|
|
Posts: 1237
Location: South Portsmouth, KY | Power Pro has got a superline out now that is red. it is supposed be be Invisible underwater. The article attached says that it becomes Invisible in 15ft of water. Now if i am reading this correctly does it not become Invisible in water less than 15ft? here is a link to the article. thanks for any info.
http://www.powerpro.com/press/news/details.asp?PP_PRESS_NEWS_ID=25
Edited by muskie_man 9/27/2006 8:09 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 158
Location: Carney, Mi (in da UP eh!) | SeaKingUltra fishing lines from FNT Industries has had a red superline out for a couple of years now, it's available in either 14# or 42#, it's made in Marinette, WI. I have been using the 42# red for the last couple of years with good performance on my bucktail rods....Randy | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Marketing based anthropomorphism in a fashion I have not seen in awhile. Premise is that the fish, like you or me, after reasoning things through would not hit a lure if the line were visible. I'm sorry, but muskies are not able to reason well enough to make that connection or decision. In fact, they can't reason or problem solve at all. If they could, we'd never catch one.
Nice marketing angle though. | |
| | |
| If Muskies can't reason or problem solve, how do they become conditioned to baits? and they do become conditioned to baits or there would not be no bait industry. With your theory we should caught them all long ago on anything we threw. | |
| | |
Posts: 2091
Location: Stevens Point, WI | Think of it this way, a muskie see's baitfish all the time such as ciscoe, bullhead, sucker what have you and yet they still go after them to eat them. | |
| | |
Posts: 7038
Location: Northwest Chicago Burbs | If Muskies can't reason or problem solve, how do they become conditioned to baits? and they do become conditioned to baits or there would not be no bait industry. With your theory we should caught them all long ago on anything we threw.
Or is it possible that the fish arent "conditioned" to baits, they're just not eating in the ways they used to......and is it possible that we catch fish on baits that go by muskie's faces at the right speed and depth that they're at, moving across their faces when they're hungry? | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The term 'conditioned' is thrown around alot, but I don't think it's as simple as many people think.
There are two types of conditioning; operant and classical. Most folks assume the case of a fish becoming 'conditioned' to a lure or capture after hitting that lure would be classical conditioning, like Pavlov's dogs salivating when a bell rings after a repeated stimulous of ring bell-wait-feed dog. Since there is not necessarily immediate reinforcement, and classical conditioning takes repeated exposure to the stimulous, that would be the reaction I get from my aquarium fish when I walk in the room; they crowd the glass looking for a bag of minnows whether there are minnows in the tank already or not, and many times don't actively feed when I DO release new minnows because they already have fed or there are already enough minnows in the tank. It takes a 'new' fish about a month or more to begin displaying that response to the stimulous of me walking into the room. Interestingly, if Keith's dog walks into the room, those fish react exactly the same way, eg:
'Classical conditioning is built on creating relationships by association over trials. Some people confuse Classical Conditioning with Reinforcement Theory. To keep them separated just look for the presence of rewards and punishments.' (source:http://www.as.wvu.edu/~sbb/comm221/chapters/pavlov.htm)
What we're talking about here is literally 'training' the fish. I have a difficult time accepting the number of training cycles or stimulous/response/ cycles in a short enough period of time would 'condition' a muskie to avoid a particular lure design or type and that's not classical conditioning anyway. I also question that the stimulous will be consistent, a necessary component of classical conditioning. It took my newest crappie over TWO moths to associate movement in the tank room to the arrival of a new bag of minnows.
So in a literal sense, when you say a fish has 'become conditioned' to a bait you are perhaps suggesting operant conditioning, based on stimulous/response/ positive/negative reinforcement. First, let's be clear, a muskie has no frontal lobes or brain mass area that would suggest the capacity for 'emotion'. To assume a fish would condition like a human was what my comment was all about, that assumption is called anthropomorphism, or lending human attributes in another creature.
In order for there to be conditioning, there has to be a stimulous/event. 'Classical conditioning forms an association between two stimuli. Operant conditioning forms an association between a behavior and a consequence. (It is also called response-stimulus or RS conditioning because it forms an association between the animal's response [behavior] and the stimulus that follows [consequence])'
Source:http://www.wagntrain.com/OC/#Operant.
In order for the muskie to 'learn' to avoid a particular lure, hitting that lure in rsponse to the stimulous the lure provided has to be followed by a punsiher (capture?) and the sequence needs to be repeated and the consequence immediate and consistent. The behavior the fish would then have to avoid is strike response or feeding(unconditioned/automatic hard wired responses), depending on the level of activity the fish is experiencing at the time the lure was presented. If, indeed, the LINE IS VISIBLE to the fish (how this subject was started) was somehow associated with the negative of the capture, it's possible the fish would eventually, after several events, asociate line with a 'punisher', but MAN that's a stretch; (remember, no frontal lobes and reasoning as we accept it at a bare minimum) if that was so, muskies would:
1) Almost never get caught in the first place, mental capacity would be high enough for the fish to reason out the fact the lure, which by the way behaves absolutely NOTHING like anything the fish feeds upon, is dangerous because it is tied to line and is to be avoided.
2) Would almost certainly NEVER be recaptured after hitting the net once, negating the idea C&R works for us as muskie anglers, because the fish would avoid angling capture forever after one event.
3) Have to avoid a response that is NOT conditioned, but is 'unconditioned response', hardwired into the muskie and just plain a reality. The Muskie HAS to feed to survive, reacts to the lure stimulous with strike response, the level of which is determined by environmental factors like sun/moon/earth relationships, rising and falling light levels, barometric pressure movement, etc.
This entire process also begs the discussion of the muskie's memory, and how long a reinforcer or punisher will be 'remembered'. As an example, some muskies seem to 'learn' over the course of a couple weeks to avoid the lead on a fyke net, and some don't. Some are caught multiple times, others only once during the time the nets are deployed, hence the fin clip.The next time the nets are deployed, many of those fish that MAY (perhaps after release the fish left the area?) have avoided the net after exposure the year before swim right back in to the thing.
Adjusting to the every day environs has alot to do with the idea of stimulous/response as well. If a lure is truly new to the water, the stimulous has never been experienced and therefore is the strongest the first time. With repeated exposure, like 1000 anglers in a year casting bucktails over the fish, the response is assumed to be lessened due to frequency of exposure, but not enough to eliminate a feeding or strike response if things are 'right'. I did a little experiment to display this concept; I had a loud chime style clock by the fish tank. When a new fish was introduced, the bells on the hour would SOMETIMES freak it out and cause a startle type reaction. After about a week, that reaction would begin to lessen and the cease altogether. I took the clock out for a couple months, and then returned it, and got the same cyle repeated. Perhaps the fish 'forgot'?
Finally, in answer to guest's last comment, we DO catch them on anything we throw. Have everyone on Webster throw a Daredevil, a big one, work it like a bulldawg and I bet alot of muskies will be caught on that lure. It will be the NEW hot bait, deja vu all over again...  | |
| | |
Posts: 8781
| The reason there is a lure industry has little to do with fish becoming "conditioned", and everything to do with getting fishermen to buy the hot new bait because they think it will catch more fish than the 200 other hot new baits he or she has.
If the fish still haven't figured out after all these years that bucktails and suicks aren't food, they're not going to figure out that something with fishing line attached to it isn't food.
| |
| | |
| Excellent explanation Steve...
also, if may i also quote you from the pittsburgh '05 seminar??
not verbatem, but:
brain the size of a pea
eats
breeds
swims
we're not dealing with overly evolved fish here....red line, white line, green line.....it's all a "catch" on our wallets.
they'll eat when they want to...if you put your lure there or near them when that time is upon them....they'll bite. go fishing, CPR and be happy!!!!
this year, i didnt use black marker to color my first 4 feet of line up to the leader....caught just as many fish, actually more.
the ONLY thing i could see helping a bait look a little less "conspicuous" would be flourocarbon leaders, but....no matter what everyone is saying about them, i just cant trust something that i can cut with a butterknife as a leader.
if red line puts you in the zone or gives you that added edge...then use it. i don't see where it could make a difference in the type of fishing we do. MAYBE red line with flouro leaders for deep trolling walleyes and lakers, etc would make sense.......MAYBE...but thats a whole different thing there.
good luck this fall everyone
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think bright red line would look really REALLY cool on the reel, and might try a spool just for that purpose. When one looks as inconspicuous as I do, everythig helps! | |
| | |
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "Amphamor" What?
WOW, thats the biggest word I've ever seen used on a web message board yet. | |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | Red line (or red anything) is NOT invisible under water. It just isn't red anymore, it appears to be a dark gray color. The red end of the visible light spectrum is absorbed rather quickly in water, hence the reflected light off the 'red' line isn't red. But the line is still very noticable.
It's kinda like looking at a black and white TV (yep, ages me I know); colors weren't invisible - just varying shades of gray.
S. | |
| | |
Posts: 385
| It will only start out red anyway. Powerpro turns almost white after a few uses. Did they change the formula so the line will hols its color? I can see it now, after a day of fishing you look like you ate a bag of red pistachios. | |
| | |
Posts: 8781
| True enough.
And just think -- between day one and that point where it has finally turned white you'll be fishing with bright pink line.
Won't THAT be fun?
 | |
| | |
Posts: 158
Location: Carney, Mi (in da UP eh!) | Your right Steve, Red line looks cool when spooled up....Wait until I add it to my wifes Christmas presents the Violet/Purple colored Abu 5600c4le...might be so bright I'll have to wear shades....Randy | |
| | |
| Are walleyes and bluegills, who are notoriously line shy smarter than Muskies then? I don't get it. Seriously. | |
| | |
Posts: 8781
| They're not smarter, you're just fishing for them in a situation where they have time to look at their prey before they decide to eat it (or not eat it).
| |
| | |
| you're just fishing for them in a situation where they have time to look at their prey before they decide to eat it (or not eat it).
so, when a musky follows slowly what are they "thinking"? like, hey look thats....THATS NOT REAL WE BETTER NOT EAT THAT!!!!???!?!?!?!?! | |
| | |
Posts: 8781
| If muskies are capable of any real thought, which I seriously doubt they are, it's probably more along the lines of "why isn't it trying to get away?"
| |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Guest One:
Most of the time it isn't the fact the line is visible, it's drop time and bait behavior that makes a smaller diameter line more effective, especially in ice fishing situations. Believe me, 2# isn't much less visible than 4#. I catch walleyes all the time on 17# florescent line with a 60# 7 strand leader and a 1/3 ounce jig and Creature, and I do mean all year long, clear and murky water.
Guest 2,
Another example of anthropomorphism.
The Muskie following your lure isn't 'thinking' anything, at least not as we understand the thought process. If that fish thought as you suggest, why then would some HIT on an 8 after a long follow? Why would that same fish HIT the SAME lure the next time you fish that area, if the fish has already 'decided' that presentation isn't 'real'?
You have elicited a dimished response instead of a strike or feeding response, and the magic of a figure 8 is the opportunity to heighten the response 'in progress' into a strike. the muskie has no idea what is 'real' and what is not, and isn't capable of the type of reasoning you suggest. Muskies are unique in that they respond by following a presentation more than other species, some feel because they use sight as the final stimulous and get right up close and personal to make visual contact. | |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Anthropomorphism.....just learned that word in Philosophy 380! Growing by leaps and bounds these days!
Mike | |
| | |
Posts: 1237
Location: South Portsmouth, KY | Pointerpride102 - 9/28/2006 6:43 PM
Anthropomorphism.....just learned that word in Philosophy 380! Growing by leaps and bounds these days!
Mike
Mike! What gives here!! You actually choose class over fishing!! You must be really sick today or something! LoL | |
| | |
Posts: 1270
| UPNuskyr, You should put the yellow SpiderWire Stealth on your wife's reel. It is almost chartruese and really stands out on a purple reel. | |
| | |
| 69.47.181.89 bite me
-----
MuskieFirst Editor's Note:
This post is from the same fellow who asked the questions about the ability of Muskies to reason, our good friend Guest from Minnesota. The IP he directs his response to is MuskieFIRST's. I don't get it, he asked a question and I did my level best to give an accurate answer as did several others. Oh well...
 | |
| | |
Posts: 502
Location: Lincoln UK | Our guest from MN was surely reacting to his number being posted, almost as a "we know who you are" comment.
Fish do see colour completely differently to us, we can guess at just what they see but will never know for sure. A friend who really knows his scientific stuff reckons they see red as black but then what do they see black as? Moreover there are companies that would have you believe that their red hooks actually stand out as a signal to the predator then there are companies who tell us red is invisible. I wonder if they are studying these matters or just looking for a marketing trick. | |
| | |
Posts: 1335
Location: Chicago, Beverly | well, in response to Chico's question about red hooks, it really matters as to which hooks you speak of.. The Red Tin plated hooks that are so popular I personally don't see as usefull on deep divers.. maybe up towards the top of the water column might act as a attractant(maybe), but not down low.. but then when you get the Hooks as done by Luretech, different story altogether, those fish are seeing those red hooks down deep... So in short, Red tin = marketing gimmick, red hooks by luretech= fish in the boat.. sadly luretech does not make musky sized hooks at this time... as for line, I am sticking with what I trust..blacks, greens and grays in most water and blues in ultra clear like the lakes in iowa until this phantom red stuff has been around a while... and like Chico mentioned, fish DO see differently then us.. its figuring out how to use that to your advantage that is key... | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, freshwater fish don't see THAT much differently as far as color receptors go according to what I have read. The big color issue is the removal of wavelengths by the prism effect of water. I don't care who makes a red hook, in depths where red no longer is available in the spectrum, those hooks CANNOT be 'red'. Perfectly clear water, high noon on a calm day, at the bottom in 10' a Coke can is black and silver.
Issues?
Fish have a fixed iris much like a 35MM camera lens with the shutter open wide. They don't adjust like our iris does to increasing and decreasing light, they are stuck with what light is available. They also cannot focus on close objects as quickly as we do, their eye adjusts much more slowly.(exception; trout and salmon) They see WAY better than we do in low light, and on a clock basis ( not light based) the color receptors recede (cone cells) and the monochrome receptors (rod cells) extend, allowing the fish to see well in very low light. Hit them with a spot light, and they are light blinded as a result, big time.
What's the last color to be removed by the prism effect? Blues and violets. So logically, one might think a blue or violet lure would be the most visible. But in deep, clear water, EVERYTHING is blue to violet, right?
I think contrast is really important when fishing for sight feeders like Muskies, so I try to contrast with the background. Open water background=blue, so I go with what is a constant, black or white, or at least have a good idea what the lure I'm throwing looks like in very low light. | |
| | |
Posts: 1335
Location: Chicago, Beverly | Steve, woulda helped to have looked into the hooks I mentioned before responding.. a red hook by luretech is red in 30 foot of water or 3, thus why i mentioned red hooks by luretech vs red tin hooks.. | |
| | |
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | kevin, I did check out the Luretech stuff, I've fished with them in the winter.
If there is no red wavelength in 30', how could an object in 30' be red?
There are a number of products out there now that can be 'charged' with a light source, and have a constantly reducing 'afterglow', called PHOTOLUMINESCENT coatings. Since the product emits light, there are coatings made that glow orange/red after a charge. I have used those ice fishing, and found that on camera, the light emitted was pretty minimal and the color almost impossible to detect, probably because the jigs are pretty small and the wavelength 'created' by the glow jig was pretty rapidly taken out by the water prism effect. Other issues in being able to see the glow jig was particulate, ambient light, and absorption of the light emitted. I also found that the effectiveness during the daylight hours with a hot charge was WAY better than at night when of course the fish can't see color anyway. On camera the fish seem to shy away from a hot charged jig once the light under the ice is minimal, maybe because of light sensitivity. For some reason, the green was the most effective. I carry a little push button LED light to 'charge' the jigs.
That the product you are talking about?
By the way, Dr. Jerry Bucholtz, a heck of a doctor and a really good stick and I spoke awhile (few years, actually) back about his investigation into the Muskie's ability to see in the UV specrum. He felt that there was a structure, something to do with the triangular arrangement of cells in the Muskie's eye, that led him to believe they might, to a degree.
If they actually can, UV coatings may be hot, and may be not, because we don't have a clue what that vision is used for. | |
| | |
| SteveW.
I have read some research that suggests that 'punishment' is remembered much better than 'positive reinforcement' (not conducted on fish though).
The researchers surmised that avoidance of something that could potentially kill you is much more important than missing an opportunity at a meal. In other words, the experience of 'punishment' is remembered more strongly and much longer than the experience of 'positive reinforcement'.
Thoughts about the applicability to muskies?
BrianF. | |
| | |
Posts: 663
| sworrall - 9/28/2006 10:47 AM
I think bright red line would look really REALLY cool on the reel, and might try a spool just for that purpose. When one looks as inconspicuous as I do, everythig helps!
I just had a guy buy a Garcia SSC3 reel (maroon/red) and put the Phantom red line on it. It DID look way cool. Now all he needs is a rod with a red or burgundy colored blank.
That part of the story is true. The next is just being goofy.
So what will the fish think? The fish will think you're a fashion guru and worthy of them striking your bait. Then they will think, "the last time I saw fishing line it wasn't red so this must be ok". Maybe they will also think "a guy who spends the dough to buy red line deserves a break". Is that enough examples Steve?
Edited by Pete Stoltman 10/7/2006 7:24 PM
| |
| |
|
Power Pro Phantom Red