Can fish see UV glue?

[DarrellP 0]

On 1/31/2021 at 9:56 AM, SilverCreek said:

The way trout vision is measure is by examining the retina of trout. Form leads to function.

They have rods and cones just like humans have rods and cones. Adult trout have 3 types of cones and they are centered on about the same color frequencies as human cones. If they were not, we could not actually match the color of the food they see. In other words, if we matched the color of a blue winged olive fly with dubbing, the only way we could match the color the trout see is if the cones of the trout were centered at the same color frequencies that humans see.

Human blue cone is centered on 437 λ, trout is 434 λ. Human red cone is centered on 533 λ, trout is 531 λ. Human green cone is centered on 564 λ and trout is 576 λ. There is excellent correspondence between the color hues that a human sees and a trout trout sees.

Similarly, the density of the cones in the retina determine the detail that trout can see. Humans have a macula for detail vision that has 14 times the density of cones that trout have so we see 14 times the detail that trout see. That is why we can fool them with patterns that "simulate" the natural and are not exact duplicates of the natural. Even when trout are extremely selective, they can be fooled because the see detail poorly BUT the lack of detail does NOT affect the ability to see motion. 

Cone and rod density does not affect the ability to see whether there is motion or not. So they see drag very well and when they are closer to the fly that we are, they can see "micro" drag that we cannot see from farther off.

So trout essentially "see" the shape and colors that we see but we see it in greater detail.

This is amazing information.  Thanks for posting.

[Sandan 0]

On 2/8/2021 at 10:05 PM, DarrellP said:

This is amazing information.  Thanks for posting.

+1 thanks @SilverCreek

[mikechell 0]

We see greater detail ... but they'll eat a fly I can't thread a tippet through.  🙄

 

😄

[Sandan 0]

24 minutes ago, mikechell said:

We see greater detail ... but they'll eat a fly I can't thread a tippet through.  🙄

 

😄

@mikechell Crack me up. That was funny Mike 

[Meeshka 0]

There is also a paperback out from 1999: " What Fish See " by Dr Colin Kageyama.  Haven't read it myself but just thought I would give some imput

[JSzymczyk 0]

They ignore the giant hook sticking out the ass-end of every single fly we tie but we worry about if they can see a specific wavelength of light......  

 

[SilverCreek 0]

11 hours ago, JSzymczyk said:

They ignore the giant hook sticking out the ass-end of every single fly we tie but we worry about if they can see a specific wavelength of light......  

 

It's really two different questions.

The first is whether the fish actually SEES what WE SEE. This goes to the question of whether we humans even have the biologic ability to create patterns that imitate what the fish sees.

Your post is about selectivity  - why a fish chooses to eat or not to eat a certain item.

[mikechell 0]

One thing is certain ... NO fish has ever looked at a fly and thought, "THAT'S fake, with that hook, and that badly tied tippet knot!"

Since fish (or any animal besides man) do not have the ability to understand language or use it, higher reasoning is impossible.

Can they see hooks, UV resins, badly tied flies vs. well tied flies, etc., etc.?  Probably.  Does it matter?  Probably not.  Heavily pressured fish are conditioned to avoid certain lures, baits, flies, presentation, etc., because they have bitten them before and been bitten back.  This is why new patterns or colors work better than old ones ... because the fish haven't been conditioned to avoid them, yet.  After a while, the fish become conditioned to the newer patterns/colors (or a new crop of fish move in) and the old patterns/colors come back into play.

 

[RickZieger 0]

I wonder if the UV glue reflects or refracts light that might attract fish.  Maybe imitate an air bubbble?

 

Rick 

[JSzymczyk 0]

8 hours ago, SilverCreek said:

Your post is about selectivity  - why a fish chooses to eat or not to eat a certain item.

color and form - some very experienced people are adamant that color is very minor factor, far less important than other variables - both play a role in the fish's choice.  Degree of importance aside, what the fish interprets compared to what we interpret when we both "see" with our eyes are obviously not the same.   Whether or not they interpret what they see when they see a glob of UV-activated as something worth striking (for whatever reason) is settled.  My post went down the road of pointing out that we as fly tyers and fishermen (women, and whatever else, I can't keep up with the times) get wrapped around the axle quite often on details which can seem insignificant in the big picture.   we worry about thread color on a #20 dry fly as if it actually matters,  when there are an infinite number of variables involved in every presentation--- not least of which is the (relatively) giant steel hook sticking out the ass-end of every fly we tie.. 

[SilverCreek 0]

5 hours ago, mikechell said:

One thing is certain ... NO fish has ever looked at a fly and thought, "THAT'S fake, with that hook, and that badly tied tippet knot!"

Since fish (or any animal besides man) do not have the ability to understand language or use it, higher reasoning is impossible.

Can they see hooks, UV resins, badly tied flies vs. well tied flies, etc., etc.?  Probably.  Does it matter?  Probably not.  Heavily pressured fish are conditioned to avoid certain lures, baits, flies, presentation, etc., because they have bitten them before and been bitten back.  This is why new patterns or colors work better than old ones ... because the fish haven't been conditioned to avoid them, yet.  After a while, the fish become conditioned to the newer patterns/colors (or a new crop of fish move in) and the old patterns/colors come back into play.

 

Indeed. Remember when the color purple was popular as in the Purple Haze.

Again it is operant conditioning at work.

One does not need a dog or a higher level animal for operant conditioning to occur. It was once thought that fish did not have the CNS system that would allow operant conditioning, but that view has long been discarded. The overwhelming evidence is that operant conditioning not only occurs under experimental conditions but in the wild. That was the the focus of my reference to my previous post on the development of selectivity in trout.

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

Scientists have also shown that fish do remember. I believe that if these same tests were done on trout they would also demonstrate memory.

http://www.howfishbehave.ca/pdf/Long-term%20memory.pdf

Memory like a fish - Research - University of Cambridge

Fish's memories last for months, say scientists - Telegraph

 

 

 

[SilverCreek 0]

On 2/14/2021 at 10:27 PM, JSzymczyk said:

They ignore the giant hook sticking out the ass-end of every single fly we tie but we worry about if they can see a specific wavelength of light......  

 

 

14 hours ago, JSzymczyk said:

color and form - some very experienced people are adamant that color is very minor factor, far less important than other variables - both play a role in the fish's choice.  Degree of importance aside, what the fish interprets compared to what we interpret when we both "see" with our eyes are obviously not the same.   Whether or not they interpret what they see when they see a glob of UV-activated as something worth striking (for whatever reason) is settled.  My post went down the road of pointing out that we as fly tyers and fishermen (women, and whatever else, I can't keep up with the times) get wrapped around the axle quite often on details which can seem insignificant in the big picture.   we worry about thread color on a #20 dry fly as if it actually matters,  when there are an infinite number of variables involved in every presentation--- not least of which is the (relatively) giant steel hook sticking out the ass-end of every fly we tie.. 

There are things that you can prove and things you cannot. I need to comment on the above statements that you think are true.

You have used this example twice which you think proves that fish ignore the hook.

Logically, you really can't say that ALL the fish IGNORE the hook. The only thing you can say is that the fish you caught ignored the hook.

This is one of the logical fallacies that is quite common and is the fallacy of the "biased sample."

You have made this conclusion on the basis of the fish you have caught which obviously have ignored the hook. the fact is that if you examine your sampling method of using the fish you caught as your sample,  it has to detect fish fish that ignored the hook. So there is no possibility of detecting fish who are put off by "seeing" the hook.

http://nizkor.com/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html

There very well may be fish that ignore flies BECAUSE they have learned to avoid hooks. The way this would occur is by operant conditioning ---> positive punishment. We know that operant conditioning occurs in fish by the research I posted in my earlier post. So operant conditioning of fish to avoid flies with a hook is not out of the question. We know that fish have memories so it is not out of the question.

We even know that some fish ignore flies by looking at underwater videos of fish. But what we can't know is WHY they are ignoring the flies that are presented naturally without drag.

[WWKimba 0]

12 hours ago, SilverCreek said:

It's really two different questions.

The first is whether the fish actually SEES what WE SEE. This goes to the question of whether we humans even have the biologic ability to create patterns that imitate what the fish sees.

Your post is about selectivity  - why a fish chooses to eat or not to eat a certain item.

The way I look at it is the fish than can see the hook AREN'T caught and the fish that cannot see it ARE caught!

Kim

[JSzymczyk 0]

On 2/15/2021 at 9:35 PM, SilverCreek said:

 

operant conditioning ---> positive punishment. We know that operant conditioning occurs in fish by the research I posted in my earlier post.

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. 

[mikechell 0]

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.

 

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!

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