Fish behaviour

[Mike Connor]

Just some observations and considerations which may be of interest.

Spooked wild fish can disappear for a very long time. I have never actually waited days, but have often waited hours, without a sign of a fish returning. On the other hand, I have seen fish come back on the feed fairly quickly after a canoe, ( or even a whole fleet!), has passed, especially on the stretches where there are a lot of canoes, and also near paths frequented by walkers, some fish will continue to feed. I assume that the fish which are "accustomed" to this disturbance are simply conditioned over time not to react to it as a "danger". There must be mechanisms which eventually allow fish to ignore certain things, as they would otherwise flee from everything all the time. I assume that exposure conditioning is one such mechanism. Another example is fish feeding where cows mill around in the water. They must have become accustomed to this, as otherwise they would flee.

Although it is possible, even likely, that a better sensory ability plays a part in extended survival, there are a lot of factors arrayed against a fish. Fish survive because they survive. A mature fish has already beaten huge odds to become mature. Blind chance plays a part as does genetic preconditioning, and fitness. All the large browns ( > 3 lbs), I have caught more or less "locally" have been extremely specialised, only feeding at night, and only taking a couple of fish before retiring to their boltholes, where they don't take anything at all, even if the bolthole is known and accessible to the angler. This means the fish manages to get enough large amounts of protein in a short time, which allow it to grow faster, and also reduces its exposure to predators to a very high degree. Perhaps only an hour or so at night when it is actively feeding. Perhaps such fish are genetically programmed to turn cannibal fairly early, and to feed at night, or only the fish which turned cannibal early and fed at night survive to this size, however this may be, this aids their survival very greatly.

There are always problems when looking for cause and effect in various fish behaviour. Humans tend to anthropomorphise these things, but in the vast majority of cases there is no single specific reason for various things, large, ( and mature), fish are the culmination of many factors and there is no way to even know them all, most especially not in specific cases. As a rule the fish with the best genes will survive to breed, so passing on that genetic programming. Those that don't survive don't breed and so don't pass on their genes. This constantly hones the survival ability of the fish.

I am not at all happy with some statements in regard to fish memory. If fish can be conditioned to behave in certain ways, and they obviously can, then they must have something which allows them to be conditioned. Remember that what we are talking about here is the "re-programming" of instinctual behaviour. This alters the "normal" instinctual and involuntary responses! This is a major adjustment. It is not clear at all how this functions. There is no way for a fish to learn in the sense of stored memories as a higher brain function, ( which according to various authorities it does not have), and even if it could, that would not affect the instinctual and involuntary responses to various things.

As an example, humans can control a lot of things, but they can not re-program instinctual reflexes as a matter of will. You are unable to stop yourself blinking under certain conditions, although you can blink at will if you wish, there are plenty of other examples. A fish can not decide not to do something, as it lacks the capacity to make decisions, also such a function would take far too long in the environment in which a fish lives, it must react immediately, instinctively and CORRECTLY to various stimuli, or it dies. In many cases it will die anyway, because the response was not "optimal", or was useless in that situation, but the general trend will then be that fish which make the "right" instinctual response survive and the others don't. The large fish have not "learned" anything, they were just the only ones who responded "correctly" to the various stimuli.

There are a lot of very complex factors and inter-dependencies involved here and I don't think there is any way to unravel them to the extent that they might be useful to an angler seeking to catch a certain fish, except in the case of observed behaviour, as opposed to knowing the reasons(s) for that behaviour, or being able to extrapolate or predict it.

Panicked flight is more or less the "final" instinctual survival response, ( in humans as well), but people have different panic threshholds, even in more or less identical situations, and it is reasonable to assume that all other animals do as well. Panic can be "contagious" as well to a degree, with one animal panicking a whole herd. Extrapolating this to fish, it is reasonable to assume that a single fish can panic a whole shoal, simply by being the first to panic, even in cases where there is no apparent cause for panic. Instinctual reactions also depend on the degree of awareness.

As far as angling goes, I generally assume that anything I do which the fish can perceive is likely to result in my not catching that fish. This works pretty well when I actually succeed in doing it. In cases where the fish are aware of "something", it may still be possible to catch some, where in other cases it wont, or the fish will simply flee.

This is also why I concentrate mainly on stealth, and on prey behaviour, rather than on trout behavior as such. There is no way to accurately predict what various fish will do, or to know exactly "why" they do it, but observing how they react to various prey reveals patterns of behaviour which are quite likely to occur under certain circumstances. The only real difficulty there is ensuring accurate observation.

TL
MC

[kanutripr]

I find this a very fascinating topic. I have often stood in a stream fishing and watching trout feed within a few feet of me near enough that I could see them. Sometimes even if I moved a little (always gently) they would continue and not appear spooked but would not take anything presented to them no matter how carefully placed. I always wonder if they know I am there but are so accustomed to anglers they do not spook because they are not feeling threatened or if they do not know I am there and do not take my fly for other reasons, maybe presentation or fly choice. It would be a lot easier if we could just read their minds. I will await others replies with ba(i)ted breath.



Vicki

[willowhead]

Vicki, i have not read above your reply, and i apologise for that.............however. It is my opinion, that we should not over-think these things. Yes, fly fishing is a thinking persons game........but let Trout Magic & Trout Madness, (amoungst other things), simply be what they are...............it'll pay off. Trust me.............

[kanutripr]

I like thinking and studying and knowing. It's what I do. The catching is unimportant other than to prove that the learning has come full circle. But that should never stop one from continuing the quest for the knowledge. Otherwise why bother getting up in the morning.




Vicki

[DNicolson]

An excellent post Mike, logical and full of common sense.

[Otter]

When trout en masse are very actively feeding this is probably the best window of opportunity for us to catch them. They are feeding almost in a frenzy, ergo, they may take our imitation if it is good enough and presented correctly. However is it just the fact that they are very very actively focused on seeking a meal that increases our chances of success. I believe from my own experience that the more focused they are on feeding then their ability to detect danger diminishes and in general anglers can make more errors and still catch a few trout.

Though a generalisation, as such generalised statements are fraught with danger but I believe I have witnessed it time and time again and many others seem to concur on this.
As the river I fish for most of its course demands that an angler wades, opportunities to observe subsurface are limited and as such one must surmise certain behavour. During a general rise I think that with active trout splashing here there and everywhere , such commotion is bound to have an overall effect on each trout’s ability to detect danger - there is so much happening that for a trout to discern danger amongst such commotion may well be more difficult – and often come quickly back on the feed when for whatever reason are spooked.
Other anglers that are able to more easily observe what is happening may have more solid thoughts on this.

In a lesser hatch, with only a few fish intermittingly working the surface it is noticeable that often these trout tend to be very wary indeed and very particular in what they will take. This may also be a result of a single food form being available or maybe the early stages of a bigger hatch but it is however quite apparent that their survival instinct does not diminish appreciably in such feeding conditions.

The modern tendency towards catch and release has in my view created a whole new set of issues that would not have had particular relevance to the likes of skues etc... In Skues time if a trout of reasonable size made a mistake then it was likely to end up in a creel. Another factor that needs consideration when looking at trout behavior is whether the trout population on your river is Wild or Stocked. Taking these two issues along with angling pressure and the nature of the river and its fly life , these form a large part of the parameters which need consideration on how we can approach the catching part.

I reckon a hell of a lot of theory and a large number of anglers neglect the consideration of angling pressure and its impact on trout feeding behaviour. This I believe to be of quite often of paramount importance and can suspercede all else by a country mile. Combine heavy angling pressure and C&R and you have a recipie where prediction of trout behaviour reaches a new and almost impossible level. If you are lucky enough to be able to fish regularily on a particular stretch of water you will over the course of a number of seasons begin to see trends and behavour that you can be quite certain is a direct result of the pressure and the c&r. Like the wily old trout that Mike refers to, that feeds for a very short period after dark, you too must ascertain the best opportunities and try and fish accordingly. After all like the trout we too are predators and like the bigger trout the better angler will do the right thing at the right time.

The only real difficulty there is ensuring accurate observation.

TL
MC

That is indeed a major difficulty to most casual anglers and by the time most casual anglers understand the need for it their knees have become stiff and their eyesight less keen . The pressure of knowing that there are more angling seasons behind than in front , for some it brings a sense of urgency to their angling and often a desire to start from scratch and get things right before the bell tolls.

[tie2fish]

I, like Vicki, find this a fascinating topic. The above posts all contain aspects of trout "behavior" that I have witnessed from time to time, such as the willingness of fish to resume surface feeding after the passing of floating objects. The river where I fish most frequently is rife with tubers, canoes, and kayaks during the warmer months, and the wild brown trout who live there seem to pay very little attention to these foreign objects regardless of how unskilled the human passengers are; if these fish were rising before the commotion came along, they will invariably begin to rise again very shortly after the noise and splashing has passed. The same amount of disturbance on other streams with which I am familiar would put the trout down for far longer than I would be willing to wait, and I lay the differences here to the fact that the fish on my home river have been conditioned to tolerate such a racket simply because they have been exposed to it frequently with no bad consequences.

I have also observed on this river, which is C&R for most of the several miles of it I frequent, that trout which have been caught previously (as identified by mouth/lip scars) tend to fight less vigorously than those bearing no evidence of having been hooked before. I expect this may sound like a silly theory to some, but I'm personally convinced that these fish have "learned the drill" so to speak, and put up less resistance because they were set free the other time(s) they got hooked. Has anyone else experienced this behavior or am I giving the fish too much credit?

[Mike Connor]

I have also observed on this river, which is C&R for most of the several miles of it I frequent, that trout which have been caught previously (as identified by mouth/lip scars) tend to fight less vigorously than those bearing no evidence of having been hooked before. I expect this may sound like a silly theory to some, but I'm personally convinced that these fish have "learned the drill" so to speak, and put up less resistance because they were set free the other time(s) they got hooked. Has anyone else experienced this behavior or am I giving the fish too much credit?

Have not experienced this personally, which isn't really surprising as I don't fish catch and release, ( in point of fact it is illegal here), but have heard a lot of people referring to it, so I suppose it may well be the case. Catch and release has a number of effects. Basically it is an angler management technique, and actually has very little to do with "conservation". Any human interference, and catching and releasing a fish is pretty major interference, is going to have effects on the fish. Fish which have been caught and released a few times may well "learn" from the experience, and fight less when hooked as a result. Doubtless there are also other less obvious effects. Always difficult to judge or extrapolate the effects of such things. However, catching an animal, and not killing it, is the first step towards domestication. Some stocked rainbows are so domesticated that their reactions and general behaviour are completely different to those of wild fish.

TL
MC

[Mike Connor]

Quite a few people e-mail me about various "theories", which are in circulation, the subject matter varies from fish behaviour to the effects of ultra-violet light. This is often very interesting, but there are problems with lots of things, primarily because of the major difference in simple assumptions, hypotheses, and theories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

In order to formulate a hypothesis ( which might eventually become a theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theoryyou need some observation of a phenomenon to begin with. For an assumption you don't need anything at all. Simply believing something or other is not a basis for formulating a hypothesis. Hypotheses and theories may prove to be correct or not, as indeed may various assumptions, but there is still the fundamental difference of a hypothesis being based on some observed fact, whereas an assumption does not need to be based on anything at all, and often isn't!

The only really reliable method is the "scientific method";

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Although this doubtless seems very complex, it is not that hard to use. The basic tenet is that you must have observed some phenomenon before you can make a working hypothesis. You can make all sorts of assumptions without knowing or observing anything at all, and this is what quite a few people tend to do. This results in "theories" which are not theories, but just a lot of assumptions often based on beliefs which have no basis in fact. If somebody is unable to explain what observed fact/phenomenon his "theory" is based on, then it is probably nonsense. There is no point in holding forth at length on the various properties of UV-light in regard to fluorescent materials and fish, because there are no observable facts in this regard. No phenomenon occurs so there is nothing to be explained and it is thus impossible to form a hypothesis. There is no evidence at all that fluorescent materials make artificial flies more attractive to fish. If they did, this would be easily observable and testable, but it isn't! Maintaining that various fluorescent materials make flies more attractive to fish is merely an assumption, and even cursory research will prove that it has no basis in fact. It doesn't make any difference how many books people write about it, or indeed whatever else they do, without an observable phenomenon there is simply no basis for a hypothesis.

Such things can be quite safely dismissed. This is also why I dismiss a lot of things. If there is no observation, there is simply no basis for anything further on the matter. "Theories" and whole constructs based on various assumptions are invariably a complete waste of time.

There is also no point in becoming angry with me because you are unable to prove something or other. With regard to "positive triggers", my stance on the matter is well known, and remains so regardless of who you cite, or what they have to say about it. If you, ( or anybody else), can provide a single example of a positive visual trigger for an artificial fly, ( excepting movement ), then I might listen. Otherwise you are just wasting your and my time with it. Nobody has ever been able to provide me with one as yet, despite the fact that loads of people write about them. In my opinion this is just hype, which doesn't actually mean anything at all.

TL
MC

[Otter]

I guess the two primary aspects of fish behavor that should interest a fly angler are firstly how fish react to our presence. Easiest solution to killing any need to worry about the vagaries of this is to ensure that your quarry is unaware of your presence.

There is a wonderful term used in science (can't recall what precisely it is used for) - The Path of Least Resistance.
As an analogy in angling terms I think it fair to say that many anglers follow the path of most resistance, believing that fly fishing is an extremely complex matter, which is hardly surpising if one is to read magazine articles and many books and listen to the plethora of angling self proclaimed experts. The problem then occurs that this first tenet, the need for stealth is largely ignored as anglers try and come to terms with the other complexeties. If you ignore this first tenet then little else matters for you cannot judge the correctness of your flies, the quality of your presentation etc... I have witnessed this time and time again. Anglers blaming the trout and blaming their flies, blaming their tippet material when in fact the problem is that the trout whilst still feeding are doing so in an erratic manner, slashing at flies they should be sipping - they are on simply on guard and very minor flaws in your presentation or your fly are met with disdain.

On one stretch that I fish the trout are extremely accustomed to the presence of anglers, accustomed to their smaller brethern scuttling up from a wading angler.
I often fish up and stop every thirty yards or so and pause. After a few minutes the trout will re-commence feeding downstream of me, when they are rising regularily and confidently I simply drift a dry down over them and quite often this works very well. This is an example of being aware of certain percieved behavor and using it to your advantage.

The second aspect that is of paramount importance is understanding how trout react to the presence of whatever food they prey upon, the timing of hatches, the reaction to various stages of hatches - understanding the best feeding locations for such hatches. To me this is the area of greatest complexity and the better anglers tend to have pretty precise knowledge of this aspect and apply their knowledge in a very practical and asttute way.

There is a third aspect and that is being acutely aware of what other anglers are up to or have been up to on your river. There is little point being extremely stealthy in your approach if three other anglers twenty minutes earlier have rampaged up through the pool you are about to fish - though you may catch the odd fish, they are likely to be small.