Northwest Fishing Reports

I read somewhere that nickel blades are a neutral flash and don't show up as well as copper or brass.
Does anyone have any factual information on this?

Not what I've heard. Hang the three from a stick and spin them in the sunlight and check it out.

What is meant by neutral flash? I really am curious and not ragging you by any means.

However, spinning blades in air to see which will have more flash can be misleading. Equally polished the nickel can look just as shiny as a true silver blade. Underwater, would be a different story.

Light conditions underwater, water depth, and the materials in the water will play a greater influence on a metal's ability to reflect light in water. If I can recall correctly, I think Jed Davis said that silver blades were able to reflect light at a deeper depth where the nickel blade started to look dark.

Your best bet is to read Jed Davis' book on inline spinners and Dr. Kageyama's book called What Fish See. You can check both out from the Public Library for free.

I can tell you that under similar water conditions (depth, clarity) I have had fish nail spinners that were brass, nickel and copper. I have not had the pleasure of fishing the highly loved silver blades since I can't seem to find them in local shops.

islandbass is correct Jed Davis' book spinner fishing for steelhead, salmon and trout and Dr Kageyama's book, What fish see are a couple of GREAT books on the subject. Nickle reflects the least and once the water is very deep it just looks dark. Real silver stays shiny. Silver and 24kt gold are the most reflective of the blades and spoons. And again if anyone wants to understand colors that fish see, read Dr. Kageyama's book it is rather technical but will make you understand what colors will be most effective.

goodtimesfishing wrote: And again if anyone wants to understand colors that fish see, read Dr. Kageyama's book it is rather technical but will make you understand what colors will be most effective.

Yes, it is technical BUT there are pictures. He takes lures and colors underwater and shows what we can see. That is what helped me with it.

+1 on "What Fish See". Will change the way you think about fishing.

We can only speculate on what fish can and cannot see. I hate to be the poison pessimist but really, really how do we know what the fish really see. Its really all theory and I doubt that any speculation on what fish see is really good guess work. Ive had trout hit nothing but hammered silver Kroks one day then the same fish the next day will hit a copper Lil Jewell. Same species just a different day. One day the Red/White Mepps works the next hour the Blue Fox works best. How can one say this is better then that. I truly believe if the fish are there they will hit whats presented to them. JMO.

racfish-sounds like you should take a look at the book, it will change the way you feel. For starters, it is not just some fisherman that wrote the book. Dr. Kageyama is an optometrist, with the knowledge of how eyes work. He compares human optic nerves vs. fish opitic nerves. Interesting things like why salmon/steelhead can see blues and greens and then by the time they spawn they are no longer able to see blues and greens but red/orange becomes the colors that show up for them best. He also shows how water color and depth change what colors look like, even to us humans, so we don't have to ask fish what color it looks like to them. The book is not based off opinion but scientific facts. I assure you if you get the book and read it....you will look at things different and when fishing you will feel much more confident in the lures/colors you choose to put on the end of your line. If I could only recommend one book to someone who is serious about fishing it would be this book.

Funny you say this Now. Im looking in Amazon Books for it . I love reading books and I will indeed read it. Thanks for this info. I took a class at the U of W sometime ago give by Prof. Donaldson. Somethings he taught to this day I use this knowledge. I am always open to change and to learn. If Im learning from a 16 yo or a 70 yo I value everyones ideas. I try not living close minded.*** I just ordered this book. Seeing is believing. Hehehe.. I will read it. Again thanks for the info.

racfish wrote:We can only speculate on what fish can and cannot see. I hate to be the poison pessimist but really, really how do we know what the fish really see. Its really all theory and I doubt that any speculation on what fish see is really good guess work. Ive had trout hit nothing but hammered silver Kroks one day then the same fish the next day will hit a copper Lil Jewell. Same species just a different day. One day the Red/White Mepps works the next hour the Blue Fox works best. How can one say this is better then that. I truly believe if the fish are there they will hit whats presented to them. JMO.

You will find it an interesting read. What it really does is let's us see why fish might take a lure one day and not the next.

I second gtf's motion on getting the book, racfish. Toni's comments are spot on too. One other thing that this book did was get rid of the fluff of buying the colors that catch fisherman vs. fish. It's a money saver!

Just check it out from the library first. Then if you don't like the book, which I'd bet a floating rapala minnow that you will like it, you aren't out any cash.

I read the book a few months ago and while it was interesting, I wasn't that impressed. First off, the book is 90% geared towards Steelhead anglers. If that's what you are than more power to you, but I felt it had limited amounts of things to say when it came to other species. Secondly, it really, really focuses on "What Fish See" rather than "What Fish Want To Bite". Yes, a fish may certainly see fluorescent orange a lot better at depth than regular red, but do they really want to bite that? Who knows. Lastly, as a photographer I really had little faith that his photos showed as much as was implied. The photos were taken in the film days and different types of film is tuned for different light and not really meant to shoot underwater. What his film shows and what a fish may seen may only be very tangentially related.

Like I said, it's an interesting book worth reading, but I would take the conclusions with a grain of salt.