Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 4 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> The color debate |
| Message Subject: The color debate | |||
IAJustin |
| ||
Posts: 2059 | “There's no doubt in my mind that color does matter. Its not that I think the fish, muskies in particular, have a preference for any color combination, but they will hit what they can see best. “ Why do most think a muskie will hit what they see best? ... maybe you are not even getting follows because they see your bait too “good”? ...I still find it comical many will throw a black dbl cowgirl for 3 hours, no action,, and the first thing they do is think... hmm maybe I should throw a red one? .... I’ll go jig a bondy.. any color will do thanks ... always some fish deep. Edited by IAJustin 2/4/2021 7:32 AM | ||
| IAJustin |
| ||
Posts: 2059 | Many of the consistent times and presentation to fool Big fish = poor conditions for them see well/make our presentations. Night, topwater in honest 2 foot waves, deep and speed ... most spend WAY too much time worrying about color!!! | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32924 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | IAJustin - 2/4/2021 7:43 AM Many of the consistent times and presentation to fool Big fish = poor conditions for them see well/make our presentations. Night, topwater in honest 2 foot waves, deep and speed ... most spend WAY too much time worrying about color!!! There is no color at night unless looking down on a moonlit night (the muskie looks up), but there sure as hades is contrast. And muskies see way better after dark than we do, rod vision is absolutely amazing. I don't 'worry' about color because I understand how it works in the water and out, at all light levels and select my presentation to suit. Yes, it for certain has helped me catch a lot more fish of all species. I fully get it from your comments you don't care about it, but thanks anyway, I will. ' maybe you are not even getting follows because they see your bait too “good”' So now the muskie is intelligent enough to reason out what it sees 'too good' (actually, too well) and won't follow a lure as a result? Did you know muskies are myopic to a fault (primary and secondary definitions :)? Or was that derisive humor? And all of that with no frontal lobes. | ||
| chasintails |
| ||
Posts: 463 | So lets take it a step further. You're getting follows on a particular bait, but no bites. Are you changing colors of the same bait ,or changing baits slightly and keeping the same color? Or are you changing baits and colors all together. I think I know how I would handle it, just curious how you guys would approach. | ||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20248 Location: oswego, il | chasintails - 2/5/2021 1:06 PM So lets take it a step further. You're getting follows on a particular bait, but no bites. Are you changing colors of the same bait ,or changing baits slightly and keeping the same color? Or are you changing baits and colors all together. I think I know how I would handle it, just curious how you guys would approach. In my scenarios I changed from the same bait different color to the same bait same color that was catching fish. You can only get this feedback when fish are eating you have multiple lines and only when you duplicate the line firing do you catch fish on multiple lines. It doesn't happen often but it does happen. That was the whole point of the discussion, why does it really matter, sometimes. My best day on LSC they ate multiple colors even UV. I have seen fish prefer a different color on different years under identical conditions. I don't pretend to know why and I do understand everything Steve has said as well. It's also possible other baits may have worked that I either didn't have or try but nobody is going to take off a bait catching fish. Edited by ToddM 2/5/2021 2:28 PM | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32924 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If the fish are just following and are laid back and not aggressive, I'll stick with what I have clipped on. If they are aggressive and hot, but not triggering, I'll go for a color I believe they can see better under the conditions, same bait. It may also be the boat position, getting the sun out of the fish's eyes can help. | ||
| IAJustin |
| ||
Posts: 2059 | If fish aren’t aggressive I’d change size, action or speed... possibly all three, having their address and triggering a reaction is the game. If following aggressive they are in the net - lol | ||
| Kirby Budrow |
| ||
Posts: 2373 Location: Chisholm, MN | Justin, I agree 100 percent. One reason that color could matter is using black at night under a new moon so the fish actually can’t see it. They just feel it and eat it. And since they can’t see it, they don’t know it isn’t real and may be more willing to eat it. I believe this is what you’re talking about. So color did matter, but not for the reason that you’d think color matters. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32924 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I think this will be fun and informative. Since fish vision underwater is the real question: What CAN the muskie see? Let's go with night vision first. On a clock basis, the fish's vision begins to go from cone to rod vision. It takes a while and is not adjusted seasonally. Cones require more light and allow color vision. Rods are over 100 times more sensitive to light and allow black and white vision. A rod cell is sensitive enough to respond to a single photon of light and is about 100 times more sensitive to a single photon than cones. Since rods require less light to function than cones, they are the primary source of visual information at night (scotopic vision). So what does that mean? As time allows, I'll shoot a number of clips with side by side comparisons with a camera more sensitive than the human eye and the Sionyx. I also have a number of 1080p underwater cameras, and can show what happens to color underwater. | ||
| Masqui-ninja |
| ||
Posts: 1267 Location: Walker, MN | I can remember white topwaters seeming to produce much better than black...the theory was that the fish weren't seeing it as well. Something like a prop topwater just drives 'em nuts at times I believe, because they can never quite get a good look at it. I think the mood of the fish can dictate whether a fish wants to feed by using it's sight, or simply react to something within it's vicinity. Sometimes flashy or gaudy is good, other times a more natural or camo look could get it done. Hard to prove or disprove. | ||
| bturg |
| ||
Posts: 718 | sworrall - 2/6/2021 10:22 AM I think this will be fun and informative. Since fish vision underwater is the real question: What CAN the muskie see? Let's go with night vision first. On a clock basis, the fish's vision begins to go from cone to rod vision. It takes a while and is not adjusted seasonally. Cones require more light and allow color vision. Rods are over 100 times more sensitive to light and allow black and white vision. A rod cell is sensitive enough to respond to a single photon of light and is about 100 times more sensitive to a single photon than cones. Since rods require less light to function than cones, they are the primary source of visual information at night (scotopic vision). So what does that mean? As time allows, I'll shoot a number of clips with side by side comparisons with a camera more sensitive than the human eye and the Sionyx. I also have a number of 1080p underwater cameras, and can show what happens to color underwater. Lets not throw science out there and clutter up this "debate" with facts ! | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32924 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Q: Can fish see well? A: 'Biologists believe that their depth perception is poor and most fish have a semi-blind spot straight ahead of them. To compensate for this, the retina of their eyes is slightly extended. This is where the term "fish eye" lens comes from. Fish generally have excellent close-up vision, but poor distance vision.' OK, eyes on each side of the head instead of in front, like ours, exaggerated by the head structure of a muskie VS a bass or similar fish. Poor depth perception, myopic, and a blind spot in front up close probably negating the up-close-vision clarity to a large degree. If a 45" fish is a few inches behind a lure following, they probably can't see it. I see pike back up all the time to get a look at a lure in stereoscopic, and then a straight-line attack when triggered. They miss a lot. Paint can't even come close to a natural fish as far as mimicking what one sees underwater, think about light absorption/reflection from a thousand multi-pigmented scales VS a flat surface, and that's just one factor. Then there's light and water as mentioned with Snell's Law and Snell's Window since muskie vision is up to the large part. Then there's what a lure acts and sounds like. Natural? Not even close. I have recorded hundreds of fish with a hydrophone and the same with lures, and there's no similarity at all. None. If they can reason by seeing it's wrong, the racket should be a dead hit-the-bricks giveaway. What I come up with from all this from years of digging into it after reading Sosin and Clark's 'Through the Fish's Eye' (January '73) and getting incurably curious? Dark lures against light backgrounds, light lures against dark backgrounds and do the best you can to know what contrast your lures offer and what the backgrounds are. Fish are basically stupid. People do way too much anthropomorphizing. I believe Doug Johnson is quoted, "if it moves it's food." I agree. Should be fun recording some of this with the new gear I have these days to see if it's possible to showcase some of this stuff. | ||
| Kirby Budrow |
| ||
Posts: 2373 Location: Chisholm, MN | Masqui-ninja - 2/7/2021 8:11 PM I can remember white topwaters seeming to produce much better than black...the theory was that the fish weren't seeing it as well. Something like a prop topwater just drives 'em nuts at times I believe, because they can never quite get a good look at it. I think the mood of the fish can dictate whether a fish wants to feed by using it's sight, or simply react to something within it's vicinity. Sometimes flashy or gaudy is good, other times a more natural or camo look could get it done. Hard to prove or disprove. I like this theory | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32924 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Kirby Budrow - 2/7/2021 10:40 PM Masqui-ninja - 2/7/2021 8:11 PM I can remember white topwaters seeming to produce much better than black...the theory was that the fish weren't seeing it as well.-- 'White, in physics, light when all wavelengths of the visible spectrum combine. Like black, but unlike the colours of the spectrum and most mixtures of them, white lacks hue, so it is considered an achromatic colour.' 'Black is the darkest color, the result of the absence or complete absorption of visible light. It is an achromatic color, a color without hue, like white and gray.' Black text against a white background Light Color Text aginst a white background Can't use white, it's not visible here, try dimming your screen. Obviously in the case of a surface lure the background is the sky. Something like a prop topwater just drives 'em nuts at times I believe, because they can never quite get a good look at it.--See text example above. Light against dark they will see, dark against light they will see from beneath the bait. Once directly behind on a followthey see nothing but the narrow rear of the bait and disturbance. Surface bait, so the fish is looking up, correct? Snell's Window. Google it, please.
--- I think the mood of the fish can dictate whether a fish wants to feed by using it's sight, or simply react to something within it's vicinity. Sometimes flashy or gaudy is good, other times a more natural or camo look could get it done. Hard to prove or disprove.--- Agreed, actually! For purposes of context please define 'mood' other than 'a distinctive emotional quality or character', that infers a level of intelligence that fish don't have, and is anthropomorphism. 1) In most cases, is a musky feeding when caught, or are we in the vast majority talking strike response? Is a the lesser response you mention because of 'mood', or something else? What causes a strong strike response, and why would the fish just follow? 2) There is no 'natural' when talking paint VS actual live fish, unfortunately. Less visible? Sure, light against light, for example. If muskies have been proven to use sight in the final attack, would they not miss a LOT if the can't see the bait? 3) They DO miss a LOT, right? 4) What is gaudy, and under what lighting? What happens to Firetiger in diffused, low light 2' under the water at low sun angle? Is it a dark contrast or light? What color is the bottom of that firetiger lure, and what direction do Esox primarily look? Some folks think this stuff is irrelevant, and to a degree they are right, fish enough and one will catch fish. Knowing WHY one caught a fish under any set of circumstances and then being able to do that again, and again...has always been a hard to attain goal. Some folks scoff, but I'll keep trying to learn and figure some of it out because I am, as I said, incurable curious. Zach, the other half of OFM, says we'll know this all when we can ask a fish and get an answer. He's also right.
I like this theory | ||
| Smell_Esox |
| ||
Posts: 267 | And then there's that whole thing, is it the bait and how it vibrates or runs? Maybe it's the bait more than the color. In other words, a bait/color works great, your partner puts on the same bait and color and it doesn't work for him. It doesn't vibrate the same or have the same action. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32924 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Smell_Esox - 2/8/2021 10:28 AM And then there's that whole thing, is it the bait and how it vibrates or runs? Maybe it's the bait more than the color. In other words, a bait/color works great, your partner puts on the same bait and color and it doesn't work for him. It doesn't vibrate the same or have the same action. From everything I have read, it's all part of the same equation. I have seen that more than once. | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
| Maybe that will be a future discussion, how sound/vibration impacts effectiveness of similar baits. For instance, one musky sized buzz bait I have moves some fish but another one, different maker but same size is more effective, and I think it is because the blade strikes the lead body loudly as it turns, making a different sound. | |||
| TCESOX |
| ||
Posts: 1373 | sworrall - 2/7/2021 9:51 PM I believe Doug Johnson is quoted, "if it moves it's food." I agree. Should be fun recording some of this with the new gear I have these days to see if it's possible to showcase some of this stuff. Perhaps just a matter of semantics, but to say "if it moves it's food" is a little limiting. I would say perhaps "if it moves it could get bit." The reason being, that I don't think every time a fish takes something into it's mouth, that it is necessarily eating. All critters have an instinctual drive to examine and check things out. With humans I would use the word curiosity. Most things have feet, paws, or hands, to touch, flip over, grab, and examine things. Fish don't. Their mouth is their hands, as well as a place to put food. In a fish tank setting, I have seen a variety of game fish pick things up in their mouth, that are not food. They will often pick it up, spit it out, pick it up again, spit it out. Sometimes they will cock their head so that one eye can see it, and pick it up again, and spit it out. I think it is just their way of examining their environment. The point is the same, regarding getting a fish to bite, but I think there are other reasons besides feeding, that will cause a fish to take something into it's mouth. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32924 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | In the world of Esox, I believe it's pretty much a lock, semantics aside. In my experience watching the Aqua-Vu, any moving object that gets taken by an Esox generally ends up pretty far down the hatch. Muskies/Pike just cruising by will bump a bait sometimes, but with the yap shut and every time when the bait is not moving. An 'almost' with the mouth open and lure taken but the bait ends up out of the mouth always looks like a hit and immediate rejection or a badly timed hookset. Bass will make a man crazy bumping, chasing, following, and not hitting a live minnow under the ice. I've seen some aquarium based fish display the behavior you are referencing and bluegills and crappies that are not triggering to hit are famous for it ice fishing, sucking a bait part way in and blowing it out in a millisecond. Usually leaving the bait dead still in front of a gill or crappie that refuses to hit again will illicit a little 'peck' if anything at all, then the fish backs off, comes in and 'pecks' again, then commits IF the little pecks hit the live bait and not tungsten. I have about a half hundred catches like that on camera with gills; a feeding response, not strike response, and nothing at all to do with color, they already clearly saw and responded to the bait from a distance. In any case, it would be a situation that doesn't involve a muskie lure in retrieval, I'd think. We have a new Aqua-Vu Quad 1080P we'll be shooting the lures and stuff on. It features true color tech, so what we get will be quality. Cold out there tonight. Our top viewed Aqua-View video so far this year is a walleye totally rejecting the tip-up minnow, then just moments later coming back, sitting still watching the minnow.....and WHACK in a jolting strike. Keith got that video, and we called it a "Walleye's Bad Decision'. | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
sworrall - 2/8/2021 10:47 PM In the world of Esox, I believe it's pretty much a lock, semantics aside. In my experience watching the Aqua-Vu, any moving object that gets taken by an Esox generally ends up pretty far down the hatch. Muskies/Pike just cruising by will bump a bait sometimes, but with the yap shut and every time when the bait is not moving. An 'almost' with the mouth open and lure taken but the bait ends up out of the mouth always looks like a hit and immediate rejection or a badly timed hookset. Bass will make a man crazy bumping, chasing, following, and not hitting a live minnow under the ice. I've seen some aquarium based fish display the behavior you are referencing and bluegills and crappies that are not triggering to hit are famous for it ice fishing, sucking a bait part way in and blowing it out in a millisecond. Usually leaving the bait dead still in front of a gill or crappie that refuses to hit again will illicit a little 'peck' if anything at all, then the fish backs off, comes in and 'pecks' again, then commits IF the little pecks hit the live bait and not tungsten. I have about a half hundred catches like that on camera with gills; a feeding response, not strike response, and nothing at all to do with color, they already clearly saw and responded to the bait from a distance. In any case, it would be a situation that doesn't involve a muskie lure in retrieval, I'd think. We have a new Aqua-Vu Quad 1080P we'll be shooting the lures and stuff on. It features true color tech, so what we get will be quality. Cold out there tonight. Our top viewed Aqua-View video so far this year is a walleye totally rejecting the tip-up minnow, then just moments later coming back, sitting still watching the minnow.....and WHACK in a jolting strike. Keith got that video, and we called it a "Walleye's Bad Decision'. I thought the one of a pike grabbing the minnow off a tip up and darting away without getting hooked was pretty cool. | |||
| jlong |
| ||
Posts: 1938 Location: Black Creek, WI | <p>Can't believe noone mentioned the Purkinje Shift yet. Steve hinted at it.....</p><p> </p><p>Google it if you don't know.... </p><p> </p> Edited by jlong 2/9/2021 9:47 AM | ||
| Eastman03 |
| ||
Posts: 112 | location>action>speed>presentation>fig 8>size>confidence>contrast>......... color All things I typically would think of before color. However, as a lure maker myself - fin detail>shading of the gill plate>scale pattern>foil base>glitter>custom eyes>color shift> I could go on, but these all attract fisherman, not fish. lol | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32924 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Eastman03 - 2/9/2021 10:38 AM location>action>speed>presentation>fig 8>size>confidence>contrast>......... color All things I typically would think of before color. However, as a lure maker myself - fin detail>shading of the gill plate>scale pattern>foil base>glitter>custom eyes>color shift> I could go on, but these all attract fisherman, not fish. lol Color is contrast or lack thereof. I want the fish to see the lure so the rest matters as much as it should. | ||
| ESOX Maniac |
| ||
Posts: 2754 Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | jlong - 2/9/2021 9:45 AM Can't believe noone mentioned the Purkinje Shift yet. Steve hinted at it.....
Google it if you don't know....
LOL! I was tempted!!! Have fun! Al | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32924 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Purkinje effect The Purkinje effect is the tendency for the peak luminance sensitivity of the eye to shift toward the blue end of the color spectrum at low illumination levels as part of dark adaptation. In consequence, reds will appear darker relative to other colors as light levels decrease.' Red is the first color (wavelength) to be filtered out by the water column anyway, the first color to disappear as light goes down from sun angle and blue is the last. Red will immediately look darker anyway, because it is. https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/red-color.html Arguably, one negates consideration of the other in practical use, yes or no? | ||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8824 | Since we rarely fish for muskies at any considerable depth, I'd agree. If we did fish deep enough for red to appear as black, I'd sure want some blue bars to go with that red lure. Funny though, you rarely see patterns on a lure that are on opposite sides of the color wheel. Seems everybody wants them to look just like a fish that has evolved over thousands of years to blend in well with its environment as a defense against predators. | ||
| ESOX Maniac |
| ||
Posts: 2754 Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Jason, What are your thought's 20 years later? https://muskie.outdoorsfirst.com/board/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=12... Have fun! Al Edited by ESOX Maniac 2/10/2021 9:31 AM Attachments ----------------  electromagnetic_spectrum.png (345KB - 360 downloads) | ||
| jlong |
| ||
Posts: 1938 Location: Black Creek, WI | Al, my thoughts have not changed much over the years. I'm still a believer in the Purkinje Shift and you will see that my first color choice between sunset and darkness has at least a splash of is chartruese or lime green. Overcast conditions? Can't beat firetiger even in clear water situations. No guarantees, but certainly a good starting point if you must consider color as part of your lure selecting process. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32924 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The Purkinje effect (sometimes called the Purkinje shift) is the tendency for the peak luminance sensitivity of the eye to shift toward the blue end of the color spectrum at low illumination levels as part of dark adaptation.[1][2][page needed] In consequence, reds will appear darker relative to other colors as light levels decrease. The effect is named after the Czech anatomist Jan Evangelista Purkyne. While the effect is often described from the perspective of the human eye, it is well established in a number of animals under the same name to describe the general shifting of spectral sensitivity due to pooling of rod and cone output signals as a part of dark/light adaptation.[3][4][5][6] This effect introduces a difference in color contrast under different levels of illumination. For instance, in bright sunlight, geranium flowers appear bright red against the dull green of their leaves, or adjacent blue flowers, but in the same scene viewed at dusk, the contrast is reversed, with the red petals appearing a dark red or black, and the leaves and blue petals appearing relatively bright. The sensitivity to light in scotopic vision varies with wavelength, though the perception is essentially black-and-white. The Purkinje shift is the relation between the absorption maximum of rhodopsin, reaching a maximum at about 500 nm, and that of the opsins in the longer-wavelength cones that dominate in photopic vision, about 555 nm (green).[7] In visual astronomy, the Purkinje shift can affect visual estimates of variable stars when using comparison stars of different colors, especially if one of the stars is red.[8] Physiology The Purkinje effect occurs at the transition between primary use of the photopic (cone-based) and scotopic (rod-based) systems, that is, in the mesopic state: as intensity dims, the rods take over, and before color disappears completely, it shifts towards the rods' top sensitivity.[9] The effect occurs because in mesopic conditions the outputs of cones in the retina, which are generally responsible for the perception of color in daylight, are pooled with outputs of rods which are more sensitive under those conditions and have peak sensitivity in blue-green wavelength of 507 nm. Use of red lights The insensitivity of rods to long-wavelength light has led to the use of red lights under certain special circumstances—for example, in the control rooms of submarines, in research laboratories, aircraft, or during naked-eye astronomy.[10] Red lights are used in conditions where it is desirable to activate both the photopic and scotopic systems. Submarines are well lit to facilitate the vision of the crew members working there, but the control room must be lit differently to allow crew members to read instrument panels yet remain dark adjusted. By using red lights or wearing red goggles, the cones can receive enough light to provide photopic vision (namely the high-acuity vision required for reading). The rods are not saturated by the bright red light because they are not sensitive to long-wavelength light, so the crew members remain dark adapted.[11] Similarly, airplane cockpits use red lights so pilots can read their instruments and maps while maintaining night vision to see outside the aircraft. Red lights are also often used in research settings. Many research animals (such as rats and mice) have limited photopic vision, as they have far fewer cone photoreceptors.[12] The animal subjects do not perceive red lights and thus experience darkness (the active period for nocturnal animals), but the human researchers, who have one kind of cone (the "L cone") that is sensitive to long wavelengths, are able to read instruments or perform procedures that would be impractical even with fully dark adapted (but low acuity) scotopic vision.[13] For the same reason, zoo displays of nocturnal animals often are illuminated with red light. ----------------------------------------------------------- I'll point out a couple factors that mitigate this to a degree in the case of freshwater gamefish and the muskie. 1) The muskie's eye adapts to changing light levels by going from rod to cone vision. It occurs on a clock basis and is not a reaction to light levels dropping at exactly the same time rods extend and cones retract, so change occurs when it happens on the 24 hour clock seasonally, same time every day. Since sunlight penetrating the water column is the main source of illumination underwater, and color is dependant upon the availability of that wavelength to be reflected back to the fish, and the fish has to be able to have the cone vision at least partially in play. Humans can go from cone to rod and back to cone quickly when the light goes up and down, not so much for the fishes. Two factors to consider, rod vision acquired at the same time every 24 hour period and cone vision fully acquired at the same clock time each 24 hour period and a fixed pupil incapable of shielding out suddenly increased light. Why don't fish pupils expand and contract like ours? They don't need to, there's not the same amount of light down there. ALL of this is a cool discussion, and if one can figure out when the shift would affect a muskie's vision it's debatable. However, there's a big problem. Sunlight at sun noon breaks down quickly in the water column. Particulate accelerates that by diffusing and absorbing light. In most lakes we fish red is gone in 10 to 15 feet anyway, the wavelength has been refracted, absorbed, and is not present. It's only sun noon for a short time. Before and after that, the sun angle will allow the water surface to reflect light back into the atmosphere. We all know that from the eye strain and sunburn that causes. If the white light is 30 percent reflected, that dramatically affects how much light is penetrating and creates a situation where the color underwater is vastly more muted than above. Waves accelerate that issue by busting up the light. Red is gone really fast. Blue penetrates the best and is still available IF light penetration is strong enough to allow color perception at all. There's little to no color at all in 15' most of the day. I've proven that out with high definition Aqua-Vu 1080P cameras with objectives far larger than a muskie eye, and therefore capable of gathering far more light. It gets dark fast down there long before the sun hits the horizon. All blue/green is gone. It's basically black and white. Add clouds and during the winter, snow cover, and it's tough to get a pretty, vivid color video. I carry a shovel to clear the ice and don't shoot on cloudy days on open water. Add to all this the fact Esox basically have an upward stereoscopic vision field starting at a zero point a few inches from their eyes and widening with distance and they are looking through the water column from under your bait, and it becomes hard to believe they can see color patterns like Firetiger as anything but a combined contrast to the background. Add that they are nearsighted, and things really get interesting. Think about the lusher green vegetation and where it disappears on the contour lines of your sonar on your favorite lakes. Where the weeds are gone, that's the exact depth where there not enough light for photosynthesis. On Moen, that's about 3' some years. On Pelican, it's about 10 most years, if the water is very clear maybe as much as 12. In 20 my cameras don't work well enough to record during open water on most lakes around here. No light. | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
| The line about poor depth perception and blind spot straight ahead was really interesting. Would explain how a fish can repeatedly miss a large, noisy topwater like a Fat B, moving steadily in a straight line. Have seen the same thing with a Weagle, other wtd baits, but chalked that up to erratic path the lure follows. | |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 4 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
