Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ryan.maccie]

As a fairly new angler that is very quickly getting into it very quickly there are few things I still dont understand, and feel I will not be able to advance my skills untill I understand..

I found this website that touches on it a little bit..

http://www.tacklemaking.com/default.php?pageID=12

but it does not quite relate to what I am fishing for (salmon)

I found that I can catch springs/coho/cutthroat on a #1 copper blade in "tea" coloured water..

why do these fish under this circumstance choose a colour similar to the condition of water, copper and gold work, silver does not seem to have the same effect?

is there certian circumstances that a silver blade will be effective in the same river, targeting the same fish, but different water conditions?

It seems to be a really mis-understood subject in new anglers.

hopefully we can get a good discussion going here, with some usefull information!

[Dogbreath]

There's tonnes of info on the net and this site as well about just that  subject already.

Here are the two best books for same.

[Ryan.maccie]

There's tonnes of info on the net and this site as well about just that  subject already.

Here are the two best books for same.

I continued looking after my post..

Unfortunately I have been deemed un-employed at the moment, so I am not able to purchase either book (it will cut into gear money), but when I do come across some extra cash, i will pick them both up!

I have gathered that in high water conditions, Silver, bronze, and gold seem to be key tickets, and in low conditions  Black, copper, tarnished brass.. medium water height/visibility- Red, yellow, orange, green, blue ,white...

That still dosent explain to me why.. As far as I have read..
Red is the most visible color underwater, so would it not make more sence in low vis, to use red?

[milo]

Red is the most visible color underwater, so would it not make more sence in low vis, to use red?

The explanation is simple: Colours CHANGE under water depending on depth and amount of light.

I poached this from another forum - I hope it helps:

A large part of vision underwater is being able to distinguish different colors. Seeing colors underwater depends on the amount of light reaching the particular depth at which one is at. Another factor in seeing underwater is the condition of the waters and, more specifically, the conditions of the surface. There are several ways to make the colors easier to see. However, it is most important, to simply understand that colors change underwater and it is sometimes hard to distinguish between them.

One factor in seeing underwater is the fact that as light passes through the water it is absorbed, and much of it is lost in the process. This causes objects to lose their color as they go deeper down or further away. To add to this, the wavelengths that make up our perception of color are absorbed differently. The length the wavelength changes how fast the color is absorbed. Red has the longest wavelength, more than 700 nm. One "nm" stands for one nanometer, which is on millionth of a meter. After red comes orange which is somewhere in-between 700nm and 600nm. After orange comes yellow and so on, all the way down to the blues and purples which are the shortest at around 400 nm.



Depending on the length of the color's wavelengths you can predict how a color will change underwater. For example, in clear water, the longest wavelength is lost first. So if you were in a pool swimming downward, the first color that would be hard to see is red.

Another factor in seeing color underwater, is the condition of the water. Light from the sun is reflected by the surface of the water. This means that the surface of the water can cause significant change in one's perception of color underwater. Different surfaces can be different amounts of bubbles, pollution, decomposing plants or plankton. Even if the change is simply more motion in the water, causing more bubbles and a different angle between the rays and the surface of the water, light would be absorbed faster, and color would be therefore lost faster. However, something such as plankton can significantly change perception of color underwater. This is because plankton absorbs violets and blues. So the presence of plankton would cause blue and violet objects to lose their colors much faster compared to red and yellow objects. Red was the first to lose its color in clear water, and the blues and violets were the last. So the condition of the water can ultimately reverse the situations, before the longer wavelengths were the first to be absorbed and with plankton the shorter wavelengths are the first. Thus, the condition of the water is a huge importance when seeing colors underwater.

Understanding how colors change at different depths and in different conditions is the first step, understanding what they change to and how to work with that is the next. In clear water, if you go down far enough a red object either appears unlighted or black. This makes since as clear water absorbs red light and eventually you can reach a depth where no red light reaches the object. The same thing could happen to a blue object in coastal waters, it could appear black. Even though red is absorbed faster in clear water and blue in coastal waters, all the colors are absorbed in water, just at different rates. So the farther you go down the less color is perceived. Plus, the further down you go different color objects all start to look the same color, the color they all look like tends to be the color that is best perceived in that water condition. For instance, if it was clear water, at a certain depth all the objects would start to look gray. So even before you reach a depth deep enough to make colors look black you can get easily confused between the different colors. One way to distinguish between different colors is their relative brightness or darkness. Several of the most visible colors are light, bright colors that cause a good brightness contrast with the dark water background. If there was a different background, such as white sand, darker colors would be easier to see. Another good way to distinguish different colors is to use two colors that cannot be mixed up in any type of water. A good example would be orange and green.[/b]

[leadbelly]

both good books, try the library or a used book store.
Also if you can find any old copies of Salmon Trout Steelheader magazine they have many many articles on just what you are looking for. .
Not sure what i did with my copies, hmm
That being said as I pack my coho lure box every Sept color is not a big part of it.Having many sizes colors and shapes to work with is equally important.
Shapes and weight for different water and colors to experiment with.Ive a buddy who only uses lures for salmon year after year nothing else, and its different every year what his top producer is.One year a watermelon Little Cleo one year a Bolo spinner etc.
Retrieval speed leader size lenth direction of cast hook type, lots of things to work on and learn what works best for you
good luck

[BentRodsGuiding]

When water is very colored I use nothing but Chartreuse and Floursecent pink on my big Cascade Spinners, and for smaller spinners I will go with Silver blade with chartreuse lure tape and a chartreuse body, for Colorado blades I will use again a chartreuse blade.

as the water clears, 2-4 feet vis, Silver, not nickel (looks silver but has far less flash) will be the key finish on my Spinners with flourescent colors again dominating my lure adornments.

Once the water gets to 4 feet of vis brass and Copper will now begin to dominate my lure selection.

When visibility is reaching 6 feet of vis I will use only Copper finish lures but slight color accents can be effective.

This is only in relation to spoons and spinners.

When guiding it is very helpful having 4 anglers casting lures to really see what the fish will respond too.


Yesterday the Coho were taking mostly Copper finish spoons and Spinners , but were also taking the odd silver spoon , but would not touch a silver spinner, vis was about 4 feet fish were coming in fresh on the incomonig tide.

[jon5hill]

I find that most explanations fishers provide for using one gear or another are examples of stories that behavioural ecology skeptics refer to as, "just so" stories. Where the overlying principles may in fact be true regarding light and color attenuation with depth, they feature neither empirical proof, nor research into the matter demonstrating sufficient evidence (anecdotal or not), that would convince me that these principles govern fish behavior and observed hook-up success. They sure do sound elegant and fitting enough, but to be true, the burden of proof must be demonstrated in absence of confounding factors, which are absolutely ubiquitous in fishing.

In these moments I refer to the law of parsimony. The solution that creates the fewest new assumptions is usually correct.

It may not be the experience from hatch matching advocates and gear-color advocates, but from my personal experience fishing for stream trout, lake trout, river steelhead, river salmonids, ocean salmonids, and just about anything else - color and hatch-matching makes little difference. Just about the only identifiable trend I have observed is that brighter colors work better in turbid/cloudy water. Consider the pink fishery on the Fraser mainstem. Water is usually muddy or at least partially clouded with dissolved solids. Everyone and their dog uses pink spoons, but those using bright yellow, bright green or blue, sometimes just a silver blade or spoon are also catching fish. Often there are other factors influencing things that one does not consider, like lure movement, depth, incidental noise, and placement.

To me, the terminal end, so long as it is presented correctly and in the right place, will evoke a bite nearly regardless of the identity of the terminal tackle. I have caught trout on cigarette butts to prove this point to friends before. This point is also brought up by Alfred Davies in his book, "The Gilly", where he refers to the fly being maybe about 2% of the importance with respect to catching fish or not. People focus so much on this one detail, however, that others, perhaps more important ones are ignored. From my experience, you have to look at all the details in order to avoid missing one that may be important. Only time refines the understanding of the how, but the why will always remain a series of "just so" stories to me.

I would be very careful with what you attribute to fishing success. A saying I keep telling myself and to others about fishing is that,

"If you don't catch a fish, it doesn't necessarily mean you did something wrong - and if you do catch a fish, it doesn't necessarily mean you did something right either"

On the side of literature, there is some supporting work that shows pretty clearly that juvenile salmonids and trout eat what is available in the current prey field. Maybe we give the fish significantly more credit with respect to intelligence and selectivity than they deserve.

[fishseeker]

I have got a sneaking feeling you are absolutely correct jon5 but, if I am not doing well, I still find myself pulling out every color of the rainbow and every size I can possibly find.   Such is the psychology of fishing 

[Tex]

A great post, jon.  I would agree with a large portion of what you said, with special attention to this line here:

To me, the terminal end, so long as it is presented correctly and in the right place, will evoke a bite nearly regardless of the identity of the terminal tackle.

Fishing for salmon, I have found this to be fairly true again and again.  Examples would include people telling me to switch to a blue spinner instead of a green spinner when fishing for Coho in the river, because that's what they're "on".  Another example would be how to make your cutplug herring roll when power-mooching for big chinook salmon in the ocean... I call BS, you get the bait in front of them and they'll bite it as long as the roll doesn't look TOO ridiculous, and even then they're sometimes take it.

HOWEVER:

It may not be the experience from hatch matching advocates and gear-color advocates, but from my personal experience fishing for stream trout, lake trout, river steelhead, river salmonids, ocean salmonids, and just about anything else - color and hatch-matching makes little difference.

I call the bolded parts as being wrong.  Although trout will often take a well presented ANYTHING, I have spent too many days watching the fish key-in on specific bugs and ignoring all else to believe it your claim to be true about rainbows.  A trout, in MANY cases, most certainly WILL only agree with you if you match the hatch.  That said, colour is often less important than silhouette and size.

Anyhow, good post, good discussion.

Tex

[JPW]

To me, the terminal end, so long as it is presented correctly and in the right place, will evoke a bite nearly regardless of the identity of the terminal tackle.

Agreed.  I've found the biggest source of success has not been the colour of the lure, but it's shape and weight.  Those characteristics lend themselves to what I think is the biggest trick - getting into the strike zone and doing so in a way that the lure will hang in the right spot as long as possible, but still offer good action and give maximum opportunity to elicit a bite.

[jon5hill]

I call the bolded parts as being wrong.  Although trout will often take a well presented ANYTHING, I have spent too many days watching the fish key-in on specific bugs and ignoring all else to believe it your claim to be true about rainbows.  A trout, in MANY cases, most certainly WILL only agree with you if you match the hatch.  That said, colour is often less important than silhouette and size.

I spent most of my early days fishing at stocked lakes that had more fish than the natural carrying capacity of the lake could provide. This made the fish incredibly aggressive , stupid, and easy to catch, and I thought this factor perhaps skewed my viewpoint on trout fishing. I was a believer in what you mentioned about selectivity  until I spent one spring fishing in highly productive lakes and streams in the interior - the idea here is that there is so much natural food around the fish have a choice with respect to what they eat from the available prey field. I tried maybe three flies, a rolled muddler minnow, a wooly bugger, and a damselfly nymph on dry line. On everything I used that day I caught fish. This persisted through an intense period where damselflies were hatching like mad all around me. I had a bit of an epiphany during this time as I was swatting the bugs away. I lost a lot of the imagined intelligence I gave the trout. To test this out I switched to gear. I caught them on power bait worms and spoons equally well. I had this moment where I could have used just about anything in my box and caught them. This is not real evidence to justify anything, but it's at least a piece of my experience that I thought might shed light on why I think the way I do about fishing. I sure wish they were more intelligent, as it would make the careful art of fly tying meaningful to me. It's a shame that I am as skeptical as I am about it, but I do not believe in the dogma about hatch matching. It sure is a beautiful story. Just so.

I believe in what my eyes and my time has taught me, and I believe critically thinking and not accepting the conventions of others is a good tenet to hold - especially when catching those "watchful and timorous" trout.