Fly colours

[Mike Connor]

An example of something useless is the vermiform appendix in humans;

QUOTE
The human appendix is a vestigial structure. A vestigial structure is a structure that has lost all or most of its original function through the process of evolution. The vermiform appendage is the shrunken remainder of the cecum that was found in a remote ancestor of humans. Ceca, which are found in the digestive tracts of many extant herbivores, house mutualistic bacteria which help animals digest the cellulose molecules that are found in plants.[4] As the human appendix no longer houses a significant amount of these bacteria, and humans are no longer capable of digesting more than a minimal amount of cellulose per day,[5] the human appendix is considered a vestigial structure. This interpretation would stand even if it were found to have a certain use in the human body. Vestigial organs are sometimes pressed into a secondary use when their original function has been lost.[6] See the sections below for possible functions of the appendix that may have evolved more recently after the appendix lost its original function.
UNQUOTE

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermiform_appendix

If you believe something it does not matter what anybody says to the contrary, you still believe it.

These materials have been around for a long time now and NOBODY has as yet shown a relationship between using them and catching fish. If there was a definite relationship it would be known by now.

QUOTE Mike your a smart person but even you know that nature is something that has its secrets and some of them we will never understand.
Scientists dont have an explanation for alot of things in nature.UNQUOTE.

Not understanding the reason for something is not the same thing as inventing a spurious reason without any basis in fact. The main reason it is difficult to refute stuff like this is because there is no basis in fact.

I have done my best to show why I think this is so. I am not trying to convert or convince anybody. If you don't believe it, that's fine.

Right now I am more worried about the possible reactions to my latest stealth gear;

http://www.morphsuits.com/morphsuits/pa ... -morphsuit

TL
MC

[Otter]

Right now I am more worried about the possible reactions to my latest stealth gear;

http://www.morphsuits.com/morphsuits/pa ... -morphsuit

TL
MC

Nothing to worry about there except that you could startle a few people. Have you tested it to see if contains UV materials - ya know, just in case the scientists are wrong and trout do see in the UV spectrum and scatter at the first glimpse of mike morph. Having a pee could pose a major problem. ???

[Otter]

Having thought about these things for many year I cannot but think that a very simple satement of Mikes goes to the very core of everything we do. Mike made this statement in relation to the concept of Positive Triggers - his criteria being that rather than focus on looking at positive triggers he aimed in the creation of his flies to ensure the absence of NEGATIVE TRIGGERS. If you hold any faith in the concept that for the most part , presentaion of flies that are close to the natural and behave like the natural is a good basis on which to fish successfully then it is important to remove from your operations all the Negative Triggers that may effect the trouts interest in taking your fly.

The main reason I bring this up is that it is pointless to discuss the importance of the colour, be that translucent colour, reflected or other wise, in contemplating the design of ones flies if one does not present these flies in a natural manner whilst fishing.

I know too many anglers that would argue till the cows come home on various matters on fly design, materials, rods, reels, tippet material, yet when I see them fish it does not surprise me in the least that they catch but a few trout. Is it surprising then that many of these anglers are the very ones that race to the tackle shop to buy the latest SCIENTIFIC material, catch a few trout and declare that the new material has magical properties - the myth thus propagates and thus becomes fact. Fly fishing history is littered with this and beginners remain virtual beginners for their entire fly fishing life, locked into this cycle.

Lets take this idea into everything we do and look at removing all Negative Triggers from our fishing.

Steath...............lack of steath is the foremost negative trigger
Presentation.......flies behaving un-naturally is generally a negative trigger
Position.............if your fly, perfectly designed, is not in the zone ( bottom, mid water, under menisucs, in meniscus, on top etc... ) where the naturals are being taken then this is a negative trigger - the trout will quite often simply ignore your fly.


There is no rocket science or magic here, any angler that keeps things simple, trying to follow these simple concepts will over a period of a few seasons see their ability to catch trout transformed beyond recognition - and this is irrefutable. Maybe then, looking at the colour of ones fly, the properties of the materials will be more relevant to your fishing and you will be better positioned to test the pros and cons of various things.

[Jim Slattery]

When I make a statement that through my observationS I have found that materials that are UV REFLECTIVE and or UV ABSORBING /EMMITIING and classing them unsientifically as UV REACTIVE so that I can group both materials together, sorry for the improper use of symantics, I am saying that obersvationS means a prolonged testing of such materials, and not claiming willy-nilly that " hey I used a fly once it works so all must work".
I have tired of this argument and it seems that I am banging my head against a wall. so I will make one last statement on this post.

The the 2002 study link that was was posted states that Trout do see UV as adults.
UV reflection and Color are two seperate things.
I have been using flies tied that have what has been called UV reflective material for years .
These flies outperform flies tied with similar material in regards to color and texture.
I can not explain it any clearer than that.
If this is hogwash I'll continue bathing with the hogs. Catching fish when others don't. With fish jumping out of the water 2 feet when striking my fly. Heck I must just be hallucinating out on the river.

[Otter]

Jim , so if I understand correctly, you bathe with the hogs and have a feed of magic mushrooms before you go fishing - man, I thought I had problems

Your interpretation of your results are a classic example of A+B=C , in this case C = UV reflective materials catch more trout - fly fishing is littered with such interpretations and this leads to propagation of such interpretation becoming fact.
When the trout were in such a frenzy leaping out of the water did you fish any non UV flies, have you ever had trout acting like this previously with non UV flies - strangely enough I have and know many anglers with similar experiences.

Let's take the case of so called UV fly tying materials. Firstly, the nature of these materials is that they are all sparkly - and sparkly materials have been known at times to work very well, they reflect colours in various manners within the range of human vision and hence within the range of trout vision. Such materials have been around for years and used successfully for various things - from simple tinsel to more extravagant materials. The problem I have with your interpretation is that although you do not come outright and say it, the underlying tone of your thread is that you believe it is the UV element of the materials that makes them successful. The "leap of faith" here is that the trout can see something that we cannot and all other aspects of the materials in question are discounted as secondary, sorry , but I do not buy into that at all.

I have experimented with using various UV materials, UV ice dub for eample, as sparkly stuff goes, it’s a nice material to work with. I have yet to find any advantage in its use or any of the other stuff and bear in mind, like millions of other anglers I had been brainwashed into believing various stuff such as " adds a nice bit of sparkle to the fly" as though that has anything to do with anything, in so far as the aim of my flies is to attract trout and not other fly tiers or anglers.
It is my opinion that attractiveness of many of these materials is more aligned to the seduction of anglers and fly tiers than to the seduction of trout.

The fact that you were catching trout and others weren't is completely irrelevant to considering whether UV had anything to do with your success. I have been on both sides of that equation and UV was not a factor in who was catching what.
Another point here Jim is that if you believe that UV is a magic bullet then you are more likely to incorporate these materials and fish fly's using these materials - that in itself negates from fair and proper analysis or interpretation of anything unless of course one tests these things in an unbiased and systematic way over many many seasons.

In my view Jim, the " I think therefore I am " methology does not hold any water in fair and proper consideration of these matters. Therefore I can no more disprove your belief in the benefit of UV any more than you can prove the benefit and until such proof exists that the use of UV materials have a material advantage then my views shall remain completely at odds with yours.

Thankfully fishing is not a matter of life and death and thus each of us is entitled to our opinions - enjoy the mushrooms and please take a shower after swimming with the hogs..

[Roadkill]

Let's take the case of so called UV fly tying materials. Firstly, the nature of these materials is that they are all sparkly - and sparkly materials have been known at times to work very well, they reflect colours in various manners within the range of human vision and hence within the range of trout vision.

Otter

I may agree with you about UV-Reflective materials like UV ice dub but certainly not all UV-Absorbing materials are sparkly. I use a number of non sparkly things in my tying that react to UV light: feathers, dubbings, yarns, threads and beads. They fluoresce and can then be perceived differently by man and fish than a similar looking but non fluorescent material on the same fly.

[William Anderson]

Otter, gang, I'm sure Jim has said all he wants to say on the subject, but I have to defend a process with some wiggle room. I love a rigid scientific approach as much as the next person, but there are times when you have to allow for a qualitative scientific approach, rather than a quantitative approach. Aside from my career as an architect (and don't remind my wife of this...it's still a "chilly" topic ) I also have a MS in Cognitive Psychology. I didn't use it long as my heart was moving toward a life of design work, BUT...the science of psychology is not so different from standing in a stream with a box of flies. There has to be room for some suspended variables in order to make further interpretations, hoping colleagues are doing the same and with enough "significant positive" results with minimal outliers, you compare notes and come to indesputable facts. There is still a divide in the acceptance of psychological study as hard science, it clearly is not, but hard science isn't the point. There are truths to be discovered and applied.

Yes, two cups of coffee and I have a couple of minutes to ramble.

I know this topic is moving far from it's intended purpose, discussing color, so I'm not going to sidetrack this new thread...BUT I would like to hear specifically what we are talking about in terms of UV materials and how we are determining the difference between sparkle and UV reflection. Don't all materials absorb and reflect UV waves in a continuum of degrees? Is there some chemical property that designates a product as UV reflective, or are we making assumptions about various materials exhibiting these characteristics? Tinsel relfects natural, visible sun light. No? I'm not at all trying to be provocative or even snarky, as I can be at times. I'm genuinely interested in knowing...should I be adding trilobal dubbing to my hare's ear blend? What natural materials reflect or absorb UV particles? Is there evidence? Even Qualitiative? I was just thinking this morning at 3AM as my 5yo's knees were in my back about effective materials over the past few centuries. I don't want to be off topic, but do hare's ear, peacock herl, pheasant tail, hen hackle, partridge and urine stained ram's testical wool contain a magic characteristic?

Happily going back to work now.

w

[Mike Connor]

UV-reactive just means that a material reacts in some way to UV-light. UV-reactive resin, for instance, cures in the presence of UV light of the right wavelength, so it is UV-reactive. Some EPROMS can be erased by exposure to UV-light, and so are UV-reactive. Some germs are killed by UV-light and so are UV-reactive. Human skin is UV-reactive and "sunburns" as a result. There are lots of examples.

Fluorescent material reacts to UV-light by emitting visible light, so it is UV-reactive.

UV-reflective means that the substance concerned reflects UV-light like a mirror reflects visible light. Water and other things, especially polished metal surfaces reflect UV-light.

The main problem here is that it is simply assumed that because fish may be able to see something in UV light that they will want to eat it. If fish can see things in UV light, then they see them all the time in UV light when UV light is present. There is considerable evidence that fish actively avoid UV light, they can not close their eyes and UV light is dangerous to them, they avoid exposing themselves in conditions of bright sunlight ( = conditions of maximum UV light).

The light emitted by fluorescent material is NOT UV light. it is visible light produced by the fluorescent material as a result of being bombarded with the high energy radiation. Even assuming fish can see in UV light, then fluorescent material would be completely useless because it does NOT produce UV light, it produces light in the human visible spectrum when SUBJECTED to UV light. If very little or no UV light is present it does not do anything noticeable at all.

TL
MC

[Mike Connor]

There is considerable evidence that fish actively avoid UV light, they can not close their eyes and UV light is dangerous to them, they avoid exposing themselves in conditions of bright sunlight ( = conditions of maximum UV light).

Which would also explain why they can sense it, so they can avoid it!

TL
MC

[Mike Connor]

This is also confirmed in recent studies;

QUOTE
In goldfish, embryos are prone to UV effects during early
development and produce CPDs under UV radiation. These
are more efficiently repaired in the presence of light. 342 Solar UV
radiation has been shown to induce DNA damage in the eggs and
larvae of the Atlantic cod, 296 where larvae were more sensitive than
eggs. Artificial UV causes massive apoptosis in larval embryos
of Japanese flounders. 343 Studies addressing biological weighting
functions indicated a strong sensitivity towards solar UV-B. CPD
loads as low as 10 per megabase DNA resulted in approximately
10% mortality. Use of video taping and measurement of oxygen
consumption showed sublethal effects of UV radiation in juvenile
rainbow trout 344 Under worst-case scenarios (60% ozone loss,
sunny weather and low water turbulence), solar UV-B eliminated
buoyancy and caused mortality within 1 or 2 days.
UNQUOTE

From;

http://www.ciesin.org/documents/UNEParticle_worrest.pdf

and there are plenty of others. This strongly suggests that fish can sense UV light in order to avoid it.

TL
MC