Scientists claim fish 'learn like humans'

[Fishing Rhino]

Wednesday, 17 Jun 2009 09:51

The nine-spined stickleback Printer friendly version Scientists have claimed the way fish learn could be closer to humans than previously thought.

According to a study by St Andrews and Durham universities the nine-spined stickleback can compare the behaviour of other sticklebacks with their own experience and make a series of choices which can potentially lead to better food supplies.

The discovery could be the first in showing an animal exhibiting an important human social learning strategy, the report, published in the journal Behavioural Ecology, claims..................................................................

http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/environment/scientists-claim-fish-learn-like-humans--$1304546.htm

[senile1]

Interesting article, Fishing Rhino.  The more we learn, the more we find we know very little.  

[Steven Ladner]

Interesting article, Fishing Rhino. The more we learn, the more we find we know very little.

Very true.

Great article Rhino

[cabullwinkle]

This does not sound so good at the spots that have increased fishing pressure.  We're all going to have to get better just to catch fish in the future and continually adapt.  (Just as they do).  .

[SoFl-native]

I know many humans who dont seem to learn anything.

[Crestliner2008]

Hogwash! If that were true, no one would ever catch another bass on the texas rigged worm.  

[DINK WHISPERER]

I absolutely believe this to be true! Just by fishing a few lakes in my area for the past years. As the pressure increased over the years and tournaments did to, the less fish we catch! Makes sense i guess!

[George Welcome]

The nine-spined stickleback is not a LM Bass, cannot be compared any more than trout can be compared to LM Bass. To do so would be akin to saying all mammals are the same and cats are the same as humans.

[Fishing Rhino]

The nine-spined stickleback is not a LM Bass, cannot be compared any more than trout can be compared to LM Bass. To do so would be akin to saying all mammals are the same and cats are the same as humans.

The flaw in the above argument is that both the stickleback and the bass are fish.

A cat is not a human.

What we do not know is whether the bass or the stickleback is the smarter of the two.

Some claim that only humans are capable of cognizant thought. I say otherwise. I would not refer you to animals that work co-operatively on a hunt. That can be instinct.

Instead, I'll refer you to three particular things our male boxer does and has done with no input or training from anyone.

First. Boxers seem to love to "lose" toys under sofas, beds, furniture and beside and between them.

Whenever Indy "loses" a toy, from day one he has come to one of us to retrieve it. He will whine and plead for you to follow him, and will take you to the precise spot where the toy disappeared.

If you play dumb and ask him to show you where it is, he will circle and then face the exact same spot. You will invariably find it right there.

There were times I thought he was wrong, but when I got a flashlight to peek in some dark recess, sure enough, there it was.

Indy will let you know when he wants a treat. He'll fuss and take you to the cabinet where they are kept. One time, I adamantly refused to follow him. He went to the door and whined to be let out.

As I got near the door, he scurried over to the cabinet. I'd call that cognizant thought. Somehow, he formulated a plan to deceive me.

The third incident.

When Indy was about a year old, reliable and trustworthy, we decided to get him a companion. That companion was a white female boxer who was his sister/cousin. Same father and there mothers were sisters.

When we brought her home, she would get all the attention since she was a puppy and snow white save for one small brown spot behind one of her ears.

Both would go to greet guests, but Ava, without fail got the most attention, in part because of the above, but also because she demanded it.

Poor Indy was feeling neglected.

On one occasion as someone was arriving, both ran to the door to greet them. But the wheels were turning in Indy's doggy brain. As soon Ava started to get the attention, Indy ran into the other room, grabbed a toy from the box and upon his return, held it out to them as a bribe.

Cognizant thought? You decide.

[George Welcome]

"The flaw in the above argument is that both the stickleback and the bass are fish.

A cat is not a human."

No, but they are both of the class Mammalia but of totally different family and species

A stickleback and a bass are of the class Pisces but of totally different family and species.

Even within Family groups there are drastic differences never mind making the magnum leap from class to species. For example a lion and a  Manx are both feline but certainly that's where the similarity ends.

[Catt]

Yelp by the year 2525 they will be driving bass boats

[Mattlures]

I have been saying for years that bass learn and get smarter with experiance. I have observed way to many things that would make me think they are just dumb fish that dont learn. It seems its usualy the older crowd that dismisses this. The younger guys seem to agree. I'm 37 so im in the middle. Not too old to learn new things but old enough to be a sceptic  

[Fishing Rhino]

"The flaw in the above argument is that both the stickleback and the bass are fish.

A cat is not a human."

No, but they are both of the class Mammalia but of totally different family and species

A stickleback and a bass are of the class Pisces but of totally different family and species.

Even within Family groups there are drastic differences never mind making the magnum leap from class to species. For example a lion and a Manx are both feline but certainly that's where the similarity ends.

Whether or not the study applies to bass, we do not know.  For all we know, bass may have higher "intellegence" than the stickleback.

What I found interesting in the article was the result of the study, which contradicted, if not showed previously held "truths" to be wrong.

Consider this.  Science uses animals for studying diseases.  We "know" that exposure to certain substances produce cancer.  We "know" this because it produces cancer in lab rats and mice.

Sharks do not develop cancer.  They have been, and to my knowlege are still being studied to understand why.  Hopefully when and if this mystery is solved, that understanding can be applied to humans and find either a cure or preventive for cancer.

I'm not surprised that some pooh pooh the scientific finding.  

It goes against the grain of commonly held opinion by fishing experts that fish have no memory and cannot learn.

[George Welcome]

You are never too old to learn new things. Bass have a brain, but as a cat can't be compared akin to a dog, a stickleback can't be compared to a bass.

One of the basic precepts of taxonomy is if they can't breed together than they are different and what applies to one may not  apply to the other.

This science is as salient today as when Linnaeus laid the ground rules in 1735.

[senile1]

I didn't think Fishing Rhino was saying that Sticklebacks and Bass were the same. I just thought he was presenting an interesting finding that could possibly be applied to other fish. No one currently knows if this is true or not. It's an interesting finding either way. No conclusion can be derived from it with any degree of confidence.

[Matt Fly]

Our biologists in Texas say that the majority of our fish, bass, don't ever see a lure in a years time.

Which is why I don't see how it effects catching any different now than back in the early days.    Fish are still doing what they did in the 60's, 70's, 80's.................. they spawn, they eat, they still like vegitation, still like shade and darkness, still ambush, still suspend, still break hearts once in awhile.

    We just have more tackle and techniques to persue them.