Norm M Posted December 30, 2016 Report Posted December 30, 2016 I am reading a book What Trout Want, The Educated Trout and Other Myths by Bob Wyatt . So far as I've got his argument is that trout don't get educated to fly patterns and thus become selective in the flies they take thus necessitating even more perfect imitations of natural foods . One point is that poor presentation is more of a factor than a fly imperfectly tied . Another is that trout due to the size of their brain are incapable of having acquired a conceptual grasp of what it means to be genuine or fake . He further states that when speaking of fish feeding selectively from a animal behaviorist point of view it isn't a matter of choice, suspicion or taste but about efficiency, getting the most nutrition with the least amount of energy expended . " Trout are fundamentally no different from any other fish . Out there in the fish world, selective feeding isn't about scrutinizing, choosing and refusing. It's about zeroing in on the most abundant and highest - quality food when it's available and eating as much as possible while the getting's good. " " The "selectivity" that biologists observe isn't anything like a trout making fastidious choices between male and female Tricorythodes subimago, or judging an insects correctness of form , or choosing it's prey based on the mysterious color preferences of Ray Bergman's aesthetically refined trout. It's about focusing on prey by it's size and abundance and how it behaves in the water. In the case of prolific and sustained insect hatches , it's a matter of the trout not recognizing anything else as food - a kind of tunnel vision. " "This isn't the choosy behavior of a sophisticated and fussy eater, but the innate stimulus and response of an efficient predator fully exploiting it's niche in the ecosystem. Behavioral ecologists call this predictable response to it's prey the trout's " fixed action pattern" - genetically programmed behavior the fish can't help ." On another point about learning he mentions the exposed hook issue in fly fishing. His point being that even on heavily pressured waters trout have not learned to recognize what a hook is as they continue to be caught on flies with exposed hooks . In something like a fly that is trying to imitate something natural an exposed hook is as unnatural a cue as there could be . On the point of exact imitations he points out that in a book by G.E.M. Skues , The Way of a Trout with a Fly there are ten photos of flies called Blue Duns from different regions of the British Isles . The fly in every one of those photos are meant to imitate the same insect the Dark Spring Baetis Olive yet all are different from each other, none even remotely resemble the natural dun and all work . Here are a couple more quotes from as far as I've made it into the book that I find interesting. " The impression of life is the most important trigger to a predatory response. How we achieve that is more important than just matching relatively unimportant aspects such as color. " " The best impressionistic patterns don't imitate anything in particular but do a good job of suggesting most of the things trout eat for a living." Now to some of my thoughts . Most of us have read in one place or another about bass becoming educated to certain types of lures/ techniques and them losing their effectiveness in those bodies of water where they receive heavy use . Does this really happen and if it does is it a function of how unnatural that lure is . Say the difference between a tandem spin and a smoke colored grub on a plain jig tarnished by dulling the finish in the flame of a cigarette lighter. How many of us have caught the same fish[known due to distinguishing features of the fish or actually seeing it in clear water] multiple times on the same lure ? Most articles say that the older/bigger fish get the most educated to lure/technique . Yet many of the truly large smallmouth I have caught have been on a crankbait . That is a lure type that has seen heavy use on my river for decades . It may be because I was using much larger crankbaits than most. I am fairly certain I caught the same three big fish[distinguishing markings] more than once from the same places with the exact same lure . Quite possibly statically insignificant, I grant, but then are there solid numbers to prove educated fish or rod/reel observation like this ? On exact imitations , I never understood why a photo exact finish on a lure would be better at catching a fish than say a countershaded one . After all one is purporting to be an exact replica of a fish that years of evolution have designed an appearance to disguise it from predators while the other stands out like a sore thumb . The first, I always believed was designed to catch fisherman's money more so than to catch fish . I have one photo finish lure, a Rebel Bluegill that I bought because I liked how it looked and it was in a bargain bin[ I can be a sucker for bargain bins at times] . That lure sits in storage in the garage because I caught so few fish with it over the 5 years it was in the lake rotation . Could it be that when we can actually see fish turning away or ignoring our lures that it is more likely that we as fisherman are doing something wrong presentation wise than how closely the lure actually looks like real forage ? I think that things like size, profile/shape, vibration , flash and possibly scent are more of a factor in presenting cues that lead to a bite than exact imitation as long as we get the proper presentation in depth and speed control . Blow those two factors and you won't catch them . Some might argue that when fish are in a highly competitive feeding mode with other fish you can be a bit sloppy with speed/depth control. I would argue that in that case the fish have just expanded their strike window and you did match those two factors . As far as color goes , I don't think it's much of an issue with river smallmouth. They have a very limited amount of time to instinctively decide can I catch and eat that without expending too much energy. I believe that is the major factor in pushing the eat/no eat button. I also believe that the factors I listed above are more of a factor than color in the cues for the eat/no eat button to be pushed. I seriously doubt they have the mental capability to decide that lure is red and I'm not eating that color today . All thoughts pro or con gladly accepted and taken into consideration . Quote
Scott Ferguson Posted December 30, 2016 Report Posted December 30, 2016 I think the whole fluorocarbon leader thing is severely overblown at least where the thought that the clear line will spook the fish less than braided line. I've been using braided line for many years and never used any kind of leader except for steel on occasion to prevent bite offs from toothy fish. I've never believed that bass in particular have the mental capacity to reason and draw the conclusion that fishing line is bad. My logic says that if they can figure out line is bad, how come they can't figure out the difference between live bait and a hunk of wood or plastic that has treble hooks hanging from it. Quote
tjtroester Posted December 30, 2016 Report Posted December 30, 2016 yes, I too have come to believe more flies are lost due to poor presentation the lack of exact representation, and a fish does not care if the fly is attached to a 40'leader +line+rod+dude in a goofy hat. timothy Quote
rich mc Posted December 30, 2016 Report Posted December 30, 2016 i also agree that the mono- flourocarbon topic is miss sold to anglers. the no streach factor and sinking abilities far out weigh the clearness aspect. i believe color affects the silhouette that the fish sees and sihouette out ranks color in importance nice topic norm rich mc Quote
Mike G Posted December 30, 2016 Report Posted December 30, 2016 "The angler has been casting for hours going through every fly in his box while fish rise all around him. Even going to a 7x tippet on a 15 ft leader and casting from a prone position make no difference. He takes a break for a smoke. After the last puff, he tosses the butt into the stream. A 24" Rainbow engulfs it immediately." Our literature is full of stories like this. The authors speculate about why this happens proposing a variety of reasons. It could be the natural drift of the butt, its size, the ability of the fish to see even the finest leader, the buoyancy of the filter material, its color, the solunar period, residual fumes on the flies from the cement the tyer used, BO, etc., etc. ... The solutions are equally varied. Improve casting to get a better drift, cast a butt fly made from a noodle mop, use "invisible" flourocarbon, etc., etc. ... My favorite is rubbing your hands and and flies with Red Owl cat food. (The economy can, green label, not the premium, red label.) So I am sticking with this thread to see what you guys come up with. It should get us to the ice out in March. Quote
John Loebach Posted December 30, 2016 Report Posted December 30, 2016 Fluorocarbon main advantage is strength & no stretch. On a swing or dead drift the stretch of mono deadens the ability to detect change in direction whether stopped by a strike or hung up on the bottom. I've never tested Scott's comment on braid without leader but have heard the same & seen it work so I believe he is right. Regarding imitations effect on fish the two most important (and related) factors are location(depth) & speed. Start out with a moderate speed retrieve & slow down until you start to get bit. Trout will hold in a seam at the same point to feed. Bass will follow & take at the end of the swing when you can't get a response any other way. When fishing with someone don't pass up the opportunity to cast near a fighting fish, there are almost always followers & the struggle can make them aggressive. In clear lakes its common to see fighting bass barf up the stomach contents & the chasers taking it. I believe we fish past around or through lots of fish that don't respond. Finding the trigger is key, effective color most often subtle(olive on the Fox), black or gray & white work when chartreuse, yellow & flash are seen but ignored. If its hard to see then its like the natural food. I'll still start with a chart/white clouser fished deep & stripped to cover ground but change if its not working today. On ponds for LM bass I prefer dead slow with a finger roll strip to just keep the slack out as it sinks. Less is often more, the same as plastics on gear. Great topic, Norm. Quote
Scott Ferguson Posted December 30, 2016 Report Posted December 30, 2016 Another myth that has been perpetuated by the line manufacturers is that fluorocarbon line does not stretch which is absolutely false. Many tests have been done and FC lines stretch as much, sometimes more than mono does. When FC does stretch, it does not return to its original shape the way mono does which weakens the line. This also gives FC its reputation for having poor knot strength. Quote
Mark K Posted December 30, 2016 Report Posted December 30, 2016 First off I don't believe fish "think" or rationalize nor do they perceive things the way we do. I read in a book called "How Fish Work", hopefully I am getting this right, if you want to see what a fish sees, take a polarizing filter and tape it to a flash light, then put on polarized glasses and go into a dark room with your tackle box and shine it on your lures. Whatever you see reflecting back is what a fish will see. I don't know. Line visibility in a lot of situations doesn't matter, but I think it does for sure in others. I had Eric out fish me like 10:1 and he was using this obnoxious fluorescent line on the Fox and the Dupage. I understand completely why, the lures he was using were huge, and he was picking off big aggressive fish. But smallmouth on the lakefront downtown are awfully spooky and if you walk around there a lot...if not most of the bass guys down there use fluorocarbon line. My experience with loading reel with fluorocarbon was like pulling a 20 dollar bill out of your pocket and lighting it on fire. I am told today's lines are a lot better and I think I am going to give it another try down there. Maybe it's not a deciding factor, but it can't hurt. Quote
Mark K Posted December 30, 2016 Report Posted December 30, 2016 https://www.amazon.com/How-Fish-Work-Thomas-Sholseth/dp/1571882391 Quote
Norm M Posted December 30, 2016 Author Report Posted December 30, 2016 https://www.amazon.com/How-Fish-Work-Thomas-Sholseth/dp/1571882391 dagnabit Mark. now I have another book to read . Quote
Eric Posted December 30, 2016 Report Posted December 30, 2016 There's a great discussion on line visibility versus lure action on the Indiana Smallmouth Alliance forum. BTerrill (Brenden) covers it thoroughly and I agree with his points. http://www.indianasmallmouthalliance.org/members/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4435 Many years ago, my in-laws had a summer home on a gin-clear lake in northern Minnesota. On a hot day I decided to snorkel under their pontoon. While doing so, I spied a big largemouth bass hanging out in the shadows. I went and got a soft-plastic crayfish imitation from my tackle box and returned to the area. The bass was still there. I exhaled and sunk to the bottom, stretched out my arm, and waived the crayfish imitation ... enticing the bass. In a split second, that bass darted down and nailed the plastic right out of my hand! That would have made one heck of a cool GoPro video. But that was long before its time. Often times when folks ask if I think my florescent green line spooks the fish, or accounts for "less bites" I tell them that story. I think anglers give way too much credit to fish. Quote
Steve S. Posted December 30, 2016 Report Posted December 30, 2016 I think anglers give way too much credit to fish. Yup Quote
Norm M Posted December 30, 2016 Author Report Posted December 30, 2016 There's a great discussion on line visibility versus lure action on the Indiana Smallmouth Alliance forum. BTerrill (Brenden) covers it thoroughly and I agree with his points. http://www.indianasmallmouthalliance.org/members/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4435 Many years ago, my in-laws had a summer home on a gin-clear lake in northern Minnesota. On a hot day I decided to snorkel under their pontoon. While doing so, I spied a big largemouth bass hanging out in the shadows. I went and got a soft-plastic crayfish imitation from my tackle box and returned to the area. The bass was still there. I exhaled and sunk to the bottom, stretched out my arm, and waived the crayfish imitation ... enticing the bass. In a split second, that bass darted down and nailed the plastic right out of my hand! That would have made one heck of a cool GoPro video. But that was long before its time. Often times when folks ask if I think my florescent green line spooks the fish, or accounts for "less bites" I tell them that story. I think anglers give way too much credit to fish. I think that's because folks try to use or give a human perspective on how things are to a non human species . I also think that by attributing intelligence to a creature that operates on instinctive response allows some pride/ego to be salved when the fault was ours by failing to appeal to those instinctive responses enough to have success . Quote
Eric Posted December 31, 2016 Report Posted December 31, 2016 Same could be said about never posting pics. ;-) Quote
John Gillio Posted December 31, 2016 Report Posted December 31, 2016 I just thought I would throw this out there to stir the pot. http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/fish-are-smarter-you-think/ I have observed fish in captivity for years. I cannot say why they do the things they do, but they can be rather interesting. Ex.: 1. A tank full of different minnow species, and a small sunfish. Whenever I approached the tank the fish moved to the surface seemingly expecting to be fed. I was the feeder of the fish. Whenever my wife would move to the tank she would be ignored by all except for the sunfish which would move toward her and follow her every movement. Is the fish curious, does he like her, is she more pleasant to look at than I, is it an instinct for this type of fish to be attracted to dark haired ,blue eyed, Italian girls (or is that just me)? 2. A large tank full of native game and prey fish. Different people feeding them each week. No reaction from fish when people move by tank unless the lid is open. Then they seem to get ready for feeding time. This is always the case unless you are Billy. His approach put fish into a frenzy to hide. This leads me to believe Billy has terrorized these fish at times when I am not present. Are all the fish actually scared of him or is it just one or a few that panic and the rest react? Maybe they are programmed to hide from boys named Billy? 3. Tanks similar to above. A few gamefish with emerald shiners and fathead minnows. Emerald shiners always first to be eaten. They were much more common to the system the fish were from. Were they programmed to eat them first? Were the shiners easier prey? Were the shiners a tastier treat? Are they more nutritious than fatheads?... Lots more examples like these. Do fish move to current seams when they are hungry out of instinct or because they know food could be floating by and it is a more productive area to hunt? Hard to say, but it is something that fish do. I believe good fishermen know how fish react to situations and know what they do. Someday we may learn why they react instinctively or decide to do what they do. Will this make us better fishermen? I would guess so. Quote
Eric Posted December 31, 2016 Report Posted December 31, 2016 You can condition fish to move to the surface for feeding time with all sorts of stimuli. I did a science fair on it in sixth grade. I've seen similar behavior from my koi. They associate any time someone turns on the basement light with being fed. They'll rush to the surface and begin slurping / snapping. I had a reef tank and some of the very inquisitive fish seemed to associate my presence with feeding time since I was the main person caring for the tank and constantly sitting there studying them. When I approached they'd come out of their hideouts to whatever side of the tank I was on. They picked up cues to associate me with food. Way off-topic ... from age 12 to nearly 30 I was fascinated by aquatic life and fish keeping. I had an Atlantic octopus in one of my tanks (solo) that was a blast to care for. It loved live crayfish and I got it to the point where by merely holding a crayfish in front of the glass it would turn bright red, crawl up the glass to the very top of the tank, flip a tentacle or two out and I could hand-feed it. It would cover the crayfish like a cloak and jet down to its hideout, then about a half-hour later, flush out the empty carapace. The octopus was about the size of a tennis ball and they are very difficult to care for. Not only water conditions but they need a very secure tank with lots of hideouts and things to rearrange. They can die from the stress of being captive. When out in Seattle for training, I visited the Seattle Aquarium a bunch of times and got to talk to the aquatic biologists behind the scenes. They said that the giant Pacific octopus that they have on display are wild-caught and more/less "borrowed" from local sites ... much to the dismay of local divers who are "fans" of them. They are kept on display only for a few weeks and then released back to where they were found. You want to talk about intelligence, wow! Octopus, squid, cuttlefish. Pretty darn "smart" for inverts! Amazing creatures to study. I was just talking to a guy who dark house spears sturgeon on Lake Winnebago in WI. We were talking about the "luck" of a sturgeon swimming past the hole in the ice, and how their decoys seem to appeal to the sturgeon's inquisitive nature. Not necessarily as a potential food source, but just because of their profiles and sometimes garish paint jobs. As Beavis and Butthead would say, "Fish are cool." Quote
jude Posted January 1, 2017 Report Posted January 1, 2017 A pet octopus? That's cool as hell. Yes…some people give fish WAY too much credit if you ask me. That's just how Rapala, Senko, etc. like it. Quote
Norm M Posted January 1, 2017 Author Report Posted January 1, 2017 Same could be said about never posting pics. ;-) zero interest in taking photos of fish . rather spend the time actually fishing . to each his own . Quote
Norm M Posted January 2, 2017 Author Report Posted January 2, 2017 This is a reply from Al Agnew on another board discussing the same subject . I feel the same way he does about it but he put it into the words I was looking for to make a post about it . And since we don't usually know how many bass we put the lure in front of which never bite it (but it's a LOT), we don't often figure out what the negative cues are that turned those bass off. Bass can learn to avoid negative stimuli. Maybe in some bass, something inherent to our tackle or technique registered on their tiny little learning center the last three times they were hooked, and now it's a negative cue that they have finally learned to avoid. And maybe some bass are genetically programmed not to ever eat stuff moving like a crankbait, for instance...maybe some bass are simply genetically less susceptible to the typical lures. We all know that lightly fished waters hold easier to catch bass. Maybe it isn't all because the existing bass in these waters have seldom been caught and released and thus haven't learned to "pay attention" to the negative cues. Maybe it's partly because in the heavily pressured waters, the bass that are genetically most susceptible to our lures were caught and either killed or died of delayed mortality after being released, and it's the genetically less susceptible bass that best survived to pass along their genes. Quote
Mark K Posted January 2, 2017 Report Posted January 2, 2017 zero interest in taking photos of fish . rather spend the time actually fishing . to each his own . As the saying goes..."A picture says a thousand words.", therefore it's a time saver ;-) Quote
Mike G Posted January 2, 2017 Report Posted January 2, 2017 Yes…some people give fish WAY too much credit if you ask me. Yes. There's a corollary. Some people give fishermen WAY too much credit. I just watched a TFN show on the finals of the Canadian Thousand Island Tournament-a three day two man team event with a 5/day bag limit. The winning team had 15 bass, mostly Smallmouths, with a total weight of 79 lbs 9 oz. How many Bruti in that bag? Wacky rigged Senkos in shallow water was the ticket. It must have been early season. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.