|
|
|
Becomming conditioned would imply to me that they would have the same reaction to a stimulis over and over again.
The feeding examples show how fish will act in a certain, predictable way every time a certain situation happens.
Regarding muskies and "eating" lures, I think pressure can change feeding behavior, but they don't become conditioned per se.
I do see examples of fish changing behavior and feeding more at night due to pressure.
Night fishing has gotten better and better on lakes in my area, and from what I've heard on Mille Lacs as well over the last few years as more and more daytime pressure has happened.
To me that would indicate a behavior change due to pressure, but not being conditioned.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 93
Location: Minneapolis, MN | Conditioning... Avoidance behavior... not sure what its called but try this: After you've caught a muskie and released it, cast back until you catch it again. The same fish. Same bait. Bring a sandwich because you'll be a while.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32927
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | But I can and sometimes have caught that same fish on the same bait a day or two later. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 93
Location: Minneapolis, MN | I agree... small brains = short term effects. Wait long enough and you'll catch her again. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8830
|
Steve, your experience leads me to believe one of two things:
1. That whatever learned response to lures we see in pressured fish is only temporary. Perhaps on the most pressured of systems, the fish will be less apt to strike a lure if they've seen two dozen of them already today, and yesterday, and the day before. If there is constant re-enforcement of that stimulus it stands to reason. Not out of the question on community type spots, not by any means. I don't think anybody can say for sure how long those altered responses actually last. Is it a day, a week? Only a few hours?
2. Whatever learned response we see in pressured fish is still overridden by the biological factors that cause the fish to eat. So in this case it would SEEM that the fish are not conditioned to lures at all because of they were we'd never catch them. But perhaps there is some behavior adaptation after all in the case of neutral/negative fish? In the places I usually fish, I can guarantee you that fish has seen a few lures already today. And every day since the season opened. They can still be caught, obviously they can still be caught. But they don't seem as easy to catch, and I stand firmly by my assertion that the constant presence of lures in their environment has made them less likely to respond to lures most of the time. When they are active, though, they are active and that's that.
So the learned response here is either temporary, or perhaps it just goes out the window when its time to eat.
Seems the desire to eat (and reproduce) overrides conditioning universally in all creatures, so why not fish? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8830
| Ok, so it's called attenuation...
So how would you say attenuation in a heavily pressured system contrasts to a system where lures going by are NOT a regular part of the environment? Would you say that a muskie who had never been exposed to a lure would be much more likely to respond to it during the negative/neutral phases?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| Of course they become conditioned. |
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | esoxaddict - 2/25/2008 11:02 AM
But they don't seem as easy to catch, and I stand firmly by my assertion that the constant presence of lures in their environment has made them less likely to respond to lures most of the time. When they are active, though, they are active and that's that.
EA, it's a statistical thing called the law of probability. IF there are 30 boats out fishing "properly", is everyone supposed to catch muskies "easily"? Or is more likely a couple boats will do well, and a majority will suffer?
I don't look at it like fish are "getting burned", but rather there are MORE fisherman fighting over the active fish, and as such decreasing each fishermans odds a little bit.
For those "unmolested" ponds that fish are easier to catch, I think it's only because you have it all to yourself, and thus any "active" musky is yours alone to catch.
Just my 2 cents
Mike
Edited by muskellunged 2/25/2008 12:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Ok, so it's called attenuation...
using precise language does matter; the distinction between the two has real and different implications for how to deal with it. "conditioning" leads to the search for something "new", whereas attenuation leads to the search for something "better".
So how would you say attenuation in a heavily pressured system contrasts to a system where lures going by are NOT a regular part of the environment?
consider the d-10 phenomonon on the big popular lakes in MN.
have they worked so well the past few years because they're "new" (fish aren't conditioned to them) or because they demand attention even in "crowded" environments (fish don't attenuate to them as easily)?
if it was just a factor of being new, (and if you believe fish can learn) don't you think the fish would have become conditioned to them by now and stopped hitting them? with a bazillion people throwing them all day every day June through November? jingle, jingle, jangle.
instead they keep working...why? imho, they demand a fish's attention better than traditional bucktails (or whatever) do...they stand out better. why? i don't know...maybe b/c they're louder, maybe they're flashier, maybe they sound more like real baitfish?
why do bulldawgs keep working? they've been out there even longer, and continue to produce even on heavily fished waters with lots of people throwing them. fish aren't getting conditioned to them, so there's something about that bait that shouts "eat me!" very effectively in a way fish can't easily ignore.
so, if you can narrow down your bait selection to a few known producers, the next step is presentation. what can you do with that bait to help it attract a fish's attention? the best, most experienced muskie fishermen i know tend to use a very limited selection of lures, but use them well. if everyone is throwing the same lures at the same fish why does it strike one and not the other? timing? yes. presentation? definitely.
your unpressured fish question is a bit of a red herring.
unpressured fish won't get attenuated to as much noise clutter (less boats, less lures, etc.), nor will they have angler contact to potentially get conditioned to (if you believe this is possible)...so it's much harder to parsel out why those fish would be responding to a bait. all i know is those fish are goods ones to target!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8830
| Well, Mike...
I have my theories on both:
The DC-10 phenomenon is a combination of new, better, AND the fact that everybody is using them. It would be interesting to find out if fish are being caught with the same frequency per angler per hour of use, or if it's just the self-fulfilling prophecy at work.
I believe the success of bulldawgs is largely due to how they are fished and where in the water column they are being fished. Personally, I'm no good at them. And my lack of success with that presentation leads me to believe it's not just the lure, it's what the guys who really fish them the right way and in the right place are doing with it. It's the angler being effective (or not in my case) with the lure that makes it a terrific bait. I suppose the same could be said with any lure, but something like a cowgirl where you just cast it and reel it in? Hard to be ineffective if that's all you have to do. But that's a different discussion entirely. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32927
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | why? i don't know...maybe b/c they're louder, maybe they're flashier, maybe they sound more like real baitfish?
One thing for certain, they don't sound ANYTHING like a 'real' baitfish. That is why they work.
Partially because so many are throwing them at this point. Partially because the footprint is still new enough to elicit a response that is a bit stronger than that of a lure thrown for 20 years on that water. Partially because every single double 10 out there has it's own BIG footprint, no two are identical. Yet on any one day a much smaller tail with a single blade that has been around for years might outproduce a double 10 if a technique like REALLY burning them or REALLY slow rolling is used...different stimulus.
Part of the normal environment = less response, not educated behavior or learning. Lambeau describes that pretty well!
Take caution not to make the 'waves on the water make the wind blow' assumptive mistakes in thinking this out, it's easy to fall into that one. |
|
| |
|
| FYI Maxey ... Natural selection/evolution does not prove conditioning or vice versa. The better question may be, does catch and release cause behavior like eating a spinner bait, which formerly would have resulted in the death and human consumption of a muskie, to no longer be selected against? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| This is a tricky one...
An example, you guys can choose wheather or not this is "conditioning".
Wisconsin's trout stocking program (inland brown and brook) was tradtionally done in open raceways with domesticated parent stock. Feed was physically thrown in by hatchery personnel. When someone walked along the raceway the fish would follow that person waiting for feed. When these fish were stocked out into the states waterbodies they did the same thing...as soon as someone walked up to the edge of the stream the trout would swim at them and hit the first thing they saw...which was usually the fishermans bait. Bye by trout. Conditioned?
Currently we rasie "wild" feral trout. These fish are fed mechanically in covered raceways. When someone walks up to these fish, they spook, heading for the covered portion of the raceway and away from the person. When these fish are stocked out and a fisherman walks up to the streambank...theses fish are gone. Conditioned?
And yeah, I know these are trout not muskies...
Another thought...maybe big fish don't get conditioned they get dead (via old age, hooking mortality, harvest, little Johnny, etc...). |
|
| |
|
| I believe the success of bulldawgs is largely due to how they are fished and where in the water column they are being fished. Personally, I'm no good at them...
so are you setting out to get better with a bait that's proven to be one of the best, or just resigning yourself to more of the same results and avoiding using it? i've never been real confident with bulldawgs either, but last year i stuck to it using Suzy Suckers and big tubes, and learned a ton to help get better. this year i'm resolved to getting out over deep water more: one step at a time, right?
...but something like a cowgirl where you just cast it and reel it in? Hard to be ineffective if that's all you have to do.
wow. so then you're always effective when you chuck-and-wind?
no offense intended, but if that's your belief about bucktails, you'll be stuck in the same place that you're at with bulldawgs...
another of my big goals for this next season is to improve certain aspects of spinners that i neglected out of laziness last year. specifically to work on the aspects that i believe will help to turn it from being "just another lure" into something that attracts and then triggers the fish to bite. essentially, do something that will help break through the myriad environmental stimulii and shout "eat me!" to the fish.
imho, these include speed (mostly faster but also slower when appropriate, much less use of an "average" retreive), location (more use of spinners high in the water column over deep water or seeking out wind-/current-blown structure), size (include more small but very fast baits), and irregularity (speed/direction changes during retrieve and figure-8).
timing, location, presentation are important for every presentation. there's no such thing as "just cast it and reel it in".
One thing for certain, they don't sound ANYTHING like a 'real' baitfish. That is why they work.
yes...and no...potatoes/potatos. of course, being different helps them stand out and get noticed; being similar may be what helps them trigger a response. tying a rock to the line and reeling it in would sound different than real baitfish too, but maybe TOO different? and while things don't sound similar to us, maybe there's something about the feel to a lateral line that matters?
Partially because every single double 10 out there has it's own BIG footprint, no two are identical. Yet on any one day a much smaller tail with a single blade that has been around for years might outproduce a double 10 if a technique like REALLY burning them or REALLY slow rolling is used...different stimulus.
this is what i'm hoping to work on for myself this year. finding something that's known to be working, but also unique enough to get noticed and help trigger a response. no need to reinvent the wheel, just make sure it's a good one.
|
|
| |
|
| or.....
Maybe there are so many dc 10's that NOW the smaller ones are a minority which again shows the CHANGE in a fish preference.
ANY change in their preferences shows some sort of "whatever you want to call it"
I agree that there are times in the month or day when conditioning is not a factor.
We definately do have an impact on the fishery. Call it what you will. Pretend it does not exist. fine. Just don't always blame crappy fishing on the fish. Sometimes the pressure can do just as much a nasty cold front.
When on a fishing trip, do you regulary line up all of the boats and go down the same stretch of shoreline, throwing the same lure or even same color??? OR do you all hit different spots?? WHY. We all want to be on fresh water.. Does this not
constitute some sort of notion that the fish are going to be burned by the time you get thier. And why do we in tournys sometimes throw baits with no hooks to raise but not stick the fish???
Great Topic.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8830
| lambeau - 2/25/2008 2:49 PM
...so are you setting out to get better with a bait that's proven to be one of the best, or just resigning yourself to more of the same results and avoiding using it?
....wow. so then you're always effective when you chuck-and-wind?
no offense intended, but if that's your belief about bucktails, you'll be stuck in the same place that you're at with bulldawgs...
1. I SAID I was going to do that last year, but I avoided using the bait instead. It's easier not to throw them at all than it is to force yourself to learn to use them well. I know I'll never catch anything on them if I don't force myself to learn them, but talking about it and doing ot are two different things. Maybe this year. 
2. I never said that's all I do with the double 10's -- I experimented a lot last year with the "other" things you can do with them, sweeping the rod to create changes in direction, speeding up, slowing down, breaking the surface with the blades... I forced myself to do that, because simply casting it out and reeling it in isn't using it to its full potential. For that effort I got... Well, all the fish I caught were on the 8. I do feel like I am better able to use them effectively though, whatever that's worth. But if all you want to do is cast and reel, that works too.
Edited by esoxaddict 2/25/2008 3:22 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32927
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Jordan,
Definitely. Hard to do in the wild, however, which your second example proves out to a degree. And, that is a positive reinforcement with food that is a constant ( repeated every day over and over nearly exactly) from the time the fish hatch, creating a conditioned response to a continual and constant stimulus. Would you agree? |
|
| |
|
| One point to remember is that you can't simply use your own experiences with individual fish and apply them to the argument as proof towards that argument, regardless of which point you are trying to make. All fish are individual animals and have different tendencies and will react differently towards their environment. I've read one study with salmon that suggested that certain fish in an environment were more likely to be caught by artificial lures, and some were more likely to be re-caught again. This would indicate that simply eliciting a follow in a fish that had already been caught or even re-catching a fish, does not, in itself, present sufficient evidence to prove or disprove that muskies have or do not have the ability to learn avoidance behaviors. It simply shows that some individual fish may not have the same capacities as other fish in the same body of water. As I said before, we must also take into account the fish that are rarely or never caught and are never seen as well. I would not consider a fish that was prone to eat fake lures an example of a dumb fish however, or even an inferior fish. It is simply different. From an evolutionary standpoint, fish that are more likely to strike a lure may have the ability to more successfully respond to a certain environmental scenario than there reticent brethren, and thus, would be more likely to pass down their genetics to subsequent generations of fish. Hard to think of what that scenario may be, but there are infinite possibilities in nature and I'm sure there is one out there.
Webster lake in Indiana has a high density of muskies in the body of water as well as a high amount of pressure. Does six fish per acre translate into six times the numbers of fish caught by an angler compared to other bodies of water with less density of fish? I don't know. Doesn't seem to be the case, but then again, I could be a crappy fisherman. I hope not, lol. But then again, my individual experiences are not a good guide of what is really going on in these waters. It would be interesting to see a study done on the lake to determine the numbers of fish that are caught by anglers compared to the numbers of fish in the lake. I know pit tagging is performed on many fish, and if you could compare the fish that are caught and tagged to those netted by the DNR for the brood stock collection, you might be able to get an idea of the effects of angling pressure. Note to self, I think I may email one of my friends contacts with the Indiana DNR to see if there is any possibility of doing a survey of this type. Could be a cool study.
Here is a decent article on the net that I found that mentions several of the fish/memory studies that are out there, but without having to consult a dictionary to understand all of it. Pretty straightforward information and food for thought at the very least. (If you want to wade through the jargon straight from the actual studies referenced, do a google on the footnotes, lol. Fun reading, there, I can tell you.)
http://www.howfishbehave.ca/pdf/Long-term%20memory.pdf
In regards to some of the comments that fish brains are small, and therefore incapable of learning, please remember that brain size has very little to do with an individual species capacity to process information. Higher species of invertebrates such as the octopus, can show remarkable abilities to remember, problem solve, and learn from their surrounding environments with brains that seem to be more primitive than most fish possess. It is better to look at the parts of the fish brain in comparison to higher animals like ourselves. The more primitive species of animals like fish, lack the essential parts of the brain that would allow them to reason, think, and feel emotions, including pain. This is important, and although contested by animal rights groups, there are no studies that have shown that fish can feel pain.
These are the important points that we should remember. Fish don't avoid lures because of past experiences with pain, nor do they strike lures out of anger. It is a mistake to use these terminologies when talking about muskies. They are incapable of both. But pain is different than stress, which is what I contend might be the strong negative influence that may cause muskies to learn avoidance behavior. Stress is simply a flood of chemicals in the anatomy of the animal that occur when it is in mortal peril and may alter the internal workings of the animals behavior. Much like the chemicals changes that occur in an animal after feeding could be the influences that cause it to alter future behaviors.
It is my thought that conditioning is more likely to occur in more primitive organisms than in complex animals like humans, which have capability to override most negative/positive stimuli when the need is desired. Whatever that need may be. Humans are less likely to be conditioned to a stimuli, because we have the unique ability to react to our environment with foresight and planning. We can take past experiences into account, and critically analyze them to form a creative solution to an existing problem. The creativity that allowed someone to create a double cowgirl was a very human response to override a muskies basic mode of operation. It may also be the reason most of us continue to fish for muskies after a long dry spell. We seek something that defies basic conditioning.
It is these reasons that I hope many of you are not rejecting the possibility of conditioning in fish out of hand, simply because there is a fear that someone outside our circle will use it as an argument against us. You can argue that a fish is not limited to knee-jerk only reactions, yet still maintain an understanding that fish are not akin to human beings in the areas that matter most. I for one, will not let anyones beliefs alter my pursuit of understanding the world around me, simply because I may fear that they will be misinterpreted by someone who has a prior bias. Those who attempt to use science to justify a belief, do not understand the concept of science. Preconceived notions will undoubtedly alter the outcome of any scientific study or experiment and I for one, would like to remain a rational, and open minded muskie fisherman.
Although rationality usually goes out the window when I lose a fish. Ah well, we can't always be perfect, can we? Most of us anyway........
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32927
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Toad,
'I for one, will not let anyones beliefs alter my pursuit of understanding the world around me, simply because I may fear that they will be misinterpreted by someone who has a prior bias.'
Nor will I. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 31
| Toad,
Can you tell me where you found that salmon study you referred to? I am interested in reading it myself.
Thanks.
Steve, I agree that feeding is a postive stimulus for the young fish in a hatchery setting. However, hooking could be a negative stimulus in the wild...provided the muskie can discrimiate between an artifical lure and real food (which could be a stretch). Like I said in my previous post-this is a tricky one. I don't hink science has given a good explaination-probably because "conditioning" is virtually impossible to quantify.
Could a muskie avoid feeding on the surface after being caught on a surface lure? Sure. Does it happen? No one will ever know for sure. Circular arguments, err discussions, are great aren't they.
Jordan
Edited by J_WEEKS 2/26/2008 8:33 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32927
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Jordan,
Yes, for sure. I have recaptured tagged (monel style, back in the 80's..I tagged muskies captured while guiding over a couple years) muskies multiple times on surface baits and other presentations, interestingly with widely varied results on location after a capture. One particular male was so easy on a white spinnerbait, I used it as my Chamber of Commerce fish when guiding. Stupid thing lived under a boathouse and hit that lure real regular.
I also have read about individual fish of the same specie seeming to have different levels of response to the same stimulus in a controlled environment.
SOOOOO many variables in this one.
Another question, asked once already, how do we know how 'negative' an experience capture is? Maybe for some muskies it's like us riding a roller coaster...hehehehe. As one scientist I talk to regularly says, we will know when we can ask them and get an answer. Until that time, 'pressured' and 'unpressured' fish will continue to eat bucktails and gliders, suckers and jigs, surface baits and jerk baits and get photographed and released....again.
So many observations we make on the water unfortunately are not simple 'cause/effect' as much as we would like and fall into the 'waves on the water make the wind blow' category under careful scrutiny.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| So you are saying waves DON'T make the wind blow? Hoo boy, I think I'm going to have to rethink some things! |
|
| |
|
| I'm not speaking for everyone here, but I generally shampoo them before conditioner. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3242
Location: Racine, Wi | Does shampooing them first then conditioning bring out the stripes?
Also, that might remove the slime, so I would limit how much I conditioned.  |
|
| |
|
| Jordan,
I tried to find the article and study that I was referring to on the web, and I found it, but it was not about salmon, rather, it was about spotted char, and I couldn't find the entire article, just this synopsis with the entire version available to be purchased. If you want to you can go that route, but it is pretty pricey for the article, and slow going from what I remember, which is not much. But I'll keep looking and see if I can find it. It should be on the web somewhere for free I would think.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6N-4D4P...
While looking for that article, I found this study too, which looks interesting, and I have seen it cited in other places in other articles, but I've never read the text on this one. I will try to find this one too, if I can, one that doesn't require payment for knowledge. It looks pretty interesting though, and pike are a lot closer to our muskies than any other study of this type that I've seen.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1970.t...
In response to Steve, I never had you pegged as someone who would let someone else's opinions worry you to much. You seem to enjoy these debates to much to care what anyone thinks about the veracity of your views. Your original NO response, certainly didn't last very long, lol. It's fun to think sometimes, though most times it hurts quite a bit, and as a result, I find that I have been conditioned to go and turn on the TV when I feel the wheels beginning to turn. Negative reinforcment? Perhaps.
Also, when it comes to muskie fishing, I choose to go with pert, because it shampoos AND conditions.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 929
Location: Rhinelander. | I do not believe that a musky or any fish has the ability to do any amount of conditioning. They have survival instincts and need to to only eat, get air from the water and breed to exist. There entire life is based on those things. If a fish could become conditioned would they not get the heck out of the way of a motor boat? They certainly hear enough of them.I recall a presentation by steve W. and I think I can quote him, a muskie has the brain the size of a pea and is as dumb as a box of rocks. I believe thats how he said it. It was at a club meeting at a bowling alley in milwaukee years ago. Maybe he recalls it.
Like our pets we give animals or fish way to much credit to be able to reason or think. I will say it befor some else does. Our dogs become trainned and they do a better job trainning us to recognize there abilities and use those strengths or abilities to do tricks and so on. We recognize there strengths and buid on them . Thats not becomeing conditioned. I guess we could argue its a fine line but its just what I think.
Pfeiff
|
|
| |
|
Location: Illinois | Article about fish conditioning:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_sc/pavlov_s_fish
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32927
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Some fish forgot after five days. Others remembered as long as 10. Miner said the strength of memory seems tied to how long the fish are trained.'
That's after three exposures a day, for 14 days, with the positive reinforcement of food every time under exactly the same conditions. Interesting article, and reinforces what I've found messing with the fish in my home aquarium. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 285
Location: NE Wisconsin | Don't know if you would call it "conditioning" or not. But years ago I started feeding a 2 foot muskie off my pier. It would follow you up and down the pier until you fed it. Usually minnows, or small panfish. It wouldn't eat frogs. When it had enough it would turn and head for deep water. Usually in a couple of days it would be back. During the winter, ice time, Nov. through April, there would be no feeding, but in the spring as soon as spawning was done, the muskie would return for its feeding. The fish returned 3 springs in a row, before it was finally captured and kept one fall day. The fish sure was a hit with the resort customers, but cost me hundreds of dollars in minnows!!!
John Aschenbrenner |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8830
| Don Pfeiffer - 2/29/2008 10:00 PM
...If a fish could become conditioned would they not get the heck out of the way of a motor boat? They certainly hear enough of them....
Pfeiff
It depends on how you look at it, Don. Though I have nothing to base this on, I believe that muskies do indeed become conditioned to boats. Not to avoid them as you might think, but to IGNORE them. After repeated exposure to boats, I believe they would just become "part of the environment" and invoke no response whatsoever. But I suspect that if a muskie were to encounter a boat for the first time ever, it would probably swim as far and as fast as possible. |
|
| |
