a very interesting study about "catchability" 2024
paul. reply :
read this in this month's north american fisherman magazine. i'll give ya the short version. in a study that spanned nearly 2 decades, scientists concluded that "catchability" is actually heritable. bass in a small lake were fished for and marked when they were caught. the lake was then drained and those that were caught frequently were placed in a pond to spawn. those that were caught infrequently or not at all were placed in another. their offspring were grown to adults. the bass were again fished for and marked, and again placed in separate ponds as before to spawn. finally the procedure was repeated a third time. even after 3 generations of selective breeding, the catch rate of the descendants of the "high vulnerability" fish remained the same. but, very interestingly, the catch rate of the descendants of the "low vulnerability" bass DECLINED WITH EACH SUCCESSIVE GENERATION. in other words the children and grandchildren of the original "easily caught" bass were caught just as easily. but the children and grandchildren of the original "hard to catch" bass became even harder yet to catch, with the last generation being the MOST difficult to catch.
very interesting stuff. perhaps not only are these fish "smarter" than we give them credit for sometimes, this "intelligence" is actually passed and increased in the next generation.
this type of stuff might bore y'all to death, but it's very interesting to me. just thought i'd share it.
Goose52 reply :
Quote.....but the children and grandchildren of the original "hard to catch" bass became even harder yet to catch, with the last generation being the MOST difficult to catch.
Interesting indeed. I don't know whether the fish get smarter - but it sure sounds like a more of the "caution" or "wary" instinct is passed down. Something that makes the bass take just a little better look at the bait to see if it's legitimate prey.
Did the article state where the study was conducted? I wonder if some of my little lakes are the "test ponds" for that last generation of the "hard to catch" bass... ;D
CJ reply :
I saw a TV show last week talking about the same study. I find it very interesting. Similar studies have also shown this to be true with other predators such as coyotes. I wonder how similar studies would go with prey animals? Perhaps it's part of how mother nature is balanced?
KU_Bassmaster. reply :
Very interesting indeed.
And also a new excuse I can add to my repertoire to lakes I don't do well at. ;D
paul. reply :
the study was actually conducted in illinois. and i have often wondered myself when i am going to get lucky and find the stupid fish. ;D and ku, you are so right. at the very least we have another excuse for crappy fishing. too funny. ;D
Nibbles reply :
I'm not sure how this study is relevant to most fishermen. This is simply a case of artificial selection. The fish with certain traits that make them "harder to catch" are isolated from the rest of the fish and are bred with each other, which means their resultant offspring have a good chance of inheriting these traits. The offspring are then put through another artificial selection process where the ones that didn't inherit those traits are removed from the controlled environment's gene pool again. When the process is repeated several times, logic dictates that the fish will eventually all possess a bunch of traits that make them harder to catch.
However, what those "traits" actually are is debatable. Perhaps it is intelligence. Perhaps it is aggression. After all, less aggressive bass do tend to be harder to catch. All this study proves is that the catchability of a bass depends on certain traits that a bass possesses. It does not prove what those traits are. Also, this experiment was conducted in a controlled environment with controlled breeding, whereas wild bass are free to breed with any other bass they choose. So honestly, I'm not sure how significant the results of this study really are when you take that into account.
bassfisherjk reply :
Neat theory Paul,Thanks.
clipper reply :
If I am interpreting the results of this study correctly, it indicates that killing and eating bass from a fishery will eventually make the fish in that fishery harder to catch. If "catchability" and aggression are related it could also mean the average fish size will become smaller due to the less aggressive bass getting less to eat. My last assumption would, of course, be affected by the availability of forage species in the fishery.
Now that they have determined that "chatchability" is genetic, I would like to see another study done on two ponds with identical forage levels. Pond "A" would be managed as a "kill and eat" fishery maintaining a healthy population of bass. Pond "B" would be strictly "catch and release" but the population would be managed at the same level as Pond "A" by electrofishing. The "catchabillity" levels of both ponds would be monitored and recorded for several years.
Nibbles reply :
QuoteIf I am interpreting the results of this study correctly, it indicates that killing and eating bass from a fishery will eventually make the fish in that fishery harder to catch.
The study doesn't guarantee that, in the sense that the study was conducted in a heavily controlled environment where the bass with "hard-to-catch" traits were prevented from breeding with bass with "easy-to-catch" traits. You'd have to consistently remove enough bass from a fishery with "easy-to-catch" traits that the "hard-to-catch" bass have no "easy-to-catch" bass left to breed with in order to have similar results to those in the study.
Also, just because a bass is "hard-to-catch" doesn't mean that they won't get caught at all. It's virtually impossible to determine what percentage of the fish caught and eaten were of the "easy-to-catch" or "hard-to-catch" variety.
All this study proves, IMO, is that there exists the possibility of bass becoming harder to catch if large amounts of bass are caught and eaten from a particular fishery.
paul. reply :
actually this brings up a very interesting question and i'd be curious to get some opinions on this.
do y'all think that there is such a thing as a bass that is totally uncatchable? are there bass out there that die of old age without ever having been caught?
if so, is it because of the area of the lake they choose to inhabit (a place where most people wouldn't think to fish for example) or is it because of the times they feed (take for example a fish that prefers to feed mostly at night) or is it because of these "traits", whatever they are, that make them less likely to bite?
i think a fish that lived in a "strange" location that most anglers wouldn't think to fish that fed mostly at night and possessed the "hard to catch" trait(s) would be next to impossible to catch and could conceivably die of old age without ever having a hook in its mouth. but i could be wrong.
what do y'all think?
BassShephard reply :
I find this interesting, its like breeds of dogs, you breed them with others that have similar traits in order to get the best temperament and workability. Personally once I have my own pond, only bass I catch (not from private waters of course) will be stocked so I know what is going in the pond.
@paul I honesty think some large fish go uncaught all their life, or once their caught they get wise/wary, but that is just an opinion. However this is fact, I've caught bass 3 times is a row before, that may be a little over the top having fish with those genetics. If you catch a fish once, you don't need to catch him again till at least a week or more, otherwise its not a sport.
JamesH reply :
QuoteI'm not sure how this study is relevant to most fishermen. This is simply a case of artificial selection. The fish with certain traits that make them "harder to catch" are isolated from the rest of the fish and are bred with each other, which means their resultant offspring have a good chance of inheriting these traits. The offspring are then put through another artificial selection process where the ones that didn't inherit those traits are removed from the controlled environment's gene pool again. When the process is repeated several times, logic dictates that the fish will eventually all possess a bunch of traits that make them harder to catch.However, what those "traits" actually are is debatable. Perhaps it is intelligence. Perhaps it is aggression. After all, less aggressive bass do tend to be harder to catch. All this study proves is that the catchability of a bass depends on certain traits that a bass possesses. It does not prove what those traits are. Also, this experiment was conducted in a controlled environment with controlled breeding, whereas wild bass are free to breed with any other bass they choose. So honestly, I'm not sure how significant the results of this study really are when you take that into account.
I think it is very relevant. The test was trying to prove a point. The existence of catchable more aggressive hunters verses the less aggressive more wary uncatchable bass. They could not even come to the public with the idea with out testing. A study test can not be considered legit unless it is fully controlled.
The first round of separation and spawn was to see if the traits are inherent, the second round was to back up the first.
Now, picture this. A country pond that is well balanced with bass and prey. It is never fished, ever. These bass would most likely be highly catchable. For, over many many generations there has been no need to be wary of any dangers. No, prey items have pulled them out of the water and they are the apex predator of the environment.
Now, a large reservoir with tons of boats, countless of anglers, constant water level change. In larger, heavily fished, bodies of water generally the bass are not only predators but also prey. With gators and gar in the south and pike and muskie in the north. This piece of water is going to lean towards the uncatchalble bass over many generations.
Now, both scenarios would obviously have both traits available but leaning heavily towards one or the other.
How is it relevant for us? Depends on what types of waters you are fishing. Every piece of water lies some where between both scenarios. This could be why most anything will catch bass in the farm ponds and 1 million techniques are used on the large reservoirs.
Morelures reply :
Thanks Paul I like the idea behind the study.
Not sure if this answers anything you may be thinking about, but as most people know and I have experienced first hand fishing pressure definitely plays a role on your catching rate. I use to sneek into this lake by my house that was off limits to fishing. I would catch fish every other cast it seemed like. But once they opened it to the public, the fishing got super hard. I think all the fish pulled off the banks from all the pressure. Even now when I see the fish schooling in packs to feed they will not come shallow. I really think this has to do with all the people beating the banks to death. I think they become custom to what is going on and adapt to it. The only time I see fish shallow on this lake now is during the spawn. And even when they are on there beds, they wont strike like most fish that are not seeing people everyday.
Nibbles reply :
QuoteQuoteI'm not sure how this study is relevant to most fishermen. This is simply a case of artificial selection. The fish with certain traits that make them "harder to catch" are isolated from the rest of the fish and are bred with each other, which means their resultant offspring have a good chance of inheriting these traits. The offspring are then put through another artificial selection process where the ones that didn't inherit those traits are removed from the controlled environment's gene pool again. When the process is repeated several times, logic dictates that the fish will eventually all possess a bunch of traits that make them harder to catch.However, what those "traits" actually are is debatable. Perhaps it is intelligence. Perhaps it is aggression. After all, less aggressive bass do tend to be harder to catch. All this study proves is that the catchability of a bass depends on certain traits that a bass possesses. It does not prove what those traits are. Also, this experiment was conducted in a controlled environment with controlled breeding, whereas wild bass are free to breed with any other bass they choose. So honestly, I'm not sure how significant the results of this study really are when you take that into account.
I think it is very relevant. The test was trying to prove a point. The existence of catchable more aggressive hunters verses the less aggressive more wary uncatchable bass. They could not even come to the public with the idea with out testing. A study test can not be considered legit unless it is fully controlled.
The first round of separation and spawn was to see if the traits are inherent, the second round was to back up the first.
Now, picture this. A country pond that is well balanced with bass and prey. It is never fished, ever. These bass would most likely be highly catchable. For, over many many generations there has been no need to be wary of any dangers. No, prey items have pulled them out of the water and they are the apex predator of the environment.
Now, a large reservoir with tons of boats, countless of anglers, constant water level change. In larger, heavily fished, bodies of water generally the bass are not only predators but also prey. With gators and gar in the south and pike and muskie in the north. This piece of water is going to lean towards the uncatchalble bass over many generations.
Now, both scenarios would obviously have both traits available but leaning heavily towards one or the other.
How is it relevant for us? Depends on what types of waters you are fishing. Every piece of water lies some where between both scenarios. This could be why most anything will catch bass in the farm ponds and 1 million techniques are used on the large reservoirs.
You're assuming that the traits that make a bass easy to catch for us are necessarily ones that make them more susceptible to predation. You're also making the assumption that the bass with traits that make them easy to catch are necessarily being eaten by predators and being kept by fishermen at a rate faster than they can be replaced. In the controlled study, the scientists removed a whole group of fish all at once, and repeated the procedure several times. In real life scenarios, these "easy to catch" bass will be removed at a steady rate over time and not all at once - and that's not even taking into account the consideration that they may or may not be removed at a rate faster than they can be replaced.
Also, we don't know whether the traits that make a bass easier to catch by fishermen have any impact on their breeding habits. For instance, aggressive bass might be easier to catch, but their aggressive nature may or may not also improve their chances of breeding.
JamesH reply :
QuoteYou're assuming that the traits that make a bass easy to catch for us are necessarily ones that make them more susceptible to predation. You're also making the assumption that the bass with traits that make them easy to catch are necessarily being eaten by predators and being kept by fishermen at a rate faster than they can be replaced. In the controlled study, the scientists removed a whole group of fish all at once, and repeated the procedure several times. In real life scenarios, these "easy to catch" bass will be removed at a steady rate over time and not all at once - and that's not even taking into account the consideration that they may or may not be removed at a rate faster than they can be replaced.Also, we don't know whether the traits that make a bass easier to catch by fishermen have any impact on their breeding habits. For instance, aggressive bass might be easier to catch, but their aggressive nature may or may not also improve their chances of breeding.
With that take on everything, then we essentially know nothing about anything. Of course there are still questions out there. How else are they supposed to find out if catchable verses not catchable is heritable with out a FULLY CONTROLLED TEST? Any other way would be impossible. And no where in the study did it say "Hey nibbles, use this info to your advantage for you fishing hobby." They collected data and presented it. Thats it. You decide to dismiss it because not every fact is answered. I decide to use what they give me to make educated assumptions, or to add to what they have already presented. It's called progress.
Nibbles reply :
QuoteQuoteYou're assuming that the traits that make a bass easy to catch for us are necessarily ones that make them more susceptible to predation. You're also making the assumption that the bass with traits that make them easy to catch are necessarily being eaten by predators and being kept by fishermen at a rate faster than they can be replaced. In the controlled study, the scientists removed a whole group of fish all at once, and repeated the procedure several times. In real life scenarios, these "easy to catch" bass will be removed at a steady rate over time and not all at once - and that's not even taking into account the consideration that they may or may not be removed at a rate faster than they can be replaced.Also, we don't know whether the traits that make a bass easier to catch by fishermen have any impact on their breeding habits. For instance, aggressive bass might be easier to catch, but their aggressive nature may or may not also improve their chances of breeding.
With that take on everything, then we essentially know nothing about anything. Of course there are still questions out there. How else are they supposed to find out if catchable verses not catchable is heritable with out a FULLY CONTROLLED TEST? Any other way would be impossible. And no where in the study did it say "Hey nibbles, use this info to your advantage for you fishing hobby." They collected data and presented it. Thats it. You decide to dismiss it because not every fact is answered. I decide to use what they give me to make educated assumptions, or to add to what they have already presented. It's called progress.
I never said anything about the researchers in this study claiming that this data could be used to my advantage for my fishing hobby. I was pointing out that this study might not be all that useful to most bass fishermen. I am saying that we should be wary of drawing too many conclusions from this study.
You can make all the assumptions you want based on the data if you so choose. I would caution others to do so conservatively or to not jump to conclusions at all, taking into account some of the unknowns I have pointed out.
I do, to some extent, understand where you're coming from. It's just that my brain is wired in a way that makes me particularly anal when it comes to research.
Perhaps this will give you an idea of where I'm coming from:
Take for example, the disease Pellagra, which is caused by a niacin deficiency. During the 1900's, it was a fairly big problem in the United States, notably in the south. Part of the reason was due to the rise in popularity of finely bolted, degerminated, cornmeal, which lacked the sufficient niacin that the coarse ground meal had. Medical professionals and researchers eventually took notice of the relationship between diets heavy in cornmeal and the incidence of Pellagra. However, many of them mistakenly attributed the cause of Pellagra to cornmeal being contaminated with something that caused Pellagra.
Now picture this: A researcher in those times conducts a controlled experiment to study Pellagra. He has two groups of volunteers. One group is fed a diet of predominantly cornmeal, and develops Pellagra. The experimental group is fed a diet of predominantly bread and potatoes, and stays healthy. When the control group's diet is altered to match the experimental group's, they recover from the disease.
Now, what has the researcher truly proven? He has proven that a diet consisting predominantly of cornmeal is linked with Pellagra. He has not proven, however, that a diet consisting predominantly cornmeal necessarily CAUSES Pellagra - it is actually the niacin deficiency that causes it. After all, if he gave his control group niacin supplements, they would not develop Pellagra. Also, the general consensus at the time was that Pellagra was caused either by poisons in the cornmeal, microscopic organisms, or mold. Going along with that, it would be very easy to use this research data to make an "educated" assumption that it is indeed some form of contaminant in the corn that causes Pellagra. This assumption, however, would be absolutely wrong.
jignpig_72 reply :
Interesting read. :-/
JamesH reply :
QuoteNow, what has the researcher truly proven? He has proven that a diet consisting predominantly of cornmeal is linked with Pellagra.
And I am saying these researchers have proved catchable and non catchable to be heritable. That's it. Now it is up to further research to find out what factors contribute to each characteristic to be expressed. Just like further research was needed to find out the lack of niacin in the cornmeal was the culprit.
I can make my own educated assumptions as to why these genes are expressed. And I think everyone else has the right to also. The food chain/ eco-system pressures for behavior are a lot easier to decipher than the cause of disease.
We could talk circles about this subject all day but its obvious they will never touch. So, to each there own. I am one who like to encourage people to soak up information and make their own conclusions and you are not. If everyone sat around and waited for someone else to find the answers for them where would we be?
senile1 reply :
If this is the Illinois study, we had a thread or two about this one a year or two ago. I find it very intriguing and relevant.
senile1 reply :
Below is the link to the previous thread regarding this study. I have also included a link for an article about the study. Paul is this the same one?
http://www.bassresource.com/bass_fishing_forums/YaBB.pl?num=1239807122/0
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090414153532.htm
SENKOSAM reply :
d**n!! and I thought I was the olny geek that posted mind bending topics! Thanks Paul - I don't feel so all alone. LOL
Getting back to proving that genetics affects intelligence and innate lure aggression, a few variables were left out:
1. fish caught on live bait. Are bass more wary?
2. fish response to a large variety of presentations and lure designs.
3. interbreeding affects on aggression and memory (long and short term). According to Keith Jones, bass in general can be sensitized to specific lure types even after a year goes by. Some lures more than others.
4. Will the same bass in a group respond the same way in different natural environments with different water quality and weed type?
5. Is it even possible that fish can become line and hook shy?
6. Will fishing pressure skew results?
paul. reply :
yeah, that's the same study i think.
J Francho reply :
Yeah, this was hashed out over a year ago, but its an interesting topic. I REALLY think the author had ulterior motives on this one.
Paul, NAFC......really? Sorry, blech!
Nibbles reply :
Quoted**n!! and I thought I was the olny geek that posted mind bending topics! Thanks Paul - I don't feel so all alone. LOLGetting back to proving that genetics affects intelligence and innate lure aggression, a few variables were left out:
1. fish caught on live bait. Are bass more wary?
2. fish response to a large variety of presentations and lure designs.
3. interbreeding affects on aggression and memory (long and short term). According to Keith Jones, bass in general can be sensitized to specific lure types even after a year goes by. Some lures more than others.
4. Will the same bass in a group respond the same way in different natural environments with different water quality and weed type?
5. Is it even possible that fish can become line and hook shy?
6. Will fishing pressure skew results?
Wow, even more stuff I overlooked.
Case and point - this data from the research is really cool, and will be extremely useful to future research. How useful the data at this point is to the everyday fisherman though, I'm not sure.
SENKOSAM reply :
QuoteCase and point - this data from the research is really cool, and will be extremely useful to future research. How useful the data at this point is to the everyday fisherman though, I'm not sure.
Me neither. The only research that interests me is bass senses. They might not have much sense, but they can sure tell a crankbait from a jig!
Can you relate a turned off body of water to the results of the study Paul brought up or have the active fish sometimes all turned inactive the day we go out?
Sonar/Lunar tables anyone? 
paul. reply :
QuoteYeah, this was hashed out over a year ago, but its an interesting topic. I REALLY think the author had ulterior motives on this one.Paul, NAFC......really? Sorry, blech!
lol. please don't hold it against me J. ;D
Fish Chris reply :
Paul, I've read other studies on the same thing. In-Fishermen has done a couple. Yes, I find it very interesting. On the other hand, while I totally believe that this does take place, it is of such an obscure nature, that you would never be able to change peoples minds about their fishing practices based on it.
Oh and
Quotedo y'all think that there is such a thing as a bass that is totally uncatchable? are there bass out there that die of old age without ever having been caught?
No. I think every bass is catchable.
Yes, absolutely, a few big, old fish will die of old age, without ever being caught.... or at the very least, maybe only being caught, but lucky enough to have been released, early on in life. In fact, maybe those experiences "wised them up" and made it more likely that they would not be caught again later in life.
This one was found floating in one of my trophy bass ponds... It weighed 19.2 lbs, and it was almost certainly heavier when alive {if a bass bloats to the point it starts floating, this means that lighter gasses, have pushed heavier liquids out of the fish. This is why it floats}
Fish
WRB reply :
The question regarding uncatchable bass; consider how many big bass you see during the spawn verses how many big bass are caught between July to November during day light hours.
Every lake, river or pond has a population of the biggest bass for that ecosystem that die of old age, that may never been caught.
The least catchable bass are venerable during the spawn because they reproducing in shallow water and not feeding. Ounce the spawn is over a percentage of these big bass disappear and not seen again until the following spawn.
The question is did these bass learn at an early age how to survive or is it a genetic trait? I believe it's a combination of being genetically wary and learning to avoid negative prey responses like lures and live baits with a hook.
Keep in mind that bass in public waters get pounded with fishing pressure. The most aggressive bass get caught several times during it's life until it's killed by being over stressed or eaten. Very few bass that are reckless feeders live long enough to grow big.
Tom
related General Bass Fishing Forum topic
next topic
most viewed General Bass Fishing Forum topic
© 2024 - fishing.qciss.net. All Rights Reserved.