Thread: What happens before a fish bites a lure? This involves knowing why fish bite lures.

Originally Posted by Cane Pole

I than my lucky stars. I do also know for fact that the more I fish, the luckier I git.

Luck is why the fish bite my lures. Nothing else matters.

Talking to myself helps too. But, not like lucky lures.

Originally Posted by Cane Pole

Luck is why the fish bite my lures. Nothing else matters. Talking to myself helps too.

Talking to yourself is good, I do it regular. Someone on the Louisiana forum told me it's a good way to have an intelligent conversation.

Originally Posted by RCC

This stuff ain't rocket science. If it was, I only know of one person on this board who could catch a fish.

Well, that's the guy I need to take a trip with! Actually, I'm pretty sure I've fished with him a time or two.

By varying your retrieve etc, you have caused a reaction bite...that is only one type of bite that fish have been shown to posses.

Call the strike what you will, but ask yourself what caused the reaction (not reflex) strike, especially when the fish hit the lure again on the second or third retrieve giving me another chance to hook it (happened many times today).

Reaction strikes I call provocation strikes because something has to provoke a fish to strike an object it hasn't a clue what it is. But for argument's sake, if the lure shown fooled fish into believing it was a minnow and the lure catches many species all year round (even under the ice), does it really matter what fish are eating at the moment? Today I saw a fish snap at a bug on the surface, cast my lure and then caught the fish immediately. Was the plastic minnow desert or the main meal? Did lure color matter for any of the many fish caught today?

The line:

they will eat if something is put on their nose that looks like food to them

)

Sure, but what the lure does as it goes past its head can make all the difference in getting it excited enough to strike. Other than reflex strikes (almost dropping a lure into its open mouth), strikes of provocation get a fish excited (for whatever reason you want to believe) and that excited state is contagious among nearby fish (watch a YouTube video of a school of yellow perch).

Excited states last for many seconds and many times provide multiple hits on more than one cast; reflex strikes last one second, defined as such by no hit on a second cast. After I get the lure "close to their noses", I always want the reaction to my lure, as much as possible, to be one of excitation and to get it I will always assume fish are not actively feeding.

BTW: Curl tail grubs were far less successful today than the straight tail lure shown.

Originally Posted by Cmj

Well, that's the guy I need to take a trip with! Actually, I'm pretty sure I've fished with him a time or two.

Ohhhhhh, I get it now! Ima little slooowwww!

Originally Posted by Spoonminnow

Call the strike what you will, but ask yourself what caused the reaction (not reflex) strike, especially when the fish hit the lure again on the second or third retrieve giving me another chance to hook it (happened many times today).

Reaction strikes I call provocation strikes because something has to provoke a fish to strike an object it hasn't a clue what it is. But for argument's sake, if the lure shown fooled fish into believing it was a minnow and the lure catches many species all year round (even under the ice), does it really matter what fish are eating at the moment? Today I saw a fish snap at a bug on the surface, cast my lure and then caught the fish immediately. Was the plastic minnow desert or the main meal? Did lure color matter for any of the many fish caught today?

The line:
)

Sure, but what the lure does as it goes past its head can make all the difference in getting it excited enough to strike. Other than reflex strikes (almost dropping a lure into its open mouth), strikes of provocation get a fish excited (for whatever reason you want to believe) and that excited state is contagious among nearby fish (watch a YouTube video of a school of yellow perch).

Excited states last for many seconds and many times provide multiple hits on more than one cast; reflex strikes last one second, defined as such by no hit on a second cast. After I get the lure "close to their noses", I always want the reaction to my lure, as much as possible, to be one of excitation and to get it I will always assume fish are not actively feeding.

BTW: Curl tail grubs were far less successful today than the straight tail lure shown.

The second and third strikes are easy to explain....a predator fish will try to wound it's prey to make it easier to get into the right position to swallow and eat.
Watch a school of fish attacking baitfish...they wound them and go back to finish them off.
That is a natural reaction to make sure the predator fish does not get injured trying to ingest another fish wrong.

Feeding (excited states) do last a while...but when fish are being caught they can give off distress hormones that cause the fright/flight reaction in other fish and the bite stops.
Making your lure act out of the ordinary can trigger strikes or send them fleeing, all according to the pattern they are in. Finding the proper presentation is just 1 key, in all successful fishing trips

I am also a firm believer that you make your own luck....your knowledge of the species, lake, and everything else from weather, conditions, etc, plus techniques, and bait selection, etc, allows you to be a long term successful fisherman.

Like I said...there is alot of great research being done on fish, it is out there on the web and can help a fisherman to understand all that's going on.

Good Fishing
Brent

I try not to get into the possible biological reasons they bite which seem very logical such as, "a predator fish will try to wound it's prey to make it easier to get into the right position to swallow and eat." No one could or prove or disprove that statement on an outing, so accepting it as fact is okay as long as the erratic retrieve is used when needed (which is most of the time).

A rationalization is defined as,

to invent plausible explanations for acts, opinions, etc., that are actually based on other possible causes

...those causes I wouldn't even hazard a guess of which a rationalization is in reality, minus the proof to show cause and affect as regards why fish bite artificial lures.

So to prove that specific colors and lures are needed under certain conditions, we would have to be in the same boat casting different lures in different colors; you believing it matters, me rejecting the belief. If we both caught fish, it would immediately disprove the theory (but only of course if my presentation and lures were up to the job). Many such outings would be required by us or others to confirm or disprove the theory of color and I wonder how many on Crappie.com have already done that, like myself.

As for myself, I'll stick with what works and leave the reasons why to those who may be overthinking those reasons.

Originally Posted by Spoonminnow

.

As for myself, I'll stick with what works and leave the reasons why to those who may be overthinking those reasons.

Now, that's funny right there!