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?

[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.

[GBurgFisher]

I don?t think that they do?at least not often. Trout can?t perceive detail like we can. I heard Gary Borger use the following analogy. A hawks vision is 300x more detailed than a humans, hence its ability to pick mice out of a field. That same ratio is roughly descriptive of trout and humans (that our vision is able to pick out substantially more detail). Trout key in on the silhouette and the color?. Imagine sitting under a fly as it drifts towards you. You actually wouldn?t see the hook if you are under it, unless you are a couple of inches to the left or right. Most trout won?t leave a feeding lane to grab food. I know that?s because it?s a waste of energy, but I also think its because the silhouette (in this case) is pretty far from what an insect would actually look like. There are certainly exceptions to this rule since I?ve seen many trout streak out of their feeding lane to grab food, but I do think that generally the trout looses the tree in the forest (i.e. the hook in the silhouette)

[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

[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

[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!