the anesthetic will put him at ease as much as the patient.
Several clinicians report uniform success using the string technique. One author noted that of the 32 fishhook injuries that presented to the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in south Australia in a one-year period, 26 of the 32 were successfully removed with the string method. The author presumed that the 6 failures were due to a "half-hearted" attempt on the part of the attempting doctor. (12)
The major benefits of the string removal method include minimizing the size of the wound, and limiting the contaminated field. (1,12) Obviously the traditional method creates additional trauma to the tissues as the hook is advanced through the skin to penetrate at a second location. (13) The string method usually does not enlarge the wound track or extend the point of entry if the barb of the hook has been properly disengaged with downward pressure on the shank of the hook. (12) Another benefit is the option of quickly removing a fishhook without anesthetic if you find yourself presented with an impaled person while minding your own business at a park or a lake. Dr. S. S. David of south Australia goes so far as to tout that this method has the benefit of not ruining the fisherman’s favorite lure by cutting off a barb. (12) Though cutting away the excess hooks (those not embedded) from a lure before yanking on it with a string, seems prudent to myself and others. (11)