|
|
| I have not yet laid hands on a manta nor had a chance to see one but have seen several posts that seem to indicate they are not drawing strikes the way people expect. I wonder if the "bow wave" so to speak is not sending the right message to the fish. I am curious as to whether or not anyone has tried a spinner of some type attached or anything on the front such as a clear plastic disc in an effort to change the emanations from this bait.
There seems to definitely be a point as the water cools where the eddie bait starts to come into its own and I consider that to be a
"no wake" bait compared to the reef hawg or something like a suick. I wonder if the bigger push off the face of some jerks say better things to the muskies than the more streamlined gliders? I also wonder if in dirty or stained type waters, the more streamlined baits are bringing fish in as well as the heavier pullers? | |
| | |
| WHEWWWW!!!! Thought I was the only one crazy enough to think about such an idea. I've thought about this too, especially after working dilligently last winter to write an article about the lateral line and how it affects us as musky fisherman. There is a great deal of information out there, some specific to the muskullunge itself, that goes into detail about frequency favorites and other very technical aspects in regard to the role the lateral line plays in musky feeding. Most of it is WAY too technical for a fisherman's use... but it can't hurt to take a peek.
Personally, I think the grooves in a reef hawg and Jerko do more than just help the bait dive and slow its glide. It also "churns" the water and makes a more turbulent wake.... something the Manta doesn't possess. The Manta, however, does have AWESOME action and I'm sure the many lookers it brings up is due to its great VISUAL appeal... but lacks the lateral line stimuli needed to seal the deal.
Fun stuff Man....
jlong | |
| | |
| Hey guys, great stuff. Something I never would have thought about. I have an uncle who thinks of that kind of stuff but I guess it doesn't run in the family. Something to keep in mind next time I'm out.
PS better tell Sponge not to read this. He may blow up.
Scott | |
| | |
| Whooooaaah, I had to scroll back up to see that it was FSF, and not jlong that posed the original question! Without getting too technical and going into wavelengths, vibration travel, and lateral lines (I'll leave that to Mr. Long!) here's my somewhat qualified assessment of the jerkbait debate.
While the Reef Hawg and others with grooves on the front, as well as baits with a more blunt face such as the Eddie may give off more vibration, the Manta, HRB and other sleek gliders also give off a very "audible" for lack of a better word, vibration. Think for a minute about a slimy, streamlined baitfish such as a shad. They flitter through the water giving off very little vibration also, but hordes of them are eaten by muskies. The commotion of the other jerkbaits may be an attractant, but if a muskie is hungry, it will eat whatever passes in it's feeding zone. I think the Manta will prove to be a very productive bait in due time.
Just my two cents. EJ | |
| | |
| Hee hee heeee....too late Scott 1 fiver fiver... already "read" it but like much of what I read, unless it is along the lines of "See Tom run" I cannot fathom the detailed intricacies of modern technology! To this I leave such to the likes of JLong + 1st6' who have the capability to decipher, ingest + then produce the maximum velocity in correct answers. Much like a real sponge I am a simple organism that lives day by day w/ the selector switch on rock n roll, finger on the trigger 'til the clip is empty....then I survey the day + start over again! [:sun:] | |
| | |
| Great post, FSF!!
The hooks on the bait make more noise than you might imagine, so that is a major factor, too. There is some pretty interesting stuff out there regarding the water displacement volume of the bait, also.
We covered alot of this last winter, and if my memory serves me, were unable to conclude too much. ALL presentations have a signature that include vibration, actual sound, color/contrast,reflection/refraction, contrast to background value, and the less than obvious stuff, too. Surpisingly, the Suick and Wade''s Wobbler were the loudest jerk/pull baits I recorded, and the Reef Hawg the quietest, using pressure mikes!
There are FAR too many variables to clearly pin down one portion or another of any presentation as the key to success, but it sure is fun to take educated shots at it!! | |
| | |
| Well what you record is hard to correlate with anything Sworrall, but I know when I work my suick, and my reefs that I have more resistance than with say the eddie baits, dancin shad, and tek neeks to name a short list. That in itself tells me i am moving more water with one than the others, and I am sure that is specific to my particular usage of those baits. Just thinking about my gliders as opposed to my harder jerks, and there must be a very different signal emitted.
Might it be that smooth equals healthy and turbulent equals struggling or distracted?
So far, after the initial excitement of everyone over "their" perception of how the bait worked, there does not seem to be any major catchin goin on.
Somebody try adding something to the bait to see if that will start them dinging. Maybe as little as a twister tail on one hook, or a tail spinner, or maybe something as major as a clear buzzbait blade cut down on the front.
Let me know how you do and if it works I'll spring for one LOL. | |
| | |
| A bit of history as to what I recorded and why:
I was teaching a three level 'fishing' course through the Nicolet College Tech, and also a series at Marquette, Wayne State, and Minneapolis. In the discussions there,we could explain and illustrate color, contrast, light value, reflective values, etc. for a bait(spectrograph), but could not explain why a particular model bait, produced mass as identically as possible, would catch all kinds of fish, and one exactly like it, no matter how one tuned it, would not.
The only variable left that we were able to measure was sound/vibration. We set a swimming pool up with 4 pressure microphones, two at the deep end on the bottom, and two center, on the bottom. Using a high quality quad reel to reel recorder(OK, I am dating this!)we recorded over 100 muskie baits as they traveled through the mike field.
The folks at the college and I played around with the tapes, and looked at frequencies, vibration patterns, and plain old decibles. What I learned was that a particular bait I had success with had one or more distinct differences in the sound/vibration signature from the lesser successful 'identical' bait. Without any actual control group study, there is nothing more to prove by that except there actually WAS a difference, and it could be measured and illustrated.
The Suick was by FAR and away the loudest, most vibration, too, mostly from hardware contact with the body of the lure. The Reef Hawg was the quietest, for the same reason. I was testing two reef Hawgs that Mike had given to me, and had caught a ton of fish! ( I like that bait on Pelican in the Fall)
SO>>> what does all this mean? I do not have a clue, but as I said, it is fun to take educated stabs at what might be happening!
I tried the same project with Microphones glassed in to the hull of my boat, but the ambient 'noise' was prohibitive.
FSF, I was NOT disagreeing with you, only tossing in my 2 cents worth. | |
| | |
| What, and the sonic booms of the jerbait hitting the water is not enough.[:bigsmile:]
Some great points here on a good subject. I for one like a good side to side, but I will always catch fish on them "doing a change up". Making the bait pop head down and then head up and then side to side again. Even better when the bait pop the surface a little. Maybe this is what give the change in pitch that breaks them out of there lullabyes.[;)] | |
| | |
| I can tell you that I will no longer worry about kids throwing a few stones in the water in the area I am fishing after fishing an UNDERTAKER<> the thing hits the water like a concrete block, and proceeds to catch fish... | |
| | |
| I won''t hold myself out as an expert on the senses of fish in general and muskies in particular, but I have had some exposure to the science acoustics and hearing. Normal undamaged human ears hear sounds in the 20Hz to 20Khz range. The higer the frequency the higher the pitch and vice versa. It''s been along time since I have studied this so if I goof and someone catchs it please correct me.
Tied in with frequency is something called wavelength. Or the phyiscal distance that a sound, at a given frequency, travels during the timespan for that sound to complete one cycle. Low frequency sounds have a long wave length and will travel much farther than high frequency sounds. That is why you hear the bass from the stereo''s the kids put in their "boom cars" from farther away than you can hear the guitars or keyboards or singing. The bass is at a lower frequency thus it has a longer wavelength and travels farther than the treble.The same holds true for radio waves. As I said human hearing is 20hz(bass) to 20khz(treble). Above and below this our ears can''t hear.But with the low frequencyies we can "feel" the bass. Ever notice how some songs with a lot of bass make the house vibrate and you can feel the air move in the room in time with the bass? Now you can''t "hear" the air move but you feel it, right? I suppose that its the same with a fishs lateral line. Now remember that water is denser than air and sound travels through water farther and faster than through air.
I don''t know what frequncys a jerkbait makes as it travels through the water. Sworrel has used mics to tape the noise the baits make. We can hear these sounds with our ears as they fall into the 20Hz to 20khz range of hearing. As he points out these noises are made by the hooks, hookhangers, rattels,etc. But as the bait moves through the water it also displaces the water, just as the very low bass frequencies that we can''t hear but can feel displaces the air. The displacement of the water should also create pressure waves in the water that the fish can feel, just as we feel the displacement of the air. Because these are very low frequencies with corrisponding long wavelengths the fish should be able to "feel" our baits from a long ways away. We "feel" the air move when the wind blows, though we can''t reach out and touch it. The same with the water displacement and fish. They should be able to "feel" the water "blow" from the movement of our baits. This sensation is neither touch or hearing but none the less we can "feel" the bass and the air move. I would imagine that some baits project pressure waves, through the water,that are closer to the waves that are projected by living bait than other baits do. These baits should get eaten more often than the ones that don''t "feel" natural. Hope this all makes sense and helpls
| |
| | |
| One farther point to my post above. Muskies and pike due to their length have a long lateral line. As I said low frequnecy, long wavelentgh sounds, travel farther. I wonder if it''s possible that the length of the lateral lines of the fish correspond with these very low frequncies that are produced when fish swim? Is there a phyisical relationship between the wavelenth of a minnows swimming and the lenght of the muskies lateral line, if so then the muskie is "tuned" into the frequency of the minnows, in much the same way we tune our radios from one station to the next. Boy now that would be a scientific break through on how fish feed and relate to their enviroment. Sorry about all the misspellings. | |
| | |
| Oh, no disagreement here with what was recorded. I just am noting that the information is hard to correlate to fish activities. And I am not quite clear with
WHAT you actually recorded? You say you used
pressure mikes? I am more curious about the out going wave when the reef hawg is twitched and further waves as it proceeds as opposed to the wave generated by the manta and some other glider types. I am not real interested in what might be termed "noise". If you removed the hooks to eliminate the sound part of the equation could you then get the reading on the type of water displacements given off from the body itself as it proceeds through the water and the first big wave as it is twitched?? (you would probably need to tie directly to the line also) the only way I can perceive this is through the bend in my rod tip so that's where I get my flaky scientific information on this subject, but if you have access to the pool again I am sure that this would be interesting if you haven't done it before, not just jerks but also some of the crankbaits, or would this be too hard to measure without real quiet conditions?? | |
| | |
| I don't know if water movement and sound are similar, but I've noticed that my "Big Daddy" and "Bulldawg" lures seem to produce more turbulence than my other jerkbaits. When you get them in close you can see all the water being swirled around behind then long after the bait has left the area. And they both catch well.
Just an observation
Tim | |
| | |
| Audible sound is detected within the ear (yes, fish have ears) and WATER DISPLACEMENT is detected by the lateral line. I think the pressure wave of a bait (lateral line stimuli) is more important than the audible sound of a lure. Audible sounds travel further in water than pressure pulses too. Last piece of info... the lateral line is only capable of detecting pressure pulses from TWICE its length. That means a 50 inch musky, which probably doesn't even have a 48" lateral line, can only "feel" a lure's pressure pulse that travels within 8 feet of its location. Now, that doesn't necesarrily mean the lure itself has to come within' 8 feet of the fish.... considering the "wave" travels outwards from the lure.
I'd want a lure with the "right" wave and one that travels the farthest to increase the effective "range" of the lure. Kind of like playing horse shoes vs. darts. Close enough is good in horse shoes (hand grenades too) yet you need to hit the exact target in darts to be rewarded. A lure that only needs to get close to the fish has to be more productive than one that has to bonk them on the nose.
Great info and opinions being exchanged. These topics are both fun AND overwhelming. There are so many factors that go into a musky strike that I don't know if we will ever figure it out..... especially if we bring geometry, physics, biology etc into the equation. BUT, we will never figure it out if we don't TRY!!!!
jlong | |
| | |
| Guys,
What we are really talking about if the bait is MOVING is vibration. Pressure waves in the air, if above or below the audible range, can be felt also, in the form of vibration. That is how one knows a train is approaching long before the ''sound'' appears. One ''feels'' it from the air and ground being ever so slightly displaced or ''moved'' and that action being reduced to an ever reducing ''wave'' that moves in a sphere out away from the object in question.
Vibration within the fish''s lateral line or audible range is only vibration unless there is a fish there to perceive it, like the old addage.."If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, is there any sound?" Fish are bombarded with this stuff all the time; it is very noisy down there when we are out on the water.
FSF asked a great question about the perch in another post, and that,in my VERY humble opinion, is the basis from which all of the information on this thread should be balanced and applied, if that is possible!
Also, a lure that is sitting dead still in the water is still displacing the exact volume it repalces with it''s mass,and generates no response at all from the fish if the luree was encountered in that state and doesn''t move. Fish will swim right by it. oblivious to it.
Since water is a far better conductor than air, vibration caused/created by your baits ''pressure wave'' moves at nearly 4800 fps.,if I remember correctly. Another factor is the displacement of water and movement of and by the line, it showed up on the recording clearly!
Proximity is also key, as if the fish reacted to every Vibration stimulous by moving toward it, the fish would very rapidly expend far more energy than it takes in,(something I need to do for awhile before hunting season!)
Lunch hour is over, back to work!
| |
| | |
| Steve,
Great speech.... but what are you trying to say? I must have missed your point. I think you were trying to say that ALL sound is a form of vibration... but not sure. If so, I agree.
My point was that audible sounds are a MUCH higher frequency than what the lateral line can detect. Therefore, even though sound and water displacement are the same forms of energy... one cannot be PERCIEVED by the other. The ear is tuned to a higher frequency than the hairs in the neuromasts of the lateral line. The lateral line responds to VERY low frequencies that are not in the audible sound range.
So the rattles in a lure or the hooks hitting the side of the bait are to a fish like you blowing on a dog whistle at me. Yes, the energy (vibration) is hitting me... but my body doesn't acknowledge it since none of my senses can percieve or decipher that frequency. Same with radio waves, etc.
However, a fish ALSO has ears... which means it CAN still perceive those sounds. The study discussed on Muskie Central concludes that olafactory (smell) and audible (sound) inputs are NOT enough of a cue to trigger or initiate a strike response from a muskellunge. They are suggesting that the fish has to either see or "feel" their prey in order to effectively eat it.... as proven by putting lots and lots of minnows in the tank holding blind muskies. Yes, they could "hear" the minnows swimming and even smell that they were around them.... but made NO attempt to try and eat one.
All this talk seems to suggest that rattles do not play any role in a musky strike.... either positive or negative. I'm even convinced that lipless cranks, known for their rattles, are effective due to the speed and tight wiggle (water displacement)... rather than their "noise".
This is a very complex and confusing topic... and not sure if/how it can help us as fisherman. But I do know that if the researchers at Loyola University ever decide to manufacture and sell a lure.... I'll be the first in line to buy a few dozen.
jlong | |
| | |
| That is EXACTLY what I was trying to say. As you said, muskies do have rudimentary inner ears and detect sounds we hear, and definitely are tuned to an ''inaudible to us'' range through the lateral line, also. They are, in the final analysis, primarily sight feeders. My point was to clarify that a pressure wave was not something that is at all mystical, it is simply the precursor to what we hear, the muskies hear and ''feel'', and so on.
I am curious about why only marine creatures have a ''lateral line'', and was perhaps suggesting that it is the conductivity of water that caused the evolutionary development of that trait.
I also feel that in the case of the Esox, sight is the final and most important stimulous to generate a strike, and have said so for years.
By the way, blind a bass or bluegill, and they do much better. Better sense of smell!
To support and agree with your comment on rattles, I have used jigs for Muskies for over 30 years,and there is no ''quieter'' bait. The Creature presentation relys on subtle vibration, and LOTS of visuals with blinding bursts of speed to create a strike response.
Also, my comments were not a ''speech'' any more than yours. There are lots of diverse points to be made, I was making mine![:bigsmile:] | |
| | |
| Doug Stange of In-fish fame did some articles on vibration patterens for triggering pike. He felt that the two most important things that the angler must do to catch fish is control the depth and speed ( as taught by Buck Perry) of his bait. He then asked the question what is the next thing to trigger a strike, he thoughts were vibration would be the next important feature of a bait. He was writeing about using spoons in pike fishing. He suggested that the sharp angler use the different sizes of the same spoon to fish for pike.
He suggested that if using DareDevels,for example, to try and use the lures with all the same color on them, but to start with the smallest size and move up to the largest size, or vice versa, to see if the pike showed a preferance for one vibration pattern over another. The bigger the size spoon the more water it displaces the lower the frequency of sound or vibration. He also asked, when does speed become vibration? Or maybe a better way to put it is, at what speed does the pitch (vibration) of a lure change? We all know that the faster a crankbait moves the tighter the wiggle or wobble and the harder it is to pull through the water. So my interpertation of his point is as a bait moves faster or slower its vibration changes and sometimes this can attact fish or repel them.
And Yes Jlong and Sworral I agree all sound is vibration of the air or water. I wish I could remember the mathmatical formula to find the wavelength of a given frequency. It's a simple division equation, but I forget what is divided by what. I think it's frequency divided by time = distance or wavelength. If I have remembered the formula correctly, it is telling use that the number of cycles per second divided by the time it takes to complete one cycle give us the distance that the pressure wave (sound) has traveled. Thus the low frequency vibration of a jerkbait should travel farther than the comparitivly higher frequency vibration of a rattlebait. Another way to think of this is the heavy "thump" vibaration made by a #10 Colorado blade should travel through the water farther than the faster turning Willow leaf blade. The Colorado blade would be felt by a fishes latteral line from a longer distance away than the willow, but the willow blade spinning at a higer frequnecy might be heard by fishes ears. But the willow leaf spinner would have to be closer to the fish before the fish knew it was there. | |
| | |
| Steve,
Yup, looks like we agree for the most part. Nothing was meant by my "speech" comment other than all this technical discussion sounds like a presentation rather than a conversation. I'm sure if we were sitting on a barstool drinking our favorite concoction while having this discussion... we'd be getting a lot of strange looks from the bartender and other bar flies. I'm scared to even think where this conversation would go after a dozen whiskey and cokes!!!!
I'm not sure, however, if sight is the FINAL factor for triggering a strike.... but it probably is more consistently the bigger player. I feel there are times that lateral line stimuli can be a bigger driver or a major component in the "decision" making process and that it why it should not be overlooked. Quite frankly, I think the strikes we all want are more instinctive... and the lateral line may be the reason behind those "impulse" strikes.
Personally, I think BURSTS of speed are the critical element for subsurface presentations. We can use that type of motion to benefit both the visual aspect of our lures, as well as, there ability to produce lateral line stimuli. In fact, I believe acceleration is even more important that velocity (speed) too. I'll take a pull/pause presentation over a "burning" presentation anyday.
I think we should plan a MuskieFirst experiment at Bass Pro to see if we can "prove" any of our theories. I know setting the hooks into that 46 incher in February would REALY help curb the winter musky fever.
jlong
| |
| | |
| Here goes...
How about this idea?
I have always felt that the LAST thing I want to do is 'imitate' the natural prey of the Muskie, because I am trying, most of the time, to illicit a strike response from a muskie that isn't 'feeding'.
I think that the fresher the stimulous, the stronger the response. EG> If my lure imitated a perch in all aspects, it would simply be relegated to the environment that is standard to the system,and would get eaten only when the fish are feeding.(FSF was talking about this some in another thread) Muskies and perch live together in total harmony most of the time, with neither paying any attention to the other, unless the muskie goes to feeding mode. The same goes for Perch and minnows, and so on down the food chain.
I have an aquarium with prerdator/prey in it, and the predator and prey get along real well, with the prey even occasionally pecking at the underside of the predator with no retribution at all. The next morning, I will go look in on the tank, and the prey are gone! I have seen the predator go to feed mode, and after one episode, the prey gets pretty scarce; then a half hour later they are back to swimming around together. It is a BIG tank, and offers lots of cover, they just do not seem to care.. BUT!! That only happens once a week or so. I want to catch the muskie when I am out there, and not have to wait for the perfect thing to happen...feeding muskies.
So,I am after a response to my presentation that is aggressive, and effected in the strength of the reaction to all the environmental factors (literally hundreds) on any given day.
My suggestion, to simplify, is to NEVER try to imitate anything in nature as far as presentation, but to present a strong package of sight, sound, vibration, depth and speed control, contrast, and last but not least, put it in front of a Muskie.
What does a bucktail imitate? I submit there is absolutely NOTHING in the natural environment that produces the signature a bucktail does, so why do bucktails catch so many fish? Good stimulous, good response level...
What do you think about this rambling madness??[::)] | |
| | |
| Just 1 thought Mr. Worrall....I think you are all crazy + would appreciate a little more respect!!![;)] [;)] [;)] [:sun:] | |
| | |
| Steve,
I think your comments are exactly what most people do not consider, but should, when heading out to their favorite musky hole. We must stimulate the fish to elicit a response. At any given moment the stimulus requirement may change due to an infinite number of factors such as motivation of the fish (just how hungry are they), environmental factors (barometric pressure, illumination, water clarity), etc. If someone wants to match the hatch... fish with live bait. But we all know that at certain times there are MUCH more effective tactics to boating muskies than soaking a sucker, perch, or whatever.
Your analogy of the bucktail: "Good stimulous, good response level" makes a lot of sense. The question is, how do we choose WHICH stimuli will elicit the best response when on the water?
The initial question in this thread was in regard to how we should view the ability of a jerk bait to stimulate the lateral line. Then we asked which is more important... visual or lateral line stimuli.
Steve, it seems your point of view is that an artificial lure will always be just that to a fish... artificial because of its "different" signature. If that is true (I don't know if it is or not) then my question is, WHAT part of that signature elicits a positive response from the fish?
Maybe we should simplify this topic and ask.... why else would a musky strike a lure for other than how it looks? Studies show they can effectively feed when blind... which would also suggest they should be able to strike an INVISIBLE lure!! What would you want your clear plastic crankbait to do if you had to fish with it? Don't laugh... this is a serious question?
Do you think I (or anyone else for that matter) could catch a musky on a CLEAR or TRANSPARENT lure? If so, what would that lure have to do?
jlong
| |
| | |
| White bass/stripers will nail the pee-dinkles out of a transparent Mirror Lure + many salters will nail glass minnows...SO.... if 1 could find a musky bait(plastic) + scrape the paint off I think it would work. A Bomber Long A may work?[:sun:] | |
| | |
| Bassmaster Magazine wrote an article on see-through crankbaits. The guy uses them in clear water during the summer, and says he has more luck with them then colored ones. He says it shows the bass a muted, ghostly apparition of a baitfish. Its more of a finesse bait, and it has to be worked slower. He uses bomber 7a, bomber flat a, and excalibur fat free shads. Maybe this sort of thing will work with muskies. | |
| | |
|
Steve,….I recall about thirty years ago that the PA Fish Commission had a large aquarium in the lobby of its warm water hatchery. It contained three or four ‘Lunge and a small school of Fatheads. Both got along famously at different levels in the four-foot deep tank. I mentioned this to the Super one day and he said, “Watch this”. He swooped a Fathead in the aquarium net and crimped its body between his thumbnail and index finger just ahead of its tail. He tossed the injured minnow (where’ve I heard that before?) back into the tank. It twisted, turned and frantically tried to right itself. ALL of the ‘Lunge started their ‘stalk’ toward the cripple. They sculled themselves along utilizing only their fins. Suddenly the one closest to the struggling minnow darted in and engulfed it, did a flashy U-turn and headed for the far corner of the tank to finish its meal. The balance of the Muskies acted rather nonchalant that they’d missed out and ignored the rest of the normally acting minnows. However, they stayed much more active than they had been – cruising around the bottom of the tank, slowly making circles and skulking around the vegetation and the air bubbles from the pumps.
Try this in your tank and let us know the result. There’s something about an unnaturally acting, crippled ‘meal’ that causes ‘Lunge to strike. I like to think that ‘fish’ shaped baits imitating a crippled fish will catch more fish than hardware – but bucktails continue to produce as do spinnerbaits.
Also, I’ve got a ‘clear’ plastic Zara Spook style surface bait with a rattle chamber that absolutely kills ‘Smallies. I’ve had a couple smaller ‘Lunge whack at it but so far I haven’t hooked one.
I’m really enjoying this thread particularly after reading the research paper studying the difference between sight and lateral line identification of prey.
| |
| | |
| I think I have caught, and missed, muskies that could not see the lure.
A great example is the fish that blows out of the water several feet from a surface lure in an obvious strike posture. The surface conditions were such that the fish could not see the lure, and ''missed'' as a result. I have had situations where I feel the fish is ''light blind'' where the fish miss a glide bait several times and yet finally get it.
The fish couldn''t see the lure, but were responding to SOMETHING. I feel at that point, it is sound. Too close for lateral line,although that is probably how initial targeting started; yet the fish still hit. There are some that feel that the bone structure and skull coupled with the air bladder may also assist in initial targeting.
The idea here is that the strike response from the fish, in response to the lure''s proximity and signature, is automatic, coded into the fish biologically. I think the lure needs only to be able to get to where they are, and get in front of them to catch fish. Look at the tiny pike one catches on HUGE lures, big enough to be a predator that could eat the silly pike! Why did it attack something so clearly beyond it''s status as prey?
As to bait shapes: Evolution didn''t miss too badly getting the shape down to move through water, and those shapes have the good depth and speed control features when adapted to a lure. Hard to get a square object to behave in the water.
The clear lure needs only to have good depth control,speed control,and some kind of workable ''action'' as it, naturally, displaces water. I think the fish may miss it alot in clear water, but I bet not as much in dirty water.
Many feel it is important to imitate a natural prey style for a lure to work well. Really, when one looks at bait design, the critical factors are castability, depth, and speed control. Add good visuals, and the package produces, regardless of what it actually looks or behaves like.
Examples of how baits actually do not imitate the real thing...Anyone ever see a perch or other prey class fish zig zag across the top like a Jackpot? Go wildly side to side under the surface like an Undertaker, Manta, Squirko, Jerko,or other glide bait? Rattle along with their head spinning crazily while their tail is not(bucktail)? Wiggle head to tail in a very tight pattern over and over(crankbait)? Zip along, stop, zip along, stop, diving and rising(twitch bait, Suick)?
Many lures claim to imitate an injured minnow. If one actually injures a minnow, it usually rolls on it''s back, swims weakly in a circle,does some weird stuff, and croaks. That is exactly what the sick ones do in my aquarium, and they usually end up floating on the top, very dead, ignored by the predators in the tank.
Drop a healthy OR injured one in from the top, though, and unless the fish are really ''off'', that little sucker is LUNCH. Things that make ya go hmmmm.....
Sponge, I really DO respect you, and Carmen, too. It is a reflection of my madness!! | |
| | |
| I know you do![;)] Failed to mention that the Mirror Lures we were using were top water + had no action other than what we gave them. When we lost the "see thru" we took the white ones + took a knife + scraped the paint off.....may be the fact that they were on top + quivered some? Who knows but they worked; in fact they caught fish when NOTHING else would! Far be it from me or Carmen to state as to why but I''m out of them + Dad refuses to dip into his stock! Can''t blame him since I lost more tackle growing up than I could ever replace.....[:sun:] | |
| | |
| I believe the lateral line is a SHORT RANGE sensory system.... not long range like audible sound or vision (water clarity permitting). I believe it is one of the LAST inputs to triggering a strike.
I'm interested in the lateral line in order to figure out some kind of a "last ditch effort" to convert a looker into an eater. Or to trigger instinctive strikes with a presentation that bumps them on the nose.
The short range issue has been proven in many papers. In the recent study we've all been enlightend with on Muskie Central, it discusses the "stalk". I believe they stalk because they are trying to get closer to the target to receive a better "signal" for their lateral line... and thus make a more accurate strike. The lateral line suppressed fish also "stalked"... probably in an attempt to obtain lateral line input... and when they got so close without a signal... they struck before the opportunity passed. Also, all fish in the study were VERY motivated as they had not been fed any food for 14 days prior to the study.
Oh yeah, and to answer my own question from before... I think the trick to catching a fish on an invisible lure would be getting it close enough to the fish for it to "feel" its presence. That's the advantage of color in my book.... the ability to draw them in from greater distances.
So when are meeting at Worral's house to do our OWN experiments in his fish tank?????
jlong
| |
| | |
| Figured it out....Both quiet + noisy presentations will work at any given time depending on the MOOD OF THE FISH. The way I see it is the type of day the fish is having determines the bait. Much like people I believe that if the fish is having a good day + the weekend is here they will want a party atmosphere therefore use a loud noisy "party" type bait. But if it is at the first of the week or if they are having an exceptionally bad day, then like us they probably want a quiet dinner + to be left alone....at this time I feel a quiet "non offending" bait would be in order. This theory is not set in concrete + has yet to be tested although I have an idea for a new bait I think will work called the "MUSKY PINATA"....a hollow paper mache bait that when filled w/ baitfish + struck will drive the fish into a frenzy! [:sun:] | |
| | |
| Just bringing back and older yet very important topic from the arcives. | |
| | |
| I printed this entire thread and re-read it. It contains some excellent insight. To get the discussion going again... I'd like to challenge some thoughts.
First, Steve said, "Examples of how baits actually do not imitate the real thing...Anyone ever see a perch or other prey class fish zig zag across the top like a Jackpot? Go wildly side to side under the surface like an Undertaker, Manta, Squirko, Jerko,or other glide bait? Rattle along with their head spinning crazily while their tail is not(bucktail)? Wiggle head to tail in a very tight pattern over and over(crankbait)? Zip along, stop, zip along, stop, diving and rising(twitch bait, Suick)? "
I think he is correct in saying that that the VISUAL action of the bait is unusual.... but the water displacement created by those actions is VERY realistic. The bucktail, for example, may look unnatural in a visual sense.... but the water displacement is similar to a forage fish in distress or some other state of vulnerability. When a fish is swimming fast, its own lateral line defenses are down and it is a vulnerable target. If a HEALTHY forage fish is fleeing attack from another predator... it is a EASY target. I don't think muskies sit around and wait for a forage fish to get wounded before they attack. The "thump thump thump" of a bucktail blade is no different that the kick kick kick of the tail of a real fish in distress. An easy meal. No visual required.... and that is the type of instinctive strike we all want.
Reprobait makes a great observation (I think Steve brings this up too) about how food fish and predators seem to coexist in harmony until the musky gets hungry. But, muskies are opportunistic feeders and if one of those CALM forage fish moving slowly with good lateral line camoflage suddenly moves quickly, you can bet that the predator FEELS that and will respond. Reprobait's observations in the aquarium are a good example of this.
So when steve says he wants his lure to be totally different than anything in the natural environment.... I say bull. His lures are more realistic than one may consider. Yes, visual stimuli is at the top of the list for eliciting a strike, but so is lateral line input.
And LATERAL LINE input is NOT sound... but a vibrational energy of a much LOWER frequency. Sound is energy percieved by the ear through the sense of hearing and water displacement is a much LOWER frequency energy that is FELT by the lateral line through the sense of TOUCH.
O.K. That should be enough to get the fire blazin' again....
jlong
| |
| | |
| Who would have ever thought we could come up with a way to tie the Doppler Effect into muskie fishing? I think we might need to find Dr. Stephen Hawking to help us with this enigma of sound waves, we are bordering on quantum physics here. | |
| | |
| Haven’t been on-line for a while, too busy fishing and deer hunting (not a bad year, 130 or so in the boat, 52” the biggest).
Anyways you guys are making my head hurt.
You are taking way too much physics (just like an engineer, sorry Jason) and not enough about what it really takes to put fish in the boat. All this acoustic/pressure wave stuff (muskies don’t go around looking for the loudest fish that swims) is no doubt one of the last things that muskies really worry about when trying to find something to eat. I would bet that what is the dinner bell to one muskie, is the alarm siren to the next depending on who knows what factors (distance from the lure, cover in the area, time since last feeding, water clarity, and who knows what else).
I’ll bet that location (where do the fish live, and why and when do they live there) is much more important than any type of lure and the noises or pressure waves that are put off by lures as far as fishing success is concerned.
Too me, and I don’t mean this to be a bad thing (cause it’s one of the most fun parts of muskie fishing), most people spend much too much time trying to figure out what lure to use and not enough time trying to figure out where the fish live and why they live there.
Doug Johnson.
| |
| | |
| OOOOKKKKKK DougJ! Now that you are back 1 question....your opinion on bait size----too many are hooked here in the river on bass plugs to ignore...think it could be the fact that they happened to put a bait in front of them + what is your opinion as far as the action of the bait whatever size? 1 ?, 2 parts![:0] [:sun:] | |
| | |
| Hi DougJ, good to hear from you again. Glad you finally blew the dust off the keyboard after a season of chasing skis.
I agree with you 100% about LOCATION. It certainly is the most important aspect of successfully catching muskies. Period.
As you know, I feel location has to be considered differently when you have 100,000+ acres of prime canadian shield water off your dock versus the tiny 100 acre Wisconsin Waters. Just as you view lures as tools... I also feel location is a tool. Depending on your number of options (diversity of the system, lake size, etc.) your strategy changes accordingly. Therefore, I feel with limited LOCATION options, presentation steps up in priority.
I like to discuss presentation ASSUMING that location is NOT an issue. In other words, you know the fish are there, how do you get them to eat when there are no more places to look? Imagine fishing a 100 acre featureless lake for a day, where location is not much of a factor. Suddenly you need to have more confidence in your presentation. All this gibberish is mostly to build confidence in our presentations when location is not an issue.
Another way to look at it is you can match the location to your preferred presentation.... or you can match your presentation to the preferred location. Sometimes both options are not available.
Sorry for the long talk, but I'm just trying to explain why such crazy discussions get started. This stuff is certainly nothing to hang our hats on, but it passes time between trips, makes us think differently when times are tough, and can give confidence in what we are doing (real or not).
.... and you have to admit, you think about this kind of stuff once in awhile too, right?
jlong | |
| | |
| Jason L,
OK,
I understand the difference clearly between sound and vibration, and the pressure wave signature as well. One begets the other, so to speak, or at least are created by the same forces(moving objects in the water).
A bucktail creates a signature WAY different from any natural prey, for several reasons that include material density, speed/behavior,pulse/ sound reflective surface, and the fact fish move by propelling themselves through the water using the fins and tail, and a lure action is created by RESISTANCE, a completely different signature. Crankbaits actions are also created by resistance, and the parts attached move and displace water at a totally different level than any natural prey would, not even addressing the line and leader.
I submit that is EXACTLY why they work!!
Even a sucker on a quick strike rig dragged through the water has a different signature than a sucker behaving in a distressed but natural fashion.
I used pressure mikes AND crystal mikes to record the baits, interesting stuff.
Doug is probably closer to the mark for most anglers, I just like to try to figure out what makes things 'tick'![:bigsmile:] | |
| | |
| Hmmm, some good points Steve. I still don't see the relevance of the density difference in the object displacing water (flesh vs. plastic for example). Its not like muskies are using "sonar" and getting an echo transmitted back from their target... its a one way street. Therefore the musky has NO pertinant info to determine the "hardness" of thier potential target. Objects of different densities can still displace water the same, it may just take more or less energy to accomplish.
Second, force is force. I don't think the form of propulsion is relevant either. Pulling (our lures) and pushing (a real fish) still displace water in the same fashion. The wind still flows around a car the same, whether it is front wheel drive or rear wheel drive. What we are talking about here is water flow. Not pressure waves transmitting through the water (sound).... but the movement of water itself because it is an incompressible material.
The lateral line is an extremely sensitive organ that detects water movement.... that is all. A bucktail blade moves water. A forage fish's tail and body moves water. A kick of the tail and a turn of the blade MAY be very similar. Like I said before, the thump thump thump of your bucktail probably moves the water similar to the kick kick kick of a live fish's tail. The musky cannot tell the difference and eats your bucktail based on the lateral line stimulous.
I don't understand the mechanism of your pressure mikes... so I do not know what you are measuring for a lure's signature. If it is not down in the 1 Hz range of vibration... then it probably does not apply. I think you captured some good data, which is more than anyone else can claim. The question is, how do you, I, or anyone use that data? And, is that data relevant to the lateral line (1Hz range) or the inner ear (1KHz range)?
Any ideas on how we can take this conversation from speculation to proven theory? Is it necessary?
Also, can you explain further why YOU want your lure to be DIFFERENT? Why do you think a fish responds to something totally out of their element? And why is that response a FEEDING or STRIKE response? Just trying to better understand where you're coming from.
Anyone else out there reading this crazy talk? What do you think? Is this type of topic a waste of time?
jlong
| |
| | |
| Maybe all this talk is crazy and then again maybe not.[;)] I have been fishing for different species of fish for most of my life. Yes I am one of those Bass fisherman turned Musky nuts. However there are many things that these fish have in common. They are found many times in the same places albeit at different times. Ie: when the Ski's are active on the weed line the Bass are not and vice versa, most of the time. My point is that no matter what game fish you are after some points remain the same from species to species.
We have all fished clear and dirty water. My belief is that the dirtier the water the more these fish respond to sound and vibration. However most of us still use a color pattern that can be seen in these dirty conditions, why? Could it be that the sound and vibes get the fish to track the lure and then visually strike? I think that this is not only possible but plausible. I also think that part of the actual striking of a lure could be seriously effected by smell and perhaps even taste. Have any of you had those fish that follow really closely while almost mouthing the lure only to reject it at some point during the follow? I'm betting the answer is yes. Now it just doesn't make sense if you are a large predator of any kind to expend the energy to follow this thing whatever it is and not eat it, unless it smells bad or tastes bad. So what has happened in this case is the sound and vibration are about right the fish found your offering, the darn thing looked ok color and shape wise, this big old girl nipped at it and tasted and smelled it. The fish then turned up its nose and promtly left not to be seen again on this outing. What happened? Beats the bejeebers out of me. Just wanted to add my two cents worth and try to confuse eveyone even more.
Let Em Go...Let Em Grow.....Mike [:devil:] [:devil:] [:devil:] [:devil:] [:sun:] | |
| | |
| To cover the idea quickly is nearly impossible, but a quick synopsis:
The largest difficulty when we try to figure out why muskies do any one thing is the fact we are not looking at the behavior from a realistic point of view. Anthropomorphism is rampant, and logically, seems 'right'.
The muskie CANNOT reason, has no ability oto 'recognise' anything as natural or otherwise, as the process required for memory as we understand it does not exist in the muskie's little brain stem. If indeed the fish was smart enough to look at a lure and make a decision that it looks and behaves like a walleye, and therefore is safe to eat, we would NEVER catch one. Simple fact, Lures do NOT create any signature even remotely resembling natural forage. The difference between an object displacing water and creating the lateral line sensitive motion from being pulled through the water is, I am certain, very different from the self propelled motion of a fish, not to mention the bait fails to flex, is displacing the water at the perimeter with hardware, and makes an ungodly batch of noise, which the fish also reacts to.
The process of getting a fish to 'hit' is exactly that, not an event. All the variables must be considered, and no one factor can be zerod in on and assumed to be the ONE reason a fish took a bait.
Explain why two baits, made by the same builder, can be so radically different in fish catching ability...one Tallywacker works, and catches fish like crazy, the other, does not. Why? One Undertaker is HOT, another, same color and builder, is not...same displacement,same angler, same terminal tackle, so they should work identically, but they do not!
To plant the seed of the idea:
Muskies react to their surroundings in a fashion we cannot even begin to understand, as we are thinking creatures, and they are not.
For EVERY stimulous, there MUST be a reaction, or the fish will not survive.
That is the basis for the idea; I have to get out in my deer stand, and will get after the idea again later!!
| |
| | |
| Steve, kind of a late start for the tree stand, isn't it? Good thing the bucks are rutting like mad.
Anyway, who said anything about anthropomorphisizing the musky? There is a huge difference between putting FEELINGS to a musky (ie. its sad or ticked off) and stating how it manipulates and deciphers a stimulous.
Here is a quote from a biologist at Parmly University who is doing a study on fish hearing capabilities. He states, "We then investigate the response of single auditory nerve cells to the same set of sound stimuli, and develop hypotheses on the dimensions of neural activity and computational strategies that the brain actually uses in making decisions about sound sources."
He uses the words "computational strategy" and "decision". These words describe tasks you claim would be anthropomorphisizing such a primative creature. That is peer blasphemy. Hearing is a complex and sophisticated sense that provides invaluable information that the tiny little brain in a fish must manipulate to survive. That is not anthropomorphisizing... it is stating a biological fact that fish use and manipulate data. Does that make them human? Of course not, but it does show some form of intelligence. No, they do not have subconscious conversations saying, "hmmm is that lateral line stimulous I'm recieving originating from a soft, fleshy creature or a hard plastic lure?" All the fish "knows" is that the water displacement of my Depth Raider creates a turbulent wake IDENTICAL to that left behind a fleeing baitfish. The fish knows the location of origination... but has absolutely no way of determining the material composition of the target.
The data is recieved, manipulated, translated, and a response to that stimuli results. Hopefully that response is a positive one.... but sometimes the response is no reaction at all.
This is getting to be like the "Tastes Great, Less Filling" debate over a fine refreshment we are all familiar with. I think productive lures mimick a natural stimulous for the fish, not something UNnatural. They strike because the signals they are recieving suggest our lures is a legitimate food source. No, they may not be feeding.... but it is possible to trigger an instinctive resonse if the stimulous is good enough.
So Steve, we agree that we are often fishing for muskies that are NOT hungry or actively feeding.... but we disagree on what our lures portray. I say natural, you say unnatural.
Should we all vote?
jlong
| |
| | |
| Wow, I wish I said that! Boy you’re some kind of shmoo aren’t you Jlong? I agree, time to put this thing to bed, but don’t let me stop you. A dead horse always needs a good beating. Jlong seems to be making most sense here and building more convincing points. The debate would go to him in my opinion, but dougj’s post seems to be the reality of the situation.[:sun:] | |
| | |
| Awwwww come on NXTWRLDRCD. Everyone knows DougJ is right!
Nobody will ever argue that LOCATION is not critical. I'm just arguing that rather than sitting back "on the right spot" and waiting for the fish to cooperate is NOT the most effective tactic (and I'm certainly not saying that's what DougJ does). Especially when you have a very limited amount of time on the water. If I know a fish in on a spot, I don't want to just cast a dead stick at it until it becomes hungry and grabs the next thing that moves.
Getting on fish, staying on fish, and throwing the most efficient presentation possible seems like a better plan to me. TRIGGERING a strike from a non-active fish HAS to increase your productivity over just knocking off the aggressive one's. The question is, what is the most efficient presentation? For DougJ, it is a good hooker that works through cover without snagging (a statistics thing of just getting your hooks in front of a hungry musky). For Worrall it is the most unnatural, obnoxious noise maker we can concoct. For me, well I'm still too young to have a firm platform to stand on..... but I'd have to say I am somewhere in between. I want efficiency, control, and multiple forms of stimulus that represents something NATURAL.
Gotta have location, so DougJ is a perfect mentor. Gotta have stimulus, so we all can learn something from Worrall too. I'm just a young punk trying to make these well-experienced guys "spill the beans" on how to catch more muskies.
There will be NO winner in this debate. We are debating simply as an exercise to exchange information. Simple as that. No right or wrong answer.
jlong
| |
| | |
| You should be a politician. [:praise:] | |
| | |
| Jason,
Missed the leader I was tossing out at you there...I would argue that the quote you posted was contextual, and therefore not anthropomorphising, but the topic here has lots of it.
Again, if the signature of the lure is identical to that of a fleeing baitfish, why do some lures work, and others(identical) not as well? How is that explained? Why is one Buchertail HOT, and another, same color and size and style, NOT?
I will draw you out on this yet...you are right, no debate here. If I was debating, I would be MUCH more direct!! Would take the fun out of it.
And as I said before, Doug probably has it for the muskie guys out there... I just like to poke around in the dusty corners of the 'what makes 'em tick' library. | |
| | |
| Aahhheemm, dust ball caught in my throat from pokin' around in Worrall's "what make's 'em tick" library". Most of those books are so old they are in hieroglyphics (ha ha).
Steve, I think the "good" buchertail resembles a disturbance pattern MORE similar to the "real thing" than the "bad" Buchertail. It could be that the clevis is bent and the blade is now at a slightly different angle.... displacing the water differently than the "good" one. Then again, it could be that one tail has three more strands of hair than the other one... and one is kinked a little so it pushes water a little more too. All I know is that getting things right can be like splittin' hairs.... but when you do get it right... I vote that the presentation represented something more natural.... not foreign.
Ultimately, I think how a bait FEELS is the most important... since it is the root behind triggering instinctive strikes. Visual queues are the strongest... but not the most consistent because they are greatly influenced by the environment (light availability). And as for sound.... it may be a form of attraction.... but it will NEVER trigger a stike alone. Sound may help the musky "stalk" your lure and get close enough to be triggered laterally.
The problem is, even if any of this BS is true..... it is VERY difficult to control. Plus, the combination changes by the minute, so even though you deciphered the combination yesterday.... you gotta start all over again today. But, being conscious of this type of stuff can make a difference in how we approach the game.
If I had to choose between knowing the right location and knowing the right presentation.... I'd go with location EVERY time. I just feel that location is getting easier to determine and guys want to know how to more effectively fish THE location.
Good Stuff Maynard.
jlong | |
| | |
| I think it''s generally a "give me", that before you can catch a Muskie you must be where or very near where the fish is located. Back to the original subject- Pressure waves & acoustics. Muskies have eyes, ears and a lateral line. How do these influence foraging and strike behavior? I believe the ear''s are not used as a major influence in finding & attacking prey, they operate at a much higher frequency than the lateral line. Therefore, I think vision and lateral line are both more important. I agree w/Jason that the lateral line could be thought of as a sense of touch, albeit a very highly specialized sense of touch or connection to their physical environment. The movements of fish and bait create pressure waves, these waves are synonymous to sound and hence I believe these pressure waves also have to be of a very low frequency. That''s why I discount the ears. But the ears might have an influence if the prey creates a sound within the frequency bandwidth of the ears. It is well documented that many fish use h
igher frequency sounds, including creating sounds for specific purposes, i.e., similar to echo location/sonar, spawning, etc..
Many of the same principles of acoustics in air apply to acoustics in water, including extremely low frequency pressure waves. When you cast a lure in calm water, and it lands on the water, you see a large wave expanding outward with decreasingly smaller waves following it until the event is dampened by the surface impedance or resistance of the water and the surface is calm again. What did a Muskie feel/hear with it''s lateral line? I believe the answer is: The exact opposite of what you saw visually, i.e., a large intensity pressure wave followed by decreasing intensity waves. This is very similar to the waveform of the sound of a gun shot or a lightning strike in air, i.e., an exponential decaying ring wave.
---------*
-------*---*
------*-----*--------------*
-----*-------*----------*-----*---------------*
----*---------*--------*--------*-----------*-----*-----*****-
---------------*------*-----------*-------*---------*
----------------*----*----------------*
------------------*
connect the asterisk.
The layout of the Muskie''s lateral line gives it the ability to detect pressure wave gradients along the entire lateral line. The lateral line has a specific shape and because of this it is directionally sensitive to stimulus. Similar to a very sophisticated underwater directional hyprophone or similar to a directional radio antenna in air. There is hard scientific evidence that the lateral line''s sensitivity to pressure differences in the lateral line sensors can be used to orient the fish to the direction of a pressure wave source/prey. Given this the fish could respond and orient to the splash. We all generally agree the Muskie can''t reason. But, can it tell from the pressure gradient changes the direction the prey is moving, i.e., toward the Muskie or away? This would be akin to the doppler effect in air with sound, i.e., the change in pitch of the train whistle as the train is moving relative to your location, rising pitch it''s coming at you & lowering pitch it''s moving away. One study I read said that
the majority of the prey attacks were initiated when the prey was moving away. Now the question becomes was the attack initiated by the visual cues that the prey was moving away or was it the lateral line? Maybe both? If it were visual then the Muskie would have to visually differentiate the prey''s head from the tail. This again would imply conscious reasoning, or it could possibly be triggered by the relative motion of the prey in the Muskies vision field.
This brings up the most interesting crux of the discussion- Given that Muskies are not capable of reasoning. It would seem their "tiny little brains" are genetically programmed to respond to specific visual and/or lateral line stimulus with an attack response? But also they show different specific prey size preferences throughout their life cycles. They must somehow equate the size of the other fish/prey to either potential prey or potential predator.
Could they also be capable of imprinting based on actual past prey encounter experience? I doubt it. However, imprinting may not require conscious reasoning only stimulus --> reaction.
"It''s our choice to Catch''em & Let''em Go!"
Al Warner
...>....
"When a thing ceases to be a subject of controversy, it ceases to be subject of interest." ---William Hazilitt[:bigsmile:] | |
| | |
| Al, I like the way you think[:halo:] . Location is a "no brainer" requirement that we all must deal resolve.
You raise a great question about size of the target. Perhaps that is part of the visual aspect? Remove the visual aspect and now size does not matter (no wonder my wife likes the lights off - ha ha). May explain why a 12 inch pike will take a swat at a 10 inch Jake.... and why a 40 pound muskie will eat a 1 1/2" rattle trap. The bait "felt" different than it "looks". We all want instinctive strikes... and at times we can trigger that type of strike without the fish ever seeing our lure.
I'm also a firm believer that visual and lateral line stimuli are the bread and butter of any presentation.... but secondary senses such as sound, smell, and taste may contribute at times. The question is when.
Sound energy travels through water without displacing water. Yet, when it hits the swimbladder of a fish it is converted to vibration and interpreted in the same manner as lateral line stimuli. Get a LOW enough frequency (I'll go out on a limb and suggest 40-100 Hz) of sound energy and it may be interpreted just the same as a low frequency pressure pulse created by the movement of a forage fish a few feet away. That is the only argument I can come up with that would suggest sound can trigger a strike. Otherwise it is only a potential form of attraction (or repellant).
jlong | |
| | |
| Jason- Now the crux of the lure/rattle sounds issue & Muskie''s. Prof. John New (Professor of Biology-Loyola University, Chicago)has pretty well proven that vision is a major factor, as is the lateral line with respect to the Muskie being able to forage. A Muskie deprived of either sensory system is able to feed. However, when deprived of both they cannot feed. There is also a study on largemouth bass that proves the same thing, i.e., bass deprived of both vision & lateral line could not feed. In all of these experiments the ears were fully intact for both species.
Now I''m very curious. These experiments used fathead minnows, i.e., prey that would be visually stimulating and lateral line stimulating. However they do not likely stimulate the ears because the frequency of the prey movements is to low- Professor New kindly gave me permission to post his responses to my questions. Here''s my dialog w/ Prof. New. My text (abcd)
[:bigsmile:]
Hi Al,
OK, here''s an attempt to answer a few of your questions.
First of all, it''s important to consider the nature of sound in water and the difference between the lateral line and auditory systems. Sound in water is of course a pressure wave, such as that produced by a vibrating (dipole) source. We can divide the way that the sound wave behaves in water with increasing distance from the source into a ''near field'' and a ''far field''. In the near field the medium acts as though it is incompressible, there is a physical displacement of the water molecules and thus there is hydrodynamic flow. In the far field, the water acts as though it is compressible; there is oscillation of the water molecules, but no net displacement (and thus no flow). Needless to say, the range of the far field is generally much greater than that of the near field.
The lateral line is specifically designed to function in the near field, and therefore to respond to hydrodynamic flow. It consists of special organs called neuromasts, which contain specialized receptor cells called hair cells (not ''nerve endings''). These cells are directionally sensitive to physical displacement of the fingerlike projections (stereocilia) of the cell membrane. There are two types of neuromasts; superficial neuromasts located on the surface of the skin and canal neuromasts which are located in canals (more like tubes) which run below the surface of the skin and which communicate with the exterior world via pores in the skin. Without getting too much into the physics of it, superficial neuromasts act as velocity detectors and canal neuromasts act as acceleration detectors. You''re quire right to surmise that these are low-frequency detectors; neuromasts typically are sensitive to frequencies less than about 50 Hz (there are some differences in the frequency sensitivities of canal vs superficial neuromasts). The crucial thing to bear in mind though, is that these detectors are sensitive to water displacement relative to the fish, the lateral line is therefore a relatively ''close-in'' system, generally its range is estimated at about 1 body length.
Hearing in fish is quite different than in terrestrial organisms like us. Fish (like us) are mostly water, and therefore sound pressure waves in water tend to pass directly through the fish (they are almost acoustically transparent). In other words, the water molecules of the fish oscillate as the sound wave moves through it. In the ear of the fish are also located hair cells like those in the lateral line system (we think there is a common ''ancestry'' of the systems here). These hair cells are mechanically coupled to a large, calcium carbonate concretion, an otolith (literally an ''ear stone''). The otolith is much denser than the surrounding medium, and thus has a different inertial moment than the surrounding watery tissue. As these tissues, particularly the hair cells, vibrate as the sound wave passes through the fish, the otolith lags behind, deflecting the stereocilia of the hair cells, exciting them. Because the hair cells are directionally sensitive, and because the hair cells are oriented differently across the inner ear, waves originating from different locations will excite different hair cells. Typically, the auditory system of fishes is sensitive to frequencies up to 200-300 HZ
Thus, the lateral line is a close range system dedicated to detecting net water displacements. The auditory system detects ''sounds'' in the far field and to generally higher frequencies.
(But then my mind says, wait a minute, they have two ears. The only logical reason for two ears is for directional sensitivity. I''m very curious as to how these two sensory systems interact to give the Muskie it''s functionality in finding and catching prey.)
Well, you must remember that ears do much more than just hear, in fact hearing is perhaps the least important function of ears! Ears are important for detecting the vector of gravity (absolutely critical) as well as rotational acceleration of the head. But you can see from my above that ears in fish are directional organs in themselves for far field sounds.
As to the interaction, our studies show that if you suppress the lateral line system in blinded muskies, they will not feed at all. This indicates that the auditory system is not in itself sufficient to direct the fish to its prey (or to ''release'' a strike behavior) That doesn''t necessarily mean it''s not used by the musky, but it definitely seems less critical to a strike than visual or lateral line senses.
(The Muskie has more pores on its under-jaw than the northern pike, I assume these are part of the lateral line. Because of the physical layout of the lateral line, I can understand how the lateral line can provide directional information to either the Muskie, northern pike, or any fish.
What does the muskie''s lateral line sensor map look like? Is it similar to this one? http://www.csuchico.edu/~pmaslin/ichthy/Snsry.html#lls)
I''ll attach a graphic of a different Esox, there are some variations, but there are probably not really significant differences. Note the presence of both canals and lines of superficial neuromasts (black dots). Typically, neuromasts in the canals are located between the pores.
(Muskie’s are notorious for feeding in low light or even in total darkness. Whereas, in my experience northern pike don''t feed after dark. Is this because of a fundamental difference in their lateral lines, i.e., more sensors’ equals’ better ability to forage in low/no light conditions? This
would make sense if the pores under the jaw are part of the lateral line and there is a similar difference in the number of lateral line pores in the rest of the body. The Muskie has 6-9 on each side versus 5 or less for the northern pike. That''s a 20% (6 versus 5) to + 80% (9 versus 5) increase
in sensory input.)
This is a difficult question to answer. It may be that northerns rely more on vision than lateral line, or just tend to be more active during the day so that they''re not competing directly with muskies for food when hunting. I suspect that there''s probably not much difference in overall lateral line sensitivity between muskies and northerns, but I haven''t tested it yet.
(The lateral line gives them the ability to not only sense something and it''s relative direction/orientation to their body. It seems the body length and build would give each fish a particular swimming signature, i.e., frequency. I wonder if they can also sense potential prey or predator size based on the relative frequency?)
It''s funny you should mention that, I''m working on that very problem now, with fathead minnows vs. sticklebacks. I''ll let you know what we come up with. I suspect that there may not be a big difference in the frequency spectrum of the signatures of similar size prey, but the temporal signature of the wave might be very different.
(What about Doppler effect? This should also hold true underwater. Can they sense whether the sound source is coming toward them or going away by the Doppler shift?)
Probably, but that''s probably an auditory function, rather than a lateral line phenomenon
Well, there''s what I hope are some useful answers. There are still a lot of questions out there that I don''t know the answers to; that''s what makes this so much fun.
Let me know if I can explain anything else,
Cheers,
John
-----------------------**********-----------------
As you can see from the above, it appears the Muskie''s ears should be able to give it directional sensitivity to sound sources. So with all of that, I haven''t been able to find any evidence of any investigation on the impact of the ears on Muskie feeding behavior, i.e., noisy type surface prey, reaction to splashes, etc. and or specific sounds in say 50Hz to 20kHz. Then again, what about specific harmonic components?
I think there''s another fundamental problem, i.e., scientist''s like Professor New are typically limited in investigations by both funding and available research facilities. Funding is usually associated w/benefit’s to human research. Much of his past & present research is directed toward improving the scientific understanding of human hearing mechanisms and helping those of us, whom have hearing problems. Maybe understanding how Muskies use sound would benefit mankind and not just us Muskie hunters. [:bigsmile:]
How about a MuskieFirst sponsored/funded research project. Anyone out there willing to chip in some money to find out? [8)] How about Muskie''s Inc?
I also believe he''d need a very large aquarium. [:0] Anybody have access to an Olympic size swimming pool/aquarium. [:((] Oh well, sounds like the rattle versus no-rattle debate continues. [:devil:]
"When a thing ceases to be a subject of controversy, it ceases to be subject of interest." ---William Hazilitt
"It''s your choice to Catch''em & Let''em Go!"
Al Warner
...>....
| |
| | |
| Al, thanks for sharing that dialogue. John New's comments support my statements 100%. Which makes sense since most of my babbling has been based on his and other Loyola University Professor's research. I think you made a great argument to suggest that RATTLES do not have much of a role (if any at all) in triggering strikes.
I'm working on an article that discusses what I feel a rattle may do for us fisherman, and it is based on the same info/research John New discussed in his email to you. For now, I will not totally discredit rattles, but feel they should be viewed as a different tool. I feel that sound MAY benefit fisherman by attracting fish to a general area or increase the fish's awareness of the presence of your lure.... but will NOT help initiate a strike response. I also think we need to consider how a fish's senses change in priority with changing environmental conditions. Having a better understanding of sensory prioritization will help us as fisherman better select the right tool for the job.
I still believe, when in doubt-go without, when debating the need for rattles.
jlong | |
| | |
| Great stuff!! The comments also suppport my position 100%.....
Let's take a look at what happens when the lure hits the water...
Sound/vibration travels out in an everexpanding globe at 16 football fields per second. As the curve of the initial sound wave contacts the fish's body, the inner ear, and surrounding structure, allows the fish to determine direction, and perhaps distance to the bait. Activity in the brain stem takes place, and the fish responds to the stimulous by ignoring it completely, or beginning the attack.
As the fish closes in and recieves stereoscopic visuals, more stimulous, and more response. In relative close proximity, the lateral line recieves information, more stimulous, and even MORE response...and the fish either follows in, does a couple 8s, and goes away( or a variable of this behavior), or strikes.
The lure is moving, in the case of a bucktail, in the top portion of the water column at speeds of 5 MPH plus.Not a normal pattern for anything I have observed in the natural environs out there. On Pelican Lake, the normal forage for the muskies is Perch, yet I catch the fish on topwater, bucktails, and jigs, none of which in ANY way resemble a fish or a perch.
Strike response is TOTALLY different from feeding behavior, and should not be considered as the same response.
I still feel that a lure needs to have good depth and speed control, and contrast, and an overall signature that allows for the maximum Stimulous/Response to create a strike response on any given day. I am not catching feeding muskies most of the time, I am CAUSING the fish to strike a lure that is totally foreign in behavior and signature to what that fish eats on a normal basis; and that is why lures work!!
The concept is to study strike response, and look for the proper stimulous to get the response wanted at any time, under the thousands of variables on any given day. | |
| | |
| Steve, good analogy. Funny how we are so close to agreeing... yet so far away :halo:].
Looks like we have the same viewpoint in how a musky recieves and detects certain stimuli.... and that stimuli may initiate a strike repsonse (not necessarily a FEEDING behavior).
What I do not yet understand is WHY you think a fish will strike at a stimulus that is UNNATURAL? What do you feel is so DIFFERENT about the water displacement of a perch kicking its tail to produce a turbulent wake and the water displaced by a rotating blade of a bucktail. I believe the musky cannot tell the difference and responds to the bucktail as something natural... not unnatural.
An instinctive strike is a natural response. Why do you think an UNnatural stimulus may provoke such behavior?
jlong | |
| | |
| FRIDAY FLASHBACK....THIS IS ONE OF MY ALL TIME FAVORITES.[:bigsmile:] | |
| | |
| HEY!!! Anyone else notice that First Six Feet has Left us?? I really enjoyed his posts and comments, as he ALWAYS made sense, and made me think. Anyone know him well enough to beg him to return and knock me around alittle once in awhile?[:blackeye:] | |
| |
|
acoustic/pressure wave signatures for jerk baits