Do the Eyes Have it, yae or nay!

postcard · Post by **postcard** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:28 pm

A lot has been said about the ability of fish to identify a lure as one prey or another which leads one to believe that fish, by instinct or intelligence, can 'prefer' or target one species over another. Lure companys, (via their spokesmen), emphazize the details and comparisons of a particular brand of lure to the real thing. You may want to consider the following example before you lay down your cash based on the 'matching-philosophy' of lure fishing.

Past articles written in magazines, suggest painted eyes indicate the 'head' of a lure. This supposedly helps a fish to decide to kill it's prey(the lure), more effectively, based on it's realistic 'interpretation' of an inherent color pattern. This brings up the question of how much of one's confidence is based on good 'ol superstition, versus validation and duplicate experiences? A few definitions to keep in mind whenever you hear someone relating absolutes concerning fishing are :

superstition - defined as, 'a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation.'

anecdote - defined as a particular or detached incident or fact of an interesting nature, (but not necessarily a fact of nature).'

Eyes and other realistic lure characteristics can never be said to always make a difference in the number of strikes we get in a day. Therefore, we can never know when they really do make a difference. Senkos, for example, and most soft plastics, don't have eyes, yet beat the pants off 95% of all lure types with eyes and in a large number of situations. Realism applies to the highly imaginative in this situation. (In fact, Senkos don't even have a head!

Granted, sight and sound are important stimuli to the strike, but that which catches a fisherman, may not equate into what catches a fish. Even if a certain lure had craw b.o., gills, eyes, fins, scales and slime, I doubt the bait would be any more effective or successful than your run-of-the-mill, basic, plastic worm or creature-bait, (though it might be at the check-out counter).

Maybe a fish prefers to kill it's prey head-first, but how does it determine the 'head'? Is it the forward motion of the 'snack' or is it the larger end, that indicates 'head-and-nothing-but-the-head'?

Do fish realize, instinctively, that prey may turn around or dart in a different direction, but that the unnatural movement of any prey, moving away backwards, is not part of nature's plan of avoiding someone's digestive track,(unless you're a crawfish)? It appears that maybe 'the direction of escape' is more important, versus 'eyeb*lls' on a minnow or a lure. The 'head', therefore, is expected to move in the direction of an attempted escape and the profile of some baits, that may indicate the head by it plumper end, may be the easier, juicier, target. (Not always, but sometimes!)

But there is another important factor that concerns most aquatic meat-eaters. The prey they vacuum out of existence, is usually much smaller than their mouths, so taking a prey head-first for a fast kill, isn't necessary. They're not boa constrictors! Besides, underwater videos show sucked-in, small minnows escaping out the back-door through the gill plates, time after time - head first. :rolleyes: !

Surface detailing of the realistic-kind, became a non-issue for me after the first time I caught smallmouth on a firetiger pattern, and largemouth, on bright-red crankbaits; ditto for the successes of purple/firetail Phenom worms and bubblegum Slugos.

'Eyes' matter if you want them to matter, the same as any number of lure finishes that are confidence-based positives. The fact that our anecdotal experiences may be based on the build-up of superstitions by the pros, the lure companies that sponsor them and ourselves, is usually not considered when we dream of catching 'more and bigger'. Being in the right place, at the right time and casting one of a hundred, effective lures in a number of effective ways, usually explains the bite.

How well a particular species learns or solves problems and responds to positive or negative stimuli, often turns out to have more to do with sight, motivation and species-specific ecological adaptations than with underlying intelligence. Brain-stem thinkers don't have the capacity to analyze anything. ( If it fits (the mouth that is), you must aquit! :p .) (Couldn't help myself.)

The grand thing about fishing is that it's 99% anecdotal and 1% real concerning successes and failures. If it weren't, we wouldn't be able to brag as much as we do about the big ones that got away or rationalize why a day was fishless. But more importantly, the clearance tables would be empty!

If it works for you .....

Frank M

Eric · Post by **Eric** » Fri Jan 03, 2003 8:52 pm

Great Post!!

What I have read from fairly neutral sources ( very little interest from a sales point ) is that some gamefish will focus on the eyes of there prey. The reason being is because baitfish cannot swim backward and the gamefish must "lead" there target in some instances to aviod missing behind the pray. This I can understand, if you watch predators in nature they allways put them selves in position for a good attack angle, this is learned through trial and error and of coarse passed down through evolution.

Here in my opinion is where the advantage of having eyes on bait holds true. When fishing a bait such as a jerkbait with a very errattic retreive the gamefish needs a focus point in order to take the bait successfuly. I do believe that eyes will make a difference in clear water when using a bait that simulates baitfish. However I do not believe eyes can make a bait such as a worm, jig or tube any more productive when fishing them slowly on or near the bottom. 1st off most soft plastics are made to be a " reasonable representation of food " not to imitate the exact prey item the gamefish may be targeting. This is why matching the size of the prodominant forage is so very important. The gamefish will relate this with a food item.

Of coarse there are tons of exceptions with every rule. At times hot colors such as chart or red can elicit a reaction strike, or even turn off very neutral fish. Color is probably the least important factor in choosing a lure unless faced with very clear water, given you are not sight fishing and need to be able to see the bait yourself. I have always cut color into four catagories. 1. Light colors, white - baitfish
2. Dark colors, black - crawfish
3. Neutral colors, smoke - A representation of nothing and everything ( as when presenting on the bottom. Craw? Minnow? It blends in or is hard to make out, therefore it works well for very finicky bass )
4. Hot colors, chartruese - reaction
Of coarse this is very basic and must be tweeked depending on many on the water variables, but I feel it is a reasonable basis.
I know I got of subject a little and agree with your post almost entirely. It may be a confidence thing for me but when using a bait that bass must track or trying to simulate baitfish behavour I think the eyes have it.

johnnie crain outdoors · Sat Jan 04, 2003 2:12 am

Frank, that sure was a "eye" pleasing post. I guess given a choice between a lure with eyes and one without, I'd take the eyes. How else is my lure going to know when to dart out of the way at the least second? I may be extremely naive, but I don't ever think we can fool a bass into thinking any piece of rubber, plastic, wood or steel is a living thing. Bass eat live stuff for a living, they know what's real! I suspect all my strikes are reflex or curiousity strikes. Again, how could a bass think that a fire tiger anything is real? Very interesting post, are you a writer? If not, you should be. Johnnie Crain Iowa Pro Staff.

MMT · Post by **MMT** » Sat Jan 04, 2003 5:02 pm

Scientifically speaking, if bass are proven to target a false eye on a shad or eyes on other creatures as a striking point, I guess baits with eyes make perfect sense. I prefer eyes on spinnerbaits, hair jigs, and cranks. I've fished jig n pigs and worms for years without eyes so there is no need to start adding them here.

postcard · Post by **postcard** » Sat Jan 04, 2003 5:49 pm

"1st off most soft plastics are made to be a " reasonable representation of food " not to imitate the exact prey item the gamefish may be targeting. This is why matching the size of the prodominant forage is so very important."

I'm with you on that statement Eric, but you might be surprised at how many anglers feel that what they're throwing isinterpreted by a fish as a realistic copy of the real thing (i.e. Mad Tom Crawtubes). Bait 'generalizations' do seem to get the curious/aggressive/I'm bored, so-let's-raid-the-frig., -strikes.

Thanks for the compliment John. I'm not a trained writer but enjoy writing entertaining pieces especially about fishing and the hype that has been bombarding us for 30 years. I'm going to post another food-for-thought post about color. Tell me what you think.

Frank

Eric · Post by **Eric** » Sat Jan 04, 2003 7:27 pm

Frank,

I guess the tackle companies know that consumers beleive that the more realistic a bait looks the better it will catch fish. This is the beauty of mass marketing, they get on a trend and try and keep it going as long as possible.
Although I admit there are baits I will fall back on and have the most confidence in, it is reasonable to beleive that the 10% of anglers catching 90% of the bass are just more successful at finding the fish. You can have the right bait, retreive and conditions but if you arent on the fish you just cant get bit.
A simple example of how most anglers are swayed by the success of one angler and the " magic " bait is The Bassmasters Classic. This past classic Jay Yelas won the tournament by catching the majority of his bass using a particular jig and trailer brand. When the average angler see's this they go out and by tons of these baits expecting they too can catch bass like Jay. The fact is ( and those educated understand it is not this simple ) that Jay had the fish pinned down and when that water started moving knew where and how to present that bait. More than likley any jig would have caught those fish, or a handfull of other baits for that matter. The general public doesnt see it that way and is looking for that " magic bullet ", one bait that will catch fish under any condition. Hey, if its good enough to win the Bassmasters Classic!! Right?

Just Giving my 2 cents ( actually 1/2 wheat pennies worth )
Good Fishing!!

6.54BASS · Post by **6.54BASS** » Sat Jan 04, 2003 7:39 pm

What a perplexing post! I have caught bass, crappie, etc on bare hooks as well as, while bored and goofing off, have pulled fish all the way out of the water on nothing more than the sinker (before they let go). Consequently, I think the eyes could be questionable. As well as being as curious as to why I repeatedly seem to catch 3 or 4 pound catfish on buzzbaits. Hmmmm.... Thanks for the excellent posts, Gentlemen, way to keep us thinking.