Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> acoustic/pressure wave signatures for jerk baits |
| Message Subject: acoustic/pressure wave signatures for jerk baits | |||
 |
| ||
| Just bringing back and older yet very important topic from the arcives. | |||
|
| ||
| I printed this entire thread and re-read it. It contains some excellent insight. To get the discussion going again... I'd like to challenge some thoughts. First, Steve said, "Examples of how baits actually do not imitate the real thing...Anyone ever see a perch or other prey class fish zig zag across the top like a Jackpot? Go wildly side to side under the surface like an Undertaker, Manta, Squirko, Jerko,or other glide bait? Rattle along with their head spinning crazily while their tail is not(bucktail)? Wiggle head to tail in a very tight pattern over and over(crankbait)? Zip along, stop, zip along, stop, diving and rising(twitch bait, Suick)? " I think he is correct in saying that that the VISUAL action of the bait is unusual.... but the water displacement created by those actions is VERY realistic. The bucktail, for example, may look unnatural in a visual sense.... but the water displacement is similar to a forage fish in distress or some other state of vulnerability. When a fish is swimming fast, its own lateral line defenses are down and it is a vulnerable target. If a HEALTHY forage fish is fleeing attack from another predator... it is a EASY target. I don't think muskies sit around and wait for a forage fish to get wounded before they attack. The "thump thump thump" of a bucktail blade is no different that the kick kick kick of the tail of a real fish in distress. An easy meal. No visual required.... and that is the type of instinctive strike we all want. Reprobait makes a great observation (I think Steve brings this up too) about how food fish and predators seem to coexist in harmony until the musky gets hungry. But, muskies are opportunistic feeders and if one of those CALM forage fish moving slowly with good lateral line camoflage suddenly moves quickly, you can bet that the predator FEELS that and will respond. Reprobait's observations in the aquarium are a good example of this. So when steve says he wants his lure to be totally different than anything in the natural environment.... I say bull. His lures are more realistic than one may consider. Yes, visual stimuli is at the top of the list for eliciting a strike, but so is lateral line input. And LATERAL LINE input is NOT sound... but a vibrational energy of a much LOWER frequency. Sound is energy percieved by the ear through the sense of hearing and water displacement is a much LOWER frequency energy that is FELT by the lateral line through the sense of TOUCH. O.K. That should be enough to get the fire blazin' again.... jlong | |||
|
| ||
| Who would have ever thought we could come up with a way to tie the Doppler Effect into muskie fishing? I think we might need to find Dr. Stephen Hawking to help us with this enigma of sound waves, we are bordering on quantum physics here. | |||
|
| ||
| Haven’t been on-line for a while, too busy fishing and deer hunting (not a bad year, 130 or so in the boat, 52” the biggest). Anyways you guys are making my head hurt. You are taking way too much physics (just like an engineer, sorry Jason) and not enough about what it really takes to put fish in the boat. All this acoustic/pressure wave stuff (muskies don’t go around looking for the loudest fish that swims) is no doubt one of the last things that muskies really worry about when trying to find something to eat. I would bet that what is the dinner bell to one muskie, is the alarm siren to the next depending on who knows what factors (distance from the lure, cover in the area, time since last feeding, water clarity, and who knows what else). I’ll bet that location (where do the fish live, and why and when do they live there) is much more important than any type of lure and the noises or pressure waves that are put off by lures as far as fishing success is concerned. Too me, and I don’t mean this to be a bad thing (cause it’s one of the most fun parts of muskie fishing), most people spend much too much time trying to figure out what lure to use and not enough time trying to figure out where the fish live and why they live there. Doug Johnson. | |||
|
| ||
| OOOOKKKKKK DougJ! Now that you are back 1 question....your opinion on bait size----too many are hooked here in the river on bass plugs to ignore...think it could be the fact that they happened to put a bait in front of them + what is your opinion as far as the action of the bait whatever size? 1 ?, 2 parts![:0] [:sun:] | |||
|
| ||
| Hi DougJ, good to hear from you again. Glad you finally blew the dust off the keyboard after a season of chasing skis. I agree with you 100% about LOCATION. It certainly is the most important aspect of successfully catching muskies. Period. As you know, I feel location has to be considered differently when you have 100,000+ acres of prime canadian shield water off your dock versus the tiny 100 acre Wisconsin Waters. Just as you view lures as tools... I also feel location is a tool. Depending on your number of options (diversity of the system, lake size, etc.) your strategy changes accordingly. Therefore, I feel with limited LOCATION options, presentation steps up in priority. I like to discuss presentation ASSUMING that location is NOT an issue. In other words, you know the fish are there, how do you get them to eat when there are no more places to look? Imagine fishing a 100 acre featureless lake for a day, where location is not much of a factor. Suddenly you need to have more confidence in your presentation. All this gibberish is mostly to build confidence in our presentations when location is not an issue. Another way to look at it is you can match the location to your preferred presentation.... or you can match your presentation to the preferred location. Sometimes both options are not available. Sorry for the long talk, but I'm just trying to explain why such crazy discussions get started. This stuff is certainly nothing to hang our hats on, but it passes time between trips, makes us think differently when times are tough, and can give confidence in what we are doing (real or not). .... and you have to admit, you think about this kind of stuff once in awhile too, right? jlong | |||
|
| ||
| Jason L, OK, I understand the difference clearly between sound and vibration, and the pressure wave signature as well. One begets the other, so to speak, or at least are created by the same forces(moving objects in the water). A bucktail creates a signature WAY different from any natural prey, for several reasons that include material density, speed/behavior,pulse/ sound reflective surface, and the fact fish move by propelling themselves through the water using the fins and tail, and a lure action is created by RESISTANCE, a completely different signature. Crankbaits actions are also created by resistance, and the parts attached move and displace water at a totally different level than any natural prey would, not even addressing the line and leader. I submit that is EXACTLY why they work!! Even a sucker on a quick strike rig dragged through the water has a different signature than a sucker behaving in a distressed but natural fashion. I used pressure mikes AND crystal mikes to record the baits, interesting stuff. Doug is probably closer to the mark for most anglers, I just like to try to figure out what makes things 'tick'![:bigsmile:] | |||
|
| ||
| Hmmm, some good points Steve. I still don't see the relevance of the density difference in the object displacing water (flesh vs. plastic for example). Its not like muskies are using "sonar" and getting an echo transmitted back from their target... its a one way street. Therefore the musky has NO pertinant info to determine the "hardness" of thier potential target. Objects of different densities can still displace water the same, it may just take more or less energy to accomplish. Second, force is force. I don't think the form of propulsion is relevant either. Pulling (our lures) and pushing (a real fish) still displace water in the same fashion. The wind still flows around a car the same, whether it is front wheel drive or rear wheel drive. What we are talking about here is water flow. Not pressure waves transmitting through the water (sound).... but the movement of water itself because it is an incompressible material. The lateral line is an extremely sensitive organ that detects water movement.... that is all. A bucktail blade moves water. A forage fish's tail and body moves water. A kick of the tail and a turn of the blade MAY be very similar. Like I said before, the thump thump thump of your bucktail probably moves the water similar to the kick kick kick of a live fish's tail. The musky cannot tell the difference and eats your bucktail based on the lateral line stimulous. I don't understand the mechanism of your pressure mikes... so I do not know what you are measuring for a lure's signature. If it is not down in the 1 Hz range of vibration... then it probably does not apply. I think you captured some good data, which is more than anyone else can claim. The question is, how do you, I, or anyone use that data? And, is that data relevant to the lateral line (1Hz range) or the inner ear (1KHz range)? Any ideas on how we can take this conversation from speculation to proven theory? Is it necessary? Also, can you explain further why YOU want your lure to be DIFFERENT? Why do you think a fish responds to something totally out of their element? And why is that response a FEEDING or STRIKE response? Just trying to better understand where you're coming from. Anyone else out there reading this crazy talk? What do you think? Is this type of topic a waste of time? jlong | |||
|
| ||
| Maybe all this talk is crazy and then again maybe not.[;)] I have been fishing for different species of fish for most of my life. Yes I am one of those Bass fisherman turned Musky nuts. However there are many things that these fish have in common. They are found many times in the same places albeit at different times. Ie: when the Ski's are active on the weed line the Bass are not and vice versa, most of the time. My point is that no matter what game fish you are after some points remain the same from species to species. We have all fished clear and dirty water. My belief is that the dirtier the water the more these fish respond to sound and vibration. However most of us still use a color pattern that can be seen in these dirty conditions, why? Could it be that the sound and vibes get the fish to track the lure and then visually strike? I think that this is not only possible but plausible. I also think that part of the actual striking of a lure could be seriously effected by smell and perhaps even taste. Have any of you had those fish that follow really closely while almost mouthing the lure only to reject it at some point during the follow? I'm betting the answer is yes. Now it just doesn't make sense if you are a large predator of any kind to expend the energy to follow this thing whatever it is and not eat it, unless it smells bad or tastes bad. So what has happened in this case is the sound and vibration are about right the fish found your offering, the darn thing looked ok color and shape wise, this big old girl nipped at it and tasted and smelled it. The fish then turned up its nose and promtly left not to be seen again on this outing. What happened? Beats the bejeebers out of me. Just wanted to add my two cents worth and try to confuse eveyone even more. Let Em Go...Let Em Grow.....Mike [:devil:] [:devil:] [:devil:] [:devil:] [:sun:] | |||
|
| ||
| To cover the idea quickly is nearly impossible, but a quick synopsis: The largest difficulty when we try to figure out why muskies do any one thing is the fact we are not looking at the behavior from a realistic point of view. Anthropomorphism is rampant, and logically, seems 'right'. The muskie CANNOT reason, has no ability oto 'recognise' anything as natural or otherwise, as the process required for memory as we understand it does not exist in the muskie's little brain stem. If indeed the fish was smart enough to look at a lure and make a decision that it looks and behaves like a walleye, and therefore is safe to eat, we would NEVER catch one. Simple fact, Lures do NOT create any signature even remotely resembling natural forage. The difference between an object displacing water and creating the lateral line sensitive motion from being pulled through the water is, I am certain, very different from the self propelled motion of a fish, not to mention the bait fails to flex, is displacing the water at the perimeter with hardware, and makes an ungodly batch of noise, which the fish also reacts to. The process of getting a fish to 'hit' is exactly that, not an event. All the variables must be considered, and no one factor can be zerod in on and assumed to be the ONE reason a fish took a bait. Explain why two baits, made by the same builder, can be so radically different in fish catching ability...one Tallywacker works, and catches fish like crazy, the other, does not. Why? One Undertaker is HOT, another, same color and builder, is not...same displacement,same angler, same terminal tackle, so they should work identically, but they do not! To plant the seed of the idea: Muskies react to their surroundings in a fashion we cannot even begin to understand, as we are thinking creatures, and they are not. For EVERY stimulous, there MUST be a reaction, or the fish will not survive. That is the basis for the idea; I have to get out in my deer stand, and will get after the idea again later!! | |||
|
| ||
| Steve, kind of a late start for the tree stand, isn't it? Good thing the bucks are rutting like mad. Anyway, who said anything about anthropomorphisizing the musky? There is a huge difference between putting FEELINGS to a musky (ie. its sad or ticked off) and stating how it manipulates and deciphers a stimulous. Here is a quote from a biologist at Parmly University who is doing a study on fish hearing capabilities. He states, "We then investigate the response of single auditory nerve cells to the same set of sound stimuli, and develop hypotheses on the dimensions of neural activity and computational strategies that the brain actually uses in making decisions about sound sources." He uses the words "computational strategy" and "decision". These words describe tasks you claim would be anthropomorphisizing such a primative creature. That is peer blasphemy. Hearing is a complex and sophisticated sense that provides invaluable information that the tiny little brain in a fish must manipulate to survive. That is not anthropomorphisizing... it is stating a biological fact that fish use and manipulate data. Does that make them human? Of course not, but it does show some form of intelligence. No, they do not have subconscious conversations saying, "hmmm is that lateral line stimulous I'm recieving originating from a soft, fleshy creature or a hard plastic lure?" All the fish "knows" is that the water displacement of my Depth Raider creates a turbulent wake IDENTICAL to that left behind a fleeing baitfish. The fish knows the location of origination... but has absolutely no way of determining the material composition of the target. The data is recieved, manipulated, translated, and a response to that stimuli results. Hopefully that response is a positive one.... but sometimes the response is no reaction at all. This is getting to be like the "Tastes Great, Less Filling" debate over a fine refreshment we are all familiar with. I think productive lures mimick a natural stimulous for the fish, not something UNnatural. They strike because the signals they are recieving suggest our lures is a legitimate food source. No, they may not be feeding.... but it is possible to trigger an instinctive resonse if the stimulous is good enough. So Steve, we agree that we are often fishing for muskies that are NOT hungry or actively feeding.... but we disagree on what our lures portray. I say natural, you say unnatural. Should we all vote? jlong | |||
|
| ||
| Wow, I wish I said that! Boy you’re some kind of shmoo aren’t you Jlong? I agree, time to put this thing to bed, but don’t let me stop you. A dead horse always needs a good beating. Jlong seems to be making most sense here and building more convincing points. The debate would go to him in my opinion, but dougj’s post seems to be the reality of the situation.[:sun:] | |||
|
| ||
| Awwwww come on NXTWRLDRCD. Everyone knows DougJ is right! Nobody will ever argue that LOCATION is not critical. I'm just arguing that rather than sitting back "on the right spot" and waiting for the fish to cooperate is NOT the most effective tactic (and I'm certainly not saying that's what DougJ does). Especially when you have a very limited amount of time on the water. If I know a fish in on a spot, I don't want to just cast a dead stick at it until it becomes hungry and grabs the next thing that moves. Getting on fish, staying on fish, and throwing the most efficient presentation possible seems like a better plan to me. TRIGGERING a strike from a non-active fish HAS to increase your productivity over just knocking off the aggressive one's. The question is, what is the most efficient presentation? For DougJ, it is a good hooker that works through cover without snagging (a statistics thing of just getting your hooks in front of a hungry musky). For Worrall it is the most unnatural, obnoxious noise maker we can concoct. For me, well I'm still too young to have a firm platform to stand on..... but I'd have to say I am somewhere in between. I want efficiency, control, and multiple forms of stimulus that represents something NATURAL. Gotta have location, so DougJ is a perfect mentor. Gotta have stimulus, so we all can learn something from Worrall too. I'm just a young punk trying to make these well-experienced guys "spill the beans" on how to catch more muskies. There will be NO winner in this debate. We are debating simply as an exercise to exchange information. Simple as that. No right or wrong answer. jlong | |||
|
| ||
| You should be a politician. [:praise:] | |||
|
| ||
| Jason, Missed the leader I was tossing out at you there...I would argue that the quote you posted was contextual, and therefore not anthropomorphising, but the topic here has lots of it. Again, if the signature of the lure is identical to that of a fleeing baitfish, why do some lures work, and others(identical) not as well? How is that explained? Why is one Buchertail HOT, and another, same color and size and style, NOT? I will draw you out on this yet...you are right, no debate here. If I was debating, I would be MUCH more direct!! Would take the fun out of it. And as I said before, Doug probably has it for the muskie guys out there... I just like to poke around in the dusty corners of the 'what makes 'em tick' library. | |||
|
| ||
| Aahhheemm, dust ball caught in my throat from pokin' around in Worrall's "what make's 'em tick" library". Most of those books are so old they are in hieroglyphics (ha ha). Steve, I think the "good" buchertail resembles a disturbance pattern MORE similar to the "real thing" than the "bad" Buchertail. It could be that the clevis is bent and the blade is now at a slightly different angle.... displacing the water differently than the "good" one. Then again, it could be that one tail has three more strands of hair than the other one... and one is kinked a little so it pushes water a little more too. All I know is that getting things right can be like splittin' hairs.... but when you do get it right... I vote that the presentation represented something more natural.... not foreign. Ultimately, I think how a bait FEELS is the most important... since it is the root behind triggering instinctive strikes. Visual queues are the strongest... but not the most consistent because they are greatly influenced by the environment (light availability). And as for sound.... it may be a form of attraction.... but it will NEVER trigger a stike alone. Sound may help the musky "stalk" your lure and get close enough to be triggered laterally. The problem is, even if any of this BS is true..... it is VERY difficult to control. Plus, the combination changes by the minute, so even though you deciphered the combination yesterday.... you gotta start all over again today. But, being conscious of this type of stuff can make a difference in how we approach the game. If I had to choose between knowing the right location and knowing the right presentation.... I'd go with location EVERY time. I just feel that location is getting easier to determine and guys want to know how to more effectively fish THE location. Good Stuff Maynard. jlong | |||
|
| ||
| I think it''s generally a "give me", that before you can catch a Muskie you must be where or very near where the fish is located. Back to the original subject- Pressure waves & acoustics. Muskies have eyes, ears and a lateral line. How do these influence foraging and strike behavior? I believe the ear''s are not used as a major influence in finding & attacking prey, they operate at a much higher frequency than the lateral line. Therefore, I think vision and lateral line are both more important. I agree w/Jason that the lateral line could be thought of as a sense of touch, albeit a very highly specialized sense of touch or connection to their physical environment. The movements of fish and bait create pressure waves, these waves are synonymous to sound and hence I believe these pressure waves also have to be of a very low frequency. That''s why I discount the ears. But the ears might have an influence if the prey creates a sound within the frequency bandwidth of the ears. It is well documented that many fish use h igher frequency sounds, including creating sounds for specific purposes, i.e., similar to echo location/sonar, spawning, etc.. Many of the same principles of acoustics in air apply to acoustics in water, including extremely low frequency pressure waves. When you cast a lure in calm water, and it lands on the water, you see a large wave expanding outward with decreasingly smaller waves following it until the event is dampened by the surface impedance or resistance of the water and the surface is calm again. What did a Muskie feel/hear with it''s lateral line? I believe the answer is: The exact opposite of what you saw visually, i.e., a large intensity pressure wave followed by decreasing intensity waves. This is very similar to the waveform of the sound of a gun shot or a lightning strike in air, i.e., an exponential decaying ring wave. ---------* -------*---* ------*-----*--------------* -----*-------*----------*-----*---------------* ----*---------*--------*--------*-----------*-----*-----*****- ---------------*------*-----------*-------*---------* ----------------*----*----------------* ------------------* connect the asterisk. The layout of the Muskie''s lateral line gives it the ability to detect pressure wave gradients along the entire lateral line. The lateral line has a specific shape and because of this it is directionally sensitive to stimulus. Similar to a very sophisticated underwater directional hyprophone or similar to a directional radio antenna in air. There is hard scientific evidence that the lateral line''s sensitivity to pressure differences in the lateral line sensors can be used to orient the fish to the direction of a pressure wave source/prey. Given this the fish could respond and orient to the splash. We all generally agree the Muskie can''t reason. But, can it tell from the pressure gradient changes the direction the prey is moving, i.e., toward the Muskie or away? This would be akin to the doppler effect in air with sound, i.e., the change in pitch of the train whistle as the train is moving relative to your location, rising pitch it''s coming at you & lowering pitch it''s moving away. One study I read said that the majority of the prey attacks were initiated when the prey was moving away. Now the question becomes was the attack initiated by the visual cues that the prey was moving away or was it the lateral line? Maybe both? If it were visual then the Muskie would have to visually differentiate the prey''s head from the tail. This again would imply conscious reasoning, or it could possibly be triggered by the relative motion of the prey in the Muskies vision field. This brings up the most interesting crux of the discussion- Given that Muskies are not capable of reasoning. It would seem their "tiny little brains" are genetically programmed to respond to specific visual and/or lateral line stimulus with an attack response? But also they show different specific prey size preferences throughout their life cycles. They must somehow equate the size of the other fish/prey to either potential prey or potential predator. Could they also be capable of imprinting based on actual past prey encounter experience? I doubt it. However, imprinting may not require conscious reasoning only stimulus --> reaction. "It''s our choice to Catch''em & Let''em Go!" Al Warner ...>.... "When a thing ceases to be a subject of controversy, it ceases to be subject of interest." ---William Hazilitt[:bigsmile:] | |||
|
| ||
| Al, I like the way you think[:halo:] . Location is a "no brainer" requirement that we all must deal resolve. You raise a great question about size of the target. Perhaps that is part of the visual aspect? Remove the visual aspect and now size does not matter (no wonder my wife likes the lights off - ha ha). May explain why a 12 inch pike will take a swat at a 10 inch Jake.... and why a 40 pound muskie will eat a 1 1/2" rattle trap. The bait "felt" different than it "looks". We all want instinctive strikes... and at times we can trigger that type of strike without the fish ever seeing our lure. I'm also a firm believer that visual and lateral line stimuli are the bread and butter of any presentation.... but secondary senses such as sound, smell, and taste may contribute at times. The question is when. Sound energy travels through water without displacing water. Yet, when it hits the swimbladder of a fish it is converted to vibration and interpreted in the same manner as lateral line stimuli. Get a LOW enough frequency (I'll go out on a limb and suggest 40-100 Hz) of sound energy and it may be interpreted just the same as a low frequency pressure pulse created by the movement of a forage fish a few feet away. That is the only argument I can come up with that would suggest sound can trigger a strike. Otherwise it is only a potential form of attraction (or repellant). jlong | |||
|
| ||
| Jason- Now the crux of the lure/rattle sounds issue & Muskie''s. Prof. John New (Professor of Biology-Loyola University, Chicago)has pretty well proven that vision is a major factor, as is the lateral line with respect to the Muskie being able to forage. A Muskie deprived of either sensory system is able to feed. However, when deprived of both they cannot feed. There is also a study on largemouth bass that proves the same thing, i.e., bass deprived of both vision & lateral line could not feed. In all of these experiments the ears were fully intact for both species. Now I''m very curious. These experiments used fathead minnows, i.e., prey that would be visually stimulating and lateral line stimulating. However they do not likely stimulate the ears because the frequency of the prey movements is to low- Professor New kindly gave me permission to post his responses to my questions. Here''s my dialog w/ Prof. New. My text (abcd) [:bigsmile:] Hi Al, OK, here''s an attempt to answer a few of your questions. First of all, it''s important to consider the nature of sound in water and the difference between the lateral line and auditory systems. Sound in water is of course a pressure wave, such as that produced by a vibrating (dipole) source. We can divide the way that the sound wave behaves in water with increasing distance from the source into a ''near field'' and a ''far field''. In the near field the medium acts as though it is incompressible, there is a physical displacement of the water molecules and thus there is hydrodynamic flow. In the far field, the water acts as though it is compressible; there is oscillation of the water molecules, but no net displacement (and thus no flow). Needless to say, the range of the far field is generally much greater than that of the near field. The lateral line is specifically designed to function in the near field, and therefore to respond to hydrodynamic flow. It consists of special organs called neuromasts, which contain specialized receptor cells called hair cells (not ''nerve endings''). These cells are directionally sensitive to physical displacement of the fingerlike projections (stereocilia) of the cell membrane. There are two types of neuromasts; superficial neuromasts located on the surface of the skin and canal neuromasts which are located in canals (more like tubes) which run below the surface of the skin and which communicate with the exterior world via pores in the skin. Without getting too much into the physics of it, superficial neuromasts act as velocity detectors and canal neuromasts act as acceleration detectors. You''re quire right to surmise that these are low-frequency detectors; neuromasts typically are sensitive to frequencies less than about 50 Hz (there are some differences in the frequency sensitivities of canal vs superficial neuromasts). The crucial thing to bear in mind though, is that these detectors are sensitive to water displacement relative to the fish, the lateral line is therefore a relatively ''close-in'' system, generally its range is estimated at about 1 body length. Hearing in fish is quite different than in terrestrial organisms like us. Fish (like us) are mostly water, and therefore sound pressure waves in water tend to pass directly through the fish (they are almost acoustically transparent). In other words, the water molecules of the fish oscillate as the sound wave moves through it. In the ear of the fish are also located hair cells like those in the lateral line system (we think there is a common ''ancestry'' of the systems here). These hair cells are mechanically coupled to a large, calcium carbonate concretion, an otolith (literally an ''ear stone''). The otolith is much denser than the surrounding medium, and thus has a different inertial moment than the surrounding watery tissue. As these tissues, particularly the hair cells, vibrate as the sound wave passes through the fish, the otolith lags behind, deflecting the stereocilia of the hair cells, exciting them. Because the hair cells are directionally sensitive, and because the hair cells are oriented differently across the inner ear, waves originating from different locations will excite different hair cells. Typically, the auditory system of fishes is sensitive to frequencies up to 200-300 HZ Thus, the lateral line is a close range system dedicated to detecting net water displacements. The auditory system detects ''sounds'' in the far field and to generally higher frequencies. (But then my mind says, wait a minute, they have two ears. The only logical reason for two ears is for directional sensitivity. I''m very curious as to how these two sensory systems interact to give the Muskie it''s functionality in finding and catching prey.) Well, you must remember that ears do much more than just hear, in fact hearing is perhaps the least important function of ears! Ears are important for detecting the vector of gravity (absolutely critical) as well as rotational acceleration of the head. But you can see from my above that ears in fish are directional organs in themselves for far field sounds. As to the interaction, our studies show that if you suppress the lateral line system in blinded muskies, they will not feed at all. This indicates that the auditory system is not in itself sufficient to direct the fish to its prey (or to ''release'' a strike behavior) That doesn''t necessarily mean it''s not used by the musky, but it definitely seems less critical to a strike than visual or lateral line senses. (The Muskie has more pores on its under-jaw than the northern pike, I assume these are part of the lateral line. Because of the physical layout of the lateral line, I can understand how the lateral line can provide directional information to either the Muskie, northern pike, or any fish. What does the muskie''s lateral line sensor map look like? Is it similar to this one? http://www.csuchico.edu/~pmaslin/ichthy/Snsry.html#lls) I''ll attach a graphic of a different Esox, there are some variations, but there are probably not really significant differences. Note the presence of both canals and lines of superficial neuromasts (black dots). Typically, neuromasts in the canals are located between the pores. (Muskie’s are notorious for feeding in low light or even in total darkness. Whereas, in my experience northern pike don''t feed after dark. Is this because of a fundamental difference in their lateral lines, i.e., more sensors’ equals’ better ability to forage in low/no light conditions? This would make sense if the pores under the jaw are part of the lateral line and there is a similar difference in the number of lateral line pores in the rest of the body. The Muskie has 6-9 on each side versus 5 or less for the northern pike. That''s a 20% (6 versus 5) to + 80% (9 versus 5) increase in sensory input.) This is a difficult question to answer. It may be that northerns rely more on vision than lateral line, or just tend to be more active during the day so that they''re not competing directly with muskies for food when hunting. I suspect that there''s probably not much difference in overall lateral line sensitivity between muskies and northerns, but I haven''t tested it yet. (The lateral line gives them the ability to not only sense something and it''s relative direction/orientation to their body. It seems the body length and build would give each fish a particular swimming signature, i.e., frequency. I wonder if they can also sense potential prey or predator size based on the relative frequency?) It''s funny you should mention that, I''m working on that very problem now, with fathead minnows vs. sticklebacks. I''ll let you know what we come up with. I suspect that there may not be a big difference in the frequency spectrum of the signatures of similar size prey, but the temporal signature of the wave might be very different. (What about Doppler effect? This should also hold true underwater. Can they sense whether the sound source is coming toward them or going away by the Doppler shift?) Probably, but that''s probably an auditory function, rather than a lateral line phenomenon Well, there''s what I hope are some useful answers. There are still a lot of questions out there that I don''t know the answers to; that''s what makes this so much fun. Let me know if I can explain anything else, Cheers, John -----------------------**********----------------- As you can see from the above, it appears the Muskie''s ears should be able to give it directional sensitivity to sound sources. So with all of that, I haven''t been able to find any evidence of any investigation on the impact of the ears on Muskie feeding behavior, i.e., noisy type surface prey, reaction to splashes, etc. and or specific sounds in say 50Hz to 20kHz. Then again, what about specific harmonic components? I think there''s another fundamental problem, i.e., scientist''s like Professor New are typically limited in investigations by both funding and available research facilities. Funding is usually associated w/benefit’s to human research. Much of his past & present research is directed toward improving the scientific understanding of human hearing mechanisms and helping those of us, whom have hearing problems. Maybe understanding how Muskies use sound would benefit mankind and not just us Muskie hunters. [:bigsmile:] How about a MuskieFirst sponsored/funded research project. Anyone out there willing to chip in some money to find out? [8)] How about Muskie''s Inc? I also believe he''d need a very large aquarium. [:0] Anybody have access to an Olympic size swimming pool/aquarium. [:((] Oh well, sounds like the rattle versus no-rattle debate continues. [:devil:] "When a thing ceases to be a subject of controversy, it ceases to be subject of interest." ---William Hazilitt "It''s your choice to Catch''em & Let''em Go!" Al Warner ...>.... | |||
|
| ||
| Al, thanks for sharing that dialogue. John New's comments support my statements 100%. Which makes sense since most of my babbling has been based on his and other Loyola University Professor's research. I think you made a great argument to suggest that RATTLES do not have much of a role (if any at all) in triggering strikes. I'm working on an article that discusses what I feel a rattle may do for us fisherman, and it is based on the same info/research John New discussed in his email to you. For now, I will not totally discredit rattles, but feel they should be viewed as a different tool. I feel that sound MAY benefit fisherman by attracting fish to a general area or increase the fish's awareness of the presence of your lure.... but will NOT help initiate a strike response. I also think we need to consider how a fish's senses change in priority with changing environmental conditions. Having a better understanding of sensory prioritization will help us as fisherman better select the right tool for the job. I still believe, when in doubt-go without, when debating the need for rattles. jlong | |||
|
| ||
| Great stuff!! The comments also suppport my position 100%..... Let's take a look at what happens when the lure hits the water... Sound/vibration travels out in an everexpanding globe at 16 football fields per second. As the curve of the initial sound wave contacts the fish's body, the inner ear, and surrounding structure, allows the fish to determine direction, and perhaps distance to the bait. Activity in the brain stem takes place, and the fish responds to the stimulous by ignoring it completely, or beginning the attack. As the fish closes in and recieves stereoscopic visuals, more stimulous, and more response. In relative close proximity, the lateral line recieves information, more stimulous, and even MORE response...and the fish either follows in, does a couple 8s, and goes away( or a variable of this behavior), or strikes. The lure is moving, in the case of a bucktail, in the top portion of the water column at speeds of 5 MPH plus.Not a normal pattern for anything I have observed in the natural environs out there. On Pelican Lake, the normal forage for the muskies is Perch, yet I catch the fish on topwater, bucktails, and jigs, none of which in ANY way resemble a fish or a perch. Strike response is TOTALLY different from feeding behavior, and should not be considered as the same response. I still feel that a lure needs to have good depth and speed control, and contrast, and an overall signature that allows for the maximum Stimulous/Response to create a strike response on any given day. I am not catching feeding muskies most of the time, I am CAUSING the fish to strike a lure that is totally foreign in behavior and signature to what that fish eats on a normal basis; and that is why lures work!! The concept is to study strike response, and look for the proper stimulous to get the response wanted at any time, under the thousands of variables on any given day. | |||
|
| ||
| Steve, good analogy. Funny how we are so close to agreeing... yet so far away :halo:]. Looks like we have the same viewpoint in how a musky recieves and detects certain stimuli.... and that stimuli may initiate a strike repsonse (not necessarily a FEEDING behavior). What I do not yet understand is WHY you think a fish will strike at a stimulus that is UNNATURAL? What do you feel is so DIFFERENT about the water displacement of a perch kicking its tail to produce a turbulent wake and the water displaced by a rotating blade of a bucktail. I believe the musky cannot tell the difference and responds to the bucktail as something natural... not unnatural. An instinctive strike is a natural response. Why do you think an UNnatural stimulus may provoke such behavior? jlong | |||
|
| ||
| FRIDAY FLASHBACK....THIS IS ONE OF MY ALL TIME FAVORITES.[:bigsmile:] | |||
|
| ||
| HEY!!! Anyone else notice that First Six Feet has Left us?? I really enjoyed his posts and comments, as he ALWAYS made sense, and made me think. Anyone know him well enough to beg him to return and knock me around alittle once in awhile?[:blackeye:] | |||
| Jump to page : 1 2 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2026 OutdoorsFIRST Media |