Paul Boote
No Longer a Member
Only a tiny amount of intelligence by the tiny few who weren't eaten early and so learned to "Duck!". We ascribe far too much to mere fish, project much too much of ourselves on them.
-
You need to be a registered member of Barbel Fishing World to post on these forums. Some of the forums are hidden from non-members. Please refer to the instructions on the ‘Register’ page for details of how to join the new incarnation of BFW...
Now tell me fish can't learn !
- Thread starter Ian Grant
- Start date
Simon King
Senior Member
Quite. "Intelligence" implies a degree of cognition, rational thought; not something I believe fish are capable of.
Learnt (Pavlovian) behaviour, via memory/association - yes.
Instinct - yes. Largely governed by the Fear Factor.
The Power of Reason - no.
The "gut-bucket" behaviour of smaller fish (while the bigger ones hang back) is as much to do with metabolism and its bearing from size and age; less food needed when you've finished growing, the exception being putting lost weight back on after, say, spawning, or milder temperatures after a period of inactivity in the cold.
Damian Kimmins
Senior Member
You're quite right Darren, they're not especially, but they do exhibit tendencies which point to intelligence, which is more than most give them credit for.
Regarding the dog story;
I would define intelligence as an animals ability to solve problems. Whilst the dog will be most likely vastly more intelligent than the fish in those problem solving abilities, it doesn't really explain the dogs behaviour in that exercise. I would struggle to believe that a dog would be able to do that without a certain amount of training.
Dogs have within them the inherent ability to fetch an item for their masters, it's what they've done for centuries, but to fetch a specific item on production of a drawing relating to that item I would say is the result of a response to a training with stimuli. Why? I would have to say it's because there is no genetic trait in dogs that have them react to the production of a drawing ie. their problem solving ability would not be provoked by such, without a stimulus. Fish would exhibit the same with a stimulus as Ian's link shows but the fishes ability would be limited as I said, besides it might struggle to pick up an item with it's fins, even with a couple of halibut pellets as a sweetener.
Damian
Damian Kimmins
Senior Member
Simon, Paul,
how, are you able to describe how a fish is able to adopt a strategy of either feeding off of the river bed, or mouthing a bait and manoeuvering it into a position whereby it knows it is unconnected to an anglers line, without ascribing it an intelligence?
As Ian asks, how is a fish able to do such things without the perception that it needs to do them?
Damian
how, are you able to describe how a fish is able to adopt a strategy of either feeding off of the river bed, or mouthing a bait and manoeuvering it into a position whereby it knows it is unconnected to an anglers line, without ascribing it an intelligence?
As Ian asks, how is a fish able to do such things without the perception that it needs to do them?
Damian
Paul Boote
No Longer a Member
MEMORY (basic) is a very different thing from tiny intelligence.
Previously hooked fish don't like the nasty-sharpy experience (that got them being dragged out and handled and snapped by some tooled-up (photographic equipment-wise, at least) goon.
"Food was wrong. Won't go there again."
Previously hooked fish don't like the nasty-sharpy experience (that got them being dragged out and handled and snapped by some tooled-up (photographic equipment-wise, at least) goon.
"Food was wrong. Won't go there again."
Last edited:
Damian Kimmins
Senior Member
Yes Paul, but whilst memory might be ascribed to why a fish might leave a certain bait alone, it cannot for the action of working out how not to get caught with another.
Truthfully, as we've ascertained, learning by an association cannot be attributable to intelligence, but discovering how to overcome the pitfalls of that association is, surely?
Damian
Truthfully, as we've ascertained, learning by an association cannot be attributable to intelligence, but discovering how to overcome the pitfalls of that association is, surely?
Damian
Paul Boote
No Longer a Member
So. We can, perhaps, accept that they (fish) have a tiny degree of animalian and certainly non-human intelligence. Fine by me.
But what would be their "position" in a Poll - say: "Are Otters Bad?" or "Should All Immigrant Poachers Be Shot (or deported if present laws disallow the potting option)?".
We ascribe far too much, for our own, very selfish, reasons. Just go fishing.
But what would be their "position" in a Poll - say: "Are Otters Bad?" or "Should All Immigrant Poachers Be Shot (or deported if present laws disallow the potting option)?".
We ascribe far too much, for our own, very selfish, reasons. Just go fishing.
Simon King
Senior Member
Fear factor. Survival. Why do chub (attempt to) "rip" off a bait from a hook/hair?
They've learnt by assocaition.
Certain baits, line etc = danger. An unpleasant experience/sensation. Many lower order vertabrates will learn caution from these types of experience. This is not the same as "intelligence".
We "higher order" humans have a gross tendency to project anthropomorphism on those creatures we are most fond of.
We read far too much into isolated occurrences. Pretty much all of the Big Barbel nationwide, those that this argument would label "old, wise and intelligent" are re-captured often enough by the same group of baits.
Often in the same swim(s). Something else, other than bait, they might have otherwise learnt to associate with danger?
"The Traveller" (for one) was notorious for it.
They've learnt by assocaition.
Certain baits, line etc = danger. An unpleasant experience/sensation. Many lower order vertabrates will learn caution from these types of experience. This is not the same as "intelligence".
We "higher order" humans have a gross tendency to project anthropomorphism on those creatures we are most fond of.
We read far too much into isolated occurrences. Pretty much all of the Big Barbel nationwide, those that this argument would label "old, wise and intelligent" are re-captured often enough by the same group of baits.
Often in the same swim(s). Something else, other than bait, they might have otherwise learnt to associate with danger?
"The Traveller" (for one) was notorious for it.
Darryl Davis
Senior Member
Here are links to a whole bunch of papers on animal cognition (in particular fish): http://www.animalcognition.net/fish.html
Ian Grant
Senior Member & Supporter
Ok Simon,
Let me put it this way, the fish Barbel, Chub, Carp - whatever, almost certainly learn by association, that a line, a bed of bait, the colour of the baits, the shape of the baits even, is by virtue of it's past experiences encountering those, that they are likley to provide an unpleasant experience, and will if encountering them, avoid them.
What of the situation where only say one of those factors is present for example the bed of bait, from past association it has learnt there may be danger, up to this point i can accept that there is no - or at least by our standard measure - intelligence at work here. But given that the fishes primary defence mechanisms have been activated still wants that food.
It then displays something i have seen and i know even on this thread that others have too, behaviour which appears to indicate that it is looking for other indicators that danger may be present, i say appears because it is a theory i cannot prove it, but i strongly suspect that the barbel i saw was looking for line which in fact wasn't there.
Avoiding it because of recognition when it sees it is one thing, but activley looking for it useing the same abiility of recognition in order to avoid it is quite another.
Firstly it displays a capability of making a decision which is not instinctive, it's instinct to run when it persieves danger is as natural to it as your instinct to blink if something gets too close to your eye.
This behaviour is displaying a willingness to put itself in danger in order to get something that it wants, it's strategy as Paul put it, is to identify the danger in order to avoid it.
That to my mind IF MY THEORY IS CORRECT, shows a very basic, and primitive degree of intelligence, exibited by many creatures even in the insect world.
What about Carp that have learnt not to bolt, when they realise they have made the mistake of sucking in a hair rig, yes they have learnt by association that to bolt inevitably means being hooked, but some go further by overriding their natural instinct to run, and have even worked out how to deal with the unwanted object in it's mouth in some cases, surely this behaviour can't be anything to do with association, Though i can't say i've seen it with my own eyes, i have experienced what i'm certain is exactly that behaviour watching my bobbin whilst carp fishing. The bobbin started to lift, and my alarm bleeped and i was ready to lift into it when the fish ran, but it didn't happen, it just kept rising and falling and making the alarm bleep, i turned the alarm off and sat there watching it for maybe a minute or more because it intruiged me, this Carp was obviously having no luck ridding itself of my hair rig probably because it was counterbalanced, but obviously trying for all it was worth, when i struck it sure enough the fish was hooked fair and square in the bottom lip.
That i'm sure was nothing to do with association, the Carp made a consious decision not to bolt, and maybe even have required willpower to overcome that natural desire to run, whatever though i would definatly say it required intelligence to do that. Fish i'm certain have the capability to display behaviour which in my opinion, requires rudimentary, primitive even but nonetheless intelligence, - my fingers getting sore and i'm going to bed.
Interesting debate this has turned into though
Night all
Ian.
Let me put it this way, the fish Barbel, Chub, Carp - whatever, almost certainly learn by association, that a line, a bed of bait, the colour of the baits, the shape of the baits even, is by virtue of it's past experiences encountering those, that they are likley to provide an unpleasant experience, and will if encountering them, avoid them.
What of the situation where only say one of those factors is present for example the bed of bait, from past association it has learnt there may be danger, up to this point i can accept that there is no - or at least by our standard measure - intelligence at work here. But given that the fishes primary defence mechanisms have been activated still wants that food.
It then displays something i have seen and i know even on this thread that others have too, behaviour which appears to indicate that it is looking for other indicators that danger may be present, i say appears because it is a theory i cannot prove it, but i strongly suspect that the barbel i saw was looking for line which in fact wasn't there.
Avoiding it because of recognition when it sees it is one thing, but activley looking for it useing the same abiility of recognition in order to avoid it is quite another.
Firstly it displays a capability of making a decision which is not instinctive, it's instinct to run when it persieves danger is as natural to it as your instinct to blink if something gets too close to your eye.
This behaviour is displaying a willingness to put itself in danger in order to get something that it wants, it's strategy as Paul put it, is to identify the danger in order to avoid it.
That to my mind IF MY THEORY IS CORRECT, shows a very basic, and primitive degree of intelligence, exibited by many creatures even in the insect world.
What about Carp that have learnt not to bolt, when they realise they have made the mistake of sucking in a hair rig, yes they have learnt by association that to bolt inevitably means being hooked, but some go further by overriding their natural instinct to run, and have even worked out how to deal with the unwanted object in it's mouth in some cases, surely this behaviour can't be anything to do with association, Though i can't say i've seen it with my own eyes, i have experienced what i'm certain is exactly that behaviour watching my bobbin whilst carp fishing. The bobbin started to lift, and my alarm bleeped and i was ready to lift into it when the fish ran, but it didn't happen, it just kept rising and falling and making the alarm bleep, i turned the alarm off and sat there watching it for maybe a minute or more because it intruiged me, this Carp was obviously having no luck ridding itself of my hair rig probably because it was counterbalanced, but obviously trying for all it was worth, when i struck it sure enough the fish was hooked fair and square in the bottom lip.
That i'm sure was nothing to do with association, the Carp made a consious decision not to bolt, and maybe even have required willpower to overcome that natural desire to run, whatever though i would definatly say it required intelligence to do that. Fish i'm certain have the capability to display behaviour which in my opinion, requires rudimentary, primitive even but nonetheless intelligence, - my fingers getting sore and i'm going to bed.
Interesting debate this has turned into though
Night all
Ian.
Dave Burr
Senior Member
Natural selection creates conditioning and instinct and weeds out the creatures that are not eaten, barbel are returned to fight another day and, in my opinion, develop intelligence.
We are subjecting our fish, especially carp and barbel, to a level of pressure unseen in their entire history. The last few generations of barbel have been fished for continuously for eight months a year on many waters, they are 'learning' to cope with those pressures.
Time was when the 'fear' of a piece of spam had faded over the close season. Now barbel are exhibiting 'remembered' caution from day 1 of the new season.
Also, there is a case for 'shared learning'. Not every fish experiences every rig, bait and approach yet many fish display caution that exceeds their personal experiences. The last few seasons have seen barbel become harder to tempt on rivers that were known for their large catches, could this be down to shared learning?
The one factor that will reduce caution and improve our chances of a fish more than any is competition.The harder you get 'em feeding and your chances increase exponentially.
Its a fascinating subject, mainly theory but I am convinced that barbel have a learning capacity. As with 'training' any animal, the first thing they learn is the most important. Teach a dog to sit and you have stimulated it's brain to learn. From then on each lesson will be a little easier to absorb and it can become as 'intelligent' as it's brain allows. This could be happening with our fish.
We are subjecting our fish, especially carp and barbel, to a level of pressure unseen in their entire history. The last few generations of barbel have been fished for continuously for eight months a year on many waters, they are 'learning' to cope with those pressures.
Time was when the 'fear' of a piece of spam had faded over the close season. Now barbel are exhibiting 'remembered' caution from day 1 of the new season.
Also, there is a case for 'shared learning'. Not every fish experiences every rig, bait and approach yet many fish display caution that exceeds their personal experiences. The last few seasons have seen barbel become harder to tempt on rivers that were known for their large catches, could this be down to shared learning?
The one factor that will reduce caution and improve our chances of a fish more than any is competition.The harder you get 'em feeding and your chances increase exponentially.
Its a fascinating subject, mainly theory but I am convinced that barbel have a learning capacity. As with 'training' any animal, the first thing they learn is the most important. Teach a dog to sit and you have stimulated it's brain to learn. From then on each lesson will be a little easier to absorb and it can become as 'intelligent' as it's brain allows. This could be happening with our fish.
Simon King
Senior Member
Hi Ian,
You're right, there are loads of reliable reports of fish exhibiting behavioural anomalies; sucking and blowing bait from distance (to see if they're tethered); smashing surface baits; not "bolting" once hooked; among others.
I've not carp fsihed enough to have seen this myself, but I have friends who've seen this first-hand. I've had a very big chub "not bolt" and sit there barely registering a movement on the rod-tip for 5 minutes while I ascertained whether or not it was just weed. I've had chub and carp "magically" transfer the hook to weed or a branch during the fight. And I've thought, how the hell do they do that???
Big pike are well known for thoroughly investigating baits in an amazingly delicate manner. Eels which manage to eat all the worm and leave the hook.
And so on.
In the insect world, as you say, ants will form a bridge of their own bodies to bypass an obstacle, termites build dwellings with perfect air-conditioning.
I still wouldn't ascribe any of this to a true intelligence, but a mixture of learnt behaviour by trial and error. Sometimes over a period of months, or years, or millenia.
In the long term, much of this can become genetically transferrable. I've seen a paper where bass, in the USA, were isolated into groups of "easily caught" and "avoided capture" by anglers.
Over several generations, each group enhanced its "easily" or "avoided" tag through selective breeding.
Some individuals may develop a better survival strategy than others, but until they learn to communicate it to their fellows, I wouldn't tag it with the epithet of "intelligence".
There a are carp I know of which exhibit these types of behaviours, but still get caught (usually at the beginning of) each season, as though they build up this "wisdom" and then forget it after winter shutdown.
Working with reptiles (as I do), I have seen some similarly "odd" behaviour that falls along the same lines. One group of Monitor lizards I had, the crickets would hide in the "rock piles" I'd built in the cage. I watched one lizard with her head at one side of the pile, while probing and poking her tail (like Alien) into the cracks and crevices round the other side, driving the insects out where she grabbed them. Another type of Monitor I've observed using it's hand and claws to probe into crevices in tree bark to the same end. Identical to an Aye-Aye with it's elongated finger.
It looks for all the world like intelligent behaviour, but I think much of it is to do with genetic survival traits and not "intelligence" as we apply the word via our unique, self-awareness.
You're right, there are loads of reliable reports of fish exhibiting behavioural anomalies; sucking and blowing bait from distance (to see if they're tethered); smashing surface baits; not "bolting" once hooked; among others.
I've not carp fsihed enough to have seen this myself, but I have friends who've seen this first-hand. I've had a very big chub "not bolt" and sit there barely registering a movement on the rod-tip for 5 minutes while I ascertained whether or not it was just weed. I've had chub and carp "magically" transfer the hook to weed or a branch during the fight. And I've thought, how the hell do they do that???
Big pike are well known for thoroughly investigating baits in an amazingly delicate manner. Eels which manage to eat all the worm and leave the hook.
And so on.
In the insect world, as you say, ants will form a bridge of their own bodies to bypass an obstacle, termites build dwellings with perfect air-conditioning.
I still wouldn't ascribe any of this to a true intelligence, but a mixture of learnt behaviour by trial and error. Sometimes over a period of months, or years, or millenia.
In the long term, much of this can become genetically transferrable. I've seen a paper where bass, in the USA, were isolated into groups of "easily caught" and "avoided capture" by anglers.
Over several generations, each group enhanced its "easily" or "avoided" tag through selective breeding.
Some individuals may develop a better survival strategy than others, but until they learn to communicate it to their fellows, I wouldn't tag it with the epithet of "intelligence".
There a are carp I know of which exhibit these types of behaviours, but still get caught (usually at the beginning of) each season, as though they build up this "wisdom" and then forget it after winter shutdown.
Working with reptiles (as I do), I have seen some similarly "odd" behaviour that falls along the same lines. One group of Monitor lizards I had, the crickets would hide in the "rock piles" I'd built in the cage. I watched one lizard with her head at one side of the pile, while probing and poking her tail (like Alien) into the cracks and crevices round the other side, driving the insects out where she grabbed them. Another type of Monitor I've observed using it's hand and claws to probe into crevices in tree bark to the same end. Identical to an Aye-Aye with it's elongated finger.
It looks for all the world like intelligent behaviour, but I think much of it is to do with genetic survival traits and not "intelligence" as we apply the word via our unique, self-awareness.
Simon King
Senior Member
Dave, I agree with some of your sentiments, but the difference I'd draw is between learning via trial and error and the ability to evolve a survival trait by deliberate cognitive trial. In other words, a fish attempting to avoid capture by deliberately trying a tactic that was previously outside of its experience.
Damian Kimmins
Senior Member
Carl Jung's theories of the Collective Unconscious are a similar concept, virtually riding along with evolutionary theories.
The question here is Dave whether the pressure that they've been subject to has caused them to develop an intelligence over generations? I don't think they've been subjected to enough pressure to cause them to do this just yet - this is an intelligence they've had before the advent of angling as we know it, mostly likely resulting from their instinct to find food.
I disagree with that really Dave. Intelligence shown having been gained through environmental conditioning, is that. Intelligence, or seeming anyway, through training an animal to respond to the stimulus of having an item of food at the end of a trick is something else entirely, ie. it is not teaching it do anything but allowing it to solve the problem whereby a level of intelligence is discovered.
I remember a talk from Alan Watts I have somewhere in the house in which he spoke of monkeys being able to type the Encyclopedia Britannica, once instructed. As soon as they'd stopped typing, they'd revert to being monkeys again. He was using it to highlight something else, but I think it's quite apt.
It is however, fascinating.
Regards,
Damian
Last edited:
Ian Grant
Senior Member & Supporter
Intelligence within any creature is a matter of degree as i've already said.
Right at the top we have humans, and even among our species there is that identifiable scale of degrees. we have nuclear scientists, and then people who are thick as two short planks !!
Fish come pretty low down that scale, but there are lower.
What i would consider to be the yardstick by what is defined as the very first
indication of intelligence, is the ability of a creature to expand on associated
learning i.e the ability of a barbel to actively make the decision to look for signs of danger using it's ability to recognise these factors that is 'associates with danger', in order that it can avoid the element of danger and get it's food.
I think some people place the base line of where they think intelligence starts too far up that scale i spoke of, the very bottom of that scale i believe is where a creature displays the ability to recognise by association, it probably doesn't require any thought process even, but is the seed needed to expand and learn from it's experiences.
How much intelligence could say a barbel display, that i think depends on the capacity of it's brain to store, and then utilise what it has learnt.
There is obviously a limit which every creature cannot exceed.
Dave is absolutly correct, in years gone by barbel, any fish for that matter were never subjected to the level of angling pressure they are now, therefore never had enough stimulus presented to them to learn from.
Whats apparent to me is that whilst fish in earlier times did not display these behaviour patterns that we see now, they seem to have had the capacity in their brains to learn since, because of the sheer amount of stimuli that has been part of their live increasingly in recent years.
Exactly in the way a human from 20,000 years ago did not display the intelligent characteristics that humans do today, a human baby then was just as capable of achieving the level of intelligence we display today.
I think it's probably this amazing and apparently sudden increase in recent times of some fishes ability to display strange behavioural characteristics, that lead to some people refusing to attribute this to true intelligent behaviour.
The capacity for intelligence is i believe quite different from actually displaying it.
If you deprived a human baby of all external stimuli it would forever remain incapable of even the most basic human thought processes, a vegetable if you like.
Dave is absolutly right, the more we bombard them with stimuli to learn from, the greater their capacity to learn will be. There will be a point which it cannot exceed, but i my view the fish, are definatley learning, and not just by conditioning or association, but are working through a problem, and in many cases finding the answers.
Ian.
Right at the top we have humans, and even among our species there is that identifiable scale of degrees. we have nuclear scientists, and then people who are thick as two short planks !!
Fish come pretty low down that scale, but there are lower.
What i would consider to be the yardstick by what is defined as the very first
indication of intelligence, is the ability of a creature to expand on associated
learning i.e the ability of a barbel to actively make the decision to look for signs of danger using it's ability to recognise these factors that is 'associates with danger', in order that it can avoid the element of danger and get it's food.
I think some people place the base line of where they think intelligence starts too far up that scale i spoke of, the very bottom of that scale i believe is where a creature displays the ability to recognise by association, it probably doesn't require any thought process even, but is the seed needed to expand and learn from it's experiences.
How much intelligence could say a barbel display, that i think depends on the capacity of it's brain to store, and then utilise what it has learnt.
There is obviously a limit which every creature cannot exceed.
Dave is absolutly correct, in years gone by barbel, any fish for that matter were never subjected to the level of angling pressure they are now, therefore never had enough stimulus presented to them to learn from.
Whats apparent to me is that whilst fish in earlier times did not display these behaviour patterns that we see now, they seem to have had the capacity in their brains to learn since, because of the sheer amount of stimuli that has been part of their live increasingly in recent years.
Exactly in the way a human from 20,000 years ago did not display the intelligent characteristics that humans do today, a human baby then was just as capable of achieving the level of intelligence we display today.
I think it's probably this amazing and apparently sudden increase in recent times of some fishes ability to display strange behavioural characteristics, that lead to some people refusing to attribute this to true intelligent behaviour.
The capacity for intelligence is i believe quite different from actually displaying it.
If you deprived a human baby of all external stimuli it would forever remain incapable of even the most basic human thought processes, a vegetable if you like.
Dave is absolutly right, the more we bombard them with stimuli to learn from, the greater their capacity to learn will be. There will be a point which it cannot exceed, but i my view the fish, are definatley learning, and not just by conditioning or association, but are working through a problem, and in many cases finding the answers.
Ian.
Damian Kimmins
Senior Member
I'd agree with your example from the insect world Simon. They are obviously examples of evolutionary advancement and of being able to overcome the obstacles that such a species has faced.
Fishing however, and the pressure related to it, are really very new obstacles and really consitute very new tests that fish are exposed to. As such I feel they are not learned traits but examples of the intelligence they've accrued through their need to find food.
Regards
Damian
Last edited:
David Maddison
Senior Member
Last edited:
T
Tom Herbert
Guest
Some great stuff guys please keep it coming.
I am sure there will be those out there who will be sitting there pulling their hair out and screaming at their screens shouting that fish have no intelligence and therefore cannot learn and maybe they are correct.
Reading what has been written on this thread would indicate that barbel do have an ability to ‘learn’ but does that lead to intelligence. I have watched fish, barbel carp and tench, over many seasons and I have to admit they do show something when faced with a bait. I have watched many DVD/video’s, which shows fish reacting to bait’s in certain situations and that the fish avoid anything that does not look or feel right but yet as history has shown us eventually all fish get caught and not just the once either, some get caught time after time.
Fish are definatley adapting to what the angler is throwing at them and adapting fast, how long does it take for a certain bait or rig take to ‘blow’, I would suggest that the window is getting smaller and smaller as the seasons roll by.
Here is something else I have been thinking about recently…………. Do you think that barbel have learned what a hook feels and tastes like? We spend a huge amount of time and effort concealing lines and end tackle, spend a small fortune on baits but the hook is still a cold piece of steel attached to our line somewhere near our bait.
Do you do anything different to your hook to make it less ‘obvious’?
I am sure there will be those out there who will be sitting there pulling their hair out and screaming at their screens shouting that fish have no intelligence and therefore cannot learn and maybe they are correct.
Reading what has been written on this thread would indicate that barbel do have an ability to ‘learn’ but does that lead to intelligence. I have watched fish, barbel carp and tench, over many seasons and I have to admit they do show something when faced with a bait. I have watched many DVD/video’s, which shows fish reacting to bait’s in certain situations and that the fish avoid anything that does not look or feel right but yet as history has shown us eventually all fish get caught and not just the once either, some get caught time after time.
Fish are definatley adapting to what the angler is throwing at them and adapting fast, how long does it take for a certain bait or rig take to ‘blow’, I would suggest that the window is getting smaller and smaller as the seasons roll by.
Here is something else I have been thinking about recently…………. Do you think that barbel have learned what a hook feels and tastes like? We spend a huge amount of time and effort concealing lines and end tackle, spend a small fortune on baits but the hook is still a cold piece of steel attached to our line somewhere near our bait.
Do you do anything different to your hook to make it less ‘obvious’?
Simon King
Senior Member
I remeber tenching with Dave Harman a couple of seasons ago and his telling me of a tench which picked up his bait, hooked itself and carried on feeding trailing a 2 or 3 oz lead round the swim as though nothing was amiss.
Strange, unpredictable creatures.
Tom, when, in clear conditions, I fish for barbel with single maggot on a very long link, I thead a piece of redworm up the shank to disguise the glint and feel of the hook. Plus it gives off extra scent, of course. Works a treat.
Strange, unpredictable creatures.
Tom, when, in clear conditions, I fish for barbel with single maggot on a very long link, I thead a piece of redworm up the shank to disguise the glint and feel of the hook. Plus it gives off extra scent, of course. Works a treat.
Last edited:
Ian Grant
Senior Member & Supporter
Tom,
I stopped using using Drennan specimens, even though i still believe as a pattern they are an excellent hook in favour of Esp ( drennan anyway ) raptor G4's which are darkened by chemical process, as opossed to the shiny Specimens they appear to me to be identical patterns anyway.
It's erring on the side of caution really, in case the shiny hook were to 'glint' in the water possibly creating a spook factor.
I do think that fish are able to feel the weight of a hook, when not matched properly to the size of bait, or if using a long hair.
Generally dropping the size of hook i found i've had more takes, and now use mostly size 6 for hair rigging, for the size of baits i mostly use.
I only ever have used a maximum of size 4 for hair rigging anyway, but though the change wasn't dramatic, it was noticeable in my results.
I tried dropping to size 8's at the beggining of this season which saw me drop 2 fish in short order, which hasn't happened again since using 6's, i have used and landed barbel on size 8's before with no problem, so it was a bit of a suprise to me to lose 2, maybe i should have tried a longer hair, to give the hook time to find a good hold, but with the start of the season pretty hard going to get takes i didn't want to risk more losses.
I think the weight factor in a hook is identifiable to a fish especially when using hair rigs, which is one reason i don't allow myself to become a slave to the hair rig, the weight of the hook is much less identifiable if not impossible for them to detect if using a bait mounted on the hook.
The problem is you lose some of the hooking efficiency compared to a hair rig,
but baited properly is acceptable when they appear to be very finicky.
I always make sure there is plenty of point showing.
Suddenly changing catches them right off their guard, and if they want a proper mouth of the bait mounted on the hook, then they have to take in the hook as well.
In the final analysis though it's the hook that sticks in their lip which creates the caution in the first place, and leads to the association of all the other factors that are present when that happens.
So the first time a fish is ever hooked it becomes the first thing it associates with a 'nasty' experience, as time goes on though, it's likley to become a case of last but not least, because it will begin to recognise all the other factors, that lead up to the hook sticking in their lip.
Ian.
I stopped using using Drennan specimens, even though i still believe as a pattern they are an excellent hook in favour of Esp ( drennan anyway ) raptor G4's which are darkened by chemical process, as opossed to the shiny Specimens they appear to me to be identical patterns anyway.
It's erring on the side of caution really, in case the shiny hook were to 'glint' in the water possibly creating a spook factor.
I do think that fish are able to feel the weight of a hook, when not matched properly to the size of bait, or if using a long hair.
Generally dropping the size of hook i found i've had more takes, and now use mostly size 6 for hair rigging, for the size of baits i mostly use.
I only ever have used a maximum of size 4 for hair rigging anyway, but though the change wasn't dramatic, it was noticeable in my results.
I tried dropping to size 8's at the beggining of this season which saw me drop 2 fish in short order, which hasn't happened again since using 6's, i have used and landed barbel on size 8's before with no problem, so it was a bit of a suprise to me to lose 2, maybe i should have tried a longer hair, to give the hook time to find a good hold, but with the start of the season pretty hard going to get takes i didn't want to risk more losses.
I think the weight factor in a hook is identifiable to a fish especially when using hair rigs, which is one reason i don't allow myself to become a slave to the hair rig, the weight of the hook is much less identifiable if not impossible for them to detect if using a bait mounted on the hook.
The problem is you lose some of the hooking efficiency compared to a hair rig,
but baited properly is acceptable when they appear to be very finicky.
I always make sure there is plenty of point showing.
Suddenly changing catches them right off their guard, and if they want a proper mouth of the bait mounted on the hook, then they have to take in the hook as well.
In the final analysis though it's the hook that sticks in their lip which creates the caution in the first place, and leads to the association of all the other factors that are present when that happens.
So the first time a fish is ever hooked it becomes the first thing it associates with a 'nasty' experience, as time goes on though, it's likley to become a case of last but not least, because it will begin to recognise all the other factors, that lead up to the hook sticking in their lip.
Ian.