Home | Features | Opinion | Stealth Bombers and Smart Hooks revisited.

Stealth Bombers and Smart Hooks revisited.

image

The smell/taste forum thread prompted a re-run of this archive piece...

 

One day a couple of years ago I was fishing with someone suffering from carp-fever, a disease I only partially recovered from in the days of monkey-climbers and Heron bite alarms. He was appalled and amused at my old-fashioned tackle and techniques, as was I at some of the things he was using. We both blanked but we learned a few things from each other so the day wasn't totally wasted. One of the better tackle items he had that impressed me was the little rubber 'hook-skins' supposedly imitating a blood-worm to mask the metal of the hook. Seeing these reminded me of an article I wrote donkeys years ago. An article that, at the time, I thought was full of revolutionary thoughts and avant-guard ideas. Reading it back today, much of it reads as pompous waffle. I'll forgive that, I was only a youngster at the time and thought I knew everything. I hope you'll do the same.

 

Stealth Bombers and Smart Hooks

 


A solar powered alien from a planet without an atmosphere lands on Earth. He has no digestive system or ears and is stone deaf. How does he begin to comprehend our appreciation of music or food? Anglers have the same problem when relating to fish. We humans cannot begin know what the life of a fish entails, even by relating it to our own human values. We can begin to make assumptions about fish only after studying them and their habits. Even then, those assumptions that we do make are all too often coloured by us bestowing upon the fish our own human sensory values. Not a very smart thing to do, but we all do it because it's all we have to work with. Except our imaginations. 

 

I've been reading a few of those Tom Clancy novels recently. Big heavy tomes full of intrigue, packed solid with data regarding state of the art, high tech weapons systems. Heavy stuff in some ways, but very interesting. The things that our scientists can do! From Clancy I have learned that modern warfare is all about how good our defense forces radar and sonar systems are. The methods used for detecting a threat. Aided by modern computer technology, they are excellent. 

 

What's all this got to do with fishing? You may well ask. Maybe nothing at all, maybe a great deal. The modern nuclear submarine is equipped with sonar which can pick out another submarine many miles away and classify it into type, identifying it as friend or foe. All from just the noise that it makes. Amazing. It all sounds so sophisticated, yet it is very primitive compared with the 'sonar' built into a whale. Sharks can sense blood from miles away, yet we would need to invest millions to even attempt that feat. Likewise, the most advanced computer in the world is a mere pocket calculator compared to our human brains. My point is that the very best sensory equipment is supplied by Nature, not silicon valley. 

 

Anglers, good ones anyway, have always known that to catch a fish it is important to think like a fish and to be aware of the sensory systems that fish use. For example, we know that pike are drawn to vibrations, so by using vibrating lures we address their sense of 'feel'. A match angler knows that he will get more bites by using tiny hooks and ultra fine line. He tries to outwit the visual senses of the fish, as most of his quarry are sight feeders. So.. we know that we should normally address the senses of the type of fish that we seek, in order to try to improve our catches. It's all this rubbish about the smell of bait which makes me laugh. Stay with me, I'll explain later.

 

Leisure Sport Angling boss, Ian Welch, has in his office a tank containing a catfish. He has described to me how it feeds. This almost blind creature can home in on food introduced in the tank with great accuracy. Drop some food into the tank and it's whiskers twitch. One goes up and one down. The next second, wham, it hits the introduced food spot on. Vibrations? Of course, this is well documented. But perhaps something else as well. Another sense that we don't know anything about. Perhaps a Sonar/Taste system of some type. 

 

Just because humans have only five senses doesn't mean everything else has to have the same. And different creatures use those senses in different manners and modes. I'm told that dogs can hear ultra-sound yet see only in monochrome and that snakes see in infra-red. Not how we do it, is it? And you can bet your life that fish have even more weird sensory systems as they exist in a totally alien environment. At least dogs and snakes breathe air. 

 

What interests me is how the catfish functions as a predator. It can successfully predate without sight. Catfish are primarily nocturnal feeders. Their sight is poor and so it is less important to address that sense when presenting a bait to them. What must be considered is not the visual presentation of the hookbait, but its 'feel' and taste. Nature has designed this fish to be very long, so its lateral line is also very long. So is the towed sonar array on a submarine. The catfish has a wide skull which contains an inner ear of much larger proportions than fish which feed mainly by sight. As this inner ear processes the messages from the lateral line we can assume that vibrations are very important to the catfish. Its whiskers too are a miracle of nature. They are covered with taste buds. Some catfishes have these taste buds all over their bodies, so taste is obviously very important too. The catfish is a natural sonar and tasting machine. It is perfectly designed to feel and taste in the same manner as our high tech radar and sonar systems - at a distance. But as it is designed by Nature, it is probably far more accurate. 

 

I've been chasing catfish this summer. I've had quite a few fish and feel that I've been pretty successful. However, with every take, for every fish that I hooked, I lost another one. Either by the fish dropping the bait before I could strike, or from not hooking the fish on the strike. From conversations I've had with other anglers, these dropped runs do not seem to happen so often on virgin waters with fish that have not been caught before. 'Virgin' catfish are not alarmed by metal hooks, they have no experience of them and therefore have nothing to fear. These cats just grab the bait and swallow it, hook and all. On hard fished waters it is a different story. Dropped runs are common. Why? Back to Tom Clancy. 

 

Today's modern warfare aircraft have to be 'radar resistant'. To be effective, they must have an 'outline' which is hard to detect. Remember the Stealth Bombers during the Gulf War? Undetectable by the other side's radar, they were the most successful weapon used. Assuming now that fish (some or all?) have the sonar/taste sense mentioned above, perhaps we should try to get our end tackle more 'stealthy'. When angling in a heavily fished water with a lip or tail hooked bait, the catfish seems to try to grab it whilst avoiding the hook. It grabs just one end of it, the unhooked end. Hence striking does not connect and a fish is lost. How is it that the virtually blind catfish can do this when it is in 'predator mode' ? It cannot see the hook so it stands to reason that it must 'taste - sense' it. 

 

Let us break the mould. Start afresh. Use our brains. Think about this. Humans exist in a gas environment - air. Air is a poor conductor of taste but a good conductor of scent. The reverse applies to fish. Fish exist in water, an excellent conductor of taste, but a poor conductor of scent. Bearing this in mind, it is obviously wrong to impart our human sensory values to a fish. Taste and smell are related senses - but only related. They are two distinct, separate senses. With regard to baits, we anglers have been concentrating upon the wrong sense. Especially concerning catfish, though the carp boys would do well to read this too and adopt some of this theory. I think that a smelly bait is not so important as we have previously thought, that taste is what really matters. 

 

I feel sure that catfish can 'taste' at a distance. Maybe a few feet, maybe a few yards or maybe a lot more. And if the cat can taste the bait at a distance, it can also taste the metal hook! Therefore perhaps a 'stealthy' hook is needed, one which will confuse that remarkable ability of this fish, and maybe many other types of fish, to detect a hook. Perhaps a hook made of a material that occurs naturally in the fish's home environment would be ideal. The human race used bone hooks for thousands of years until metal was discovered. A sophisticated bone hook is impractical though, better that we disguise our existing hooks. 

 

I am now trying out a 'smart' hook on heavily fished waters, sheathing it in silicone rubber to disguise the feel/taste 'outline' detectable by the catfish, to give the hook a softer 'taste reflection'. The silicone tubing is split from the point of the hook to halfway up the bend so that when a strike is made, the rubber falls away leaving the hook free to do its work. The rubber is also rubbed into the bait to attempt to make it taste the same. I am using small hooks, carp sized models instead of the usual huge catfish models. This reduces the amount of metal taste to the bait. 

 

What? You think metal doesn't taste? Pop a coin into your mouth! I once knew a scrap metal dealer who could taste different types of metal. A totter would bring in some scrap and if its composition was in doubt, a quick lick from the dealer would settle the matter. I worked with this guy for six months and watched him at work many times. He was never wrong. And he was only a human! 


Geoff Maynard

 

 

Rate this article
0


Comments (23 posted):

klik2change on 20/10/2009 17:26:54
avatar
Absolutely fascinating article geoff - well done, really well done. It's so good I want to read it a few more times before making any other comment...! What I really like about it is the way that it provides some kind of answer for two or three questions at the same time.
Stealph Viper on 20/10/2009 17:34:13
avatar
An alien with no ears that is stone deaf ........................... All very Hyperthetical (is that the right word) ?
Frothey on 20/10/2009 18:08:46
avatar
no more hypothetical than a lot of the stuff we all talk about on forums.... Anyone remember Mike Wilson using chandelier crystals instead of leads, so as to negate any chance of an electric field between the lead and the hook?
Stealph Viper on 20/10/2009 18:10:13
avatar
no more hypothetical than a lot of the stuff we all talk about on forums.... I didn't say it was, i just pointed out it was hypothetical.
Frothey on 20/10/2009 18:21:07
avatar
I didn't say it was, i just pointed out it was hypothetical. i don't think there are too many people that thought the alien analogy wasn't! and those that those that thought it was true haven't read it yet as the X-Files is on :D
Stealph Viper on 20/10/2009 18:23:58
avatar
I was pointing out the irony in a Alien with No Ears was Stone Death.
klik2change on 20/10/2009 18:29:21
avatar
i just pointed out it was hypothetical. All theories start as hypothetical. It's the scientific method. Many of the most useful theories have been shown to link different areas of knowledge together. If you think about it, a theory which plausibly answers several questions at once is far more likely to be correct.
Stealph Viper on 20/10/2009 18:32:37
avatar
The problem with scientific theories is, that they are just theories until proven to be correct, and even then there will be other scientists who disagree with those theories and will set out to prove they are right, and it goes on and on and on. Unless you are a fish you will never truly know how a fish feels, smells, tastes etc etc you can only summise. That is why i said, Hypothetical, not that i didn't enjoy the story.
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 20/10/2009 18:36:35
avatar
A scientist can get an understnading of how a fish smells, tastes, hears etc by studying cell interaction at a microscopic level. Something you or I will not see and possibly not comprehend.
peter crabtree on 20/10/2009 18:36:54
avatar
I was pointing out the irony in a Alien with No Ears was Stone Death. Isnt that stone deaph?
geoffmaynard on 20/10/2009 18:37:20
avatar
Sometimes us morons have to use oxymorons and state the obvious to hammer home a point :) Wiv an' 'ammer!
Stealph Viper on 20/10/2009 18:38:12
avatar
Still Hypothetical . :p
Frothey on 20/10/2009 19:13:37
avatar
I was pointing out the irony in a Alien with No Ears was Stone Death. fish dont have ears but can hear/sense sound?
Stealph Viper on 20/10/2009 19:15:43
avatar
Fish with no ears can hear sound they can sense vibrations, of course they can, but can they associate it with a particular item or do they just associate the resonations from the sound as safe or danger.
Frothey on 20/10/2009 20:16:01
avatar
how do we learn sound? words are formed by the vocal chords vibrating the air, and our ears picking it up and processing it - we've only learnt what those vibrations mean by association. fish learn that the "sound" of pellets going in mean food. a lake i used to fish many moons ago was in the back garden of a farmer, who used to throw old bread into the lake. there was a gate he went through, and they learnt that the gate slamming shut meant food - you could get them to appear by opening and shutting the gate. we're trying to give fish human senses again though.....
slime monster on 20/10/2009 20:34:28
avatar
Interesting read Geoff,reminds me of an experiment I saw on tv ,a tank full of fish were subjected to an arm going in amongst them and they reacted by scattering,the fish then were hooded so as to lose the sense of sight,again the arm went in and they scattered. lastly the hoods were replaced with jackets and although one or two fish avoided the arm the shoal was placid ,a graphic demonstration of the fishes use of the lateral lne
klik2change on 20/10/2009 21:35:38
avatar
The problem with scientific theories is, that they are just theories until proven to be correct, and even then there will be other scientists who disagree with those theories and will set out to prove they are right, and it goes on and on and on. No theory in the history of science has ever been proven to be correct. Many have been shown to be extremely likely to be correct though, by the weight of evidence. As for disagreement, that's how science advances. Thesis - antithesis - synthesis, which becomes the new thesis, and so it goes on, in a long never-ending chain. That's how a very brainy German once explained it. Design - all kinds of design - also develop in the same way. The history of science is very interesting, SV. See if you can find a pop science book about Einstein and how his theories have been shown to be very very very likely to be correct - and even HE disagreed with some of the conclusions drawn from them! Half of the modern world would be impossible if he was wrong. Honestly, it's an entertaining and fascinating story. You are an intelligent man, you would really enjoy it!:) It won't do much to help your fishing, but you'll never look at the stars in quite the same way!:)
geoffmaynard on 20/10/2009 22:44:35
avatar
My favourite is Brian Cox talking about the LHD at Cern. It's on TED.com. I wish I was that clever.
geoffmaynard on 21/10/2009 08:20:33
avatar
That should read LHC : large hadron collider. I fink.
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 21/10/2009 13:04:57
avatar
Just to add to Geoffs point about scent and taste: Who's had one of the many fruit teas that are available? You know the ones, Apple & Cinamon, Strawberry & Vanilla, Lemon & Ginger, etc. You pick up the tea bag and give it a sniff...hmmm that smells nice. You stick it in a cup and pour some boiling water on it...ahh lovelly delicious smelling aromas of apple and cinamon fill the air. After letting it brew you take out the bag and let it cool. After a while you take a sip of the delicious, fruit, spicey smelling tea. And what does it taste of? F*** ALL! THAT'S WHAT. THEY SMELL GORGEOUS, BUT TASTE NOTHING LIKE THEY SMELL! ---------- Post added at 14:04 ---------- Previous post was at 14:00 ---------- And another thing... When I was a kid I was taking a bath and notice a bottle of 'Apple Shampoo' on the side of the bath. I opened the bottle and had a sniff. Hmmm....lovelly fresh apples. So I had a taste. AAARRRRGH! Obvioulsy it tasted nothing like fresh apples. Although scent and taste do work together they are quite seperate especially when transmitted through different media.
Frothey on 21/10/2009 13:12:27
avatar
Spot on! The only other thing to consider is how would a fish know what strawberry and vanilla taste like in the first instance.....
Mr Cholmondeley-Corker (PaSC) on 21/10/2009 13:18:13
avatar
They don't. It's a case of finding a scent/odour combo that appeal to a fish. And this is where different brands of commercial baits can differ. Take one tuti fruiti boily from one manufacturer and the equivalent from another. They both my smell the same (to us), but they might not taste the same (to us) if both scent and taste haven't been icorporated. ANd how often do we taste our baits? Furthermore, what tastes 'right' or good or bad to us may not appeal to a fish the same way.
Stealph Viper on 21/10/2009 14:50:42
avatar
And whose to say that all Carp like the same baits and flavours. Take Marmite, you either love it or hate it, the same may apply to fish.
Comment on this article

  • email Email to a friend
  • print Print version
  • Plain text Plain text
Tags
No tags for this article