|
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Over the years we have all heard many times that muskies have the brain the size of a pea. Therefore we should all be much more intelligent than them, and basically it shouldn’t be that hard to catch them. I for one never believed in the size of the brain dictating how smart the animal is. Perhaps “smart” isn’t the correct word though, and maybe instincts should be used instead. Some believe fish get conditioned, and some don’t. So has the decline in fish being boated on double 10’s due to conditioning, or other environmental factors?
Here is a clip that perfectly illustrates conditioning in fish. After enough events, whether positive or negative, a fish will learn a certain behavior. In the case of the video a positive result from doing something has conditioned the fish to know that if it does something a certain way it will be rewarded with food.
Fish are also known to, as a friend put it in a seminar, use tools. The example given was a bass would pick up some pebbles in it’s mouth, swim up to a rock wall with a crack in it, and spit the pebbles into the crack. The result was a crayfish would shoot out of the crack only to be eaten.
It is items like this that should have us asking ourselves “How does this apply to our approach to fishing”. To me the number one take away is to think outside of the box.
Something to think about. Here is just one video of many.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3JFmrlgWAk&feature=related
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | I think intelligence is indeed relevant. When you only have to process a few things, you don't need much of a brain. It's really no different than a computer processor in that respect--single-threaded CPUs can process one thread at a time, so there's a limit to how many instructions they can execute per second. Now contrast that with a quad-core CPU with hyperthreading, and you have eight potential threads of execution that can occur simultaneously. It's a crude analogy I'll admit, but I don't think it's all that far off. The point is that both systems work fine, but one cannot process nearly the same amount of information as the other. The little single-thread microcontroller in your GPS/fish-finder is nowhere near as capable as the quad-core processor they are now putting in even small laptops. But it doesn't have to be, because it isn't intended to do all that much.
Fish don't really need to process all that many things, when you think about it. They have an autonomic nervous system to handle their general housekeeping functions, and they have a much less demanding need to muscle control than mammals. Of course they have to process neurological stimuli from their sensory system, but even that is (apparently) much less sophisticated than that of a mammal. So when you think about it, they really don't need much of a brain in that sense.
Heh...come to think of it, maybe they aren't smart enough for most anglers to figure out! LOL...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 4/5/2012 1:39 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, for one thing...getting hooked and/or caught. Fish condition on lures apparently, which is why there always seems to be a market for the next greatest thing. Obviously if a fish was harvested, they wouldn't get a chance to not that mistake (falling for the lure) again. But in the C&R world of muskellunge, I'd bet there is quite a bit of negative reinforcement towards lures.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8780
| Do fish become conditioned? They certainly do, and I don't think that can be argued. Just like your fish at home that all swim to the top of the tank when you open the lid, or the fish in trout farms that flock to the shorelines when they see someone approach in anticipation of a meal, sport fish become conditioned as well. I think much of what we refer to as "learning" is just a result of lures becoming part of the environment. Fish eventually become conditioned to ignore them. The old addage of "if it moves, it's food" still holds true in an environment where everything that moves actually IS food, but on highly pressured waters, it's not a stretch to assume that muskies (and other game fish) eventually figure out that lures are not food. It would explain why the small ones almost always eat and the big ones often just look. For active fish, I think that conditioning is overridden for the most part by the biological need to feed. That's what we call a "reaction strike". The real question is how many times does a fish need to see a lure before it eventually becomes conditioned to ignore it, and just as importantly, how long does that conditioning last? A week? A month? The rest of its life? Do they "forget" that lures aren't food between the end of the season and the opener? The fact that fish can be caught multiple times proves that whatever conditioning that takes place is not 100% effective. More importantly, how does (or should) this change the way we fish? |
|
| |
|
| To catch a "conditioned" fish, blow it's mind. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | EA I believe the strike you are talking about is actually a feeding strike based on it wants/needs to eat. Getting one to eat when it is not required would be a reactionary strike, and a good prelude into what we can do to change our game. Why try to find muskies that are hungry and try to get them to eat when the majority of the time they aren’t hungry? We need to start thinking about retrieves, bait actions, and colors to get a reaction strike rather than a feeding strike. Why? Because then you are targeting to change neutral fish into eating as well as the hungry fish versus just targeting hungry fish. Better odds. How does everyone fish tails/spinners for the most part? Continuous retrieves. Fish get conditioned to that same old dance. However what will the fish think when all of a sudden that tail jerks forward, and stops to sink, and then takes off again?
Also with conditioning is we need to think about how are they being conditioned, or in our case what lures. The guys that continue to be most successful are usually the ones setting the patterns for everyone else, and are one step ahead. Leaders versus followers. Think about how do you go from being a follower to a leader. Does that mean rather than throwing a Mag dawg with the big flowing tail to throwing a Hardhead with a paddletail? So if your dog bite has fizzled try a hardhead. If that fizzles try one with a paddletail. If that fizzles then…you get the idea.
Like some people some fish just never learn, and will continue to do the same thing over and over and not learn…or should I say get conditioned. We all like to find those kind of fish but that number is limited. So we have to deal with the conditioned fish. How long does it take for a fish to become conditioned? Depends on the individual fish. No different than how quickly it takes us to learn. Circumstance in the negative circumstance also plays a large roll I think.
So what can we due to prevent, or minimize the conditioning of our fish? We can start at thinking about how do we reduce the level of negative experience for the fish. For example rather than netting a 32” fish, letting it thrash about, lifting it out for a picture, and then releasing it we could just pop the hooks out of the fish, if feasible, and letting it swim away without it ever leaving the water or touching a net. You could net fish, but don’t take them out for pictures. I could go on but will stop there.
***
Edited as the study I originally referenced appears to have invalid data, or never to be accurately proven out. If you are interested in the study, and the counter artcile questioning the original results, I will gladly give you the links.
Edited by CiscoKid 4/5/2012 3:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | "The real question is how many times does a fish need to see a lure before it eventually becomes conditioned to ignore it, and just as importantly, how long does that conditioning last? A week? A month? The rest of its life? Do they "forget" that lures aren't food between the end of the season and the opener? The fact that fish can be caught multiple times proves that whatever conditioning that takes place is not 100% effective. More importantly, how does (or should) this change the way we fish?"
quote by -ESOXADDICT-
Yes!!!! The real question has emerged!!! These are the types of questions that interest me as an angler. It is questions like this that originally prompted me to go to school for marine biology... Yet even then, no one had an answer for me that I found to be a legitimate one. These are the things that I sit and think about while trying to decide which lure to use and why (besides all of the other reasons) Like he said, one fish can get caught more then once.... So where is the 'conditioning'?
This overall question, is one of the many reason I love fishing
Edited by FAT-SKI 4/5/2012 3:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | I have a question...
Speaking of the "reactionary strike". I have fished many of spots with a great water clarity and visibility. I can throw the same lure to one small spot over and over and over again. For whatever reason the fish wont hit the lure on the first 9 times I cast there... but the tenth, my lure gets smoked by a missile that seemingly came from no where. I'm sure the fish saw and or heard the lure the first 9 times and chose not to attack. So why the tenth? Did I finally pee it off enough to hit it? Was it finally so irritated that it thought the only way I was going to stop was to eat it? There is something to be said about the amount of testosterone within the fish. I just am not sure what that may be? Then maybe if a lure with great vibration gets to close to the lateral line, it will hit that to, regardless of hunger... but I guess that one falls under the "reaction strike" as well.
Any thoughts on that anyone??? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | Here's a couple things that I have witnessed over the years. I have watched reactions like instincts, when a fish is spotted even if a ways away and the angler gets what I call Too excited. If you watch the fish it's like they feel the danager. I've seen this in big fish of many species. I seen fish scoot out of an ice hole, turn off a bait when closing the gap, and blow up for no reason and swim off in a fury. Then too on the opposite side of the coin I have caught the same fish numerous times on the same bait. I used to think the circumstances had changed enough to give the bait a "new appearance" but have not drawn that as a full conclusion. I think it's like I prefer brunettes I might have in my younger days taken a second look or more at a blonde or redhead, secretly I was a sucker for a brunette. Wired that way I think there are fish with a "weakness" for certain baits. Certainly from a conditioning stand point is there a Muskie alive that has not seen, heard or felt a blade bait? Yet when I used to log my fish catches the blades smoked all other baits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8780
| I still learn new things just about every day on the water, and I threw my first cast in 1974. Not nearly as long as many, but I've been at this game for a while. What can we do? Something different! Not sure we can avoid the conditioning process all that much, but we can react to it by doing something different. You run the risk of it not working, but then if the same old thing wasn't working, what have you got to lose? If they're following a topraider, throw a pacemaker. If they're following a Depth Raider, throw a grandma, if they're following a double 10, downsize to a double 8... There's a few guys out there who still catch a ton of fish on spinnerbaits and Mepps Musky Killers. I think part of that is because that spinnerbait or that Mepps is the first one those fish have seen in a long time. Somethng to think about for sure. I've saved the day more than once doing something weird out of desperation. "You're working that thing WAY to fast, Jeff." ... "GOT ONE!!!" Then again, maybe you're not working it fast enough! LMAO |
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | I've always thought we as fishermen tend to put way to much credit on the bait. Look at the lowly glider as an example. I thought with my 10-12 different retrieves I had this bait mastered. Last year I had a guy in the boat that was doing the most stupid retrieve I've ever seen with a glider. After the second fish...guess what I was doing! I think we tend not to WORK hard enough to trigger a strike as we should. Instead we are content to see a "clinically perfect retrieve. " Like when you have a smaller fish come in on an 8 and you just mess with them and then pull the bait away so you don't have to hook them. The actions you will do with your bait are totally different than when you are attempting to do the "perfect" 8. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I keep a cooler full of 10" suckers with me. When I catch a fish I just give her a couple of them. This way I give the fish positive reinforcement and they return to my boat numerous times throughout the day.
But that's only if I'm fishing suspendos. Fish relating to structure don't get conditioned, that's why people who fish structure catch way more fish than guys who basin bomb. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | Jake -
I've noticed similar situations while fishing with my wife. I tired to teach her all of the different baits and how to use them. Last year we went out fishing and towards the end of our day she was throwing one of her favorite lures. It is a small crawdad color rattle trap. When she bought it, it never ran straight. it swam on its side. I told her to throw it away. So as the story goes she is using this "broken lure" and a 45" smashes her bait so hard she almost fell out of the boat.
My only logical thinking was, that the fish had not seen a lure swim like that before, maybe it thought it was a dyeing bait fish... who knows? She caught her first Musky on that lure, as well as at least 30 pike last year all over 33" and 10lbs. It was the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. A bait that I thought was CRAP, looked like crap, swam like crap, rolled on the retrieve, hooks got caught up ect. caught more fish then my mind could comprehend on a regular basis. If she didn't catch a fish every other cast it was shocking... yet I tried to throw it one once or twice and even went out without her and brought it along... never caught a #*^@ thing.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | The most important question to ask is what IS conditioning as far as Muskies go? Way different than dogs, for example, and the fish's brain is totally different, including the rather important lacking of frontal lobes. They do 'remember' but not the way we do. Be careful of anthropomorphism here.
It would take a number of negative reinforcements for a Muskie to avoid a particular lure strictly in that sense long term; probably more than the fish would be exposed to, and each lure has a slightly differing footprint. In most cases it's repeated exposure to the lure footprint that adjusts the Muskie's reaction to it. First exposure, largest reaction. 10,0000th exposure, not so much. When a presentation becomes part of the nearly every day environment, the fish's activity level has to be heightened to get a strike response. Rarely is a fish taking an artificial lure displaying a feeding response in the strictest sense. Therefore, a more limited reaction...say a follow instead of a strike...or no reaction at all would be the result of neutral or negative fish exposed to a presentation that is commonplace. They don't eat every perch or sucker they see, either.
Adding an additional stimulus is the trick to getting a strike response, and is a well known tactic to take a fish that hasn't yet triggered.
Fish do 'learn'. Again, be careful of anthropomorphism looming again. The example of a LM bass using pebbles is a good one, question might be how wide spread is that tactic among that population, and is it a shared behavior? Do ALL LM Bass use it? Why not, if the answer is no? How were they exposed to this tactic, and how long has that behavior been observed?
Muskies are regularly recaptured, obviously, or CPR would be a waste of our time.
First, we need to establish that capturing and handling a Muskie is as strong a negative experience as we think it is. If it is, and the fish are as capable as we seem to be giving them credit for, why would ANY muskie ever hit an artificial lure twice or get anywhere NEAR a boat and motor? And if suckers are the main forage in a waterbody, and a fish is caught on a sucker...will that muskie get real skinny eating bluegills?
Remember the CFMS?
Some days fish hit everything that moves. others, they won't touch a thing. Thousands of hours watching fish on an underwater camera has taught me allot about how to trigger even negative fish, but even then some days...nada. The next day, or even the next hour, and a completely different behavior exhibited. |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Interesting topic for sure, Travis. So there's two dinner bells that get a muskies attention; 1) Sight, 2) Feel. That said, I think if we consider visual conditioning for a moment, the obvious assumption would be relevant to daytime instances as opposed to night. My immediate reaction to fish reacting to visual ques is that while it may get their attention, I believe the closer they get the blurrier the object their chasing becomes in instances where the retrieve is faster than a dead-sticked twitch bait. I think the actual strike is purely driven by feel, almost as if the lights go out as the fish opens her mouth and takes the lure in. That said, my opinion as of now is that conditioning to visually cues, like the flash or color and even mass/size of a lure may not be something to concern myself with when fishing pressured water.
When I think about "Feel" and how a blind fish would react to the foot prints of a bucktails vortex versus that of real living prey, I personally believe that if the fish begins doubting the feel of movement in the water as being live versus feaux, we'd start seeing a lot of sickly skinny fish out there. That said, it’s no secret that when a fish feels hooks the odds of it eating again are a lot less likely, but still possible. Even more obvious is how a fish turns totally negative after being caught and released. They tend to hunker down for a couple days in the same general area and remain totally negative to baits.
All that said, while I don’t think the conditioning matters as much with sight, I do believe in conditioning developing to feel. I learned several years ago on pressured water, like some of my home water , that a simple straight retrieved pair of 10’s will still get the attention of window shoppers, but sometimes making the sale means throbbing or pulsating the bait with quick pulls of the rod during the retrieve. This varies the vibration just enough, IMO, to throw off the hesitant and sometimes paranoid fish you may have the attention of. On the topic of big bladed bucktails, also, my belief is that when they are close enough to get a good look at the bait yet just far enough behind it where it’s tickling their nose, the vortex moves those sparkly flashabou skirts enough to really blur the lure to the point where I can’t imagine a fish deciphering the difference between a lure and a living prey.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8780
| sworrall - 4/5/2012 4:22 PM
[...]
why would ANY muskie ever hit an artificial lure twice or get anywhere NEAR a boat and motor?
[...].
Because muskies are dumb. All fish are dumb. The difference is that most other species of fish we catch don't get a second change to be dumb.
I think this really only comes into play when trying to trigger neutral or negative fish on highly pressured waters. I also think that whatever conditioning takes place is not repeated enough, and not retained for a long enough period of time for said muskie to "remember" the whole experience of being caught yesterday or even last week. But if you hook one and lose it, it's probably not coming back today.
Edited by esoxaddict 4/5/2012 4:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | interesting article I found on pain and fish. If fish can get conditioned based on feel of a lure like jamming hooks through their face then I would think that is directly related to pain or irritation... We all know they have vibrations sensors on the head and face... but pain? If I think that a fish will shy away from certain baits after getting jabbed with hooks I would relate that to pain. The article is kind of funny.. it is more based on trout fishing then anything else.... but interesting non the less
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/green_room/2009/05... |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | Nice, Sled 
These are instances that seperate the men from the boys on the pressured ponds, like my home waters in SE Wisconsin. Lakes like Pewaukee draw attention from musky fisherman all across the map, especially the immediate area. Not too many trophy hunters in our area, mainly numbers folks, and while it's no secret Pewaukee Lake has giants in it, I can attest that not many are willing to sacrifice the action for the chance at THE ONE. That said, what you see are boats skirting the weed edges and following the shoreline two casts out or less hoping to get a muskies attention, no matter it's size, it just has to be a musky. In part, it sounds like santa's in town every time I'm on that lake with all the jingle bell clatter being thrown. Back at the dock you hear a lot of 30-36" fish stories and window shopping complaints.
I have personally been challenging myself to trophy hunting on these waters over the last couple years. Folks will challenge this so I'll speak on my own behalf when I say that the techniques I emplore are different than the majority on that water in the way of lures, depth and baitfish migrations. The few that follow the same suit as I are targeting different fish and making contact with fish that have a whole lot less scars on their noses versus that of the fish targeted by the majority of the guys out there.
In tournaments, however, it's not about the size so much as the quantity as two 34's will beat a 50. That said, when a tourney falls on pressured water, I go with my gut and suspect what I see on a daily basis on Pewaukee probably exists on those waters as well and one way to improve your odds if you fall in line with the other boats fishing the same weed beds, etc, is to change up your retrieves with variable cadense and speed.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8780
| Neat.
"Every time I see an angler, I say a little prayer that he will get his fishing hook lodged in his body, and then perhaps he will give some thought to the barbaric 'sport' he is pursuing."
I may consider that quote if a muskie ever turns around and bites me when I am releasing it and says "you bastard, that HURT!" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1360
Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | esoxaddict - 4/5/2012 5:17 PM
Neat.
"Every time I see an angler, I say a little prayer that he will get his fishing hook lodged in his body, and then perhaps he will give some thought to the barbaric 'sport' he is pursuing."
I may consider that quote if a muskie ever turns around and bites me when I am releasing it and says "you bastard, that HURT!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL!!! My thoughts exactly |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | sworrall - 4/5/2012 4:22 PM
Remember the CFMS?
Steve the CFMS is the study I had linked to my one post, and then retracted based on the follow up article that I believe you authored. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32886
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, fish do not feel pain we we know it. No frontal lobes, and no ability to process. They will avoid 'discomfort', but so will an amoeba.
Travis, probably was authored by me and Rob Kimm for Esox Angler. Those were the days..... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8780
| I keep a flask in the boat for that purpose. When I catch a fish, I pour a little whiskey down the gullet before I release it. I figure it will kill any "pain" the fish might be feeling, and also help them forget the trauma of being caught. As a side note, my numbers have gone WAY up since I started doing this. I'm just not sure if it counts catching the same fish 5 times in a row...  |
|
| |
|
Location: SE Wisconsin | EA, my favorite post of yours no doubt, lol. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | sworrall - 4/5/2012 5:27 PM
SNIP...
Travis, probably was authored by me and Rob Kimm for Esox Angler. Those were the days.....
I was actually looking for that piece the other day Steve/Travis, but I couldn't find it. Is it still available somewhere?
TB |
|
| |
|
| If there were no conditioning, the double ten would have never been invented and we'd all still be using red and white daredevils and there would never be a need for anything else. If you don't like the word conditioning, then call it a negative reaction to a stimulus, call it a bad experience.....call it whatever you want. Fish behavior changes because of what anglers do, and where we are, and what fish experience based on that. I don't know how that fact could even be argued. There's an article in pretty much every single issue of MHM about fishing "pressured waters." What does pressure mean? What is the result of pressure? Why? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Tom here is the first article published on the CFMS.
http://www.musky.com/Features/cfmsy1.htm
This is the article challenging the findings of that study.
http://www.thenextbite.com/node/11286?page=show
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Ah...Thanks Travis. I had found the second document, but not the first. Cool...
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2015
| addict - 4/6/2012 9:02 AM
If there were no conditioning, the double ten would have never been invented and we'd all still be using red and white daredevils and there would never be a need for anything else. If you don't like the word conditioning, then call it a negative reaction to a stimulus, call it a bad experience.....call it whatever you want. Fish behavior changes because of what anglers do, and where we are, and what fish experience based on that. I don't know how that fact could even be argued. There's an article in pretty much every single issue of MHM about fishing "pressured waters." What does pressure mean? What is the result of pressure? Why?
Couldn't disagree more. The double 10 stimulates a strike response like few (if any) lure ever has. The same fish will eat 10's every year...year after year. I bet there are individual fish on Mille Lacs that have ate 10's half a dozen times in their life! ... Does pressure effect fish, sure....100 boats going over a great ambush spot tends to put a fish in a negative mood..but they eat or die - muskies are not conditioned to lures I've caught the same fish on the same lure dozens of times. One individual "stubby" has ate a weagle 4 times!
Edited by IAJustin 4/6/2012 9:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | I agree with Addict. Not sure how one cannot believe in conditioning of fish, but will still talk about fishing pressured waters. What is meant by pressured waters if fish don’t get conditioned? If they were dumb, and could not be conditioned, how does pressure affect these creatures? Some may think this thought is “out there”, but have you ever fished your favorite lake on a weekday versus a weekend? There are some lakes I have fished that I swear the fish “know” what part of the week it is. Let’s just say there is a benefit to fishing on the weekday, and I have experienced this more times than just a couple to think it is more than just a coincidence.
I agree with Steve’s comments and warnings on anthropomorphism, or in other words giving human characteristics to animals. It can go both ways. Just because we need the brain the size we have to do what we do does not mean an animal does. Same goes on how we learn, and how we remember.
Steve I would love to answer some of the questioned you posed in your first post about the LM Bass, but I cannot. Just a tidbit I brought up from hearing it from another source and haven’t had time to dig into yet. However it will be dug into eventually.
I love the story Fat-Ski brought up on working a glider. Many stories out there like this, and you can look at it whatever way you wish. I like the thought that the fish eat the bait being worked “incorrectly”, as our thought process goes, because the fish haven’t seen an object going through the water like that before. On pressure waters they are use to seeing foreign objects move more or less in the same manner. Then along comes something that looks foreign, but also moves much differently than the previous 40 of those that day.
Living creatures have an erratic movement about them. For the most part the common retrieve of baits have a rhythm about them. Something to think about.
|
|
| |
