|
|
| In past descussions, we have talked about educated fish, or conditioned fish, based upon how many baits they may see, or pressure that the body of water receives. We could go back into that debate, but I am thinking of this in a different perspective here.
Say, for example, those bodies of water that had no muskies at all and became muskie lakes due to full stocking efforts. Not one of these fish is native to the water, but natural reproduction takes place over time, and in certain bodies of water, become fairly self sustaining. The question is this....how does the fish know where to go for the best spawning in the lake if it is introduced to the water? Can this be considered instinct if the fish is stocked?
It's been shown that trout, salmon and various other species of fish, travel back to where they were born to reproduce, which may/must involve instinct, or some process that allows them to "remember" where to go when it comes time to spawn.
I am also questioning that the idea of predator-prey relationships, a fish must be able to determine safety in areas. In an aquarium, when shiners are put in for food while the fish are hungry and active, the shiners scatter to the closest cover. But...if the predator is not hungry, the shiners will sometimes sit right next to the predator. How can this be if there is no thought process? Is it a sense that they have like a 6th sense we sometimes feel deer have?
So...looking at the big picture here with this analogy, wouldn't a fish have to be able to at least use simple thinking?
Steve | |
| | |
| I think they "instinctively" think, as seen from their ambush tactics, but maybe they give off a sign, such as flaring their gills etc. to scatter bait fish. Some other species just follow schools of bait fish + then zoom in on them as they feed...good question, wish I had a better answer![:sun:] | |
| | |
| If Muskies could "think" then some of us could outsmart them. Muskies, indeed all fish, rely on instinct and conditioned behavior for survival. Thats why on one can predict with any reliability what will fool them ie, catch them. Location remains the largest single controlable variable in Muskie fishing. Other than actually being on the water. Lure type, color, presentation technique all are minor variables in the catch a Muskie equation. | |
| | |
| I believe, and I know there are many others who don’t, that a musky has a simple ability to think.
They do to many things that prove this to me. The biggest of which is the act of following a lure and striking or not striking. There has to be some sort of thought process going on there. Call it instinct if you want, but they are choosing to either strike or not to strike during that follow.
The other big one for me is conditioned behavior, to have conditioned behavior they have to be able to remember, which means there has to be some sort of thought process. Again call it what you want, but in the end they are reacting to things around them as if they have a thought process, as simple as it may be.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
| |
| | |
| The problem most often presented when discussing Muskie intelligence and ability to 'think' is perspective.
The reasoning ability mammals and other creatures with better central nervous systems exhibit is light years from what a fish is capable of. Memory, at least as humans would consider it, is very very poor, and usually only is effective in experiments for 1 to 2 days. If the stimulous ceases for a day or two and then begins again, the previously observed learned response is no longer present.
The fish's brain is not the same as ours or any other mammal's by a LONG shot. There is not the capacity to reason as we know it, nor to remember as we know it. The short answer is no, they don't 'think' as we would generally accept the concept.
An example:
Recent Studies show that fish do not feel pain. This is s bit complicated, but the process of feeling and associating 'pain' goes something like this. You step on a nail, and are injured. The response to the injury is to at first pull away, as there is discomfort. Then one looks at the injury, and the brain processes the visual, while the damaged nerve endings send more information to the brain, which processes that information. You see the nail, remove it, and seek medical attention . The injury is sore to the touch, and your brian continues to process that information over and over.
A fish, when injured, simply displays initial avoidance, then seems to ignore the injury. The reason for that is there isn't the necessary brain structure to take the injury and then translate it to 'pain'.
The behavior you mentioned from the minnows is referred to as 'shoaling behavior', and 'avoidance behavior'. If there is adequate cover, many of the fish studied did not shoal (a flock, as compared to a flock of birds) as much, and instead utilized the available cover. Shoals generally exhibit schooling behavior, or synchronized movement of shoal members.
If there is poor cover available, then an attitude known as 'inspection behavior' is employed. The prey will swim up to the predator (in the case of the study I am reading now, a Pike) enmass in small groups, or alone. The minnow will swim slowly up, get very close, hesitate, and then move away. If this behavior generates any reaction, especailly an attack posture or preparation to attack, the shoal will engage in avoidance behavior starting with a low intensity skitter, whch warns the rest of the group. The group then engages in movements that may confuse the predator. It is accepted that this overall behavior is accepted risk mamagement, as an attack by a predator then can be anticipated by the group, minimizing the overall loss to the shoal.
I could go on and on, as this stuff fascinates me. Probably already went far enough, sorry..
[:bigsmile:] [:bigsmile:] | |
| | |
| Steve,
Why didnt you just shorten it up a bit...
"Muskies are dumb as a box of rocks"
Its us and mother nature that makes catching them so difficult!
[:bigsmile:] | |
| | |
| Steve,
I understand your concept mostly. It makes sense in that there is no way a fish is going to be able to reason in any way like us... but...
Thinking again...how does a fish establish a home range? There have to be visual clues that are recognized...some type of homing ability....If a visual cue or experience only lasts a day or two, how does the fish actually find it's way around and recognize where it is at after 3 days? If they roam the open water and once in a while hit shallow for whatever reason, how do they get back to the same area and go to (in some cases) the exact same weedbed or rock? Do they hit "holding pens" (as dick pearson states) every day on a sort of "milk run"?.
Granted, fish can be as dumb as rocks at times, but so can we. What theories are out there to substantiate that fish cannot process information in their environment as simple of processing that might be?
Steve | |
| | |
| The homing behavior you refer to is accepted to be a combination of topography recognition, and olfactory sense (smell). Fish removed from their home range to unfamiliar areas can sometimes find their way back, so vision isn't the primary influence there.
A fish can learn the topography in an area moving within that area, showing extreme caution when a new object appears; say a crib just placed on the known 'home ground' or holding pen, as Dick verbalizes it. The 'memory' of that area stays in place as long as 40 days, but is not the same cognitive force at work as what we do when finding our way home after work. It would appear that object 'imprinting' in a area seems to be the key, plus olfactory sense. A blinded fish removed from their normal range, and placed in unfamilar water, can find the way back, but one deprived of the sense of smell rarely can, if at all.
This doesn't imply intelligence, or the ability to reason beyond the most rudimentary. Nor does this imply 'instinct'. | |
| | |
| I couple thing Steve brings up I think further prove that fish do have the ability to reason. No one is saying they can think like a human or even a dog, or even a mouse. But they have a brain and it’s there for a reason.
The minnow example Steve used is a good one:
“The minnow will swim slowly up, get very close, hesitate, and then move away. If this behavior generates any reaction, especailly an attack posture or preparation to attack, the shoal will engage in avoidance behavior starting with a low intensity skitter, whch warns the rest of the group. The group then engages in movements that may confuse the predator. It is accepted that this overall behavior is accepted risk mamagement, as an attack by a predator then can be anticipated by the group, minimizing the overall loss to the shoal.”
The minnow is checking for risk, assessing that risk and the group is reacting to that assessed risk. Actually sounds like fairly complicated reasoning to me. Much more then I ever thought Steve would admit a fish had the ability to accomplish.
Using sight recognitions doesn’t have to be proof of thought, any uses of senses to make decisions would be proof to me. It doesn’t matter how rudimentary it is, there is some thought process going on.
As fishermen it can help us if we can at least try and figure out this rudimentary thought process. It could help turn follows in to strikes, and bad days into good days.
Understanding this rudimentary thought process might help us answer questions like: It’s a cold front. Where did they all go? There’s lots of pressure, but the fish still need to eat. Where are they? What can I do with this crankbait to get it eaten and not the multitude of cisco I am pulling it through.
Which brings up another point how does a musky know it has a better chance of catching wounded baitfish over a unharmed baitfish.
Anyway enough for tonight.
Nail a Pig!
Mike | |
| | |
| I agree with Mike on this one. Could the reason fish do not feel pain be because they don't have the nerve endings other organisms have instead of thinking their brain doesn't have the ability to comprehend?
As quoted by Steve "A fish can learn the topography in an area moving within that area, showing extreme caution when a new object appears; say a crib just placed on the known 'home ground' or holding pen, as Dick verbalizes it." If a fish can "learn" the topography in an area, I think that alone is proof enough they have the abilty to think. I don't have any scientific information to back up my statements, but are we ever truely going to know if fish can "think"?
The ability for a fish to find its way by the sense of smell is quite intriguing to me. This leads me to believe the fish must be able to reason and differentiate between scents. Dick Pearson is a firm believer that scent makes a difference when fishing for muskies. If indeed scent makes a big difference, why is this so? Why would a muskie readily attack something that "smells" a certain way?
Let's say I'm bringing my bucktail to the boat when I notice a musky following 30 feet out. So many articles and people say to speed up as you get nearer to boat to trigger that fish. What does the speeding up do? I think it imitates a fleeing baitfish and that fish has to decide if it wants to attack or not. I don't feel the musky is hitting by instinct because a lot more fish would hit everytime that manuver was performed.
How does a fish know it needs to eat? There must be something that is triggering that fish to feed. A few years back Paul Klein told me something that I found quite intriguing after we were done fishing. We went for more than 15 hours straight fishing, and not one follow. He said that if we would have noticed the whole ecosystem was "stagnit". No bugs were out (This was August), and very little wildlife was on the move. To this day I have paid attention to this, and I find it very true most of the time. When the whole ecosystem is on the move, so are the fish. ALL FISH! Steve you say that fish do not think like animals do. If that is the case why is it that before storms everything feeds, including fish? Are they not "thinking" the same way that the animals might be?
The whole concept that fish can not think is something that I don't feel is totally true. Maybe that's my way of coping with not getting the fish to hit everytime I'm out on the water, but so be it. | |
| | |
| As far as smell goes, tests show that salmon will exit an area when human scent is present. Just as a dog can "smell" fear in a person, perhaps a wounded baitfish gives off certain chemicals; they certaintly act different. When it comes to weather patterns, I "think" the pressure of different weather systems is what causes live creatures to act differently rather than thinking. They are simply reacting as they were programmed when formed; of course there are exceptions to every natural rule, and that is why I still fish when it might not normally seem like a good day to go. Paul Klien is right--by paying close attention to what is going on around you, one can get somewhat of an idea of what and why things are the way they are![::)] | |
| | |
| This is a pretty interesting topic and one that I have racked my brain over for quite some time... (I suspect Steve Worrall has me beat since he has a few more years on me.ha,ha,ha. But it's his statement that really makes us think outside the box. "That musky's are dumb as a box of rocks.")
First off I want to say is that we shouldn't interchange intelligence to "superior senses" as the same. What I'm saying here is that despite the inherent disadvantage that a fish has with the lack of reasoning doesn't mean they commit suicide neither. (Whew!!! I know that last statement is wordy but reread it to see what I'm saying.) A muskie doesn't need to reason or retain memory in order to survive. It's their "main senses" that ensure its' survival. Despite their small brain size it's lateral line, eyesight, and ability to flee quickly allow it to survive quite effectively. Sense of smell may even play a larger role than we realize also, but for what we do know sight and the ablility to feel is important. We can't compare an organizism to one another by brain size alone in assessing whether their survival skills are keen.
For example, some trophy whitetail bucks can almost appear unkillable to a hunter, but to assume that they are smart and are able to reason is false. First off, a deer's sense of smell is extraordinary. The animal could pick up your scent from a half a mile away and already be moving out of the area before you even get your gun out of the case. Also their hearing is incredible. If they hear that car door slam or anything that isn't natural than they can be moving to the next county. Their eyesight is also good for acquiring movement and they could be slipping through the heavy brush as it sees you walking down the trail. Did they have to think about it before they decided to leave? No because it's already wired into it's instincts that it's time to flee. Do you have to think of what you're doing everyday such as walking, eating, sleeping(at least I hope you don't....LOL I was going to say talking but that pertains to me.) I'd like to compare a deer fleeing to danger the same way. It doesn't need to think before it reacts. Just like we don't necessarily need to think when we do certain things. The motor skills take over and you're able to walk to point A to point B. It's not through intelligence that we learn how to walk but by performing an act, and continually performing it until we are able to do it successfully. I would have to say that certain activities don't require intelligence nor do we have to rely on intelligence to perform certain activities.
We shouldn't underestimate an animals ability to survive through instinct because it's a 180 from intelligence. We place a value on intelligence because it's what we base as important and it's strong influence on our survival. We no longer rely on instinct because we use our intelligence and "abliltiy to reason" to survive. It's not a judgement that one is better than the other. It's just a different way of processing information from your enviroment and using it to your advantage.
In closing, there are also some other type of senses that certain organisms use to find food, reproduce and avoid predation that we aren't even aware of. In fact, I'm betting that an animal has it wired in it's system a great sense of direction. It doesn't need to use a compass or GPS to find it's way back home. Because they are focusing it's energy on certain key senses they are able to find the spawning grounds. We can't relate because our reliance is on our intelligence instead of our senses.
That's my two sense worth!!!!.....sorry I couldn't resist,
Krappie | |
| | |
| When does conditioning become instinct? To me after such a long time of being conditioned to one thing it becomes instinct. Take Krappies example of walking. As babies we "learned" to walk over a series of days/weeks. At first I'm sure it was tough trying to stand only to fall down. The more we did it, the better we go. Eventually I'm sure it got to a point to where we didn't even have to think about walking to do it. It's not instinct. It's conditioning/learning.
When deer are very young imagine how vulnerable they are. They wonder around aimlessly, depending on their mother to protect, feed, and teach them. Dangers are encountered, and I'm sure there are some very close encounters over time. I believe that because this happens over and over again the deer quickly realizes what to avoid, and what isn't a danger at all.
I don't feel fish are any different. When fish are in there early stages of life, are they not easier to trigger to bite? Why do fish head for cover when a Bald Eagle flies overhead? I doubt it's instinct. Breathing is instinct. Realizing an eagle flying over head means that if I don't head for cover there will be very sharp talons blasting through that water to get me. That's reasoning.
My two cents. | |
| | |
| Most excellent dude! "Programming" is right; example, the lowly eel, who can be as far inland as Mn, yet spend time in the Adriatic Sea, if it survives, it will return to the exact same spot. Why do wild animals become somewhat tame? Because they overcome to a degree their NATURAL fear of man. Food also factors into this...fish can be "trained" to respond to peeps feeding them, and will actually come to the waters edge for handouts, this is in reference to mainly carp. The various senses of both people and certain animals become more acute if one sense is lost; if a person/animal becomes blind, the ability to hear INCREASES...not so sure in a pisces...pretty daggone fun stuff to think about though! I'm trying to picture meself as a deaf leopard.... [:0]
| |
| | |
| Travis, any fish will dart for cover from an overhead shadow for the most part, UNLESS it has lost its basic fear, which over time results from being offered food, again, CARP! Does make you think though...I just can't see them thinking![:sun:] | |
| | |
| Sponge not only carp, I have witnessed this exact behavior with Musky, Walleye and Pike. They have a bunch of musky in the big tank at Guides Choice Pro shop. I have taken the kids up there to and had them feed the fish. The last time I went I couldn’t believe it as Tom approached the tank with a small sucker on a forceps all the fish in the tank started moving towards him. Even though he was standing infront of the glass they would approach and new that that hand up over the water meant some food was coming. They where obviously conditioned, this behavior is not programmed into their DNA.
Nail a Pig
Mike | |
| | |
| Daggone dude! Must have been neat seeing that; for sure it's not in their DNA! I guess any creature, once it is conditioned, would respond to food in such a manner. I know there are some places I wouldn't set foot in, but if I got hungry enough, I imagine I'd pay double...I guess in a fishes' mind, food must be the key to overcoming natural fear; starving deer will come out in broad daylight and feed on shrubs, etc...I need to think some more about this; daggone interesting stuff! | |
| | |
| To gain a better perspective of the fish's ability to 'think' or reason, take a look at the brain structure. No functional frontal lobes. Also, look into fish behavior in predator avoidance, and the number of GENERATIONS it takes before fish species begin to respond to a newly introduced predator.
Anyone with an aquarium has experienced the fish's reaction to a food source. After several weeks in captivity, bluegills begin to respond to my feeding them by moving to the front of the tank when I approach. They do the same when the dog enters the room, and the same when the cat enters.
The problem is what WE percieve as thinking; what the fish is doing does not represent reasoning in even the most simple sense. DO fish 'think'? By the most simple definition, yes. Do they 'reason'? By the most simple definition, no. If the muskie was capable of reason, it would be nearly if not totally impossible to catch. Examples:
The angler wishes, for reasons only humans can explain, that his quarry be intelligent. He then assumes that the intelligent quarry must be tricked into eating a totally foreign object, the lure. The assumption then is that the lure must immitate something the fish recognises as prey, and that things would be even better if the immitation would appear disabled somehow, or injured. Naturally, the predator would reason that this would be easier to catch. The angler then chooses line the fish supposedly cannot see ( if the fish can see the line, it will figure out the lure isn't real), and arms himself with all sorts of ideas about what is necessary to fool the desired target of his presentation.
SO! He determines to tie on a bucktail. This object fools a pretty reasonable segment of the Esox population every year. It is made from a piece of wire, a hook, a large portion of a deer's hinder, a bunch of nice natural beads, and something no fish has seen in nature before and never will, a metal revolving blade that squeals in a MOST unpleasant manner as it rotates on the clevis, clicking metallically as it rocks. It doesn't look like prey, sound like prey, act like prey or in any way look like a perch, sucker, shiner, or other little fish. It sails through the air, clatters and squeals it's way back to the boat, zips around in a circle, and repeats. Assuming the water is reasonably clear, and the fish can see as best as they are able, would not the very fact the BOAT is there IN THE VISUAL FIELD, and the lure is tied to a ROD that has it's tip in the water, and the fact the lure is going in VERY unnatural circles with the angler only 7' away cause even the densest of the creatures we accuse of intelligence to take one look at a figure 8 and for that matter, the whole presentation and decide maybe, just maybe, something is amiss?
Have you EVER seen any fish move like a glider? I would certainly be facinated and would go immediately over to see what was on the surface if I saw an actual baitfish acting like a Jackpot. Jig and minnow combos account for alot of fish. Ever see a minnow attach itself to a nice round orange ball, sail through the air, sink like a rock burying it's nose into the bottom, and HOP straight up, the SINK straight down several times, only to suddenly zip to the surface, disappearing into a large dark object?
I have three aquariums in my fish room, and NONE of the fish there have ever behaved even remotely like a lure. I watch the perch and minnows hang around together all day, and then, something clicks, the birds are at the feeder, the deer are moving, the bluegills are cruising the tank, and a minnow becomes perch poop. Just as mysteriously, all those things quiet, and the minnows and the perch hang out together again. If I was a minnow in that tank, I would live in one of a dozen plants or behind one of the rocks there, staying as far away from the perch as possible. That is because I am a human, and can reason. Sort of.
[:bigsmile:] | |
| | |
| Most excellent explanation Stever...I now know why some peeps are the way they are! In your first paragraph, the mention of a non functioning frontal lobe and the inability to basically reason tells me that me boss in some way built like a fish from the neck up, yet it has taken me years to learn avoidance techniques that would enable me backside to heal properly; we'll be in the office "finning" around, then he will suddenly go on a verbal feeding spree, scattering us "baitfish" to all 4 corners of the office. In conclusion, I derive from the above that "he" has no frontal lobe ability, therefore rendering him unreasonable, and "we" also exhibit the same traits, as "we" haven't learned as of yet to avoid predation...is there a way out??? [:blackeye:] | |
| | |
| Instinct, conditioning, ability to reason, etc. etc. are wonderful things to debate. Biology supports Worrall's point of view yet it conflicts with so many of our own personal observations and experiences. Thus, the infinite debate ensues.
I don't believe anyone will argue that fishing pressure or recreational traffic affects the behavior of all fish.... and in our case the might musky. Whether it is simply an instictively programmed avoidance behavior to "danger", a form of conditioning, and dare I even mention a form of intellect or reasoning...... it really doesn't matter.
Man in the wilderness of Alaska is FOOD and very few animals avoid contact with humans. However, man is scarce in Alaska and the amount of exposure these critters have with man is very limited. As you move south to Wisconsin where man is EVERYWHERE... many of the same critters behave differently. Is this instinct? Is this conditioning? Is this a form of intellectual reasoning? I don't know, but I see similar behavior with fish.
What I do know for sure is that it affects our fishing. Period. If we want to become more successful fisherman, that perhaps we should try to ignore our personal experiences and consider fishing from the "Steve Worral Perspective" which, as I see it, is approaching the musky as a 100% instinctive creature. Thus, it responds to certain stimuli. If we can better understand what inputs we need to offer to a musky to generate the desire response... we will succeed.
Sure, it will reduce the mystery and folklore behind this amazing creature we all love to pursue, but in the end I bet you will catch more muskies.
Steve Worrall uses the glide bait example. Well, I heard the beloved Bob Mehsikomer make reference to the 90 degree turn of a lure as some sort of proven stimulus to trigger strikes. He has some term for it like C-strike or something... but at any rate... you get the point. Your bait moving in that manner produces a stimulus that has been shown to produce the desired result (a strike).
So, interpret all this any way you prefer. If it makes you feel better to believe a musky refused your offering and only followed because it was the wrong flavor (color) or did not look natural enough... so be it. But, in all actuality the stimulus was not correct for the desired response.
And I'll leave everyone with this final thought. Just because a musky may not have the brain capacity of a human (front lobes or whatever Worrall is talking about) does not mean it is inferior to humans. They have equipment far more sophisticated than our own. The lateral line for example. Svenning is a human term for what we believe that organ is capable of doing... but considering our senses it is next to impossible for us to comprehend just what a musky percieves, or thinks, about our lures.
For now... I keep things simple... and acknowledge that pressure affects muskies.... and deal with it the best I can.
jlong
| |
| | |
| Wow!![:)]
And I must apologize for using the word "think." Maybe a better phrase would be "process information/stimulus."
Steve | |
| | |
| How and why does boating, fishing, or water use pressure effect muskies? I have fished lakes where hardly a line has ever creased the surface, and guided lakes like Pelican where sometimes one needs take a ticket to get on a stretch of water. I have had disappointing, pretty good, and incredible days on water where pressure does not exist, and on pressured waters as well.
I feel the question I asked above is incredibly important to keep in context. The same applies to ANY question about muskie behavior. That's exactly the point I try so often to make.
Understanding the function of the lateral line, air bladder, and inner ear has to be tempered with what the fish is actually capable of doing with the information the organs gather. The most effective measure of how this input is used in the every day life of a muskie can only be recognised by examining behavioral endpoints.
Adding myth, legend, or assumed behaviors based on anthropomorphism to the question will twist and confuse any conclusions drawn. I am simply trying to get a clearer picture of why fish do what they do, in hopes being able to apply that to my presentation. So much to learn, so little time...
[:bigsmile:] | |
| | |
| YES...a fish is more sophisticated than us--in the water! All animals, birds and fishes have an ingrained fear of man, yet when stimuli is applied to above creatures, that ingrained fear they possess can be overcome, and the major factor in that would be FOOD. Were it not so, then there would be no domestication of any of the above; and some animals are more easily domesticated than others. Though we as peeps don't have the acute senses or specific abilities that the above possess, we do have the ability to think/reason, which sets us apart from other creatures. I still say that fish do not think/reason, but certain creatures, depending on their level of developement and order of species heirarchy, do have the abilty to be taught. In the end, I believe anything other than peeps lack the inate ability to think and reason to the degree that would cause us to "think" different!
***VMS-- if you had stated "stimuli" rather than "think", the post would not have required the the degree of thought...it appears all agree that stimuli is a given, even for fish! [:sun:] | |
| | |
| For those interested in this subject, there are some great links to info on INSTINCT vs. CONDITIONING on the ERC website.
Go to www.esoxresearch.com and go to the Research Center. Then the Behavior section. Lots of info there to keep you busy for a long long time. Enjoy. | |
| |
|
Does a muskie actually think?