|
|
Posts: 93
| Just a thought. I've been seeing a lot of muskies wising up to popular baits such as anything with double 10's, dawgs, dussas, and various twitch. It makes sense. There are a lot more musky fishermen now and are pounding the popular waters over and over. These fish have been hooked and caught many times, and I think they're becoming more discerning. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| Nope. Fish can't wise up, because they can't think. They are bsolutely stupid. Now, do they exhibit condition response behavior? I suspect so. Instinct, but not conscious thought.
Lot's of discussion if you search for it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8866
| They probably do become conditioned to an extent. But the fact that we can catch the same fish again and again on a lure that doesn't look like food or act like food or sound like food leads me to believe there really isn't that much going on upstairs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Define 'conditioned', please. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1297
Location: Walker, MN | I got really frustrated throwing big rubber this year. I tried different profiles, spinners and presentations with not much luck. I think a bait that sits in the fishes face for a time gets studied after a while. I also moved way more fish on double 8's then on d10's or bigger this year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 93
| Masqui-ninja - 11/14/2013 9:25 AM
I got really frustrated throwing big rubber this year. I tried different profiles, spinners and presentations with not much luck. I think a bait that sits in the fishes face for a time gets studied after a while. I also moved way more fish on double 8's then on d10's or bigger this year.
I caught more on double 8's too.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | sworrall - 11/14/2013 9:15 AM
Define 'conditioned', please.
Nourished and moisturized, or silky and smooth? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | two cents on the pile: I think we as anglers find it easy to give fish our "human" preferences. We tend to focus on what we see, (color is a good example as a priority item vs lower on the requirements.) Same with individual baits. Blades, a form developed from spoons have been catching Muskie since they figured out how to make a stiff fishing rod. This is the only time I make a reference to GOLF as a metaphor for fishing. Pace, Pace, Pace. If the pace of the bait is in the activity window of the fish, if it is of the preferred size class/profile. More than likely the fish will feed. There are many reasons a fish will "strike/nudge" a bait, an anglers concentration level is normally the difference in turning those into hookups or another "what the H@@@!" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8866
| sworrall - 11/14/2013 9:15 AM
Define 'conditioned', please.
What I mean by becoming "conditioned" is that after repeated exposure to lures going by, they become less likely to react to them under most conditions. Much like a school of bluegills will ferociously attack and then spit out anything that falls into the water that is not food. After a few tries, they ignore it. An hour later, you can go back and they'll do the same thing all over again. I think it's similar with muskies on heavily pressured waters. Unless it's time to eat, by the 5th or 6th time they've seen a double 10 today, they are much less apt to chase it or try to eat it. On the lakes where you have people fishing constantly, lures just become part of the environment.
Are they getting smarter? No.
Are they still going to eat anything that moves when it's time to eat? Yes.
The real question is whether that conditioned (lack of) response actually lasts for any length of time. My guess is that we're probably talking about a few hours, maybe a day. Give them a week without seeing lures, and they'd probably all react just like you'd see on a lake where nobody fishes.
They evolved over tens of thousands of years to do three things: Eat, spawn, and don't become bear food. I doubt much we do is going to change their behavior. |
|
| |
|
| The point is that they stop biting baits that people are pounding the water with. Makes sense as anecdotal evidence supports it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Muskies do not 'stop biting' baits, they simply become more difficult to trigger as the reaction to the footprint (stimulus) falls off. The bait signature that was 'new' and elicited a stronger response is now part of the everyday environment and requires a more active fish than it once did.
As everyone knows, the lures keep catching fish, but the curve levels out eventually. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2088
| An ant will run away from you when you invade its space.....fish are stupid, but ya, you pressure the crap out of them they get very negative..... it not the lures - a good lure is a good lure for a fish that is not completely "shut-off" - I've caught the same fish countless times on the same lure. Heck one time in Northern Canada I caught the same 36" pike on the same black fly three days in a row. And had it hook again day 4  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20281
Location: oswego, il | I see it alot, lakes that have fish that bit in everything, the masses come and your eventually lucky to get one that wont flash off at the boat. Some lakes will cycle this process in 3 weeks time down in the flatland. No boats all summer then the water cools off it gets pounded and the fish that were eating at your feet have the oh shucks moment 5 feet away. Its not even the lure its boats pressure and catching fish.
I do get that fish don't think or reason. They must be aware? The other thing that could be debated is bow much stimuli for how long can change behavior.
Edited by ToddM 11/14/2013 12:30 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8866
| The fact that fish will follow several times, less aggressively each time, leads me to believe it only takes a couple of casts. Luckily they apparently don't have the capacity for long term retention. If you've ever watched a fish chase down prey and how that prey reacts, it's pretty obvious why lures don't get eaten as often as we'd like. I suspect that if someone were to make a lure that actually mimics the movements of the forage muskies typically prey on it would get eaten much more often than the stuff we're throwing now. Sort of off topic here, but that's why some people catch fish on certain lures and others do not. The more you can make that lure dart around, break the surface, and actually do what fish do, the better your results are going to be. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2088
| banjo minnow....it stimulates a genetic response, watch the infomercial |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20281
Location: oswego, il | So does playboy! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8866
| IAJustin - 11/14/2013 2:56 PM
banjo minnow....it stimulates a genetic response, watch the infomercial :)
I think I still have some of those things gathering dust in the basement from many moons ago. Funny stuff right there! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 152
Location: Nowhere near where I should be | http://blog.lib.umn.edu/hamdi002/blog/2011/11/have-we-been-underest...
You can buy fish training kits if you can believe that.
Well, one would assume goldfish have a smaller brain than a musky. If you can train a goldfish to respond positively to food one could almost expect a negative response if the food becomes a trap. Slap 8 ouhgts and 16 ounces of rubber in his face hold him against his will remove him from his environment enough times i would guess it could be very possible he would not want to do it again. I would call that a form of conditioning through a "bad footprint" in the fishes wee little brain |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Enough times' is the key. We had some esox in an aquarium, and whenever I walked into the room, they would come to the front of the tank hoping for food. Whenever the cat walked into the room, they did the same thing.
'Conditioning' needs to be studied without the veil of anthropomorphism. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8866
| sworrall - 11/14/2013 6:11 PM
'Enough times' is the key. We had some esox in an aquarium, and whenever I walked into the room, they would come to the front of the tank hoping for food. Whenever the cat walked into the room, they did the same thing.
Maybe your fish were just stupid? 
There was a case a while back where a trout hatchery had to change their feeding methods because the fish had become acclimated to being pellet fed from shore. When those fish were stocked, they apparently associated a person standing on shore with feeding time, and were all promptly caught and eaten by anglers throwing stuff with hooks into the water. Survival rates were dismal. There's little doubt that evolution has given fish the ability to discern where the food is and what cues are present to indicate when that food will arrive. I think it's a stretch to give them credit for much else, though. Thousands of years of evolution at work, and the only thing that may well invoke a negative response is something that looks like a bear or an Eagle. |
|
| |
|
|
Maybe your fish were just stupid?
There was a case a while back where a trout hatchery had to change their feeding methods because the fish had become acclimated to being pellet fed from shore. When those fish were stocked, they apparently associated a person standing on shore with feeding time, and were all promptly caught and eaten by anglers throwing stuff with hooks into the water. Survival rates were dismal. There's little doubt that evolution has given fish the ability to discern where the food is and what cues are present to indicate when that food will arrive. I think it's a stretch to give them credit for much else, though. Thousands of years of evolution at work, and the only thing that may well invoke a negative response is something that looks like a bear or an Eagle.
I would also think getting a hook jammed in your mouth and then being lifted a few times would also start to invoke a negative response. Animals/fish survive because they have instincts -- there's a reason that 50 incher made it that far -- it isn't all dumb luck. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3926
| I'll toss this into the pile...
For about 4 years I lived on a small lake known for big pike. I goofed around and landed on, without doubt, the best colors to troll in the summer. By far the best producing bait was a largest Risto Rap in plumb, trolling fast and stalling the bait. Second color was anything that was pink/white. Used other baits with same results, i.e., trout colors beat every other color X10 in the open water. (The Risto worked best cause we could easily troll it about 5' above the thermo). Looked up the DNR stocking data. Turns out the lake was, MANY years before, repeatedly stocked with rainbow trout. Led me to believe the pike there now, though decendents of the ones who ate up all the lady fingers, are "conditioned" to hit rainbow trout colors. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 152
Location: Nowhere near where I should be | I had muskies in an aquarium also, great pets, fun to feed. I would get the same reaction unless they had just been fed. Anything/anybody moved toward the tank they were stanced to receive why? because that was the only food source. Nothing swam to them, there food came from that object outside the tank and was dropped in . If muskies relate to food/forage they are there to receive thats automatic. I don't think i'd play that off as stupid i'd say it was instinctive they have only one tool to hunt with at this point and it is sight. The lateral line is out because nothings there, yet. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I would also think getting a hook jammed in your mouth and then being lifted a few times would also start to invoke a negative response. Animals/fish survive because they have instincts -- there's a reason that 50 incher made it that far -- it isn't all dumb luck.'
Actually, it is 'luck' in many cases unless the water is huge and not fished much. On some systems, it's being successfully (and that's a major deal) released several times that does the trick. On others, it's living to be 12 to 15 years or more, and making it to the last few percent of survivors from that year class through the gauntlet of non angling related mortality let alone being caught and released.
Then some sap dangles a sucker in front of your yap....or tosses a new lure..or.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2026
| esoxaddict - 11/14/2013 6:57 PM
There was a case a while back where a trout hatchery had to change their feeding methods because the fish had become acclimated to being pellet fed from shore. When those fish were stocked, they apparently associated a person standing on shore with feeding time, and were all promptly caught and eaten by anglers throwing stuff with hooks into the water. Survival rates were dismal. There's little doubt that evolution has given fish the ability to discern where the food is and what cues are present to indicate when that food will arrive. I think it's a stretch to give them credit for much else, though. Thousands of years of evolution at work, and the only thing that may well invoke a negative response is something that looks like a bear or an Eagle.
Maybe the hatcheries should start feeding the musky fingerlings bucktail shaped food??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Maybe this explains why The muskies were in a "negative" mood for me this season,........I should have put Cisco's or Shad on the side of the boat ,instead of an Eagle....
Attachments
----------------
 025 (640x480).jpg (267KB - 139 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 142
Location: Appleton, WI | Jerome- like this?
Attachments
----------------
IMG_1402.JPG (60KB - 135 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8866
| Do you find a lot of fish bashing into the side of your boat trying to eat those fish?
I think we give them a lot more credit than is due. After seeing them stare down a sucker for 5 minutes and not eat it, or sitting there staring at a bucktail hanging over the edge of the boat, or staring at the trolling motor for minutes on end? Yeah. Fish are not too bright. It's fun to come up with new ways to fool them. I like the pretty paint jobs and having all different sorts of lures. But I'm convinced that most of the muskies we catch would have eaten anything that was in front of their face at the time. That said, I will not dangle my feet in the water anywhere there are muskies. You may think that's dumb, but if they will eat tinsel and blades, something the size shape and color of a fish splashing around in the water is probably fair game. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| Behavior modification studies have been done with fish that have shown that they will behave in certain ways when subjected to a stimulus. These studies have been done under conditions with many controls. Nature does not provide those same controls at a level to condition fish in the same way that you can train a dog. In order for conditioning to work the stimuli has to be repeated over and over under the same conditions. Throw in changing variables of temp, current, light penetration, speed of stimulus (your bait), etc. and your control is shot to pieces.
If the example of being hooked by a big hook once conditions muskies in this way then shouldn't it be a cinch to housebreak a dog? Dog pees on a rug, introduce negative reinforcement once and voila...your dog is housebroken...right? Nope, doesn't work that way. Yes...we are giving these fish way too much credit.
Bettas, goldfish, tetras, etc have been "taught" to swim through hoops and do other things but they were taught this in a very controlled environment. Take two bettas and leave one in the same tank while conducting this experiment. Take the other betta and do the same exact thing except each time move that betta into a different tank, alter the temp slightly, conduct it with the lights out once, next time lights on, third time with strobe lights, and so on. I guarantee that the betta receiving reinforcement in a consistent environment will show a quicker "conditioned" response than the one where everything is changing. A muskie's world is not a very controlled environment.
Read what sworrall is saying about footprints. Read it again and again and again. That's your key. Fish are accustomed to their environment and when you introduce something that upsets that status quo there will often be a response. Once that "new" thing that is introduced becomes "old" it simply fades into the background noise of their environment. Anyone who has ever lived near railroad tracks or a busy highway has experienced this. First few nights when that train rolls by and shakes your house at 2am it is something you are not used to. Given time you adapt to it and don't notice it is there like you did when you first moved in.
When my uncle was still fishing muskie tournaments he made some serious hay exploiting this by fishing thoroughfares. Heavy boat traffic areas that no one else fished because they thought the boat traffic pushed those muskies away. Not the case. The resident fish in those thoroughfares have heavy boat traffic as part of their environment that they are used to. Him introducing a bait altered that footprint because these were fish that were not targeted hardly at all. If you dump a bunch of boat traffic onto midlake structure it will impact the resident population until they adapt to it. Once it blends in with their environment it's as if they don't even notice it just as they don't notice it in areas with heavier traffic. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 68
| Ulbian --- So in one paragraph you state that fish in the wild can't become conditioned as there are too many factors and not enough repititions, yet in the last two paragraphs you talk about fish becoming conditioned. I guess it's splitting hairs to say "trained" vs "conditioned", but I think that most people are using those terms interchangeably. I don't think it's just luck that a few fish make it to adulthood while most don't. Sure, there is some luck involved but maybe that fish has just a little better instincts that allowed it to survive. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No, it's not 'splitting hairs' at all.
Ulbian has it nailed, read his post more carefully. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 68
| So if I said "the fish have become conditioned to not pay attention to the boat traffic" or "the fish have become trained to not pay attention to the boat traffic" -- what is the difference? Just because someone uses the word trained it doesn't mean that they are implying that someone was in the water making the muskys do tricks in exchange for rewards of crappies. The words are pretty much the same in this case. If I am training my body for a marathon or conditioning my body for a marathon it is the same thing -- same thing applies here. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | No it doesn't. Let's address this so it makes sense. Red is what Ulbian said that will apply to my explanation. Blue is my response to your comments. Here's what was said:
---------------------
Behavior modification studies have been done with fish that have shown that they will behave in certain ways when subjected to a stimulus. These studies have been done under conditions with many controls. Nature does not provide those same controls at a level to condition fish in the same way that you can train a dog. In order for conditioning to work the stimuli has to be repeated over and over under the same conditions. Throw in changing variables of temp, current, light penetration, speed of stimulus (your bait), etc. and your control is shot to pieces.
--If the example of being hooked by a big hook once conditions muskies in this way then shouldn't it be a cinch to housebreak a dog? Dog pees on a rug, introduce negative reinforcement once and voila...your dog is housebroken...right? Nope, doesn't work that way. Yes...we are giving these fish way too much credit.--Addressing 'training/conditioning' that is reliant on positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement and the number of repetitions under a controlled environment it takes to accomplish a conditioned response in a FAR more intelligent mammal .
Bettas, goldfish, tetras, etc have been "taught" to swim through hoops and do other things but they were taught this in a very controlled environment. Take two bettas and leave one in the same tank while conducting this experiment. Take the other betta and do the same exact thing except each time move that betta into a different tank, alter the temp slightly, conduct it with the lights out once, next time lights on, third time with strobe lights, and so on. I guarantee that the betta receiving reinforcement in a consistent environment will show a quicker "conditioned" response than the one where everything is changing. A muskie's world is not a very controlled environment.--Addressing the fact the assumed 'negative' experience of being caught is not repeated enough times under identical conditions, therefore not conditioning the muskie to exhibit avoidance behavior. Not going to happen long enough term even in repeated captures for more reasons than are posted, not to mention no two captures will be identical...or even close.
Read what sworrall is saying about footprints. Read it again and again and again. That's your key. Fish are accustomed to their environment and when you introduce something that upsets that status quo there will often be a response. Once that "new" thing that is introduced becomes "old" it simply fades into the background noise of their environment. Anyone who has ever lived near railroad tracks or a busy highway has experienced this. First few nights when that train rolls by and shakes your house at 2am it is something you are not used to. Given time you adapt to it and don't notice it is there like you did when you first moved in.-- Great example of adjusting to a constant stimulus that has no positive or negative reinforcement. The very first time a lure signature enters the water, the very strongest will be the response. As the lure signatures similar in nature become regular background noise, the response falls off pretty fast, and a strike response is harder to elicit and takes a more active fish to get it to eat.
When my uncle was still fishing muskie tournaments he made some serious hay exploiting this by fishing thoroughfares. Heavy boat traffic areas that no one else fished because they thought the boat traffic pushed those muskies away. Not the case. The resident fish in those thoroughfares have heavy boat traffic as part of their environment that they are used to. Him introducing a bait altered that footprint because these were fish that were not targeted hardly at all. If you dump a bunch of boat traffic onto midlake structure it will impact the resident population until they adapt to it. Once it blends in with their environment it's as if they don't even notice it just as they don't notice it in areas with heavier traffic.-- The boat traffic is repetitive and is widely environmental, with no specific negative OR positive reinforcement, therefore the fish 'adapt' to the traffic as it is part of their environment. Anglers assume the boat traffic bothers the fish, because it bothers the anglers, hence a great example of anthropomorphism. Because the high boat traffic areas are fished way less due to misconceptions by anglers, the same or a very similar presentation that is used at the same time repeatedly on the more heavily fished water on that lake will elicit a far stronger response from Muskies in the high boat traffic area because the lure signature is not a consistent portion of that area's footprint. OK, you said: So if I said "the fish have become conditioned to not pay attention to the boat traffic" or "the fish have become trained to not pay attention to the boat traffic" -- what is the difference? 'Trained' implies a controlled environment where reward or punishment is present. In this case, the fish must either be bothered to the point of leaving, or adapt. They adapt, but peple make the mistake of assuming they will not. -- Just because someone uses the word trained it doesn't mean that they are implying that someone was in the water making the muskys do tricks in exchange for rewards of crappies. The words are pretty much the same in this case. They absolutely are not, the example of fish being trained was clear. The fact the environment in the lake prohibits a stabil and consistent environment prohibits 'training' from even being on the menu, and people confuse adaptation, conditioning, and training all the time.--If I am training my body for a marathon or conditioning my body for a marathon it is the same thing -- same thing applies here.-- No, the activity is a decision you made as an intelligent organism and activity you voluntarily undertake, and 'conditioning' the body is a completely different use of the word.-- |
|
| |
|
Posts: 68
| I guess I don't understand why you think that "training" has to happen in a controlled environment or done by a higher thinking organism. Obviously muskys are not training themselves by thinking about it in the human sense, but on their level their instincts may become trained to react in a certain way based on past experiences. Nobody knows how many times it takes for them to develop this as just like anything else it would vary from fish to fish. The fish aren't consciously making the decision as they don't reason, just react -- but the fish who are able to become trained/conditioned better than others have a better chance at survival. Again, it's impossible to know for sure what's going on and it's nothing but pure speculation by both you and me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You are reading personal concepts in to the previous material that are not stated or even implied. Instincts are not something that your concept of 'training' can have any immediate effect upon.
Instinct requires generations upon generations to develop (evolution), and is a far more complicated topic of discussion. Several studies have been successfully completed over a long period of time to indicate the number of generations exposed to a direct threat, and what it it takes to have the scent of that threat in the water create an instinctual avoidance response in a population of fish. I believe instinctive responses are generally considered completely different from a learned response.
One needs be cautious when using that term in the case of lower organisms. Some insects are prodigious learners, but they still don't avoid a truck windshield.
Instinctively heading to the correct area that features the correct substrate to spawn? That has been an issue in getting NR on stocked systems, if I remember correctly. Different deal all together from conditioning.
It's not at all impossible to 'know what's going on', science has done a pretty good job.
I would agree no one knows what a muskie is 'thinking'. Mostly because they don't, as we perceive it. Some of this may be a bit technically weak, it's been a few years since I delved into the argument in great detail, but I think ulbian, who certifiably is better educated than I on the subject, has it right. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 68
| But by your theory then all muskies would act the exact same -- just like a robot. Sure, all things of a certain species have certain traits/instincts/characteristics -- but there is variation amongst the population. Of course there are some muskies that are better feeders, better at evading predators, etc. They didn't intentionally set out to "train" themselves, but something in their brain clicked just a little more than the next fish -- it is evolution in progress -- survival of the fittest. The muskies who are able to adapt to situations better will survive and therefore pass on their genes to next generation. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'But by your theory then all muskies would act the exact same '
Uhhh, no. Again, you are assuming something based upon your own perception, and this isn't 'my theory'.
The only thing you've said so far that I agree with is your last sentence, if you remove the words 'to situations'.
By the way, welcome aboard. It' s a little early for this kind of debate, Winternet usually starts about Dec 15.
As you can tell, this is a subject visited many times here over the years. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 68
| Yep, I'm sure we could go around on this all night. See you at the next debate! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Yes sir, you probably will. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| Very interesting comments in here. I would add to the concept of the uncontrolled environment the simple fact that the macro seasonal progression is different every year. Cold Spring, Warm Spring, Cool Summer / Hot summer, etc. That is the just the macro stuff. To say that a Musky's environment is uncontrolled is quite the understatement.
I've began logging these trends in addition to my daily notes in an effort to see if anything can be learned from it. Not quite the hot bait discussion of the OP, but I would imagine it is no less relevant to putting fish in the net. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8866
| From an evolutionary standpoint, "desirable" traits get passed on from generation to generation, and "undesirable" traits do not, because the animals with those undesirable traits don't survive long enough to reproduce. Over many generations, the more cautious muskies would theoretically have a greater survival rate, have greater reproduction, and that trait would become more predominant in the overall population. In theory, muskies COULD evolve to have an aversion to lures.
That's much different from individual fish "learning" to avoid lures, however. And it all goes out the window when you introduce catch and release to the equation. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1082
Location: Aurora | Something else to consider - Educators have known for decades that memory/the ability to recall a specific event and details of that event are infinitely improved when attached to emotion or trauma.
The following method worked great for a time but after countless lawsuits they learned they couldn't dangle candy bars with treble hooks in front of the students during lectures, pull them up through the ceiling into tanks filled with water, and fondle them excessively while taking multiple pictures.
Hence the introduction of the parent permission slip..
Edited by Sidejack 11/16/2013 10:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32958
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Anthropomorphism at it's finest... |
|
| |
