Jump to content
Fly Tying

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, mikechell said:

This fish was photographed as it looked at a fly tied with UV resin.  It is obviously enthralled with the psychedelic colors and will likely bite at it out of curiosity.

Evil Fish 2.jpg

 

This fish was photographed as it approached the same pattern fly, tied with natural materials and no UV resin.  It is clearly ready to attack the fly with bad intent!

Evil Fish.jpg

So there, photographic proof that fish SEE UV resins ... AND that it does affect the way they strike at a lure/fly.

 

 

Obviously warm water species!

Kim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JSzymczyk said:

You "know" only that the researcher made the conclusion that operant conditioning was occurring...  and that you agree with the conclusion.  You cannot truly know the reason the fish changed it's behavior. Your example shows fish exhibiting positive feedback (easy nutrition)    but not negative feedback (stress, injury, fatigue from trying to eat a hook) 

Good play, this is a bottomless rabbit hole.   It's a circular argument.  Same as the UV polymer visibility.   Yes the biology indicates that certain fish are capable of having sensors stimulated by the frequencies of energy it reflects- and possibly behavioral responses can be observed, but to definitively state how their brains interpret the information is not provable. 

at the end of the day ENOUGH fish ignore the giant steel hook on an otherwise reasonable suggestion of a food item to keep us going.   Flies created with UV resins catch fish.   Flies created without UV resins catch fish. 

The argument is not circular because of experimental evidence that operant conditioning exists in in fish, especially trout. Please expalin how the following experiments are "circular" per the definition below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

There is abundant scientific evidence for operant conditioning not only in fish but specifically in trout. I refer you to The Mind of the Trout: A Cognitive Ecology for Biologists and Anglers By Thomas C. Grubb. The section below specifically addresses operant conditioning. An initial snippet is below but you can read several pages more that follow.

https://books.google.com/books?id=poS_trWPaioC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=operant+conditioning+in+fish&source=bl&ots=8l0GzD4Hlh&sig=o7x69GBqLUiFMoGtKqUf6E1URgU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=-8k6VfeSNsbVsAXOgYHADA&ved=0CCUQ6AEwATgU#v=onepage&q=operant conditioning in fish&f=false

35585192981_344b233420_z.jpg

The articles below are about OC in other fish.

Operant conditioning of feeding behaviour and patterns of feeding in thick lipped mullet, Crenimugil labrosus (Risso) and common carp, Cyprinus carpio (L.)

[url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3312620/]Ontogeny of classical and operant learning behaviors in zebrafish[/url]

There are videos of Operant Conditioning of a gold fish using a food reward. This is exactly the type of operant conditioning used by dog trainers on dogs.

 

Explanation of the difference between classical and operant conditioning in fish:

"To support my findings of this experiment, one study found that gold fish can be classically conditioned (Gonzalez et al., 1962), and another study found that rainbow trouts can learn to operate a trigger to release food, which reflects operant conditioning (Landless, 1976).

https://reflectd.co/2014/05/11/even-a-fish-can-learn-aquarium-experiment-of-classical-conditioning/

Here's the bottom line. Your argument is NOT with me! Your argument with the scientists and authors of the articles and books I quoted. Their research shows that  operant conditioning modifies how fish behave. If you don't think they are right, prove them wrong.

 You still haven't backed down from your belief that fish "ignore the giant hook sticking out the ass-end of every single fly," even after I demonstrated that that belief was based on the logical fallacy of the biased sample.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know what it looks like to a fish. Being simple minded, I like to keep fishing simple and devoid of all stress or worry. Start throwing in fish psychology (lol), anatomy, charts, graphs, theory and trout IQ into fishing and I'm out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SilverCreek said:
15 hours ago, JSzymczyk said:

You "know" only that the researcher made the conclusion that operant conditioning was occurring...  and that you agree with the conclusion.  You cannot truly know the reason the fish changed it's behavior. Your example shows fish exhibiting positive feedback (easy nutrition)    but not negative feedback (stress, injury, fatigue from trying to eat a hook) 

Good play, this is a bottomless rabbit hole.   It's a circular argument.  Same as the UV polymer visibility.   Yes the biology indicates that certain fish are capable of having sensors stimulated by the frequencies of energy it reflects- and possibly behavioral responses can be observed, but to definitively state how their brains interpret the information is not provable. 

at the end of the day ENOUGH fish ignore the giant steel hook on an otherwise reasonable suggestion of a food item to keep us going.   Flies created with UV resins catch fish.   Flies created without UV resins catch fish. 

The argument is not circular because of experimental evidence that operant conditioning exists in in fish, especially trout. Please expalin how the following experiments are "circular" per the definition below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

There is abundant scientific evidence for operant conditioning not only in fish but specifically in trout. I refer you to The Mind of the Trout: A Cognitive Ecology for Biologists and Anglers By Thomas C. Grubb. The section below specifically addresses operant conditioning. An initial snippet is below but you can read several pages more that follow.

I feel like I'm back in the Mess, seeing one of my brother Chiefs engage a scientific member of the Wardroom. With no bitter end sighted, the only question is cutlasses or muskets?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/18/2021 at 12:11 PM, cphubert said:

I feel like I'm back in the Mess, seeing one of my brother Chiefs engage a scientific member of the Wardroom. With no bitter end sighted, the only question is cutlasses or muskets?

Cutlasses, of course.  Weak hand.   My right shoulder is trashed from three surgeries and wouldn't last. 

In the end,  if someone honestly DID figure out "the mind of the trout" (oh, let's open up the "brain vs. mind" can of prop-wash.....), just as if someone ever did honestly figure out "the mind of a woman",  it would take all the fun out of life, wouldn't it?   

Anyway, I have the highest respect for Dr. Silvercreek, stick to your guns and shift the burden of proof---   all your examples of "operant conditioning" are still positive reinforcement / reward based.   I don't see a way to present the fact, any other way, that EVERY SINGLE TROUT WHICH HAS BEEN CAUGHT ON A FLY SUGGESTING A KNOWN FOOD SOURCE, HAS "IGNORED" THE (relatively) GIANT STEEL HOOK STICKING OUT IT'S ASS END.    I'm not a classically educated man, but I fail to see how any more data could make that statement more, or less, true. 

I suppose the data shows that as far as humans can understand, the answer to the original question is... yes, (some) fish can see UV glue.  IF they possess a "mind", then at least a large fraction of them think what they are seeing is worth eating or attacking.  Good for us. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, JSzymczyk said:

Cutlasses, of course.  Weak hand.   My right shoulder is trashed from three surgeries and wouldn't last. 

In the end,  if someone honestly DID figure out "the mind of the trout" (oh, let's open up the "brain vs. mind" can of prop-wash.....), just as if someone ever did honestly figure out "the mind of a woman",  it would take all the fun out of life, wouldn't it?   

Anyway, I have the highest respect for Dr. Silvercreek, stick to your guns and shift the burden of proof---   all your examples of "operant conditioning" are still positive reinforcement / reward based.   I don't see a way to present the fact, any other way, that EVERY SINGLE TROUT WHICH HAS BEEN CAUGHT ON A FLY SUGGESTING A KNOWN FOOD SOURCE, HAS "IGNORED" THE (relatively) GIANT STEEL HOOK STICKING OUT IT'S ASS END.    I'm not a classically educated man, but I fail to see how any more data could make that statement more, or less, true. 

I suppose the data shows that as far as humans can understand, the answer to the original question is... yes, (some) fish can see UV glue.  IF they possess a "mind", then at least a large fraction of them think what they are seeing is worth eating or attacking.  Good for us. 

The other side of the coin is the positive punishment arm of operant conditioning.

Do you remember a few years ago when the purple haze fly was the hot fly of the summer and then it gradually fizzled out. I personally have experienced a hot fly that world for a while and then slowly and gradually seems to not work as well. How does that occur.

The explanation is positive punishment which most people think of a negative reinforcement.

https://somuchpetential.com/the-four-quadrants-of-consequences/

https://www.parentingforbrain.com/positive-punishment/

So this side of operant conditioning works animals and people and it works in fish as well. Fish that have been caught with a fly multiple time gradually learn to avoid that fly. This is positive punishment at work. The thing is that we cannot know what about that fly triggered the avoidance behavior. I think we can assume that size, shape, and even color probably has something to do with avoidance in some of the fish.

But here's the thing. For some fish it could be the presence of the hook or perhaps the hook in conjunction with something else. We can never know for certain in every case why the fish refused the fly.

But I do know that to say that the reason a fish refuses a fly has NEVER at any time before been because of a hook or never in the future will be because they noticed the hook is very unlikely to be a true statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting conversation.  I have to throw my opinion in with Silvercreek. In fact, negative conditioning is what led my to fly fishing.

As a kid, I fished a small pond regularly.  My favorite weapon was a motor oil worm fished near the surface in the classic lift and settle pattern.  This was devastating on the local largemouth bass population.  It didn't take many evolutions of catch and release before the local residents would rise on the worm, look it over and then sink back into the murk.

Change the color and BAM!  Fish on. Then the same pattern of rise and fall and no work would work.  I could see the fish refusing to take what not long before had been irresistible.  I bought a Pflueger #5 fiberglass noodle and Medalist set up and started fly fishing to give those local bass something different to look at.

Clearly, such a small sample size does not a statistical universe make but when combined with all the other experiments and evidence, it seems very convincing.

Not knowing what a fish can or cannot see is a solipsist argument.  Mental masturbation at best.  We do know that certain stimuli will cause fish to strike. They certainly appear to learn with experience.  Reasoning is not required on the piscine part. If you overcome the stimulus threshold, you will get a strike, otherwise a spoon would never work..  If you can't figure out the stimulus threshold, you go home with clean hands. 

Full disclosure:  I fish exclusively saltwater now.  Too many fish available for them to learn much about lures and patterns, I think.  Not like the limited population of a small pond.  I have found that presentation is more important than pattern.  Size is more important than color.  Sometimes not of that matters. Sometimes, only the most exact imitation and presentation will do and sometimes I catch fish despite myself. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FbN's post is why pro bass anglers carry an assortment of lures. I watched a few minutes of a bass tournament. One guy had six rods on the front deck. As a former bass angler, I'm sure that each one had a different lure to toss. I wouldn't be surprised if he threw all six in a specific area to dredge up a bass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that hasn't come up are eyes.  How important are eyes on flies, particularly on bait fish patterns.  I tend to put eyes on most of my fly patterns, that aren't trout related.   I like the look of them on poppers and sliders.  I doubt the fish notice.  I use them on Crease flies, which is basically a bait fish pattern, mostly used in salt water, though I find them effective in fresh water.  I add them to my larger woolly buggers and zonkers.  All my bait fish patterns have eyes, even the smallest ones that might be about an inch to an inch and a half long.  To me, the eyes make the patterns look more realistic, life like.  I think they're more important in salt water than fresh water.  This is based on a non-scientific observation.  Several times over the years, I've had fish, particularly bluefish, stop hitting flies after the eyes were knocked off.  I would change the fly, replacing it with the same pattern with eyes and the hits would start again.  I haven't had that issue in fresh water though I haven't fished lakes where there are bait fish that gather in large schools like thread fin or gizzard shad.  Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ever notice how big eyes are on bass lures? It is said that this is to attract fish and to zero on the head to swallow the "fish" headfirst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the topic of eyes or no eyes, I think the score is tied in the 4th quarter.  Personally, I put eyes on almost every fly I tie but I'm imitating baitfish, shrimp and other crustaceans, not insects.

Some folks say the eye gives the fish a visual clue to which end is which on the bait, as skeet pointed out. My understanding is that is the idea behind the eye-spot on the tail of a redfish and other species.  It confuses the predators.  I can easily see that eye shapes help the toothy fish make the decision to strike, like adding a data point to the stimulus threshold we try to overcome. It also makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint.  If redfish with tail spots confuse predators and live longer to reproduce more then pretty soon, almost all redfish have them because the genes they inherit produce them.

Of course, tail spots might just be sexier and that is why fish with spots reproduce more. For example, redheads represent about 1% or 2% of the world's population. If women suddenly found only redheads acceptable, the world would be ginger in the blink of an eye. No survival advantage but still an evolutionary shift. 

I haven't noted any real difference in takes between flies with and flies without. This means nothing because the sample size is so small with most of my flies having eyes.

I like eyes so I put them on. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I adamantly do NOT believe predators key on the eyes as a target.  Fish do not possess the reasoning capability to swim around and attempt to hit the head of a prey fish.  I DO believe that fish key in on the eyes for a completely different reason.

I do not remember where I read it, but it was suggested that playing with a cat is a good way to determine how the fish will act.  If the cat wants the toy moving fast, so will the fish.  If the cat won't attack until the toy is sitting still, same with the fish.  I've tried it a few times, it sometimes works.  Now to eyes.  We have several outdoor cats and they ALL behave the same way when stalking something in the yard.  They freeze when they think the prey is looking in their direction.  They'll approach or pounce when they can't see the prey's eyes.

I believe predator fish are similar.  If the prey fish's eyes are visible, the predator freezes.  As soon as it can't see the eyes, it moves ... either closer or all the way, committing to the hit.  The larger the eyes, the fewer chances the predator has to attack, so eyes might encourage a quicker attack.  On the other side, no eyes might encourage more hits, but the fish has more time to approach, since the prey isn't seeing it.

Opinion ... but based on my fishing experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was MUCH younger i was a survival camper.  As part of my survival fishing training we were taught to catch the fist fish and use the fins and particullarly the eyes for bait to catch the next.  i found this to be well suited, especially when catching perch.  So I wonder about predators and eyes.

Kim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...