The role that colour plays in catching fish.

[Ronje1]

The two basic things that spring to mind are:

1. does the colour penetrate far enough into the water for a fish to be able to see it; and

2. can the fish actually see that colour anyway?

No 1 has already been done to death in the thread " a technical approach to barramundi fishing" (god rest its soul).

No 2 has only been looked at in relation to barramundi eyes 'cos a lot of research has gone into determining barramundi biology. So we know about that.

However, what other types of fish can we look at to check out their eyes?

There are only 3 primary colours. Blue, green and red. ALL other colours are varying amounts of blue, green and red mixed together (even white is such a mixture).

Barramundi have 3 colour receptors (called cones) so can see a wide range of colours. Forget about the water for the moment. We covered that previously.

What about US bass? How many types of different colour receptors/cones are contained in a bass eye?

There are 2 different types of colour receptors. A red and a green one. The main one is red and the other is green. That's it. They can't see blue.

They have no receptor for the colour blue so why on earth would anybody be fishing for l/m bass in the US with a blue lure? They can't see blue so any attraction of the lure for bass is definitely not the blue colour. Its most probably the lure vibration action hitting the lateral line that's doing the job and not the colour.

The colour red is especially catered for in a L/M bass eye and THAT colour happens to be the one that penetrates dirty/murky water better than any other colour.

Do we thinks it's mere coincidence?

What about pike or other species? I don't know how their eyes have evolved. Anybody got any info on pike eyes.

What about Aus species like jew, bream, flathead?

Any ideas out there?

If you were going for a driver's licence and an eye test showed that you were colour blind. That you couldn't see the colour red. Reckon you'd get one?

[Shawn 66]

The two basic things that spring to mind are:

1. does the colour penetrate far enough into the water for a fish to be able to see it; and

2. can the fish actually see that colour anyway?

No 1 has already been done to death in the thread " a technical approach to barramundi fishing" (god rest its soul).

No 2 has only been looked at in relation to barramundi eyes 'cos a lot of research has gone into determining barramundi biology. So we know about that.

However, what other types of fish can we look at to check out their eyes?

There are only 3 primary colours. Blue, green and red. ALL other colours are varying amounts of blue, green and red mixed together (even white is such a mixture).

Barramundi have 3 colour receptors (called cones) so can see a wide range of colours. Forget about the water for the moment. We covered that previously.

What about US bass? How many types of different colour receptors/cones are contained in a bass eye?

There are 2 different types of colour receptors. A red and a green one. The main one is red and the other is green. That's it. They can't see blue.

They have no receptor for the colour blue so why on earth would anybody be fishing for l/m bass in the US with a blue lure? They can't see blue so any attraction of the lure for bass is definitely not the blue colour. Its most probably the lure vibration action hitting the lateral line that's doing the job and not the colour.

The colour red is especially catered for in a L/M bass eye and THAT colour happens to be the one that penetrates dirty/murky water better than any other colour.

Do we thinks it's mere coincidence?

What about pike or other species? I don't know how their eyes have evolved. Anybody got any info on pike eyes.

What about Aus species like jew, bream, flathead?

Any ideas out there?

If you were going for a driver's licence and an eye test showed that you were colour blind. That you couldn't see the colour red. Reckon you'd get one?

Good questions , wish I had the friggin answers.
Shawn

[Ronje1]

The idea is to get you guys to think more about what you do.

[CT]

The Fitzroy is currently mud and I reckon you could just about walk on it. My bet is at this point lure colour doesn't matter. I'll go a live mullet. While it soaks I'll flick a vibe off the deeper edges and a gulp shrimp in the sticks.

[wahoofishingcrew]

The idea is to get you guys to think more about what you do.

Aww look at you go thinking about all us average fishos... Nothing to do with loving the sound of your own voice Im sure.

Two basic things come to mind for me;

1- didnt you delete all your content a week ago as you were extremely butthurt over genuine barra questions?

2- are you related to gazza?

Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

[Dignity]

As Tropicrows lamented in another post, where are all the fishing posts.

I've heard all sorts of theories on colours, a good topic around a camp fire with a few beers. One a lot of estuary anglers subscribe to is darker lures in dirty water and bright colours in clean water. Others the reverse.
I often found the first worked best (I often fish a black SP in black tanin/mud stained water for great results)but last week my brother brought out his bright Peaches and Mango coloured lure and proceeded to outfish me with quality over my quantity in water where you couldn't see the lure once it was 150 mm below the surface.

Bring in all your theories but I find that ultimately the fish will determine what they hit. Just watching my own lures change colour from just being in the water and seeing most theories thrown out the window has me ignoring all the rules and just trying different things and just enjoying the experience of being on the water.

[chris69]

Bait dont change colour weither its muddy or clear a bannana prawn is the same colour so is a herring and poddy mullet its all in the vib of things to quote someone's lawyer from the castle, match the hatch.

[Noelm]

Let's get something straight, a (say) blue lure to a Bass is not invisible, it may see it as a shape only, or an entirely different colour to us. It's often said to use red line, because red is the first colour to "dissappear" anyone who has done any diving can see red line as a black/grey stripe, it's not invisible, I have experimented with several different coloured lines and taken them to various depths, you can "see" all of them, but not as colours, just a dark grey line, all the same. Now that said, what a fish sees compared to what we see is purely scientific guessing, ultra violet and so on starts to come into play.

[Volvo]

Good post , and for one i ask is it the Colour itself or the Brightness of said Colour at certain times of the day which may attract the Fish??..
And why are some still using scent on their Lures if Colour is an attractant ??..
Someone once asked "Why are farts smelly " and the answer was for the Blind .
Why are they noisy ??and answer was for the Deaf ..
Just a wee bit of humour to add to the post....
Good to see back posting Ronje , i for one take onboard usefull info regarding what can improve ones Fishing ..

[shortthenlong]

There is always a bit of confirmation bias in lure choice also. I spent a couple of trips to Cape York fishing with my BIL who swore gold bombers were the best thing for Barra and that is what he fished with almost exclusively and subsequently he caught lots on gold bombers. Similarly if I spent a lot of time customizing lures and then fish with them almost exclusively they would then dominate my catch.

On top of what colour, size shape etc of lure you use I think a lot of success when lure fishing comes from being able to repeatedly present the lure well within the "strike zone"

Matt

[CT]

There is always a bit of confirmation bias in lure choice also. I spent a couple of trips to Cape York fishing with my BIL who swore gold bombers were the best thing for Barra and that is what he fished with almost exclusively and subsequently he caught lots on gold bombers. Similarly if I spent a lot of time customizing lures and then fish with them almost exclusively they would then dominate my catch.

On top of what colour, size shape etc of lure you use I think a lot of success when lure fishing comes from being able to repeatedly present the lure well within the "strike zone"

Matt

I fkn hate gold bombers but have seen them dominate in flood water, but getting them into the bait was key, so points to your strike zone idea.

Nilsmaster however ruins your strike zone theory. Strikes on spearheads hanging in thin air and surface strikes by stingrays on invincibles. AKA get a nilsy!

One session off Chili Beach it just had to be blue. Multiple strikes on every troll run, only on blue lures. Fishing was that hot I could experiment. Three of exactly the same lure but three colours, only the blue got hit. Three blue lures in all different breeds, triple hookup. Did it over and over so that proves to me that some days colour is everything.

[NAGG]

I'm not so sure that the colour it's self makes all the difference ........ contrast on the other hand may be a different question .

That goes for against the water , sky ..... or just a lure that changes during the course of its swimming action .

If I go back to my impoundment barra days & the famous slick rig ....... water quality was reasonable for how you fished this lure . During the day a lot of colours caught fish with evil minnow a favorite but as the sun set - there were some standouts (black & gold , green grunter ) ....
....
Now compare the range of the Berkley hollow belly - they didn't have those dark colours ....... but caught a shit load of fish (day or night).

Between these two soft plastics ....... My conservative guess is that a couple of thousand barra were landed on my boats - how much did colour come into play , probably no where near as much as the sonic footprint did.

On a final point - ultimately for me I fished colours that gave me confidence ........ natural & neutral or highly reflective will always give me that confidence .

Chris

[Ronje1]

I think that maybe some are mistaking the differences between the colour environment in which the fish operates and the tools that the fish has to operate with.

Colour is NOT the prime determinant in attracting fish. The main tool used is the lateral line. Other things also contribute.

This is about HOW a colour helps. Contrast, how a lure is fished, night or day are just as relevant but nobody can define how they do that. I'm willing to listen and learn any facts associated with those topics and how they fit into the tools that fish use.

The big difference is that WHY and HOW a colour helps is now easy to define and how predictable the use is. We know a lot of biological stuff in relation to barramundi eyesight. Sensitivity to different colours. Relationship between cones and rods. Lucidum tapetum (party trick eyes). Mulloway also have party trick eyes.

The science on how colours penetrate water of differing turbidity (murkiness) is settled (to quote a famous phrase).

It was settled by an Australian scientist J T Kirk in 1994. The first scientist in the world to determine it.

He was researching photosynthesis in water and how different colours had different effects on plant life in the water. The first thing he had to do was work out the sequence of colour fade.

To his surprise he discovered that the long accepted belief about the disappearing sequence of colours in water was different for clear water than it was for murky water.

In clear water the red faded first.

In murky water blue faded first followed by green, then yellow. Orange and red faded last. They could still be seen at depths greater than those at which blue and green had given up and disappeared.

Having sorted that out, Mr Kirk could then properly plan his experiments to address his photosynthesis issue.

What Mr Kirk didn't realize was what effect his discovery meant for the fishing scene. The fishing scene was still plodding along believing the same old theory that Mr Kirk started off with. And still does some 26 years later.

I didn't know about Mr Kirk's discovery when I started thinking that something was wrong about the colour stuff that the fishing scene was being fed by the experts, gurus and writers.

I knew the starting point for my investigation but didn't know what the destination was until I arrived.

What I discovered was proof that the conventional thinking being fed to fishermen was straight b...sh...

Not being a scientist, I still needed scientific evidence to back up my well founded (so I believed) claims. I found that back-up eventually from work carried out by european scientist Mayaake Stamp, the US Navy and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It was completely settled when I discovered John Kirk's 1994 work (about 3 months ago).

So that's one part of the colour penetration in water sorted out.

The next part is how fish use the colours to assist them in getting a feed.

If blue or green colours don't penetrate the water to the depth that the fish is hanging at, then the fish won't see any blue or green characteristics of the lure (just like Noelm says).

[chris69]

Let's get something straight, a (say) blue lure to a Bass is not invisible, it may see it as a shape only, or an entirely different colour to us. It's often said to use red line, because red is the first colour to "dissappear" anyone who has done any diving can see red line as a black/grey stripe, it's not invisible, I have experimented with several different coloured lines and taken them to various depths, you can "see" all of them, but not as colours, just a dark grey line, all the same. Now that said, what a fish sees compared to what we see is purely scientific guessng, ultra violet and so on starts to come into play.

Well Noelm I can tell you that on low light situations a breams eyes can see black and white as the rods and cones in there eyes change and don't see colour so a black lure at night for bream is the go and jew like black flys at night and so do bass as well as purple which looks like black but a different shade of a dark colour ,but on the flipside of this I've seen a pic of a guy with a night time caught jew on a lure that was green and white like a herring so that throws a spanner in the colour side of things as too what fish see and what they don't see.

[Ronje1]

Ignore the harassment brigade. There's something in the pipeline about these guys.