12-28-2002, 02:12 PM
A lot has been said about the ability of fish to identify a lure as one prey or another which leads one to believe that fish, by instinct or intelligence, can 'prefer' or target one species over another. Lure companys, (via their spokesmen), emphazize the details and comparisons of a particular brand of lure to the real thing. You may want to consider the following example before you lay down your cash based on the 'matching philosophy' of lure fishing.
Past articles written in magazines, suggest painted eyes indicate the 'head' of a lure. This supposedly helps a fish to decide to kill it's prey(the lure), more effectively, based on it's realistic 'interpretation' of an inherent color pattern. This brings up the question of how much of one's confidence is based on good 'ol superstition, versus validation and duplicate experiences? A few definitions to keep in mind whenever you hear someone relate an absolute concerning fishing success, are the following:
Superstition is defined as, 'a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation.'
Anecdote is defined as, 'a particular or detached incident or fact of an interesting nature; a biographical incident or fragment; a single passage of private life.'
Eyes and other realistic lure characteristics can never be said to always make a difference in the number of strikes we get in a day. Therefore, we can never know when they really do make a difference. Senkos don't have eyes, yet beat the pants off 95% of all lure types,(regardless of realism), and, in a large number of situations.
Granted, sight and sound are important stimuli to the strike, but that which catches a fisherman, may not equate into what catches a fish. Even if a certain lure had craw b.o., gills, eyes, fins and slime, I doubt the bait would be any more effective than your run-of-the-mill plastic worm or creature bait.
How well a particular species learns or solves problems and responds to positive or negative stimuli, often turns out to have more to do with sight, motivation and species-specific ecological adaptations than with underlying intelligence. Maybe a fish prefers to kill it's prey head-first, but how does it determine the 'head'? Is it the forward motion of the 'snack' or is it 'the larger end' that indicates 'head and nothing-but-the-head'? Do fish realize instictively that prey may turn around or dart in a different direction, but that the unnatural movement of any prey, moving backwards, is not part of nature's plan of avoiding someone's digestive track,(unless you're a crayfish)? It appears that 'the direction of escape' is paramount versus 'eyeballs'on a minnow or a lure.
Therefore, the 'head' is expected to move in the direction of an attempted escape and the profile of some baits may indicate the head, by it plumper end. (Not always, but sometimes!)
Surface detailing of the realistic-kind, became a non-issue for me after the first time I caught smallmouth on firetiger, and largemouth, on red crankbaits; ditto for the success of purple/firetail Phenom worms and bubblegum Slugos.
'Eyes' matter if you want them to matter, the same as any number of lure finishes that are confidence-based positives. The fact that our anecdotal experiences may be based on the build-up of superstitions by the pros and ourselves, is usually not considered when we dream of catching 'more and bigger'. Being in the right place, at the right time and casting one of a hundred, effective lures, usually explains the bite.
The grand thing about fishing is that it's 99% anecdotal and 1% real concerning successes and failures. If it were'nt, we wouldn't be able to brag as much as we do about the big ones that got away or rationalize why a day was fishless. But more importantly, the clearance tables would be empty!
If it works for you .....
Frank M
[signature]
Past articles written in magazines, suggest painted eyes indicate the 'head' of a lure. This supposedly helps a fish to decide to kill it's prey(the lure), more effectively, based on it's realistic 'interpretation' of an inherent color pattern. This brings up the question of how much of one's confidence is based on good 'ol superstition, versus validation and duplicate experiences? A few definitions to keep in mind whenever you hear someone relate an absolute concerning fishing success, are the following:
Superstition is defined as, 'a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation.'
Anecdote is defined as, 'a particular or detached incident or fact of an interesting nature; a biographical incident or fragment; a single passage of private life.'
Eyes and other realistic lure characteristics can never be said to always make a difference in the number of strikes we get in a day. Therefore, we can never know when they really do make a difference. Senkos don't have eyes, yet beat the pants off 95% of all lure types,(regardless of realism), and, in a large number of situations.
Granted, sight and sound are important stimuli to the strike, but that which catches a fisherman, may not equate into what catches a fish. Even if a certain lure had craw b.o., gills, eyes, fins and slime, I doubt the bait would be any more effective than your run-of-the-mill plastic worm or creature bait.
How well a particular species learns or solves problems and responds to positive or negative stimuli, often turns out to have more to do with sight, motivation and species-specific ecological adaptations than with underlying intelligence. Maybe a fish prefers to kill it's prey head-first, but how does it determine the 'head'? Is it the forward motion of the 'snack' or is it 'the larger end' that indicates 'head and nothing-but-the-head'? Do fish realize instictively that prey may turn around or dart in a different direction, but that the unnatural movement of any prey, moving backwards, is not part of nature's plan of avoiding someone's digestive track,(unless you're a crayfish)? It appears that 'the direction of escape' is paramount versus 'eyeballs'on a minnow or a lure.
Therefore, the 'head' is expected to move in the direction of an attempted escape and the profile of some baits may indicate the head, by it plumper end. (Not always, but sometimes!)
Surface detailing of the realistic-kind, became a non-issue for me after the first time I caught smallmouth on firetiger, and largemouth, on red crankbaits; ditto for the success of purple/firetail Phenom worms and bubblegum Slugos.
'Eyes' matter if you want them to matter, the same as any number of lure finishes that are confidence-based positives. The fact that our anecdotal experiences may be based on the build-up of superstitions by the pros and ourselves, is usually not considered when we dream of catching 'more and bigger'. Being in the right place, at the right time and casting one of a hundred, effective lures, usually explains the bite.
The grand thing about fishing is that it's 99% anecdotal and 1% real concerning successes and failures. If it were'nt, we wouldn't be able to brag as much as we do about the big ones that got away or rationalize why a day was fishless. But more importantly, the clearance tables would be empty!
If it works for you .....
Frank M
[signature]
