UV - the theory

[Growbug]

OK OK OK... i have a thought
for all who are on the side of UV... here is an option..
for those who aren't, read on only for comic value.

This winter there will be hundreds if not thousands of hunters who are all desperately trying to wash all the UV out of their clothes coz 'the deer/elk/antelope/elephant' can see the UV.
So, all we need to do is collect all this UV that the hunters are so callously wasting, and apply it to as many jigs as we can get.

answer... if you are a hunter, and a fisherman, put your jigs in the pocket of your hunting camo before you wash it. Hopefully there will be some transference and you will get the bonus for free.

 

[brandon4455]

Hahaha

 

[Growbug]

Brandon, whilst i applaud your obvious excitement about this forum, if all people see is that every other comment on a topic is by you, then you are going to end up on an awful lot of ignore lists.
It won't matter how many posts you have if people aren't reading them because they have you posted as 'spam'.

 

[FishFinger]

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.

 

[JeannaJigs]

The voice of reason

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.

 

[mrlindeman]

::Takes a sip off a cool crisp bottled Guiness:: Ya Know. I think We all Need To Stop And take a breath and think of our most fond moment time of our fishing expieriences,.... And Well Calm The F Down LOL

 

[Yohan]

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.

 

[steeltime]

Good to know that the majority of people on here are in the "Know" about UV. I feel sorry for the New people geting into the sport as they don't know. You would think that all the pro guides would be using UV yarn if it was so good, but they don't. UV research LMAO, give everyone a break buddy.

 

[halibuthitman]

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-

 

[GraphiteZen]

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-

Were you reciting the same mantra and hopping around on one foot? That makes a HUGE difference for me. And, yes, I believe UV works. Have I tested? Yes. In my own private lab, and currently possess the unpublished results.

 

[brandon4455]

it's a sales pitch. obviuosly brad ad a few other people proved it

 

[meluvtrout]

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!

 

[TTFishon]

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.

It's funny no one has replied to this post. I find it to be funnier than hell.:lol: The average UV naysayer has been using UV ever since they have been fishing for salmon/steel.:lol:

 

[mrlindeman]

My teeth glow under UV. They arent uv though. They are white....kinda

 

[bass]

Wow. A lot of harsh criticism for selling UV. First, I have not used any UV products and do not have a subjective stance on UV products. Given that, here is my 2 cents from reading one of the SS articles. The article states that as juveniles the Sockeye have good UV vision. They state that some of their food sources are UV reflective. This makes sense that they would have that vision and that it would be advantageous for them. As they transform into smolts they lose their UV vision. During some point while in the ocean they regain the ability to discern UV - perhaps to aid at feeding at greater depths. This aspect was just a conjecture/comment in the paper and was not part of they study. Upon entering freshwater they still have their regained ability to see UV light. These are the pertinent facts from the study.

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? 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. 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!

 

[FishFinger]

Great post, you raise some good points, I have a few holds to poke in it, but over all I don't disagree with you overall views.

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!

 

[bass]

From fishfinger: "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."

I think you mis-read what I stated. Here is the statement from my earlier post:
"During some point while in the ocean they regain the ability to discern UV - perhaps to aid at feeding at greater depths. This aspect was just a conjecture/comment in the paper and was not part of they study. Upon entering freshwater they still have their regained ability to see UV light."

Thus, the study said that they re-gain their UV vision while adults out in the ocean. I did not mean to imply they regain it after reaching freshwater. I know they are starting to fall apart at that point I was thinking that they would retain that re-gained (while in the ocean) UV ability, for a while, upon entering freshwater.

As for the greater light penetration for UV my guess is that it would add brightness at any depth up to the point it disappears. Thus, even in 6' of water more of the visible light has been absorbed than the UV light. Thus, with each foot you go down the UV light gets relatively brighter compared to the visible light. Once again, I have no clue if this matters or if the brightness is important.

Your comments on fluorescence were very interesting. However, I do have one thought. Fluorescence describes the reflection of light at a different wavelength than the incident light (or electromagnetic radiation). Thus, UV light can fluoresce into visible light (black light posters, etc). To us (with no UV vision) this makes an object with only incident UV light visible. However, if we had the ability to see reflected UV light directly this might not be as important. In fact I would guess that if the reflected light maintained its wavelength rather than fluorescing to a visible wavelength that the reflected UV light would travel further through the water and thus be visible from a longer distance. Seems like this makes sense to me, but perhaps I am not fully considering everything.

 

[troutdude]

Just for clarification purposes <pun intended>...

my earlier posts were not intended as a slam against any singular product. The intent, rather, was to direct one's attention to the fact that a lot of bling and shizzle; really is not needed to catch large quantities of any aquatic species. It's all about confidence, matching conditions, and presentation. Simple, basic, and inexpensive stuff has worked for decades; and that won't change. This basic principle applies to all types of terminal tackle. ><> ><> ><>

 

[skunk]

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!

That's funny!

Over all I've noticed that I save more money, which seems to be in short supply these days, by not going ooooooooo! over EVERY tackle item. Pick a few that I like, have confidence, go when I can, enjoy it or not, and I never see a noticable change in my catch ratio...but my bank account doesn't dry up! I bet we could find lovers and haters for every single lure item out there. In the end its about what we each enjoy doing and how we go about it. Never the less, this is a funny thread!

 

[Yohan]

I just wrote a long reply and somehow lost it. I don’t have the time to rewrite everything so I’ll just sum it up.

First, the picture in the link that the OP posted is misleading because the glowing jigs/lures have nothing to do with UV. All that is showing is that there are phosphors in the material. Basically, phosphors take the energy from UV light and emit brighter visible light (it is what’s put in laundry detergent to make whites appear whiter in the sunlight). UV cannot be seen with human eyes (even with the aid of black/UV lights) so if the material is UV reflective we should not be able to tell the difference because we cannot see into that spectrum.

Second, why are there different color UV yarn/lures for sale? Shouldn’t they all be “colorless” (or white/black) because if the fish is attracted to the UV radiation than why does the visible light radiation matter? Also people make the argument that UV can be “seen” by fish at depths greater than what visible light can penetrate. So, again what difference does the color make? Unless the fish is attracted to the color more than the UV, right? UV does not make a color brighter or more visible. They are both radiation, just different wavelengths just like different colors are different wavelengths (fyi, UV light has a shorter wavelength than visible light).

Third, what type of UV is being reflected with this material? Is it UV near, UV middle, UV far, or what? There are different classes of UV radiation, just like there are different classes of visible light radiation (called colors). If we all think different colors produce better in certain situations, than should different UV produce better in different situations?

Also, I’m willing to bet a lot of money that if you gave someone who is a “believer” in UV a non-UV lure/yarn ball, but told him it was UV, he would catch just as many fish as if they were fishing UV material… Just my opinion.

I could go on and on, but I’ll just leave it at this… If using UV material gives you more confidence in what you are fishing then so be it and go fish it! Me? I’m going to stick with what has been working for the last half century.

Btw… rodent urine is UV reflective. Maybe someone should market that as “scent” for salmon and steelhead lures and yarn...