|
|
| Just wondering everyones opinion on which muskies are easier to catch, stocked or wild.
Also after a fish is caught a few times do they seek a safer home, if so how far might they travel. These are a few questions I ponder while trolling every week. |
|
| |
|
| Sure, I’ll open this can of worms. Yes, after a musky is caught it learns or becomes conditioned from the experience and will avoid similar circumstances. IMHO. Is this giving them “people like” attributes Ben? |
|
| |
|
| i remember a recent study that came out claiming that muskies do become conditioned to lures and boat motors... and areas where they were caught, etc... but that study might have been the one that was causing all the controversy about its validity and everything... but i think there is some truth to the muskies being adaptive creatures... they are not rocks... and probably more complex than people would like to think...
zach sanders[:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| Not ME!!
NO, NO, NO, NO. Muskies do not become 'conditioned' to capture and seek safety ANYWHERE. They simply go back to what they were doing before the capture. Fact is, some of the telemetry studies have shown some fish in some systems spend a fair amount of time in deep water, but that is EXACTLY what they were doing before the capture.
This is a concept that has been forwarded by some folks that are allowing for a muskie to be able to 'reason', and they can't. Period. It is convenient, and makes sense on the surface, but simply is not biologically possible. Unfortunately, the muskie fishing public bought in to the idea, and it is HARD to dispell myth.
See the recent issue of Esox Angler. Dan and Rob have an excellent commentary there that sums it up. |
|
| |
|
| hmmm... i guess this is a debatable subject- my comment up there is just speculation... i have no facts to support that... i'm not a biologist(but i play one on tv[:bigsmile:] )
zach sanders |
|
| |
|
| I’m not a biologist either. I just know when one raises up, looks me in the eye, winks and then sinks back down they seem pretty smart. I also believe that somehow they figured out what lures are. It could be they are just not being “triggered” properly at that moment, but it eases my mind to think otherwise. Ignorance is bliss. It also makes the folklore much more interesting. I’ll read the article, but I’ll probably find a way to doubt it and still think that they''re smarter than me.
|
|
| |
|
| Comfort is a good thing as long as we keep it in perspective.......Where I get all cranked up is when folks start lending muskies human characteristics to explain a behavior, muddying the issue so badly that some anglers are seriously misled, and don't adjust on the water as well as they could. In short, excuses for why we don't catch muskies go WAY out there. To anthropomorphize camos what is really happening. It is a non truth.
The fact anglers anthropomorphize is used as one of the largest marketing tools in fishing equipment advertising, selling to our beliefs instead of fact!!
Fact is the stupid things don't even have the necessary hardware to learn in ANY sense of the word. No ability to reason; that removes all the claims of learned behavior.
One of my pet peeves. Guess that shows, huh? |
|
| |
|
| THIS ONE....GETS THE FRIDAY FLASHBACK!!!! |
|
| |
|
| How can you tell the difference between stocked and wild muskies????
Is it due to how the lake is in the first place or what?
|
|
| |
|
| Mr. Worrall:
Time after time you have made your position known about muskies being "as dumb as a box of rocks". Let us keep this discussion going, but in a different direction. Can you PROVE the things you say about the dummie muskies? You continue to make these claims and rail against those that think otherwise...PROVE IT! Yes, muskies have a small brain, but......
Should make for an interesting discussion. I am sure that even you have seen muskies do things that make even you wonder...haven't you???
This should perhaps be under the "Research" heading, but is it proven research or your personal opinion?
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
| I really don't look at muskies as being dumb or smart. I just think they are finnicky as hell most of the time, and gorge themselves for just a short window of time, at which time I try to mimic that which they are gorging themselves on. How scientific is that.
As far as muskies getting conditioned to capture, some might, some definately do not. Last year we caught a few muskies twice(one we even named Steve as we caught him twice and lost him a third time in the same spot). I've also caught muskies from an area, and the same fish was caught by a friend in a different spot the next night(happened a couple years ago on the river here).
As far as stocked versus naturals, I always bety on the naturals. I fish alot of river systems that are sustained through natural reproduction, and they definately have a certain look to them. Those that fish some of the rivers of NW WI should know what I'm talking about when I talk about markings on fish that are native to that system. I'm glad that they have ceased stocking in some of those waters, as I believe it will only make for a better fishery. There are many(most) waters however, that it is impossible to tell if a fish was stocked or not. |
|
| |
|
| Do muskies "know" that if they go to the back of a windy point that they can get an easy meal from the wind pushing baitfish, or do they happen upon it by chance? If certain areas are known to hold muskies, what draws them there? Instinct? Or do they "know" that an easy meal may be had here?
Just wondering. Even mice can rationalize as proven by pain/pleasure studies.
-ost[;)] |
|
| |
|
| Good question ostdc! Yeah, what makes a musky feed on a spot where the wind is blowing into them so the baitfish are pushed towards them....instinct or just luck? Also, why wouldn't every fish thats feeding go to those spots to get easy meals?
Thanks,
Brett Carroll |
|
| |
|
| sworrall:
Figure since you haven't responded yet you are doing something better, like getting ready for opening day!
Wanted to follow-up my previous post with a response to something in one of yours, i.e. Dan Cravens EA article you referred to. In that "A Quantum Leap" article, Dan did the "very thing" that he was cautioning others not to do. So as to not take it out of context, I'll quote the whole paragraph:
"It is this author's belief, as well as a number of other concerned (concerned?..LR) fishermen, that laymen have taken hold of good, scientific studies and made some fairly dangerous (dangerous???..LR) assumptions after reading the data-using reasoning. The problem is this: Fish do not think, much less reason."
My problem with Dan's last statement is this: He cautions against making "quantum leaps" such as: "Fish do not think, much less reason."; thereby making his own "quantum leap" to validate his point. First off, if he believes this is so, what/where is his "proof". Furthermore,(and this applies also to my questions of you, Steve) we are not just talking "fish" here, but we are talking MUSKIES! Ya, I know, fish are fish, and any "research" applies to all....not necessarily so!!
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
|
Jamie- HMMM- wild versus stocked. I think the wild ones tend to like natural baits, i.e., hair & wood versus plastic & rubber for the stocked ones.[:bigsmile:]
Seriouslly, some larger stocked muskies get tag's. I just read where some advanced fingerling's were tagged by a tattoo on the anal fin. (I think it was in Muskies Inc magazine) Cool idea + good side work for all those tattoo shop's [:sun:]
How far they travel after being caught?- I think they use the whole darn lake/river if they want to. Most of us might be surprised at the range they actually use. I've read some of the tracking stuff too. Larry Ramsell's stuff on Eagle is very interesting. Think about it- a 50" Muskie is a top tier predator in it's environment. To survive it has to utilise the entire water volume (That is the portions that are habitable) Tracking studies typically sample the fish once a day. So you know what they were doing at a given time. Not where they've been. How far can a Muskie swim in 24 hrs? Maybe good study would be to implant them w/ a downloadable GPS unit, where the GPS could store the coord's every 10 minutes That's only 144 stored data sets in 24 hr's- Anyone ever try their GPS underwater???????
Hee, hee now Mr. Sworrall's dumber than a box of rocks "unproven" theory. They may not be human but I believe that it's entirely feasible for them to "learn" via imprinting. Imprinting is not active, it's subconsious. This has been proven for other fish, but not Muskie's. So it to is an unproven theory. Example: Your Mom said don't touch it-it's hot. You touch it anyway, you have now been imprinted w/the physical connection to what the word hot means. There could be positive imprinting, i.e., these cisco's are tasty. Now if I can figure out how to get them imprinted to strike my lure every time and avoid Sworrall's creatures, I'll be the God of the Muskie world.
Have Fun!!!!
Al Warner
www.icantplayfindmyfoot.com
www.butiknowwheremyboatistoday.com[:((] |
|
| |
|
| My main commentary over the years is directed at the idea that fish are able to reason, problem solve, and develop behavioral models from the process.
Behavior of any one fish may vary somewhat from the norm in that particular environment due to variables in food availability, environmental anomalies, or other factors including disease, genetic differences, etc.
I am not saying that fish behave totally from an instinctive base. There is considerable arguement that the bahavior of fishes is a composite of instinct and exposure to the ecosystem since hatching.
Fish definitely develop avoidance behavior to predators, and react in a manner that causes behavior change from foraging to passive or active avoidance if a predator approaches in an active, 'cruising' posture. Is this behavior learned, as in the model presented in the first sentense in this post? Can the learned behavior the fish exhibits be explained by instinct alone? Neither stance is conclusive, as both seem be at play.
As a friend once commented when discussing fish vision.."Are you a Muskie?" No, I am not. So, from that stand, I will never know what a muskie sees, feels, or thinks, and only educated guesses, or theories, may be applied.
Fish also are not thought to be infinitely plastic in the ability to learn, and are restrained by environmental, developmental, and other factors at different periods of their life. Some behaviors are developed quickly in one, and not in another due to these factors.
I could go on for hours, but will not. My objection to anthropomorphism is pretty basic. The brain mass in any muskie is very limited. My understanding of the muskie's brain is that there is no cerebral mass, only nodes. Theory has it that reasoning, ability to problem solve, and arrival at complex association is dependant on the brain mass. I believe this is what Dan was referring to, but I am not certain.
Aviodance behavior has been observed in the lowest life forms on Earth. The 'leap' one should not take, IMHO, is the assumption by an angler that a muskie or any other fish can place a lure, presentation, or overall angling approach into a complex formula demanding reason, and arrive at an avoidance behavior as a result.
Capture on a bucktail/subsequent future exposure=r. Feeding behavior=s aviodance behavior =y. Are you saying that after capture and release on a bucktial the muskies then, when feeding, automatically from a learned response due to capture is s+r=y? If so, how does one explain the muskies caught several times by angling on the same lure during the tagging work done in the 80's?
If this was possible, recapture by angling of ANY fish EVER would be difficult; the targeted population would quickly adapt to an avoidance behavior when an angler hit the water, making the fish nearly impossible to catch. I just do not see this happening!
Fish obviously are faced with the necessity to make decisions as to when to feed, when to rest, etc. This, by absolute association, demands that the fish 'think' in that sense. I don't believe anyone is arguing on that basic a level here.
Even on the heaviest pressured waters in the US, fish are regularly caught by putting a lure in front of them. There is precious little really 'new' in the lure market since the 40's, so by now, the fish should have things figured out.
I am happy they apparently don't!
Obviously this is my opinion only. If there is a convincing argument I need to 'outsmart' a fish as I would a human or other higher lifeform opponent, I am willing to listen. I have not heard one yet, that's all.
|
|
| |
|
| WOW! Just reading these posts make your IQ go up! I feel a fish can learn things like said earlier, "a fish gets caught by a lure and learns to possibly avoid that lure", however, you always seem to hear about people that catch the same fish and have pictures to prove it. Also, on many of those cases where the same fish is caught by the same fisherman, the same lure was used both times the fish was caught. Now, it has also been stated many times that the 50"+ fish have never been caught before.
Does that mean that certain fish are just smarter than others or does it mean that they just got lucky and never had a lure that they thought looked "good" come into their view perception?
I think it depends on where the fish spend most of their time. Majority(not everyone) spend a lot of their time fishing for this elusive predator in shallow water-12' and lower-saying that, I believe that the fish that don't get caught, "smarter?", big monster fish that are 50"+ fish are in deeper water. Obviously, 50" fish get caught in shallow water all the time, but I think they had some sort of reason for going into shallow water(possibly following a school of baitfish).
I don't know a whole lot of how fish act, and if I did I'm sure I would have many more fish in my boat, but most big fish(55"-60"+) always seem to come out of deep water.
Brett Carroll |
|
| |
|
| I think that often in this issue we become trapped by the words that people use to try to explain fish behavior.......Steve, I think you are as guilty of that as anybody. I think you overstate the "intelligence" part of the equation and discredit the vast majority of us who do "see" this (for lack of a better word) conditioning take place first hand. I have always disagreed with your assertions on this issue and always will because they go against my own personal observations. Without any concrete science to help me determine a reasonable answer, I will rely on what I see as opposed to what someone tells me.
I do not think that muskies are very intelligent. Heck, in every political debate that I have had with one I kicked their @*% and had them begging to be put back in the water just to escape the embarrassment of their own lack of reasoning. [;)] To say they "learn", yes, on a very basic level I believe that, but again, we all could have a VERY long debate on just what the word "learn" means. This is where I think much of the problem lies. Not everyone is (nor should be expected to be) on the same page with every word of this issue as most of them are "human" charateristics. But what other basis do we have to explain from? Steve, from what I read in your posts, I just think you believe that most of us put more "human" traits on these fish, and to a greater degree, them the vast majority of us actually do.........that's all.
Now as to personal observation. I have given an example in the past (so I will not go into it again) of a small lake that I fish that I KNOW, first hand, that I have (again for lack of a better word) conditioned those fish to certain presentations. But let me give you another example: I do a fair amount of open water trolling and in my area this is a VERY underutilized style of fishing, these open water fish see VERY few baits! On the larger bodies of water I see that method produce with the same results year in and year out for the most part. But on the smaller (under 1,500 acres) this is not the case. In fact, it has become SO predictable as to how these fish adjust, learn, become conditioned, call it what you want, that I actually rotate these lakes like a farmer would his crops. I may hit a lake hard for a couple of years and then move off of it and leave it alone for as long as four years. I have found that if I don't do that the number of larger fish that show up continually drops till it reaches a level that I'm not interested in! I have been lucky enough to have initiated a couple of smaller lakes to this style of fishing and one would have thought they had found the proverbial "pot of gold", but it did not last and on these smaller lakes, never does. I believe I know the reason........do you? By rotating, I can skip a few fish in certain year classes and let them grow to a size and still have them put their mouths on my baits when they are of a size that I'm interested in. I believe that in larger bodies of water this becomes less of a concern because one has a much larger number of fish to work through, the water is always restocking your supply so to speak, and coming into contact with larger fish stays consistent.
So why do we even catch any fish in these smaller waters if they become to "smart" for us you ask? I have always believed, and will till science tells me otherwise, that a muskie (and probably most game fish) are a bit like a wine-o and a bottle of brandy - the wine-o knows that he should not go for the brandy, but can not help himself. I think there are certain windows where even the "educated" musky can be had because they just can not help themselves - the urge to feed just takes over. That window can be made smaller by us and if these fish are pounded relentlessly, it can all but close......I've closed a couple just by myself. [:((]
Just one persons observations.......it is what I believe, but I could be wrong! [;)] |
|
| |
|
| Joel,
I am basing my commentary on my experience, as well. I have recaptured many fish on several lakes, as many as three times per season. I have guided several lakes over the years, and have noted drastic changes in patterns, but usually was able to pin the changes down to ecosystem related conditions.
In no way am I discrediting anyone's personal observations. In my seminars and commentary here and elsewhere I caution only that the observations and conclusions drawn be weighed against the fish's actual abilities, and go from there. I believe I clearly stated the observations and study I have undertaken over the last 30 years has developed MY OPINION of the issue.
I also have stated many times a particular presentation, when 'new' to the fish population, generates a higher reaction rate as to strike response then when it becomes commonplace, as a result of the fact that the presentation becomes, to a large degree, part of the everyday or nearly everyday environment, depending on pressure and frequency of exposure.( strike response theory) If one was to place an effective new presentation and the success of capture on an exposed population of fish on a graph, and repeatedly expose the targeted population to the same stimulous, the reaction will diminish, and so the capture rate, as a result of the fact the stimulous is now a more common part of the environment and elicits a lower response rate as a result. This is not determined by capture/avoidance in any way.
If one was able to feed the muskies on a regular basis, at such a time and place that the fish were available, would the fish then 'show up' to be fed after long term exposure? Sure. Is this conditioning? Sure. If you stop feeding will the fish still show up every day for an extended period of time? Sure.
This is the form of conditioning that I agree exists.
What I disagree with is the assumption that the fish look at a lure,cognitively clasify it as dangerous/not 'real', and avoid hitting it as a result. If the muskie was able to do that, there would be very few, if any, recaptures at all.
If the fish learned to avoid boats and anglers, associating them with danger, then commercial fishing as we know it would have ceased to be effective years ago, as the presure wave and sound of a commercial fishing boat and nets are discernable WAY before the nets are visible, yet the fish do not avoid the nets in large part until they are able to see them, and then do so in a fashion that allows for large groups of fish to be captured if one understands the reaction, which is largely predictable.
Also, the need to fin clip a fyke netted muskie or walleye so it is seen as a recapture when checked would not be necessary. One time in a net, hauled into a boat by a human, and stripped or registered, should have the fish avoiding the nets altogether. They don't. It is clear the nets are visible to the fish, but they swim right back in to the things as many as several times.
One lake my son just finished netting with the DNR had a 70% recapture rate throughout the netting process over several days, with many of the fish recaptured every day.
Please keep in mind that my musings are just that, and are backed up by only what I have read, studied, and observed. I certainly am open minded to the discussion, and am only arguing what I personally feel to be the case. That is what healthy debate is about, and I enjoy it.[:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| Joel:
Great post. I think you and I are on the same page, both drawing on many years of personal experience, as is Steve. Steve's comment: "Please keep in mind that my musings are just that, and are backed up by only what I have read, studied, and observed. I certainly am open minded to the discussion, and am only arguing what I personally feel to be the case.", indicate that his experience's, etc., are viewed differently by him, or else he has not had the "same kind" of experience's that we have had. I know based on your posts that I would love to share a boat with you one day!
While none of us can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt most of our claims or belief's, I'm sure that our experience's have made us all better muskie fishermen.
I know many of the things I was able to observe and learn while spending hundreds of hours tracking muskies on Eagle and Wabigoon Lakes, to me at least (and I have had great angler response from my articles and seminars on it), were priceless. When a 54 incher "plays games" with you all summer, it truly makes one wonder just how smart/clever/arrogant muskies really are!! It was an experience that I wouldn't trade for anything.
Muskie regards,
Larry Ramsell
www.larryramsell.com |
|
| |
|
| This is an old but fun issue. It is proven that an animal can become conditioned to a stimilus. B.F. Skinner is famous for it The problem is that there are very few studies (at least that I know of)where a research team has studied conditioning in escoids in a controlled enviornment.
I do not think that fish are intelligent. However, you do not have to be intelligent to be conditioned. I believe that Skinner once taught a pigeon to play Ping Pong. From what I know about birds they are smarter than fish but that's irrevelant. Lets just say that it's possiable for a fish to be conditioned and go from there.
Classical conditioning is a type of learning for reflex reactions. This type of conditioning is what is most reffered to in animal research. Classical conditioning depends on experiencing associations between things. For example, a nociceptive stimulus reaction when a fish grabs ahold of a lure. Hope I spelled the N word right. I did not use pain because pain is a psychological response to a stimilus and there have been controlled studies that tell us that it is highly unlikley that fish feel pain. Anyway, the fish bites the lure and has a response. This is an unconditioned response. Fish will always react to a nociceptive stimulus. Classical conditioning says that if you pair up a conditioned stimlus enough times (your lure) with an unconditioned stimlus-something tha automatically elicits a response, (nociceptive as your bait hooks the fish) you will get a conditioned response. For an animal to become conditioned to an unconditioned stimulus (your bait) it needs to be paired with the conditioned stimlus getting hooked on the bait. Typically, after one pairing of the CS and US you will only get a small CR. On a continous schedule (many days in a row of multiple pairings per day) of pairing the CS&US the likleyhood of a Conditioned Response increases rapidly then levels off (ie Diminishing Returns). Classical conditioning usually requires multiple pairings of the CS and US at a continous rate.
Following the Classical conditioning model I don't think the fish are hooked enough for them to become conditioned. Another thing to note is that if the CS is in the enviornment and does not produce an US learning of a CR will not occur and or a CR will be uncinditioned. Meaning that if a fish hits a bait once CS+US the CR will be very small. Odds are it will hit that bait again. If it follows the bait next time and nothing happens or hits the bait and isnt hurt then odds are that teh small CR will be eliminated. It's very important when trying to condition an animal that the CS and US are always paired. Time is also a major factor. You need multiple pairings in a short amount of time.
Other tings to consider: certain responses are learned more easialy than others for survival reasons. One that is learned very easially is taste aversion. If you eat a certain food and later get sick you will learn an aversion to that food. The're using this to keep wolves from eating sheep out west. They put out tainted mutton, the wolves eat it, get sick, and don't go near sheep thereafter. The smell and taste seem to be what's important here. Does this apply to fishing lures? Who knows.
Clearing up imprinting: This is a term coined by Konrad Lorenz to explain why baby ducklings learn behaviors at a certain age. It speaks of a critical period in an animals development to learn a behavior that has a genetic loading. I don't believe it applys to this discussion.
Hope all this helps
I learned it all via being a Psychology major
Both sides can continue to argue this topic for eternity without resolution until we have a recent conditining study done in a controlled enviornment on escoids. If I choose Behavoral PSYC will anyone on this thread pay for my graduate school to do this study? |
|
| |
|
| My thoughts are along the same lines as Mr. Worrall, I agree as humans we anthropomorphize with nearly every species of animal. We tend to link any animal behavior to everyday human behavior. It is true that many species of animals with higher brain function ie., have a cerebral cortex do possess many of the same functions such as spatial and analytical reasoning.....but with out a "true" brain with frontal temporal regions to do these functions muskies do not think and or become conditioned. |
|
| |
|
| I will continue to operate on the water under the belief that fish do not become conditioned to capture because of the exact scenario Brian describes. I will also continue to believe that adaptation to continuous repitition of a stimulous will elicit a reduced reaction.
This line of thinking forces me to look for seldom used, but effective approaches to seriously increase my chances of taking inactive fish using strike response.
If nothing else, it forces me to be versatile, and to innovate.
I have been VERY careful not to fall to what I call 'waves on the water make the wind blow' thinking over my career. Go ahead, argue!! Whenever I am in big waves, the wind is blowing hard. Whenever I where there are no waves, the wind is not blowing there. Therefore, waves on the water make the wind blow! Argue away...OK, what about wind on the US land mass? Hey, there are OCEANS on both sides of this country, with BIG waves, so the wind is naturally pulled across the land mass. I can argue this point endlessly, making points from observation that seem logical and clear.
So anytime I hear a 'rule' about fish behavior, I try desperately to apply that to logic based on what is known about fish behavior. If the logic doesn't match the known biology/science, then I continue to look for the answer.
I guess I am over curious! |
|
| |
|
| BWorrall....I think the previous "imprinting" remarks may have been related to the phrase being used with salmon and steelhead being able to find their home streams. Regardless, I don't believe this type of fish behaviour relates to the "conditioning" of fish at all. That imprinting is related to reproduction rather than food.
Back in the dinosaur era, when I attended college, I majored in zoology and took many classes in comparative anatomy; i.e., relating mammals, to reptiles, to fish, etc.. and how their physiological systems differ at each level. At one point I wanted to be an icthyologist but then sold out to dentistry so I could make some money (yeah right.....I then joined the military[;)] ). But I always studied fish a bit more. Fish have a four lobed brain which is incapable of storing "learned" memory. Like BWorrall stated some fish may be conditioned over a short time by repeated exposure to the stimulus but if you remove that stimulus for any length of time the conditioning response will dissipate. It is a simple survival technique....the stimulus didn't produce something positive for them so they develop an avoidance but they do not have the brain capacity to store this as learning. And as Steve mentioned some fish don't condition much at all as they have been caught multiple times over a short period.
The reason some musky escape and live to be large and old is perhaps instinctive responses of an individual nature. It has been shown in some studies on brown trout the truly large ones in well fished rivers always feed at night when there is virtually no pressure. Hence, they escape being caught. Did they learn to feed at night? Heck no...it was just the way these particular fish were born...just as one of us may be lefthanded or righthanded.
Are muskies smart and can they learn?? From my education, I don't think so. But some individual fish may seem so because they are instinctively much more difficult to catch due to behaviours peculiar to that fish. They may seem offish and discriminatory much of the time simply because they are instinctively born as such. But they don't have the capactiy to really learn.
I certainly agree with Steve that the lure manufacturers and those targeting sales at us really feed this anthropomorphizing of fish just because we generally have "SUCKER" stamped across the forehead. I have never experienced any type of fishing where the diehards "have to" have so much varied terminal tackle.
Long live the King....Esox Masquinongy!!!!
BrianW [:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| Thanks, Doc, interesting summary! I am in the 'business' so I do know what the marketing angle is for many of the companies out there, and can tell you much of the approach is based on the beliefs expressed by the anglers. |
|
| |
|
| Steve,
It seems most people have the same observations on the water in regards to how fishing pressure effects muskies - they hit less the more they are pressured. I would include "the catching" part of that pressure into the equation, it appears that you would not. And that difference looks to be coming from our varing opinions on what these fish can process in their brains or what they can't. You may very well be correct in how much (little) information these things can process, for me I really don't care. I have often said that it much more important to know that a critter has a certain behavior than to know WHY that behavior happens. In this case we all agree that their feeding (striking a bait) is diminished, we just disagree on the "why". I come from all of these types of issues from a layman's level and tend to explain them as such. For those that love to immerse themselves into the science of these things I can see where my (and most other's) terminology is often a bit archaic.
One thing we are in complete agreement on is the idea of projecting our human traits onto fish. I often think this is due more to a lack of words to explain so we revert to something we can relate to - our own life experiences. I really don't think most people (PETA folks are certainly an exception) honestly believe these things to the full definitions of the words they use, they just lack a better way of explaining themselves.
These discussions raise many more questions they they will ever hope to answer without better science on the subject:
If we condition a musky to feed at a certain time and on a certain feed and then "catch" that fish on the same feed would the fish come back the next day? Would it react the same to the feed? How many times would it be "dumb" enough to keep eating that which it now gets caught on?
Do muskies sense something wrong with artifical baits or are they just more cautious or curious by nature?
If muskies strike a lure/lures less as they become more a part of their everyday enviroment, why after time do they ever hit at all?
How did they know to grab only the strip of real fish meat that I used to dress my bucktails with and not grab the whole thing? Does this mean they could sense "real" from "fake"?
How did the pike that I watched this winter with my buddies underwater camera know to only grab the smelt on our Q/S rigs and shake them in what appeared to be an attempt to get them without grabbing the rig?
Why in a small lake can I use a presentation for two weeks out of the year and only have it effective for larger fish for two years, but if I ignore that lake for some time it returns to its original production?
Would fish still follow in a totally virgin piece of water or would they be as dumb as pike?
If lures eventually become just part of the muskies enviroment wouldn't that make them the "preferred" feed as they would be the easiest to see/catch as they have no desire to survive to live another day?
The list goes on and on......................!
Just observations from one who thinks that if dogs had tumbs and language they would be "smart" enough to have built the pyramids! [:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
| Wow you fellas need to get out on the water! Facts, proof,
theories,assumptions,debates, and experience. Seems that
everyone is concerned with these "facts" of theirs, needing
these is a good comeback for the folks that disagree with
each other. Fish eat,swim,spawn,and survive. I don't care
about the studies as this could totally change year to year
as all things have the ability to do. No-one will ever prove
this argument as it is practically impossible! A study is just that,a study not proof. Mr. Sworral seems to be getting a lot of heat for his "beliefs". There also are a few folks that think, they as an individual can "smarten"
up the fish by "pressuring them". Wow that's pretty arrogant
sounding to me. And I'm sure you have "proof" right? Cause
without it, someone can tell you you are wrong. Can they
remember things? Don't know,neither do any of you. Muskies
are ELUSIVE creatures. To try and explain their behavior we
really can't. We can think we can explain it through personal experience but that differs as much as anything
else. If you think that they are really all that "smart"
then you are totally intitled to believe this. For the rest
of us, I think we'll be covering water waiting for that
feeding window and sleeping in the boat so we can fish all
night when the big girls slide in shallow! Take care and
get out on the water man!!!!![:praise:] |
|
| |
|
| Nice summation jt. I think you hit the nail on the head...me included. [;)]
BrianW[:bigsmile:] |
|
| |
|
|
I belive that all muskie behavior is instinctive and that they are completly controlled by their environment. Can they be conditioned?...YES. Conditioning, in my mind, is an instinctive suvival behavior in its basic sense.
More on this in a few hours...maybe? Got to roll....Good subject!
MUSKY ILLINI
"Who would win in a fight...Superman or Mighty Mouse?"
"SUPERMAN....STUPID!...Mighty Mouse isnt real!" |
|
| |
|
| Beliefs, studied as they may be, are what we are dealing with!
Joel,
The conditioning to feed question:
Yes, it would, until the negative action and reinforcement over powered the positive reinforcement the feeding conditioning created. May take hundreds of times, may take a few less, but it will take a long time to do either. My tank fish was fed from the front for a year, and because of a lighting change now must be fed from the rear ( a 14" difference). After over two months, the stupid thing still stares out of the front of the tank on anyone's approach, including my cat. It still doesn't see the food drop, and totally misses it sometimes to the shiners in the tank. They seem to constantly roam, and never reacted as the bluegill did, as they are exhibiting shoaling behavior.
Why do they hit at all if the lure is commonly thrown into their environment?
The lure becomes LESS of a stimulous, or more accurately elicits less of a response. It doesn't go off the radar, so as the fish is more active on any given day, the stimulous still can produce a strike response, and does. Any lure is still drastically different in signature from the natural feed available at any time. Why would they hit a bucktail AT ALL?
As to grabbing the meat strip:
I have had them totally inhale lures, both with and without a minnow, pork strip, or other enticer; I have also observed the take and shake behavior you saw. I am not sure there is a constant there, so if there is no constant, there is no answer, in my estimation.
The small lake question fascinates me. I am certain there are thousands of variables at work; but can say with reasonable certainty there is no conditioning going on if you are on that water for only a couple of weeks a year. Do the fish do/feed on- something else for awhile, are they where they should be, is there some other variable at play? I don't know. I wish there was the money available to do proper studies on these questions, but one must admit...This isn't on the top of most R&D lists. To accept a study/result/sample from this example, it would have to be repeated dozens of times, not a likely scenario.
I think I can answer the 'virgin water' question!! I have fished waters in Canada over the years where I GUARANTEE certain presentations (if any) have never been seen by the Muskies. They follow. Stimulous/response again, not enough stimulous to trigger the fish to strike for one of goodness knows how many reasons, but enough to generate a follow.
The lure as part of the environment will never be as common/present as the normal prey. Answer in itself. Take a system where the fish are in trouble because of a poor prey base, and the predators become easier to catch for a number of reasons. Take a lake where the prey base is IMMENSE, and the opposite can apply.
More musings....[:sun:] [:bigsmile:] [:0] |
|
| |
