|
|
| How well can a muskie hear? Sound is greatly amplified underwater and if their hearing is well...can they hear lures with rattles from a distance? What about a blade on a bucktail. Will they come to a sound...or will it just help them to want to eat. | |
| | |
| I reckon fish definitely travel towards sound. For example I'm fairly certain that most fish hone in on the sound and or feel the vibration of a bait at night before they ever see it. Even in daylight conditions I believe unless you smack em in the face with your lure, they hear and/or feel the bait first and then as they close they actually see the lure.
Don't have any scientific data to prove this therory so it's just my opinion. | |
| | |
| Jason,
Do you have anything specific on this? I have several source documents, but none specific to muskie at home. Any ideas where I might get some data?[:0] | |
| | |
| Lots of data and info out there in regard to fish hearing capabilities. Unfortunately, not much specific to the muskellunge. However, if you compare the structure of the ear... it is similar amongst most fishes and therefore I feel most of the good research out there is VERY applicable to muskies.
The ERC website has many great links to stuff done at the PARMLY Hearing Institute of Chicago. Sheryl Coombs has been a wonderful resource to discuss this topic with.... along with John Montgomery.
Bottom line.... Muskies can hear exceptionally well. However, I see NO evidence (in literature or my own experiences) that hearing plays any role in triggering a strike. This does NOT mean I don't believe in rattles however[:halo:]
jlong | |
| | |
| I fish large jigs on the rocks a lot in the Fall and at other times as well. I tend to drag a jig more on the rocks than others do and I seem to get most of my fish on that initial cast or drag. Sometimes, as with my last fish of this year, the strike came on the second bump of a rock. The jig touched bottom, I drug it about 6" into a rock. Bounced it off that one and into another rock and the strike came almost immediatley. This happens quite often to me on the rocks. Seems that the fish "hear" this sound and come a runnin'. I don't have any data to back this up. Just seems to happen often enough to make me wonder. | |
| | |
| The reason I asked is because of the sucess I've seen on 1 1/2 oz rattle trap on a highly pressured lake. That is really a small bait compared to all other muskie baits. It does wobble, but so does everything else. I believe that rattle has a lot to do with its sucess. Another bait I've had sucess with is the believer, which other than the rattle trap is the only crankbait that I can hear from the boat as its coming in. | |
| | |
| Schuler,
Rattles are a tough topic to debate. They can and do make a difference at times. However, I like to compare this debate to "the chicken or the egg" type of deal.
It is unclear to me whether the "sound" of the rattles is what makes them effective at times OR if it is the "vibration" produced by the rattles banging on the walls of the lure.
Everyone knows that sound is high frequency vibration that our ears can detect. However, rattles are also producing lower frequency vibrations that we cannot hear with our ears.... but a musky may be able to "feel" with its lateral line. So, is it the high or low frequency sound of the rattles that perks up these darn critters? I'd put my money on the LOW frequency vibe that we CANNOT hear. Maybe we should call rattles "vibrators" instead?????[:halo:]
How will we ever know??????????
jlong | |
| | |
| Why does it need to be one or the other? Why wouldn’t they incorporate both? The musky evolved with both so they must use them both. Obviously one system senses the high frequencies better, and they other tracks the low frequencies better. Why would nature evolve this way if both weren’t necessary for survival? If all they do is swim and eat, they must use their ears and lateral line for feeding. | |
| | |
| Ha- finally some interesting debate! Cabin fever sets in...[:0] So here goes. Dr. John News experiments w/ Muskies showed the fish could feed on forage bait fish when deprived of either their vision or their lateral line sensory system. But, they did not feed when deprived of both. even though their hearing (ears- they do have two ears) were intact.
Considering that evolution usually eliminates or enhances particular systems given the organisim's environmental interaction over time, f. ex . Bat's & echo location. The fact that they still have ears say's they must have some functionality in their survival strategy. I read somewhere that the ears were part of their equilibrium mechanism ( just like ours). Both Dr. New's & Dr. Cheryl Coombs experiments with the lateral line are fascinating to say the least. However. I didn't see anything that showed they delved into the ear and it's functionality in prey capture or feeding behavior. Dr. New's sight & lateral line deprived fish were fed minnows, which probably didn't make any acoustic noise within the muskies hearing range( whatever it is). Dr. Coombs research was likewise focused on the lateral line. It would have been very interesting if they would have extended their research a bit into this area. I wonder waht would happen it they had dropped a mouse into the water /w a loud plop, frantic swimming, etc? But that was probably not within the scope of the projects. Perhaps this is a good research project for an aspiring grad student.
Does anyone know of any research being carried out in this area, i.e., the functionality of the ears?
Obviously a lot of us Muskie fisherman believe they have some functionality in their feeding behavior. There's heck of alot you guys that talk about the intensity & timbre of the noise your baits make- even the hum of the line/wire for trollers
While others think it also is used for self survival/escape-> Ssshhhhhhhhhh.....I got a bite... [:bigsmile:]
My vote is for both, now the trick is enhancing the first and mitigating the later.[8)] [:0] [:bigsmile:] [:sun:]
Al Warner
www.spongebobresearch.com | |
| | |
| It very well could be BOTH.
However, if you consider that the majority of meals a musky eats never make any sort of audible (high frequency) sound you could assume that a musky gets accustomed (evolves) to respond to certain types of stimuli.... which in this case the probability is pretty high that the stimuli is NOT an audible sound... especially a sound that is similar to that made by an internal rattle.
My personal belief is that visual and lateral line stimulus are the most effective.... so even if audible sound (rattles) can make a difference it is probably fairly minimal. Thus... I don't put a lot of emphasis on the NEED for rattles. Yet... I fish with lots of baits that have rattles.
Flash (visual) and Acceleration (touch - lateral line) are the predominant signals a musky is accustomed to responding to... so why not put MOST of your emphasis on those? Any presentation that includes one or both of these has to be effective.
Now... when you introduce SURFACE FEEDING predators (which includes muskies) into the equation.... the lateral line is still the most predominant organ involved. Lots of studies have been done on trout to prove this theory. However, I am just as guilty as the next musky fisherman for favoring specific SOUNDS produced by my topwater baits. I just think fisherman have learned to use the SOUND the topwater bait produces as a means to know their bait is (tuned) doing what the fish have shown to like in the past. The question is... is it the sound of the splash... or the FEEL of the surface disturbance that get's their goat? I have no clue. This subject is very similar to the chicken or the egg debate. But it sure is a fun one to help kill the winter months (haha).
jlong | |
| | |
| Musky hearing. An interesting topic in the reserch section. Think about this: Very often we hear commentary about the senses these fish use--often to the effect that muskies are sight feeders primarily, etc. That's probably largely a myth, but true in some instances. It would be more useful to think of the sensory ability muskies have as perceptual systems, rather than single organs. That is--they probably do not utilize just one of their perceptual abilities at the expense of others. Only humans are that senseless. Sharks, for instance, have all of the sensory abilities that our favorite fish has. Sense of smell, lateral line capability, vision, and even the capability to sense electronic stiluli. Probably all living baitfish give off minute electronic signals, because they are electro-chemical organisms. Shark studies show that they can detect stiluli from great distances; smell in parts per million (as in one drop of blood in a million gallons of water), can "hear" baitfish signals at great distances (some indicate a distance of at least 1700 yards), and can locate prey even when it is buried under sand (electo-sensory). It's not too great a leap to infer that muskies, the top fresh water predator, can do the same, though probably not at such great distances, simply because they are smaller. Typically, a shark homes in with its sense of smell at great distance, moves towards the prey, and eventually switches systems to lateral line capability, to vision and or electronic senses, in about that order. In doing this, they cast about (back and forth) much like a wolf locating prey. Watch your lab trying to find something. Since our favorite fish has basically the same perceptual organs as the shark (ever notice those funny little pores along their lower jaw?), they probably use a similar approach. And why would they have nostrils if they never use 'em? Think about what happens when you encounter a steak--go to the store, analyze, select, cook, smell, taste... Did you only eyeball it?? Of course not. So, do fish respond to sound? Sure--but probably not the way we do. It's their environment--not ours, and they probably respond in a variety of ways. Do all lures give off "sound"? If they move, they do. Do muskies only attack from below? Nope, sometimes they eat crayfish, too. You can't get lower than that. Do they only eyeball a lure? Sure, when they get close--but they can also get along perfectly well in a lateral line attack, if the water is dark. So, do fish hear? Sure, but somewhat differently than we do. Sharks, by the way are shown to be attracted to low frequency sound, and are apparently repelled by high frequency sounds. Some hi-frequency sounds scare the h--- out of even great whites. But in nature, prey fish emit low frequency sounds. Probably the same thing works for muskies. Do I know what frequency is most attactive? Yeah, but I'd have to kill you if I told you. Happy hunting. | |
| | |
| Rex Dorethy put this subject into a good perspective.... and in a way we all should be able to understand and relate to. Thanks Rex. The holistic approach of including ALL senses is reality. However, if you consider artificial lures.... scent and taste are usually not an option. Thus, if you look at our lures as a tool to stimulate the senses of a musky.... we are left with visual, touch, and sound. Are all three required to initiate a strike? Nope. In fact, sometimes more could be less. What I mean is... why incorporate rattles if it MAY emit a high frequency sound that possibly could repel some fish? On the flip side... rattles COULD alert a musky to your lure and give them a better awareness of your offering and increase your chances of getting bit. Its a risk we all must choose to take and one I don't think we will ever be able to predict. Thus, fishing will always entail lots of trial&error.
I think we can over-complicate this subject real quick too. There are just too many variables involved to ever think we could figure this out. I've dreamed of pinpointing the optimum low-frequency vibe that could make EVERY musky strike your lure if you get it close enough to them.... but that is an unrealistic expectation. But, I do feel that if we consider what signals our lures are sending out and learn to optimize them... our offerings could become more efficient and effective. No guarantees... but it can't hurt.
jlong | |
| |
|
muskie hearing