Posts: 2361
| Not imo.
Is there something that indicates this to be true or research supporting this idea?
If I can remember my musky inc articles correctly, there was one article, rather complex that suggested that there was a greater likelihood of prey being attacked as the abundance curve or encounter curve went up.
For this to happen would suggest to me that a new bait is more likely to be attacked after it has been presented to fish several times.
If there is an aversion developed to lures as suggested by some, it could be actually a generalized aversion which included, boat motors, depth finder sounds, trolling motor sounds, and that aversion would cause a generalized rejection of anything connected with those stimuli.
Edited by firstsixfeet 12/13/2005 9:41 AM
|
Posts: 32882
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, the literature on stimulous/rsponse supports the idea that a 'new' stimulous will generate a stronger resonse than one which is commonplace. Yes, anthropomorphising, but use the 'living next to an airport' example. When one first moves there, the airplane noise is horrible every time one roars over, but after awhile, it's commonplace, and the reaction to the noise is much lower.
There is a difference between strike response and a feeding response, one is a 'automatic' resonse to a stimulous, the other a response to whatever creates a window of activity druing any one timeframe. As an example, I have fish here in an aquarium. The minnows display shoaling behavior pretty quickly when exposed to predation from the fish in the tank, but co-exist with them in what appears to be total harmony until the next time a 'feeding window' opens up, and the crappies and perch go nuts on them for a few minutes. However, an ice jig dropped in front of one of those fish and jiggled will get a strike response when there was absolutely no other predator activity in the tank at all. The minnows, doing what they do all day, are perfeclty safe at that time, but I still caught a fish. It's how DIFFERENT from the norm, and how strong the hopefully positive stimulous might be that gets the response we want, IMHO. Look at a lure, listen to it recorded under water, and you'll see something SO not natural it's ridiculous. Gotta be way louder, far more erratic, and so out of the ordinary....until there's 150 anglers throwing it all the time. |
