1. Troutnut Forum
›
2. Fly Tying
›
3. UV Materials and if they really help ?, Page 2

Far be it from me, to not allow anyone, to practice contempt, prior to investigation...


PT/TB :P

Thank you, sir...

I wasn't being contemptible when I was complimenting the flies...If I may they appear to be very nicely tied.

I think my "problem" is using "science" as the selling point on some new fangled product or concept...We anglers seem to run to anything new like my guppies used to run to their food when I fed them as a kid. If you add "science" to the equation the poor angler is hooked.

My "science" is to question...That's what I'm doing here. All I'm asking is where do we stop...I'm fishing with a carbon rod, my flies are loaded with plastic, and now we want to "trick" these critters with UV materials.


All I'm asking, from a philosophical perspective, is what is our objective, what is it we are trying to do, what are we willing to do to accomplish it?

Karl Marx called his brand of socialism, "Scientific Socialism" in an attempt to separate his form from the million other brands available at the time...This has been a selling technique since the word was probably coined. They are telling me here in Michigan that its good "science" to whack wolves and doves...(?)

Science may one day tell us that the best damn, no-fail, way to catch trout is to use Berkeley's Power-bait...I'll be hanging up my gear then I guess...

I really don't want to sound contemptible here, I mean this, but like you I just want to approach the fish on my own terms...You are free to do so, no doubt, but I'm free to question here, no?

Spence

Marinaro and Fox mentioned that one of the more difficult puzzles to our attempt at "imitation" was translucency...Maybe these UV materials are just another attempt in this direction, an another attempt to solve that issue?

Good question Spence, although a bit OT :). And I'm just the man to rise to it. But in a separate thread. I'll let you start it, bc I might end up OT at the OP. :)

UV materials? I dunno. I've never tried them. And I'm not so sure I'd be able to separate the variables. I suppose if there was an enormous difference, it will sweep the fishing world and appear in the various media in a form beyond infomercials and "scientism". While it appears that some fish may be sensitive to UV, and many insects certainly are, the results from real science are often difficult to apply to the realities of the world.

The OP was written 4 years ago -have UV flies taken the world by storm yet? I dunno, not been following. Anyone?

Planet,
What kind of lighting are you using for the photo? It appears that either a blue light or UV lamp is on the fly but there's none of the "glow" I would expect with that combo of lighting and material.

Beyond that they are very nice ties and will no doubt catch fish. In fact I would wager that color scheme tied in the abdomen of a Klinkhammer would be pretty much a dead xringer for hendrickson here in the east.

Welcome to the forum, Planettrout.

Those are nice looking flies!

My thoughts on the question posed by this topic:

The merits of using science in marketing aside, it certainly isn't being applied accurately by those responsible for marketing this stuff. Calling it "UV" is incredibly misleading. The implication is that it looks "UV" in the way an apple looks red. It's that special color that the trout can see but we can't that will trigger them to take. BTW, this ability is lacking in other materials. What a breakthrough!

Hog wash... On several fronts.

As with any florescent, these materials are simply being "charged" by UV to emit visible light. Some do this only while the light is shining (florescence), some are capable of storing the energy and glow even after the light is gone (phosphorescence). The key point is that UV is the source of energy used to produce light in the visible spectrum, not reflected UV in the way an apple reflects red. A true UV reflector that absorbs the rest of the spectrum (like an apple) would look black to us (and with high probability the trout). Since UV is not in our visible spectrum, we can't know what it "looks" like. There are some that believe trout "see" UV, but the preponderance of evidence does not support that hypothesis. But that's not what these materials are really about anyway. They are visible light emitters, not UV reflectors uniquely intended for critters that can see UV. What is unique (and kinda cool) about these materials is that they emit a purplish blue light regardless of the base color. Traditional florescent materials glow with an intensity of their base color.

Bottom line - this stuff is clearly being marketed with confusing (and in the worst cases misleading) claims to take advantage of the desire of most anglers (including this one) to try anything new if it'll help 'em catch fish. OK, so what about the fish? There is no denying that flies tied with these kinds of materials are very attractive at times. At other times the trout are ambivalent. It is also often the case that shiny or glowing materials just plain scare the Hell out of 'em. Personally, I like these materials - especially on Steelhead flies. Though I don't use them, a lot of guys out here swear by UV Psycho Princes similar to yours. Excellent attractor nymph! Claims are that they are especially effective on streams where the fish are a little burnt out on std. Princes.

And so it goes with all flashy/attractive materials not commonly found in nature. Really, this is just an updated revision of the discussion concerning "to tinsel or not" that's been going on for a very long time...

Fly fishermen have always used "UV materials", in that all materials will reflect some percentage of ultraviolet light. It might be very little is reflected, as in the case of peacock herl and other iridescent feathers, or a high percentage is reflected, as is true with the white of turkey tail feathers and the breast feathers of most ducks. [These differences in UV reflection aid the birds - who can all see in the UV - in determining species, subspecies, and virility.] But you have been using UV materials.

Now entoman says " There are some that believe trout "see" UV, but the preponderance of evidence does not support that hypothesis." Really, please provide us with this preponderance of evidence. I, for one, would like to know how trout cannot see UV. As humans we have yellow pigments in the lenses of our eyes that block UV; trout don't have these pigments, hence they have no means to NOT see in the UV. We know that all the RGB cones have a secondary peak sensitivity in the UV range. We also know that the rods - which come out for nighttime vision - are more sensitive to UV, which increases as a percentage of solar light at dusk, than they are to blue light. Heck, trout even have stem cells in the retina to replace damaged rods or cones.

I am eager, entoman, to read this preponderance of evidence you have. Thank you.

Hi Reed - Good to hear from you again.

Well, judging by the combative tone of your post I must have stroked your fur the wrong way. For that I apologize.

It is my understanding that there's a preponderance of evidence that whatever faculties trout may have for UV vision is quickly lost. I'm not in the habit of fishing for fingerlings, nor do I encourage the practice.;) Anyone that's interested in trout UV vision can quickly google dozens of articles on the topic.

Anyway, whether or not trout see in the UV spectrum is a different issue. I was trying to address the misunderstanding of what so-called "UV materials" really are and the misinformation provided in their marketing.

Best regards,

Hi entoman,
My tone combative? I only want to see what basis you have for your dogmatic statement.

So, what credible support do you have? None. As I have said before, even if the trout lost all their uniquely UV cones, except for the 15% of the dorsotemporal region of the retina, and never regained them, they would still have vision in the ultraviolet.
It is a matter of the opsins and rhodopsins used by cones and rods. The following is from the Journal of Experimental Biology 2001


Even if you eliminate the UV cones above and change them to blue opsins (as Flamerique suggests) the Red, Green, and especially Blue cones cones have good sensitivity in the UV (less than 400nm). As for rods:



Clearly the porphyropsin based rods are as sensitive to UV as to blue wavelengths.

Now, bring on your preponderance of evidence that the opsins and rhodopsins change during the lifetime of trout. You won't find a single source. OTOH, Flamarique admitted that it doesn't matter that mature trout have no dedicated UV cones except dorsotemporal (his belief), they will see in the UV based upon the input from the other cones.

There are no purists unless you want to go back to fishing with rocks, speers, and living in a cave. I think John Gierach wrote that, but I've been saying that for the past 30 years to elitists.
Fly fishing and tying has evolved as materials have evolved. The fathers of our sport, if you can call them that (fly fishing goes back to ancient times), used the latest materials of their time. For example, don't use a beadhead and call yourself a purist. Don't use wire, lead, fly line or graphite. Would you eliminate use of the wheel or fire? I think not. Our reach must exceed our grasp. I didn't come up with that one.

{b}Me go get 'um fish.{b}

Bruce, what are you talking about?

What? I quit. My last post.

Why? I just didn't understand.

Geez Reed, are you challenging me to a duel?

I thought I made it pretty clear that I claim no personal expertise in the area of trout vision. As an interested angler I have simply reviewed what specialists have said on the topic to the best of my ability. Instead of challenging me personally, why don't you address those experts in the field that disagree with you? Please keep in mind that this is a fly fishing forum, not an op-ed section in a scientific journal, so explanations in laymen's terms would be appreciated.

Eric -

While seemingly out in left field from the current direction of the thread, Bruce just shifted gears back to another underlying theme started by Spence at the beginning. Scroll back and read those comments and Bruce's will make sense. Kinda sorta:) lol

Hey, Guys, I'm not quitting. I wasn't serious.

Ok so it's Spence's fault. ;)

Yeah, and he's regretting it. I need to quit poking the sleeping bear. My uncle Dee once said he thought I had a mean streak. My two front teeth are capped...




This is pulled from my earlier post...I think this is what Bruce is getting at as well...Though I think its a good thing that we know the science of our world and the world of trout, on a personal level, I don't need to drag it all into my interaction with salmonids. I was just asking, how far will we go with this until we finally have to admit that the damn trout "is" smarter than us, otherwise why the multi-billion dollar industry dedicated to tricking the poor little bastards? The space-aged UV material?

In my own personal fantasy I'm wearing a tweed, and tossing dries to only feeding trout, and occasionally I fantasize a relationship with the girl who works out next to me at the gym, who's workout , it is obvious, is paying off in spades.

Bottom line...I'm not to be relied upon here...My brain is clogged with someone else's traditions. I may not be able to explain why I got cold shivers when I saw a reel someone in my club paid $20 for with Chinese characters on it, had a rod with it for another $20...or when it seems that things are going the way of the bass whackers in our sport...Old flies only sections of streams seem almost pointless when you see what anglers are tossing there these days. Might as well be throwing Mepps spinners.

So...Just let me wade my little beat and I'll stay out of these false frays.

:) Promise...

Spence

One day we will be able to insert in our flies little transmitters that will over power those little trout brains and they will impale themselves on them...Won't be able to resist...Literally.

"...space-aged UV material..."

Spence, I'm still catching plenty of fish on Adams, Light Cahills, Wulffs, etc...not exactly "space-age materials"...

Helps to fish small local streams that see mostly worm-drowners and hardware-slingers.

;oD

Jonathon

I gave up on all the "advances" in materials, etc about 35 years ago. fishing should be fun; I like to keep it simple. I think the fish see what they want to see. They readily took every hopper that had been run through with a section of 20lb. mono; plenty sticking out of each side. An interesting experiment, I thought.

Tim...I remember a trip years back up to the Yellow Dog in the UP...Chasing Voelker, I guess...I had this wonderful rod and a vest full of flies...It was still cold up there, spring hadn't completely arrived...My uncle who grew up over in Marion kicked my butt with a glob of worms! He would drop them in a whirlpool below a small falls and wham another Brookie. From shore on Lake Superior he actually caught a Coaster Brook!! He sent me back to the drawing board! Still brings it up from time-to-time. :)

Spence

They may not be space age, but they do contain UV reflective materials...I'm not saying that's why they work. I'm pretty sure it has more to do with profile etc.

Oh and by the way, people should be allowed to criticize and critique. And wax poetically! And really it should just be fun.

If trout can indeed see in the uv, what are they looking at?