makelures

Errrm....... I don't think I ever claimed to be the first. And I don't own the research. Nor did I claim to have furthered the knowledge in the area, though I HAVE tested and confirmed the current knowledge, especially regarding the optical properties of water. I don't have all the answers (I have very few). I'm just a schmuck scientist and fisherman who spent the best part of his life working with a bunch of other schmuck scientists studying fish and aquatic systems, looking for clues that might help piece together a complex puzzle. I took the time to share in a simple and unbiased way for the majority who maybe haven't seen all of this stuff before, or just want a perspective that doesn't come from a marketing department. If what i put together helps even one or two people, that's great. If it stimulates discussion and thinking, even better. If it challenges your thinking, that's a good thing, mine is challenged continuously. If you disagree with what I'm saying, that's fine too. In fact, that's how we keep moving forward. Anyway, that's it for me, I really am out now! ;-)

Stretching my memory a little here @QUAKEnSHAKE! I'll give it a crack but happy to be corrected. The mechanism by which fish eyes focus is very different to humans. Human eyes focus by stretching and squeezing the lens. Fish have a denser, thicker lens to cope with the refractive index of the water. They focus by moving the lens in and out, rather than shaping it. As I recall, this is a little limiting in terms of distance vision. They can certainly see nearby objects sharply, but more distant ones are blurry, though they can still detect movement. As with everything discussed in this thread, I think the acuity probably varies tremendously between species and probably with the age of the fish too. And my memory is too dim to recall where bass rank in terms of their distance vision. Afraid I don't know too much about Sauger, cgolf. We Aussies don't know too much about too much ;-)

Tim, My view is that under those conditions the fish are probably not hunting visually. As you mention, when the water contains a lot of suspended particles the light can't penetrate very deep at all. Having dived such conditions, I can assure you that a strobe doesn't help either - it's like driving your car in fog! Walleye probably have a bit of an advantage in that they have an acute ability to distinguish silhouettes and shapes in the murk, probably more so than most other fish species. Apart from lots of rod cells and fairly large eyes, they also have a reflective layer that helps intensify the light gathering in their retina. Even so, I don't think that's your answer. For most humans eyesight is the primary sense and everything else comes second, or worse. When we close our eyes we hear better and we smell more too. Our ears and nose haven't changed, but our brains start to focus on our other senses to fill the gap left by lack of visual input. And it's natural that we assume other animals are the same - primarily visual predators - but they're not. Deer and many other game will rely more on smells and sounds to detect danger, bats use sound to track prey, many animals track using scents and so on. You'll come up with a million examples if you stop to think about it. Many species of fish have evolved in an environment where they have to survive regular periods of low visibility resulting from floods, algal blooms and so on. So they're not as dependent on eyesight as humans and tend to use those other senses more than we might expect. Those include: Sound. Human ears don't hear sound well in water, so we often assume there isn't much sound. But fish ears work differently and they are far more sensitive to underwater sound than us. Fish can detect the direction that sound comes from underwater (humans can above water, but not below) and they use it for navigation, mating and finding prey. Vibration. Closely related to sound but detected more through the lateral line. Again, fish are super sensitive to tiny vibrations. It's how whole schools of fish move and turn in unison. Each individual fish detects the movement of other fish around it via the lateral line. Years ago I used to fish raging floodwaters at night for brown trout. I used to marvel that fish consistently nailed a fast moving 2 inch streamer fly on the darkest in nights in fast flowing, turbulent, highly muddy water. I could only put it down to their remarkable ability to sense vibration. Smell. The sense of smell in fish is acute. Consider salmon, for instance, that are believed to be able to find their birth stream during spawning runs from the smell of the water. So imagine how intensely they can smell a food item that's in close proximity. Taste. Here's a cool bit of trivia: humans have taste buds on our tongues, so in order to taste stuff we have to put it in our mouths. Fish have few, if any, taste buds on their tongues or in their mouths. But they do have masses of them on their skin, especially around their faces, fins and lateral line. And on the barbels of those species that have them. So fish can taste a food item by touching it with various parts of their bodies. Some believe they don't even have to make contact to taste stuff, that the chemicals that cause taste are released into the water around a food item and fish can follow a taste and scent gradient to their prey. Here's a couple of other snippets of fishy trivia that might help explain this "magic"! When an object moves through the water, whether it's a craw, baitfish, predator or lure, it leaves behind vortices. Vortices are minute, swirling currents like an invisible trail or jetstream behind the object. Fish are able to detect these with their lateral line and follow them to their source, effectively tracking prey even in zero visibility conditions. Freshwater fish are hypertonic to their environment, meaning their bodies have a higher salt concentration than the surrounding water. This results in water continually entering the body, mostly through the gills. To regulate this and prevent cell damage, freshwater fish (and crustaceans) are almost continually passing dilute urine. So if you're a predatory fish with an acute sense of smell your food is leaving behind a continuous scent trail for you to home in on! Who'd want to be a baitfish? I don't know if this answers your question Tim........ but once again, food for though!

Tom, I'm afraid you've missed the point completely this time. Right from the start I've said different fish species exhibit different color perception. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if sub-species or genetically isolated populations have different color perception. So let me put this another way....... Boeing's and Cessna's both work in basically the same way. They both have engines that create forward thrust. They both have wings to give them lift. They both have ailerons and rudders. They have the same functional units...... but it doesn't mean their performance is the same. An expert can take a look at most types of aircraft between these two extremes and know something about it's performance based on the engine size, type and location and on the wing size, shape and configuration. He knows that jet engines generate more thrust than props. He knows how the surface area and shape of wings affects lift. A bigger rudder gives greater steerage and so on. He doesn't need to fly the plane to know that level of detail, he can deduce it in seconds from the known factors. Lets take this back to fish eyes. The eyes of all animals work in basically the same way. They all have rod cells for detecting contrast and cone cells for detecting color. Both cells create a chemical signal (rhodopsin) that triggers electrical impulses in the optic nerve that are then deciphered in the brain. Those are the wings and engines. No matter whether they are fish eyes, bird eyes or human ones they all work that way. If you put more powerful engines on a Boeing you know it will get more thrust. You don't need to fly it to know that. That's just what a more powerful engine will do. If you put more rod cells into a fish's eye it will perform better in low light and will detect contrast better. That's what rod cells do in every animal and it's why nocturnal and low light animals have a higher density of rod cells and can see better than humans in the dark. It's a given, you don't need the fish to tell you that, you just look under the microscope and you can see it. If you reduce the weight of your Boeing it will get better fuel efficiency. It's a given. If you pack an eye with cone cells it will be more efficient at seeing color, it's a given. To take it a step further, there are essentially 3 types of cone cells, designated rather unimaginatively as S, M and L (short, medium and long). Each are stimulated by different wavelengths of light. So, for example, the long wavelengths (reds) stimulate the L cones more than the M cones and create an impulse the brain deciphers as red. Short wavelengths stimulate the S cells more than the M and are perceived as blue. And some fish species can even perceive ultra-violet wavelengths that humans can't. Billfish have a lot more S cones, so they can distinguish between blues better. Freshwater fish (generally) have a higher proportion of M cones and see greens and yellows more easily. Tropical reef species often have a higher ratio of cone cells vs rod cells, so we know they see a wide range of colors including UV. Walleye have a higher proportion of rod cells compared to other species, so we know they can see well in low light. So while we might not know in minute detail how every species or sub species perceives color (and I've never claimed we do) we can deduce the broad picture with a fair bit with confidence based on examination of the retina of each species. And to bring it all back to the original point of the eBook...... irrespective of what a fish's eye is capable of detecting, it's a moot point if environmental conditions filter out a particular wavelenth. If tannin filters out blue wavelengths it doesn't matter how well a fish can see blue. And once again, just because a color is visible to fish doesn't mean it's the right color to use. Plenty of times fish are finding your lures using sound, vibration, taste, smell and so on. Anyway, I've said my piece. I'm going to bow out now as well......

Thanks Molay, I reckon you're right on the money.

Wow, getting hot in here! The aim of my eBook is to get people thinking and discussing this stuff, and (hopefully) bettering our understanding. So, I'd say "mission accomplished"! This kind of debate is healthy and we don't have to agree. As long as we don't descend into personal attacks it furthers the sport for all of us....... So thanks to everyone who has taken part! As a few people have noted (and I agree), just because a fish can see a color doesn't necessarily mean it will strike, or not strike, your lure. So all of this is just food for thought. From my perspective, give my interpretation of the evidence as the scientific community has seen and published it - and that perspective is as a scientist and lifelong lure fisherman. Some of the evidence is measurable, irrefutable, quantifiable. The light absorption characteristics of water, for example are basic optics. They can be measured in the laboratory and in the field and they can be observed without the need for measurement. Other parts of the evidence are inferred but still pretty solid. We can't ask a bass what it sees, but we can infer from the structure of the eye. We know that the macro structure of a fish's eye is different to other animals. But we also know that the key parts - the photoreceptors - are the same as those of pretty much all other animals, many with a much better known spectral range. It's reasonable to assume that if l-, m- or s-cone cells perform a particular function in mammalian, bird and reptilian eyes then they most likely perform the same function in fish's eyes. For example, long wavelength detecting l-cone cells allow other animals to see colors in the blue-purple range, so it's reasonable to expect they have the same function in bass or any other fish. They are the same cells and communicate with the optic nerve in the same way as they do in other animals. But I'm not just a theorist. I've been a fisherman much longer than I've been a scientist and I know that science and theory doesn't replace experience on the water. It's just another tool to help us figure out what's going on and stack the odds a little more in our favor. That said, experience is often subjective. I fish for Jack in a local waterway where most old timers will tell you the last third of the incoming tide is the most productive. But going through my records, the middle of the ebb when the water runs hardest has been far kinder to me. Are the old timers wrong? Many of them have years more experience than I do on that waterway, and they have the results to back up their claims. That's hard to argue with. But my experience is very different - I've fished all tide phases many times over the years and have evidence that the run out is the better time. Who's right? It hardly matters. We'll probably never solve the mystery of why fish take a lure, but isn't that the whole point? It's the challenge of piecing the puzzle together and making what you can of it. If everything was predictable fishing would be boring!

WRB, they definitely don't play by the rules. And I believe that experience and science go hand in hand, BTW. They contradict sometimes, sure, but you get a more complete picture if you're open to both. Much of the billfish work done over here has been carried out by Dr Julian Pepperell, another keen fisho and a well respected scientist. I've been pondering your smoke worm fished deep at night and have a theory....... Could it be that it's the fact that the lure is NOT visible that makes it effective? There are plenty of instances when a transparent lure gets a reaction strike because it gets close to a fish undetected and takes it by surprise. Maybe black ones are more easily seen and don;t have the surprise factor. Just a thought! Thanks for the great points! G

lol, yep Catt. You got me!

I think you're 100% spot-on Fissure-man ;-) Nothing is ever definitive in fishing - and just because a fish can see a particular color doesn't necessarily mean it will take the lure (I think that's what WRB is getting at with the way fish interpret). I think the comment about color contrast is especially valid, too. For example, we know that many billfish don't see reds or oranges too well, but they can distinguish between minute differences in shades of blues and purples. This is an adaptation to help them distinguish blue baitfish against a blue background. And my experience with solid, single color lures has mirrored those of WRB, except for black fished at night or in muddy water. But In my view if our focus is purely on color then we tend to overlook so many other factors, such as vibration/sound, smell/taste (yes, taste) size, shape, action, dive depth and so on. Greg

Thanks Scaleface, Tim and Turkey, glad you found it interesting. It's a complex area and littered with misinformation, which is why I wrote the book in the first place. Tim, black and white are definitely the most contrasty colors. Black throws a particularly strong silhouette and is often one of the easiest colors for fish to see - and yet there are few jet black lures on the market. There are a couple of analogies I use when I'm teaching lure making classes: 1. Next time you're watching TV, have a play with the remote. Try turning the color brightness down a little and the contrast well up. It's a little simplistic, but it's kind of how fish see things under "normal" conditions. To simulate low light or dirty water (or getting deeper in the water), turn the color down even more. 2. Get yourself some pale blue cellophane and hold it in front of your eyes. In clean water that's how color appears to fish, even just a few feet down. To simulate greater depth, add more layers of cellophane. You'll see reds and oranges disappear first, yellows become more green, greens become more blue. Keep going and you'll eventually only see things in shades of blue. Of course, inland waters are rarely perfectly clear, so try the same thing with red or green cellophane to simulate tannin or algae. But I suppose the take home message is that color is usually far less important than most people think and fish rarely see it the way we think they might. Most people could catch more fish if they concentrated on other factors first and color second. But most lure fishermen seem to be fixated on color as the key top success. Regards Greg

Thanks for the plug Turkey! It's a bit of an old thread, but thought I'd chime in with my two bobs worth ;-) First, this is my book. I wrote it because there are lots of misunderstandings when it comes to lure color selection. Tom, just so you're aware, I teach lure making, I'm not a manufacturer. So I have nothing to gain from steering people towards one color or another. This book was merely an attempt to inject some science and objective thinking into an area of fishing where it is usually lacking. Before I was a full time lure making teacher, I was an aquatic scientist. Actually, I have a degree with double majors in Aquatic Biology and Aquatic Chemistry, Honors in Aquatic Science and a PhD awarded for my research thesis in the fields of Aquatic biology and water chemistry. I spent 20 years working as a professional scientist on areas of fish management (among other things) and ran my own niche aquatic ecology consultancy employing a number of other scientists in the fisheries field. I have personally made numerous measurements of light and color in saltwater - and even more in freshwater - using some pretty sophisticated equipment. I've also been an expert witness in my professional capacity as a scientist. And before I wrote this book I did an extensive review of scientific (not popular fishing) literature on the subject. I reckon I'm probably qualified to give a scientific perspective ;-) Yes, I'm Australian. I've worked and fished around the world though, including in the US. And had you read my book, you would have seen that there are links to references to other scientific work from around the world too. Actually, in scientific terms, what I present in my eBook is very old hat, scientists have known and published this stuff around the world for years. Fishermen have just never caught up. You are quite right that different species often have the capacity to see different colors, or at least different shades than other species. But you have completely missed the point that environmental conditions often preclude fish from seeing a particular hue, or any color at all. These environmental conditions are physical, not biological, so they are the same irrespective of your geographical location. In terms of the capacity for fish to see color: Most freshwater fish species are hundreds of times better at seeing shapes and shadows than humans are. And many (but not all) are many times worse than humans at detecting color. We know this from the anatomical structure of their eyes. Walleye, to pull your example, have a retina is packed with rod cells. These are the photochemical receptors that are super sensitive to light. They're present and have the same function in every living vertebrate on the planet - they allow us to see shapes and outlines in low light. Human eyes have relatively low numbers of rod cells, which is why we struggle to see much when the light fades - fish can often see silhouettes sharply when human eyes fail. The other photochemical receptors in eyes are the cone cells, which detect different wavelengths (colors) but need much higher intensity of light to do their job. Thats why we can often see silhouettes but not colors at dawn and dusk or on a moonlit night. The ratio of rod and cone cells tells us a lot. As already stated, walleye have loads of rod cells. But they have a low proportion of cone cells. This reflects the environment they live in, as well as their nocturnal hunting habits. They don't see color as well as other species but they can make out shapes in low light when other species can't. Bass have a higher proportion of cone cells because they tend to live and operate where there is better light. Color can play more of a part here. But compared to humans, they still have a high proportion of rod cells, so they still see better than us in low light and worse (less color distinction) in bright light. And yes, before you say it, some fish can see colors that humans can't, such as UV. As for the penetration of light and the visibility of color at depth, I've worked on tannin lakes where the blue and green wavelengths are absorbed in the first 6 inches and only red colors are visible. I've worked on algae lakes where the red/orange wavelengths disappear within 12 inches and only greens and yellows are visible. So light penetration and color visibility can vary tremendously in a lake as deep as 20ft. Hope this sheds some light (pun intended) Greg

ha ha, yeah I'm over in Australia, so water temps are a bit higher and our Aussie bass are a very different creature to your lmb! I actually fish this color pattern year round but find it best in winter when the water is clear and the fish are sluggish. The lure itself has a couple of large knocker rattles, so it wakes 'em up pretty good!

yeah, I'd definitely stick with reducer and not water for thinning your paint. The reducers contain a mild solvent that helps keep the paint from drying on the tip, which could be part of your problem. Glad the air pressure increase has helped.

Airbrush acrylics are the go. Easy to use, non toxic, massive color range. I use Autoair brand exclusively now for their superior perfomance and color range, but Createx, Wicked and Golden Airbrush are all suitable products