No. If the fish were intelligent enough to relate noise=boat=anglers=lures=danger we would never catch a thing. It HAS been pretty much proven fish will move a bit out of the path of a motoring boat, but tuck right back in behind the rig. Consider the fact that propwash trolling works so well.

It IS a good story though.

Question for Mr. Worrall...

If silence is "Not" golden, then why do we tend to make long casts in clear water or turn off our electronics in areas we are familiar with when we think we may be among fish? Mr. Saric has written that as a trophy hunter he tends to try and be "stealthy". I would be stupid to argue with either of you but the question beckons none-the-less......

from another aimless angler who just wants to catch a "fatty"

I make long casts in clear water because the fish seem  to stick pretty close to structure like reefs and weeds under those conditions if they are not suspended. If a fish moves out 3/4 casting distance after the lure, many times they will grab the lure and dash back for cover. If the boat is there, the strike turns into a follow, and the motion of the angler in the boat (mostly visual) is added to the equasion, adding non productive activity to the stimulous.

Powertrolling in the propwash is the loudest, most racket infested, NON sneaky method used, and works great; the fish are NOT wary or afraid of the boat.

Sonar noise is a constant, and the fish could care less about it. They have absolutely no concept what that noise is, have no ability to reason about it, and totally ignore it as a result. Vertical jigging walleyes, pike, bass, and panfish is a very successful method and the sonar is dead above the fish.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to 'sneak up' on a fish in a boat anyway. The angler moving about, talking, moving one's feet, using the trolling motor on the approach, waves hitting the hull, the reel noise down the line; all travel under water at 4800 feet per second announcing one's approach. Sure, one can keep sharp noises that might cause a fright/flight reaction to a minimum, but taking it any further is giving the muskie credit for smarts it simply doesn't have. Try this:

Go underwater with a snorkel, and get, say, 50' from the boat. Have a friend cast, talk, and move normally in the rig. You will be amazed.

There isn't enough constant exposure in a muskie's life to 'condition' them as  has been suggested in the past. If a noise is constant, however, the fish must accept it as a normal part of the everyday environment. Boat traffic, swimmers, jetskis, all become a normal part of every day existence. Doesn't mean the fish has any clue what they are, or for that matter, 'cares'. They will eat a piece of plastic filled with BBs and bristling with hooks, moving in that water like a piece of trim, and painted like a clown.

I agree about the buck, but that is a mammal with a significant cerebral mass, which the muskie lacks. Point still stands that 'sneaking' up on a fish in a literal sense is not necessary or for that matter possible, IMHO. The only condition where trying to be as quiet as possible may apply is on huge flats of very shallow water ( under 3') with absolutely NO cover. If a boat approaches, the fish might move out of casting range, then again, they might not.

Hitting the trolling motor when the fish is right there can cause a fright/flight reaction, it is REALLY loud and pushes a huge stream of water. I think the fish ignore it most of the time unless they contact the moving water, which seems to really spook them. Just an observation.

WOW, my brain hurts!

Great observations though. Neither side of this discussion however, will hinder me from tossing the bait where I feel it needs to be placed in order to get the bite. Life is definately too short to worry if I scared a fish away because I thought I was too noisy therefore not tossing the wood. I'm sure most of us agree with that....

Fish On!

Howie,

I sure hope you are not referring to the Chippewa Flowage Muskie Study. That was, is, and forever shall be a total farce. See the issue of Esox Angler a while ago ( Issue 8, here is a link http://www.esoxangler.bigstep.com/item.jhtml;$sessionid$MYMHTJYAAALA3TZENUFXBMWPERWRJPX0?UCIDs=1025591%7C1058775&PRID=1198605) ago that dealt with the study, I wrote a piece for that issue edited and supplemented by Rob Kimm, covers it pretty well.

I spent over a year investigating the 'study', and found it to be a collection of misinformation and bias beyond belief. The authors were presenting seminars with concrete conclusions before the data was even collected, and presenting 'facts' that were not in the data at all.The main source of funding for the study was NOT very happy. The rest of the sponsors listed, for the most part, did little or nothing with the telemetry portion of the study, but a couple were involved in the single hook 'study' portion done the next year which also drew conclusions prematurely, had many 'facts' which were actually nothing more than personal opinion, presented multiple 'autopsies' that were never authenticated and worse, but to the author's credit at least drew what appears to be a somewhat accurate conclusion. Single hook rigs kill fish.

The telemetry study was a total blowout. From a scientific point of view it was an absolute zero.

There IS a tracking study that was done right, the Milwaukee chapter of Muskies Inc sponsored it on Pewaukee lake. The conclusions drawn support Steve Van Lieshout's list of Muskie behavior rules. Simply put:

There are no rules.

stephendog, that is my point exactly!!

Inside joke:

The muskies are in wolf packs again zig zagging--- oooooo, spooky...

Northbound is right,Howie. Take my word for it, I am not just expressing an opinion. Please read the Esox Angler article, and draw what conclusions you might.

On the conditioning issue, look to the source documents and two issues of 'Behavior of Teleost Fishes' edited by Tony Pitcher; Chapman and Hall. Dry reading, but very informative. Another great source is a book written by one of the finest Anglers in the world, 'Through the Fishes Eye' by Mark Sosin and John Clark. It is out of print, but many libraries have the book.

Mike, I agree on the noise issue.

The $100 bet example is not necessarily relevant, as extremes are given as an example. OF COURSE one doesn't want to set up right on the fish, nor 'stomp around in the boat', as there MIGHT be a fright/flight reaction depending on the thousands of variables attached to the particular event, and the angler's total presentation could be seriously compromised. BUT! I fish slop alot, and sometimes get the fish to go after I have been through the area repeatedly, as many as 6 times through, tossing targeted casts into pockets from many different directions.  Troy's fish on Sabaskong came the third time through the area no larger that a quarter a city block.  I guarantee on most occasions, my boat, electric, and all the associated noise went directly over some of the fish I then catch with no ill effect.

Why doesn't speed trolling, or propwash trolling in shallow water ( I watched a fellow win the Twin Cities MI event on Leech one year propwash trolling in less that 6' covering the same area over and over and over) apply to the discussion? The muskie is 'staged' in an area as shallow as a few feet, is appraoched by a boat with the engine running and all the associated noise, yet hits a lure IN the propwash. The idea that they are used to eating prey washed around by the propwash doesn't give any credit whatsoever to the prey species, as they, given the current line of thinking, should also rapidly learn to avoid the boat and subsequent predation by muskies.

There is nothing I can find in the literature that supports the idea that a fish will develop a learned avoidance response to a boat, angler, particular noise, visual cue, or other 'negative' experience in one, two, or for that matter several exposures. In fact, many fish can be caught repeatedly with hook and line with no avoidance behavior noted at all, which is, I believe, the basis of the concept of CPR in the first place.

Here is a bit of what I refer to:

Motivational basis of  fish behavior:

(this covers concept that fish are motivated to behave in a particular manner. It also covers habituation, which I refer to quite a bit with boats, jetskis, etc becoming part of the normal envoronment. Operant conditioning is also discussed, but that discussion would bore most nearly to tears anyway.)

" Two major structural changes germane to a consideration of motivation are learning and imprinting. The meaning of LEARNING unfortunatley varies with the user. It is generally taken to refer to the long-term change in he likelyhood of a particular response following a particular stimulous,over successive associations of the stimulous and response ('when followed by appropiate reinforcement' acording to reinforcement theorists). Such changes are variously interpreted as the outcome of conditioning of one or more types. ( Domjan, 1983) IMPRINTING refers to the development of social and habiatat attachmants as the result of experience during the brief sensitive period in early life. Although imprinting was originally contrasted with traditional learning in the labratory, it shares many features with learning. Habituation, the waning of a response after repeated presentation of the same stimulous, lies intermediate between the motivational dynamics and learning in its features and time scale." (Chapman and Hall, 'Fish and Fisheries', series 7)

Interestingly, in tests with several differnet species of fish, the response of avoidance to a 'negative experience' in may cases disappears in less that 48 hours during controlled testing on teleost fishes if exposure ceases, and is then reintroduced. Reinforcement theorists feel the negative reinforcement is too limited  to create a 'learned response'.

 Olfactory response is even more interesting to me. Predator scent form Pike was tested in schools of minnows that had never been exposed to it, and in a few exposures, those fish developed shoaling avoidance behaviors when the scent was introduced, even though there was no pike present. I think that this was the short lived basis for the idea In Fish put out there a few years ago that a 'predator scent' natural to humans might create a fright reaction in some fish, and levels of the chemical supposedly responsible were measured on the hands of several anglers. It appeared that the idea simply went the way of so many, unprovable or unsupported, but a neat concept to consider.

My son relates that fish captured in Fyke Nets in the spring and fin clipped seem to develop an avoidance after a few captures to the net. The next year or even a few months later in the fall, however, the fish are easily netted the same number of times beofre they develop avoidance behavior. Perhaps over the course of the seasons, the fish 'forgot' the avoidance behavior because exposure was brief and ceased. He also relates that the approach of the DNR boat to boom shocked muskies after several nights seems to create an avoidance ONLY when the shocker is operating, which indicates the fish 'learn' to avoid the electrical field after several exposures, but again, the next time on that lake seem to have 'forgotten' the exposure.

What does all this mean? I think Steve Van Lieshout has it right. There are no rules.

The CFMS failed in concept, participation of the listed agencies, structure, collection, analysis, and review to meet even the most liberal description of a 'study'. I am absolutely confident in the observations Jason, Rob Kimm, and I  published in EA. Friends defending would not help, it was and is nothing more than a collection of stories and predrawn conclusions. The conclusions published about conditioning are ridiculous and seem to be drawn in an attempt to 'explain' why muskie angling there had slowed in recent years.

HOW would ANY of the tracking data support a claim that muskies ' wolf pack, zig zagging across structure at night'? The author of this story, a primary CFMS writer, called the supposedly observed behavior 'spooky'.  That's for sure....

I look for any and every way to keep motivated and focused when musky fishing. Depending on my fishing partner for the day, I find it tough to be "hard core" as often as I'd like. So, one of the essential facts I remind myself of is the musky and pike have an incredible matabolism. That being said, I approach every "fishy" piece of water with the realization that if I blunder and make an abrupt noise or even botch my casting placement odds can be decent that there is still a hot fish there who just fully digested it's last meal and now has the munchies. And why not think that? If I thought any less than that on every cast (good or bad) why would I waste my time imparting some kind of action to the bait on the retrieve? And further, why would I continue to cast off the deep water side of the boat nearly every time a jet ski or boat passes within casting distance? I'm hoping there's a hungry musky looking for an easy "stunned" meal in the propwash. Not too quiet out there I'd say. I do like fishing quietly and at a distance when conditions motivate me to look for those kind of opportunities. But the fear of spooking or being near a "conditioned" fish has never kept me from trying to catch it anyway. How 'bout ya all?

Ya know, a lot of well intentioned experts have ruined some pretty enjoyable experiences for me in 42 years. I try to remain teachable.... but, can't too much dissent be a bad thing sometimes? Simply put, "Wet a line"......

Honey?

Easy!! FSF, you described an angler being extremely stealthy, and  another one bumbling about on top of the fish and stomping around the boat. Neither is very realistic, and reality should be somewhat of a measure, don't you think? Very few anglers would behave to either extreme, which was my point. My comment was based on the example you offered, not the three classes of fish you present. point in fact:

Jim Cairnes (Rockford, IL), one of the best anglers I have ever met, fished for years with a stereo blasing out Led Zepplin to hull mounted speakers. He caught a ton of fish; I know, I fished with him quite a bit. Did the rock make a positive difference, or negative? No idea. I know I was about as successful without the noise.

BTW, who said anything about MY presentation? I said that setting up on top of the fish and stomping around in the boat MIGHT compromise that particular bumbling gent's presentation; whomever he might be, and that it would not be realistic to expect anyone would do that. I sure wouldn't. Somehwere in the middle of the example is what most good muskie anglers try to do. I spent a fair amount of time under water over the years, and will stand by the assertion that it is near impossible to sneak up on anything in a boat.

I ask what observation brings the comment that some fish react with great alarm to boats, the hooking process, or unhooking process? Isn't it an accurate observation that a fish that one day flares from the boat immediately might another day take a well presented figure 8 at boatside? Is it not possible the the boat and angler background is a factor ( only one of many including light, reflection, surface conditions, clothing color, and much much more) in ALL follows or approaching fish, and that the response to the stimulous the bait/presentation creates could on one day be less than another, allowing another stimulous, like a moving angler in the background or a reflection of sunlight off a hull to effect the total response, thus causing a flight reaction instead of a strike? Or perhaps generating a weak follow instead of a strike? Why must it be that the fish is 'conditioned to avoid capture', and if that were so, wouldn't it be more likely the fish would not approach the lure/boat at all?

Those fish fall into a catagory I can't find anywhere in the literature, and that is the base point of my argument. If muskies conditioned to capture easily, and learned to avoid anglers, I submit the fishing would be much tougher than it is.

 If a muskie forms an avoidance behavior to one capture, would not that particular event have to be reconstructed almost exactly to elicit the expected response? Would a fish caught in rough water on a spinnerbait avoid a glider in calm water? The 'cues' are totally different, are they not?

I also would ask why propwash trolling works well in areas where boat traffic is absolutely minimal, and shad or cisco are not present. The example in the weeds on Leech was a good one. That gent caught 6 fish on spinnerbaits in the weeds in less than 6 feet of water, trolling at high speed. I have seen others do very well using that tactic on waters where boat traffic is nearly non existent, in fact in areas of Canada where a bay might not see ANY boat traffic for months.

I ask if it is necesarily so that the fish are 'used' to boat trafic at all or are looking for chopped up baitfish thus making propwash trolling successful, or if perhaps there simply is no relation to boats with any particular response. The boat is there, the lure is there, and the response is to the lure. The LEVEL of the response might just be the most important factor as to whether we catch a fish or not. Maybe? Why would the fish form an avoidance behavior to capture? What is the negative reinforcement, and how would the association form with one encounter? Is it even possible to associate the boat with the capture, if, for example, the fish hits out at the end of the cast? Doesn't electric motor noise under water travel at 16 times the speed of that same sound in the air, creating an atmosphere where that constant is subject to habituation?

For MuskieBum, RE this example:

The meaning of LEARNING is generally taken to refer to LONG TERM change in the LIKELIHOOD OF A PARTICULAR RESPONSE FOLLOWING A PARTICULAR STIMULOUS OVER SUCCESSIVE  ASSOCIATIONS OF THE STIMULOUS AND RESPONSE. SUCH CHANGES ARE VARIOUSLY INTREPETED AS THE OUTCOME OF conditioning OF ONE OR MORE TYPES. 

Conditioning being the key word, assocaited with learning. I thought it was relevant.

I brought out the associated imprinting and habituation, as the three are connected when considering learning and motivational behavior. Imprinting and habituation must be considered while considering learning  motivational basis of fish behavior. 

What am I trying to prove? Nothing. I am asking questions, presenting ideas, asking if ideas that are put foward could be substantiated by some basis in fact, and trying to then apply those ideas to everyday muskie angling. I DO have a problem with myth and 'rules', and a particular problem with stated absolutes that have little or no support in reality. I have a possibly misguided belief that blindly accepting whatever is handed to me by an 'authority' (as in 'angler') as fact without questioning might just cause me to overlook something that could make me a better muskie angler. I especially have difficulty with 'rules' that oppose sound logic.

Example:

 It was claimed by some that fish fyke netted did not form that avoidance behavior to motor niose and fish caught on hook and line did, which is questionable using said logic. The fyke netted fish spends MUCH more time in captivity, is handled MUCH more extensively (assuming that handling is negative reinforcement to entering a fyke net), especailly if stripped for spawn, ends up in a boat with humans handling the muskie rather roughly who approached in a boat with a motor. Things that make you go HMMMM. Yet that same fish can be fyke netted several times before avoiding the net, and then netted again several times just a few months later, suggesting a waning of the avoidance behavior.

Shouldn't the avoidance behavior with hook and line muskies be directed at the LURE? What assocaition is there to the boat, netting, release, hook removal, etc? Can the muskie reason that the lure led to the boat which led to the hooking which led to the net which led to the handling and subsequent release, and then avoid a boat as a result? Can the fish identify the angler as the culprit, and avoid anglers at all costs?

One trolling motor company advertised that a clear prop would not spook the fish, and therefore was a distinct advantage. What of the foot and the shaft? Why do they now sell all black props?

A line company advertised that their new clear line would catch more fish, as it would be invisible, therefore reducing the avoidance problem since obviously fish associate line tied to a lure with capture. ( right...)  This line 'replaced' a blue flourescent, which proclaimed on the spool, 'The line you can see, but the fish can't'. I guess all those years they were just funning with us.

Some fish repotedly move out of the path of a slowly approaching boat. Planer boards were supposed to address that movement by placing the lure in the path of the fish just as the fish breaks off the 'retreat'. Yet I catch numbers of fish on flatlines, too. I wonder. Maybe the planer boards are effective simply because more water is covered, and more fish contacted. Then again..

So, FSF, I don't disagree that the reasonably careful angler will sometimes outfish the guy who doesn't take care to set up his approach to optimally place the selected presentation. That is obvious. 

My bet stands with the angler who takes chances, breaks the rules, innovates, and tries to approach the 100 fish to optimally place his presentation given the conditions. My son kicked my hinder for a day on Sabaskong throwing bass size crankbaits at the rock walls. I was on the same pattern, but was throwing big cranks and other big stuff. That particular day his technique outproduced mine moving fish 18 to 1.

By the By, I don't for a second intend to insinuate I am correct in my assumptions. What I am going to do is debate the subject, for two reasons. One, I like to debate. Two, if I intend to debate the subject, I try to look into it as much as possible, rehashing studies and reading supporting documents. I am certain to learn something. Or at least try to!

No one can absolutely prove out any of this stuff until we can ask a muskie. I tried that. All I got was a cold stare.