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

[fissure_man]

2 hours ago, Catt said:

How Fish Vision Affects Intelligent Fishing Tackle Color Selection. 

In other words ya book aint said nothing!

Sounds like the old guard getting defensive when science touches on their beliefs.

Nothing new here  

 

1 hour ago, makelures said:

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 think it's more accurate to say that they do play by the rules, we just don't know what all the rules are.  If a bass shows a preference for a certain lure/profile/color/size/speed/etc., I believe there is a reason for it, even if I don't know what the reason is.  

If theory and experience are contradictory, then one or both are wrong (or incomplete, or misguided).  This is the core of science, hypotheses are tested by experience (controlled experimentation), and are revised or thrown out if they don't agree.

 

40 minutes ago, WRB said:

The question is why do they choose to strike a specific color in very low light with everything else being equal? I don't know!! It's always trail and error and problem solving on the water.

I agree, at least until we learn more about bass behavior and all the factors that might affect color preference.  As our understanding of these factors increases, informed decisions can start to cut down the trial and error.  History shows everything is too complex to understand, until we understand it  

[WRB]

42 minutes ago, fissure_man said:

Sounds like the old guard getting defensive when science touches on their beliefs.

Nothing new here  

 

I think it's more accurate to say that they do play by the rules, we just don't know what all the rules are.  If a bass shows a preference for a certain lure/profile/color/size/speed/etc., I believe there is a reason for it, even if I don't know what the reason is.  

If theory and experience are contradictory, then one or both are wrong (or incomplete, or misguided).  This is the core of science, hypotheses are tested by experience (controlled experimentation), and are revised or thrown out if they don't agree.

 

I agree, at least until we learn more about bass behavior and all the factors that might affect color preference.  As our understanding of these factors increases, informed decisions can start to cut down the trial and error.  History shows everything is too complex to understand, until we understand it  

I spent over 50 years designing, developing and testing products for aerospace usage and understand the discipline of through research. The fact I somehow managed to catch a few hundred DD size bass wasn't by using the blind squirrel technique and understand these big bass better then most anglers.

Tom

[fissure_man]

2 minutes ago, WRB said:

I spent over 50 years designing, developing and testing products for aerospace usage and understand the discipline of through research. The fact I somehow managed to catch a few hundred DD size bass wasn't by using the blind squirrel technique and understand these big bass better then most anglers.

Tom

LOL what is the blind squirrel technique?

I'm not questioning your qualifications; I'm questioning the dismissal of research because it doesn't stand alone as a foolproof lure selection guide.  It's a piece of the puzzle, one that even you have not finished putting together.

Should we stop researching because you've fished for 50 years and know everything there is to know?  Should the aerospace industry do the same?

[Catt]

Empirical evidence: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

If theory & evidence are contradictory, then theory is disproved.

After observable is repeatable; if theory & evidence are contradictory there can be no repeatability.

A disclaimer to this kinds of research should read: while we know the anatomy of a fishes eye this reflects colors as seen through human eyes & interpreted by the human brain.

Take the color red, we know through the human eye & interpreted by the human brain it is the first color to "disappear". Empirical evidence shows lure with the color red in them are for more productive the lures without red. Yet most anglers don't normally select red cause it's not on most color selection charts.

[WRB]

2 minutes ago, fissure_man said:

LOL what is the blind squirrel technique?

I'm not questioning your qualifications; I'm questioning the dismissal of research because it doesn't stand alone as a foolproof lure selection guide.  It's a piece of the puzzle, one that even you have not finished putting together.

Should we stop researching because you've fished for 50 years and know everything there is to know?  Should the aerospace industry do the same?

Fishing blind and hoping to catch something verses knowing where to fish and catching them consistantly.

Who is advocating to stop research, what I am saying the research to date doesn't answer the basic question; how do bass see colors under very low light. The answer will be found when the facts lead to answers instead of interjecting perceived conclusions. As it stands now the physiology supports the conclusion bass can't see colors at night or in water with very little light and I disagree. The science to date can't determine how the fish interprets various light waves like ultra violet for example.

We will agree to disagree.

Tom

[Mike L]

I hate it when threads get to this point. When you guys start to explain another creatures makeup and try to explain it all in scientific, technical and theoretic terms.

The truth is we DON'T know exactly how or what a fish sees, feels, hears or tastes. Some of you fellas are highly intelligent with decades of data, and I appreciate and admire your intelligence and willing to share all your knowledge. I wish I was as educated as you.

 But I for one don't want to know everything there is to know about how a star is born, how a black hole is formed or what a fish knows or don't know.

Don't misunderstand, I appreciate you sharing and welcome another of these discussions,  disagreement's when it will invariably happen. Call it and me what you will as I'm too old to change now. 

But Sometimes just knowing what I don't know is good enough for me. 

 

Mike 

 

 

 

[Mastermarsh]

I really didn't want to get involved here, but as a PhD candidate in freshwater Ichthyology this dismal of research is rather disheartening. Fissure man is by no means saying that the research is indisputable, but rather should serve as a reference point for further investigation into the field of color recognition/ preference in all species of fish.  

The complete dismissal of scientific research for anecdotal evidence based on years of experience is silly. In no way shape or form are you able to recreate the weather conditions, water temperatures, baitfish activity, and water clarity in which specific lures work. But to say that studying the anatomy of a fishes eye and offering color choices isn't valid is closed minded at best. As lovers of the sport and always wanting to improve, I would think that considering the widest range of available information to the most beneficial. 

Although I will be the first to concede that theory, research, and results do not always play nice with with one another. But thats the fun in science, and more importantly the sport of fishing as a whole. There will never be a cut and dry answer to what color bait the fish will prefer, but using research to help aid in bait selection seems like a surefire way to begin figuring them out.

[fissure_man]

1 hour ago, Catt said:

If theory & evidence are contradictory, then theory is disproved.

... or the evidence is flawed.  The success of red lures at catching bass (to quote your example) doesn't disprove anything about the physics of light.  Selective absorption of different wavelengths of light in water is observable and repeatable, and requires no assumptions about human or bass eyes/brains.  How this affects bass fishing is a separate question.  Perhaps bass prefer red lures at times because of their tendency to be less visible.

1 hour ago, WRB said:

We will agree to disagree.

Fair enough.  No offense intended  

[Catt]

40 minutes ago, Mastermarsh said:

 

The complete dismissal of scientific research for anecdotal evidence based on years of experience is silly. 

So you dismiss observational evidence?

4 minutes ago, fissure_man said:

... or the evidence is flawed. 

So you believe theory over observed evidence?

[fissure_man]

38 minutes ago, Catt said:

So you dismiss observational evidence?

Dismiss? No.  But when observations are made in an uncontrolled environment, one needs to be aware of the variables in play, and the uncertainty they introduce to any conclusions drawn.

38 minutes ago, Catt said:

So you believe theory over observed evidence?

Also no.  But not all "evidence" is equal.  It is possible and common for people (including scientists) to observe a phenomenon, and draw a completely incorrect conclusion about its causality.  This is not evidence.  Look at the rest of my last post for an example.   

[Catt]

2 minutes ago, fissure_man said:

Dismiss? No.  But when observations are made in an uncontrolled environment, one needs to be aware of the variables in play, and the uncertainty they introduce to any conclusions drawn.

Also no.  But not all "evidence" is equal.  It is possible and common for people (including scientists) to observe a phenomenon, and draw a completely incorrect conclusion about its causality.  This is not evidence.  Look at the rest of my last post for an example.   

So you are choosing theory over empirical evidence?

So how does one prove a theory?

[scaleface]

Some things are debatable some  not debatable. What a bass can see is . How   light waves disappear under the water  is not .  

[fissure_man]

1 hour ago, Catt said:

So you are choosing theory over empirical evidence?

This is the exact same question you asked and I responded to in my previous post...? lol

1 hour ago, Catt said:

So how does one prove a theory?

Quoting myself (emphasis added):

5 hours ago, fissure_man said:

If theory and experience are contradictory, then one or both are wrong (or incomplete, or misguided).  This is the core of science, hypotheses are tested by experience (controlled experimentation), and are revised or thrown out if they don't agree.

This is going in circles.  I'll bow out.   

[Cgolf]

On June 12, 2016 at 4:53 PM, WRB said:

 

Color preferences in soft plastic lures for bass can make or break your day or night.

Tom

I like you have seen this, while I have way less experience than you do, I have one clear water lake I have spent a week a year on and have finally pieced together the colors depending on the conditions. 

Sun up and calm to relatively calm, it is smoke colored baits, bluegill or baits with purple flake are the best producers, while water red, green pumpkin, etc blank.

Overcast or chop on the water, water red, green pumpkin, etc work and smoke colored baits blank.

Once I got this figured out my catch rate sky rocketed, and time of year doesn't seem to matter either. I was quite stunned to see how specific they were in their color preferences. People look at me like I am nuts when I try to explain this to them lol. 

[Catt]

34 minutes ago, fissure_man said:

This is the exact same question you asked and I responded to in my previous post...? lol

Quoting myself (emphasis added):

This is going in circles.  I'll bow out.   

Theory:  an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

[Cgolf]

So reading this we can figure out what colors a fish should be able to see under certain light conditions based on the make up off their eyes, makes sense. We could definately use that as a starting point for color selection assuming that they will hit something they can see.

where we probably need some test data is what colors do bass really prefer under the different conditions, the ones they can see the best or something different entirely. I cracked the code on one lake, if anyone wants to fund my study I am game to do lots more research on some big name lakes;)

[WRB]

The late Dr. Loren Hill comes to mind every time this topic is discussed. The fact Loren was a touring bass angler gets over looked that he was director of biological research at Oklahoma U and developed a device, based on research, to help bass angler select colors bass preferred under various lighting conditions called Color C Lector. Look up the name and read some of Dr. Hill's research data on bass color vision.

Tom

 

[scaleface]

Scientific theory is not  hunch .

[Catt]

7 minutes ago, scaleface said:

Scientific theory is not  hunch .

a :  a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation

b :  an unproved assumption

[scaleface]

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.

[Cgolf]

45 minutes ago, cgolf said:

I like you have seen this, while I have way less experience than you do, I have one clear water lake I have spent a week a year on and have finally pieced together the colors depending on the conditions. 

Sun up and calm to relatively calm, it is smoke colored baits, bluegill or baits with purple flake are the best producers, while water red, green pumpkin, etc blank.

Overcast or chop on the water, water red, green pumpkin, etc work and smoke colored baits blank.

Once I got this figured out my catch rate sky rocketed, and time of year doesn't seem to matter either. I was quite stunned to see how specific they were in their color preferences. People look at me like I am nuts when I try to explain this to them lol. 

Putting some thought into this, I have a theory as to why these color patterns show so prominently on this body of water. Since the Bass hold in gill rich water, I would guess under flat water sunny conditions the gills reflect brighter, possibly silverish with flashes of color but not prominent color which explains the smoke flake tubes. 

Overcast conditions or when the chop breaks up the light. I would guess the gills show off more green to Bass, because they aren't reflecting light as much. This would explain why water red works so well under these conditions.

Tom probably has completely different scenario assuming bows are the main forage there. It is interesting that when I actually thought about it I was matching the hatch all along. 

So is the best plan to figure out how the main prey looks under different conditions and go with those colors? Cool thing about this thread is it got me thinking. 

[makelures]

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!

 

 

[Turkey sandwich]

Wow.  There are some interesting posts on here, but in favor of not reading in depth about the intricacies of all variables in a particular species of fish's eating habits to control them exclusively to color, I've decided that I'm simply going to dye all of my lures methiolate, the king of all colors. 

[Molay1292]

Great conversation, for the most part.   It seems that the research centered around this should focus on what colors provide the best visibility for fish in a certain set of conditions.   It seems less productive to try and determine what colors bass as a whole prefer to eat in particular conditions as it makes the assumption that all bass as a group prefer the same.    What if each bass, like humans, has the ability to decide its own?    

Thanks for taking the time to share your research makelures.    Without people like yourself, the rest of us would still be falling off the edge of the earth.

 

 

[makelures]

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