How Bass See Color

[aavery2]

I agree with the blue, disagree about reds, based on over 60 years experience catching lots of bass from depths between 0 to over 60'. You wonder why salt water rock fish like red snapper and cow cod are bright red/orange living in 300' to 600' deep? The color jigs you use to catch those rock fish can be important at those 300' to 600' deep! Fish don't see colors the way we do.

Tom

Tom, I am trying to understand some of the points you are making.   Can you elaborate on why you feel that catching fish as deep as 60 feet means that red is visible at that depth.   The other thing I am not clear on is your point of fish living at 300-600 ft deep being red/orange, are you relating the color of the fish somehow to what colors are visible at that depth. 

[WRB]

The color combination clear soft plastic with red flakes is a good deep water 30' to 60' during the winter. Another good combination is smoke soft plastic with micro gold flake and neon blue blood line. Clear soft plastic with salt & pepper (silver & black ) flake doesn't work well deeper than 30' during winter.

With everything being the same, size, line, speed and same angler you would think salt & pepper would be more visible and the clear red flake invisible to the bass based on color studies that indicate red isn't good in low light.

The point with the rock fish, most are red color, the fish must be able to see their own color to stay together as a school and the predator fish that feed on them.

The "science" of how bass see color doesn't support reality. The reason I add red crystal flash is to help the bass see my hair jigs in poor light and it works very well based on success. I don't know of any other angler who has caught more giant bass using jigs than I have.

Tom

[Catt]

I assure you Catt that my comprehension is fine. What I have not been able to understand is your argument, and the truth is I am not sure you do either. So make me look bad and spell it out for me.

Spell it out for you!

Ok, all the science you & others have qouted has been deemed by scientific law as

Low in ecological validity

Questionable as to whether or not data collected does truly reflect a "real life" situation.

In a controlled environment the following has been removed.

Variable depths, which lessen light penetration

Variable water clairites

Variations in sky color

Variations of the sun's angle

Winds

Algae

All of the above effect has colors are seen & perceived!

Ya can't throw those conditions out & say I understand how bass see color.

[Dwight Hottle]

I said it once before in jest. But until you can talk to a bass it is all conjecture.

[aavery2]

I said it once before in jest. But until you can talk to a bass it is all conjecture.

I respect your opinion.

[aavery2]

Spell it out for you!

Ok, all the science you & others have qouted has been deemed by scientific law as

Low in ecological validity.

Do you have a reference to this claim, so far I have only seen it presented as your opinion.  Just a link or a quote will work.

Questionable as to whether or not data collected does truly reflect a "real life" situation.

In a controlled environment the following has been removed.

Variable depths, which lessen light penetration

Variable water clairites

Variations in sky color

Variations of the sun's anglee

Winds

Algae

All of the above effect has colors are seen & perceived!

I still have no idea what you are in reference to. But I will say this, your right testing in a lab is not real life, it does not account for all of the variables that you mentioned.  But that is not always what the research is trying to prove.   You can prove a bass can see red without accounting for all of the variables that you mention.  Maybe they can only see the color red under ideal circumstances created in a lab environment, but how does that take away from the fact that they can see red.  You add these variables back into the research one at a time and your start to understand how they play a part in when, where why and how.   As mentioned before , I don't understand your logic.

Ya can't throw those conditions out & say I understand how bass see color.  Have you heard anyone make that claim, that they understand how bass see.  All that has been posted is bits and pieces of research and studies that have been conducted along with personal experience.  It is a discussion not a declaration.

Catt, I will finish by saying that I am disappointed that with all of your experience and time on the water that you have chose to be so negative about this whole conversation, I am disappointed  because it leaves me wondering what we all might have learned if we would have chose to share rather than to spending time picking others apart. 

 

I'll give you the last words, as this will be my last post on the topic.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Catt]

aavery2, you claim to understand science but obviously you do not!

Everything I have listed are the laws of science & had you understood science you would have recognized this.

I'm studying to get a degree in the Philosophy of Science which is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, & implications of science. The central questions concern what counts as science, the reliability of scientific theories, & the purpose of science.

[aavery2]

Catt, I wish you good luck with that degree, it is an accomplishment that can't ever be taken from you. As it pertains to Philosophical Science, I tend to follow the thinking of Paul Feyeraband.

[RSM789]

I have the type of personality that often dissects a subject to the point of annoyance to others. However, when it comes to color when choosing lures, all I try to do is get close to matching what the bass are currently eating. If bright red crawdads are the specialty on todays menu, I believe it is more important to match that color (and action) than to figure out how the bass sees the color red or at what depth red is not visible.

IMO, knowing how bass see color may be important, but far less important than knowing what the bass are currently keying on.

[Lund Explorer]

So there is no Science or Technology associated with bass fishing,   news to me.   I find it sad that you have to resort to these types of post.

 

I didn't think it was about the fish with you.  I only find it sad that I am stupid enough to try to inject a little common sense into these kinds of discussions.

 

When a subject such as "How do bass see color" comes up, a logical person would assume that it dealt with how to improve a person's chances at catching fish.  Sadly, there are too many people who will take whatever science (proven or otherwise) and think they have found the one key to the big bad secret of how to catch a fish. 

 

As I posted earlier, nothing could be further from the truth.  Color vision is an extremely minor factor when you consider all of the variables.  If you were a real student of this crazy game of fishing, you would look even more skeptically at this so called science.  Charlatans have already brought us a number of "science driven" miracles guaranteed to improve your odds of catching bass.  And many gullible fisherman have bought into their schemes, giving others the incentive to come up with their own theories that they can market.

 

This junk science is not limited to vision, and every aspect has its adherents.  I'm sure that it is only a matter of time before we see another thread titled "How Do Bass Smell"!  Perhaps the subject of "How Do Bass Chew" is the missing key!

 

So I apologize profusely that my comment that color vision isn't as important as you have deemed it to be upset you so greatly.  I should have known better, that other people's opinions shouldn't be allowed to cloud your vision.

[Lund Explorer]

When reading articles written about how bass see colors my baseline is my own experience, not science.

What I have learned from papers written rarely support what my personal experience has been. My first run into color study was by Dr Loren Hill, who was also a good pro bass angler, when he came out with hid Color- C -Lector, based on his studies of bass vision. Gave it a good try, some of the color combos were very different from anything I had used prior to this. Smoke translucent gray with hot lime green or hot orange proved to be excellent combos. However other proven color combos like cinnamon with blue were not on the chart and those are still good today.

The colors the bass reacted to in Hill's study are very similar to nearly every study since; reds disappear quickly and blues stay blue deeper than any other color.

I agree with the blue, disagree about reds, based on over 60 years experience catching lots of bass from depths between 0 to over 60'. You wonder why salt water rock fish like red snapper and cow cod are bright red/orange living in 300' to 600' deep? The color jigs you use to catch those rock fish can be important at those 300' to 600' deep! Fish don't see colors the way we do.

Tom

 

Don't forget to include the fact that a number of lure manufacturers paid Dr. Hill for the marketing rights to produce entire lines of lures tied directly to this science.  Fishermen were encouraged to make sure that they never left the boat ramp without lures covering every possible color combination this amazing device guided you to.

 

I can remember several of our bass club members buying into the whole scheme.  Right down to the point that when they failed to catch winning limits at a tournament, they knew that it was their poor use of science.  They would ask what others caught fish on, and comment that it didn't make any sense because the miracle machine hadn't been anywhere close to those colors.

 

I can only assume that the reason that every fisherman doesn't own one of these things today, is because we are all to stupid to use it correctly. 

 

It surely couldn't be that the science was wrong!

[greentrout]

 

Old school basser...

[hawgenvy]

I find it amazing that people who depend on science for so much take it for granted. Without science fishing is wading in the water with a hand woven net, or handlining from a dugout canoe with a home made rope and a bone hook.  Of course experience is important in fishing, and so is learning from others, but the technology of fishing tackle, boats, and electronics, as well as fisheries management, ecology, and conservation efforts all stem from some serious science.  If you want to know how bass see, as all of you who are reading the post seem to have an interest in, you need logical analysis, and that's science. Even trying out different lures in different situations is an experiment of sorts. If you kept a log of what works when, under what conditions, and analyzed it, you'd have a bit of science that might help you catch fish the next time you go out.

[aavery2]

"Seeing Red" ...a poem...Ahem...

 

Red is an apple ripe on the vine.

Red is of Kool-Aide, grapes, and wine.

Red is of tumescence, lipstick, lingerie, and high, high heels.

Red's pretty important to people.

Tackle manufacturer's see Green when they offer Red!

Makes me see Red.

Paul, this is ridiculous, everyone knows apples don't grown on a vine.  

[aavery2]

I didn't think it was about the fish with you.  I only find it sad that I am stupid enough to try to inject a little common sense into these kinds of discussions.

Your wrong, it is exactly that, about the fish, not catching the fish.   The funny thing about common sense is that it is not very common.  

 

When a subject such as "How do bass see color" comes up, a logical person would assume that it dealt with how to improve a person's chances at catching fish.  Sadly, there are too many people who will take whatever science (proven or otherwise) and think they have found the one key to the big bad secret of how to catch a fish. 

When you say logical person I assume you mean yourself.  I choose to discuss the topic and let everyone else use the information that comes from it for whatever purpose they choose, not shoehorn them into my way of thinking.

 

As I posted earlier, nothing could be further from the truth.  Color vision is an extremely minor factor when you consider all of the variables.  If you were a real student of this crazy game of fishing, you would look even more skeptically at this so called science.  Charlatans have already brought us a number of "science driven" miracles guaranteed to improve your odds of catching bass.  And many gullible fisherman have bought into their schemes, giving others the incentive to come up with their own theories that they can market.

Would not a strong understanding of how fish see color make these type of devices much easier to see for what they really are.  I mean if you had knowledge and understanding why would you spend hard earned money and time with a device like this.  You can only be taken advantage of when you let someone.  People tend to prey on the uneducated and the fearful.

 

This junk science is not limited to vision, and every aspect has its adherents.  I'm sure that it is only a matter of time before we see another thread titled "How Do Bass Smell"!  Perhaps the subject of "How Do Bass Chew" is the missing key!

I think this only further shows that your mindset is about catching fish, not understanding fish. Let's suppose someone did want to discuss how fish smell, what is it about that conversation that would bother you?  

 

So I apologize profusely that my comment that color vision isn't as important as you have deemed it to be upset you so greatly.  I should have known better, that other people's opinions shouldn't be allowed to cloud your vision.

I think if you go back through these posts you will find a common theme.  That is your intolerance and rudeness.  I am far from upset, I find your posts funny but sad.

 

People fear what they cant understand and hate what they can't conquer.

 

Andrew Smith

[hawgenvy]

 

This photo of a Florida LM bass, caught in my backyard earlier today, shows the irridescent blue under the lower jaw. The photo is not retouched in any way. I could not find this blue coloration described on the internet.

[Heloman]

Tom,

What line size and color do you use? What jighead design and weights?

[WRB]

Tom,

What line size and color do you use? What jighead design and weights?

Winter Sunline Super Sniper FC 10#, green. Fish deeper in the winter.

Pre Spawn through Fall 14#, green. Fish between 1' to 35' or around the thermocline when it's there.

I can see green line better when jig fishing than clear, otherwise clear is good.

I make my jigs, 7/16 oz and 5/8 oz with 5/0 #114 Gamakatsu.

PM me your email and will send a few jig photos if interested.

Tom

[Paul Roberts]

Paul, this is ridiculous, everyone knows apples don't grown on a vine.  

 

Poetic license.

[BasshunterJGH]

Winter Sunline Super Sniper FC 10#, green. Fish deeper in the winter.

Pre Spawn through Fall 14#, green. Fish between 1' to 35' or around the thermocline when it's there.

I can see green line better when jig fishing than clear, otherwise clear is good.

I make my jigs, 7/16 oz and 5/8 oz with 5/0 #114 Gamakatsu.

PM me your email and will send a few jig photos if interested.

Tom

How do you make your jigs? I'd like to see pictures as well. Thanks

[flipin4bass]

According to a passage in the wonderful book (which I highly recommend to scientific-minded folks among you bassers),  KNOWING BASS, The Scientific Approach to Catching More Fish, by Keith A. Jones, PhD (Lyons Press, 2002):

 

Dr. Don McCoy of Univ. Kentucky "found that largemouths ... quickly learned to distinguish between colors falling in the red and green sectors of the spectrum but struggled to differenciate shades of blue. This suggests that bass color vision is relatively good from red to green but weak in the blues and violets. According to McCoy's findings, bass have their highest color discrimination capabilities around two areas: yellow-green (wavelengths measuring 540 nm) and yellow-orange (610nm). In these areas they could distinguish between colors differing as little as 5 nm".

 

Now, this does not tell us what baits to use when, but there are other passages in the book that address lure selection based on science. Clearly water depth, water color, water clarity, and time of day all play a role in color vision. Contrast between bait and surroundings are important, and of course odor, low frequency sounds, and lure vibration and water movement detectable by the lateral line system are all factors that combine to determine if and how a bass bites a bait. And then there are factors that are internal in the bass, like how hungry the guy is. I am glad there are good scientists out there learning more about bass biology and behavior.

 

I have noticed lately a seeming increase in the subtle turqoise blue coloration on the underside of the jaws of LMB that I have cought over the past two weeks, wondering if it has something to do with mating behavior. I guess it is odd since they supposedly don't see blue well.  (Where I live in S Florida, spawning season starts soon.) If anyone has noticed this blue color and understands what it might be, please let me know!

 

Happy catching!

This is one of the best books on bass biology and it's a shame it's no longer in print. When I acquired my first copy of the book a few years ago, it brought back memories of a fish biologist back in Illinois who took me under his wing and gave me up close lessons on the internal structure of bass. This is a great book and would be well worth the price if you can find a copy.

[Lund Explorer]

Only because my opinion seems to upset the simple minded, I'd like to make the following statement.

 

Just to be perfectly clear, I don’t have any problem with real scientific research and theory when it has a purpose, and even more so when the knowledge gained has an effect on my life. 

 

I do have a problem with junk science, research done for no other purpose than to turn a profit, or theories that have not gone through proper peer review.   I also have no interest in any science that to me has absolutely no purpose. 

 

Because I am a somewhat skeptical person by nature, I tend to look at many of these discoveries a little more critically than some others.  Over the years this has saved me untold thousands of dollars, not to mention the stress inherent with fear.

 

If I wasn’t this way, I would have given away my soon to be worthless home back in the 1970’s before the predicted ice age buried it under a few hundred feet of glacier.  I’d be moving back today because it would only be a matter of time before global warming put all of Florida under 10’ of water.  In the realm of fishing, I would have been the guy with hundreds of lures across every spot of the spectrum of colors some machine told me to use.  I would have driven back and forth across the lake looking for the perfect spot based on it’s “ph” level.  I’d be the guys throwing my baits at the turtles that my amazing “side-finder” pointed out to me as being bass.  And quite seriously, I really don’t care about the mating habits of spider monkeys, dung beetles, or the lop-eared Madagascar fruit bat.  Those things only upset me when I have to help pay for it.

[Mitchell205]

Not to get to complicated haha.... Having friends and family that are color blind has made me come up with a theory.... When you see something that's a specific color lets say red ... If your not color blind anyone would answer if asked that it's red .... Now why did they say it's red? Because when they were younger someone told them that color was called red .... With that said that doesn't mean we all see that color the same or for that matter that we even see the same color at all...we give colors name that have been passed down ... I don't think we all see colors the same way and I don't think bass do either.... Science is not perfect or exact even though it strives to be and until we know all there is to know about the brain and how it works I will be sticking to my theory hahaha....

[roadwarrior]

Colors are defined by wavelengths:  http://science-edu.larc.nasa.gov/EDDOCS/Wavelengths_for_Colors.html

 

The visible red light has a wavelength of about 650 nm.

[WRB]

NUV, near ultraviolet is visible to insects, birds, fish and some children, 300-400 nm.

Thought I add that to the discussion.

Tom