Recent long detailed discussion on color: was it predictive of which colors to use and when?

[Senkosam]

Biology aside, how does knowing what colors are seen or not seen by fish matter in the long run?
Is there such a thing as color preference by fish when it comes to the strike?
Does it matter if fish can't see certain colors for many of the reasons mentioned in the post about color?

As for me, if I catch fish on certain lures in certain colors, I don't see any reason to change. Maybe it's because: I fish lakes that are less than 20' deep and usually in water less than 10'; daylight hours after sunrise to before sunset; semi-clear to a bit murky water.
My color choices have evolved from making lures and then testing various colors to find which catch fish consistently. Each lure has a unique color palette because the superstitious side of me wants to believe certain colors may enhance lures in such a way that makes fish take notice and hold their interest long enough to provoke them to strike.
No one can prove that fish eat lures believing them to be food or that the motive for strikes is hunger. Saying so is like putting lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. The reason I say this: lures are (usually) unnatural-looking objects that move unnaturally. Therefore color-matching to a prey species is, IMO, a waste of time regardless of the lure cast. To do otherwise assigns fish an imagination or thought process they don't possess.

I recently got a lot of derogatory replies on one forum for expressing the above and for long, detailed posts and replies. It came as a shock that such arrogant closed-mindedness exists considering the open-mindedness and excellent information provided on this forum by anglers who don't assume things because an advertisement or traditional way of thinking dictates.

Catching fish is an exciting work in progress especially when it comes to lure-ology: the science that finds more ways to piss fish off.

 

[Snopro]

No one can prove that fish eat lures believing them to be food or that the motive for strikes is hunger. Saying so is like putting lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. The reason I say this:
Lures are usually unnatural-looking objects that move unnaturally. Therefore color-matching to a prey species is a waste of time IMO regardless of lure used.

Is a fly a lure? My experience fly fishing for trout disproves your hypothesis. Many times I've experienced a total skunking until putting on the right color and size of a pattern. After taking a throat sample it's easy to see they can be very selective.

I've had similar things happen fishing gear for bass and walleye. If you weren't mimicking juvenile shad you weren't catching.

Matching the hatch is a real thing.

 

[Senkosam]

Examples of lures that catch fish that match nothing in nature are unlimited in number. When it comes to flies, I'll take your word for it. We agree to disagree and no amount of discussion will change that which comes down to a traditional lure choice. My selections that are anything but traditional or that mimic, have caught thousands of fish - including trout. My many photos are proof.
Too bad we can't fish the same stream on the same day to compare catches (assuming you are referring to stream trout caught on or near the surface and not trout caught in deep water in lakes).

 

[Snopro]

It's not just flies and I'm not saying you're wrong (all the time). I have plenty of purely reaction baits in my arsenal. Let the fish tell you what they want. If you can't cover both the natural and unnatural sides of the coin there will be days you go fishless. Like you said, "keep an open mind".

 

[Senkosam]

'Natural' is not a word in my fishing lure vocabulary. Not bragging, but I haven't gone fishless since I only used live bait many decades ago. Maybe it's because I know where to find fish -#1- in the local waters I've gotten to know like the back of my hand. They include ponds, lakes, rivers, and trout streams (fishery and natural populations) that I wade (rarely) and fish from a canoe, a bass boat and a small aluminum boat. I don't fish deep water (water deeper than 15'), preferring to use shallow to medium-depth lures.

I don't do well fishing from shore considering that many spots or structure are inaccessible and where covering water is not possible. The small rivers and tidal creeks that empty into the Hudson R. can be a challenge depending on current increases from heavy rains, but I'm still able to catch fish - saltwater and freshwater - depending on the tidal flow. Sonar is as important as lures to find fish and discover patterns.

The fish don't tell me what they'll strike/ I tell them what to react to and choose lures based on many factors that increase the probability of finding fish that will react; choosing reaction lures vs lures that may or may not get reactions ups the odds.

I applaud the system you've developed over time to know what fish want and do well catching them. Fish preferences, for me, take a back seat to what I want to catch them on and can number 10 or more different lure types per outing and in many colors. I have posted hundreds of photos as examples on many forums under the user names senkosam and spoonminnow. A google search will lead to those forum posts. A digital camera has always documented what I catch and what lures I catch fish using. Folders on my PC are categorized by specific waters fished and lure designs that worked in those waters. Lure design folders such as Kut Tail Worms, Beetle Spins, hybrid lures, crankbaits, surface lures and a bunch of others help me maintain confidence in those lures. A spoon folder doesn't exist for example.

None of the above is meant to change anyone's opinion or fishing habits. They are suggestions to consider.