Posted by postcard on 2002 PM:

Question about aggression mode

Question about aggression mode:

A.Do you think that a fish has the intelligence to identify a living object as a particular animal (i.e. crawfish versus a bottom-crawling lizard) and that they target certain prevailing species to the exclusion of all else? or

B. Do you think that a fish simply perceives an object as, first, living and then,second, a potential food source? and/or

C. Do you think a fish has the intelligence of a rock and strikes, first, out of opportunistic aggression and then commits to swallowing or rejecting the object responsible for putting it into an ‘aggression mode’. ('Injestion mode' may be more accurate.)

Whichever choice you chose, may determine which baits you tie on.

Posted by Bassin Dude on 2002 PM:

All of "B" and a little of "C"

Fish don't think...

Fish don't reason...

Beside the spawn, their entire existence is their struggle to survive. They're hard-wired instinct created over years and years of evolutionary modeling causes them to react to stimuli in their environment in a certain specific way with the sole purpose of prolonging their life.

Relating to Travis's thread....

If one learns how a fish reacts to the differing conditions in their biome, then that person will be well on their way to becoming an ultra high level fisherman.

__________________
Tony

"As my own fishing seasons wind down to a precious few, it's nice to know I'll be there, be there as long as I can. As long as I can bait a hook and make a cast, as long as I am living, I intend to be fishing."

-Ron Schara

Posted by earthworm77 on 2002 AM:

opportunistic aggression -bass are opportunists!!

__________________
www.micromunchtackle.com

Posted by paridiseblue on 2002 AM:

i tried this in my tank. granted tank fish tend to be dumb but they eat everything that is dropped on their heads. if is edible they will eat it. if its inedeble they will spit it out. they can inhale and spit so fast that you would never know that they grabbed your lure. i think reaction to something moving is the key. they seem to be curious and want to pick it up. What in there underwater worlds resembles a hot pink lizard, or a bannana colored grub.???

i say C mostly but some B as well

__________________
1989 ranger boat and trailer $5500. tackle $4000 relationship counsling $125. boatload of bass....... PRICELESS

Posted by Scott C on 2002 PM:

There has to be some "A" in there too..........Objects have to look somewhat natural. You cant throw a hamburger in there and expect to catch bass. If there was a way to mold it into the shape of a craw or lizard then you might get more answer "B" type reaction.

__________________
Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?

Spawn till you die
ESBA

Posted by paridiseblue on 2002 PM:

hahaha my smallmouth loves ramen-pride noodles. and hamburger i havn't tried that but i bet you they would eat it.

__________________
1989 ranger boat and trailer $5500. tackle $4000 relationship counsling $125. boatload of bass....... PRICELESS

Posted by Bigredfishing on 2002 PM:

smallies love hamburger, but i just cant get over watching a 12" smallie eating a 4 inch minnow.

Posted by Scott C on 2002 PM:

In a tank I thing anything that comes from the top is natural to a fish. Hamburgers included.

Watch....next year there will be a "sirloin" pattern in somebody's product offering !!

__________________
Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?

Spawn till you die
ESBA

Posted by Skidder on 2002 PM:

Question?

Is Sirloin cheaper per pound than Senkos?

__________________
When in doubt, SET THE HOOK! it doesn't cost any extra!

Posted by JPBass on 2002 PM:

Re: Question?

quote:

Originally posted by Skidder
Is Sirloin cheaper per pound than Senkos?

My math comes up with Senko's going for about $27.00 a lb.

__________________

http://www.renegadebassmasters.com

Posted by postcard on 2002 PM:

A, is a match-the-forage concept and an angler has knowledge of seasonal prey, their size, form and color. His lure choices lean towards realism in color, form and motion and he’ll expect to catch fish at a depth the food source is most likely located.

B & C choices indicate that lure choice is not limited most of the time, as long as size and color meet the ‘bite me’ test. In a sense, he would like his baits to appear similar to 'any' existing forage in a particular body of water (i.e. craws, small fish, snakes, eels, etc.).

The angler that leans towards C, relies on lure-abstractions, emphasized by sight and sound triggers that turn on the ‘aggression switch’. A pink worm and fire-tiger crankbait pattern are examples of ‘anti-realism’ colors that are believed to act the same way a matador’s cape goads a bull to attack.
Anything goes as long as it gets a fish off is 'tail fin' to strike.

I am a firm believer in C, but do enjoy throwing super realistic lures that are well tuned, of good quality and that have the right vibration and visual affects I'm looking for.

Posted by Bigredfishing on 2002 PM:

The bass are all three, at different times, some bass are A, while others are C, or any combination thereof.

Ask anyone who fishes the mohawk/hudson when the herring fry are moving downstream. It is difficult to catch the bass that are feeding on the fry, on anything but an fry pattern lure.

Go do a different area, and the bass are back to "normal" which would be; B, c, BC, ect ect. - depending on the variables ie: current, location, water stage, temperature, ect. ect. ect.

Bass cannot be pigeon holed at any one time.
Bass are like the weather - the best of the best at predictiing them are only right 50% of the time.

Awesome thread

Lance

Posted by Bassin Dude on 2002 PM:

Postcard,

In general terms, I agree with your recent "answer" to your own question. However, in your original post you posed part "A" of your question in these words:

A.Do you think that a fish has the intelligence to identify a living object as a particular animal (i.e. crawfish versus a bottom-crawling lizard) and that they target certain prevailing species to the exclusion of all else?

As worded there, it simply is not the case. To believe that a fish, namely a bass has "intelligence" to discern a crawfish from a bottom crawling lizard is presumptuous to say the least. If a bass could identify a crawfish from a lizard, I believe one could then presume that said fish should be able to identify a tube from the other two and of course a jig'n'pig from the other three. If that were indeed the case, the artificials mentioned wouldn't be worth the components they're made from.

If we were talking about trout and insect hatches, I would agree with that assumption but as far as black bass, I simply disagree.

Posted by Steve_IA on 2002 PM:

Every study I have read indicates that a bass has the capabilities to learn, i.e. distinguish between two unlike items. This leads me to believe that in an appropriately controlled environment a bass can learn to distinguish between a natural meal and an artificial bait. A more interesting question is whether or not in a bass' natural environment is there opportunity enough for an individual bass to experience the artificial bait and it's negative consequenses or is the overwhelming availability of natural prey too superior to allow for any avoidance responses to be learned?

Posted by Bassin Dude on 2002 PM:

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_IA
...A more interesting question is whether or not in a bass' natural environment is there opportunity enough for an individual bass to experience the artificial bait and it's negative consequenses or is the overwhelming availability of natural prey too superior to allow for any avoidance responses to be learned?

Provocative proposition Steve. I think we should be careful here not to paint with too wide of a brush. We can't suppose that all bass develop avoidance responses to the nth degree nor should we think that none of them do. The old saying that the biggest fish are the hardest to catch is actually true because those bigger fish are big for a reason. They likely acquired, throughout their lifetime, avoidance responses to negative stimuli just as surely as some bass in that biome didn't. I'm hesitant to say that some bass are smarter or more intelligent then others because we tend to equate "smart" and "intelligence" into human terms of the words. I simply think some bass are more adaptable to survival in their specific environment.

Recently, Rob J and I were fishing the lower Niagara River when Rob hooked a Smallie on a tube, Ironically, the fish already had another tube hooked deep in it's mouth. Obviously that negative stimulus wasn't enough to dissuade that fish from biting another tube. I would think that because of that particular fish's lack of adapting to a negative stimulus (I don't want to say "... lack of learning"), that fish isn't likely to live to a ripe old age.

One of the most famous studies to see if bass could adapt or "learn" was done at Texas Christian University. They had three tanks - A, B and C. C was empty and the other tanks had (I think) 60 bass in each of them. All fish were of the same year class. 20 of the bass were caught, with the same lure, from tank A and deposited into the empty tank C. 20 of the bass from tank B were netted and deposited in tank C. Now all three tanks had the same number of bass in them. They waited one week then tried fishing all three tanks with the same lure, presentation and number of casts etc. Tank A, which had 20 bass caught a week earlier by the lure had the lowest catch rate. Tank B which had 20 bass netted out but the remaining fish never saw a lure had the best catch rate and tank C fell into the middle. This test was done repeatedly with varying year classes with the same results. Many conclusions were drawn with the most significant being that bass on a whole do adapt to negative stimuli in their environment. The degree and speed that each specific fish adapts is one factor of many that contributes directly to it's chance for continued survival.

Posted by postcard on 2002 AM:

Tony, you might be surprised at how many 'match-the-hatch', enthusiast bassers are out there that vehemently support their position, which is precisely expressed in A. One clown on Outdoor Forum.com got into a shouting match over a post where I expressed my opinion that C was the most likely cause of a strike, but not discounting A or B completely. I will post 'that' post as soon as this one runs out.

One thing that annoys the piss out of me is to watch Bubba-the Bass-Pro hawk a lure (i.e. Wild Thing) as an immitation of some prey animal that fish target to eat, and eat better than similar or 'old faithfuls' that have the same potential to catch fish. Every fishing show exagerates the 'natural' aspect of the lure they're using to implant the idea that the 6 lb. fish was caught because of theory A. Not once have they mentioned that the lure worked because of it's manufactured-in stimulative qualities, which have been found to stimulate the bite in a research facility or private pond.

I'm a C, because A needs a little help at times to get 'their' attention away from natural forage that may be too plentiful (a school) or too much trouble to catch on a full stomach.

Dr. Lauren Hill came up with the theory that bass can see many shades of a color and learn how to get food by 'learning', Pavlov-style, to feed themselves or avoid pain, in a research tank. Maybe he was just trying to sell his patented Color C-lector and all those weirdly colored lures, I don't know. But one thing his 'research' accomplished was to make me change my view from A to C, because lure color does not have to be natural to catch fish and therefore, neither does lure vibration or form have to immitate nature in the least. Contrasts (with nature and environment) get the most bites. That's probably the reason why Mad Man crawfish tubes will be discontinued soon- (all show, no substance). Even smallmouth won't touch them, though a few LM strike them, reflexively.

Posted by Bassin Dude on 2002 AM:

Postcard,

To clarify my position a bit let me reiterate that I don't DISAGREE with what your saying, I simply don't care for the way you worded part "A". I know what you meant by "A" - that a bass can become baitlocked - but if one reads it, it can mean something else - that a bass is smart enough to know the distinct difference between a crawfish and a lizard and will eat one over the exclusion of the other.

As for supposed "baitlock" it is believed that black bass don't become baitlocked in the truest sense of the term. They, in fact, become "ZONELOCKED". If a prevalence of prey is at the bottom of the water column, the fish tend to only feed on bottom dwelling critters. Their prevalent food source at that time may be crawfish but they won't pass up a tasty salamander if given the opportunity. But, since they are predominantly looking down to feed and more importantly they're having success feeding along the bottom, they are less likely to chase the bluegill swimming by or the frog scissoring across the surface. Similarly, if a black bass is predominantly eating schooling shad, it will be more difficult to catch them on a bottom hugging, crawfish imitating bait because they're locked into the mid-column zone. etc etc etc...

Posted by earthworm77 on 2002 AM:

I think bass are sight feeders for the most part. They are attracted by movement. If you could get a hamburger to move seductively on the bottom, a bass would eat it. I also think bass are oppurtunistic feeders meaning they may not be all that hungry but if the right morsel presents itself, it will bite. That being said, I do not think a bass remembers or has the intelligence to discern between living organisms but if you stick it with a hook a dozen times, I do think it can learn to avoid that particular bait...kind of like shock therapy.

__________________
www.micromunchtackle.com

Posted by mr jig on 2002 PM:

Tony.

Well said.
LOOK UP-LOOK DOWN.
Hard to change orientation over the short haul.

I also think that seperate populations exist that tend to favor up or down over much of a season.
Best.
dick.

Posted by JOHN G on 2002 PM:

Tony, I just LOVED your example, excellent logic!!!

Earthy, you think you can pour me up some dynamite hamburger lures? LOL....

very good thread, keep it coming!

JOHN G

__________________
"and a new Commandment I shall give you.....that you shall love one another"
---------------------------------
> email - DrBass2@aol.com
> Forum Moderator aka: Head Honcho
---------------------------------
Quote: "coming soon"
---------------------------------

Posted by postcard on 2002 PM:

Tony, Question A was an open question to see how many anglers
believe that fish have the 'IQ' to discern different species. You and I agree they don't, but there are those that buy lures based on a realistic appearence only ! I wanted to draw out their opinions based on their belief in A, as simply asked. (I respect the opinion of those that do, so please don't put a hole in my boat - I'm still making payments!)

A semi-bass pro on another site became insulting because I stated my opinion (in a nice way) that A was a crock and used as an advertising tool to get more people to buy 'realism' in one form or another.

But now you've brought it up, how many anglers believe there is such a thing as 'zonelock', where a fish feeding on bottom will not likely feed on top or mid-depth, even if presented with a lure meant to fish above bottom? (Vice versa applies the other way.)

(The thoery was stated years ago that if you look at a fish's eyes and see them looking down, the fish must be bottom feeding and surface feeding if they're looking up.) (I usually cross-their-eyes, so I couldn't verify either tendency. )

Posted by Steve_IA on 2002 PM:

EW... there are certain species of toads and frogs that have skin glands that are quite repulsive to fish (including bass). It doesn't take very many mistaken identities before a bass will not attempt eating these particular species. I dissagree with your assessment only to the extent that if a natural animal is dis-tasteful enough a bass has the capability to discern between it and another species that is more palatable.

Posted by HookUp on 2002 AM:

1. Yes

2. Yes and Yes

3. Only the small ones.

Posted by earthworm77 on 2002 AM:

Steve, in a very small population of fish maybe, but on a whole, a poison toad would not be seen by almost the entire population of bass in almost every lake. What I mean is it is most likely goegraphically located in a very small number of areas. It also is not a creature that swims in water often....like a bullfrog. So we are talking about..."if by chance it manages to fall in the water" kind of thing.

__________________
www.micromunchtackle.com

Posted by Steve_IA on 2002 PM:

EW... That is the very point I'm trying to convey. A bass does have the capability to discern between objects living or otherwise, however, in it's natural environment he has so many natural choices and positive reinforcement from those choices that an occasional negative experience probably will not shape his responses to avoid any particular lure.

This is making sense to me tonight, but I'm dead on my feet so who knows if it will make sense to me in the AM.