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.--