Selective trout?

Do people really practice?

Yep, it's quite relaxing when I don't have time or motivation for a full outting on the stream after work. Plus I'm pursuing my casting instructor cert thru IFFF, so I gots to practice. For a fly, I just tie on a piece of bright color yarn.
 

you're projecting on to the trout the ability to reason which they don't have - they can't think in the way that we do - we use reason and deduction, they are limited just to deduction - food or not food, safe or not safe, cold or warm, can breathe or can't breathe....

they just don't have the cognitive ability to make decisions.

FYI -- According to Culum Brown from Macquarie University, "Fish are more intelligent than they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers match or exceed those of ‘higher’ vertebrates including non-human primates."
 
i used to practise for saltwater casting - double hauling is a biatch until you get it...as is reverse casting with a double haul. I've also practised with my left quite a lot to build up muscle memory. not enough though lol.

i found snow the best medium - you get very little line resistance on the strip and no danger of 'burning' the line on a weed or stick etc.

you get funny looks from the neighbours, but they thought i was weird anyway...
 
IMHO you're confusing memory with instinct.

Trout act diffrently when herons and comorants are around too don't they ? - they take cover, feed carefully etc don't they ? thats instinct not memory.

you're projecting on to the trout the ability to reason which they don't have - they can't think in the way that we do - we use reason and deduction, they are limited just to deduction - food or not food, safe or not safe, cold or warm, can breathe or can't breathe....

they just don't have the cognitive ability to make decisions

uhhmmm, I'm gonna disagree here, based upon my experiences.

I know of a few fish in the Letort that I've had a hook into, that when I come back a few days or even a week or two later that will have absolutely nothing to do with me as soon as the leader hits the water. These are fish that I've often previously targeted only to spook or put down for the evening. Then I finally get it right and fool 'em only to come back again after our up close and personal encounter and they will bolt for cover as soon as the line hits the water on that first cast. If that's not a learned behavior based upon a memory of our encounter then I don't know what is.

I don't know how long those memories last, but they certainly remember that that line on the water equates to danger whereas before it didn't.
 
I think trout are capable of learned behavior. In what capacity, I don't know.
 
greenghost wrote:

you're projecting on to the trout the ability to reason which they don't have - they can't think in the way that we do - we use reason and deduction, they are limited just to deduction - food or not food, safe or not safe, cold or warm, can breathe or can't breathe....

they just don't have the cognitive ability to make decisions.

FYI -- According to Culum Brown from Macquarie University, "Fish are more intelligent than they appear. In many areas, such as memory, their cognitive powers match or exceed those of ‘higher’ vertebrates including non-human primates."

memory is not the same as reason - trout have been shown to have memories that last up to 90days, but a trout still can't reason between choices - they make deductions based on instinct alone.

I read a paper where trout were given a tab in their tank and when they pushed it they got a morsel of food - which they repeated everyday. some days they took the tab away and brought it back days later...up to 90 days later.

they then pushed the experiment - they put two tabs in the tank - one for a small morsel, one for a big morsel to see what would happen. with only the first tab pushed releasing a morsel.

the result was that the trout pushed either tab randomly - they could not reason that one tab gave them a bigger reward than the other i.e. they were incapable of making an informed choice.

 
tomitrout wrote:
uhhmmm, I'm gonna disagree here, based upon my experiences.

I know of a few fish in the Letort that I've had a hook into, that when I come back a few days or even a week or two later that will have absolutely nothing to do with me as soon as the leader hits the water. These are fish that I've often previously targeted only to spook or put down for the evening. Then I finally get it right and fool 'em only to come back again after our up close and personal encounter and they will bolt for cover as soon as the line hits the water on that first cast. If that's not a learned behavior based upon a memory of our encounter then I don't know what is.

I don't know how long those memories last, but they certainly remember that that line on the water equates to danger whereas before it didn't.

if they didn't equate the line on the water to danger before, what spooked them or put them down before ?

your presence, i.e. same thing just in a different form.

 
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but a trouts brain is not capable of memory, it's not complex enough or wired that way.

memory is not the same as reason - trout have been shown to have memories that last up to 90days, but a trout still can't reason between choices - they make deductions based on instinct alone.


uhmmmm, so which is it GeeBee? you can't have it both ways.


 
tomitrout wrote:
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but a trouts brain is not capable of memory, it's not complex enough or wired that way.

memory is not the same as reason - trout have been shown to have memories that last up to 90days, but a trout still can't reason between choices - they make deductions based on instinct alone.


uhmmmm, so which is it GeeBee? you can't have it both ways.

okay - when i meant memory in the first comment i meant rational memory i guess - the ability to use memory to reason or make choices.

they just don't have that computing hardware.

its like if i asked you if you liked ice cream, you could tell me yes or no, and why (sweet, creamy, cold etc.). a trout could only reply "food".

one is based on cognitive thought and reason, the other more on instinct.


 
Memory is the backbone of reason. In other words, without memory, there is no reason. Your discussion seems to ignore this. Trout have little to no long-term memory, unless you want to call instinct memory, which you might well plausibly do. I don't believe 90 days-- there is a fly in the ointment with that "study."
 
geebee wrote:
IMHO you're confusing memory with instinct.

I am pretty sure I understand the difference between the two.

geebee wrote:
Trout act diffrently when herons and comorants are around too don't they ? - they take cover, feed carefully etc don't they ? thats instinct not memory.

True, unless they have survived an attack. But let me use this same instinct to prove learned behavior and therefore memory.

On a non-pressured stream a trout that detects an angler will take cover because of the above instinct.

However, on a pressured stream it is fairly common for a trout that has obviously detected an angler to hold in its lie. The trout has learned that the funny looking creature with the stick is not the threat.

geebee wrote:
you're projecting on to the trout the ability to reason which they don't have - they can't think in the way that we do - we use reason and deduction,

My position is that trout can exhibit learned behavior and have memory. Anything else is your imagination.

geebee wrote:
they are limited just to deduction - food or not food, safe or not safe, cold or warm, can breathe or can't breathe....

Why can't experience be used in these simple decisions?

geebee wrote:
they just don't have the cognitive ability to make decisions.

As you have shown they do make decisions. Food or not food is a decision, safe or not safe is a decision.
 
So trout "make up their mind" that something is "food." I can't fathom it.
 
JackM wrote:
So trout "make up their mind" that something is "food." I can't fathom it.

What is a refusal? It certainly looks like a they "make up their mind" that something is not "food".
 
It is an impulse and it is often absolutely incorrect. It isn't reason, never can be. They do not have the capacity. As Pink Floyd says: "trust me."
 
JackM wrote:
It is an impulse

I am using this definition of decision: a determination arrived at after consideration. I find that to more accurately describe a refusal than your word "impulse".

There is an obvious determination not to eat the non-food. Would you agree that a trout that rises just short of a fly and flows downstream with it for 5 yards could be described as "considering eating that fly"?

JackM wrote:
and it is often absolutely incorrect.

Sure, as I said before even humans get it wrong sometimes.

JackM wrote:
It isn't reason, never can be. They do not have the capacity. As Pink Floyd says: "trust me."

I didn't say it was.
 
Trout "consider" eating cigarette butts and pebbles, but unless they are really hungry, they won't try to ingest the former. As for pebbles, they may eat a few to aid digestion.
 
what's the first rule in fly fishing that we all learn? Match the hatch. for dries I thing the trout are looking for a distinct appearance that the bug makes on the water. it could be the wings the legs I am not sure but I think a good example is if you look at the trico hatch. the most distinct part of a spent trico is the what their wings look on the water. I believe that what the fish are keying in on. at first I would tie all my tricos with the three large tails but now I don't because the fish are not looking at the tails. then I did a more noticeable CDC spinner wing style fly and it was a good pattern.

it goes for almost all fish. I have seen stripers blitzing and would not touch anything bigger then three inches. you could probably throw a live eel or whole live bunker in at then and they would not touch it.

basically what I am saying is size is everything when fish are selective.
 
JackM wrote:
Trout "consider" eating cigarette butts and pebbles, but unless they are really hungry, they won't try to ingest the former.

I would have thought that it would be easy to get a trout to eat a cigarette butt. They will eat foam or deer hair hoppers and crickets, in the right flow a cigarette butt should look just as good. Maybe they float too high.
 
I doubt they will swallow the cigarette butt. Maybe they roll it around on their tongue for a while, but that's about it.
 
Jack,

They spit it out because it won't stay lit.
 
Top