|
|
| At the Waukesha musky show Mr. Worrall said in is seminar that muskies are just plain dumb. No capacity for thinking or reasoning. Sure I believed him at the time, but not anymore. If a musky is dumb, why does a certain pattern work for two weeks straight with 10 fish caught, another 11 lost, and only 3 follows change to 20 follows and 2 missed fish on the hookset? Did these fish become wise to my presentation?
Has a musky learned to strike baits with there mouths closed first to see if the thing is real?
|
|
| |
|
| All the ones I've talked to seemed quite intelligent.
I think the fishermen that pursue them may have some issues...
Dumb as any other fish. But at the top of the food chain and doesn't have the competition
|
|
| |
|
| Must agree that the fishermen who pursue muskies may have some issues...[:0]
I accept the logic that says muskies don't have the capability of thought/reasoning, they just react to stimuli in their enviorment. They are top line predators however and they will certainly become conditioned to repetition.
Some folks seem to apply human characteristics to muskies, saying such things as 'they're mean', 'it makes them mad', etc. Don't think that's the case at all. I believe about the only human trait we can attribute to muskies is to say, "they can be just downright difficult!"... [:0]
Personally, I like it like that. It is this very trait that makes them a true trophy fish to me and worthy of our continued interest and uneding pursuit...[:praise:]
Of course that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong...[:sun:] |
|
| |
|
| Did the weather..or anything change....?
Moon phases?
Did you forget to put your lucky underware on....?
LOL
There has to be a good reason....Why the fish dont follow the teachings of professor Worrall. [;)] [:bigsmile:] ( Actually, Jason, they probably did, and I am NOT a Professor or I would have three months off every Summer!! sworrall) |
|
| |
|
| Cisco Keeeeid,
IMHO....The scientific fact that a muskie does NOT have the ability to reason should force you to look elsewhere for your reasons for why you saw this behavior other than the intellect of a muskie. I think the reason why people try to challenge the fact that muskies are dumb (completely controlled by the environment) is because it is a simple solution to the problem. The irony of Steves theory is that they arnt even dumb..... They do NOT even have the ability to be dumb!
This is crazy, but, this is how I have worked this out in my head to better understand muskie behavior.
I think of a muskie having hundreds of buttons. If the environment and I press the right buttons at the right time I will systematically (seemingly randomly) get the result I am looking for. Will we ever know how many buttons a musky has or will we ever know all the right button to press? NO!...BUT! we get more and more answers every time we go out. This is why it is important to take a moment after you are done researching (fishing) and reflect on your day. Every time you catch a musky there is a solid reason for why that musky tried to eat that bait. It seems random but it isnt.
MUSKY ILLINI
"YOU-WHOOOO....I'll make ya famous"
|
|
| |
|
| It's a fish, with a brain how big? It's dumb, to the point of eating wood, rubber, and even bobbers. How and why they react to certain stimuli, I'll leave that to ERC.
Slamr
"I'm you're huckleberry...." |
|
| |
|
| Way to much to cover here in a post, but I will do my best to give you the foundation of my beliefs.
There is ample research to indicate that fish do indeed 'learn' ( Classical Model), but the process is far more rudimentary than the higher life form's, and not even close to what we as humans consider as intelligent. All lower life forms employ these mechanics, with those of longer life span gaining benefit, which varies from individual to individual.
The body of research covering learning involves food location and recognition, called 'learning how' and 'learning about'. Repeated exposure to prey types, locations, and search paths to these factors at the expense to the fish of time and energy evolves the process.
'Learning how'involves location and availability of prey, and evolves only if the benefits of the behavior out weigh the costs.
'Learning about' involves prey recognition, and again requires repeated exposure throughout the lifespan to evolve into defined behavior.
Neither are an indication of intelligence. To the contrary; all lower life forms utilize these forms of behavior. Only those living long enough to benefit from the exposure find the benefit to be large, and as previously stated, the effect varies from individual to individual.
Avoidance from predators balanced with feeding behavior and reproduction pretty well makes up the fish's everyday existence.
There is no cerebral mass present. The fish cannot reason, or employ cognitive ability, because NONE exists.
There is ample evidence that even the simple processing task of injury to pain is beyond the fish's abilities, so avoiding discomfort at the point of contact is there, but no 'pain' felt, as the fish lacks the processing ability.
This will not happen--A muskie hits a bucktail, is captured and returned. The fish thinks, " Gee. I better not eat any more of THOSE things, and in fact, I had better avoid all boats, lures with line attached, and hooks on them altogether."
This either--Muskie hits a bait, gets stuck, and gets away. The muskie thinks, " Wow, that sucked. I had better take a MUCH closer look at my dinner from now on, maybe poke at it to make sure, so this doesn't happen again!"
If the muskie was capable of that sort of reasoning, our presentations would be rejected immediately, and NO energy would be expended towards the presentation at all. In other words, we wouldn't ever even get a follow, much less catch a muskie!
We really are not even trying to get a feeding response anyway. What we are trying to do is cause a strike response to our presentation signature. The response on any given day to any given stimulous is influenced by dozens of factors like light penetration, weather, water temps, water clarity, location of the fish, direction of the presentation, and much much more.
A follow is a reduced response to a lure stimulous. The fish can sometimes be triggered, others not. All depends on the conditions on that day at that time!
Some days bring perfect conditions when the fish take the bait readily. Others bring follows with occasional strikes, and yet others go past without a single follow of any kind.
The main point I was trying to make is that the muskie can't reason things out. The brain mass is simply not there, period!
Muskies thankfully do not learn to avoid anglers, but instead simply adapt to the environment in which they live. If the environment includes hundreds of anglers tossing bucktails every day, then the bucktail signature becomes a constant during soft water periods, and is not as likely to trigger a nuetral fish as it may be where there has never been the exposure to that stimuli. At that point, the presentation needs to be refined, and hopefully employed when conditions reflect the best chance for a strike response to the presentation.
SOOOO...there it is, for whatever it is worth.[:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| Who’s gonna bring up conditioning? Oh ya, that’s my job. I give them a little more credit than Steve does, and I’ll say that all those buttons that MI was taking about can condition a musky to certain behavior good or bad for fisherman.
I’ve had this happen to me many times and can’t figure why a musky would instinctively do this.
I’ll be on a spot, make a cast, start retrieving, and somewhere in the field of view between my bait and me I’ll see a musky rise up all the way to the surface and LOOK AT ME, and then get the heck out of doge. WHY!??!!?!!!?!!!?!!!?!!!!!?!!!!!!!!?!!
|
|
| |
|
| I’m gonna have to get me one of those “Advantage Sky pattern" fishing jackets. I already don’t wash my boat because I think all the scum on the bottom makes it look more “Bog like” |
|
| |
|
| The exposure necessary to condition a muskie to any presentation would have to be HUGE, and ALWAYS negative. If, for example, a fish hits a Slammer Deep Diver and gets off quickly, the event was not positive as the fish gained no reward, but not negative as that happens ALL the time where prey escapes. If the fish misses, there is neither positive or negative. The number of times a fish would have to be caught SEQUENTIALLY without a neutral or positive experience to be conditioned to avoid that lure ONLY(classical model) would probably not be possible.
Since all lures are not equal, and even baits from the same builder vary widely in signature, the idea that the fish can be been conditioned to avoid a lure simply will not hold up to scrutiny.
What you are seeing is a follow, and something either spooks the fish, or the reaction to your presentation is weak enough so the fish drops off quickly. Other times when things are right, that same fih will hit. |
|
| |
|
| Great posts everyone! Truely I agree with Mr. Worrall, but sometimes I wish I didn't. As humans we must always try to find a reason for something, and to try and determine why we didn't succeed. It is a lot easier to think about the things we are doing wrong, and not think about the things we are doing right. Maybe I should be thankful for the fish I did raise, and the 2 I missed.
[:)] |
|
| |
|
| Yes they are.[:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| I am dumb, amazingly so and have never tried to eat one single thing with a hook in it? So where does that leave the musky? I will say there is something to be said about a bait a fish has never seen before. Has worked for me and outproduced other baits.
They may not have any abilities for thought, reasonong memory or anything else but they sure do know how to puch our buttons.
One part of the puzzle does baffle me and that is home ranges. How do they develope them and stay within it for the most part? Can there be underwater familiarity? It does not seem likely but something must trigger them to goto point A to point B and how to get there. They can't always be following forage. Any thoughts? |
|
| |
|
| I think Muskie Illini provided the best illustration I've read relative to all/predatory fish behavior. Press enough of the buttons yourself (presentation and location), in addition to those already engaged (fish), and you may get bit. Interesting yet simple analogy.
Don |
|
| |
|
| Thanks, Steve, I think I'm beginning to understand the behavior patterns of my teenager after reading your explanation. m[:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| To the Anon post:
Not at all, I used several source documents including:
Through the Fish's Eye, Sosin and Clark
Behavior of Teleost Fishes, Chapman and Hall First Edition, and Second Edition edited by Tony J. Pitcher
Managing Muskies, American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 15, A Symposium on Muskellunge in North America, Gordon E. Hall
The source documents related to study performed on Bluegills, Muskies, Pike, Bass, and dozens of the 22000 species of teleost fishes.
To broaden; Introduction, BOTF Second Edition:"This book aims to bring together accounts of the major functional topics in fish behavior, reviewed in the light of current theory. Reviews at this level are intended to be of use to a broad spectrum of students and research workers interested in fish biology and fisheries."
1984 Muskie Symposium, Managing Muskies: Quoting Gordon Hall, Editor: "The final publication includes the results from 37 scientific investigations, two panel sessions describing resaerch needs and the role of anglers, abstracts of unsubmitted poster presentations and summaries of each technical session. Collectively, these are considered to cover most every known aspect of muskellunge biology, behavior, culture and angling, and current management efforts."
I'm the first to say I am NOT a scientist. I read as much about the subject as I can, and try my best to apply the knowledge gained to a practical level.
What I AM is an obsessed Muskie angler. I also am a bit of a stickler ( probably due to my upbringing during the 60's and 70's) about reality and legend, or lore (myth). Legend and lore are fine for entertainment, but reality is hard core, and unforgiving. I try VERY hard to get to what is real, not what is accepted lore at the time. Many things have changed over the last few years, including a push to seperate the myth from reality in muskie fishing. I am happy about that to a degree, but would like to see the 'old timers' left alone with their stories of muskies past; that is entertainment, and harms no one.
AN example, from 'The Compleat Angler', Izaac Walton; "And next you are to notice, the Trout is not like the Crocodile." Chapter V111 tells of a man who caught a pike by using a mule for bait. In the same chapter, he tells of a pike that bit a Polish girl's foot.
Zern on Guides: "No wonder normal people can't stand fishermen. They can't stand each other. They have to pay people to keep them company.
Guides are people who can stand anybody.
Fishemen call guides 'picturesque'. Guides call fishermen 'sports'. Other guides know what they mean."
Copyright, 1945.
[:bigsmile:] [:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| I think my wife is Polish! She's definately going out with me next time. Tape a quick strike to her foot, dangle it over the side enticingly, and....?[:praise:]
Actually Steve, IMHO, you are as close to a scientist as it gets when it comes to this stuff. Just consider that you have actually read and understood the contents of the above stated books. And then to be able to pick out which quote from which book! Whew. I am an engineer, and I used to get a lot of bumps on my forehead while attempting to read technical papers and such. Even when interested in the subject, I get my share of the head-bobs[:bigsmile:]
I always enjoy talking with you, listening to your presentations, and reading your thoughts on this forum. No bull, you tell it as you believe it. Thanks!
Are muskies dumb? Yup, but they sure know how to tell a new boat from old!! Guess they're just not conditioned yet.[:0]
Tight Lines,
Shep[:sun:] |
|
| |
|
| Yes fish are stupid.
A scientist at the U of Wyoming did a very in depth study on whether or not fish feel pain. His verdict said NO. Imagine being so stupid that if someone stabbed you in the leg with a treble hook you would have absolutely no understanding of what just happened to you. You would react to the stimulus because you have built in nerves but you have NO IDEA what happened, or how it happened because you simply do not have the ability to reason.
It's not a matter of the structures being there and us just having to figure out how the fish uses them. When you talk about fish thinking it's simple. They cannot. The structures that would have to be present are not there.
A good fisherman knows that to say "I'm not catching fish like I was because the fish figured it out," is an Excuse. It will limit your potential to learn about weather patterens, color choices for different color water or water conditions, what to do at turnover in the fall, where the fish are in early spring vs. summer and late fall, what time of year the baitfish spawn bringing the bigger fish into spawning areas, has new weed growth altered where the fish are making my current presentation less effective than it was 2 weeks ago.
These are just a few of the things that have to be considered every time you hit the water. One of the best things you can do is to keep a log of what you catch, on what type of lure, on what day. It will give you a general idea of what to do next year.
I'm betting that the method you we're doing well on earlier this year will be equally effective next year starting 2-3 weeks earlier if we have a normal spring or at the same time, if we have a late spring again.
I have been fishing the same spinnerbaits in the same colors on the same lakes for 3-5 years. I catch muskies in the same spots, under the same comditions as I did the previous years. I throw them under conditions in which I know they will be the most effective.
I stand firm that the fish will never 'out smart' me.
I may however, fail to figure out how to catch them given to faulty reasoning on MY part as to how I should be fishing on a given day with reference to current conditions and or patterns.
Brian |
|
| |
|
| Many stimuli can 'spook' a Muskie, from fast movement in the boat to loud noise to a blast of reflected sunlight off the hull side to....variables. LOTS of variables. Other fish lock on to the bait and blast it the second time around on an 8 no matter the distractions, even those I tagged and recaptured not just one but several times.
What it is NOT is avoidance behavior or conditioning. If it was, the fish would't follow or respond to the bait at all. If muskies 'conditioned' to capture, NO muskie would ever be recaptured after release, sort of eliminating the motivation to release them in the first place.
[:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| Steve:
I remember reading a report a year or two ago in which several lure caught muskies were tagged and fitted with transmitters and then their movements monitored. Several (but not all or even most) of the fish were recaught, but never in the same locations and several of the fish monitored were never even found to return to the same depths as where caught. Would this not be, at least in part, a simple form of conditioning?
Mike |
|
| |
|
| No.
That 'report', if it is the one I think you are referring to, was not a reliable study. If you wish to look into a study that IS valid, see the Pewaukee Muskie Study. Jason Smith can provide information on where to find that information.[:bigsmile:]
Also, even if the fish relocates after release to water different than where caught, it doesn't indicate aviodance behavior at all.
To my knowledge, there are no accepted scientific studies indicating avoidance behavior to capture.
My experience has been the opposite. During the early 80's, I tagged dozens of muskies on Pelican Lake in Oneida County, Wisconsin. Many were recaptured multiple times, and in the same general area, then in other areas later in the season or the next year. One thing that was reasonably consistent was the fish's position on a seasonal basis.
This was just personal observation, not a control group study, but convinced me that the fish were where they were because of food, and that the movements throughout the lake and water column mirrored that of their prey influenced by weather, water temps, and about a dozen other variables.
I am a firm believer that there are some muskies that are never captured because of plain good fortune, position, or prey selection on their part. There also are some that are captured multiple times because of position, prey selection, or bad luck on their part. The sheer coincidence needed to place the lure in front of a fish at exactly the right time to get a strike is pretty amazing, much less the same fish multiple times.[8)] |
|
| |
|
| Thanks for your reply, Steve.
Was just curious how you would respond. Personally, I am of the opinion that fish (any fish) aren't capable of thought, reasoning, or avoidance behavior. I think they just react to stimuli in their environment (food, light, temperature, danger, etc.) I know they will definitely spook due to movements, noise, etc., but believe only as a reaction in accordance with what nature gave them, an instinct for survival. I don't claim to have proof-positive data to substantiate any of this and certainly my thoughts aren't truly original, but rather a personal opinion formed by reading what I have considered credible articles by knowledgeable individuals who have invested the time, energy and effort required to determine the correct answers.
Mike |
|
| |
|
| I have jumped in on this debate many times in the past. While it is interesting stuff, I have found it to be a waste of time worrying about the particulars. As I have always said, and try to impress upon people, "It is much more important to know what a critter does than to know why it does it". Fact is, in most cases we will never really know why the animals we prusue do many of the things that they do. But if I know that certain behaviors are predictable, then I can capitalize on them.
What Steve, and I think most everyone who chases this fish agree on (I'm sure Steve will correct me if I'm wrong) is that if fishermen are introduced into the equation, muskies WILL NOT behave the same as before. The changes that we see, ie. more follows, need to find new baits/presentations, may not be abled to be accurately explained in "human" terms, but that does not diminish their existance. Again, it is more important to know that the behavior happens, then to know why. If, after I introduce a lure to a water system, fish start following it instead of hitting it, I really don't care if it is the result of a news release following an annual "How Not To Be Hooked and Caught" seminar put on by the largest muskies in that system or just the result of their needing baits that have a different (less common) signature in the water. The bottom line is: Something in that system has changed and you better recognize it and find a way to adjust to it or you will be sucking hind-tit with your catch rates. [:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| Joel,
I'm basically in the same camp as you.... but I feel that attempting to establish WHY fish behave the way they do will better help you PREDICT their future behavior.
If you can fish EVERY day and simply observe the "new" behavior of the (F)ish, stay on the right (L)ocation and through trial and error figure out the right (P)resentation (In Fisherman's F+L+P=Success Formula) than you don't need to know WHY. However, for the majority of fisherman that are weekend anglers.... having an idea WHY the fish behave the way they do will certainly make you a better predictor of their behavior and allow you to contact more fish without putting in the "hard" time on the water.
While I'm at work, it gives the muskies 5 days to change all three of the factors in the formula. Having some rhyme or reason to solving the formula has got to improve your results. I believe asking the question WHY is a major benefit in solving the equation.... as long as you keep it simple. |
|
| |
|
| Joel and Jlong!
Thanks for putting the subject into perspective. I agree with you both completely.
My difficulty with the process starts when an assumption is made about the 'why' that is impossible to reconcile with the muskie's abilities. One needs to know what the limitations are with the specie under observation, and take care not to add numbers to the equasion that simply do not exist!
None of the events on the water while fishing are an 'accident'. Whatever happens on any given day of fishing- happens for a reason. Putting that information into Jlong's formula is the key to figuring out these crazy fish. |
|
| |
|
| Some food for thought.In mrs.muskys world,prey fish are always present.Sometimes bait will swim all around them,back and forth,yet she wont even give them a thought Why?because she doesnt need to eat yet.So shes going to rise up ten feet to grab a burning spinner cause shes got nuttin better to do.However,they can be agrivated into a strike,probably a territorial thing.-------------THEIR NOT AS SMART AS WE THINK WE ARE [:halo:] [:halo:] |
|
| |
|
| Like Jason said. Most of us are weekend warriors and need to ask the question "why". Wee need to figure out this "why" in a very short time in order for us to achieve the results we want. I ask myself "why" on a lot of things during a weekend, and all week long to try to be on the fish for the next weekend. I have been pretty successful in figuring out "why" a fish is where they are this year, but that's about it.
Maybe that is all we should be asking ourselves about a fish that doesn't have the ability to think, and accept anything that happens beyond the question of "why is a fish where they are". Maybe "I" the fisherman is dumber than Steve Worrall says I am![:p] |
|
| |
|
| Work a Suick, side to side, sliding up backwards and then back down again and ask yourself......What kind of prey does that even look like or swim like for that matter?[;)]
|
|
| |
|
| RAZE1 and JSmith, you two basically ask the same question. This question is EXACTLY why we all should be asking WHY. A weekend warrior can't wait until the fish are "hungry" and actively feeding on whatever moves. If we can figure out WHY a fish will respond the way we want them too, we have a better chance at putting a fish in the boat.
Why will a fish hit a spinner bait cruising along at Mach1 or a Suick bouncing up, down, and to the side? I don't know... but I do know the lures are sending out a signal to the fish that they respond to. Now, if they are eating your bait... who cares WHY.... but if they are NOT eating your bait.... don't you want to know WHY and whether or not there is something you can do about it? Personally, I'd prefer to know why they ARE eating my bait... so I can reproduce that response again and again and again.... but that is just me.
CiscoKid brings up an even more important consideration... and that is asking WHY in regard to musky LOCATION. You can't catch what isn't there..... and if you are NOT in the correct location you cannot advance to the questions that RAZE1 and JSmith asked.
The original topic is in regard to how "smart" is a musky. Well, they don't have any intelligence... but they are probably more sophisticated than we realize. The lateral line alone is a far more complex organ than anything we humans have. All we as fisherman are trying to do is offer the correct stimulus to achieve the desired response. The problem is, there is an infinite amount of variables to that simple sequence of events. Personally, I think the In-Fisherman boys were pretty darn smart to simplify successful fishing into there F+L+P formula. The problem is, we will be "speculating" on the F, L, and P variables for many moons to come.
Good Stuff Maynard...... |
|
| |
|
| Anony,
Couldn't disagree with you more. That is exactly how I fish and the one (if not the only) real abiltity I have in this game is that I have ALWAYS been able to go into a new water system and start to mess with some of the better fish there. And I believe it is due to exactly this type of fishing that lets me do that. I pay VERY close attention to "what" fish do. Sure, I may try to put a "why" to it, but I'm smart enough to know that 99% of the time that is pure conjecture on my part. It is knowing what works in one system that gives you a head start in the next, and the next, and the next, and so on.
I think some of us are doing just what Steve says that muskies can't - think beyond their means. Many of us think WAY beyond our means here. Think about it. What behavior can you point to and say positively, for sure, that you know the "why" of that behavior. I guess I may be able to think of a handfull, but if that is all I have in my fishing bag of tricks, I think I would have a VERY difficult time going into new water and catching anything. I'll give an example: I know that muskies like to relate to wind (in some systems more than others), but as a general rule I can target some fish in most systems using this piece of "what" information. Now, I can sit around all day and speculate as to "why" this is so, but does it matter? And we may think we know "why" they do this, but do we really? I think I know "why", but I really don't care if I do or not. I just have to know that it occurs for me to pop fish using that information. Why do fish relate to deep bottom transition areas in the fall? I think I know, but it doesn't matter and I realize that I could very well be wrong, but that does not keep me from bagging a lot of fish that way each year. Why do I do better fishing weed pockets in the wind as oppossed to the points, but if the wind is light or non-existent, I do better on the points? I don't know, but I don't have to, I just catch fish where I know they will be. Why do fish tend to suspend at depths that correlate to the top 1/3 of their feeding structures? I don't know, but I catch fish by targeting that depth. Why do certain actions on baits tend to trigger more strikes than ohters? I don't know, but I know if I use the baits with those signitures, over time, I will get bit and as often as anyone else.
I think much of this is semantics, which is a subject I have no time for. But my point here is: Really, how much do we know? You can guess and by-gosh all day as to "WHY" this fish does something, but when crunch time comes, you better know "what" they do or your going to miss the boat (pun intended).
I think I fish very much by what these fish do, and I think I'm a better fishermen because of it. I thnk I have some answers to a few "why" questions, but if I found out tommorrow that I was wrong, would I catch fewer fish?
Lastly, I think this is why there is no way that I can think of to catch these fish that I have not tried. I will fish any method (have tried most of them) that puts fish in the boat, not because I know "why" these fish will strike in certain places, at certain times, on certain baits, but because I know they will. And if none of the old realiables work in new water (almost never the case anymore because there are just too many of them now) I will pick apart the system until I find out what will work. That does not mean I have figured out any "why's", only another "what" in terms of that system. |
|
| |
