SCIENTISTS REVEAL HOT COLORS FOR TUNA LURES!!!

[jurelometer]

This is an interesting topic and I'm glad it got it's own thread. Loosely related by my understanding bass see green and red only. Color-wise I have the most success with purple lures. I can't back this up empirically but I believe it's because it's a color they can sort of see. I assume it probably looks, to bass eyes, like a weird looking red. Maybe that makes it look enticing?

I also get hits on green lures but it always seems to be small bass hitting those.

I seem to remember reading that largemouth bass have red and green receptors, but not blue- so anything from green through yellow to red should probably register.  Makes sense.  Lots of the blue light is going to be absorbed by algae in their environment.  Not too many crystal clear weedless bass lakes.

A pure violet color is not going to be visible if the above is accurate. Violet is too far from green in wavelength to be likely to get picked up.  But what we see as purple is usually going to be some combo of red and blue waves.  The red wave component will still register. 

Blue was a hot soft plastic color for the bass crowd for awhile, and blue is just going to be black to a bass.  So even if your purple turns out mostly blackish to a bass, it doesn't mean that it won't work.

-J

[jurelometer]

Good info in this thread.

I have personaly been to 280' below the surface in verry clear water,  not a smart thing for a sports diver but we planed the dive and had tanks staged at decompression stops.  At that deeph all colors with the exception of black and grey are black and grey because the other spectrum does not penetrate.  Black is always black.  This is why deep water bottom fish tend to be red and orange blotched, good camouflage at depth.

On a side note large amounts of glow is not common in nature and my preferance for deep jigs is little or no glow. 

Exactly. 
I haven't gone past 120ft  or so, but I think this is all much  more obvious to us folk who have been underwater.  Colors go away quickly, it is hard to see far or clearly even the best conditions and it gets real dark down there at night. However there are differences.  A pure bright red or yellow  will still be black to a tuna right at the surface.

The glow popularity is kind of weird to me too.  Folks don't expect a flashlight with  hook on it to be a good idea for a lure, but are OK with a full glow paint job.  I have taken just a strip or two of glow off a vinyl skirt to mix in with the regular stuff on my octopus jigs, but I can't get enthused about the full glow approach.  But at least it is something the fish can see and could make a difference- positive or negative difference is the question.

I have some thoughts on using glow more strategically, but will save for another day.

-J

[Keta]

Keep it up.

[MarkT]

Good info in this thread.

I have personaly been to 280' below the surface in verry clear water,  not a smart thing for a sports diver but we planed the dive and had tanks staged at decompression stops.  At that deeph all colors with the exception of black and grey are black and grey because the other spectrum does not penetrate.  Black is always black.  This is why deep water bottom fish tend to be red and orange blotched, good camouflage at depth.

On a side note large amounts of glow is not common in nature and my preferance for deep jigs is little or no glow. 

Exactly. 
I haven't gone past 120ft  or so, but I think this is all much  more obvious to us folk who have been underwater.  Colors go away quickly, it is hard to see far or clearly even the best conditions and it gets real dark down there at night. However there are differences.  A pure bright red or yellow  will still be black to a tuna right at the surface.

The glow popularity is kind of weird to me too.  Folks don't expect a flashlight with  hook on it to be a good idea for a lure, but are OK with a full glow paint job.  I have taken just a strip or two of glow off a vinyl skirt to mix in with the regular stuff on my octopus jigs, but I can't get enthused about the full glow approach.  But at least it is something the fish can see and could make a difference- positive or negative difference is the question.

I have some thoughts on using glow more strategically, but will save for another day.

-J

Good info in this thread.

I have personaly been to 280' below the surface in verry clear water,  not a smart thing for a sports diver but we planed the dive and had tanks staged at decompression stops.  At that deeph all colors with the exception of black and grey are black and grey because the other spectrum does not penetrate.  Black is always black.  This is why deep water bottom fish tend to be red and orange blotched, good camouflage at depth.

On a side note large amounts of glow is not common in nature and my preferance for deep jigs is little or no glow. 

Exactly. 
I haven't gone past 120ft  or so, but I think this is all much  more obvious to us folk who have been underwater.  Colors go away quickly, it is hard to see far or clearly even the best conditions and it gets real dark down there at night. However there are differences.  A pure bright red or yellow  will still be black to a tuna right at the surface.

The glow popularity is kind of weird to me too.  Folks don't expect a flashlight with  hook on it to be a good idea for a lure, but are OK with a full glow paint job.  I have taken just a strip or two of glow off a vinyl skirt to mix in with the regular stuff on my octopus jigs, but I can't get enthused about the full glow approach.  But at least it is something the fish can see and could make a difference- positive or negative difference is the question.

I have some thoughts on using glow more strategically, but will save for another day.

-J

The red rip rollers with the lumo dots were real popular a couple of years ago! I still see guys using black light flashlights on their glow jigs. I just smile and drop my non glow jig.

[jurelometer]

Buzzkills are needed to eliminate misconceptions based on flawed human thinking.
Just a thought, but it seems like "something" is missing in our understanding of how fish see and react. Probably just a flawed hunch.
Maybe massive amounts of data are needed to test statistically how fish "might" see and react to it...

Not a flawed hunch.  Jason was getting at this too.  I think it works something like this:

Enough photons from a single light wave of the right wavelength hit a single rod cell to cause it to fire off an electrical impulse.  this impulse gets sorted and processed  a bit with all the other light signals by a ganglia and then passed on to the brain that has non-specific layer upon layer of neurons (more variable electrical sensors) that are constantly self wiring and unwiring to to other neurons. A larger brain with lots of neuron activity networking through lots of layers allows for advanced imaging processing, even including stuff like  past experience (us humans), but be prepared to consume a lot of electricity (calories), and take a long time to get through all the layers for processing. The other choice to to get by with less. Fish have much smaller, less complex brains- they have chosen the less-is-more strategy.

An example: A species of tetra will go into mating mode when it encounters the right shade of red.  Same with mantis shrimp.  Not much processing going on here. the source  doesn't have to be the right species, or even a species at all.  It can be a paint chip. Sometimes simpler is better, or at least good enough.  It is definitely more efficient and faster, and is the evolutionary path taken by fish. My guess is that if we think more in terms of fewer simple mostly short term memories, and rest being input triggers to hardwired action, we probably will get closer to how a fish perceives and reacts to its surroundings. This does not mean that fish can't do some pretty impressive stuff.  A salmon can cross the ocean and find the same chunk of freshwater it was hatched in, even if it is a  a couple hundred miles upstream.  There are lots of humans that couldn't find a liquor store without google maps guiding them in.

Can't go any deeper than this anyways. Fish are pretty tight lipped when you ask them anything about anything. Not too interested in the philosophy end of it myself.

But those switches!  Watching how fast a tuna or dorado will react to a live bait hitting the water compared to any lure or fly makes me think that there is something useful and learnable out there.   

-J

[Hardy Boy]

Full glow is my go too for halibut at depths of 300 feet plus. I know Ted does not agree for his area. Sorry for the short post.  

Todd

[Ron Jones]

The neuron explanation is spot on, and explains why energy identified via the "lateral line" (it isn't actually a line) have priority over vision. Predator fish especially behave similar to a VLF(P) system. Quiet spots in a loud background stand out. I don't think anyone knows if this is to identify immobilized prey, or just prey in general due to their size. Bait fish are quieter than tuna, and everything is quieter than shrimp or clams. A rapidly moving quiet spot is very distinct against a high background noise environment.

[jurelometer]

Predator fish especially behave similar to a VLF(P) system. Quiet spots in a loud background stand out. I don't think anyone knows if this is to identify immobilized prey, or just prey in general due to their size. Bait fish are quieter than tuna, and everything is quieter than shrimp or clams. A rapidly moving quiet spot is very distinct against a high background noise environment.

Interesting...  Are you talking about the lateral line here?

Full glow is my go too for halibut at depths of 300 feet plus. I know Ted does not agree for his area. Sorry for the short post.  

Todd

250 characters or less is always more enlightening /s  Going past my limit, but I would say do some testing with just a bit of glow on the lure...

-J

[boon]

Many (most?) fish are pretty stupid and reactive feeders. Especially real deepwater specimens - notice how they all have enormous mouths compared to the overall size of the fish? Down there if it seems edible you eat it and ask questions later. In this circumstance, I think glow (and clip-on disco lights) are useful just to get a fish to come and investigate what is going on, perhaps from a distance beyond that at which they would otherwise normally detect your line. However, I have anecdotal "evidence" (well, actually data but from a sample size that makes it interesting but not quite scientific) that excess glow is actually a deterrent to some deepwater species.

I do a lot of jig fishing in 200-250ft and for a long time my go-to was a black jig with black skirts and not a hint of anything else. The latest season, it was a yellow/orange jig that consistently performed the best. Who knows. I think what is more important to a fish when it comes to color is that it resembles something they might eat normally.

[Dominick]

Right on Dave, in my experience fishing cedar plugs for tuna, the blue painted ones get hit the most. Rooster fish will hit school bus type plugs. Caught 2 last week. Dominick

[Keta]

Full glow is my go too for halibut at depths of 300 feet plus. I know Ted does not agree for his area. Sorry for the short post.  

Todd

Halibut are not afraid of much and are agressive feeders.  I use 12"-18" shell squid over my baits, usualy blue and white or black and purple. Both have 2 lines or several dots of glow.

[Dominick]

Gary the butt man uses lights over his bait and out fishes everyone in Glacier Bay. Dominick

[jurelometer]

This thread keeps straining to go into "my favorite color" territory.  But the point of the thread is that tuna don't see in color.  Most of the species mentioned are also monochromats, although as we get to inshore or waters away from the equator the single color becomes green instead of blue.  Halibut ar green monocramats, if I remember correctly.

Don't know about color vision in roosterfish, but I would guess at green monochromatic,  something in low 500 nm peak, and favoring rod cells density over cones as roosterfish feeding activity is heavily tilted toward dawn and dusk-  got that from a study on roosterfish tagging. 

I am not one of those roosterfish junkies, but have gotten enough time in to convince myself that size, volume and speed of fly presentation is the key to getting bites. But put 12 saltwater fly fishermen in a room to talk about roosterfish flies and 13 of them will want to talk about nothing but color .

I'll do a quick search on the roosters.

-J

[jurelometer]

Lots to cover on feeding triggers, both  visual and non-visual.  Color is a tiny part of the equation in the underwater environment where access to most wavelengths is so restricted.  And there are some really interesting studies on fish vision out there.

I have been tempted to start a separate thread on what I think are the more important aspects of fish visual behavior, but it is a lot of work since my "research" is pretty scattergun with plenty of holes to fill in.  Plus many folk won't read anything but a short post, and the conversation is going to keep sliding toward off-topic favorite lure stuff, where folk get more enthusiastic and have more to contribute.  You guys get to talk about whatever you want, but for me: Meh...

-J

[jurelometer]

Enough photons from a single light wave of the right wavelength hit a single rod cell to cause it to fire off an electrical impulse.  this impulse gets sorted and processed  a bit with all the other light signals by a ganglia and then passed on to the brain that has non-specific layer upon layer of neurons (more variable electrical sensors) that are constantly self wiring and unwiring to to other neurons. A larger brain with lots of neuron activity networking through lots of layers allows for advanced imaging processing, even including stuff like  past experience (us humans), but be prepared to consume a lot of electricity (calories), and take a long time to get through all the layers for processing. The other choice to to get by with less. Fish have much smaller, less complex brains- they have chosen the less-is-more strategy.

I should also point out that mammals have a visual cortex- the "graphics processor"  part of the brain which does not exist in other animals including fish.  But it turns out that fish are actually able to pull off some of the same visual functions without the big fancy brain parts that scientists originally thought were necessary.

I mentioned edge image enhancement earlier.  The idea here is filling in the gaps in a somewhat reliable fashion when the receptor cells do not pick up a full image.  We know that humans do this by showing them optical illusions and asking them what they see.  Turns out that is is sort of a way to ask fish what they see by training then with food or other incentives.  Yep. Fish species (to varying degrees) "see" optical illusions, which means that their visual system is adapting the input to make it more useful.

Another paper claims that  fish species that can see in color still favor shading and shapes over color for pattern recognition, which is opposite of us humans- probably because the availability of color underwater is much less reliable. This gets back to Steve's question about patterns.  So yes, some species are pretty good about seeing patterns.

I'll try and find the papers again and paste in the links and some examples.

-J