Why Fish Don't See Your Lures: How Fish Vision... By Greg Vinall 2024
Turkey sandwich reply :
I noticed a bunch of threads on here over the past month or two about color choices and lure selection in different water clarities and figured I'd post about this. The book Why Fish Don't See Your Lures: How Fish Vision Affects Intelligent Fishing Tackle Color Selection. Lake Fishing, River Fishing, Sea Fishing. By Greg Vinall covers everything from color visibility at depth, color visibility at distance, how well fish can focus in varying water clarifies, different light conditions, and lots of other super helpful information for lure selection.
The book has been really helpful for me. I've known some of the basics for a while, but the book really helped me understand the "why" beind a lot of the things that I do. Similarly, the book has also helped me spot some bad habits I've developed over the years.
Anyone else read it? Thoughts? Also, what are some other books/instructionals that have been helpful for you guys?
OkobojiEagle reply :
Technical question: in what download format available by this publisher would the ebook be most readable from my computer without any additional reading software. Most online articles I want to save are copied into a word document and saved in that format.
oe
WRB reply :
Never read anything Greg Vinall has written so I watch a few of his on-line video's
Australian, most of his work is in salt water fisheries and nothing new in regards to how "fish" in general see colors at various depths.
I am always a sceptic when it comes down to any lure manufacture promoting science.
Greg Vinall has not studied fresh water bass as far as I can determine, all fish are not the same. You can't compare walleyes with smallmouth bass for example, their eyes are very different. You can compare largemouth with smallmouth bass, their eyes are very similar, however both bass have different preferences in lure coloration, size or profile and location.
Greg Vinall books are inexpensive and worth reading, apply what fits your experiences.
Keep in mind that the average bass angler never fishes deeper than 20' and the average bass lake depth of light is less than 20'. For the minority of bass anglers who fish deeper in clear lakes, color selection becomes more important.
Tom
Turkey sandwich reply :
On 11/17/2014 at 9:12 PM, OkobojiEagle said:Technical question: in what download format available by this publisher would the ebook be most readable from my computer without any additional reading software. Most online articles I want to save are copied into a word document and saved in that format.
oe
It's available as a Kindle version via Amazon.
Turkey sandwich reply :
On 11/18/2014 at 12:15 AM, WRB said:Never read anything Greg Vinall has written so I watch a few of his on-line video's
Australian, most of his work is in salt water fisheries and nothing new in regards to how "fish" in general see colors at various depths.
I am always a sceptic when it comes down to any lure manufacture promoting science.
Greg Vinall has not studied fresh water bass as far as I can determine, all fish are not the same. You can't compare walleyes with smallmouth bass for example, their eyes are very different. You can compare largemouth with smallmouth bass, their eyes are very similar, however both bass have different preferences in lure coloration, size or profile and location.
Greg Vinall books are inexpensive and worth reading, apply what fits your experiences.
Keep in mind that the average bass angler never fishes deeper than 20' and the average bass lake depth of light is less than 20'. For the minority of bass anglers who fish deeper in clear lakes, color selection becomes more important.
Tom
There's a lot covered, as the intentional the book seems to provide a lot of broad information. That said, it does give some attention to specific species and the information is useful. The information regarding how things are seen at depth over distance is helpful, as well as some of the information about how/why fluorescents are as visible as they are. Seriously, give it a read.
makelures reply :
Thanks for the plug Turkey! It's a bit of an old thread, but thought I'd chime in with my two bobs worth ;-)
First, this is my book. I wrote it because there are lots of misunderstandings when it comes to lure color selection. Tom, just so you're aware, I teach lure making, I'm not a manufacturer. So I have nothing to gain from steering people towards one color or another. This book was merely an attempt to inject some science and objective thinking into an area of fishing where it is usually lacking.
Before I was a full time lure making teacher, I was an aquatic scientist. Actually, I have a degree with double majors in Aquatic Biology and Aquatic Chemistry, Honors in Aquatic Science and a PhD awarded for my research thesis in the fields of Aquatic biology and water chemistry. I spent 20 years working as a professional scientist on areas of fish management (among other things) and ran my own niche aquatic ecology consultancy employing a number of other scientists in the fisheries field. I have personally made numerous measurements of light and color in saltwater - and even more in freshwater - using some pretty sophisticated equipment. I've also been an expert witness in my professional capacity as a scientist. And before I wrote this book I did an extensive review of scientific (not popular fishing) literature on the subject. I reckon I'm probably qualified to give a scientific perspective ;-)
Yes, I'm Australian. I've worked and fished around the world though, including in the US. And had you read my book, you would have seen that there are links to references to other scientific work from around the world too. Actually, in scientific terms, what I present in my eBook is very old hat, scientists have known and published this stuff around the world for years. Fishermen have just never caught up.
You are quite right that different species often have the capacity to see different colors, or at least different shades than other species. But you have completely missed the point that environmental conditions often preclude fish from seeing a particular hue, or any color at all. These environmental conditions are physical, not biological, so they are the same irrespective of your geographical location.
In terms of the capacity for fish to see color: Most freshwater fish species are hundreds of times better at seeing shapes and shadows than humans are. And many (but not all) are many times worse than humans at detecting color. We know this from the anatomical structure of their eyes. Walleye, to pull your example, have a retina is packed with rod cells. These are the photochemical receptors that are super sensitive to light. They're present and have the same function in every living vertebrate on the planet - they allow us to see shapes and outlines in low light. Human eyes have relatively low numbers of rod cells, which is why we struggle to see much when the light fades - fish can often see silhouettes sharply when human eyes fail.
The other photochemical receptors in eyes are the cone cells, which detect different wavelengths (colors) but need much higher intensity of light to do their job. Thats why we can often see silhouettes but not colors at dawn and dusk or on a moonlit night. The ratio of rod and cone cells tells us a lot. As already stated, walleye have loads of rod cells. But they have a low proportion of cone cells. This reflects the environment they live in, as well as their nocturnal hunting habits. They don't see color as well as other species but they can make out shapes in low light when other species can't. Bass have a higher proportion of cone cells because they tend to live and operate where there is better light. Color can play more of a part here. But compared to humans, they still have a high proportion of rod cells, so they still see better than us in low light and worse (less color distinction) in bright light.
And yes, before you say it, some fish can see colors that humans can't, such as UV.
As for the penetration of light and the visibility of color at depth, I've worked on tannin lakes where the blue and green wavelengths are absorbed in the first 6 inches and only red colors are visible. I've worked on algae lakes where the red/orange wavelengths disappear within 12 inches and only greens and yellows are visible. So light penetration and color visibility can vary tremendously in a lake as deep as 20ft.
Hope this sheds some light (pun intended)
Greg
scaleface reply :
On 6/11/2016 at 9:57 PM, makelures said:
I"m interested in how light waves get absorbed in water and how colors may simulate a basses nerve center into striking . I have watched your videos and found them informative .
Turkey sandwich reply :
@makelures Had no idea you had an account here. Thanks for the follow up. The information about seeing lures at distance, different water colors, and the use of fluorescents is really interesting.
Tim Kelly reply :
Presumably, when the colour is no longer visible the fish can still see the silhouette and the lure appears grey (to our eyes) to them? Does making the lure black or white make the silhouette stronger?
Turkey sandwich reply :
On 6/12/2016 at 2:41 PM, Tim Kelly said:Presumably, when the colour is no longer visible the fish can still see the silhouette and the lure appears grey (to our eyes) to them? Does making the lure black or white make the silhouette stronger?
Water clarity and light do impact this. The book is really worth a read.
makelures reply :
Thanks Scaleface, Tim and Turkey, glad you found it interesting. It's a complex area and littered with misinformation, which is why I wrote the book in the first place.
Tim, black and white are definitely the most contrasty colors. Black throws a particularly strong silhouette and is often one of the easiest colors for fish to see - and yet there are few jet black lures on the market.
There are a couple of analogies I use when I'm teaching lure making classes:
1. Next time you're watching TV, have a play with the remote. Try turning the color brightness down a little and the contrast well up. It's a little simplistic, but it's kind of how fish see things under "normal" conditions. To simulate low light or dirty water (or getting deeper in the water), turn the color down even more.
2. Get yourself some pale blue cellophane and hold it in front of your eyes. In clean water that's how color appears to fish, even just a few feet down. To simulate greater depth, add more layers of cellophane. You'll see reds and oranges disappear first, yellows become more green, greens become more blue. Keep going and you'll eventually only see things in shades of blue. Of course, inland waters are rarely perfectly clear, so try the same thing with red or green cellophane to simulate tannin or algae.
But I suppose the take home message is that color is usually far less important than most people think and fish rarely see it the way we think they might. Most people could catch more fish if they concentrated on other factors first and color second. But most lure fishermen seem to be fixated on color as the key top success.
Regards
Greg
Tim Kelly reply :
Colour is always pretty low down on my priority list. Bright or dark is about as much as I consider it, but like everyone else I pick up different baits because the colour appeals to me! It's complex in a fisherman's head. LOL
primetime reply :
mI would agree that solid black is a color that never get's enough press. If I were to pick one Jig Color it would be Black since I can add a trailer for contrast or add a strand of blue or white etc....I rarely see soft baits in solid black any more....A black ribbon tail worm is a good color choice any day and dipping the end in chartreuse sometimes helps....
soflabasser reply :
On 6/11/2016 at 9:57 PM, makelures said:Thanks for the plug Turkey! It's a bit of an old thread, but thought I'd chime in with my two bobs worth ;-)
First, this is my book. I wrote it because there are lots of misunderstandings when it comes to lure color selection. Tom, just so you're aware, I teach lure making, I'm not a manufacturer. So I have nothing to gain from steering people towards one color or another. This book was merely an attempt to inject some science and objective thinking into an area of fishing where it is usually lacking.
Before I was a full time lure making teacher, I was an aquatic scientist. Actually, I have a degree with double majors in Aquatic Biology and Aquatic Chemistry, Honors in Aquatic Science and a PhD awarded for my research thesis in the fields of Aquatic biology and water chemistry. I spent 20 years working as a professional scientist on areas of fish management (among other things) and ran my own niche aquatic ecology consultancy employing a number of other scientists in the fisheries field. I have personally made numerous measurements of light and color in saltwater - and even more in freshwater - using some pretty sophisticated equipment. I've also been an expert witness in my professional capacity as a scientist. And before I wrote this book I did an extensive review of scientific (not popular fishing) literature on the subject. I reckon I'm probably qualified to give a scientific perspective ;-)
Yes, I'm Australian. I've worked and fished around the world though, including in the US. And had you read my book, you would have seen that there are links to references to other scientific work from around the world too. Actually, in scientific terms, what I present in my eBook is very old hat, scientists have known and published this stuff around the world for years. Fishermen have just never caught up.
You are quite right that different species often have the capacity to see different colors, or at least different shades than other species. But you have completely missed the point that environmental conditions often preclude fish from seeing a particular hue, or any color at all. These environmental conditions are physical, not biological, so they are the same irrespective of your geographical location.
In terms of the capacity for fish to see color: Most freshwater fish species are hundreds of times better at seeing shapes and shadows than humans are. And many (but not all) are many times worse than humans at detecting color. We know this from the anatomical structure of their eyes. Walleye, to pull your example, have a retina is packed with rod cells. These are the photochemical receptors that are super sensitive to light. They're present and have the same function in every living vertebrate on the planet - they allow us to see shapes and outlines in low light. Human eyes have relatively low numbers of rod cells, which is why we struggle to see much when the light fades - fish can often see silhouettes sharply when human eyes fail.
The other photochemical receptors in eyes are the cone cells, which detect different wavelengths (colors) but need much higher intensity of light to do their job. Thats why we can often see silhouettes but not colors at dawn and dusk or on a moonlit night. The ratio of rod and cone cells tells us a lot. As already stated, walleye have loads of rod cells. But they have a low proportion of cone cells. This reflects the environment they live in, as well as their nocturnal hunting habits. They don't see color as well as other species but they can make out shapes in low light when other species can't. Bass have a higher proportion of cone cells because they tend to live and operate where there is better light. Color can play more of a part here. But compared to humans, they still have a high proportion of rod cells, so they still see better than us in low light and worse (less color distinction) in bright light.
And yes, before you say it, some fish can see colors that humans can't, such as UV.
As for the penetration of light and the visibility of color at depth, I've worked on tannin lakes where the blue and green wavelengths are absorbed in the first 6 inches and only red colors are visible. I've worked on algae lakes where the red/orange wavelengths disappear within 12 inches and only greens and yellows are visible. So light penetration and color visibility can vary tremendously in a lake as deep as 20ft.
Hope this sheds some light (pun intended)
Greg
Thank you for posting this.
riverbasser reply :
Great topic and good insight. These topics are why I'm glad to be apart of this forum. This stuff doesn't come into normal conversation.
P.s I will definitely be trying the TV and cellophane trick just for fun
WRB reply :
What I have learned from experience often contradicts what I read in sceintific papers and research data on how fish see colors. My experience spans over 60 years of fishing for both fresh and salt water game fish. The one thing in common with all game fish is their preference for color contrast verses single color lures, including all black.
The study of the physical eye construction certainly gives clues to low light vs bright light vision ability. What the eye construction can't do is determine how the fish interprets the waves lengths the eye transmits to it's brain. Observing how fish react to various colors, shapes and lure movement takes a lot of time on the water under a wide variety of lighting conditions. As mentioned 60 years of fresh water fishing for trout and bass, plus about 30 years fishing for musky, pike and walleyes. About 35 years salt water off shore fishing for tuna, Marlin, swordfish and coastal fishing for calico and sand bass, halibut, White Sea bass etc., You learn all fish have different color preferences depending on light conditions, including night, overcast days, bright noon sun.
Color preferences in soft plastic lures for bass can make or break your day or night.
Nothing I have ever read explains how bass have specific color preference at night in deep clear structured lakes that I fish. Understand the importance of contrast and silhouette outline, but often a clear smoke worm with different color flakes out fishes solid black with various color flakes at depths of 20 top 40 feet at night. The science tells us the bass eye can't see the worm, but they do!
Tom
Catt reply :
So how many bass did you interview to draw these conclusions?
fissure_man reply :
On 6/13/2016 at 5:53 AM, WRB said:You learn all fish have different color preferences depending on light conditions, including night, overcast days, bright noon sun.
Can you elaborate? How do you go about picking lure colors based on those factors? 
On 6/13/2016 at 7:19 PM, Catt said:So how many bass did you interview to draw these conclusions?
Good point, but environmental conditions and bass physiology can be studied without any input from the bass. It's not the whole picture, but it lays a foundation for understanding bass behavior. If experience shows bass have a color preference in particular conditions, the science can help to understand why, and lead to a hypothesis on color choice in other conditions as well.
I'm in the camp that says lure color usually isn't a big deal, but occasionally it's critical. Some of the discussion above has focused on determining which colors are most visible to the fish, but "most visible" often does not mean "most likely to get bit."
makelures reply :
I think you're 100% spot-on Fissure-man ;-)
Nothing is ever definitive in fishing - and just because a fish can see a particular color doesn't necessarily mean it will take the lure (I think that's what WRB is getting at with the way fish interpret). I think the comment about color contrast is especially valid, too. For example, we know that many billfish don't see reds or oranges too well, but they can distinguish between minute differences in shades of blues and purples. This is an adaptation to help them distinguish blue baitfish against a blue background. And my experience with solid, single color lures has mirrored those of WRB, except for black fished at night or in muddy water.
But In my view if our focus is purely on color then we tend to overlook so many other factors, such as vibration/sound, smell/taste (yes, taste) size, shape, action, dive depth and so on.
Greg
Catt reply :
On 6/13/2016 at 10:15 PM, makelures said:But In my view if our focus is purely on color then we tend to overlook so many other factors, such as vibration/sound, smell/taste (yes, taste) size, shape, action, dive depth and so on.
Greg
How Fish Vision Affects Intelligent Fishing Tackle Color Selection.
In other words ya book aint said nothing! 
makelures reply :
lol, yep Catt. You got me!
WRB reply :
For decades we were told the physiology of Marlin and swordfish eyes couldn't determine color, they were color blind.
That was disproven the billfish have acute color vision in blue green tones and that supports experienced anglers who for decades settled on combinations of blue-green lures. I have read dozens I'd white papers on this topic and most contradict each other...who do you believe? I believe in my experiences far more than contradictory studies. Australia has produced some excellent studies on billfish, so I am not pooh poohing Gregs work, just not all in.
I had to move from lake Casitas to lake Castaic a few weeks ago due to poor launching facility at Casitas. Hadn't fished Castaic in years, the lake is on the rise, it was down over 150' and is coming up about 30' a month the past 6 weeks. The water coming in is warm about 75 degrees, there is a algae bloom. From experience I knew Castiac bass don't move up when this lake is rising, most of the fish in newly flooded areas will be catfish and carp instead of bass like most other lakes. So what color to use in water with visibility about 6' and greenish? My choice to start was baby bass colors thinking baby bass or Shad would the prey bass would be targeting and that didn't work out. Tried oxblood red flake ( night crawler) and MMIII ( purple) both standby's at Castiac with no luck. Aaron's Magic proved to be the color at 18' deep on secondary points. Color selection is a trail and error process until you find the right combination. Never got a jig bite going, no top water bite, no crank bait bite, just the worm bite. The next trip to Castiac everything could change, that's why bass fishing is both challenging and rewarding, these green fish can't read and do thier thing.
Tom
makelures reply :
WRB, they definitely don't play by the rules. And I believe that experience and science go hand in hand, BTW. They contradict sometimes, sure, but you get a more complete picture if you're open to both. Much of the billfish work done over here has been carried out by Dr Julian Pepperell, another keen fisho and a well respected scientist.
I've been pondering your smoke worm fished deep at night and have a theory.......
Could it be that it's the fact that the lure is NOT visible that makes it effective? There are plenty of instances when a transparent lure gets a reaction strike because it gets close to a fish undetected and takes it by surprise. Maybe black ones are more easily seen and don;t have the surprise factor. Just a thought!
Thanks for the great points!
G
Catt reply :
On 6/13/2016 at 10:27 PM, makelures said:lol, yep Catt. You got me!
Not picking on you but with my years of working with marine biologist, years of experience, & a degree in the philosophy of science I tend to read things a little different.
WRB reply :
On 6/13/2016 at 10:43 PM, makelures said:WRB, they definitely don't play by the rules. And I believe that experience and science go hand in hand, BTW. They contradict sometimes, sure, but you get a more complete picture if you're open to both. Much of the billfish work done over here has been carried out by Dr Julian Pepperell, another keen fisho and a well respected scientist.
I've been pondering your smoke worm fished deep at night and have a theory.......
Could it be that it's the fact that the lure is NOT visible that makes it effective? There are plenty of instances when a transparent lure gets a reaction strike because it gets close to a fish undetected and takes it by surprise. Maybe black ones are more easily seen and don;t have the surprise factor. Just a thought!
Thanks for the great points!
G
It's nearly impossible for a lure to get close to active bass without it knowing it's approaching because of their highly developed lateral line and close low frequency hearing senses.
The question is why do they choose to strike a specific color in very low light with everything else being equal? I don't know!! It's always trail and error and problem solving on the water. I am not degreed in anything to do with fishing, just a old retired aerospace engineer.
Thank you for taking the time to share your knowledge.
Tom
fissure_man reply :
On 6/13/2016 at 10:24 PM, Catt said:How Fish Vision Affects Intelligent Fishing Tackle Color Selection.
In other words ya book aint said nothing!
Sounds like the old guard getting defensive when science touches on their beliefs.
Nothing new here
On 6/13/2016 at 10:43 PM, makelures said:WRB, they definitely don't play by the rules. And I believe that experience and science go hand in hand, BTW. They contradict sometimes, sure, but you get a more complete picture if you're open to both. Much of the billfish work done over here has been carried out by Dr Julian Pepperell, another keen fisho and a well respected scientist.
I think it's more accurate to say that they do play by the rules, we just don't know what all the rules are. If a bass shows a preference for a certain lure/profile/color/size/speed/etc., I believe there is a reason for it, even if I don't know what the reason is.
If theory and experience are contradictory, then one or both are wrong (or incomplete, or misguided). This is the core of science, hypotheses are tested by experience (controlled experimentation), and are revised or thrown out if they don't agree.
On 6/13/2016 at 11:48 PM, WRB said:The question is why do they choose to strike a specific color in very low light with everything else being equal? I don't know!! It's always trail and error and problem solving on the water.
I agree, at least until we learn more about bass behavior and all the factors that might affect color preference. As our understanding of these factors increases, informed decisions can start to cut down the trial and error. History shows everything is too complex to understand, until we understand it
WRB reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 12:44 AM, fissure_man said:Sounds like the old guard getting defensive when science touches on their beliefs.
Nothing new here
I think it's more accurate to say that they do play by the rules, we just don't know what all the rules are. If a bass shows a preference for a certain lure/profile/color/size/speed/etc., I believe there is a reason for it, even if I don't know what the reason is.
If theory and experience are contradictory, then one or both are wrong (or incomplete, or misguided). This is the core of science, hypotheses are tested by experience (controlled experimentation), and are revised or thrown out if they don't agree.
I agree, at least until we learn more about bass behavior and all the factors that might affect color preference. As our understanding of these factors increases, informed decisions can start to cut down the trial and error. History shows everything is too complex to understand, until we understand it
I spent over 50 years designing, developing and testing products for aerospace usage and understand the discipline of through research. The fact I somehow managed to catch a few hundred DD size bass wasn't by using the blind squirrel technique and understand these big bass better then most anglers.
Tom
fissure_man reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 1:33 AM, WRB said:I spent over 50 years designing, developing and testing products for aerospace usage and understand the discipline of through research. The fact I somehow managed to catch a few hundred DD size bass wasn't by using the blind squirrel technique and understand these big bass better then most anglers.
Tom
LOL what is the blind squirrel technique?
I'm not questioning your qualifications; I'm questioning the dismissal of research because it doesn't stand alone as a foolproof lure selection guide. It's a piece of the puzzle, one that even you have not finished putting together.
Should we stop researching because you've fished for 50 years and know everything there is to know? Should the aerospace industry do the same?
Catt reply :
Empirical evidence: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
If theory & evidence are contradictory, then theory is disproved.
After observable is repeatable; if theory & evidence are contradictory there can be no repeatability.
A disclaimer to this kinds of research should read: while we know the anatomy of a fishes eye this reflects colors as seen through human eyes & interpreted by the human brain.
Take the color red, we know through the human eye & interpreted by the human brain it is the first color to "disappear". Empirical evidence shows lure with the color red in them are for more productive the lures without red. Yet most anglers don't normally select red cause it's not on most color selection charts.
WRB reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 1:43 AM, fissure_man said:LOL what is the blind squirrel technique?
I'm not questioning your qualifications; I'm questioning the dismissal of research because it doesn't stand alone as a foolproof lure selection guide. It's a piece of the puzzle, one that even you have not finished putting together.
Should we stop researching because you've fished for 50 years and know everything there is to know? Should the aerospace industry do the same?
Fishing blind and hoping to catch something verses knowing where to fish and catching them consistantly.
Who is advocating to stop research, what I am saying the research to date doesn't answer the basic question; how do bass see colors under very low light. The answer will be found when the facts lead to answers instead of interjecting perceived conclusions. As it stands now the physiology supports the conclusion bass can't see colors at night or in water with very little light and I disagree. The science to date can't determine how the fish interprets various light waves like ultra violet for example.
We will agree to disagree.
Tom
Mike L reply :
I hate it when threads get to this point. When you guys start to explain another creatures makeup and try to explain it all in scientific, technical and theoretic terms.
The truth is we DON'T know exactly how or what a fish sees, feels, hears or tastes. Some of you fellas are highly intelligent with decades of data, and I appreciate and admire your intelligence and willing to share all your knowledge. I wish I was as educated as you.
But I for one don't want to know everything there is to know about how a star is born, how a black hole is formed or what a fish knows or don't know.
Don't misunderstand, I appreciate you sharing and welcome another of these discussions, disagreement's when it will invariably happen. Call it and me what you will as I'm too old to change now.
But Sometimes just knowing what I don't know is good enough for me.
Mike
Mastermarsh reply :
I really didn't want to get involved here, but as a PhD candidate in freshwater Ichthyology this dismal of research is rather disheartening. Fissure man is by no means saying that the research is indisputable, but rather should serve as a reference point for further investigation into the field of color recognition/ preference in all species of fish.
The complete dismissal of scientific research for anecdotal evidence based on years of experience is silly. In no way shape or form are you able to recreate the weather conditions, water temperatures, baitfish activity, and water clarity in which specific lures work. But to say that studying the anatomy of a fishes eye and offering color choices isn't valid is closed minded at best. As lovers of the sport and always wanting to improve, I would think that considering the widest range of available information to the most beneficial.
Although I will be the first to concede that theory, research, and results do not always play nice with with one another. But thats the fun in science, and more importantly the sport of fishing as a whole. There will never be a cut and dry answer to what color bait the fish will prefer, but using research to help aid in bait selection seems like a surefire way to begin figuring them out.
fissure_man reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 1:48 AM, Catt said:If theory & evidence are contradictory, then theory is disproved.
... or the evidence is flawed. The success of red lures at catching bass (to quote your example) doesn't disprove anything about the physics of light. Selective absorption of different wavelengths of light in water is observable and repeatable, and requires no assumptions about human or bass eyes/brains. How this affects bass fishing is a separate question. Perhaps bass prefer red lures at times because of their tendency to be less visible.
On 6/14/2016 at 1:57 AM, WRB said:We will agree to disagree.
Fair enough. No offense intended
Catt reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 2:48 AM, Mastermarsh said:
The complete dismissal of scientific research for anecdotal evidence based on years of experience is silly.
So you dismiss observational evidence?
On 6/14/2016 at 3:31 AM, fissure_man said:... or the evidence is flawed.
So you believe theory over observed evidence?
fissure_man reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 3:35 AM, Catt said:So you dismiss observational evidence?
Dismiss? No. But when observations are made in an uncontrolled environment, one needs to be aware of the variables in play, and the uncertainty they introduce to any conclusions drawn.
38 minutes ago, Catt said:So you believe theory over observed evidence?
Also no. But not all "evidence" is equal. It is possible and common for people (including scientists) to observe a phenomenon, and draw a completely incorrect conclusion about its causality. This is not evidence. Look at the rest of my last post for an example.
Catt reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 4:15 AM, fissure_man said:Dismiss? No. But when observations are made in an uncontrolled environment, one needs to be aware of the variables in play, and the uncertainty they introduce to any conclusions drawn.
Also no. But not all "evidence" is equal. It is possible and common for people (including scientists) to observe a phenomenon, and draw a completely incorrect conclusion about its causality. This is not evidence. Look at the rest of my last post for an example.
So you are choosing theory over empirical evidence?
So how does one prove a theory?
scaleface reply :
Some things are debatable some not debatable. What a bass can see is . How light waves disappear under the water is not .
fissure_man reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 4:27 AM, Catt said:So you are choosing theory over empirical evidence?
This is the exact same question you asked and I responded to in my previous post...? lol
1 hour ago, Catt said:So how does one prove a theory?
Quoting myself (emphasis added):
On 6/14/2016 at 12:44 AM, fissure_man said:If theory and experience are contradictory, then one or both are wrong (or incomplete, or misguided). This is the core of science, hypotheses are tested by experience (controlled experimentation), and are revised or thrown out if they don't agree.
This is going in circles. I'll bow out.
cgolf reply :
On 6/13/2016 at 5:53 AM, WRB said:
Color preferences in soft plastic lures for bass can make or break your day or night.
Tom
I like you have seen this, while I have way less experience than you do, I have one clear water lake I have spent a week a year on and have finally pieced together the colors depending on the conditions.
Sun up and calm to relatively calm, it is smoke colored baits, bluegill or baits with purple flake are the best producers, while water red, green pumpkin, etc blank.
Overcast or chop on the water, water red, green pumpkin, etc work and smoke colored baits blank.
Once I got this figured out my catch rate sky rocketed, and time of year doesn't seem to matter either. I was quite stunned to see how specific they were in their color preferences. People look at me like I am nuts when I try to explain this to them lol.
Catt reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 5:50 AM, fissure_man said:This is the exact same question you asked and I responded to in my previous post...? lol
Quoting myself (emphasis added):
This is going in circles. I'll bow out.
Theory: an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true
cgolf reply :
So reading this we can figure out what colors a fish should be able to see under certain light conditions based on the make up off their eyes, makes sense. We could definately use that as a starting point for color selection assuming that they will hit something they can see.
where we probably need some test data is what colors do bass really prefer under the different conditions, the ones they can see the best or something different entirely. I cracked the code on one lake, if anyone wants to fund my study I am game to do lots more research on some big name lakes;)
WRB reply :
The late Dr. Loren Hill comes to mind every time this topic is discussed. The fact Loren was a touring bass angler gets over looked that he was director of biological research at Oklahoma U and developed a device, based on research, to help bass angler select colors bass preferred under various lighting conditions called Color C Lector. Look up the name and read some of Dr. Hill's research data on bass color vision.
Tom
scaleface reply :
Scientific theory is not hunch .
Catt reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 6:58 AM, scaleface said:Scientific theory is not hunch .
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption
scaleface reply :
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
cgolf reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 6:18 AM, cgolf said:I like you have seen this, while I have way less experience than you do, I have one clear water lake I have spent a week a year on and have finally pieced together the colors depending on the conditions.
Sun up and calm to relatively calm, it is smoke colored baits, bluegill or baits with purple flake are the best producers, while water red, green pumpkin, etc blank.
Overcast or chop on the water, water red, green pumpkin, etc work and smoke colored baits blank.
Once I got this figured out my catch rate sky rocketed, and time of year doesn't seem to matter either. I was quite stunned to see how specific they were in their color preferences. People look at me like I am nuts when I try to explain this to them lol.
Putting some thought into this, I have a theory as to why these color patterns show so prominently on this body of water. Since the Bass hold in gill rich water, I would guess under flat water sunny conditions the gills reflect brighter, possibly silverish with flashes of color but not prominent color which explains the smoke flake tubes.
Overcast conditions or when the chop breaks up the light. I would guess the gills show off more green to Bass, because they aren't reflecting light as much. This would explain why water red works so well under these conditions.
Tom probably has completely different scenario assuming bows are the main forage there. It is interesting that when I actually thought about it I was matching the hatch all along.
So is the best plan to figure out how the main prey looks under different conditions and go with those colors? Cool thing about this thread is it got me thinking.
makelures reply :
Wow, getting hot in here! The aim of my eBook is to get people thinking and discussing this stuff, and (hopefully) bettering our understanding. So, I'd say "mission accomplished"! This kind of debate is healthy and we don't have to agree. As long as we don't descend into personal attacks it furthers the sport for all of us....... So thanks to everyone who has taken part!
As a few people have noted (and I agree), just because a fish can see a color doesn't necessarily mean it will strike, or not strike, your lure. So all of this is just food for thought.
From my perspective, give my interpretation of the evidence as the scientific community has seen and published it - and that perspective is as a scientist and lifelong lure fisherman. Some of the evidence is measurable, irrefutable, quantifiable. The light absorption characteristics of water, for example are basic optics. They can be measured in the laboratory and in the field and they can be observed without the need for measurement.
Other parts of the evidence are inferred but still pretty solid. We can't ask a bass what it sees, but we can infer from the structure of the eye. We know that the macro structure of a fish's eye is different to other animals. But we also know that the key parts - the photoreceptors - are the same as those of pretty much all other animals, many with a much better known spectral range. It's reasonable to assume that if l-, m- or s-cone cells perform a particular function in mammalian, bird and reptilian eyes then they most likely perform the same function in fish's eyes. For example, long wavelength detecting l-cone cells allow other animals to see colors in the blue-purple range, so it's reasonable to expect they have the same function in bass or any other fish. They are the same cells and communicate with the optic nerve in the same way as they do in other animals.
But I'm not just a theorist. I've been a fisherman much longer than I've been a scientist and I know that science and theory doesn't replace experience on the water. It's just another tool to help us figure out what's going on and stack the odds a little more in our favor.
That said, experience is often subjective. I fish for Jack in a local waterway where most old timers will tell you the last third of the incoming tide is the most productive. But going through my records, the middle of the ebb when the water runs hardest has been far kinder to me. Are the old timers wrong? Many of them have years more experience than I do on that waterway, and they have the results to back up their claims. That's hard to argue with. But my experience is very different - I've fished all tide phases many times over the years and have evidence that the run out is the better time.
Who's right? It hardly matters. We'll probably never solve the mystery of why fish take a lure, but isn't that the whole point? It's the challenge of piecing the puzzle together and making what you can of it. If everything was predictable fishing would be boring!
Turkey sandwich reply :
Wow. There are some interesting posts on here, but in favor of not reading in depth about the intricacies of all variables in a particular species of fish's eating habits to control them exclusively to color, I've decided that I'm simply going to dye all of my lures methiolate, the king of all colors.
Molay1292 reply :
Great conversation, for the most part. It seems that the research centered around this should focus on what colors provide the best visibility for fish in a certain set of conditions. It seems less productive to try and determine what colors bass as a whole prefer to eat in particular conditions as it makes the assumption that all bass as a group prefer the same. What if each bass, like humans, has the ability to decide its own?
Thanks for taking the time to share your research makelures. Without people like yourself, the rest of us would still be falling off the edge of the earth.
makelures reply :
Thanks Molay, I reckon you're right on the money.
WRB reply :
You can't lump all fish species into one group or birds into one group. There are thousands of different species, each with unique vision characteristics. We are discussing bass, consider in North America we have 8 different species of fresh water bass, each with different coloration, habitate and prey preferences. All these different "bass" have evolved in unique ecosystems developing skills to survive in their habitate and so has their prey. Species have color for a reason...to survive and procreate the species.
If we look at Largemouth bass we have 2 species; northern strain and Florida strain, both have different behavior, preferred prey types and color preferences when sharing the same lake. When you compare the eye physical size, the Florida strain have bigger eyes based on the bass I have caught. Florida bass grow about 50% heavier then Northern strain and comparing bass about the same length 28". Both my 18.6 lb and 19.3 lb Florida strain bass eyes i(1") about the size or a quarter, the Northern strain 12.4 lb eye is 3/4" about the size of a nickel. The Florida strain is very wary compared to it's northern cousin. The Florida strain developed larger eyes for a reason.
Smallmouth bass have red eyes for a reason, Redeye bass a seperates species, has red eyes, both of these bass evolved in a river system. Do smallmouth that prefer bright colored lures see the same color spectrum as largemouth bass? Or Spotted bass? Does a FLMB see the same as a NLMB?
We don't have enough empirical data to begin to understand bass let alone individuals in thousands of other fish species.
Tom
makelures reply :
Tom,
I'm afraid you've missed the point completely this time. Right from the start I've said different fish species exhibit different color perception. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if sub-species or genetically isolated populations have different color perception.
So let me put this another way.......
Boeing's and Cessna's both work in basically the same way. They both have engines that create forward thrust. They both have wings to give them lift. They both have ailerons and rudders. They have the same functional units...... but it doesn't mean their performance is the same. An expert can take a look at most types of aircraft between these two extremes and know something about it's performance based on the engine size, type and location and on the wing size, shape and configuration. He knows that jet engines generate more thrust than props. He knows how the surface area and shape of wings affects lift. A bigger rudder gives greater steerage and so on. He doesn't need to fly the plane to know that level of detail, he can deduce it in seconds from the known factors.
Lets take this back to fish eyes. The eyes of all animals work in basically the same way. They all have rod cells for detecting contrast and cone cells for detecting color. Both cells create a chemical signal (rhodopsin) that triggers electrical impulses in the optic nerve that are then deciphered in the brain. Those are the wings and engines. No matter whether they are fish eyes, bird eyes or human ones they all work that way.
If you put more powerful engines on a Boeing you know it will get more thrust. You don't need to fly it to know that. That's just what a more powerful engine will do.
If you put more rod cells into a fish's eye it will perform better in low light and will detect contrast better. That's what rod cells do in every animal and it's why nocturnal and low light animals have a higher density of rod cells and can see better than humans in the dark. It's a given, you don't need the fish to tell you that, you just look under the microscope and you can see it.
If you reduce the weight of your Boeing it will get better fuel efficiency. It's a given. If you pack an eye with cone cells it will be more efficient at seeing color, it's a given.
To take it a step further, there are essentially 3 types of cone cells, designated rather unimaginatively as S, M and L (short, medium and long). Each are stimulated by different wavelengths of light. So, for example, the long wavelengths (reds) stimulate the L cones more than the M cones and create an impulse the brain deciphers as red. Short wavelengths stimulate the S cells more than the M and are perceived as blue. And some fish species can even perceive ultra-violet wavelengths that humans can't.
Billfish have a lot more S cones, so they can distinguish between blues better. Freshwater fish (generally) have a higher proportion of M cones and see greens and yellows more easily. Tropical reef species often have a higher ratio of cone cells vs rod cells, so we know they see a wide range of colors including UV. Walleye have a higher proportion of rod cells compared to other species, so we know they can see well in low light.
So while we might not know in minute detail how every species or sub species perceives color (and I've never claimed we do) we can deduce the broad picture with a fair bit with confidence based on examination of the retina of each species.
And to bring it all back to the original point of the eBook...... irrespective of what a fish's eye is capable of detecting, it's a moot point if environmental conditions filter out a particular wavelenth. If tannin filters out blue wavelengths it doesn't matter how well a fish can see blue.
And once again, just because a color is visible to fish doesn't mean it's the right color to use. Plenty of times fish are finding your lures using sound, vibration, taste, smell and so on.
Anyway, I've said my piece. I'm going to bow out now as well......
scaleface reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 5:56 PM, makelures said:
And to bring it all back to the original point of the eBook...... irrespective of what a fish's eye is capable of detecting, it's a moot point if environmental conditions filter out a particular wavelenth. If tannin filters out blue wavelengths it doesn't matter how well a fish can see blue.
And once again, just because a color is visible to fish doesn't mean it's the right color to use. Plenty of times fish are finding your lures using sound, vibration, taste, smell and so on.
Anyway, I've said my piece. I'm going to bow out now as well......
If one doesnt understand this then one is just not trying very hard .
Catt reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 7:08 AM, scaleface said:A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.
The last step in the scientific method is falsifiability.
Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question.
@makelures ya ain't the first to do the research & ya will not be last!
After reading your book you ain't went any farther than the rest!
Tim Kelly reply :
Makelures, before you go, can you explain how fish like walleye can see well enough to make a living in very dark water that has a lot of suspended mud in it? I've never understood how they survive as there must be a physical barrier of all the suspended, opaque, mud withing a few inches of their eyes, which to my mind must eliminate any object the other side of the mud wall from their view. Cormorants seem to be able to dive and find fish in the same turbid water that we can't see a lure 3" under the surface in. Seems like magic to me!
QUAKEnSHAKE reply :
Any info on the acuity a bass actually sees???
One article Ive read a Berkley research scientist states they dont see very well at all. They can see only about 50' and the acuity is about 10% of humans, they have to get really close to object to see it well.
Any other info thoughts on this?
cgolf reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 8:46 PM, Tim Kelly said:Makelures, before you go, can you explain how fish like walleye can see well enough to make a living in very dark water that has a lot of suspended mud in it? I've never understood how they survive as there must be a physical barrier of all the suspended, opaque, mud withing a few inches of their eyes, which to my mind must eliminate any object the other side of the mud wall from their view. Cormorants seem to be able to dive and find fish in the same turbid water that we can't see a lure 3" under the surface in. Seems like magic to me!
Also to that I believe a Sauger lives in even muddier stretches of river, by choice, than its cousin the walleye. Curious about the differences between the eyes in those two.
makelures reply :
Tim,
My view is that under those conditions the fish are probably not hunting visually. As you mention, when the water contains a lot of suspended particles the light can't penetrate very deep at all. Having dived such conditions, I can assure you that a strobe doesn't help either - it's like driving your car in fog! Walleye probably have a bit of an advantage in that they have an acute ability to distinguish silhouettes and shapes in the murk, probably more so than most other fish species. Apart from lots of rod cells and fairly large eyes, they also have a reflective layer that helps intensify the light gathering in their retina. Even so, I don't think that's your answer.
For most humans eyesight is the primary sense and everything else comes second, or worse. When we close our eyes we hear better and we smell more too. Our ears and nose haven't changed, but our brains start to focus on our other senses to fill the gap left by lack of visual input. And it's natural that we assume other animals are the same - primarily visual predators - but they're not. Deer and many other game will rely more on smells and sounds to detect danger, bats use sound to track prey, many animals track using scents and so on. You'll come up with a million examples if you stop to think about it.
Many species of fish have evolved in an environment where they have to survive regular periods of low visibility resulting from floods, algal blooms and so on. So they're not as dependent on eyesight as humans and tend to use those other senses more than we might expect.
Those include:
- Sound. Human ears don't hear sound well in water, so we often assume there isn't much sound. But fish ears work differently and they are far more sensitive to underwater sound than us. Fish can detect the direction that sound comes from underwater (humans can above water, but not below) and they use it for navigation, mating and finding prey.
- Vibration. Closely related to sound but detected more through the lateral line. Again, fish are super sensitive to tiny vibrations. It's how whole schools of fish move and turn in unison. Each individual fish detects the movement of other fish around it via the lateral line. Years ago I used to fish raging floodwaters at night for brown trout. I used to marvel that fish consistently nailed a fast moving 2 inch streamer fly on the darkest in nights in fast flowing, turbulent, highly muddy water. I could only put it down to their remarkable ability to sense vibration.
- Smell. The sense of smell in fish is acute. Consider salmon, for instance, that are believed to be able to find their birth stream during spawning runs from the smell of the water. So imagine how intensely they can smell a food item that's in close proximity.
- Taste. Here's a cool bit of trivia: humans have taste buds on our tongues, so in order to taste stuff we have to put it in our mouths. Fish have few, if any, taste buds on their tongues or in their mouths. But they do have masses of them on their skin, especially around their faces, fins and lateral line. And on the barbels of those species that have them. So fish can taste a food item by touching it with various parts of their bodies. Some believe they don't even have to make contact to taste stuff, that the chemicals that cause taste are released into the water around a food item and fish can follow a taste and scent gradient to their prey.
Here's a couple of other snippets of fishy trivia that might help explain this "magic"!
- When an object moves through the water, whether it's a craw, baitfish, predator or lure, it leaves behind vortices. Vortices are minute, swirling currents like an invisible trail or jetstream behind the object. Fish are able to detect these with their lateral line and follow them to their source, effectively tracking prey even in zero visibility conditions.
- Freshwater fish are hypertonic to their environment, meaning their bodies have a higher salt concentration than the surrounding water. This results in water continually entering the body, mostly through the gills. To regulate this and prevent cell damage, freshwater fish (and crustaceans) are almost continually passing dilute urine. So if you're a predatory fish with an acute sense of smell your food is leaving behind a continuous scent trail for you to home in on!
Who'd want to be a baitfish?
I don't know if this answers your question Tim........ but once again, food for though!
makelures reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 9:25 PM, QUAKEnSHAKE said:Any info on the acuity a bass actually sees???
One article Ive read a Berkley research scientist states they dont see very well at all. They can see only about 50' and the acuity is about 10% of humans, they have to get really close to object to see it well.
Stretching my memory a little here @QUAKEnSHAKE! I'll give it a crack but happy to be corrected.
The mechanism by which fish eyes focus is very different to humans. Human eyes focus by stretching and squeezing the lens. Fish have a denser, thicker lens to cope with the refractive index of the water. They focus by moving the lens in and out, rather than shaping it. As I recall, this is a little limiting in terms of distance vision. They can certainly see nearby objects sharply, but more distant ones are blurry, though they can still detect movement.
As with everything discussed in this thread, I think the acuity probably varies tremendously between species and probably with the age of the fish too. And my memory is too dim to recall where bass rank in terms of their distance vision.
On 6/14/2016 at 9:32 PM, cgolf said:Also to that I believe a Sauger lives in even muddier stretches of river, by choice, than its cousin the walleye. Curious about the differences between the eyes in those two.
Afraid I don't know too much about Sauger, cgolf. We Aussies don't know too much about too much ;-)
Tim Kelly reply :
Thank you for your thoughts Makelures. As you say, it doesn't entirely answer my question, but it's food for thought. I fish a lot of places that hold pike, perch and zander (walleye). It's very noticeable that waters which are usually dirtier usually have a better population of zander, where clearer waters are usually more populated with perch and pike. It appears that the zander are able to do better in the reduced visibility that the pike or perch. The pike are interesting though as they have all the usual fish senses and also a special set of pores (Noromyer system?) on their lower jaw which are believed to pick up electrical impulses from fishes muscles. On the face of it, you'd imaging they'd do better than the zander with the extra sense, but apparently not. They out compete them in clearer water, but not in murky water. It's interesting to note as well that waters which have become murkier over time tend to have a change in the balance of species with the pike and perch declining and the zander becoming more prolific and bigger.
The cormorant thing absolutely amazes me still. I can't imagine they're using any instinct other than sight to find their prey, but they still manage to make a living in muddy water.
Nature is cool.
Molay1292 reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 10:41 PM, Tim Kelly said:Thank you for your thoughts Makelures. As you say, it doesn't entirely answer my question, but it's food for thought. I fish a lot of places that hold pike, perch and zander (walleye). It's very noticeable that waters which are usually dirtier usually have a better population of zander, where clearer waters are usually more populated with perch and pike. It appears that the zander are able to do better in the reduced visibility that the pike or perch. The pike are interesting though as they have all the usual fish senses and also a special set of pores on their lower jaw which are believed to pick up electrical impulses from fishes muscles. On the face of it, you'd imaging they'd do better than the zander with the extra sense, but apparently not. They out compete them in clearer water, but not in murky water. It's interesting to note as well that waters which have become murkier over time tend to have a change in the balance of species with the pike and perch declining and the zander becoming more prolific and bigger.
The cormorant thing absolutely amazes me still. I can't imagine they're using any instinct other than sight to find their prey, but they still manage to make a living in muddy water.
Nature is cool.
Tim, I wonder if Cormorants like Ducks and Geese have the ability to see into the UV spectrum. If so perhaps they can see fish in unclear water with this ability. Just a thought.
Tim Kelly reply :
Possibly, but I don't imagine UV light travels far through murky water. Even if they could see into infra red it wouldn't help them as most fish are cold blooded (some sharks seem to have a semi warm blooded system) so there would be no heat signature for them to see.
RichF reply :
On 6/13/2016 at 5:53 AM, WRB said:Nothing I have ever read explains how bass have specific color preference at night in deep clear structured lakes that I fish. Understand the importance of contrast and silhouette outline, but often a clear smoke worm with different color flakes out fishes solid black with various color flakes at depths of 20 top 40 feet at night. The science tells us the bass eye can't see the worm, but they do!
I'm curious to know how many times you tried those combos under similar conditions and had the same result. What I've come to understand about anglers, myself included, is that once we get bit on a particular bait, we'll often continue using it every time we hit the water. This is why I'm skeptical on the importance of color. Once we have success on one thing, we'll use it more and ultimately catch more fish with it. But is it really because of the size, action, the color? Or is it just because we had that success and now use it more than anything else?
My hat's off to you if you have tested that several times under similar conditions. I know I would have a hard time trying X when I've had success with Y!
Raul reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 10:41 PM, Tim Kelly said:Nature is cool.
Yes it is, these don´t even need eyes and if other senses weren´t able to overcome sight they wouldn´t exist.
One lesson I do know: bass don´t need to see the bait in order to find it, so how the bait looks is more important to me than it is to the fish.
BTW, I´ve caught blind bass ( without eyes ), not only they were caught with lures, they were fat and very healthy.
Tim Kelly reply :
That's very true.
WRB reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 11:27 PM, RichF said:I'm curious to know how many times you tried those combos under similar conditions and had the same result. What I've come to understand about anglers, myself included, is that once we get bit on a particular bait, we'll often continue using it every time we hit the water. This is why I'm skeptical on the importance of color. Once we have success on one thing, we'll use it more and ultimately catch more fish with it. But is it really because of the size, action, the color? Or is it just because we had that success and now use it more than anything else?
My hat's off to you if you have tested that several times under similar conditions. I know I would have a hard time trying X when I've had success with Y!
The best time to try out new new lures or colors is during a good bite, not when the bass are inactive. I rarely try out a new lure during a tough bite. Trying out something different is easy to do when fishing with a partner and you are being out fished using your standby lure/color.
Tom
PS, never caught a totally blind bass, caught lots of 1 eyed bass.
Mastermarsh reply :
On 6/14/2016 at 6:58 PM, Catt said:The last step in the scientific method is falsifiability.
Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question.
@makelures ya ain't the first to do the research & ya will not be last!
After reading your book you ain't went any farther than the rest!
Falsifiability is the nature of everything in the universe, especially science. That is the draw of research, the fact that there will always be more to learn and expand upon is an amazing notion. But I digress as this should not be an argument about the semantics or philosophy of scientific mythology.
Nor is it conducive to a healthy conversation to insult @makelures work, as I know he has spent countless hours providing us with a resource of information that may help us become better fisherman. Perhaps you don't agree with his research and thats fine, but to insult his work is in bad form.
I am certainly appreciating the discussion going on here though as this topic is no where near my field of study, and always enjoy learning from people who know far more than me.
Molay1292 reply :
On 6/15/2016 at 2:53 AM, Mastermarsh said:Falsifiability is the nature of everything in the universe, especially science. That is the draw of research, the fact that there will always be more to learn and expand upon is an amazing notion. But I digress as this should not be an argument about the semantics or philosophy of scientific mythology.
Nor is it conducive to a healthy conversation to insult @makelures work, as I know he has spent countless hours providing us with a resource of information that may help us become better fisherman. Perhaps you don't agree with his research and thats fine, but to insult his work is in bad form.
I am certainly appreciating the discussion going on here though as this topic is no where near my field of study, and always enjoy learning from people who know far more than me.
Don't worry you will get use to it.
buzzed bait reply :
but what color senko works best? 
Catt reply :
On 6/15/2016 at 2:53 AM, Mastermarsh said:Falsifiability is the nature of everything in the universe, especially science. That is the draw of research, the fact that there will always be more to learn and expand upon is an amazing notion. But I digress as this should not be an argument about the semantics or philosophy of scientific mythology.
Nor is it conducive to a healthy conversation to insult @makelures work, as I know he has spent countless hours providing us with a resource of information that may help us become better fisherman. Perhaps you don't agree with his research and thats fine, but to insult his work is in bad form.
I am certainly appreciating the discussion going on here though as this topic is no where near my field of study, and always enjoy learning from people who know far more than me.
Do you really think makelure is the first to do this research?
He ain't kicked the can any farther down the road that any of the others!
Older guys like me, WRB, Raul, Roger, Paul Roberts & many others have read these same arguments. I've read em about LMB, SMB, Crappie, a whole host of saltwater fish, & deer.
How bass see, how bass perceive colors, the whole spawning ritual come up quite often.
Molay1292 reply :
On 6/15/2016 at 4:47 AM, Catt said:Do you really think makelure is the first to do this research?
He ain't kicked the can any farther down the road that any of the others!
Older guys like me, WRB, Raul, Roger, Paul Roberts & many others have read these same arguments. I've read em about LMB, SMB, Crappie, a whole host of saltwater fish, & deer.
How bass see, how bass perceive colors, the whole spawning ritual come up quite often.
If this conversation comes up quite often, would that not suggest that there are a lot of people interested in this information? Being old is not an excuse for being rude. 99.9% of the conversations on this board have been re-hashed over and over, but most of people on this board don't seem to feel the need to make rude and offensive posts to get their point across.
Why not add your observations in a positive way and contribute to the conversation instead of ruining it for those of us that find it interesting.
Use your powers for good instead of evil. Congrats on completing your degree recently.
Catt reply :
On 6/15/2016 at 5:49 AM, Molay1292 said:If this conversation comes up quite often, would that not suggest that there are a lot of people interested in this information? Being old is not an excuse for being rude. 99.9% of the conversations on this board have been re-hashed over and over, but most of people on this board don't seem to feel the need to make rude and offensive posts to get their point across.
Why not add your observations in a positive way and contribute to the conversation instead of ruining it for those of us that find it interesting.
Use your powers for good instead of evil. Congrats on completing your degree recently.
Ya think rude!
Good for you!
Ya don't have to read what I post, ya choose to!
There are more than one point if veiw to any discussion!
This same research has been done almost verbtim for years!
Molay1292 reply :
On 6/15/2016 at 5:57 AM, Catt said:Ya think rude!
Good for you!
Ya don't have to read what I post, ya choose to!
There are more than one point if veiw to any discussion!
This same research has been done almost verbtim for years!
I am aware this research is not new, but I always enjoy reading what others have found, never know when you might find a gem. You're correct, always two sides of the coin, but how about treating others with the same courtesy that you're treated with. Why the need to be rude and nasty when making points? Typically I read very little of your posts because they typically have the same tone to them, but I dislike it when they ruin a good conversation.
makelures reply :
On 6/15/2016 at 4:47 AM, Catt said:Do you really think makelure is the first to do this research?
Errrm....... I don't think I ever claimed to be the first. And I don't own the research. Nor did I claim to have furthered the knowledge in the area, though I HAVE tested and confirmed the current knowledge, especially regarding the optical properties of water. I don't have all the answers (I have very few).
I'm just a schmuck scientist and fisherman who spent the best part of his life working with a bunch of other schmuck scientists studying fish and aquatic systems, looking for clues that might help piece together a complex puzzle. I took the time to share in a simple and unbiased way for the majority who maybe haven't seen all of this stuff before, or just want a perspective that doesn't come from a marketing department.
If what i put together helps even one or two people, that's great. If it stimulates discussion and thinking, even better. If it challenges your thinking, that's a good thing, mine is challenged continuously. If you disagree with what I'm saying, that's fine too. In fact, that's how we keep moving forward.
Anyway, that's it for me, I really am out now! ;-)
Catt reply :
On 6/15/2016 at 6:03 AM, Molay1292 said:I am aware this research is not new, but I always enjoy reading what others have found, never know when you might find a gem. You're correct, always two sides of the coin, but how about treating others with the same courtesy that you're treated with. Why the need to be rude and nasty when making points? Typically I read very little of your posts because they typically have the same tone to them, but I dislike it when they ruin a good conversation.
Quite reading my posts, it's that simple
On 6/15/2016 at 6:07 AM, makelures said:Errrm....... I don't think I ever claimed to be the first. And I don't own the research. Nor did I claim to have furthered the knowledge in the area, though I HAVE tested and confirmed the current knowledge, especially regarding the optical properties of water. I don't have all the answers (I have very few).
I'm just a schmuck scientist and fisherman who spent the best part of his life working with a bunch of other schmuck scientists studying fish and aquatic systems, looking for clues that might help piece together a complex puzzle. I took the time to share in a simple and unbiased way for the majority who maybe haven't seen all of this stuff before, or just want a perspective that doesn't come from a marketing department.
If what i put together helps even one or two people, that's great. If it stimulates discussion and thinking, even better. If it challenges your thinking, that's a good thing, mine is challenged continuously. If you disagree with what I'm saying, that's fine too. In fact, that's how we keep moving forward.
Anyway, that's it for me, I really am out now! ;-)
Never said ya did!
A lot of us older guys that read your research or others & applied it on the water seem to get beat up by your following!
fissure_man reply :
Thanks for sharing your insight, Greg (and others). Interesting stuff.
MickD reply :
Anyone who thinks color is relatively insignificant to bass and walleyes is mistaken. Just saw it yesterday on clear water smallmouths, Dream Shot drop shot lures identical to each other exc one had green flecks in addition to the black and purple flecks in the others. Interchanged lures quite a few times, green fleck far superior. Other times with walleyes, and ALL walleye anglers have experienced this, they will take one color far more than any other. The fact that walleye anglers have hundreds of color options in their spinner selections is not because they are stupid.
RichF reply :
On 6/15/2016 at 12:18 AM, WRB said:The best time to try out new new lures or colors is during a good bite, not when the bass are inactive. I rarely try out a new lure during a tough bite. Trying out something different is easy to do when fishing with a partner and you are being out fished using your standby lure/color.
Tom
PS, never caught a totally blind bass, caught lots of 1 eyed bass.
I would think just the opposite. It seems to me that when fish are actively feeding, it doesn't really matter what gets thrown as long as its in the column of water the fish are feeding in. I can't imagine you would see a difference in what color bait is working since, most likely in an active fish situation, all colors are working. To me, it's during the tough bite that you'd want to be more precise with your bait selection.
WRB reply :
On 6/15/2016 at 9:43 PM, RichF said:I would think just the opposite. It seems to me that when fish are actively feeding, it doesn't really matter what gets thrown as long as its in the column of water the fish are feeding in. I can't imagine you would see a difference in what color bait is working since, most likely in an active fish situation, all colors are working. To me, it's during the tough bite that you'd want to be more precise with your bait selection.
You can't catch inactive bass, you can catch active bass. There is a big difference between a wide open bite and active bass. A wide open feeding frenzy is rare where I fish, bass are active about 20% of the time, those are the bass we catch most of the time and the bass I am fishing for. The thought you can tease a inactive bass into striking is a common mistake most bass anglers believe. My thinking is why waste time trying new lures when you can't catch those bass on anything and that includes live bait.
Tom
RichF reply :
You don't think inactive bass will strike out of reaction or instinct?
Molay1292 reply :
On 6/17/2016 at 1:58 AM, RichF said:You don't think inactive bass will strike out of reaction or instinct?
Which ones you talking about? The No doubt, shutdown, Ft. Knox inactive bass, the absolutely closed, lights out, don't bother knocking inactive bass, or the kind of, sort of, maybe inactive bass.
LOL
Tim Kelly reply :
Inactive curious? 
related Fishing Tackle topic
next topic
© 2024 - fishing.qciss.net. All Rights Reserved.