Why do trout ignore a visible hook?

[HCR]

This is probably a very stupid question, but I ask it in all seriousness and seek an answer because I haven't come across one in the brief introduction I've had by reading in books about fly fishing for trout.

When I was a small boy drowning worms to take bluegills, my dad advised me to thread the worm on the hook so that the hook was not shown to the fish. I dutifully did so. I'm not sure whether my dad actually believed this bit of lore anymore than he did his advice to spit on the worm before casting it. I followed that bit of advice also.

What bothers me now is understanding how "educated" trout become suspicious of indicators, and indicators of certain colors, brightly colored fly lines, flies a size too large, etc., but seem to ignore a fully evident hook on flies they take.

I understand that from their position of looking up at a dry, the hook might be less visible, but what about a nymph or wet tumbling slowly along near the bottom?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[Wild One]

I think it has more to do with what looks natural than the fact that they can see a hook and a hook means something bad. Hooks might just appear to be a leg of an insect. Also, there are different hooks for different water conditions. Some are bronzed, some are black some are flashy. It's possible that the fish still don't see the hook on the fly though

[Betty Hiner]

I thought it was because when you spit on it, it becomes invisible. You do spit on the flies, don't you?

[scubatim]

I thought it was because when you spit on it, it becomes invisible. You do spit on the flies, don't you?

Betty a spitter I don't believe that for a second LOL

[EdD]

I suspect that trout are programmed to seek things that look like food, not flee from things that look like hooks. Herons are a totally different sort of thing.

Ed

[Gnu Bee Flyer]

I once waded thru a very lengthy article that in short said that the hook shape is the basic shape of shrimp, some bugs, and different sea creatures and even some fresh water creatures thus fish see this shape as a natural shape that thru millions of years has meant food to them .

Not my theory but food for thought.

My theory is they are just incredibly stupid.

There is an outside chance that I could be wrong, however unlikely, but I spoze its possible. I seldom make mistrakes.

[jsmartt]

When it comes to fishing with worms it dose make a difference whether the hook is showing or not. A worm is a slimey smooth creature with no sharp appendages. Thus if a exposed hook is spoted it dosen't look right. Insects however have legs, antanae, etc. that are often sharp and hanging or projecting in any direction. Thus the exposed hook dose not look out of the ordinary. Fish intelligence is based more on instinct and not on making judgements based on examining the evidence. That is not to say that fish don't learn but rather that most of their intelligence is built in.

[Eight Thumbs]

I have thought about the same question for years and arrived at a couple of totally untested conclusions.

In most riffles and runs, even in some pools with a swift current, the trout has only a split second to make up its mind about a meal or go hungry. The time frame is even shorter when other fish are in competition for the same morsel. If the fish hesitates for a second look, the meal is lost so most trout eat first and ask question later. In other words, they don't take that careful a look in the first place. If the overall impression of shape, size, movement is correct, the wrong part of the picture (the hook) isn't even noticed.

It's a little like having someone on a balcony drop a rubber snake in your lap as you're sitting by the pool. The imitation isn't perfect. They eyes don't move, the tongue doesn't flick around, the snake doesn't even move but the impression is complete enough to make you jump. Just my 2% of a dollar. I'm sure others will disagree. 8T

[Bamboozle]

Trout aren't supposed to smoke yet I've seen them hit a cigarette butt...

Trout don't like PB&J's yet I've seen them slam a hunk of a kid's sammich...

Trout aren't supposed to dig French fries but I've caught a few on a French Fry Fly I created...

All bets are off when we add belly button lint or milkweed fluff to the equation...


AND WHAT THE HECK IS A ROYAL COACHMAN SUPPOSED TO BE????


Therefore; I concur with Gnu Bee; they're morons...

...which is why I can catch 'em!

[Buddy Sanders]

HCR,

You are giving way too much credit to the fish. They aren't that smart, intelligent, nor discerning.

Here's where you missed it, you wrote:

"What bothers me now is understanding how "educated" trout become suspicious of indicators, and indicators of certain colors, brightly colored fly lines, flies a size too large, etc., but seem to ignore a fully evident hook on flies they take."

I don't 'understand' ANY of that. No basis in fact. None of that is proven, only surmised by unsuccessful fishermen. If ANY of that were true, the majority of fly fishermen would seldom catch a trout. Again, it's one of those things that has been written so much that folks start believing it, rather than actually thinking about it. You could probably go to any of the 'quality' or 'fly fishing only' or 'blue ribbon' waters anywhere and clean out most of the fish with a ball of Velveeta on a hook.

Your Dad told you to cover the hook with the worm. Old fisherman's tale. You can catch many more and larger bluegills and bass on a worm with the hook 'showing' but keeping the worm rigged 'straight' (nose hooking or 'texas' rigging) so that it moves naturally in the water. That they'd eat that balled up worm that covered the hook just shows that they aren't all that smart in the first place.

You see, all of this is a matter of 'perception'.

You 'believed' what your Dad told you. You caught fish. Therefore, he was right. But, I've caught thousands of bass and bluegills on live worms. I 'believe that the hook being exposed doesn't matter, but keeping the worm looking 'natural' does. It works for me, therefore I'm right.

Dandy Dan the Guide Man goes to his favorite river with a client. His strike indicator is bright yellow. They don't catch any fish. He changes to a light blue indicator. They catch fish. Thus, they make the assumption that the fish were 'spooked', 'bothered', or otherwise 'turned off' by the bright colored indicator. It could, of course, have been 'timing' (you know, the fish just started to 'bite'), or the new indicator was placed inadvertantly in a different place. Or, it drifted slightly differently due to it's construction, etc.. ANY of those reasons are just as valid, and none can be 'proven' by the evidence available.

Same thing with bright colored lines.

On any given day, on any of the 'pressured' waters where trout are prevalent, there are folk catching them on a variety of patterns, fly sizes, fly lines, and with different fishing styles. Each of these fisherman believes that he has the 'correct' approach, and that it wa something he did specifically, like switch indicators, lines, or flies that lead to his success. If they are unsuccessful, then it was 'something' that he 'failed' to do, or something 'wrong' with his equipment, that caused him to 'fail'.

Trout are animals with different brains, different senses, different perceptions than our own. We can't come close to understanding them, and the effort is futile in the extreme. We fish. We catch them or we don't.

Sometimes the fish just aren't 'biting'.

Buddy