|
|
| I have not yet laid hands on a manta nor had a chance to see one but have seen several posts that seem to indicate they are not drawing strikes the way people expect. I wonder if the "bow wave" so to speak is not sending the right message to the fish. I am curious as to whether or not anyone has tried a spinner of some type attached or anything on the front such as a clear plastic disc in an effort to change the emanations from this bait.
There seems to definitely be a point as the water cools where the eddie bait starts to come into its own and I consider that to be a
"no wake" bait compared to the reef hawg or something like a suick. I wonder if the bigger push off the face of some jerks say better things to the muskies than the more streamlined gliders? I also wonder if in dirty or stained type waters, the more streamlined baits are bringing fish in as well as the heavier pullers? |
|
| |
|
| WHEWWWW!!!! Thought I was the only one crazy enough to think about such an idea. I've thought about this too, especially after working dilligently last winter to write an article about the lateral line and how it affects us as musky fisherman. There is a great deal of information out there, some specific to the muskullunge itself, that goes into detail about frequency favorites and other very technical aspects in regard to the role the lateral line plays in musky feeding. Most of it is WAY too technical for a fisherman's use... but it can't hurt to take a peek.
Personally, I think the grooves in a reef hawg and Jerko do more than just help the bait dive and slow its glide. It also "churns" the water and makes a more turbulent wake.... something the Manta doesn't possess. The Manta, however, does have AWESOME action and I'm sure the many lookers it brings up is due to its great VISUAL appeal... but lacks the lateral line stimuli needed to seal the deal.
Fun stuff Man....
jlong |
|
| |
|
| Hey guys, great stuff. Something I never would have thought about. I have an uncle who thinks of that kind of stuff but I guess it doesn't run in the family. Something to keep in mind next time I'm out.
PS better tell Sponge not to read this. He may blow up.
Scott |
|
| |
|
| Whooooaaah, I had to scroll back up to see that it was FSF, and not jlong that posed the original question! Without getting too technical and going into wavelengths, vibration travel, and lateral lines (I'll leave that to Mr. Long!) here's my somewhat qualified assessment of the jerkbait debate.
While the Reef Hawg and others with grooves on the front, as well as baits with a more blunt face such as the Eddie may give off more vibration, the Manta, HRB and other sleek gliders also give off a very "audible" for lack of a better word, vibration. Think for a minute about a slimy, streamlined baitfish such as a shad. They flitter through the water giving off very little vibration also, but hordes of them are eaten by muskies. The commotion of the other jerkbaits may be an attractant, but if a muskie is hungry, it will eat whatever passes in it's feeding zone. I think the Manta will prove to be a very productive bait in due time.
Just my two cents. EJ |
|
| |
|
| Hee hee heeee....too late Scott 1 fiver fiver... already "read" it but like much of what I read, unless it is along the lines of "See Tom run" I cannot fathom the detailed intricacies of modern technology! To this I leave such to the likes of JLong + 1st6' who have the capability to decipher, ingest + then produce the maximum velocity in correct answers. Much like a real sponge I am a simple organism that lives day by day w/ the selector switch on rock n roll, finger on the trigger 'til the clip is empty....then I survey the day + start over again! [:sun:] |
|
| |
|
| Great post, FSF!!
The hooks on the bait make more noise than you might imagine, so that is a major factor, too. There is some pretty interesting stuff out there regarding the water displacement volume of the bait, also.
We covered alot of this last winter, and if my memory serves me, were unable to conclude too much. ALL presentations have a signature that include vibration, actual sound, color/contrast,reflection/refraction, contrast to background value, and the less than obvious stuff, too. Surpisingly, the Suick and Wade''s Wobbler were the loudest jerk/pull baits I recorded, and the Reef Hawg the quietest, using pressure mikes!
There are FAR too many variables to clearly pin down one portion or another of any presentation as the key to success, but it sure is fun to take educated shots at it!! |
|
| |
|
| Well what you record is hard to correlate with anything Sworrall, but I know when I work my suick, and my reefs that I have more resistance than with say the eddie baits, dancin shad, and tek neeks to name a short list. That in itself tells me i am moving more water with one than the others, and I am sure that is specific to my particular usage of those baits. Just thinking about my gliders as opposed to my harder jerks, and there must be a very different signal emitted.
Might it be that smooth equals healthy and turbulent equals struggling or distracted?
So far, after the initial excitement of everyone over "their" perception of how the bait worked, there does not seem to be any major catchin goin on.
Somebody try adding something to the bait to see if that will start them dinging. Maybe as little as a twister tail on one hook, or a tail spinner, or maybe something as major as a clear buzzbait blade cut down on the front.
Let me know how you do and if it works I'll spring for one LOL. |
|
| |
|
| A bit of history as to what I recorded and why:
I was teaching a three level 'fishing' course through the Nicolet College Tech, and also a series at Marquette, Wayne State, and Minneapolis. In the discussions there,we could explain and illustrate color, contrast, light value, reflective values, etc. for a bait(spectrograph), but could not explain why a particular model bait, produced mass as identically as possible, would catch all kinds of fish, and one exactly like it, no matter how one tuned it, would not.
The only variable left that we were able to measure was sound/vibration. We set a swimming pool up with 4 pressure microphones, two at the deep end on the bottom, and two center, on the bottom. Using a high quality quad reel to reel recorder(OK, I am dating this!)we recorded over 100 muskie baits as they traveled through the mike field.
The folks at the college and I played around with the tapes, and looked at frequencies, vibration patterns, and plain old decibles. What I learned was that a particular bait I had success with had one or more distinct differences in the sound/vibration signature from the lesser successful 'identical' bait. Without any actual control group study, there is nothing more to prove by that except there actually WAS a difference, and it could be measured and illustrated.
The Suick was by FAR and away the loudest, most vibration, too, mostly from hardware contact with the body of the lure. The Reef Hawg was the quietest, for the same reason. I was testing two reef Hawgs that Mike had given to me, and had caught a ton of fish! ( I like that bait on Pelican in the Fall)
SO>>> what does all this mean? I do not have a clue, but as I said, it is fun to take educated stabs at what might be happening!
I tried the same project with Microphones glassed in to the hull of my boat, but the ambient 'noise' was prohibitive.
FSF, I was NOT disagreeing with you, only tossing in my 2 cents worth. |
|
| |
|
| What, and the sonic booms of the jerbait hitting the water is not enough.[:bigsmile:]
Some great points here on a good subject. I for one like a good side to side, but I will always catch fish on them "doing a change up". Making the bait pop head down and then head up and then side to side again. Even better when the bait pop the surface a little. Maybe this is what give the change in pitch that breaks them out of there lullabyes.[;)] |
|
| |
|
| I can tell you that I will no longer worry about kids throwing a few stones in the water in the area I am fishing after fishing an UNDERTAKER<> the thing hits the water like a concrete block, and proceeds to catch fish... |
|
| |
|
| I won''t hold myself out as an expert on the senses of fish in general and muskies in particular, but I have had some exposure to the science acoustics and hearing. Normal undamaged human ears hear sounds in the 20Hz to 20Khz range. The higer the frequency the higher the pitch and vice versa. It''s been along time since I have studied this so if I goof and someone catchs it please correct me.
Tied in with frequency is something called wavelength. Or the phyiscal distance that a sound, at a given frequency, travels during the timespan for that sound to complete one cycle. Low frequency sounds have a long wave length and will travel much farther than high frequency sounds. That is why you hear the bass from the stereo''s the kids put in their "boom cars" from farther away than you can hear the guitars or keyboards or singing. The bass is at a lower frequency thus it has a longer wavelength and travels farther than the treble.The same holds true for radio waves. As I said human hearing is 20hz(bass) to 20khz(treble). Above and below this our ears can''t hear.But with the low frequencyies we can "feel" the bass. Ever notice how some songs with a lot of bass make the house vibrate and you can feel the air move in the room in time with the bass? Now you can''t "hear" the air move but you feel it, right? I suppose that its the same with a fishs lateral line. Now remember that water is denser than air and sound travels through water farther and faster than through air.
I don''t know what frequncys a jerkbait makes as it travels through the water. Sworrel has used mics to tape the noise the baits make. We can hear these sounds with our ears as they fall into the 20Hz to 20khz range of hearing. As he points out these noises are made by the hooks, hookhangers, rattels,etc. But as the bait moves through the water it also displaces the water, just as the very low bass frequencies that we can''t hear but can feel displaces the air. The displacement of the water should also create pressure waves in the water that the fish can feel, just as we feel the displacement of the air. Because these are very low frequencies with corrisponding long wavelengths the fish should be able to "feel" our baits from a long ways away. We "feel" the air move when the wind blows, though we can''t reach out and touch it. The same with the water displacement and fish. They should be able to "feel" the water "blow" from the movement of our baits. This sensation is neither touch or hearing but none the less we can "feel" the bass and the air move. I would imagine that some baits project pressure waves, through the water,that are closer to the waves that are projected by living bait than other baits do. These baits should get eaten more often than the ones that don''t "feel" natural. Hope this all makes sense and helpls
|
|
| |
|
| One farther point to my post above. Muskies and pike due to their length have a long lateral line. As I said low frequnecy, long wavelentgh sounds, travel farther. I wonder if it''s possible that the length of the lateral lines of the fish correspond with these very low frequncies that are produced when fish swim? Is there a phyisical relationship between the wavelenth of a minnows swimming and the lenght of the muskies lateral line, if so then the muskie is "tuned" into the frequency of the minnows, in much the same way we tune our radios from one station to the next. Boy now that would be a scientific break through on how fish feed and relate to their enviroment. Sorry about all the misspellings. |
|
| |
|
| Oh, no disagreement here with what was recorded. I just am noting that the information is hard to correlate to fish activities. And I am not quite clear with
WHAT you actually recorded? You say you used
pressure mikes? I am more curious about the out going wave when the reef hawg is twitched and further waves as it proceeds as opposed to the wave generated by the manta and some other glider types. I am not real interested in what might be termed "noise". If you removed the hooks to eliminate the sound part of the equation could you then get the reading on the type of water displacements given off from the body itself as it proceeds through the water and the first big wave as it is twitched?? (you would probably need to tie directly to the line also) the only way I can perceive this is through the bend in my rod tip so that's where I get my flaky scientific information on this subject, but if you have access to the pool again I am sure that this would be interesting if you haven't done it before, not just jerks but also some of the crankbaits, or would this be too hard to measure without real quiet conditions?? |
|
| |
|
| I don't know if water movement and sound are similar, but I've noticed that my "Big Daddy" and "Bulldawg" lures seem to produce more turbulence than my other jerkbaits. When you get them in close you can see all the water being swirled around behind then long after the bait has left the area. And they both catch well.
Just an observation
Tim |
|
| |
|
| Audible sound is detected within the ear (yes, fish have ears) and WATER DISPLACEMENT is detected by the lateral line. I think the pressure wave of a bait (lateral line stimuli) is more important than the audible sound of a lure. Audible sounds travel further in water than pressure pulses too. Last piece of info... the lateral line is only capable of detecting pressure pulses from TWICE its length. That means a 50 inch musky, which probably doesn't even have a 48" lateral line, can only "feel" a lure's pressure pulse that travels within 8 feet of its location. Now, that doesn't necesarrily mean the lure itself has to come within' 8 feet of the fish.... considering the "wave" travels outwards from the lure.
I'd want a lure with the "right" wave and one that travels the farthest to increase the effective "range" of the lure. Kind of like playing horse shoes vs. darts. Close enough is good in horse shoes (hand grenades too) yet you need to hit the exact target in darts to be rewarded. A lure that only needs to get close to the fish has to be more productive than one that has to bonk them on the nose.
Great info and opinions being exchanged. These topics are both fun AND overwhelming. There are so many factors that go into a musky strike that I don't know if we will ever figure it out..... especially if we bring geometry, physics, biology etc into the equation. BUT, we will never figure it out if we don't TRY!!!!
jlong |
|
| |
|
| Guys,
What we are really talking about if the bait is MOVING is vibration. Pressure waves in the air, if above or below the audible range, can be felt also, in the form of vibration. That is how one knows a train is approaching long before the ''sound'' appears. One ''feels'' it from the air and ground being ever so slightly displaced or ''moved'' and that action being reduced to an ever reducing ''wave'' that moves in a sphere out away from the object in question.
Vibration within the fish''s lateral line or audible range is only vibration unless there is a fish there to perceive it, like the old addage.."If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, is there any sound?" Fish are bombarded with this stuff all the time; it is very noisy down there when we are out on the water.
FSF asked a great question about the perch in another post, and that,in my VERY humble opinion, is the basis from which all of the information on this thread should be balanced and applied, if that is possible!
Also, a lure that is sitting dead still in the water is still displacing the exact volume it repalces with it''s mass,and generates no response at all from the fish if the luree was encountered in that state and doesn''t move. Fish will swim right by it. oblivious to it.
Since water is a far better conductor than air, vibration caused/created by your baits ''pressure wave'' moves at nearly 4800 fps.,if I remember correctly. Another factor is the displacement of water and movement of and by the line, it showed up on the recording clearly!
Proximity is also key, as if the fish reacted to every Vibration stimulous by moving toward it, the fish would very rapidly expend far more energy than it takes in,(something I need to do for awhile before hunting season!)
Lunch hour is over, back to work!
|
|
| |
|
| Steve,
Great speech.... but what are you trying to say? I must have missed your point. I think you were trying to say that ALL sound is a form of vibration... but not sure. If so, I agree.
My point was that audible sounds are a MUCH higher frequency than what the lateral line can detect. Therefore, even though sound and water displacement are the same forms of energy... one cannot be PERCIEVED by the other. The ear is tuned to a higher frequency than the hairs in the neuromasts of the lateral line. The lateral line responds to VERY low frequencies that are not in the audible sound range.
So the rattles in a lure or the hooks hitting the side of the bait are to a fish like you blowing on a dog whistle at me. Yes, the energy (vibration) is hitting me... but my body doesn't acknowledge it since none of my senses can percieve or decipher that frequency. Same with radio waves, etc.
However, a fish ALSO has ears... which means it CAN still perceive those sounds. The study discussed on Muskie Central concludes that olafactory (smell) and audible (sound) inputs are NOT enough of a cue to trigger or initiate a strike response from a muskellunge. They are suggesting that the fish has to either see or "feel" their prey in order to effectively eat it.... as proven by putting lots and lots of minnows in the tank holding blind muskies. Yes, they could "hear" the minnows swimming and even smell that they were around them.... but made NO attempt to try and eat one.
All this talk seems to suggest that rattles do not play any role in a musky strike.... either positive or negative. I'm even convinced that lipless cranks, known for their rattles, are effective due to the speed and tight wiggle (water displacement)... rather than their "noise".
This is a very complex and confusing topic... and not sure if/how it can help us as fisherman. But I do know that if the researchers at Loyola University ever decide to manufacture and sell a lure.... I'll be the first in line to buy a few dozen.
jlong |
|
| |
|
| That is EXACTLY what I was trying to say. As you said, muskies do have rudimentary inner ears and detect sounds we hear, and definitely are tuned to an ''inaudible to us'' range through the lateral line, also. They are, in the final analysis, primarily sight feeders. My point was to clarify that a pressure wave was not something that is at all mystical, it is simply the precursor to what we hear, the muskies hear and ''feel'', and so on.
I am curious about why only marine creatures have a ''lateral line'', and was perhaps suggesting that it is the conductivity of water that caused the evolutionary development of that trait.
I also feel that in the case of the Esox, sight is the final and most important stimulous to generate a strike, and have said so for years.
By the way, blind a bass or bluegill, and they do much better. Better sense of smell!
To support and agree with your comment on rattles, I have used jigs for Muskies for over 30 years,and there is no ''quieter'' bait. The Creature presentation relys on subtle vibration, and LOTS of visuals with blinding bursts of speed to create a strike response.
Also, my comments were not a ''speech'' any more than yours. There are lots of diverse points to be made, I was making mine![:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| Doug Stange of In-fish fame did some articles on vibration patterens for triggering pike. He felt that the two most important things that the angler must do to catch fish is control the depth and speed ( as taught by Buck Perry) of his bait. He then asked the question what is the next thing to trigger a strike, he thoughts were vibration would be the next important feature of a bait. He was writeing about using spoons in pike fishing. He suggested that the sharp angler use the different sizes of the same spoon to fish for pike.
He suggested that if using DareDevels,for example, to try and use the lures with all the same color on them, but to start with the smallest size and move up to the largest size, or vice versa, to see if the pike showed a preferance for one vibration pattern over another. The bigger the size spoon the more water it displaces the lower the frequency of sound or vibration. He also asked, when does speed become vibration? Or maybe a better way to put it is, at what speed does the pitch (vibration) of a lure change? We all know that the faster a crankbait moves the tighter the wiggle or wobble and the harder it is to pull through the water. So my interpertation of his point is as a bait moves faster or slower its vibration changes and sometimes this can attact fish or repel them.
And Yes Jlong and Sworral I agree all sound is vibration of the air or water. I wish I could remember the mathmatical formula to find the wavelength of a given frequency. It's a simple division equation, but I forget what is divided by what. I think it's frequency divided by time = distance or wavelength. If I have remembered the formula correctly, it is telling use that the number of cycles per second divided by the time it takes to complete one cycle give us the distance that the pressure wave (sound) has traveled. Thus the low frequency vibration of a jerkbait should travel farther than the comparitivly higher frequency vibration of a rattlebait. Another way to think of this is the heavy "thump" vibaration made by a #10 Colorado blade should travel through the water farther than the faster turning Willow leaf blade. The Colorado blade would be felt by a fishes latteral line from a longer distance away than the willow, but the willow blade spinning at a higer frequnecy might be heard by fishes ears. But the willow leaf spinner would have to be closer to the fish before the fish knew it was there. |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
Yup, looks like we agree for the most part. Nothing was meant by my "speech" comment other than all this technical discussion sounds like a presentation rather than a conversation. I'm sure if we were sitting on a barstool drinking our favorite concoction while having this discussion... we'd be getting a lot of strange looks from the bartender and other bar flies. I'm scared to even think where this conversation would go after a dozen whiskey and cokes!!!!
I'm not sure, however, if sight is the FINAL factor for triggering a strike.... but it probably is more consistently the bigger player. I feel there are times that lateral line stimuli can be a bigger driver or a major component in the "decision" making process and that it why it should not be overlooked. Quite frankly, I think the strikes we all want are more instinctive... and the lateral line may be the reason behind those "impulse" strikes.
Personally, I think BURSTS of speed are the critical element for subsurface presentations. We can use that type of motion to benefit both the visual aspect of our lures, as well as, there ability to produce lateral line stimuli. In fact, I believe acceleration is even more important that velocity (speed) too. I'll take a pull/pause presentation over a "burning" presentation anyday.
I think we should plan a MuskieFirst experiment at Bass Pro to see if we can "prove" any of our theories. I know setting the hooks into that 46 incher in February would REALY help curb the winter musky fever.
jlong
|
|
| |
|
| Here goes...
How about this idea?
I have always felt that the LAST thing I want to do is 'imitate' the natural prey of the Muskie, because I am trying, most of the time, to illicit a strike response from a muskie that isn't 'feeding'.
I think that the fresher the stimulous, the stronger the response. EG> If my lure imitated a perch in all aspects, it would simply be relegated to the environment that is standard to the system,and would get eaten only when the fish are feeding.(FSF was talking about this some in another thread) Muskies and perch live together in total harmony most of the time, with neither paying any attention to the other, unless the muskie goes to feeding mode. The same goes for Perch and minnows, and so on down the food chain.
I have an aquarium with prerdator/prey in it, and the predator and prey get along real well, with the prey even occasionally pecking at the underside of the predator with no retribution at all. The next morning, I will go look in on the tank, and the prey are gone! I have seen the predator go to feed mode, and after one episode, the prey gets pretty scarce; then a half hour later they are back to swimming around together. It is a BIG tank, and offers lots of cover, they just do not seem to care.. BUT!! That only happens once a week or so. I want to catch the muskie when I am out there, and not have to wait for the perfect thing to happen...feeding muskies.
So,I am after a response to my presentation that is aggressive, and effected in the strength of the reaction to all the environmental factors (literally hundreds) on any given day.
My suggestion, to simplify, is to NEVER try to imitate anything in nature as far as presentation, but to present a strong package of sight, sound, vibration, depth and speed control, contrast, and last but not least, put it in front of a Muskie.
What does a bucktail imitate? I submit there is absolutely NOTHING in the natural environment that produces the signature a bucktail does, so why do bucktails catch so many fish? Good stimulous, good response level...
What do you think about this rambling madness??[::)] |
|
| |
|
| Just 1 thought Mr. Worrall....I think you are all crazy + would appreciate a little more respect!!![;)] [;)] [;)] [:sun:] |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
I think your comments are exactly what most people do not consider, but should, when heading out to their favorite musky hole. We must stimulate the fish to elicit a response. At any given moment the stimulus requirement may change due to an infinite number of factors such as motivation of the fish (just how hungry are they), environmental factors (barometric pressure, illumination, water clarity), etc. If someone wants to match the hatch... fish with live bait. But we all know that at certain times there are MUCH more effective tactics to boating muskies than soaking a sucker, perch, or whatever.
Your analogy of the bucktail: "Good stimulous, good response level" makes a lot of sense. The question is, how do we choose WHICH stimuli will elicit the best response when on the water?
The initial question in this thread was in regard to how we should view the ability of a jerk bait to stimulate the lateral line. Then we asked which is more important... visual or lateral line stimuli.
Steve, it seems your point of view is that an artificial lure will always be just that to a fish... artificial because of its "different" signature. If that is true (I don't know if it is or not) then my question is, WHAT part of that signature elicits a positive response from the fish?
Maybe we should simplify this topic and ask.... why else would a musky strike a lure for other than how it looks? Studies show they can effectively feed when blind... which would also suggest they should be able to strike an INVISIBLE lure!! What would you want your clear plastic crankbait to do if you had to fish with it? Don't laugh... this is a serious question?
Do you think I (or anyone else for that matter) could catch a musky on a CLEAR or TRANSPARENT lure? If so, what would that lure have to do?
jlong
|
|
| |
|
| White bass/stripers will nail the pee-dinkles out of a transparent Mirror Lure + many salters will nail glass minnows...SO.... if 1 could find a musky bait(plastic) + scrape the paint off I think it would work. A Bomber Long A may work?[:sun:] |
|
| |
|
| Bassmaster Magazine wrote an article on see-through crankbaits. The guy uses them in clear water during the summer, and says he has more luck with them then colored ones. He says it shows the bass a muted, ghostly apparition of a baitfish. Its more of a finesse bait, and it has to be worked slower. He uses bomber 7a, bomber flat a, and excalibur fat free shads. Maybe this sort of thing will work with muskies. |
|
| |
|
|
Steve,….I recall about thirty years ago that the PA Fish Commission had a large aquarium in the lobby of its warm water hatchery. It contained three or four ‘Lunge and a small school of Fatheads. Both got along famously at different levels in the four-foot deep tank. I mentioned this to the Super one day and he said, “Watch this”. He swooped a Fathead in the aquarium net and crimped its body between his thumbnail and index finger just ahead of its tail. He tossed the injured minnow (where’ve I heard that before?) back into the tank. It twisted, turned and frantically tried to right itself. ALL of the ‘Lunge started their ‘stalk’ toward the cripple. They sculled themselves along utilizing only their fins. Suddenly the one closest to the struggling minnow darted in and engulfed it, did a flashy U-turn and headed for the far corner of the tank to finish its meal. The balance of the Muskies acted rather nonchalant that they’d missed out and ignored the rest of the normally acting minnows. However, they stayed much more active than they had been – cruising around the bottom of the tank, slowly making circles and skulking around the vegetation and the air bubbles from the pumps.
Try this in your tank and let us know the result. There’s something about an unnaturally acting, crippled ‘meal’ that causes ‘Lunge to strike. I like to think that ‘fish’ shaped baits imitating a crippled fish will catch more fish than hardware – but bucktails continue to produce as do spinnerbaits.
Also, I’ve got a ‘clear’ plastic Zara Spook style surface bait with a rattle chamber that absolutely kills ‘Smallies. I’ve had a couple smaller ‘Lunge whack at it but so far I haven’t hooked one.
I’m really enjoying this thread particularly after reading the research paper studying the difference between sight and lateral line identification of prey.
|
|
| |
|
| I think I have caught, and missed, muskies that could not see the lure.
A great example is the fish that blows out of the water several feet from a surface lure in an obvious strike posture. The surface conditions were such that the fish could not see the lure, and ''missed'' as a result. I have had situations where I feel the fish is ''light blind'' where the fish miss a glide bait several times and yet finally get it.
The fish couldn''t see the lure, but were responding to SOMETHING. I feel at that point, it is sound. Too close for lateral line,although that is probably how initial targeting started; yet the fish still hit. There are some that feel that the bone structure and skull coupled with the air bladder may also assist in initial targeting.
The idea here is that the strike response from the fish, in response to the lure''s proximity and signature, is automatic, coded into the fish biologically. I think the lure needs only to be able to get to where they are, and get in front of them to catch fish. Look at the tiny pike one catches on HUGE lures, big enough to be a predator that could eat the silly pike! Why did it attack something so clearly beyond it''s status as prey?
As to bait shapes: Evolution didn''t miss too badly getting the shape down to move through water, and those shapes have the good depth and speed control features when adapted to a lure. Hard to get a square object to behave in the water.
The clear lure needs only to have good depth control,speed control,and some kind of workable ''action'' as it, naturally, displaces water. I think the fish may miss it alot in clear water, but I bet not as much in dirty water.
Many feel it is important to imitate a natural prey style for a lure to work well. Really, when one looks at bait design, the critical factors are castability, depth, and speed control. Add good visuals, and the package produces, regardless of what it actually looks or behaves like.
Examples of how baits actually do not imitate the real thing...Anyone ever see a perch or other prey class fish zig zag across the top like a Jackpot? Go wildly side to side under the surface like an Undertaker, Manta, Squirko, Jerko,or other glide bait? Rattle along with their head spinning crazily while their tail is not(bucktail)? Wiggle head to tail in a very tight pattern over and over(crankbait)? Zip along, stop, zip along, stop, diving and rising(twitch bait, Suick)?
Many lures claim to imitate an injured minnow. If one actually injures a minnow, it usually rolls on it''s back, swims weakly in a circle,does some weird stuff, and croaks. That is exactly what the sick ones do in my aquarium, and they usually end up floating on the top, very dead, ignored by the predators in the tank.
Drop a healthy OR injured one in from the top, though, and unless the fish are really ''off'', that little sucker is LUNCH. Things that make ya go hmmmm.....
Sponge, I really DO respect you, and Carmen, too. It is a reflection of my madness!! |
|
| |
|
| I know you do![;)] Failed to mention that the Mirror Lures we were using were top water + had no action other than what we gave them. When we lost the "see thru" we took the white ones + took a knife + scraped the paint off.....may be the fact that they were on top + quivered some? Who knows but they worked; in fact they caught fish when NOTHING else would! Far be it from me or Carmen to state as to why but I''m out of them + Dad refuses to dip into his stock! Can''t blame him since I lost more tackle growing up than I could ever replace.....[:sun:] |
|
| |
|
| I believe the lateral line is a SHORT RANGE sensory system.... not long range like audible sound or vision (water clarity permitting). I believe it is one of the LAST inputs to triggering a strike.
I'm interested in the lateral line in order to figure out some kind of a "last ditch effort" to convert a looker into an eater. Or to trigger instinctive strikes with a presentation that bumps them on the nose.
The short range issue has been proven in many papers. In the recent study we've all been enlightend with on Muskie Central, it discusses the "stalk". I believe they stalk because they are trying to get closer to the target to receive a better "signal" for their lateral line... and thus make a more accurate strike. The lateral line suppressed fish also "stalked"... probably in an attempt to obtain lateral line input... and when they got so close without a signal... they struck before the opportunity passed. Also, all fish in the study were VERY motivated as they had not been fed any food for 14 days prior to the study.
Oh yeah, and to answer my own question from before... I think the trick to catching a fish on an invisible lure would be getting it close enough to the fish for it to "feel" its presence. That's the advantage of color in my book.... the ability to draw them in from greater distances.
So when are meeting at Worral's house to do our OWN experiments in his fish tank?????
jlong
|
|
| |
|
| Figured it out....Both quiet + noisy presentations will work at any given time depending on the MOOD OF THE FISH. The way I see it is the type of day the fish is having determines the bait. Much like people I believe that if the fish is having a good day + the weekend is here they will want a party atmosphere therefore use a loud noisy "party" type bait. But if it is at the first of the week or if they are having an exceptionally bad day, then like us they probably want a quiet dinner + to be left alone....at this time I feel a quiet "non offending" bait would be in order. This theory is not set in concrete + has yet to be tested although I have an idea for a new bait I think will work called the "MUSKY PINATA"....a hollow paper mache bait that when filled w/ baitfish + struck will drive the fish into a frenzy! [:sun:] |
|
| |
