Discussion Of "the Raptor Effect" By Dr. Howard Wright

[WRB]

Paul, you state flatly that bass can't see color at night based on eye elements of rods & cones.

Keith Jones agrees with the construction, I am not an expert on eye sight, however have spent more time on the water catching bass then most anglers, with the exception of Catt at night.

If night bass tournament anglers could win tournaments fishing all black or all white or a combination of contrasting black and white, they would. The problem is bass, at times, have a color preference at night that is the same or very close to the colors they prefer during day light.

I fish with my hair jigs often at night and use my basic black/purple/brown combination with black, purple or red-brown pork rind trailers. Some nights it's the purple or the red-brown or the black trailer, I never know what the bass prefer without trying all 3 color trailers. The bass definitely have a color combination preference at night and it's not always black! Strange since they can only see shades of gray at night....according to current science.

Tom

[einscodek]

The hypothesis that raptors flying overhead affect bass location is BS!

The conversation regarding bright blue sky affecting bass location is also ordering on speculation, not fact.

Bass don't have the brain capacity to have fear, moving objects above the water can alarm bass as an instinctive warning and they react to warning.

The 1st Bassmaster Classic held on lake Mead, a extremely clear water lake at that time, was won by Murray using white spinner baits in shallow water with the sun overhead. Everyone else target cliff shaded areas believing the bass couldn't be in bright sun lite shallow water with no shad. When asked why he fished in clear shallow water with a spinnerbait he stated that is where I also fish! The wasn't any wind, maybe a slight breeze with temperatures over 110 degrees.

One of my best big bass spots is very close to a osprey nesting tree. I have to watch closely when casting trout swimbaits for those osprey, so they catch the lure in mid cast.

We have no idea how a bass brain processes the images their eyes captures and bass have big eyes for a good reason, to find prey.

Tom

Id largely agree.. and they dont have much facility to rationalize like us

but I dunno that from instinct bass cant distinguish from built-in instinct types of overhead flight in the sky

if I were bass I'd be more afraid of the circling raptors (hawks, eagles)

I've seen other birds like cranes, pelicans, and herons who fly in a straighter pattern pick out bluegill but never any bass

I could envision hawks or eagles taking on larger fish such as bass and trout though

if a bass can pick me out on shore, I'd think they could pick out in clearwater flights of circling raptors overhead.

it'd be interesting to see if bass are sighted in shallow waters when birds of prey are circling above..

[Paul Roberts]

... I never know what the bass prefer without trying all 3 color trailers. ...

Why stop at 3? Odd, there aren't all that many colors available in pork. Contrast this with plastics which come in a huge variety of hues and combinations of hues. Interesting that color theories grow in complexity the more colors are offered. If you had the addition of say, olivaceous purple over motor oil with red flakes in a pork trailer, would it have been the answer that produced catches on a night when black, brown, and purple failed? On the night that the bass were only taking tequila-sunrise worms with a brown bloodline and burgundy #32 flakes in 60 fow, which color pork might they have preferred? And on the nights when the bass only took brown bloodline worms, no other contestants came in with good catches, unless they had brown bloodline worms?

 

If color is that critical, how much time does one spend testing all those colors that are offered? I mean, mix that in with time of day, prey activity, number of bass present, number of bass active, moon phases, sky and water conditions, and dumb luck, and... how could one expect to add bloodline color to the list of variables. I don't know about you but I've never been able to stop and replay time. Events and changes roll by me like a torrent. Bloodline hue or flake color just isn't in the running.

 

I find I choose my colors based on:

-what's offed by the manufacturers

-what makes me go "Ooooo!" in the store.

-and fishing results (in that torrent of events I mentioned above) which have lead me to believe that translucent worms work better in high vis conditions, and that opaques work better in lower vis conditions, and fluorescents may help in certain circumstances -turbidity, and high competition (between bass).

 

I think we humans are suckers for color, and poor at keeping track of, even recognizing, the variables inherent in astronomically complex environments.

[WRB]

Paul, I make my pork trailers since Super Pork went out of business and they are white before dying. I use RIT liquid dye. The purple is not a grape color, it's looks very similar to the purple on original Stren mono boxes, more a violet purple. The brown is a mixture of dark brown and dark red I call barn red or brown-red, black is black. I also use white pork trailers on white/chartreuse/ dark green hair jig when the shad are spawning at night. For smallmouth bass prefer brown/chartreuse/red hair jigs with barn red trailer at night, rarely eat all black.

There isn't a limit of color combinations available for soft plastics...mind boggling possibilities,

We won a night tournament several years back using 1/8 oz dart head jigs with plain smoke 4 1/2" curl tail worms. My partner brought his spinning outfit with 6 lb line and caught all our keeper bass, I left my finesse rods at home. Lesson learned, you never know what bass may prefer, even at night.

Tom

[Paul Roberts]

Mind boggling is something I try to avoid. I don't mean to come off... aggressively; it's my natural defensive response to being a thinker in a world that's.. just too big for thinking. It's frustrating to know I'll die barely scratching the surface of it all. "Color" is a topic that... I should probably avoid.

[Bassun]

Paul, you state flatly that bass can't see color at night based on eye elements of rods & cones.

Keith Jones agrees with the construction, I am not an expert on eye sight, however have spent more time on the water catching bass then most anglers, with the exception of Catt at night.

If night bass tournament anglers could win tournaments fishing all black or all white or a combination of contrasting black and white, they would. The problem is bass, at times, have a color preference at night that is the same or very close to the colors they prefer during day light.

I fish with my hair jigs often at night and use my basic black/purple/brown combination with black, purple or red-brown pork rind trailers. Some nights it's the purple or the red-brown or the black trailer, I never know what the bass prefer without trying all 3 color trailers. The bass definitely have a color combination preference at night and it's not always black! Strange since they can only see shades of gray at night....according to current science.

Tom

 

I would contest again that you may not be seeing a result from the fish necessarily "seeing" the specific color, however, we do know that rods are most effective with certain wavelengths of reflected light.  I think it stands to reason, that what could be happening is you are stumbling into the correct wavelength in which the rods are most capable of registering the light reflected.  You could simply be stumbling into the best case scenario to build contrast and make the lure more easily seen by a bass.  The difference in color choice could be influenced by any number of variables in the water. 

 

Beyond that, I think it's also plausible that certain shades of grey could be the actual trigger.  If bass cannot see full spectrum at night - it would stand to reason they would learn to focus on certain shades of grey and target that.  Conversely, they may be able to utilize a mix of rods and cones even in ultra low light and be able to differentiate certain colors.  I think as the depth increases, we would have to agree the amount of reflected light is going to drop - so there will eventually be a point where color, of any hue, just simply wont matter.  New moon, turbid water, 50 feet deep, on a wilderness lake -- there just isn't too much light to begin with...

 

All kinds of possibilities!

[WRB]

Way back in the early 60's the Lew Eppinger, company maker of Dare Devil spoons, changed their paint supplier and afterwards the sales of their most popular red/white spoon dropped way off on all sizes. The customer complained the old red/white spoons catch fish, the new spoons are not nearly as good. Eppinger didn't change the tooling only the red paint supplier. The red color looked exactly the same shade as the original color. They went back to the original paint supplier and the sales picked back up.

Eppinger sent the red paints for analysis to determine what the difference was. Under ultra violet light the 2 reds were very different, the original looked bright and nearly glowed, the new red was almost dull gray.

This leads me to think that fish see colors very differently than the human eye and explains how bass see some colors well in the dark.

Tom

PS, source Jason Lucas.

[Bassun]

Way back in the early 60's the Lew Eppinger, company maker of Dare Devil spoons, changed their paint supplier and afterwards the sales of their most popular red/white spoon dropped way off on all sizes. The customer complained the old red/white spoons catch fish, the new spoons are not nearly as good. Eppinger didn't change the tooling only the red paint supplier. The red color looked exactly the same shade as the original color. They went back to the original paint supplier and the sales picked back up.

Eppinger sent the red paints for analysis to determine what the difference was. Under ultra violet light the 2 reds were very different, the original looked bright and nearly glowed, the new red was almost dull gray.

This leads me to think that fish see colors very differently than the human eye and explains how bass see some colors well in the dark.

Tom

PS, source Jason Lucas.

 

UV is certainly a possibility.  We've all seen tests which show UV coated paints preform better than no UV offerings --- and tests which show no difference, lol.  I think, on a personal level, that there is merit to UV being in the fishes spectrum, whether as a "see-able" color or merely a brighter reception of light by the rods - who knows.  Either way I would love to see more research to verify what really is going on. 

[RB 77]

This is a very interesting discussion. The one thing that I can add is that in my experience color definitely does matter. Some times it doesn’t and they will bite anything in the box. Other times it is of the utmost importance. Most people that have fished at any length of time and have paid attention have come across a pattern where color has played an important part of that pattern.

 

I have developed patterns fishing a soft plastic where color was so critical that the same exact presentation with a variety of different color plastics yield no results unless using that one same color. One instance the particular color was Junebug. Black, Watermelon, Greenpumpkin, etc yielded no results. Even Grapeseed, in which I use the same colorant as Junebug, was not as successful. The color of the flake (green vs. black) was even critical.

[SHaugh]

I think it makes perfect sense that a creature evolving in a murky underwater world will be constantly developing ways to see better in that world.  Developing an ability to better distinguish things in darkness or low light conditions would be an obvious evolutionary driver. 

 

Fish spend most of their days in low light to total darkness.  Because of the reflective powers of water the amount of sunlight that can penetrate their environment is significantly less than the air environment. 

 

It also stands to reason that eyes and brains that have evolved and are predisposed to vision in those conditions will be less tolerant of conditions that are significantly brighter.  Like when direct sunlight  is in that small blue window overhead.  That by far explains a fishes desire for shade during those times much better than raptors or hunting advantages imo.

 

UV and infrared vision is probably something fish scientist should spend more time on.  I've had some experience with night vision gear. Isn't it also possible that fish eyes have some ability to see the infrared spectrum ?   The concepts of emissivity and background emissivity probably goes a long way toward explaining different color performance.   Some color / material combinations probably register as much warmer or cooler than the background, thereby enhancing their visibility in lower light conditions.

 

Here's an interesting article that explains emissivity pretty well.

http://x26.com/irpaper_emissivity.htm

 

It seems to me that in a lower light environment infrared would be the chosen evolutionary path rather than UV.  It might not have the range of UV underwater, but in the up close personal world of a fish it could be very useful.

 

I found a good read for science types.... I'm going fishing....

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0064429

[WRB]

Exactly, we don't know how bass or other game fish "see" colors based on rods and cones independently from their environment. Most of the living prey that predators feed on must be able to find each other and hide from predators, the predators must evolve to find the prey. If bass could only see details in good light conditions, they wouldn't survive.

If we think bass anglers are into lure colors, try competitive marlin and tuna anglers with nearly unlimited funds to research those fish. There are some good research on fish eyesight by Australians for marlin that may be of interest.

When experience flies in the face of science, trust your instincts, there is more to how fish see colors than we currently know.

Living critters that bass feed on are not solid colors and have a living sheen of multiple complex coloration. Lure manufacturers try to duplicate a living color scheme to the human eye to sell their products, we try to get bass to eat those lures.....sometimes it works!

Tom

[Bassun]

I think it makes perfect sense that a creature evolving in a murky underwater world will be constantly developing ways to see better in that world.  Developing an ability to better distinguish things in darkness or low light conditions would be an obvious evolutionary driver. 

 

Fish spend most of their days in low light to total darkness.  Because of the reflective powers of water the amount of sunlight that can penetrate their environment is significantly less than the air environment. 

 

It also stands to reason that eyes and brains that have evolved and are predisposed to vision in those conditions will be less tolerant of conditions that are significantly brighter.  Like when direct sunlight  is in that small blue window overhead.  That by far explains a fishes desire for shade during those times much better than raptors or hunting advantages imo.

 

UV and infrared vision is probably something fish scientist should spend more time on.  I've had some experience with night vision gear. Isn't it also possible that fish eyes have some ability to see the infrared spectrum ?   The concepts of emissivity and background emissivity probably goes a long way toward explaining different color performance.   Some color / material combinations probably register as much warmer or cooler than the background, thereby enhancing their visibility in lower light conditions.

 

Here's an interesting article that explains emissivity pretty well.

http://x26.com/irpaper_emissivity.htm

 

It seems to me that in a lower light environment infrared would be the chosen evolutionary path rather than UV.  It might not have the range of UV underwater, but in the up close personal world of a fish it could be very useful.

 

I found a good read for science types.... I'm going fishing....

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0064429

 

That second article definitely opens the thought to IR / NIR light ranges being important for sure!

[Driftb]

Should the question be what do the bass see?  Maybe we should be asking what the prey see.  I fish a medium sized clear water river.  It isn't uncommon for the bass and trout to bite better when the sun goes behind a cloud than in full sun.  The bass are taking advantage of the fact that it is hard to see from a sunny area into a shaded area.  Fur.thurmore, baitfish's eyes will be adaptedto sunshine so when they swim into the shade they will be blind until their eyes adjust.

  As for the raptor effect? I notice that the larger fish are less likely to be found near the surface on sunny days.  In the Delaware, any fish that isn't deep or near cover won't get much bigger.  We see eagles catch fish every day.

[Bassun]

Regardless of all conjecture, and suppositions, I'm really pleased with how interesting this topic became.  Thanks to everyone who has replied... you've made this quite interesting.

[Team9nine]

I'd disagree on the IR/NIR being that important in the overall picture, especially after reading that paper. Keep in mind that bass have been around for over 2.5 million years. There isn't going to be any sudden evolutionary change that makes them start using IR/NIR just because they find themselves in your murky reservoir. As the paper stated, even in pure water, only the very shortest of the IR wavelengths have the ability to penetrate more than 5 or 6 feet in the water column. In any type of murky water/eutrophic environment with some degree of DOM (dissolved organic matter), which is most waters, you're talking at best, penetration of just inches or less. The fish that they studied that showed the greatest ability to detect IR/NIR evolved in the shallow murky backwaters of the Nile/Mozambique R. The other mentioned species which displayed some degree of IR/NIR capabilities, while living in clearer water environs, were surface feeders that spend much of their life in the top couple inches of the water column. Neither of these cases is applicable to largemouth bass, in general. That said, just like UV, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see some enterprising lure company promote some type of IR/NIR paint scheme on their lures in the future as "the next big thing" - and some pro will promote it as sliced bread, and people will buy it

 

-T9

[Bassun]

I'd disagree on the IR/NIR being that important in the overall picture, especially after reading that paper. Keep in mind that bass have been around for over 2.5 million years. There isn't going to be any sudden evolutionary change that makes them start using IR/NIR just because they find themselves in your murky reservoir. As the paper stated, even in pure water, only the very shortest of the IR wavelengths have the ability to penetrate more than 5 or 6 feet in the water column. In any type of murky water/eutrophic environment with some degree of DOM (dissolved organic matter), which is most waters, you're talking at best, penetration of just inches or less. The fish that they studied that showed the greatest ability to detect IR/NIR evolved in the shallow murky backwaters of the Amazon. The other mentioned species which displayed some degree of IR/NIR capabilities, while living in clearer water environs, were surface feeders that spend much of their life in the top couple inches of the water column. Neither of these cases is applicable to largemouth bass, in general. That said, just like UV, I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see some enterprising lure company promote some type of IR/NIR paint scheme on their lures in the future as "the next big thing" - and some pro will promote it as sliced bread, and people will buy it

 

-T9

 

 

Even if it is only visible in a very short distance, the right IR/NIR effects could make the difference between a fish turning away at the last second vs taking the bait.  I agree the transmission isn't going to pull fish from 20 feet away, but if it helps get the hit vs just being "checked out" then it may have a place in the discussion.  Maybe it doesn't impact anything, but given what little we know, it seems at least plausable that it could enhance a lure.

[J Francho]

Location and presentation are much, much more important than anything else in this thread.  Two things even seasoned measurebaters get wrong.

 

If you're worried about IR/NIR, and how it might effect your tournament results, you already lost.  If you're that good that you can fine tune this, then I humbly bow.

 

That's not to say this isn't interesting stuff, but whenever the discussion turns towards using the info as an advantage, I start smelling bad science, and marketing hype.

 

That's just my opinion.

[Team9nine]

Even if it is only visible in a very short distance, the right IR/NIR effects could make the difference between a fish turning away at the last second vs taking the bait.  I agree the transmission isn't going to pull fish from 20 feet away, but if it helps get the hit vs just being "checked out" then it may have a place in the discussion.  Maybe it doesn't impact anything, but given what little we know, it seems at least plausable that it could enhance a lure.

 

Don't confuse short eyesight distance with distance that IR light penetrates underwater. The only real possibility might be during a surface strike. For any lure fished at any normal depth, especially anything over a foot or two deep in most waters, the IR rays would never penetrate deep enough into the water to make IR vision a reality. Thought of another way, if you've ever night fished with a black light and fluorescent blue line, that line isn't glowing all the way down to your lure fished in 20 feet of stained water. That line would appear to "glow" only as deep as the UV light can penetrate into the water before becoming attenuated. Beyond that, it would look like plain old blue/clear line. Additionally, even assuming bass had any sense of IR perception, why would we automatically correlate it to feeding and lures (beside the fact we're bass anglers) and not some other more biologically important phenomena. With IR being a "heat" signature, it would seem largely counterproductive in a cold blooded world except in very specialized adaptations.   

 

-T9

[WRB]

This thread is title the raptor effect or why bass are found under cover, the assumption being predator birds created this behavior. The topics of how bass see underwater in low light followed is logical, bass under cover are in a low light location and are primarily sight feeders.

Bass behavior dictates their location, understanding bass behavior helps to determine location. How to catch the bass you find is more about presenting a lure that the bass will strike. To ignore the possibility that bass can see color in poor light eliminates a wide range of lures and colors to present to the bass.

Tom

[webertime]

I'm going to tip toe into this.  AKA random thoughts and what I could remember due to my ADD.

 

I think we can all agree that Bass populations in different bodies of water can act very differently.  Heck even the same body of water can have several population groups of Bass that behave in different manors...  How they react to bait color, or overhead cover, or how they feed can vary from one population to another.

 

Regarding the raptor effect.  I believe in it 100% for fish that must live in shallow areas.  My brother is a trout guide on the South Island of New Zealand.  The water is clearer than you can imagine.  Time and time again he's had clients show up and be in the wrong colored shirt of just make movements that are too fast and watched a "Supertanker" (8+lb trout) turn slightly to them, then swim off.  This is at distances of 50+ feet, with various backgrounds behind them.  A trout (or a Bass) living in shallow and clearish water will be more wary of predators above them as they don't often have hiding spots instantly available. 

 

I think bass must be able see in colors and it important to an extent.  To me I have found that colors and how they create a profile in water of a given clarity is hugely important.  For example I have found that a the swimbait with a darker top catches more in darker/stained water.  In clear water it didn't make much of a difference what color I threw.  Or when I fish  a plastic craw with the tips dyed (or a lighter bottom laminent), I catch 10:1 over solid colors up here when fishing for smallies, regardless of water clarity.  I have found the color itself didn't matter as much as having contrast on the bait.  Maybe the blue vien that WRB mentioned in that night tournament was the same sort of thing? 

 

As Francho, pointed out if you (or I) get caught up on this level of minutia when fishing we aren't going to succeed. 

Occam's Razor.

[J Francho]

Great post, weber.

[SHaugh]

Don't confuse short eyesight distance with distance that IR light penetrates underwater. The only real possibility might be during a surface strike. For any lure fished at any normal depth, especially anything over a foot or two deep in most waters, the IR rays would never penetrate deep enough into the water to make IR vision a reality. Thought of another way, if you've ever night fished with a black light and fluorescent blue line, that line isn't glowing all the way down to your lure fished in 20 feet of stained water. That line would appear to "glow" only as deep as the UV light can penetrate into the water before becoming attenuated. Beyond that, it would look like plain old blue/clear line. Additionally, even assuming bass had any sense of IR perception, why would we automatically correlate it to feeding and lures (beside the fact we're bass anglers) and not some other more biologically important phenomena. With IR being a "heat" signature, it would seem largely counterproductive in a cold blooded world except in very specialized adaptations.   

 

-T9

 

I'm no scientist.. and I agree that if we are worrying about this level of minute detail we are probably not going to catch very many...

 

But what I am not understanding about your comments is the idea that thermal radiation must originate or be reflected sunlight originating outside the water environment. Don't cold blooded animals still generate internal heat ?

 

isn't thermal radiation created within materials and organisms ?   If water at night becomes a near perfect blackbody, wouldn't even the slightest thermal radiation created by a prey fish's digestion or muscle contractions create a slight difference in the comparative emissivity against the blackbody background... at least for a few feet around the source ?

 

Or perhaps  a 70 degree worm being thrown into 60 degree water register as  warmer than the surrounding water at least for a few seconds ?  Has anybody ever tried fishing with warmed plastic baits ?

 

Couldn't the ability to see those slight differences in emissivity be a significant advantage and driver ?

 

I don't think water is as uniform a temperature as we are inclined to believe.   For example if a crappie fry has spent most of the day in warm shallow water and then moves to colder deep water how long will it take before it's body temperature adjusts to the ambient level ?  During that time wouldn't it be possible to see it's infrared signature as being different than the background ?

[Team9nine]

 

Don't confuse short eyesight distance with distance that IR light penetrates underwater. The only real possibility might be during a surface strike. For any lure fished at any normal depth, especially anything over a foot or two deep in most waters, the IR rays would never penetrate deep enough into the water to make IR vision a reality. Thought of another way, if you've ever night fished with a black light and fluorescent blue line, that line isn't glowing all the way down to your lure fished in 20 feet of stained water. That line would appear to "glow" only as deep as the UV light can penetrate into the water before becoming attenuated. Beyond that, it would look like plain old blue/clear line. Additionally, even assuming bass had any sense of IR perception, why would we automatically correlate it to feeding and lures (beside the fact we're bass anglers) and not some other more biologically important phenomena. With IR being a "heat" signature, it would seem largely counterproductive in a cold blooded world except in very specialized adaptations.   

 

-T9

 

I'm no scientist.. and I agree that if we are worrying about this level of minute detail we are probably not going to catch very many...

 

But what I am not understanding about your comments is the idea that thermal radiation must originate or be reflected sunlight originating outside the water environment. Don't cold blooded animals still generate internal heat ?

 

isn't thermal radiation created within materials and organisms ?   If water at night becomes a near perfect blackbody, wouldn't even the slightest thermal radiation created by a prey fish's digestion or muscle contractions create a slight difference in the comparative emissivity against the blackbody background... at least for a few feet around the source ?

 

Or perhaps  a 70 degree worm being thrown into 60 degree water register as  warmer than the surrounding water at least for a few seconds ?  Has anybody ever tried fishing with warmed plastic baits ?

 

Couldn't the ability to see those slight differences in emissivity be a significant advantage and driver ?

 

 

I guess I would argue several points. First, since bass evolved over 2 million years ago, there would have to have been some evolutionary need or benefit to them adopting IR vision abilities back then. To that point, I've yet to see any research that supports IR vision in bass. Not saying they don't, just that it's pure speculation at this point.

 

Next, even if they were proven to see IR, you'd still have to have a reason (advantage) for that development, and the automatic assumption that it would have to do with feeding is tenuous at best. Perhaps it would be for mate or nesting area selection, or predator avoidance, or a whole host of other reasons. Again, as anglers, we like to grasp onto things that potentially fit our idealizations, but that may not be the case, even if it seems plausible.

 

As for cold-blooded animals, the IR and thermal images I've seen taken of them show no signs of having "hot spots" or "auras" or other such differences that would stand out, at least not on thermal imaging cameras. They take on the temperature of their environment, and tend to blend in to their background environment instead of stand out (from an IR imaging perspective). Again, they can "hold" some outside heat relative to a background temperature to give them a signature short term, but it seems highly unlikely bass would have evolved to develop IR vision simply on the chance that some warmer than water creature would fall into the lake so it could eat it before taking on the local water temperature and blending in again, or making it back to land/air safely...and the idea of heating a plastic worm up between casts so it would have an IR signature just seems like a far overreach. That said, anyone who wants to take the time to test this out, please report on your findings. 

 

Instead, and taking this in a totally different direction, what you propose about muscle contractions, digestion, etc. would, to me, fall more under the category of electroreception - think sharks and rays, some catfish, paddlefish, etc.. As I understand it, all living creatures give off small electrical impulses due to muscular movement. But again, from the researchers I've seen go on record on this subject, the consensus has been that bass don't have this ability...but it gives us another wonderful area to talk about now 

 

-T9

[Bassun]

My brother is a trout guide on the South Island of New Zealand.  The water is clearer than you can imagine.  Time and time again he's had clients show up and be in the wrong colored shirt of just make movements that are too fast and watched a "Supertanker" (8+lb trout) turn slightly to them, then swim off.  This is at distances of 50+ feet, with various backgrounds behind them.  A trout (or a Bass) living in shallow and clearish water will be more wary of predators above them as they don't often have hiding spots instantly available.

 

I absolutely agree that scenario would certainly put the fish on high alert for non-waterborn predation.  I remember reading an article a long time ago about a man who would stalk smallmouth bass.  He would literally wear camo, and crawl around keeping his body and profile hidden or at least below (I want to say) a 20 degree inclined line of site.  Then he would attempt to make one single cast with a live crayfish. 

 

That's the extreme, but certainly not lost on your brother.

 

Don't confuse short eyesight distance with distance that IR light penetrates underwater. The only real possibility might be during a surface strike. For any lure fished at any normal depth, especially anything over a foot or two deep in most waters, the IR rays would never penetrate deep enough into the water to make IR vision a reality. Thought of another way, if you've ever night fished with a black light and fluorescent blue line, that line isn't glowing all the way down to your lure fished in 20 feet of stained water. That line would appear to "glow" only as deep as the UV light can penetrate into the water before becoming attenuated. Beyond that, it would look like plain old blue/clear line. Additionally, even assuming bass had any sense of IR perception, why would we automatically correlate it to feeding and lures (beside the fact we're bass anglers) and not some other more biologically important phenomena. With IR being a "heat" signature, it would seem largely counterproductive in a cold blooded world except in very specialized adaptations.   

 

-T9

 

I wasn't referring to short sighted bass, I was actually referring to the short distance IR wavelengths would be able to travel in water.  Your example of UV light becoming attenuated in water is a great visual, though, for how light acts in water.

 

Location and presentation are much, much more important than anything else in this thread.  Two things even seasoned measurebaters get wrong.

 

If you're worried about IR/NIR, and how it might effect your tournament results, you already lost.  If you're that good that you can fine tune this, then I humbly bow.

 

That's not to say this isn't interesting stuff, but whenever the discussion turns towards using the info as an advantage, I start smelling bad science, and marketing hype.

 

That's just my opinion.

 

Oh, I don't think anyone here is thinking they are going to make the next best things because we suddenly decided IR/UV/X-Rays are visible to fish.  I think were mostly talking in conjecture filling the gaps of science with our own theories and assumptions.  I can almost guarentee you that there is some bad science here, lol.  But, as long as we all take it as such and maybe even learn somethign along the way, then yay

 

Course those Livingston lures were called hokum by many until Howell won the classic with one... I've not used one yet, but the idea of adding additional light and sound does seem like a potentially good idea... If I can just get over the idea of fishing with an electronic fising lure...

[J Francho]

A couple of things, bass (boney fish) are poikilotherms, meaning they operate at a large range of body temperatures, compared to ectotherms (think turtles or lizards) that must warm and cool their bodies in order to forage, digest, and reproduce.

 

I saw a quick quip about evolution and advantage - this is a misnomer.  Just because a trait is inhereted, it doesn't mean it has to serve a purpose.  It just means it's not a disadvantage that natural selection has weeded out.

 

Sorry, I'm not much help here, carry on.....