Id like to hear everyones opinions about these 2025
airborne_angler reply :
A local tackle shop carries them and they go for $5.99 for 2 baits. I dunno but Im gonna call shenanigans on this idea.
Any thoughts on this new concept?
http://www.uv-tackle.com/
zero reply :
good idea but way too expensive
just screw them
Eternal Angler reply :
Never heard of them or seen them at the bait shop.
I call it a marketing scheme!
"UV" Yeah, that's a nice touch.
I wouldn't mind trying them, but $6 for two units. Um no!
Hammer 4 reply :
How would they Know, how a bass see's those, or any bait..? IMHO, they are guessing, or scaming..
airborne_angler reply :
Thats what I was thinking.People have written books about different subjects related to the science of fishing.
Ive even heard that fish have no pain receptors,so when they get hooked they dont feel it.
Um did Mr. Largemouth tell someone that for a fact,how do people know what a fish can see,how it sees it,and how a Bass portrays taste among other things. Until a Bass can talk,we can only guess on such things.
River Rat316 reply :
You can buy uv worm dip. Alot of ice fishing jigs are now coming out uv coated, and imho it makes a difference in dirty or stained water or if you are fishing deep. But thats all for crappie. I have some uv over coat that I am going to try on some of my bass jigs this year to see if it adds anything.
On the science front alot of what they think comes from disection of the eye itself, I am no scientist but it goes along the lines of tearing apart something to figure out how it works. In the end though it is still and educated guess and scientists like to talk in absolutes, when really they are just theorizing on something.
OIFBasser reply :
You can buy a Chem-light and cut the top off and dip your worms in it. Those are some steep prices.
texlwedge reply :
I picked up some of these at last years Classic. Have not fished them yet, but the idea behind it seems logical. I agree that they are pricey, but don't some of us pay 25.00 or more for custom cranks? lol
RandySBreth reply :
Those would be awesome to fish with some Pink Floyd playing on the boat while night fishing with the black light on dude - or not! :
Paul Roberts reply :
I don't know enough about UV vision in fish really -it's relatively new. I got to know some vision researcher's at University a while back. I talked with one -who worked mostly with fish -who said the current literature on FW fish is that UV is useful very close to the surface, and larval fishes (newborn) use it to contrast (see) zooplankton against background. It is retained into adulthood in some fishes like bluegills that remain zooplankton feeders. I think I remember that perch lost it at maturity. I seem to remember believing that this was something that didn't pertain to adult piscivores.
But...things have changed in the field I suspect. There's bound to be more research out there now. Probably, this lure treatment (if that's what it is) touts some kind of research, and is trying to cash in.
I just dunno. I haven't seen the research. But anytime some company appears to be trying to cash in on a small body of research -at least beware. Think... red fishing line that "disappears" underwater. LOL I'm laughing I guess, but in the red line case I see that as just plain lying. As to UV -I need to see, and understand, the research. As to fishing results, it's darn difficult to sort out the effect of one variable in fishing results. It better be one POWERFUL variable to skew results very far with any consistency.
There's a piece of research I did see that might have some relevance. Egg mortality in bluegills was found to be related to time of year and depth of nest. The culprit was UV light (A or B -don't remember -the "harmful" one). Late spawning (summer) bluegills that spawned deeper had higher nest success. What this tells me is that at least one UV light ray (like other light rays) is filtered out, to a degree, seasonally. So such a potion MIGHT be less useful outside of summer. The bottom line question though is, can bass (not shad or bluegills) use UV, which one, how deep does it penetrate and how does water clarity affect it?
I have one piece of fishing lore to share along this line -sortof... A group of anglers discovered that glow lures (phosphorescent) caught trout just before daybreak much more effectively than standard lures, until the sun came up, when the other "colors" evened out with them. I tried it and it appeared to work.
A-Rob reply :
I think they claimed that bass prey glows in the dark. I would disagree, I think crawdads and bait fish are somewhat camouflaged and bass have no problem chomping down on them.
Maybe bass happen to love that stuff, but it is definitely not natural.
Funny thing is, when I am choosing lures, I dont' pick one that I can see 20 feet from the boat. I try to pick one that blends in a bit better. Like pumpkin green in clear water. Or Junebug in dark water. Or a silver jerkbait as it blends in with the sky.
Thats what KVD says anyways, so I will listen to him.
Primus reply :
I could see where this might be effective during a night bite, even if most fish/prey don't glow at night it doesn't mean that Bass wouldn't hit it out of curiousity or because it's being presented with an easy meal. If they have a Senko type of bait I might try it.
Team9nine reply :
QuoteI don't know enough about UV vision in fish really -it's relatively new. I got to know some vision researcher's at University a while back. I talked with one -who worked mostly with fish -who said the current literature on FW fish is that UV is useful very close to the surface, and larval fishes (newborn) use it to contrast (see) zooplankton against background. It is retained into adulthood in some fishes like bluegills that remain zooplankton feeders. I think I remember that perch lost it at maturity. I seem to remember believing that this was something that didn't pertain to adult piscivores.But...things have changed in the field I suspect. There's bound to be more research out there now. Probably, this lure treatment (if that's what it is) touts some kind of research, and is trying to cash in.
I just dunno. I haven't seen the research. But anytime some company appears to be trying to cash in on a small body of research -at least beware. Think... red fishing line that "disappears" underwater. LOL I'm laughing I guess, but in the red line case I see that as just plain lying. As to UV -I need to see, and understand, the research. As to fishing results, it's darn difficult to sort out the effect of one variable in fishing results. It better be one POWERFUL variable to skew results very far with any consistency.
There's a piece of research I did see that might have some relevance. Egg mortality in bluegills was found to be related to time of year and depth of nest. The culprit was UV light (A or B -don't remember -the "harmful" one). Late spawning (summer) bluegills that spawned deeper had higher nest success. What this tells me is that at least one UV light ray (like other light rays) is filtered out, to a degree, seasonally. So such a potion MIGHT be less useful outside of summer. The bottom line question though is, can bass (not shad or bluegills) use UV, which one, how deep does it penetrate and how does water clarity affect it?
I pretty much agree with what Paul has stated. There is at least one study that has documented a probable connection between UV vision, YOY largemouth and feeding. As mentioned though, the bigger question is whether this ability carries into adulthood, and from the most recent research I've seen in largemouth bass, there is no indication/mention that it does. As such, I'd be hesitant to lay out that kind of money for a soft plastic bait based on what appears to be unproven science.
-T9
J Francho reply :
I figured it was only a matter of time before this seeped into the bass fishing realm. Its been the hot thing for west coast trout and salmon fisherman for a few years now.
SirSnookalot reply :
Just another gimmick, not that it won't catch fish, but I catch them on my mothers old garter belt too.
QuoteIve even heard that fish have no pain receptors,so when they get hooked they dont feel it.
A couple months ago I caught a fish and I stepped on it a bit too hard, this fish let out with a squeal like a pig, sounded to me as if it had some pain, don't remember the species.
VABassin'14 reply :
I think this one of the many baits that are made to catch more fishermen than fish.
grimlin reply :
$5.99 for 2 baits is out of the question...
FISHUNTER reply :
I'd stick with the tried and true and not fall for the gimmicke stuff like this. This hasn't gone over to well in the hunting seen either. 8-)
Paul Roberts reply :
QuoteI'd stick with the tried and true and not fall for the gimmicke stuff like this. This hasn't gone over to well in the hunting seen either. 8-)
I remember the UV spray. So that went extinct did it? Not surprised.
airborne_angler reply :
Was just looking at a Bass Pro Shops spring Catalog tonight and I saw some UV dye in the listings,so apparently it hasnt totally gone away.Notice there arent any reviews for this spray.
http://www.basspro.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product_10151_-1_10001_10205321____SearchResults
CWB reply :
Looks like the fish have a black light like I used to have in the 70's.
b.Lee reply :
I feel like if it was catching ridiculous amounts of fish it would have caught on a long time ago.
brushhoggin reply :
QuoteJust another gimmick, not that it won't catch fish, but I catch them on my mothers old garter belt too.QuoteIve even heard that fish have no pain receptors,so when they get hooked they dont feel it.A couple months ago I caught a fish and I stepped on it a bit too hard, this fish let out with a squeal like a pig, sounded to me as if it had some pain, don't remember the species.
i've heard they dont have nerve endings in the thin membrane around their mouths, just can't guarantee setting the hook there every time
wisconsin heat reply :
i remember reading somwhere that bass cant even detect UV light
brophog reply :
QuoteLooks like the fish have a black light like I used to have in the 70's.
My fish have.......disco fever! Get down, you funky LMB!
knap reply :
Quotegood idea but way too expensive
X2
IwillChooseFreeWill reply :
I have been doing a lot of reading on this the past few days. It has been shown that most of the fish the scientists have checked have a 4th type of cone in their eyes that allows them to detect or see UV light. The largemouth bass we typically catch has not been tested (or the results not officially released), but other types of bass and sunfish have been, and since this is a common trait with fish in this family, it is assumed that the bass we catch also has it. One report I read says that it is possible that bass have a much stronger UV vision than other freshwater fish because they tend to stay deep and in "visibly" dark locations to you and I.
Light visible to humans gets filtered out anywhere at the low end in the reds around 25 feet (which is where the red line and hooks come in) to the high end where greens and blues go as far as 700-900 feet.
UV light has been detected even faintly well over 1000 feet below the surface although specific testing has not been done how this relates to deep water sea life.
Another thing is that the blacklights we use only reflect the low end of our visible spectrum in the violet range, so these cannot accurately detect "UV capable" lures, paints or whatever. This requires special UV filters on the camera that always displays the pictures we see as black and white. So this is what a proper UV image comparison would look like and what many fish and possibly bass may see:
Theres actually a decent story on this site, although they like to use blacklights to show off their tackle rather than use true UV filter cameras:
http://www.uv-tackle.com/ultraviolet-wave.php
My favorite part so far:
QuoteMany white baits offered by Berkley, like this 4-inch ripple shad, have included UV brighteners since the early 1990s.Does this mean that Pure Fishing, the parent company of Stren and Berkley, has steered clear of UV technology? Not exactly. In fact, Berkley has been including UV brighteners in their baits since about 1990.
John Prochnow, Director of Bait Development for Pure Fishing, said many white Berkley baits include a UV brightener a chemical similar to what is found in common laundry detergent.
"I don't think it is as big a deal as some people think," Prochnow said. "I have used it for decades in my own bait, and have included it in some Berkley products, but it was introduced without any marketing, and is sometimes just a side-effect of other features.
FishnBen reply :
I appreciate your research very much Mike, as I am also very interested in this topic (it helps that I'm a fisheries biology student). What I think we all need to do, is take out of the argument both sides of the companys' ideas-we need to stop reading Tightlines' website about how it's proven in THEIR tests that bass can see UV light, AND, we need to not automatically take someone's opinion that works for Berkley, because what are they going to say, "Yes UV products work excellent but we haven't come out with a strictly UV line....so go and buy Tightlines' product!"??? I don't think so.
We need to look past the marketting propaganda and see if there are some valid scientific tests that say: 1) Black Bass have the capability to see UV light, and 2) Forage such as crawfish and baitfish give off UV light.
As your picture of the fish illustrates, this fish definately does give of UV light. I'd like to see that crawfish and other insects do as well, but that answers part of number 2. And even though there hasn't been specific tests for the black bass family, it looks as if they would have that extra cone in their eye to be able to see UV light because so many similar fish families in similar waters have that ability; so that is a good hypothesis for number 1.
Now, you can say that if this works so well then how come it hasn't caught on and all major plastic brands don't offer UV lines of plastics? Well, Tightlines is the first company to use this "Nano Infused Polymerization" technology, and I know for a fact that this is very expensive. Tightlines is also a somewhat small company, even though it is expanding rapidly. Many of you also don't know that the last few years when these plastics were brand new, they were $9.99 for 2 baits, until late last summer.
I would be skeptical of these baits....but I have seen them work with my own eyes, and I was significantly outfished by someone using the same technique as me.
D4u2s0t reply :
here's my thoughts on it... sometimes you don't want a fish to get a good look at your bait. That being said, just because a fish can see a bait, doesn't mean it's going to eat it. If that was the case, we would simply throw flashlights with a hook on them. Majority of what fish eats blend in well with the surroundings, they don't stand out like a sore thumb. Many times, you're not getting a hunger strike, you're getting a reaction strike or a "get out of my space" strike. I don't know the science behind it, but everyone has seen a fish come to their bait, take a look, and swim away. Certain baits are designed more to aggravate a bass to the point where they eat a bait to shut it up, and look nothing even close to what a fish would typically eat. Look at some of the baits that we are succesful with that look like nothing you would ever see in the water.
I think the discussion should be about "does seeing a bait better create more strikes". my answer would be sometimes yes, sometimes no.
In terms of how that fish above is seen, i'd like to know if the plants and other things in the water give off uv light as well. I can't imagine after millions of years of adaptation in nature fish are totally contrasted by the environments they live in. That goes against everything that nature tells us about how animals survive in the wild.
IwillChooseFreeWill reply :
Remember, this subject just relates to the fish's sight, not smell, sound or "reactions" to annoyances.
There are a few interesting pictures of normal, UV and IR of plants...
http://www.the-wombat.com/UVNIRphoto.htm
So if bees/pollen based bugs also see using UV, the dark area helps show the highest concentration of pollen.
Even humans look different under UV filters
Which means shallow fish that can see UV well may see humans on the bank/dock/boat as "dark" against a very light background/sky, and may get spooked.
So as this pertains to sight fishing, plants will be solid flowing light or dark coloring, versus other fish will appear spotty against a solid background. This may also help a fish to recognize common patterns on their food. If they are used to feeding on shad, they are attracted to the shad "UV" patterns (Like the fish picture in my previous post).
Of course there are the other methods they use such as sound and "smell". Fast retrieves don't give them a chance to see the lure so they have to rely on whether to attack it or not based on the sound it gives off. Scent may carry through the water current and be how it works its way towards your lure, is indifferent or goes the other way.
No matter what, this is a fairly new thing to hit fishing which is triggering more research into the subject. Sure some companies have used UV reactive colors, paints, plastics, additives for years but there was no real research behind it to tell if it had any impact. The Berkley swimming shad mentioned in my last post may be catching fish simply because it looks like a shad, not because of its UV properties.
Either way, this may be the latest thing to really make a breakthrough in the fishing world, not just bass but saltwater, trout and every other type of sport/commercial fishing out there.
It is also found that most turtles also carry specific levels of UV detection, in the retina of the red-eared turtle, are four cone visual pigments, with 617 nm (red sensitive), 515 nm (green sensitive), 458 nm (blue sensitive), and 372 nm (UV-sensitive) cones.
So if there are similar cone receptors in eyes of bass, you would just need to find out the UV coloration of the baitfish it eats in certain areas and make a swimbait or crank that mimics the same UV patterns and normal/UV colors. I believe this is coming very soon and will be interesting to see how this works to our advantage. New bluegill and shad UV colored baits.
IwillChooseFreeWill reply :
Using the information suggested, I did a quick mock up in photoshop, top one is what we see, second is what we see after UV filters and the 3rd is potentially what fish may see and how it stands out against its background.
So this means we need to get more UV photos of crawfish, bluegills and shad as well as which color wavelength their scales reflect and using what patterns. This was we can get a better idea and start modifying our lures with UV based paints to mimic them.
related Fishing Tackle topic
previous topic
next topic
© 2025 - fishing.qciss.net. All Rights Reserved.