Jump to content
Fly Tying
Sign in to follow this  
pop-er-pa

Can fish see UV glue?

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

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...