Frank, another excellent post but one sentence bothers me........."In closing, in order to be fooled by something that mimics the real thing, one must first have even a room-temperature IQ to be able to identify between real things."
This suggests to me that a fish would likely strike any offering because it is unable to discern or choose if the offering is bogus. Now, knowing that bass strike for reasons other than hunger, why would they not strike everytime upon seeing a lure? While we may not be dealing with a beast that has a high IQ, it is very likey that these fish do have some ability to pick and choose, as far as deciding what is favorable or unfavorable to eat. One thing that we haven't touched on is the fact that the bass relies on a natural sense that we humans don't seem to understand, Instinct and the need to survive.
This may make up for the creatures lack of super intelligence.
Let's get physical (elements)
-
JoeM
- Posts: 424
- Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2001 4:00 pm
Let's get physical (elements)
Johnnie- When this thread slows down a little, I'm going to copy the entire thing.
Then I'm going to retire to my "office" and read until I feel I understand it all.
I'm thinking of retiring my notebook and buying a Palm Pilot.
My congrats to Frank M and Craig for a great running commentary. (I'm running to try to keep up with them. lol) Many thanks. Joe
Then I'm going to retire to my "office" and read until I feel I understand it all.
I'm thinking of retiring my notebook and buying a Palm Pilot.
My congrats to Frank M and Craig for a great running commentary. (I'm running to try to keep up with them. lol) Many thanks. Joe
Good Fishing,
JoeM - Former Message Board Moderator
JoeM - Former Message Board Moderator
-
postcard
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 4:00 pm
Let's get physical (elements)
Craig, maye, just maybe 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 or the vague term, instinct . Even an aomeba can 'learn-to-avoid' and go around or try to absorb something.
It comes down to a fish's irritability. I believe that fish are an irritable lot, especially post-front when they languish on the bottom or suspend and don't want to be bothered. On the other hand, when feeding, they come out of this state and any hindrances to basic, protective-instincts, disappear and hunger and/or aggression takes over.
For instance, thicker line is not high on their lists of, 'do I bite and swallow this Senko, or not?'. Maybe fish go through 'grades of irritability' (like humans) from positive to negative or vice versa; or instead have an agenda one minute, but not the next. In other words, if they're feeling g-o-o-o-d, they snack, if they're feeling cranky, they don't.
Fish are generally like an Eskimo after a walrus hunt - eat 'til you puke cause you never know when food will be as plentiful. Fish are opportunistic nomads and don't have time to analyze much in their lives. In a sense they have the simple characteristics of a computer chip - on or off. There's nothing 'mental' about their mouths going where their brains fear to tread. **it happens!
We catch fish because 'fools rush in'! Of the thousands of articles I've read, I can only say a handful have ever truly pertained to how, when and why fish are caught (or not). The rest was just pimp-publishers paying prostitute-writers to drum up crap to sell mags; (ditto for all those years of tv 'wisdom'). 'Hidden persuaders' abound, but experience is still your best teacher.
Survival instinct applies to higher forms of animals and to bass when they spawn. Fight-or-flight may be the only applicable, yet basic response, to almost anything that comes within a fish's space,(especially oral).
I'm no fish biologist, but I did stay at the Holiday Inn Express one night!
Frank
It comes down to a fish's irritability. I believe that fish are an irritable lot, especially post-front when they languish on the bottom or suspend and don't want to be bothered. On the other hand, when feeding, they come out of this state and any hindrances to basic, protective-instincts, disappear and hunger and/or aggression takes over.
For instance, thicker line is not high on their lists of, 'do I bite and swallow this Senko, or not?'. Maybe fish go through 'grades of irritability' (like humans) from positive to negative or vice versa; or instead have an agenda one minute, but not the next. In other words, if they're feeling g-o-o-o-d, they snack, if they're feeling cranky, they don't.
Fish are generally like an Eskimo after a walrus hunt - eat 'til you puke cause you never know when food will be as plentiful. Fish are opportunistic nomads and don't have time to analyze much in their lives. In a sense they have the simple characteristics of a computer chip - on or off. There's nothing 'mental' about their mouths going where their brains fear to tread. **it happens!
We catch fish because 'fools rush in'! Of the thousands of articles I've read, I can only say a handful have ever truly pertained to how, when and why fish are caught (or not). The rest was just pimp-publishers paying prostitute-writers to drum up crap to sell mags; (ditto for all those years of tv 'wisdom'). 'Hidden persuaders' abound, but experience is still your best teacher.
Survival instinct applies to higher forms of animals and to bass when they spawn. Fight-or-flight may be the only applicable, yet basic response, to almost anything that comes within a fish's space,(especially oral).
I'm no fish biologist, but I did stay at the Holiday Inn Express one night!
Frank
-
MMT
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 5:00 pm
Let's get physical (elements)
When I was younger, I often drank til I puked! Those days are over though. I don't know if I buy the point about fish being a mostly irritable creature coming out of this state to feed....spawn etc. Fish are opportunistic but certainly not nomads. I think they at times have all the time in the world to analyze a morsel before deciding to eat it.....of course less time in competitive waters. I think that a fishes mood most often relates to its comfort zone. pH, Oxygen, Temp, pressure, etc, are more believable factors that can determine if a fish will eat or not.
Craig DeFranzo
-
postcard
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 4:00 pm
Let's get physical (elements)
Agree with you on those points!
Frank
Frank
-
postcard
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 4:00 pm
Let's get physical (elements)
One thing comes to mind though. Every factor you mentioned can affect the bite to a greater or lesser degree, but stimuli stimulate based on the degree of animal sensitivity or in other words, irritablity.
Fish migrate vertically or horizontally, more or less, depending on the factors you mentioned. (Maybe not as nomadic as the camel-jocks in the Middle East, but movers none-the-less.)
The following illustrates a basic animal response to a brownie!
Last night my wife made brownies with nuts and chocolate covered icing.The logical, human-side of my brain (faintly) warned me that I'm 15 lbs. overweight, lead a sedentary life style, and already had desert a few hours ago.
The primitive side of my brain (the fish-side, so-to-say), turned off the logical, human-self-preservation side, and directed me to go to the kitchen, pick up one(or two) and consume it(or them).
The mere presence of the brownies presented an irritating stimulus into my environment. The more I thought about those lonesome brownies, the more I thought about keeping them company. (After eating a few, my logical side continued to irritate me over my lack of self control; ditto a fish when it leaps out of the water with your hook in its lip!)
What you attribute as a fish's free-will, is arguably nothing more than simple encoding that either makes the fish go after the brownie or turn it's back on it.
Can it selectively ignore one species of prey over any others that happen to be near (the reason for 'matching') or does it consume whatever is 'mouthable' and an easy catch. Can one lure press the right buttons over many others or can the fish decide that, 'I just don't want it or need it', because of the many reasons that have been written concerning lure rejection?
Complexity sells lures! The following quote is supposedly from Rick Clunn in the latest 2003 Bass Pro catalog on p.142:
"Understanding angling pressure and its effects on a bass's hydrodynamic imaging capabilities will be one of the most important elements in our future angling success."
"The Enhanced Target Imaging Crankbait contains ridges on the body that create turbulence. A bass's lateral line picks it up as a totally new and unique signature, and recognizes it as a feeding opportunity.!"
"The lateral line of a bass provides a much more complex image of its prey than previously thought" and "draws a visual picture or signature of the target for predatory fish."
And we thought only politicians and lawyers spoke out of their ***'s.
I posted an article about the affects on the bite via lure-hydrodynamics two years ago (and also here). Putting grooves in a crankbait is nothing new, but charging $6 each for them, is.
Another goody-quote, this time from Dr. Loren Hill, p. 145:
"The Avoidance Behavior Lure series, imitate the actions of fleeing prey-the "avoidance behavior" that triggers predator fish to attack. Each is based on years of research, and features a sculpted body, lifelike 3-D eyes and incredibly detailed finish." All of this, triggers an 'immediate feeding response".
Did you get all of that?
I think I'll have another brownie!
Frank M
Fish migrate vertically or horizontally, more or less, depending on the factors you mentioned. (Maybe not as nomadic as the camel-jocks in the Middle East, but movers none-the-less.)
The following illustrates a basic animal response to a brownie!
Last night my wife made brownies with nuts and chocolate covered icing.The logical, human-side of my brain (faintly) warned me that I'm 15 lbs. overweight, lead a sedentary life style, and already had desert a few hours ago.
The primitive side of my brain (the fish-side, so-to-say), turned off the logical, human-self-preservation side, and directed me to go to the kitchen, pick up one(or two) and consume it(or them).
The mere presence of the brownies presented an irritating stimulus into my environment. The more I thought about those lonesome brownies, the more I thought about keeping them company. (After eating a few, my logical side continued to irritate me over my lack of self control; ditto a fish when it leaps out of the water with your hook in its lip!)
What you attribute as a fish's free-will, is arguably nothing more than simple encoding that either makes the fish go after the brownie or turn it's back on it.
Can it selectively ignore one species of prey over any others that happen to be near (the reason for 'matching') or does it consume whatever is 'mouthable' and an easy catch. Can one lure press the right buttons over many others or can the fish decide that, 'I just don't want it or need it', because of the many reasons that have been written concerning lure rejection?
Complexity sells lures! The following quote is supposedly from Rick Clunn in the latest 2003 Bass Pro catalog on p.142:
"Understanding angling pressure and its effects on a bass's hydrodynamic imaging capabilities will be one of the most important elements in our future angling success."
"The Enhanced Target Imaging Crankbait contains ridges on the body that create turbulence. A bass's lateral line picks it up as a totally new and unique signature, and recognizes it as a feeding opportunity.!"
"The lateral line of a bass provides a much more complex image of its prey than previously thought" and "draws a visual picture or signature of the target for predatory fish."
And we thought only politicians and lawyers spoke out of their ***'s.
I posted an article about the affects on the bite via lure-hydrodynamics two years ago (and also here). Putting grooves in a crankbait is nothing new, but charging $6 each for them, is.
Another goody-quote, this time from Dr. Loren Hill, p. 145:
"The Avoidance Behavior Lure series, imitate the actions of fleeing prey-the "avoidance behavior" that triggers predator fish to attack. Each is based on years of research, and features a sculpted body, lifelike 3-D eyes and incredibly detailed finish." All of this, triggers an 'immediate feeding response".
Did you get all of that?
I think I'll have another brownie!
Frank M
-
MMT
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 5:00 pm
Let's get physical (elements)
I have difficulty putting much stock in what Pro's say about baits that they are hawking from their sponsors. I can't believe that a bass is a miserable, irriatble creature that swims around with a chip on its shoulder all the time....sometimes, maybe. I still do not think that a bass strikes out of irritability unless it is annoyed into striking as I mentioned earlier. A bass likely does not have the brain power to concentrate on being irritible its whole life.
As far as migrating, largemouth bass spend almost their entire lives in an area 100 yrds or so, so there is really not much migrating. Smallies are more nomadic than that so I will agree with you on that point.
The factors I mentioned are stimuli but they are very solid reasons why bass eat. I don't think many people will disagree with them.
In my opinion, a bass is an oppotunist, always looking for its next meal, not a gangster looking to take out its frustrations on some unsuspecting victim.
As far as migrating, largemouth bass spend almost their entire lives in an area 100 yrds or so, so there is really not much migrating. Smallies are more nomadic than that so I will agree with you on that point.
The factors I mentioned are stimuli but they are very solid reasons why bass eat. I don't think many people will disagree with them.
In my opinion, a bass is an oppotunist, always looking for its next meal, not a gangster looking to take out its frustrations on some unsuspecting victim.
Craig DeFranzo
-
postcard
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 4:00 pm
Let's get physical (elements)
My point in in this reply is to compare what you and many believe are the conventional reasons lures are bit (and bought), to what others and myself suggest as reasons not to buy into most manufacturer or bass-celebrity claims. There are a few inconsistencies in your reply to my reply.
I believe that without considering the basic, physical, and attracting qualities of a lure (chrome, glitter, color, action, inherent rate-of-fall, softness, etc. ) one can never assume that a realistic copy (i.e. a crawpainted crankbait), will be struck because a fish 'thinks' it to be so.
Mad Man crawtubes and all those exact craw copies, can no way compare to tubes, no matter what 'stand-out'-color or action given. Tubes Rule! They rule weightless, split shot, jigheaded or bullet weighted. (If someone chooses to believe craws swim on the surface, he ain't fishing in my boat, unless he brings the beer!)
"In response to what you stated along the lines that fish are not smart enough to choose or analyze a bait before striking, I added that along the lines of your statement, Bass should then strike just about anything an angler throws. This was in disagreement with your point."
You have just agreed with my theory. Bass will not strike even the most realistic lure made if it's not in the mood to strike. But at times, (over 90% of my time on the water), bass hit a large number of mostly, unrealistic-looking lures that resemble absolutly nothing in nature, but that stand out - your words.
Water temperature may have just gotten into the mid 50's yet some prespawners are on the prowl for almost anything that gets in their way. (My largest weight for 3 bass is 20 lbs. One hit a Mr. Twister grub, another a white spinnerbaits and another a white Snatrix. Action was slow, water cold, but those three mothas were in the mood to R-u-m-b-l-e!
I used to throw earthworm-colored, Creme worms years ago when they had the softness of dried silicone. I got a few bass on them, but, once I started throwing the Snatrix (a Bill Norman worm), in motor oil and silver flake, I back-seated every partner I fished with when conditions were tough and when most other baits couldn't cut it. (See a copy of it on p.145, 2003 BPS) It's still one of may best worms. (Lucky I bought bags of 100 in different colors before the patent was sold.)
The 'hype' back when Snatrix first hit the market was that bass like to kill snakes for the pure enjoyment of it (like they do lizards).(Something along the lines of, "they eat bass eggs, don't they?") In all the years I've been throwing plastics, the foil-tailed worm, with or without glitter, has excelled paddle-tails, especially when the bite is slow. Bass are not like some pit bulls I know - they're not angry, not pieved, not mean or viscious, just fish trying to make a living the old fashioned way - lying under a tree(or pad) waiting for lunch to swim by or drop on their heads).
The Zoom Speed Worm is an excellent paddle-tail worm, but many times the foil or ribbon tail is better, and fish will follow it to the boat and strike two feet in front of me!
(I still mourn the loss of Riverside's Big Wag Worm. )
Does it think its a snake with a weird taste in hides , or is it that 'space' between its ears that is only a synaptic transfer-station between their senses and their muscles?
What I'm saying is that, a foil-tail has greater water displacement and visibilty. That 'something' which is visible, is similar to a bull getting really p-o'ed about the gray cape taunting him to charge. It has no idea what 'it' is, but only that it shouldn't be in the same ring. A fish's brain in a bull's skull can be compared to a bb in a box car, but any animal that charges a piece of cloth with a sword in it can't be too bright. (Where's that leave the fish?)
If a lure has any quality that "stand outs" from the real thing, it's not, literally, realistic. Florescent colors and stark, contrasting color-patterns abound in many freshwater fish (not just drab colors).
If nature wanted to offer maximum camoflage to certain species, she would have given all species high camoflage capability. The reason she didn't, wasn't so predators could target prey any better than they already can. Genetic, recombinant DNA, instead, gave us those unbelievable colors - but to the misfortune of those wearing them. A craw with a certain, seasonally-colored shell (like some have proposed), may or may not get more bites than a plain black colored j&p or one with a black and blue skirt(my best color-combo).
Like the subject of scent, we could go on and on about this until the ice thaws, but then we'd have to stop to put our boats in the water. Both of our dissertations are theory-based and believable;
it just depends on which pew we're preaching to.
I believe that without considering the basic, physical, and attracting qualities of a lure (chrome, glitter, color, action, inherent rate-of-fall, softness, etc. ) one can never assume that a realistic copy (i.e. a crawpainted crankbait), will be struck because a fish 'thinks' it to be so.
Mad Man crawtubes and all those exact craw copies, can no way compare to tubes, no matter what 'stand-out'-color or action given. Tubes Rule! They rule weightless, split shot, jigheaded or bullet weighted. (If someone chooses to believe craws swim on the surface, he ain't fishing in my boat, unless he brings the beer!)
"In response to what you stated along the lines that fish are not smart enough to choose or analyze a bait before striking, I added that along the lines of your statement, Bass should then strike just about anything an angler throws. This was in disagreement with your point."
You have just agreed with my theory. Bass will not strike even the most realistic lure made if it's not in the mood to strike. But at times, (over 90% of my time on the water), bass hit a large number of mostly, unrealistic-looking lures that resemble absolutly nothing in nature, but that stand out - your words.
Water temperature may have just gotten into the mid 50's yet some prespawners are on the prowl for almost anything that gets in their way. (My largest weight for 3 bass is 20 lbs. One hit a Mr. Twister grub, another a white spinnerbaits and another a white Snatrix. Action was slow, water cold, but those three mothas were in the mood to R-u-m-b-l-e!
I used to throw earthworm-colored, Creme worms years ago when they had the softness of dried silicone. I got a few bass on them, but, once I started throwing the Snatrix (a Bill Norman worm), in motor oil and silver flake, I back-seated every partner I fished with when conditions were tough and when most other baits couldn't cut it. (See a copy of it on p.145, 2003 BPS) It's still one of may best worms. (Lucky I bought bags of 100 in different colors before the patent was sold.)
The 'hype' back when Snatrix first hit the market was that bass like to kill snakes for the pure enjoyment of it (like they do lizards).(Something along the lines of, "they eat bass eggs, don't they?") In all the years I've been throwing plastics, the foil-tailed worm, with or without glitter, has excelled paddle-tails, especially when the bite is slow. Bass are not like some pit bulls I know - they're not angry, not pieved, not mean or viscious, just fish trying to make a living the old fashioned way - lying under a tree(or pad) waiting for lunch to swim by or drop on their heads).
The Zoom Speed Worm is an excellent paddle-tail worm, but many times the foil or ribbon tail is better, and fish will follow it to the boat and strike two feet in front of me!
(I still mourn the loss of Riverside's Big Wag Worm. )
Does it think its a snake with a weird taste in hides , or is it that 'space' between its ears that is only a synaptic transfer-station between their senses and their muscles?
What I'm saying is that, a foil-tail has greater water displacement and visibilty. That 'something' which is visible, is similar to a bull getting really p-o'ed about the gray cape taunting him to charge. It has no idea what 'it' is, but only that it shouldn't be in the same ring. A fish's brain in a bull's skull can be compared to a bb in a box car, but any animal that charges a piece of cloth with a sword in it can't be too bright. (Where's that leave the fish?)
If a lure has any quality that "stand outs" from the real thing, it's not, literally, realistic. Florescent colors and stark, contrasting color-patterns abound in many freshwater fish (not just drab colors).
If nature wanted to offer maximum camoflage to certain species, she would have given all species high camoflage capability. The reason she didn't, wasn't so predators could target prey any better than they already can. Genetic, recombinant DNA, instead, gave us those unbelievable colors - but to the misfortune of those wearing them. A craw with a certain, seasonally-colored shell (like some have proposed), may or may not get more bites than a plain black colored j&p or one with a black and blue skirt(my best color-combo).
Like the subject of scent, we could go on and on about this until the ice thaws, but then we'd have to stop to put our boats in the water. Both of our dissertations are theory-based and believable;
it just depends on which pew we're preaching to.
-
MMT
- Posts: 487
- Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2002 5:00 pm
Let's get physical (elements)
Frank, I didn't prove your theory. You stated that bass do not have the ability to choose or analyze things, meaning baits, before they strike. I feel they do have some ability. I'm not sure how in depth their perception may be but they have to have some ability to pick and choose. If you are sight fishing and you make repeated casts to a fish who ignores your offerings, why does this happen. He could be choosing not to strike your offering because he thinks it is bogus. He may not be in the mood to strike but if he did not have the ability to analyze, he would surely strike( being an opportunistic feeder....correct?) If they didn't, we would catch fish on nearly every cast, they would strike everything correct?
Saying that a bass will not strike unless it is in the mood is not a profound statement. It is very general. I guess I agree now that you put it that way. I am confident that there are times when you can get a fish to bite regarless of its mood. When you say mood, do you mean it is hungry or feeding?
Throughout the thread on NYbass, put up a sentence or two of my post without putting up my explanation of those points. That is why they seem inconsistent. You picked out something that made your eyebrows perk up and didn't read into why it was stated. I think my points are very valid and logical. I also certainly do not believe my thinking is conventional to what most would agree with. This thread started as a response to you inquiring about the reasons bass strike. This is a topic based on our opinions, they both may or may not be wrong.
"I believe that without considering the basic, physical, and attracting qualities of a lure (chrome, glitter, color, action, inherent rate-of-fall, softness, etc. ) one can never assume that a realistic copy (i.e. a crawpainted crankbait), will be struck because a fish 'thinks' it to be so."
-- Frank--At the same time, you can't assume that the fish does not think it is real, can you?
If you mean they are selective as to what-the-nature-of-the-object is they'll bite, then you and I are compadres in every sense of the word.-We agree here. This was pretty much the point I was trying to get across.
My feeling is that I do not think bass can analyze something with a microscope, but I do think they have the ability see negative cues about a particular bait or situation, enough to make them avoid it. Perhaps they learn to avoid some things that get them in trouble. Do you believe that bass can be line shy? If so, they certainly can analyze. Not to the degree that you or I can but to the degree that keeps them out of harms way, sometimes. How about a bass mouthing a bait and spitting it out. Something tells that fish that the object it picked up is fake and it expells it. Not the put it in front of your mouth and suck it in like you stated.
"To a fish it can see and taste the hook, but is doesn't discern the hook or the weight." -I most definately believe a fish can feel weight to a certain degree. Not the difference between a 1/2oz shad or 5/8oz craw but extra pressure one may put on the line.
You said earlier that bass won't bite if they are not in the mood. I asked if you meant a feeding or hungry mood. You agreed that activity or feeding level is what you were talking about. We have already determined that bass strike for so many more reasons than actual hunger. Keep it coming, this is good stuff!
Saying that a bass will not strike unless it is in the mood is not a profound statement. It is very general. I guess I agree now that you put it that way. I am confident that there are times when you can get a fish to bite regarless of its mood. When you say mood, do you mean it is hungry or feeding?
Throughout the thread on NYbass, put up a sentence or two of my post without putting up my explanation of those points. That is why they seem inconsistent. You picked out something that made your eyebrows perk up and didn't read into why it was stated. I think my points are very valid and logical. I also certainly do not believe my thinking is conventional to what most would agree with. This thread started as a response to you inquiring about the reasons bass strike. This is a topic based on our opinions, they both may or may not be wrong.
"I believe that without considering the basic, physical, and attracting qualities of a lure (chrome, glitter, color, action, inherent rate-of-fall, softness, etc. ) one can never assume that a realistic copy (i.e. a crawpainted crankbait), will be struck because a fish 'thinks' it to be so."
-- Frank--At the same time, you can't assume that the fish does not think it is real, can you?
If you mean they are selective as to what-the-nature-of-the-object is they'll bite, then you and I are compadres in every sense of the word.-We agree here. This was pretty much the point I was trying to get across.
My feeling is that I do not think bass can analyze something with a microscope, but I do think they have the ability see negative cues about a particular bait or situation, enough to make them avoid it. Perhaps they learn to avoid some things that get them in trouble. Do you believe that bass can be line shy? If so, they certainly can analyze. Not to the degree that you or I can but to the degree that keeps them out of harms way, sometimes. How about a bass mouthing a bait and spitting it out. Something tells that fish that the object it picked up is fake and it expells it. Not the put it in front of your mouth and suck it in like you stated.
"To a fish it can see and taste the hook, but is doesn't discern the hook or the weight." -I most definately believe a fish can feel weight to a certain degree. Not the difference between a 1/2oz shad or 5/8oz craw but extra pressure one may put on the line.
You said earlier that bass won't bite if they are not in the mood. I asked if you meant a feeding or hungry mood. You agreed that activity or feeding level is what you were talking about. We have already determined that bass strike for so many more reasons than actual hunger. Keep it coming, this is good stuff!
Craig DeFranzo
-
postcard
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 4:00 pm
Let's get physical (elements)
Craig, isn't what we're discussing like the chicken-or-the-egg question? Does a bass bite because of a lure, regardless of the fish's susceptibily, or does it's level of susceptibility make it bite now rather than later.
We are on the same page! Know why? Because we both agree that bass are susceptible to a certain group of lures, at certain times, under certain conditions and turn away from other lures based on our experiences and beliefs concerning their susceptiblity to them.
We both believe that certain colors, sizes and vibrations are better at certain times than others. I stop there. You continue on with why certain lure elements are more successful or rejected, based on conventional thought, (as I once did, wholeheartdly!)
If your thought process buys you more bites, great. Beyond the lure characteristics that I feel work, the why is for beer-hall conversation after the tournament.
Now, since line avoidance was brought up I'll give you my 2 cents.
When all is said and done, line 'is in the eye of the beholder', like other controversial subjects such as scent and color.
I still believe that 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. This indicates sight, lateral-line, (maybe gustation), and great physical speed as well as the potential-reward versus energy-expended equation. I say potential in that you and I can spot an ugly woman and stop - right - there, because we recognize what 'ugly' is from comparitive memories. A bass sees a Hoo Daddy flapping it's wings and it's 'mouth starts to water', so to speak, even though it might have gotten hooked on that ugly son-of-a-b-ug last month! Fish are hooked on the same lures all the time and do not and can not correlate the simple fact that this ridiculous- looking fake got them into trouble last time they tried to eat it!
Possibly another bogus study, but years ago fish were tested for memory 'length'- short and long term. The results showed a significant amount or short term memory, but only on one side of the brain - (the side opposite the eye that saw a stimulus). Long term memory (the article was not specific as to how many months 'long' meant), was almost nonexistent in bass. To know the danger-significance of line, the bass must be able to remember why the sight of it should make it run and must have seen it with the same blasted eyeball!
If anyone feels that fish shy away from line thickness or line color, than they must have a reason fish don't shy away from thick metal hooks protruding from soft plastic baits. The fact exists that plastic worms are the primary reason for most gut-hooking. Senko complaints are common concerning the fact that many fish try to actually swallow this plastisol stick!
Some of the monster, plus-18lb., California bass have been cut open (sad to say), and human junk (diver's weight and other man-made trash) was found in their stomachs. Those fish were old enough to know better, but obviously were in the mood for lead! (Bassmaster article in the 90's concerning the most likely states to yield the next world record). Just goes to show ya - fish eat the darndest things, without a clue to how bad they are for their digestion!
Sight is limited based on water clarity; everything else is lateral-line. A blinded fish (ie.one with cataracts) can avoid monofilament 'barriers' in a tank, yet millions of fish do not avoid anti-submarine nets or trawler gill-nets. Discrepancies abound in nature! Homer Circle did an article on line avoidance and line visibility and found that yellow Stren caught just as many fish in clear water as have I. (I keep forgetting to tell him.)
Line is not high on their lists of 'do I bite and swallow this Senko, or not'. Maybe fish go through periods of heightened sensitivity(like humans) or instead have an agenda one minute, but not the next that overrides caution or skittishness. In other words, if they're feeling g-o-o-o-d, they snack, if they're feeling cranky, they don't. Denny Brauer maintains that line visibility doesn't matter - he told me so in New Brunswick last year at a BASS U seminar.
But, as with any element that affects lure action, line that makes a bait not act like one wants it to, probably results in a fish ignoring the bait. (I'll be doing more drop shotting this year on 6 lb test as compared to 8 lb. test flourocarbon or Fireline. If the bites are better on one over the other, I'll be a convert!)
Keep it coming, Craig - winter will zoom by!
(Plus it provides interesting reading for all those couch potatos that enjoy this kind of banter!)
Frank
We are on the same page! Know why? Because we both agree that bass are susceptible to a certain group of lures, at certain times, under certain conditions and turn away from other lures based on our experiences and beliefs concerning their susceptiblity to them.
We both believe that certain colors, sizes and vibrations are better at certain times than others. I stop there. You continue on with why certain lure elements are more successful or rejected, based on conventional thought, (as I once did, wholeheartdly!)
If your thought process buys you more bites, great. Beyond the lure characteristics that I feel work, the why is for beer-hall conversation after the tournament.
Now, since line avoidance was brought up I'll give you my 2 cents.
When all is said and done, line 'is in the eye of the beholder', like other controversial subjects such as scent and color.
I still believe that 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. This indicates sight, lateral-line, (maybe gustation), and great physical speed as well as the potential-reward versus energy-expended equation. I say potential in that you and I can spot an ugly woman and stop - right - there, because we recognize what 'ugly' is from comparitive memories. A bass sees a Hoo Daddy flapping it's wings and it's 'mouth starts to water', so to speak, even though it might have gotten hooked on that ugly son-of-a-b-ug last month! Fish are hooked on the same lures all the time and do not and can not correlate the simple fact that this ridiculous- looking fake got them into trouble last time they tried to eat it!
Possibly another bogus study, but years ago fish were tested for memory 'length'- short and long term. The results showed a significant amount or short term memory, but only on one side of the brain - (the side opposite the eye that saw a stimulus). Long term memory (the article was not specific as to how many months 'long' meant), was almost nonexistent in bass. To know the danger-significance of line, the bass must be able to remember why the sight of it should make it run and must have seen it with the same blasted eyeball!
If anyone feels that fish shy away from line thickness or line color, than they must have a reason fish don't shy away from thick metal hooks protruding from soft plastic baits. The fact exists that plastic worms are the primary reason for most gut-hooking. Senko complaints are common concerning the fact that many fish try to actually swallow this plastisol stick!
Some of the monster, plus-18lb., California bass have been cut open (sad to say), and human junk (diver's weight and other man-made trash) was found in their stomachs. Those fish were old enough to know better, but obviously were in the mood for lead! (Bassmaster article in the 90's concerning the most likely states to yield the next world record). Just goes to show ya - fish eat the darndest things, without a clue to how bad they are for their digestion!
Sight is limited based on water clarity; everything else is lateral-line. A blinded fish (ie.one with cataracts) can avoid monofilament 'barriers' in a tank, yet millions of fish do not avoid anti-submarine nets or trawler gill-nets. Discrepancies abound in nature! Homer Circle did an article on line avoidance and line visibility and found that yellow Stren caught just as many fish in clear water as have I. (I keep forgetting to tell him.)
Line is not high on their lists of 'do I bite and swallow this Senko, or not'. Maybe fish go through periods of heightened sensitivity(like humans) or instead have an agenda one minute, but not the next that overrides caution or skittishness. In other words, if they're feeling g-o-o-o-d, they snack, if they're feeling cranky, they don't. Denny Brauer maintains that line visibility doesn't matter - he told me so in New Brunswick last year at a BASS U seminar.
But, as with any element that affects lure action, line that makes a bait not act like one wants it to, probably results in a fish ignoring the bait. (I'll be doing more drop shotting this year on 6 lb test as compared to 8 lb. test flourocarbon or Fireline. If the bites are better on one over the other, I'll be a convert!)
Keep it coming, Craig - winter will zoom by!
(Plus it provides interesting reading for all those couch potatos that enjoy this kind of banter!)
Frank