Thread: What is meant by artificial or fake lure?

.....

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Crappie.com Fishing mobile app

Originally Posted by deathb4disco

This ^^^^

... explains about 50% of the posts on internet bulletin boards.

Do I get more money with more posts? If so, I will write, “Dear spoonminnow, I’m sorry I hijacked your post”. 500 times, in 500 different posts!

LOL-- If it ain't live - it's artificial.

An artificial lure is more appropriately defined as a lure that I cannot catch fish on!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Okay, yall asked for it, here goes!

Why then would a fish attempt to "eat" the thing that is supposedly provoking them, rather than simply moving away from it (flight) or bumping it with a closed mouth, or even nipping at it with intent to inflict pain/injury (fight). My only conclusion is to think that the fish has every intention of making a meal out of the "thing" before it, regardless of whether it's a correctly imitated version of a food item, a roughly similar version, or a completely wrong interpretation in color, shape, size, or motion.

Your opinion is valid based on your belief and (hopefully) supported by your many experiences catching over 1000 fish. Mine is unconventional and based on the sensitivity of fish to detect and track objects regardless of whether they are alive, simulate life or basically irritate fish to attack primarily for reasons related to lure design and action.


I'm sure both of us have caught fish on lures that look like and move like nothing that ever lived - especially not the usual forage animal. Sure, I can tell myself a crappie thought a Mepps spinner was a minnow and decided to eat it, but fish don't have a human's imagination nor the ability to lie to itself and doesn't have a clue what that bright flashing blade represents. But more important are the hundreds of unnatural lure designs I've caught fish on - few that were simulations of any animal that ever lived.

Some anglers insist fish generalize what lures are supposed to represent such as a minnow, grub larvae, worm or insect and therefore eat them after being fooled by a lure's design and action. Again, though it may very well be true, I've experimented with many lure shapes, actions and color combinations, keeping track of every one of them that catches a bunch of fish - lure component combinations many fish can't seem to refuse if held near enough for long enough.

The first time I saw proof of this was from watching Glen Lau and Homer Circle videos of bass striking many different lure types after they stared at them while on the surface, on the bottom or passing by. None of the lures moved or looked like any animal, yet some lures were sucked in only to be exhaled in a second without the angler even knowing the lure had been in the fish's mouth. Did it eject it because it didn't taste right? Did it hold on to skirted jigs and plastic worms because they tasted right? Not likely.

I've caught fish that were gut hooked and some that were in the process of passing a soft plastic out its back end. That still doesn't support the idea that a fish ate the lure but instead inhaled it too close to it's digestive track that automatically began passing food or objects through to its stomach. In fact bass have been documented having all kind of strange objects in their stomachs and as far as I'm concerned, a fish is a fish regardless of species, with the same propensity to strike objects. Whether an object is live or just moving a certain way and speed, is of a certain size range or range of shapes and in a range of colors, fish simply react or don't.

I could post pictures (and have) of a hundred different lure designs that have provoked fish to strike. None were cast to convince fish they were anything at all, but instead were cast because the lures had a subtle action-by-design that the senses sensed and the eyes tracked, causing the brain's aggression on/off switch to flip on, sometimes staying on for multiple casts and strikes.

My advice to anyone regardless of experience is to consider trying different lure shapes in certain actions, remembering which do well trip after trip, thereby proving which provoke strikes the best and not based on which look or move like a real forage animal. Even if that was a consideration, not all lure designs excel that supposedly represent a particular animal, whether fish, worm, grub or insect or all would catch fish equally. The proof is in the catching!

I know what you are saying, and why you believe what you believe .... I'm just agreeing to disagree with your theory.

What most baits have in common is that they stimulate the feeding reaction of the fish. That might be by sight (shape, color, etc) or by being sensed by the lateral line (pulse pressure of the bait moving thru the water), or smell (everything has a "scent"), or simply by being in close proximity to a fish & mimicking a food item or is perceived as a food item (even if it's something the fish has never seen before). You can't provoke a fish by "subtle action" of a bait that's insignificantly small in comparison. They'd either ignore it as no threat, or flee from it if it recognized it as a threat.

You've changed the appearance of certain lures, even combined parts of two different ones or modified their appearance or action ... but, you haven't really "changed" the overlying factor of why these baits attract the attention of the fish or make them grab hold of it ... which is to "eat" it, because it's similar to something they already know is edible, it's within easy range of grabbing, and it's not threatening. If a 3" long crankbait moving thru the water at 2mph isn't "threatening", then a 1.5" to 2" worm/minnow shaped piece of plastic barely moving definitely isn't.

I'm just more of the mind that our baits "stimulate" a feeding reaction, more than they "provoke" a reaction meant to drive away, injure, or kill the offending critter (our bait). Most fish are opportunistic feeders, and many will still strike at a perceived food item even when their stomachs are full and their mouths still have some of them inside (I've witnessed that in my home aquarium and on the waters I fish). I don't see that you are provoking the fish to bite, by repeated casts to their territory, as much as I see you giving them multiple opportunities to bite your offerings ... until they get hooked or reject your offering often enough to make you move to another location.

I'm also reading into your use of the word "provoke" as meaning "to make angry or annoy" .... and not as meaning "stimulate a reaction".

Well... At least I had something to read while I'm at work at 3 a.m. Thought I was going to be bored!

in case yawl don't notice .....send out a memo .....I don't fish ....
I do use "man made" baits regularly ....
nothing artificial or fake as I like real ....
and they all seem pretty real to me ........