G
Growbug
About UV, I not a believer, have not been, and continue not to be. I think a fundamental aspect is being over looked and perhaps hijacked in the name of "innovations" and profits.
Here is the deal, UV are longer "blue" waves than than the violet we see in the visible spectrum. A black light does not open the visual door to seeing UV waves, it reacts to the nature of true florescent colors. True florescence is an expansion of the resident color to overlap into the neighboring spectral color bands. Natural colors that are not florescent are not as "bright" nor do they glow under a black light. UV coatings are merely tapping into the V of our visual spectrum.
Spectral colors of visible light are R.O.Y.G.B.I.V. When we see colors; a specific color, say Orange, the other 6 colors are being absorbed and the orange pigment is reflected back. A florescent Orange seems brighter as it draws a little bit from Red and Yellow, thus increasing the light wave length of the resident color; Orange.
This is mostly due to the yellows influence as the wave get longer as they work down the spectrum; but yet it still bleeds into both neighboring color bands.
Another thing to add the the debate is color shift and water turbidity. Again true florescence plays a major roll in the distance the object can be seen.
A salmon may key in on a lure initially as a contrast item at a distance, in the case if using non florescent colors the distance is reduced before the "color" is actually seen. Florescent and it's brighter nature has the advantage of being "seen further"
The main point being, if a fish targets an lure (non florescent) moves in to investigate then turns away, it can be argued that due to color shift what initially interested it may be a vastly different coloration up close. A true florescent color on the other hand, which can be seen at greater distances with respect to color shift; mitigates the changes in coloration further from the fish. Thus it dosen't "change" colors and the fish is less likely to "rethink" it's mission and take the lure.
UV is so yesterday... Gamma is where it is at!
All I know is this, fish with whatever (legally) gives you confidence and you'll catch more fish.
Craaaaaaaack.... going going gone... that one had a crew of three and a meal on it.... and confidence is exactly what they are selling... and I hope they do well, im sure their bills are as big as mine. All our gear has a spot in our hearts... at the front or back, but somewhere. The 5 most productive lures/flies I use have been around at least 60 yrs.. and that and what Ive seen give me confidence. I tested u.v becouse "I" wanted to see, I also used pop'o'top yarn, it took 3 guys 2 days to figure out it fishes best without a corki or additional floatation and requires a shorter leader between it and the weight.. then we started catching.. one must learn their weapons, and then believe in them- and u.v for the most part.... is all smoke and mirrors... at least on yarn.. I know becouse I tested it, with 3 badazz fishermen ( and myself ) on the most badazz steelhead river in the world, on a day when the fish were stacked like fish in a hatchery.... and there was absolutely no difference- but to be fair, it wasn't steelheadstalkers yarn.. but I did try a inferno lure... and it didn't catch anymore fish than the other spinners it looks just like-
Take anything neon and put it under a UV/Blacklight.... It will glow...!!!!! Duh!!! Its been around for 30 plus years! You want fish to see glowing Light?!?!? Use a glow stick! Trust me I have put many of store purchased pink and yellow yarn under a black light and uv drying light this past week and they all get a uv response from my camera with a UV filter on.
The article states that as juveniles the Sockeye have good UV vision. They state that some of their food sources are UV reflective. I agree this may be, as I have read studies that suggest this also.This makes sense that they would have that vision and that it would be advantageous for them. During some point while in the ocean they regain the ability to discern UV - perhaps to aid at feeding at greater depths. Upon entering freshwater they still have their regained ability to see UV light. These are the pertinent facts from the study. This is where I disagree, while salmon have both rods and cones (allowing them to see color), what occurs as a sexually mature adult returns to the fresh water is anything but regeneration; it's quite the opposite, every aspect of their body and systems begin to degrade as their life cycle closes out. As well their vision is also impacted, narrowing down the spectrum they can see. Green in the mid range is the brightest, slipping towards yellow on the high side and blue. the further away from green the ends of the spectrum become black and again it plays to contrasts not colors; unless your using colors from the central bands.
Now the real question is whether UV reflective materials are more attractive to fish. That is not addressed in the paper. I have several (conflicting) ideas. First, in shallow water does UV make an object more visible? Studies indicate the longer UV waves penetrate further, thus it would be advantageous at depths of 40'. Here is the rub, in all my days of fresh water salmon* fishing, the target depth 18' -25', *Steelhead, 8' -15'. Both well above the 40' depth UV might play a factor. It would seem that it would but I have no evidence. IF (big IF) it did it seems that it might (probably by a small amount) increase the distance from which the object could be seen.The "at a distance" you refer to is a result of florescent pigments rather than UV influence. This could either make the object attractive or it might make the object seem unnatural. No idea. Second, with the fish returning to freshwater where they used UV vision when they were tiny to help them catch food something reflecting UV light might trigger some type of deep instinctive feeding response. Maybe, maybe not. Overall I think that nothing is either proved or disproved with respect to it being a benefit. One thing I believe is true (and has been stated already) is that if something gives you more confidence in your fishing then it is worth it. If it makes you pay closer attention and catch a bite you would have otherwise missed then it is worth it.
Thus, I think that it is probably a personal (rather than universal) issue as to whether UV is worth it. I believe that it likely changes the way a fish sees an object, but I have no idea whether this would be good or bad. Please take everything I have said with a huge grain of salt as I like to fish for all fish using pretty much every method. I even like to fish for carp!
I'm a true believer of UV since early 80's.
It's even in my user name. Mel UV trout.
I've had glow in the dark tshirts, hats, necklaces, bracelets.
What do you think the kids walk around with during halloween?
Glow sticks.
I use them everywhere.
Don't you guys know that if you're fishing small to medium streams(not much, only probably about 90% of Oregon waters) you have to wear really bright colorful clothes (especially glow in the dark ones) so the fish can be more attracted to you?
It's common sense.
Put a small dab of UV cologne around your neck and the fish will jump out of the water and net themselves.
Use the same technique and idea with your lures.
Repeat as needed.
I heard UV Black yarn is the best shizzle!