Fly colours

[Mike Connor]

For a research article on that;

http://jeb.biologists.org/content/204/14/2401.full.pdf

For various other articles on UV vision;

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=uv+ ... CBkQgQMwAA

TL
MC

[Jim Slattery]

It seems to say loss of uv vision and that the one receptor retains uv capability. Perhaps when the fish are young they need the extra "juice" in there vision so the can more readily see their food and pehaps their predators. As they mature their vision becomes more refined.
I have noticed that flies that are tied with naturally UV reflective materials are more effective than those tied without, color and texture being roughly the same. This past fall on Henry's Lake a friend took me out fishing, we were using a new fly he had recently tied that had UV reflective synthetic material for the wing. He had used it a few days earlier after fishing most of the morning using patterns that he normally used with moderate success. He imeadiately started to catch fish with the new fly and landed a dozen or so in the next hour to hour and a half.
The morning we went out we fished for almost 4 hours, each landing easily 2 dozen trout. The largest was a 10 pounder with several in the 6 to 4 pound class. My largest was a 7 pounder. My friend Dave said it was one of the best days that he had had out all season. I'm not ready to dismiss uv possibilities yet, something is going on.
Creating a "glow" around a fly does seem key. Larva lace and such do not have a "glow" unless perhaps you use a tinsle or such under it and at that it may be too harsh without a veil over it.

Jim

[Klaas]

Interessting first link Mike.

From what i read( correct me if im wrong) they speak of reduction in seeing uv light when fish get older,mature fish seem to get it back in times they spawn.
Can this explain that returning steelhead reach shallow water?
I find it atleast interesting that a primitive animal like a fish can adapt his eyes to the environment it lives in.

Klaas

[Mike Connor]

It seems to say loss of uv vision and that the one receptor retains uv capability. Perhaps when the fish are young they need the extra "juice" in there vision so the can more readily see their food and pehaps their predators. As they mature their vision becomes more refined.
I have noticed that flies that are tied with naturally UV reflective materials are more effective than those tied without, color and texture being roughly the same. This past fall on Henry's Lake a friend took me out fishing, we were using a new fly he had recently tied that had UV reflective synthetic material for the wing. He had used it a few days earlier after fishing most of the morning using patterns that he normally used with moderate success. He imeadiately started to catch fish with the new fly and landed a dozen or so in the next hour to hour and a half.
The morning we went out we fished for almost 4 hours, each landing easily 2 dozen trout. The largest was a 10 pounder with several in the 6 to 4 pound class. My largest was a 7 pounder. My friend Dave said it was one of the best days that he had had out all season. I'm not ready to dismiss uv possibilities yet, something is going on.
Creating a "glow" around a fly does seem key. Larva lace and such do not have a "glow" unless perhaps you use a tinsle or such under it and at that it may be too harsh without a veil over it.

Jim

Some flies using UV reflective materials may be better than those without, I don't know. Tinsels and various polished metals are UV reflective. However, in low light conditions there is very little or no UV light present at all. In the dark there is none, unless it is produced artificially. Also, even if one knew what effect UV reflective materials actually have on fish what good would it do you? Flies are dressed by humans according to human perceptions. Obviously they work or nobody would catch any fish. These flies have been dressed like this for centuries without any knowledge at all of UV light or similar phenomena, and they work.

UV light is not visible to humans, although some animals can perceive it, what they actually "see" is unknown. Sight is a combination of physical factors and brain interpretation. Even when animals have the physical capability there is no way to know what they actually see. Making various light wavelengths visible to humans by changing them to other colours is a "trick" accomplished by technology, you can not see the UV wavelength itself,what you see is a representation of it produced in various ways.

Getting flies to "glow" under UV light is the result of fluorescence. UV-light striking certain materials causes them to fluoresce and actually produce light. The UV light is NOT reflected, it is absorbed, and the material itself emits light.

Here is some stuff that works like this;

http://www.uvgear.co.uk/product/uvdecorations.htm

these things DO NOT "reflect" UV light, they absorb it and the material produces light of various colours. This is fluorescence and NOT reflection of UV light. These materials glow in the dark when subjected to UV ( Also commonly known as "black" light). You can not see the light and it is NOT reflected it is absorbed by the fluorescent material which then produces light due to the energy effects on its atomic structure.

People get these things mixed up and make all sorts of claims and advance all sorts of ideas and "theories", but the majority are based on wrong ideas and confusion about what UV light is.

TL
MC

[Jim Slattery]

Hi Mike,

The "glow" I was referring to was the effect that one creates by bouncing light through shaggy dubbing and the colored thread, creating a translucent effect, such as you described in your earlier post. Sorry for the confusion as I was in haste to respond.
Apparently there have been some test that show uv light can be found 35 feet under the water. I think insects and baitfish reflect uva light, the wave length that is very close or at the beginning of uvb, 300 to 310 , the wavelength trout are proported to see in. I am not a scholar by any means on this subject but this is what has been found and have explained to me by individuals with far more knowldge of these theories. If this is the case using materials that reflect uva light in the 300 to 310 wavelength ought not hurt ones chances of catching fish, but stand a good chance to enhance it.
Jim

[Mike Connor]

Hi Mike,
I think insects and baitfish reflect uva light,
Jim

They do, many swarm fish are silver and reflect very strongly, this confuses predators. But they reflect ALL light.

The assumption that something will work better for catching fish just because it exists, is not logical, and is ill-founded. If UV reflective materials where so irresistible to fish then you would just need to use a highly polished silver lure of some kind. That reflects the most UV light. We know this does not work, although "glints" from a lure can attract fish. Also anything that reflects UV light reflects ALL light.

Some birds and animals are attracted to "shiny" objects, but they don't eat them. There is no logical connection between something having a physical property like being able to reflect various wavelengths of light and it being attractive to fish. ANYTHING reflective reflects light, and often in the full spectrum, some things reflect some wavelengths better. Water reflects UV light.

TL
MC

[Mike Connor]

Just to try and clarify that. Artificial flies are dressed according to HUMAN perceptions. If you want to dress flies according to TROUT perceptions, then you need to know what those perceptions are and how they affect the trout. NOBODY KNOWS THAT!

Even assuming that you did actually know you would have to find some way to perceive such perceptions in order to use them. You can not perceive UV light and you have no idea of how trout might perceive it if at all, and therefore it is pointless even considering it.

Assuming that various things will work better without a reason for doing so is pointless. If you want things to work better then you have to know WHY! You need some logical basis for making such assumptions or you are just wasting your time.

One can make much better artificial flies by bettering HUMAN perception and observation of the naturals. Very many flies which work very well indeed are the result of careful observation by the HUMANS who invented them.

Despite all the discussion on these things NOBODY has yet offered any proof or a logical basis for these ideas. The same applies to "triggers" the only "trigger" I know of is movement in certain conditions. People go on about it all the time but NOBODY has yet been able to define one that works. Personally I think a lot of people confuse "triggers" ( which are well defined behaviour models), and "recognition points", which is not the same thing at all.

TL
MC

[Mike Connor]

The other major point here is that if any of these things actually worked then they would be repeatable and obvious. We all know they are not. If trout preferred flies dressed with some specific material under certain conditions then it would work for everybody under such conditions. We all know it doesn't.

Without some basis or proof that these things work then there is absolutely no sensible basis for using them at all and various "theories" based on such assumptions are completely useless because there are no facts to back them up.

TL
MC

[Jim Slattery]

But wouldn't be advantagious to use a material that has UVa reflective and/or absorbing/transmitting qualties, when said material IS right for the human perception , such as color and texture to create the desired effect anyway? Many natural materials such as fur and feathers reflect and or absorb/ transmit uv light. Obviously this is a relatively new scientific application to dressing trout flies, there is still much to be learned and discovered. Again if all other aspects of a material being used fit the human eyes criteria of "matching the hatch", which as you well know at times is completely different than on percieves as it should be ("realistic tying" is one such example) then why not choose the material that exhibts UV properties? The insects that we imitate have uv properties. How the fish percieve UV light in their total vision is clearly unknown to us, mostly I would guess because we do not see things with the added uv spectrum. It is hard to deny the fact that trout see some UV light, so adding it to your fly is just another bullet to your gun whether it is real or percieved. If fish see red as green and blue as orange it really makes no difference to us does it? As long as we make our imitations to what we see and discover what is missing from the total equation that is the best we can do and all we can do at this time, until we learn more.
The fact is that some of our most beloved and successful flies have natural UV qualities in them, is this a coincidence or not? There is not any concrete evidence but it certainly makes you sit up and wonder. Having said that many of the observations you have made on successful qualities for flies are dead on and I would think that they ALL play a part to a killing fly. Again the more bullets in the gun the better your chances.

[Mike Connor]

My replies in blue;

But wouldn't be advantagious to use a material that has UVa reflective and/or absorbing/transmitting qualties, when said material IS right for the human perception , such as color and texture to create the desired effect anyway?

Humans can not perceive such qualities without technical tricks, and there is no way to know if or how trout perceive them, so how are you going to know what to use? There is no way.

Many natural materials such as fur and feathers reflect and or absorb/ transmit uv light. Obviously this is a relatively new scientific application to dressing trout flies, there is still much to be learned and discovered. Again if all other aspects of a material being used fit the human eyes criteria of "matching the hatch", which as you well know at times is completely different than on percieves as it should be ("realistic tying" is one such example) then why not choose the material that exhibts UV properties?

Because there is no point, you don't know whether it works or not. The effectiveness of many materials has been determined by trial and error. If you find a material that works better than any other AND you discover that it absorbs/reflects UV light then you have a possible basis for using that material or a similar one. Without such a correlation there is no point in it. At this time no such correlations are known. It makes no difference what people believe, NOTHING is known.

The insects that we imitate have uv properties. How the fish percieve UV light in their total vision is clearly unknown to us, mostly I would guess because we do not see things with the added uv spectrum. It is hard to deny the fact that trout see some UV light, so adding it to your fly is just another bullet to your gun whether it is real or percieved. If fish see red as green and blue as orange it really makes no difference to us does it? As long as we make our imitations to what we see and discover what is missing from the total equation that is the best we can do and all we can do at this time, until we learn more.

How are you going to add it to your fly? You can't perceive it without using various technical tricks and you still don't know whether it works or not. If you find some material that works better than any other and upon investigating it you find that it has some special UV related property, which you assume is the reason for it working much better, then you have a basis for using it. There is no such material and therefore no basis for such assumptions.

The fact is that some of our most beloved and successful flies have natural UV qualities in them, is this a coincidence or not?

What do you mean by "natural UV qualities?" and how do you determine that? It possibly is a coincidence, I don't know, and neither does anybody else. There is no way to prove or disprove it, it is just pointless. Lots of things have properties which are irrelevant to any particular purpose. If you use magnetic hooks will you catch more fish? I have no idea. Should you use magnetic hooks on the chance that they work better? You can if you like but you still don't know whether it makes any difference or not. If you use magnetic hooks and catch more trout on them than anybody else and in repeatable conditions then you have a basis for deciding to use them. In the absence of such a basis it makes no difference whether you use them or not.


There is not any concrete evidence but it certainly makes you sit up and wonder. Having said that many of the observations you have made on successful qualities for flies are dead on and I would think that they ALL play a part to a killing fly. Again the more bullets in the gun the better your chances.

What surprises me is the number of people who go on about this stuff, even writing books full of bullshit about it without any concrete evidence at all.That's not "scientific" it's just being silly.


TL
MC