Olfaction may also play an important role in the feeding behavior of muskellunge, which are well equipped with olfactory apparatus. However, olfactory cues diffusing through the water column are unlikely candidates for organizing a well-directed and rapid strike at a small, rapidly moving prey item. It seems more likely that olfaction may play a role in potentiating feeding behavior, mediating arousal cues that result in the animal searching for prey.
<url url="[Permission to view this media is denied]
">[Permission to view this media is denied]
"hemichemi" said:
Yes, that study says the fish may be stimulated to become active because of (an attractive) smell, but might'nt they just as likely move away from an obnoxious odor, as many believe in other angling circles? This study doesn't speak to that.
You have to remember what we're talking about here, muskies are not trout, catfish or bass. Scent plays no or a very minimal role in muskellunge feeding behavior. This is why pike anglers on LOTW never catch muskies when using deadbait on tip ups. This is why a freshly painted lure catches muskies even though it still smells like fresh Krylon.
I've said before that I'm sure I could soak a lure in bug spray, sunscreen or gasoline and still catch as many fish on it compared to one that was washed in no-scent soap. If scent was a determining strike factor a muskie would eat every quick strike rigged sucker it came in contact with but they don't, they follow suckers as much as they follow any other lure.
Stimulation on their lateral line is THE critical factor, sight is secondary. This doesn't mean that overstimulation is the best though, sometimes minimal stimulation will get them to eat.
"Will Schultz" said:
[quote="Jim tenHaaf"]If I read ALL that, will I catch more fish?? [smilie=coffee.gif]
That will depend on how/if you apply it to fishing situations. In my opinion, you can learn a lot more about how to catch fish by reading and applying this type of information than what you read in Musky Hunter.
But it's soooo much easier reading when you've got all the big fish pictures in the magazine! 😀 Alright… I'm printing it right now. It'll be some nice bed-reading material.
"Will Schultz" said:
Stimulation on their lateral line is THE critical factor, sight is secondary. This doesn't mean that overstimulation is the best though, sometimes minimal stimulation will get them to eat.
I'm not sure that's quite how I read the results. To refer to their Discussion section:
Our study demonstrates that the relative importance, or role,
of a given sensory system may change during different portions
of a behavioral sequence. In muskellunge, vision is of primary
importance in the initial location of, and orientation to, the
prey. Both vision and the lateral line system play a role in
determining the optimal distance and angle from which to
launch the rapid strike at the prey. The lateral line system may
be of principal importance in the capture of the prey in the final
stages of the strike. Hence, there is a ‘sliding hierarchy’ of
sensory system dominance during each consecutive portion of
the strike, with each system playing a more or less important
role during each phase.
To paraphrase, sight is most important in locating prey; and as the "stalking" proceeds, the lateral line sensors become of primary importance in when they decide to strike. In the Results section, they show that fish with their lateral line system suppressed (supposedly, exposing them to CoCl2 does this) behaved substantially the same, except that they orient more directly straight-towards the prey before striking. This isn't too surprising, since they have basically ONLY sight to guide them when they're LL-suppressed. Blinded fish tended to lash out from farther away, foregoing the stalk.
Based on these, I'd say sight is extremely important; perhaps more than the LL.
(I wish I had more time to discuss, but I gotta run!)
With the assumption that during daylight hours a muskie can see the lure the "sliding hierarchy" shifts to the lateral line to trigger a strike. If we assume dirty water then the "sliding hierarchy" shifts immediately to the lateral line.
So… when I said "Stimulation on their lateral line is THE critical factor, sight is secondary. This doesn't mean that overstimulation is the best though, sometimes minimal stimulation will get them to eat." I'm using the data presented in the study and applying it to fishing. Assuming that the fish can see the lure and/or the water clarity is such that sight is not important; the lateral line is the critical factor to make them eat. Which takes us to the second part of that quote. If the previous stated assumptions are used then one would think that at night or in very dirty water a lure with significant lateral line stimulation would be best. However, in these circumstances that isn't always the case and quite often a lure with minimal water displacement or vibration is the one that makes them eat.
57
27