Why Fish Don't See Your Lures: How Fish Vision... By Greg Vinall

[WRB]

You can't lump all fish species into one group or birds into one group. There are thousands of different species, each with unique vision characteristics. We are discussing bass, consider in North America we have 8 different species of fresh water bass, each with different coloration, habitate and prey preferences. All these different "bass" have evolved in unique ecosystems developing skills to survive in their habitate and so has their prey. Species have color for a reason...to survive and procreate the species.

If we look at Largemouth bass we have 2 species; northern strain and Florida strain, both have different behavior, preferred prey types and color preferences when sharing the same lake. When you compare the eye physical size, the Florida strain have bigger eyes based on the bass I have caught. Florida bass grow about 50% heavier then Northern strain and comparing bass about the same length 28". Both my 18.6 lb and 19.3 lb Florida strain bass eyes i(1") about the size or a quarter, the Northern strain 12.4 lb eye is 3/4" about the size of a nickel. The Florida strain is very wary compared to it's northern cousin. The Florida strain developed larger eyes for a reason. 

Smallmouth bass have red eyes for a reason, Redeye bass a seperates species, has red eyes, both of these bass evolved in a river system. Do smallmouth that prefer bright colored lures see the same color spectrum as largemouth bass? Or Spotted bass? Does a FLMB see the same as a NLMB?

We don't have enough empirical data to begin to understand bass let alone individuals in thousands of other fish species.

Tom

 

[makelures]

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...... 

 

 

 

[scaleface]

13 hours ago, makelures said:

 

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...... 

 

 

 

If one doesnt understand this then one is just not trying very hard .

[Catt]

11 hours ago, scaleface said:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

The last step in the scientific method is falsifiability.

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question.

@makelures ya ain't the first to do the research & ya will not be last!

After reading your book you ain't went any farther than the rest!

[Tim Kelly]

Makelures, before you go, can you explain how fish like walleye can see well enough to make a living in very dark water that has a lot of suspended mud in it? I've never understood how they survive as there must be a physical barrier of all the suspended, opaque, mud withing a few inches of their eyes, which to my mind must eliminate any object the other side of the mud wall from their view. Cormorants seem to be able to dive and find fish in the same turbid water that we can't see a lure 3" under the surface in. Seems like magic to me!

[QUAKEnSHAKE]

Any info on the acuity a bass actually sees???

One article Ive read a Berkley research scientist states they dont see very well at all. They can see only about 50' and the acuity is about 10% of humans, they have to get really close to object to see it well.

Any other info thoughts on this?

[Cgolf]

44 minutes ago, Tim Kelly said:

Makelures, before you go, can you explain how fish like walleye can see well enough to make a living in very dark water that has a lot of suspended mud in it? I've never understood how they survive as there must be a physical barrier of all the suspended, opaque, mud withing a few inches of their eyes, which to my mind must eliminate any object the other side of the mud wall from their view. Cormorants seem to be able to dive and find fish in the same turbid water that we can't see a lure 3" under the surface in. Seems like magic to me!

Also to that I believe a Sauger lives in even muddier stretches of river, by choice, than its cousin the walleye. Curious about the differences between the eyes in those two.

[makelures]

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!

 

 

[makelures]

1 hour ago, QUAKEnSHAKE said:

Any info on the acuity a bass actually sees???

One article Ive read a Berkley research scientist states they dont see very well at all. They can see only about 50' and the acuity is about 10% of humans, they have to get really close to object to see it well.

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. 

 

59 minutes ago, cgolf said:

Also to that I believe a Sauger lives in even muddier stretches of river, by choice, than its cousin the walleye. Curious about the differences between the eyes in those two.

Afraid I don't know too much about Sauger, cgolf. We Aussies don't know too much about too much ;-)

[Tim Kelly]

Thank you for your thoughts Makelures. As you say, it doesn't entirely answer my question, but it's food for thought. I fish a lot of places that hold pike, perch and zander (walleye). It's very noticeable that waters which are usually dirtier  usually have a better population of zander, where clearer waters are usually more populated with perch and pike. It appears that the zander are able to do better in the reduced visibility that the pike or perch. The pike are interesting though as they have all the usual fish senses and also a special set of pores (Noromyer system?) on their lower jaw which are believed to pick up electrical impulses from fishes muscles. On the face of it, you'd imaging they'd do better than the zander with the extra sense, but apparently not. They out compete them in clearer water, but not in murky water. It's interesting to note as well that waters which have become murkier over time tend to have a change in the balance of species with the pike and perch declining and the zander becoming more prolific and bigger.

 

The cormorant thing absolutely amazes me still. I can't imagine they're using any instinct other than sight to find their prey, but they still manage to make a living in muddy water. 

 

Nature is cool.

[Molay1292]

12 minutes ago, Tim Kelly said:

Thank you for your thoughts Makelures. As you say, it doesn't entirely answer my question, but it's food for thought. I fish a lot of places that hold pike, perch and zander (walleye). It's very noticeable that waters which are usually dirtier  usually have a better population of zander, where clearer waters are usually more populated with perch and pike. It appears that the zander are able to do better in the reduced visibility that the pike or perch. The pike are interesting though as they have all the usual fish senses and also a special set of pores on their lower jaw which are believed to pick up electrical impulses from fishes muscles. On the face of it, you'd imaging they'd do better than the zander with the extra sense, but apparently not. They out compete them in clearer water, but not in murky water. It's interesting to note as well that waters which have become murkier over time tend to have a change in the balance of species with the pike and perch declining and the zander becoming more prolific and bigger.

 

The cormorant thing absolutely amazes me still. I can't imagine they're using any instinct other than sight to find their prey, but they still manage to make a living in muddy water. 

 

Nature is cool.

Tim, I wonder if Cormorants like Ducks and Geese have the ability to see into the UV spectrum.    If so perhaps they can see fish in unclear water with this ability.   Just a thought.

[Tim Kelly]

Possibly, but I don't imagine UV light travels far through murky water. Even if they could see into infra red it wouldn't help them as most fish are cold blooded (some sharks seem to have a semi warm blooded system) so there would be no heat signature for them to see.

[RichF]

On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 5:53 PM, WRB said:

Nothing I have ever read explains how bass have specific color preference at night in deep clear structured lakes that I fish. Understand the importance of contrast and silhouette outline, but often a clear smoke worm with different color flakes out fishes solid black with various color flakes at depths of 20 top 40 feet at night. The science tells us the bass eye can't see the worm, but they do!

I'm curious to know how many times you tried those combos under similar conditions and had the same result.  What I've come to understand about anglers, myself included, is that once we get bit on a particular bait, we'll often continue using it every time we hit the water.  This is why I'm skeptical on the importance of color.  Once we have success on one thing, we'll use it more and ultimately catch more fish with it.  But is it really because of the size, action, the color?  Or is it just because we had that success and now use it more than anything else? 

My hat's off to you if you have tested that several times under similar conditions.  I know I would have a hard time trying X when I've had success with Y!  

 

 

 

[Raul]

1 hour ago, Tim Kelly said:

Nature is cool.

Yes it is, these don´t even need eyes and if other senses weren´t able to overcome sight they wouldn´t exist.

One lesson I do know: bass don´t need to see the bait in order to find it, so how the bait looks is more important to me than it is to the fish.

BTW, I´ve caught blind bass ( without eyes ), not only they were caught with lures, they were fat and very healthy.

[Tim Kelly]

That's very true.

[WRB]

46 minutes ago, RichF said:

I'm curious to know how many times you tried those combos under similar conditions and had the same result.  What I've come to understand about anglers, myself included, is that once we get bit on a particular bait, we'll often continue using it every time we hit the water.  This is why I'm skeptical on the importance of color.  Once we have success on one thing, we'll use it more and ultimately catch more fish with it.  But is it really because of the size, action, the color?  Or is it just because we had that success and now use it more than anything else? 

My hat's off to you if you have tested that several times under similar conditions.  I know I would have a hard time trying X when I've had success with Y!  

 

 

 

The best time to try out new new lures or colors is during a good bite, not when the bass are inactive. I rarely try out a new lure during a tough bite. Trying out something different is easy to do when fishing with a partner and you are being out fished using your standby lure/color. 

Tom

PS, never caught a totally blind bass, caught lots of 1 eyed bass.

[Mastermarsh]

7 hours ago, Catt said:

The last step in the scientific method is falsifiability.

Falsifiability or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proven false. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question.

@makelures ya ain't the first to do the research & ya will not be last!

After reading your book you ain't went any farther than the rest!

Falsifiability is the nature of everything in the universe, especially science. That is the draw of research, the fact that there will always be more to learn and expand upon is an amazing notion. But I digress as this should not be an argument about the semantics or philosophy of scientific mythology.

Nor is it conducive to a healthy conversation to insult @makelures work, as I know he has spent countless hours providing us with a resource of information that may help us become better fisherman. Perhaps you don't agree with his research and thats fine, but to insult his work is in bad form. 

I am certainly appreciating the discussion going on here though as this topic is no where near my field of study, and always enjoy learning from people who know far more than me.

[Molay1292]

1 hour ago, Mastermarsh said:

Falsifiability is the nature of everything in the universe, especially science. That is the draw of research, the fact that there will always be more to learn and expand upon is an amazing notion. But I digress as this should not be an argument about the semantics or philosophy of scientific mythology.

Nor is it conducive to a healthy conversation to insult @makelures work, as I know he has spent countless hours providing us with a resource of information that may help us become better fisherman. Perhaps you don't agree with his research and thats fine, but to insult his work is in bad form. 

I am certainly appreciating the discussion going on here though as this topic is no where near my field of study, and always enjoy learning from people who know far more than me.

Don't worry you will get use to it.   

[buzzed bait]

but what color senko works best?  

[Catt]

1 hour ago, Mastermarsh said:

Falsifiability is the nature of everything in the universe, especially science. That is the draw of research, the fact that there will always be more to learn and expand upon is an amazing notion. But I digress as this should not be an argument about the semantics or philosophy of scientific mythology.

Nor is it conducive to a healthy conversation to insult @makelures work, as I know he has spent countless hours providing us with a resource of information that may help us become better fisherman. Perhaps you don't agree with his research and thats fine, but to insult his work is in bad form. 

I am certainly appreciating the discussion going on here though as this topic is no where near my field of study, and always enjoy learning from people who know far more than me.

Do you really think makelure is the first to do this research?

He ain't kicked the can any farther down the road that any of the others!

Older guys like me, WRB, Raul, Roger, Paul Roberts & many others have read these same arguments. I've read em about LMB, SMB, Crappie, a whole host of saltwater fish, & deer.

How bass see, how bass perceive colors, the whole spawning ritual come up quite often.

[Molay1292]

52 minutes ago, Catt said:

Do you really think makelure is the first to do this research?

He ain't kicked the can any farther down the road that any of the others!

Older guys like me, WRB, Raul, Roger, Paul Roberts & many others have read these same arguments. I've read em about LMB, SMB, Crappie, a whole host of saltwater fish, & deer.

How bass see, how bass perceive colors, the whole spawning ritual come up quite often.

If this conversation comes up quite often, would that not suggest that there are a lot of people interested in this information?   Being old is not an excuse for being rude.    99.9% of the conversations on this board have been re-hashed over and over, but most of  people on this board don't seem to feel the need to make rude and offensive posts to get their point across.    

Why not add your observations in a positive way and contribute to the conversation instead of ruining it for those of us that find it interesting.

Use your powers for good instead of evil.   Congrats on completing your degree recently.

 

[Catt]

2 minutes ago, Molay1292 said:

If this conversation comes up quite often, would that not suggest that there are a lot of people interested in this information?   Being old is not an excuse for being rude.    99.9% of the conversations on this board have been re-hashed over and over, but most of  people on this board don't seem to feel the need to make rude and offensive posts to get their point across.    

Why not add your observations in a positive way and contribute to the conversation instead of ruining it for those of us that find it interesting.

Use your powers for good instead of evil.   Congrats on completing your degree recently.

 

Ya think rude!

Good for you!

Ya don't have to read what I post, ya choose to!

There are more than one point if veiw to any discussion!

This same research has been done almost verbtim for years!

 

[Molay1292]

Just now, Catt said:

Ya think rude!

Good for you!

Ya don't have to read what I post, ya choose to!

There are more than one point if veiw to any discussion!

This same research has been done almost verbtim for years!

 

I am aware this research is not new, but I always enjoy reading what others have found, never know when you might find a gem.   You're correct, always two sides of the coin, but how about treating others with the same courtesy that you're treated with.   Why the need to be rude and nasty when making points?   Typically I read very little of your posts because they typically have the same tone to them, but I dislike it when they ruin a good conversation. 

[makelures]

12 minutes ago, Catt said:

Do you really think makelure is the first to do this research?

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! ;-)

 

[Catt]

30 minutes ago, Molay1292 said:

I am aware this research is not new, but I always enjoy reading what others have found, never know when you might find a gem.   You're correct, always two sides of the coin, but how about treating others with the same courtesy that you're treated with.   Why the need to be rude and nasty when making points?   Typically I read very little of your posts because they typically have the same tone to them, but I dislike it when they ruin a good conversation. 

Quite reading my posts, it's that simple

 

28 minutes ago, makelures said:

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! ;-)

 

Never said ya did!

A lot of us older guys that read your research or others & applied it on the water seem to get beat up by your following!