|
|
Posts: 67
| Last Summer I had several discussions as to what does a muskie see. In other words, in the water enviroment--clear water, stained water, turbid/muddy water what is the Muskies visual acuity?
In relation to lure presentations I suggest that the Muskie only sees a blur of movement and possibly a flash of color. And, that is in a clear water lake. Perhaps that's why they follow lures, they are trying to get a better look at what attracted them before they eat it.
What do you think the Muskies visual acuity is? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | They can see more than one would think, but not in any great detail. The Muskie's eye is much like the lens on a 35MM camera with the shutter open all the time. The fish must accept the available light as is, no adjustment like in our eyes. If color is available and it's the proper sun time ( no transition under way) then the Muskie can see color very well. Simple problem, though, is water takes out color very quickly, and low light conditions increase the effect.
Also, the Muskie can only see in stereo vision in an 'opposite triangle' out in front of the fish. When the fish is right on the lure, it may not be able to see it at all.
Excellent mid-day vision in many waters is 3'. Most of the waters I like to fish are probably less than that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Steve,
What you said is supported by research, however what I'm suggesting is that a moving lure is pereceived by a Muskie brain as a blur and flash of color. I'm not suggesting that the Muskie has defective vision (though some might) only that their anatomy, their anatomy of their eye, and refractive condition of light in water all combine to impact the visual acuity of the Muskie.
However, the Muskie has evolved other means of detecting and attacking prey/lures, such as sound, vibration, and to a lesser extant sent. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Visibility down there sucks most of the time, as you said. The muskie's visual system is sensitive, but detail isn't the objective. All the fancy fins, eyes, and patterns on most lures are not that important, as the fish can't see them very well under PERFECT conditions, musch less what actually exists on most muskie waters. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | Jerry Bucholtz of the central wisconsin chapter of muskies inc was doing some research on the muskies eye back in the mid to late 90's. What he found or theories of this I am not sure but if you can contact him someway I am sure he would talk to you about it. The stuff he was doing and theories were way out there. I know he took a few eyes from fish that did not make it and he would freeze them and slice them up in micro thin slices and review under microscopes.
He explained it all to me and a buddy once and while we understood most of what he was saying when he got done, about a half hour talk, I looked at my buddy and said I understand what he said but there is no way I could ever repeat any of it and have it make sense. It was a little in depth into the science end of it.
Corey Meyer |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Jerry was working on the possibility that muskies might be able to use 'light' wavelengths unavailable to the human eye. He has some pretty convincing evidence he's correct. I need to call him and see where he is with that project. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 691
Location: nationwide | Yea, what Steve said!!!!!
Steve, let me know what you find out from ol doc and tell him I said "hi".
What he was working on was pretty wild stuff for sure.
Corey Meyer |
|
| |
|
| A research study on muskei eyesight can be seen at:
http://www.trentu.ca/muskie/biology/biol07.html
Good reading,
MuskieOtter |
|
| |
|
Posts: 152
| Ultra violet penetrates far deeper than the visible rays and it also brings out color in fluorescent paint. I cought more fish on fluorescent lures trolling dark water this fall than on no-fluorescent lures. I was using about the same number of each lure. 2Rodknocker and I have been talking about color patterns on lures and we feel that imitating a fishes pattern might be counterproductive since they are marked to break up their mass and blend into their surrowndings. I think vertical colors in large mass would show better. Fanncy paint and scales catch fishermen and are cool, but it is like Arlo Guthrie said, the blind judge isn't going to see the 8X10 color glossies. Later |
|
| |
|
Posts: 303
Location: Valentine, NE USA | Has anyone seen the study relating to why whales, dolphins, and most seals do not have blue sensitive cones (the same as muskies)? It dealt with the evolutionary process of moving from land to sea and the predator's advantage of filtering "blue" in shallow, coastal waters....
An interesting read. I have a link to it on my laptop, I'll post it in the morning.
B |
|
| |
|
Posts: 303
Location: Valentine, NE USA | http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1937
Location: Black Creek, WI | That is an interesting article Snowcrest. Thanks for sharing.
I'm still skeptical in regard to muskies not having blue cones. What little has been published on that topic specific to muskies is questionable. Secondly, the limited studies suggesting that muskies do not have blue cones also report that they have yellow lenses... which filter out the longer wavelengths (red and yellows). Regardless, we know that muskies are shallow water dwellers (especially in comparison to ocean fish) and also live in much more turbid waters than blue-water ocean fish. Thus, muskies must have good vision in the longer wavelength region of colors (green to red). Thus, whether they have blue cones or not is kinda irrelevant unless you truly want to fish with blue lures exclusively. Which means no matter whose theories you believe.... we are left with GREEN. And we all should know by now that RODS are most sensitive to GREEN light. Thus, if we concentrate on green-based colors we can't go wrong!
My current thinking is that focusing on the RODS rather than CONES is more beneficial to anglers anyway. Sure, color vision (CONES) has higher acuity but is this form of "vision" most predominant for fish... and especially the musky? Also, since anglers are so caught up with the idea of "contrast" being a good thing... I feel that what they are really discovering is that what they feel is increasing the visibility of their lures is actually making them more difficult to SEE with any kind of detail. Basically, camouflage for cones (high detail vision).
Rods are far more sensitive than cones... which is why they predominate in low light situations. But, rods are also the key component for PERIPHERAL vision. Thus, if you want to get the attention of a musky... getting noticed easier via peripheral vision should be a benefit, in my opinion.
So... I'm thinking that if we camouflage our lures with COLOR and jazz them up with stuff that target the Rods (Green/white) we will have an advantage under a wider range of conditions. A "jack of all trades" type color pattern. This strategy may not be the best in all cases, but perhaps it will be more consistent in the long run? Regardless, I still have plenty of blue and/or red lures.
And lastly, I am currently more interested in how our baits FEEL (lateral line) rather than how they LOOK. Whether muskies have blue cones or not is becoming less and less interesting to me. Neat stuff... but not sure how important it really is in the broader scheme of things.
jlong |
|
| |
