Does Color Matter: Part Deux or do Labels Matter More?

[Spoonminnow]

This is a continuation of the color theory discussion I have expanded to what anglers think vs what fish think - an animal incapable of thinking.

Color matters mostly to anglers and not necessarily to fish the way we think it should. I could give you a dozen reasons fish strike certain colors on any given day and yet proof would be hard to come by, considering all the other colors that might have worked as Ketchn's previous example proved.

What we anglers have in common is superstition IMO. We make up reasons fish strike lures, whether it be how natural they look, color preference, that they resemble this or that prey ,thatlures fool fish into strikingand any other human-based reasons to chose certain lures. I can't deny that I have favorite colors depending on lure design (shape and action). The reason I favor them is that they caught fish consistently.

Take the word natural. As humans, we love to label things, putting things into categories. We compare this to that and if it looks like, moves like or resembles a that in any way, we label it. Order is maintained and all is right with the world - at least in our world.

I too look at some lure designs in the water and note how natural they look (colors and shape) and move, and maybe that's the reason they are struck. As many of us have seen: some lures work well, some fairly well, some not at all. Once fish lock into a nearby lure, their senses assess everything about it in an instant which includes the questions: is it a threat (regardless of the hook sticking out of it and the line attached to it)? and is it edible and easy to catch or bully?

Beyond that, what is sensed in general causes aggression and is already part of a fish's DNA at birth. Why does a lure work so well on average? It's IMO because of the lure's shape and motion with color a possible reason when it enhances both.

Take Ketchn's fuzzy hairy jigs. Fish attack due to the lure's size and super-subtle action. Its bright colors are like a neon sign to a fish - annoying to say the least! But colors from black to fluorescent, give a lure shape and emphasize a lure's action in part or as a whole.

Sure, I label some of my lures natural because of their resemblance to certain aquatic animal in motions and shape. But what about unnatural looking and moving lures like the curl tail grub - another label given by a lure company decades ago? Tail action in no way resembles that of any animal that swims yet that's what accounts for the strike IMO.

A spinning blade is another no-brainer (pun intended) when it comes to a label-per-description. Bright flashy pulsating blade or as an easy-to-remember label - a Mepps Spinner - one that has caught billions of fish for decades.

Every lure ever made that has caught fish, falls into categories that make them easy to choose for that moment. The label defines what the lure does and looks like to fish and only fish can tell us if the choice was the right one - nothing thought provoking in the least.

I have labels for these that help me keep them separate and unique such as fin tail, wacky-spike-tail, caterpillar dart-action and straight thin tail:

Colors enhance their shapes and actions making them stand out unnaturally.

Hope the read was thought-provoking though not so for the fish that attack lures.

[DockShootinJack]

Good information