Flyfishing's Favorite Fable Debunked [Archive] - Fly Fishing Forum

: Flyfishing's Favorite Fable Debunked


Bob Pauli
12-16-2003, 02:09 PM
From my local fly shop I purchased a pocket size book [4.25" x 5.50"] that trout fishers will find fascinating.

What Trout Actually See, Fly Fishing's Favorite Fable Debunked.

by W. Wm. Hanneman, Ph.D, Hanneman Specialties, Poulsbo, Washgington.
Published by Dr. Bill's Monograph Series, PO Box 942, Poulsbo, Washington 98370 USA [$5.95US].

Dr. Hanneman describes fly fishing's favorite fable by quoting T. Rosenbauer in Reading Trout Streams :
"...Light striking the surface of the water at an angle of less than 10 degrees is reflected and will not enter the water. ...For objects close to the surface of the water but outside of a trout's window, a trout has a blind spot all around him, even directly in front or him.

"...a trout has more chance of seeing you when he is in deep water. The window is larger because the angle has more chance to expand before it is stopped by the surface, and the 10 degree angle that determines the blind spot has less chance to expand before it encounters your body."

Some of Dr. Hanneman's conclusions:
1. A useful "zone of invisibility" due to the optical properties of water, as previously taught, does not exist.
2. An observant trout is aware of the angler long before the angler is ready to fish.

Dr. Hanneman also destroys the "rule of six,"that states a 6-foot tall angler will be invisible to a trout if he is 36 feet distant. Photos of a 6-foot tall fisherman taken from underwater at distances of 36- and 64-feet show that a trout can not only see the subject fisherman, but can tell if his legs are together or spread apart.

The author's conclusions are supported by photographs. You will be surprised when you see them.

Interesting!

Dana
12-16-2003, 02:34 PM
The only conclusion we're left with then is that trout are just REALLY STUPID!!!:hehe:

Don't think that would be a book title that would sell, though...

John Desjardins
12-16-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Dana
The only conclusion we're left with then is that trout are just REALLY STUPID!!!:hehe:

No brook trout can be stupid :razz:. But they are char rather than trout.

SDHflyfisher
12-16-2003, 03:24 PM
you could say brookies are stupid but i prefer less selective:hehe:

flytyer
12-16-2003, 10:46 PM
Dana,

I agree, why else would trout (and other species) seem to not care atall about that strange appendage known as a hook protruding from the bottom of the fly or bait or lure it so easilty sees?

Dble Haul
12-17-2003, 08:11 AM
Flytyer, I've heard a fairly reasonable explanation for that once....let me sort of paraphrase.

It's not necessarily that the fish doesn't see the hook, but rather that the triggering mechanisms from the other parts of the fly pattern override the hook's presence and the fish strikes anyway.

Which still doesn't make the fish smart....;)

SDHflyfisher
12-17-2003, 02:41 PM
as a whiole i don't believe that fish are smart at all just instinctive and that has been breed in them for years and years so fish have eveolved to recognize things and so on

flyfisha1
12-17-2003, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by SDHflyfisher
as a whiole i don't believe that fish are smart at all just instinctive and that has been breed in them for years and years so fish have eveolved to recognize things and so on

What, exactly, are you basing those beliefs on?

SDHflyfisher
12-17-2003, 08:53 PM
just theories of evolution and that is just what i think no way to prove it
just instinct to feed on a certain insect when there are enough of them around and then they become picky
i really don't know just what i think

flyfisha1
12-17-2003, 09:04 PM
If you're interested in a career with fisheries someday, I think that doing some reading through journals will reveal that indeed it's able to shown with fair certainty that, while evolution and familiarity with aspects of their environments are indeed very important, fish can learn many things that enable them to survive better than those that were simply inanimate and feelingless aquatic animals. You're right: it can't be proven in the minds of some people, however in my mind it's quite clear.

flytyer
12-17-2003, 09:10 PM
Mark,

That was a very good paraphrase of it, I saw this explanation many years ago, but I don't remember where or by whom.

DEERHAAWK
12-17-2003, 11:43 PM
Pavlov's.................fish?

DH