Pond Boss Forums MANAGING AN EXISTING POND Evaluating and adjusting fish populations Oxford proves fish r smart

Oxford University fish study proves we pond owners may have Smart Fish. Did you know fish can recognize you from other people? Yep they can! They can even recognize small changes in human faces 80% of the time. The fish could pick out different faces on computer screen. They have social structure, and can perform complex behaviors. They may even use tools to perform tasks. Maybe they are smarter than we think they are, and that might be why they are not so easy to catch in some ponds. They learn not to bite. If they can recognize faces, they can recognize that artificial bait! Maybe that is why the Florida bass becomes tougher to catch over time. They may just be smarter than we humans think they are

Tracy

Tracy, that's crazy you bring that up!

Every morning at 7AM the HSB and LMB explode on the fish food which is the best time to catch the elusive HSB. So wanting family and friends to experience the fight, I've had several show up (one at a time) at 7AM to have nary a fish take the bait, let alone eat any food, yet the days before and after is a feeding frenzy.

So it seems I now have an excuse!

I have the same problem Keith.

I'll go out with a mask on tomorrow morning and see what happens .

And to think they spent all that time and money to try and prove what most of us already know. They should've just called and asked.

We spend time carefully debating whether a response is conditioned, intuitive, or learned, when in reality they all stem from the same source.....fish learn. Call it what you will, differentiate how you see fit, but fish have a degree or mechanism of intelligence that permits learning.

Its been a while since this has been discussed.

Much of fish biology is still a mystery - like what do they see , colors or not ; how does their brain work , - learn , condition , genetic response etc ; what makes them tick - do what they do and more.

We just don't know. So here is one we can take a poll on - do fish reason (have the ability for abstract thought)? What say you ?

TGW1 Do you have a link to that study that showed fish recognize faces on a computer screen?

Here

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep27523

Like my grandpa used to tell me,you aint holden your mouth right

Put me down for a "yes".

They not only learn, but they communicate to the others. Every fish in the pond doesn't have to learn the hard way. Catch and release a few, and they stop hitting. Sometimes I can catch a bunch the first time I try a new lure, but the next time not nearly as many, and after that few or none. Somehow, they collectively learn.

When subjected to extreme stress ( hooked , stabbed by a bird, chased by an otter , grabbed by a predator etc ) fish release a chemical (fear response ) that other fish detect . I don't think they do like Nemo and talk to each other .

No mystery here. Of course they are smart because most of them attend schools.

How many times you guys catching those fish? I know I have caught the same fish on the same bait year after year several times. And Im not that good? I think its in your head, think positive.

Fish can solve problems involving survival. They learn from experience, too. So in that sense they are intelligent, as are a great many animals. Heck, even brainless bacteria self-mutate to deal with environmental stressors.

But abstract thought is another thing.

Bill, my thanks goes out to ewest for his quick response as per your request He is always on top of the Game !!
ewest, reasoning? I would think the litter sneaker BG is doing that when he waits and watches for the opportunity to rush in and spawn when no one is looking I can just see him, like comparing him to a guy "ACTING" like he is just taking a stroll in an area and then when the opportunity arises, BAM !! Or selecting what to eat when she says to herself "Not that one, it looks "artificial". We all have to admit, some baits really look and act real, but still gets no bite because they have seen it before. I read years ago the plastic worm is the only bait the lmb will eat time after time. So maybe not. Anyone else? lol

Tracy

Anyone else ever witness your CC feeding on the surface, scattered over an area, and making simultaneous turns and movements, like a flock of birds? Not implying abstract intelligence with this behavior, just find it fascinating.

Erik,
If a hooked fish releases chemicals, why is it that you can catch several fish in the same area? Is the impulse to eat stronger than the chemical response?

Dan

Lusk calls it conditioning not learning.

I propose that conditioning is learning. A definition of simple learning, is a change in behavior caused by experience. The native BG population in our ponds had never seen a pellet, or been on a feeding program before, yet now they associate the sound of my voice with supper time and come running.

Not only that, but they show a marked trepidation towards eating when someone is with me, rather than being alone.

Maybe it's just me, but I have always felt a certain reluctance when the whole conditioning/ learning thing has come up in the past? Am I overlooking a possible ramification associated with discovering fish learn?

Lots of good questions guys. Not sure anyone knows the real answers. Fun to guess !

First have to give credit - " poppy65 - No mystery here. Of course they are smart because most of them attend schools. "

A classic there - thanks for the humor !!!

" anthropic Fish can solve problems involving survival"

Yes that is called evolution - if they don't they end up in the ash ben of history. The purpose (definition) of fitness for fish is to survive long enough to reproduce the next generation. The great majority (my guess 90%)of all hatched do not meet the fitness test as they become lunch or a casualty to the environment.

" djstauder - If a hooked fish releases chemicals, why is it that you can catch several fish in the same area? Is the impulse to eat stronger than the chemical response?"

There are a number of competing forces that effect fish behavior like danger , hunger , reproduction , physical (hot/cold , water quality and other stressors). How they all work in conjunction we just don't know. If a bunch of fish are in an area at the time they will be in different states as these traits (some real hungry , some scared , some stresses by other factors and some doing just right). When one gets stressed and releases a fear signal some will keep eating , some will run off , some will just watch and others may get angry. The more the fear chemical that is released the more they all move to fear status and or run off. Who knows at what point which fish react which way but when the stressors get to high they will react.

" sprkplug - Am I overlooking a possible ramification associated with discovering fish learn?"

Excellent question ! It is a question of definition. Conditioning or learning (intelligence). Where do we draw the line ? That is why I ask ? rational thought/reasoning/abstract thought. Much of life on earth is subject to conditioning , maybe all of it is. Not much is capable of reasoning/abstract thought. The great bulk is in-between being a combination of genetics/survival instinct plus conditioning. The more advanced the animal the more likely some form of learning occurs. The truth is there is a whole lot we don't know or understand and that is why people keep doing studies like trying to get a fish to spit on a screen.

This may help some.

http://www.animalbehavioronline.com/conditioning.html


Conditioning

Much of animal learning is captured by the conditioning paradigm. In its simplest form (probably what actually happens under field conditions) an association is formed between an action and a reward. Associative learning allows birds to efficiently find bugs under rocks and bees to find nectar in specific flowers. This simple type of learning allows animals to behave efficiently, seeking resources where they have been found before, or collecting them in ways that have worked previously.

Learned associations can be built using normal stimulus-response patterns. A normal stimulus, such as the odor of food, elicits salivation in dogs. These are termed the unconditioned stimulus (US) and unconditioned response (UCR). When Pavlov rang the bell at the same time he presented food (a US), the bell became what we can a conditioned stimulus (CS). Though the bell is irrelevant to normal feeding in a dog, the dog associates the bell with the food (the US with the CS) and eventually responds by salivating when the bell is run (CS) even if no food is present.

Taking this one step further, many animals are able to build an association with a reward between seemingly irrelevant actions and stimuli, if the stimulus is given at the time the reward is received. You can teach your dog to "shake" hands when you present your hand, based on the dogs expectation of receiving a food reward after shaking. Once the association between your hand signal and the dogs' extension of its paw is built, then you can stop giving the food reward. Such behavior is built on positive reinforcement--association of the desired action with the receipt of a reward.

Not all animals can learn something as irrelevant to their biology as shaking hands. Ease of conditioned learning is often dictated by the importance of the stimulus and response to the animal species' evolutionary history and ecological conditions.

You might think that negative reinforcement would be effective in the same way as positive reinforcement. Indeed, many animals can be taught boundaries based on painful experiences, such as electric fences or shock collars. Most training using negative reinforcement, though, is less effective than positive reinforcement. This is because when being trained using positive reinforcement, an animal is encouraged to associate an act with the reward because the trainer is planning, in advance, to elicit the desired response. Going back to the example of dog shaking hands, it is likely that you would start the training by showing the dog the food. This would get her interest, and helps to build the association between the desired behavior and subsequent reward.

Negative reinforcement, on the other hand, generally comes after an act which the trainer cannot predict. If your dog urinates on the floor, and you then hit the dog, will it associate the punishment with the bad behavior? Likely not, because it was unaware that punishment was likely before it urinated--and even if the association is made, how does the dog know what alternative behavior will receive a positive reward? Urinary retention is a more common result that learning to go outside to urinate. Moving the urinating dog to an appropriate location, combined with positive reinforcement, is much more likely to achieve the desired result. Understanding this critical difference between positive and negative reinforcement in training is an important step in learning how to train domestic animals.

In studies of conditioning, negative reinforcement can be used in "extinction", or inhibition experiments, to determine if a previously learned association can be masked by later experience.

Operant conditioning is an extension of classical conditioning, in which the animal learns to operate an environmental feature to receive a reward. We most commonly think of rats and pigeons pressing levers in boxes (the "Skinner box") in operant conditioning; the hand-shaking dog has probably been operantly conditioned, as well.

Much insight animal learning and memory has been gained from the study of conditioning. Ethologists and behavioral ecologists often dismiss laboratory tests of conditioning as being so far removed from the animal's biology as to be irrelevant to "natural" biology. Observations of animals in the field, though, suggest that the trial-and-error learning which often is used to gain experience with the environment is, in fact, one and the same as conditioning.

Conditioning works on an individual basis. How does the whole community become conditioned because of what happens to one or a few? Why is a lure that is very effective the first time or two it's used very ineffective after that? Every fish hasn't been conditioned as a result of the bad effect experienced by a few. How do the rest get it?

http://psych.fullerton.edu/rlippa/Psych101/outline2.htm

Quote Ewest:

Observations of animals in the field, though, suggest that the trial-and-error learning which often is used to gain experience with the environment is, in fact, one and the same as conditioning.

Totally agree.

IMHO, fish are conditioned.

To me, learning is being able to ingest new information, and act on that information with knowledge already gained. So, if larger LMB could learn, why would they lose weight if they're transferred to a different BOW? Water's water, forage's forage, but still they go into decline. Wouldn't learning from the previous pond help them adapt to the new environment?

Conditioning is more about rote and rewards. You walk down the bank shaking a coffee can full of food at the same time every day, your fish will associate that with a reward. Or from my personal experience, you hand feed LMB every day for 6 months, and they get really, really attentive. You stop for a few weeks, and they're gone. Even in the face recognition article posted earlier, the archerfish "learned" via operant conditioning. Rote and rewards.

I guess the bottom line is that whether they learn or are conditioned, fish behavior can be altered. We all do it every time a feeder throws.

In my opinion, and as a hunter and fisherman, I find that some people learn to diminish the intelligence and learning abilities of the animals we hunt or kill for sport. The longer that I live, the narrower the gap I see between humans and the animals we eat. I still love to hunt deer, but I do not pretend they are just dumb animals. This psychological condition also occurs in war as a way to deal with our actions.