Jump to content
Carp Anglers Group Forums
  • Announcements

Neil Stern

are boilies over rated???

what do you use??  

152 members have voted

  1. 1. what works best for you

    • sweet corn out of the can
      43
    • tiger nuts
      15
    • boiled deer corn
      17
    • boiled and flavored deer corn
      37
    • spam or other meats
      0
    • potato
      1
    • Boilies
      39
    • Other---say what in a post
      24


Recommended Posts

well??

Spectrums of color lost as one goes into depths are ROY G BIV

Red orange yellow green, blue Indigo and violet at approx 120 feet ( the maximum depth for sports divers) which is approx 6 atmospheres of pressure counting earth as one and each additional atmosphere at 33 feet, I can tell you you can't see Chit without a light and I've taken many photos of fish that looked BLACK with a flash only to determine after developing that the colors were strikingly vivid....RED does appear black at 3 atmospheres on a dive ( 66 feet)....matter of fact prior to diving equipment, a red bandanna was worn by pairs of divers, and when the red was black, they were thought to be too deep, one of pioneers of this discovery was a Captain Don, who now resides in Bonaire ( off the coast of Venezuela) who I've spect considerable time with.

Of course much is dependent on the clarity of the water, and to the extent that light is able to penetrate, diving in a lake, at a depth of 33 feet, because of the turbidity of the water it's like diving in a coffee cup you really can't see squat...that is not true however for Blue water dives..... so the priciple of

ROY G BIV ( that being the order in which color dissaperars ) is especially salient to fresh water fishing...I personally think that yellow is the key,,,,, yellow plastic, yellow boilies, yellow corn, as that perhaps is the best visible color in especially murkey water ( could be wrong) and a color to which the Carps eyes are geared to.

yes color is an intellectual decision, when I was interning we often chuckled as to how kids would be totally screwed up if when they touch something that was HOT, we immediatley exclaimed "COLD" then the percieved differntiation would be that hot items were cold, and the brain would so be educated really a nasty trick to play :D I end to agree on the UV spectrum but in the fish who cares what the color is called it's either visivle at a depth or not, just so happens we call tose colors ROY G BIV

I think Paul P. has some additional research on the ability of out finny friends to differentiate colors...

In any event, I'm fsihing tomorrow with yellow everything :)

please see here for diving Physics lesson on color

also please

read this from Cornell University

do fish see in the same spectrum?????

I'll ask the first one I catch tomorrow :P

MAN DID THIS TURN IN TO A GREAT KNOWLEGEABLE THREAD

Edited by Neil Stern

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neil,

Your referrence is total BS. (You can tell him so for me).

Carp can't see color that's true. At least that's true at depth usually thought of as "the fishing range" or depth for carp fishing. In the margin carp use the physical cones which detect light in the three available colors but are far more reactive to motion as a defense, NOT FOR COLOR. Remember the rods and cones do not fire at the same time. Either rods or cones, not both.

Let me give you an example. The author says to open paragraph two, "red line [fishing line] in deep water looks black". Black is the absence of light. At any depth when the light disappears (for what ever color) it DISAPPEARS it doesn't turn black.

I thought you spent some time diving?

Remember - color is an intellectual decision. Red is red because you LEARNED to call it red. I may call it dark pink or kinda orange.

Phone

Edit: BTW I doubt he even meant infrared specturm, I suspect he meant UV. Unless of course he was referring to reading some other junk. That would mean junk on junk.

Bill -- hold on now -- I thought this was supposed to be a civilized board :)

I thought this was OK -- and left you a bit of leeway :P

" With so much being written about carp vision and colour underwater I hope this may be of interest. I am no expert and stand to be corrected by any of the many with a greater understanding than me. Hopefully they will be able to shed more light, (ha ha!), on this subject! "

Surely you can put this guy straight, by writing a "correctional paper" ? :D

Cheers,

Brid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest phonebush

Brid,

See 3rd quarter NACA, (maybe it was 2nd quarter(?))

Neil,

See 3 quarter NACA, (maybe it was 2nd quarter(?))

I might also add the "colors" you refer to come from three light sources - same for carp as for humans - - - Red - green - blue. Intelligent humans make/made up ROY G BIV up to communicate with one another reflective or refractive combinations of these three. We, humans, actually only "see" red, green, blue. For example, 50% red and 50% green we call "yellow". Many colors divers "see" are from memory. Once the low light rods take over the cones switch off. They cannot both be "ON" at the same time.

As for your corn or yellow bait. As a diver you know at about 3 ft (maybe slightly less) yellow begins to become brown and or blue/green with the loss of red light (a combination of green and blue). What we call brown and what we call blue/green is a common color in the substraite(sp) of a lake or river. Carp are very good at distinguishing "edge". We've talked about edge.

But Neil,

Perhaps as important as color, carp intentionally blinded (in the name of science) remain within normal prameters for "healthy carp" in the wild (12mos). Take a look at your next carp. Carp can't see what they eat anyway. With or without color. Carp really "see" food with the lateral line. BTW the brain for the lateral line is near the butt.

Phone

(also, recently we had a thread started by team - something like "so I asked phone" it was also about the color topic).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yellow is a vibrant color under waterat 40 feet the yellow on a damsel is brillian.....LATERAL LINE????

I thought that was a vibratory sense organ, and used to "RIGHT" a fish when swimming,,(Pretty sure) nada to do with color???

but I'm going fishing hopefully to post a colorful ( In my eyes) Koi...

Hot

diggity

Damn/........ so much to learn :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest phonebush

Neil,

I remember, years ago, you talking about diving. I listened pretty carefully and was impressed. Personally, I'm scared to death of the water. I liked your war stories.

You too are full of chit. (in a wonderful way). Red light (from the sun) in the ocean is LONG GONE well before 66 ft. and yellow is, I think, impossible at 40 ft. Somehow, your suppling the light source at those depths for your damsel. (That's why the ocean looks blue, the "color" of the light). Do mermaids have reproductive organs?

Since black is the absence of all color it is a 'favorite' in nature. While black has no depth of field it is easiest to distinguish when cotrasting with light in the background. What you "see" is the background and the absence of light in the forground. I call this "edge". That's what carp see, the "edge" of your corn.

Phone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest phonebush

Neil,

An expaination and exploration of the mechanics of vision is, even in humans, just a 'theory'. There is more than one explanation for color phenomena. You and I are discussing the two different theories of color – I'm saying the 3-color theory is right and you are saying the 4-color theory. Each explains why the primary colors for light mixing are red, green and blue or of mixing of red, yellow and blue. (ROY G is 4 color, see how "G" is the 4th color?). There is yet another theory that goes like this. It is what it is.

Fortunately, you are old. Remember the TV's that had the light sources externally. A big blue, red and green light setting on the floor or in the back of the TV screen. Then the signal just mixed these light sources and bingo we had color TV.

Phone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chit,,,,I remember those televisions,,,,,,,you and I might be the only ones that do????? :D

tell you what....we both could be right, but I'd love to show you a yellow damsel at 40 feet...wanna go diving?? :)

yes red fades well below 60 feet, but it is really gone, I mean toataly at 60 feet and below,,yellow in the Carribean is still visible at 40 feet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes red fades well below 60 feet, but it is really gone, I mean toataly at 60 feet and below,,yellow in the Carribean is still visible at 40 feet

Well sheet. I didn't know about carp in the Carribean!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest phonebush

Neil,

Well, think about it. Heck, I don't know. You're the diver. Do you see shades of gray and think you see yellow? Does a photograph at 40 ft require you add light (flash or beam). My guess it a resounding yes, but I don't know and I'm not going down there to find out.

I "lernt" The wavelengths that we interpret as visible light range from about 380 nm to about 760 nm. ('nm' is nanometer, one billionth of a meter). We call a wave with wavelength of about 430 nm 'blue'. If the wave has a wavelength of 650 nm we will probably call it 'red'. Red light with the long wavelengths is long gone in 40 ft of water. Just FYI, although it is a guess I'd say yellow is - like - 600 nm.

So you could have either a mix of red and green OR you could have a specific wavelength of "YELLOW" from the sun. The specific wavelength of yellow wouldn't be very bright though, there wouldn't be very many of them, wavelengths, compared to the rest of the light available.

See, since I ain't even going to get my head wet only you, the diver knows. I know you are seeing something, not just making it up.

Phone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Absoloutlely, I always used a flash, or other light as no matter what the color was, if I was able to get a flash on the subject ( strobe light) the pictures were BRILLIANT....

here is an excerpt from a well renowned underwater photographer..

When we descend below the surface, water absorbs the wavelengths of light selectively, one by one as depth increases. Though exact absorption rates will vary depending upon water conditions, you can assume that red will begin disappear at a depth of around 15 to 20 feet, orange at between 25 to 30 feet, yellow at 45 to 60 feet, green at 70 feet and at 100 feet, everything will appear blue or grayish green. At extreme depths all the light will be absorbed and everything will appear deep blue or black.

The loss of color is deceiving. The human brain compensates for much of the color loss and even at depths below 30 feet, your eyes will still see some red. But a fact which we must understand is that the camera is really dumb. It has no brain, so therefore it will not compensate. To overcome this problem, artificial light sources must be used.

trust me at at 40 feet without a light you do see YELLOW and absoloutely NO REDS but at 40 feet with a light, you REALLY,REALLY see YELLOW

But is it that way with fish?????is the yellow color seen the same way???? are the Rods & Cones of a similiar anatomical structrure where perception is the same or similiar???( I don't know)??? but for now I hang on the theory of yellow as being the best color, since most of us fish below 40 feet for our little finny friends,,,,,,,,

one thing that is irrefutabe, objects appeat 25% larger underwater, which is why I prefer to dive NUDE :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noknot

So what has all this got to do with the humble Boilie???

A 30+ Carps eyes are 6-10 " apart, lets get back on track to why the "boilie" is so successful here not the colour!

You are being had by the bait companys!

As I see it, no need for colour or flavour, but a good food source bait presented in the right place!

Do boilies work???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest phonebush

Neil,

Good stuff!

Carp see with the same light (we call it the sun) and their physical body parts (rods and cones) are the same. Actually, in this respect, they have better vision. Carp can see light that is invisable to us. Light further into the UV spectrum.

Probably one of the best argument for "no color" is that carp live in a verticle water column. A yellow piece of corn at 3 ft is a different "color" than the same piece of corn at 12 ft. Heck, we humans argue over the object's "color" among ourselves when the light remains constant here on the surface. Just think how "smart" you would have to be to compensate for the water depth every second of every day.

JUST MY THEORY (I can't prove it) We factually know the cones for humans (the ones that see color) are much more effective with depth of field and motion and a few other things. I think carp fry depend a great deal in their early life on this type vision for early survival (they live where there is a LOT of light). In adult life, when they are no longer at a high risk to predators the need for vision (any kind) is reduced. My theory has flaws, vision is hard wired directly to the brain. I'm not sure how I can justify un-learning a brain function in favor of something an adult carp may learn. I'm working on it.

I'm glad you believe in yellow. Everyone should believe in something.

Actually, at the depth carp are normally fished for yellow may be the brightest "black". Black is the absence of light. The remaining background may be brightest at the depth yellow dissapears. That would make a yellow object look "bright black". I'm not standing by that, I'm just saying HUMMM? well maybe???. For sure you are not the only patron of yellow.

Phone

I'm really surprised at those ocean depths. I think it occurs much shallower in fresh water. Don't know why I say that other than it suits me. I know red is almost completely gone at the bottom of a 12 ft swimming pool. I'm sure science knows "exactly" or nearly exactly for a specific wavelength. It's just that in real life we deal with ALL the visible light a once. You know those little "light pointers" that concentrate one color (usually red). Well in 10 ft of water you can't see any light from one of thise AT ALL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can confirm you can still see yellow at 40 feet and its still the same shade of yellow at that depth. I fish a crystal clear lake and I was out in the boat chumming in 45 feet of water. Corn still looked like corn to me on the bottom.My lake is probably the oddball since I can see the bottom perfect in 40 feet of water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can confirm you can still see yellow at 40 feet and its still the same shade of yellow at that depth. I fish a crystal clear lake and I was out in the boat chumming in 45 feet of water. Corn still looked like corn to me on the bottom.My lake is probably the oddball since I can see the bottom perfect in 40 feet of water.

Just curious, in that said lake can you see other colors also? If light penetrates at that depth in a crystal clear lake seems to me you could see other colors just as well but I'm assuming that and really don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the first non sponsored CAG research project. :)

Please dtop an orange and red Boilie in the pristine lake and let us know what you see :P:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ever have that happen with rods? I can't tell you how many time - with the exact same setup all cast right on top of each other - the righthand rod caught all the fish. On rare occasions I have switched rods (real sneaky like so the carp wouldn't know what I did) and darned if the left rod didn't start catching all the fish. I'm sure, based on experience, if one rod gets hot - it stays hot! For the rest of the week I call that rod my "favorite rod".

Yes, I had that happen from time to time. The funniest example of that was when my friend Kyle had an 'un-hot' rod. When I got him into carp fishing a few years ago he bought a new rod just for carp. Well he just could not catch a carp on his new rod. He would always put his new rod in the hot spot from the last time we fished or switch it with his other rod when he caught a fish but still wouldn't catch anything on the new rod. This went on for a good month or two before he finally broke the ice and banked a carp with it. Funny stuff! :)

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds like ya'll think carp grow roots and stay rooted to the bottom like trees. I guess we can forget about attractants, flavors, colors, types of baits and textures of baits. Just get in front of the fish and hope they are hungry. :) Total BS.

Carp always want to eat and are quite mobile. They will follow a scent trail hundreds of yards and travel in search constantly. The type of bait you use means little, as long as its not toxic, as long as your fishing by yourself and the carp have no choices to make. A turd will work just a good in these cases. :D jmho.

No, I don't beleive carp stay rooted like trees and I do beleive the bait can/does make a difference which is why I never fish without packbait anymore! :P

But, I also know that carp relate to structure on the lakes I fish more than most would think. Just like other fish, carp prefer certain areas more than others. You can throw the best bait, but if there are no carp in the area, you just aren't going to catch any.

I think carp fisherman always asssume it's the bait that makes a difference in catch rates which certainly can be the case. But as a person who generally fishes the same bait on both rods, I can tell you, at times, the location of the bait is more important than the bait you are throwing. JMHO!

Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why have i never seen a corn flavour boilie?

Many european companies have sold them and this flavour is popular in use in Europe.

Edited by Paul Sander

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, sweet corn, but flavoured (scopex is GREAT).

I think it depends on the fishery. I know that, in my area, sweetcorn is top of the list, followed closely by white bread. These work just as well around here for big fish as for the smaller ones. On some days, maize (deer corn?) works very well, and boilies work OK for anglers who already have confidence in and experience with them. I've caught once or twice on garbonzo beans as well. I've yet to get a hit on tigernuts in my area, though I know they're producers in other areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that less than 23% of anglers here think the boilie is king. I wonder then why use the hair if not using the boilie?? The hair and boilie go together hand and glove. It was invented to accomodate the boilie.

Tom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that less than 23% of anglers here think the boilie is king. I wonder then why use the hair if not using the boilie?? The hair and boilie go together hand and glove. It was invented to accomodate the boilie.

Tom.

WRONG!

Len Middleton and Kevin Maddocks came up with the idea because the common practice at the time of burying the hook inside the bait led to mostly unhittable bites and twitches. It was initially used with particles (sweetcorn being the first tried) and proved to be an instant success. Not due to the bait (which was getting picked up before) but because the hook was free to hook the fish with more efficiency.

It also allows separation between the hook and bait which which doesn't happen when fishing with the bait directly on the hook.

If you don't believe me here's one of many reports on the origins of the hair rig:

http://www.carptalk-online.co.uk/homepage/hall-of-fame/89-len-middleton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dean is correct, it was created due to reduced takes and twitchy false bites. Boilies used to infact be located on the hook, as you can see from this pictures from kevin Nash's book.

Its the most popular carp bait globally, so clearly not overrated overall. It will never be the number one carp bait in the USA for three reasons, cost, socialization and evolution!

post-5361-0-79576900-1391654954.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that less than 23% of anglers here think the boilie is king. I wonder then why use the hair if not using the boilie?? The hair and boilie go together hand and glove. It was invented to accomodate the boilie.

Tom.

The percentage you quote may not be that accurate as in my situation, i voted tigernut as they seem to work anywhere, however i do think in the right baiting situations boilies are better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WRONG!

Len Middleton and Kevin Maddocks came up with the idea because the common practice at the time of burying the hook inside the bait led to mostly unhittable bites and twitches. It was initially used with particles (sweetcorn being the first tried) and proved to be an instant success. Not due to the bait (which was getting picked up before) but because the hook was free to hook the fish with more efficiency.

It also allows separation between the hook and bait which which doesn't happen when fishing with the bait directly on the hook.

If you don't believe me here's one of many reports on the origins of the hair rig:

http://www.carptalk-online.co.uk/homepage/hall-of-fame/89-len-middleton

Hooray, it was invented for any bait you wished to use it with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×