|
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Virtually like new, $6.93 with shipping. Tom Betka for the win!
(Assist by Steve Worrall)
TB
Edited by tcbetka 10/23/2017 4:21 PM
Attachments
----------------
 book_small.jpg (171KB - 638 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Got mine last year, 7$, fell apart.
Good book, does have some errors though. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | What sorts of errors? I haven't started reading it just yet, but will be starting in before too long--it would be nice to know what to watch for. Or are they blatant?
Thanks.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| The big one that sticks out, I hope I remember this right, right book...is that Brown Trout only feed at night. Which is not true.
There was also some info related to muskies I believe that has since been updated. I'll have to re read it to be certain. I can remember finishing the book and really liking it.. just thought there was a couple mistakes, incorrect correlations or somethings that just didn't fit with my experiences. Once you read through it I'm sure some things would stick out. Let me know what you think when you are down.
Now if one could get the behavior of telost fishes for a decent price. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I'll let you know when I start in on it, and I'll keep an eye out for the bit about the Brown Trout feeding.
Thanks.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Great book. That's the read that got me in to all of this.
I have an original copy and have the other tome mentioned as well. One is great reading, the other is full of great stuff but not fireside Saturday evening reading. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | While I was at it, I grabbed a copy of Becker's book. I used it back in school in the early 1990s, and have been meaning to buy a copy for the past decade. The online version is nice, but sometimes it's just easier to grab a physical book and page through it.
TB
Attachments
----------------
becker01.jpg (110KB - 653 downloads)
becker02.jpg (116KB - 643 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| I might have to get that one as well, I wonder if they have one for MN. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | You could just use the same one. It can't be very different at all--the species are so close geographically, I wouldn't even give it a second thought. Check the online Becker's to be sure.
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/EcoNatRes/EcoNatRes-idx?id...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Thanks for the link, I like you can read it online. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Right, pretty slick. The problem I find with it though is that it's a bit cumbersome to find stuff, and of course if you don't have access to Internet for some reason...you're out of luck. I've been using the online version for over 10 years, and made great use out of it when I was working on the Green Bay size limit resolution back in 2007 or so. But in order to use it you have to go start up a computer and get online--and sometimes that's just inconvenient. So I figured it was time to go ahead and just buy a copy, and found one on Amazon. But since the fish in Minnesota don't know they're not in Wisconsin, I think the Fishes of Wisconsin book will just fine for you.
They are pretty pricey though. I paid over $100...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 10/20/2017 6:40 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1291
Location: Hayward, Wisconsin | According to the old maps, the eastern half of MN used to be part of Wisconsin...just sayin'. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Larry Ramsell - 10/20/2017 9:46 AM
According to the old maps, the eastern half of MN used to be part of Wisconsin...just sayin'.
Don't tell that to Vikings fans...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| IMO the stocked MN muskies seems to act a bit different then when I'm in Northern WI fishing natural Muskie lakes. I only fish a couple different lakes in N WI so it could be more of a lake/area or region thing, and when in MN it is usually the metro.
63 degrees seems to be another temp sweet spot huh? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | thescottith - 10/20/2017 12:05 PM
IMO the stocked MN muskies seems to act a bit different then when I'm in Northern WI fishing natural Muskie lakes. I only fish a couple different lakes in N WI so it could be more of a lake/area or region thing, and when in MN it is usually the metro.
63 degrees seems to be another temp sweet spot huh?
But the information presented in Becker's book is basic enough that it *should* be equally relevant to both areas, since Wisconsin and Minnesota are so close geographically. By the way--I have no doubt that Becker's would be more accurate if written today, given the technology we have available to assist in conducting research. For instance, telemetry. We have the ability to follow a fish of (virtually) any species via tracking technology that simply wasn't available back in the mid/late 20th century when the book was written. I don't know if it's being actively revised or not, to be honest. But if not, then it would most decidedly benefit from modern technology.
So in that sense the basic information contained therein should be applicable across pretty much the entire range of a given species. And this should include muskellunge, IMHO.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Read the Muskie section of Becker and it makes sense how the info would pertain to MN and WI muskies.
Do you start Through the fishes eyes yet? |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Just paged through it. We've been putting up a new detached garage (workshop) here over the past month or two, and I'm trying to get that done. We pretty much just have the electrical work to do, and I'll be working on that this weekend. Once that's done though, I'll start reading it. So within the next week I'd think.
I'll take another look at the musky section in Becker's tonight, to see what you're talking about there. I haven't read through that section in years, to be honest. I read it a fair bit for other species (whitefish, lake herring, perch, etc), but not much for muskies anymore.
TB |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I started reading the Sosin & Clark book last night, and got through the first two chapters. Lots of background information thus far, and not much on vision because they're setting up the topic. There are a few errors though--more "inaccuracies" than anything I suppose. Like this one on page 34, regarding swim bladder ducts:
Freshwater species do not have this duct and suffer greater limitation on their vertical movements.
Obviously this is incorrect, as there are many physostomous freshwater species (including the pike & muskellunge).
But for the most part, the book seems to be quite good--and I am pleasantly surprised at how much "fish science" they are covering. It's been many years since I took ichthyology (1989!), and I had simply forgotten much of the basic science of fishes. So these first two chapters have been a welcome review, and I think anyone will benefit from the material contained therein. And they are written in such a way so as not to be overly complex or difficult to understand.
So far, so good...and Chapter 3 starts the material on fish vision.
EDIT: Just read chapter 3 on the basics of fish vision. VERY interesting stuff indeed! Muskies (according to the book) have great abilities to distinguish color, following only largemouth and smallmouth bass. That being said however, if something like a red lure is run at depths below which all the red light has been absorbed by the water...then all the red in the world won't allow them to "see red" down there. Orange is a little better, and of course the greens/blues are the best.
That said, I think I would tell folks that color DOES matter for musky fishing, but only under certain situations. You have to match the color to the 1) depth you'll be fishing it, weighed against 2) the amount of light that might be present in the water column that day. And you need to pay attention to the wave action as well--because the greater the wave action, the less the light penetration...thereby rendering your red color ineffective at shallower depths, for example. So it's definitely a complicated equation in that sense.
So while color is important, especially shallower in the water column and in clearer water, contrast and lure size is probably (predictably) more important...as Steve as stated many times in these types of discussion threads. Is it good to try different colors? Sure, as long as you understand the basics of light propagation through the medium of water, and the effect it will all have on the lure color you've chosen to fish that day. But I think that, as much as anything, the confidence an angler has in a lure of a certain color is going to have a greater effect than color on the success of that lure. If you like a lure, you'll use the lure more. So you've essentially biased the lure into being successful...further strengthening your bias towards that lure (color). It's a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
Great book though--and it contains a LOT more information than just that about fish vision and color. So I encourage anyone who's at all interested in understanding more about the fish we chase to buy a copy of this book. It's cheap--and it's a tough book to put down!
TB
Edited by tcbetka 10/23/2017 8:42 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Page 7, the second to last paragraph does yours say attitude where it should be Altitude? Just curious.
I really like the Vision section also. It is something that has been hard for me to grasp with all the variables. Like Fish switching from cone to rod vision at night and different colors become more visible, then switching back. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | thescottith - 10/23/2017 9:28 AM
Page 7, the second to last paragraph does yours say attitude where it should be Altitude? Just curious.
Yes, it does say "attitude," and that's what it's supposed to say...not "altitude." They're talking about the inner ear and balance system in a fish, so they're discussing an "angle of attitude" as pertaining to the position of the fish's body in the water column. Just like an aircraft--you can be in a nose-high attitude, or a nose-low attitude, or a level attitude. (At any altitude..lol!) So it's in reference to pitch in the water column.
I really like the Vision section also. It is something that has been hard for me to grasp with all the variables. Like Fish switching from cone to rod vision at night and different colors become more visible, then switching back.
Yes, I found that very interesting as well--that fish don't have an iris, but rather have the ability to retract rods (or cones) so that the other type of cell is featured for the current light level in their environment. Reading between the lines, I can't help but think that is one of the main reasons muskies seem to feed more aggressively at dawn or dusk--or anytime that there is a significant change in light level during the day. I think it's because they are able to more rapidly swap over to using their rod cells, whereas they prey may take more time to do so. This quite possibly tips the scales towards the musky in the predator-vs-prey battle, and thus the musky lives to face another day. Seems entirely plausible anyway.
Incidentally, I just bought the Kindle version of the book on Amazon for $15. Even though I have it as a hard-copy book, I like to read on a computer screen more these days. Also, the new edition is from 2015, whereas the book I have is copyrighted in 1973. Thus far I haven't found any real changes, but I haven't gone back and re-read the new version page by page. I'll just continue on in the newer (Kindle) edition, but can go back and check stuff that might be in question from the first edition.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 10/23/2017 10:16 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | By the way...
What did you think about the information (in chapter 3) regarding the amount of binocular vision these fish are thought to have? I found it fascinating! If the best retinal image is formed when an object is perpendicular to the surface of their eye and the image is focused on the central retina, that means the object being viewed is NOT in the field of overlapping vision for the fish. Thus because of their eye placement, they essentially sacrifice visual acuity for whatever binocular vision they can get. This might explain a lot actually, in terms of the behavior I've seen these fish exhibit while following a trolled lure.
Go watch some of Don Schwartz's great underwater footage of muskies coming up behind his trolled lures. The fish seem to alternate being right behind the lure (i.e.; binocular vision, enhanced depth perception), and somewhat off to one side or the other, outside the cone of binocular vision. Therefore it would appear that they alternate between being able to visually inspect the lure with one eye, focusing the lure's image on their central retina and thus getting the sharpest image...and then backing off a bit to put the lure into their cone of overlapping vision, so that they can get binocular vision and depth perception--with a penalty paid for a less sharp image due to the object being focused on the (more) peripheral retina.
Go watch some of those videos if you haven't seen them. It's absolutely fascinating stuff!
-----------------------------------------------
EDIT: Here you go--check out this video:
https://youtu.be/2FMnl46ttRw?t=2m44s
Watch how that fish puts its body just to the side of the lure most of the time, but then alternately drops back to check it out (seemingly) with both eyes. Look at where it spends the most of its time though, with respect to the lure position--it's instinctively positioning itself so that the lure can only been seen with the fish's right eye. But the lure is also about perpendicular to the surface of the fish's eye in that location. Now we have a plausible explanation as to why that might be--because the image is focused more centrally when the lure is in that position relative to the eye, and thus the image is sharpest for the fish. You might also note that the fish over-runs the lure frequently, because their depth perception isn't as good with just one eye!
Now check out this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6d155rgsDI
That fish hangs back and below the trolled sucker most of the time, keeping it in the cone of overlap...thus maintaining binocular vision, and also depth perception. And you can see it more effective manage the distance between it and the sucker. Occasionally it will close the distance to get a little better look with one eye--but for the most part, it hangs back.
VERY interesting stuff! Does this then imply that the first fish knew that the lure wasn't a real prey fish? Is that why it spent so much time inspecting the lure with one eye (i.e.; better visual acuity)? Does the behavior of the fish in the second video imply that it knew the sucker was a real prey fish, and therefore didn't need to inspect it as closely? Interesting questions, to be sure...but I doubt we'll ever really know for sure.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 10/23/2017 10:44 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Thanks for the clarification on Attitude vs altitude. I Never heard of Attitude being used like that before.
Agree on the switching of rods and cones in regards to being a predator, low light advantage.
I have watched a bunch of Dons videos. I really like them as they give you some insight. The binocular vision I think explains the muskies have bad aim. I was kind of always thinking they used sight, then got up on the bait and used the latteral line for the final kill. I'm now second guessing that all together also.
Lots of cool stuff. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | No, they pretty much use the lateral line (and their internal ears) to get close to the prey...and then sight to close the deal. Of course a blind fish can adapt to some degree and survive--and I'm sure that the fish really use any and all tools whenever they can, just as we do. But I have read, and I believe, that things get a lot more visual for them in that last few feet before the kill is made. If the water is more clear of course, then they can likely rely on vision a bit sooner.
Binocular vision should IMPROVE their aim though, because it gives them depth perception. But since the object (target) they are going after must be in front of their rostrum (and possibly a bit above as well), that means the image of the target won't be focused on their central retina. It will fall onto the more peripheral retina, which means that it won't be quite as sharp for them. ..at least if what we're reading in the book holds true. But it seems reasonable, as that's pretty much the way it is in humans anyway.
So if a fish is following a lure like that second musky followed the sucker (behind and below), then it will have the best depth perception of its position relative to the prey--but the image won't be as well-defined. But if the fish is right alongside the lure like the fish in that first video, it will focus the image of the lure on its central retina--and thus will have the sharpest image. But its depth perception won't be as good, so it will tend to overrun the lure...just as that musky was doing.
I don't think those two videos were from Don's work--but they were the first two to pop up in YouTube when I searched, and they very nicely illustrated the concepts we're reading about in chapter 3.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| I was thinking the binocular vision gave them a big blind spot right in front of them and thats why the would miss or try and rely on the lateral line.
I'm kinda wondering what they mean exactly by binocular vision?
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | thescottith - 10/23/2017 1:40 PM
I was thinking the binocular vision gave them a big blind spot right in front of them and thats why the would miss or try and rely on the lateral line.
I'm kinda wondering what they mean exactly by binocular vision?
Binocular vision simply means to have vision (ocular) from two (bi) eyes.
If you look at the cone shown there on page 48, you'll see that the field of vision for each eye of a fish (with normally-placed eyes) intersects in front of the face. Now it's going to be out a bit from the tip of the snout, so there will be a little "blind spot" where neither eye can see, probably a few inches to a foot in front of the fish's rostrum (snout). But after that, the visual field for each eye intersects and you see that colored triangle or "wedge" where the fish has binocular vision. How far out in the front of the fish it starts will certainly depend upon where the eyes are set on the head--but my money says that the musky only has at most 6-12" immediately where it can't see anything. If you look at the fish's head, the cheeks slope down and in pretty dramatically right below the eyes--so the fish can likely see closer to the tip of its snout that you might think.
Regardless of how far out the blind spot actually extends, there is an area then where both eyes' field of vision intersects...and hence the fish has binocular vision in this zone. That's the good news. The bad news is that because of the extreme angle it's looking along either side of its face, the image of its target will NOT be focused in the central retina. Thus is won't be as sharp as it could be where the image to appear in the central retina, like would appear were the target oriented directly perpendicular to the surface of the eye.
Hope this all makes sense.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 10/23/2017 4:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Going through chapter 7 on adaptive coloration and camouflage, there is a very interesting concept discussed. Pertaining to the evolutionary process whereby a species adapts its coloration until no further changes are necessary, and then locks it in, the authors mention this:
In apparent defiance of this rule, a whole new pattern can be created suddenly by an evolutionary short circuit caused by the crossbreeding of two separate species. But the crosses, or hybrids, are sterile and since they cannot breed more of their kind, nothing permanent comes of this biological accident.
That pretty much nails the Tiger Musky, which they cite as an example: A cross between a Northern Pike and a Muskellunge, has unique adaptive coloration, and is sterile for the most part--certainly it's not fertile enough to maintain a distinct species, as far as I've ever read. I believe there has been some mention that certain specimens are not sterile, but to my knowledge there isn't a "breeding population" of Tiger Muskies in the wild.
Anyway, I never really thought about the Tiger Musky in that way--that nature, although allowing them to exist, pretty much has biased them against survival as a distinct species.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 10/24/2017 7:16 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| I just got past the chart you referenced in your previous post above last night. I think I'm starting to get the picture. I was laughing at the binocular part. I haven't had biology since high school and have forgot just about everything so I miss a bunch of basic stuff I really should already know.
In the becker fishes of wi doesnt it say that some females are fertile but all male tiger muskies are sterile? I found that interesting and will have to re read that again to make sure I understand and remember that correctly. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Right--Becker's mentions something like that, but I haven't read that section lately. I've see literature reporting that; 1) neither sex is fertile; 2) the females are fertile, but not the males; 3) the males are fertile, but not the females...and even 4) both are fertile. Wow, that's not confusing at all.
But I've seen nothing certain in terms of documenting the fertility of Tiger Muskies in the wild. At least that's what I recall from when I last researched it a few years back.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 612
| Conesus has a good population of pike as well as tigers (which are stocked). In the early spring the pike migrate up the inlet to spawn. Some spawn in the running water of the inlet. Some in the marshes-ponds at the inlets headwaters. On occasion a tiger is amongst the spawning pike. Is it just going through the motions or is it a rare fertile tiger. Even the DEC doesn't know for sure.
Edited by NPike 10/27/2017 12:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| this is an Interesting read if you haven't read this before TCB
STRIKE FEEDING BEHAVIOR IN THE MUSKELLUNGE, ESOX MASQUINONGY:
CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE LATERAL LINE AND VISUAL SENSORY SYSTEMS
JOHN G. NEW*, LISA ALBORG FEWKES AND ASMA N. KHAN
Department of Biology and Parmly Hearing Institute, Loyola University Chicago, 6525 N. Sheridan Road, |
|
| |
