Originally posted by Rad:
They will not eat pellets that day or the next, day 3 is feeding as usual.
This observation is consistant with a classical conditioning model.
Look at slot machines for an example.
Mixed stimuli.
Multiple positive reinforcement (payback) vs. negative reinforcement (going home broke).
If one negative result resulted in extinguishing of the behavior (playing slots), then Las Vegas wouldn't exist.
All I'm trying to do is differentiate between the conditioning fish experience with being caught by a lure (negative reinforcement without positive reinforcement) and the conditioning fish experience when being caught with a pellet imitation (negative reinforcement being mixed with lots of positive reinforcement).
I believe that if fish readily discontinued use of pellets for long periods of time like they do when being negatively reinforced to lures, then when I seine my ponds at the end of the year that I'd find fish that were in less than optimal body condition because I caught some of pellet imitators.
Let me clarify my contention....
I believe (rightly or wrongly) that a fish being captured on a strange or foreign object like a Jitterbug or a Rooster Tail can be taught to never attack something that looks like that again.
But I also believe (from actual experience in my ponds), that fish will more readily return to a behavior that's associated with positive reinforcement like pellet eating.That being said, I don't have any catfish. I have no doubt that they behave considerably different than my bluegill, yellow perch or hybrid striped bass.
