|
|
Post by rmc on Nov 4, 2012 19:45:50 GMT
Posted by 22WACKYD on August 20, 2012, from DCI (Discovery Channel International) Mythbusters forums:
PLease prove or disprove the old saying that fish won't bite if you talk too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by KMCCLA on Nov 8, 2012 2:52:22 GMT
I am not sure, as I have only been fishing for a few years (sadly I am in my early 40's). I think part of it is simply good fishing etiquette. Talk in a normal or low voice, and do not shout. Also do not stomp or run around, and cause other problems. A few years ago we (my father and I) where fishing, and this kid reels back to cast and hits me with his weight, and said nothing. He then got it tangled on the railing and was pulling on it. My dad "growled" at him to get up and untangle it, after he did that, he moved to the other side of the dock. I say this to relate that there are some people who simple do not know -- or have -- good fishing etiquette. Talking is one of them. There is something peaceful about just sitting there and fishing in peace and quiet, and not having a lot of noise (except the boats).
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Nov 8, 2012 3:01:15 GMT
Couldn't there also potentially be an issue with someone who's talking too much just not paying attention to their line and therefore missing out on a catch?
|
|
|
|
Post by Lonewolf on Nov 8, 2012 3:39:27 GMT
Does talking too loud count if you're fishing with dynamite?
|
|
|
|
Post by paulsee on Nov 8, 2012 11:14:58 GMT
Does talking too loud count if you're fishing with dynamite? Pfft!!!!! Bwa! ha! ha! ice tea just came out of my nose! Just hope the fish do not understand "fire in the Hole!" ha ha ha |
|
|
|
Post by KMCCLA on Nov 9, 2012 1:11:37 GMT
Does talking too loud count if you're fishing with dynamite? That isn't fishin -- that's cheatin.. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 12, 2012 20:07:42 GMT
The question here is whether or not the fish actually have a reaction to people talking above the water surface, or if it's just one of those things that dads would make up to get the kids to shut up for a while  |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 12, 2012 20:13:14 GMT
Given the nature of fishing how would you test this?
Getting empirical data would require spending a LOT of time just fishing - hardly a gripping twenty minutes of TV - to rule out the random nature of catching fish.
Maybe set up cameras in a fishing pond, and see how/if the fish react to sound? Still doesn't quite strike me as having the 'wow' factor needed for MB.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 12, 2012 20:34:23 GMT
I don't think everything has to have a 'wow-factor' on this show. I know a lot of people just want to see things blow up, but that wasn't the original idea. The idea was to test common myths and they've done a lot of things over the years that had no real 'wow-factor', but was interesting none the less.
Take the latest halloween special for instance. Not much blowing up there and there were plenty of active viewers on the Disco board after that aired anyway, so it must have been watched and it must have been interesting to people. Why else would they bother commenting? Polishing poo wasn't especially glamorous and neither was double-dipping, but people watched it and commented anyway, because it was a different kind of interesting.
I think we need to stop underestimating the average MB viewer and focus on the whole point of the show. Does it need to be interesting? Of course. Does it need to make a large 'bang' or 'boom' or 'woosh' sound to be interesting? Not at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 12, 2012 21:31:23 GMT
By 'wow-factor' I mean it has to look reasonably interesting during testing. I'm not convinced that watching the cast spend a week fishing is going to be all that interesting. And a single fishing trip would not give reliable data, since the number of fish you catch (or even if you manage to catch any at all) is going to naturally vary from day to day, location to location and the whim of Fate.
What we need is the underlying reasoning behind the myth, and then a way to test this out.
The first can be split into three parts;
Fish react to sound's above the water, avoiding that area.
Fish react to vibrations that are transmitted into the water through the ground.
Fish react to shadows and movement above the water, swimming away from that area.
(The last two may be plausible, as this could be a sign that there is a predator there.)
These ideas could be tested by exposing fish to those stimuli and watching their reaction. They'd probably have to construct a fish pond for their own use here, if only so they have nice clear water to see the fish through.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 12, 2012 21:57:00 GMT
Okay. I thought you meant that this myth was just overall uninteresting to test.
Now that that's out of the way, you're absolutely right. This should be tested under controlled conditions and an artificial pond is a good way to do it. They should also concider not using fish that are used to being near or handled by humans. If the fish are used to man made noises and therefore have no reason to fear them, it could seriously skew the results (or at least create doubt as to the validity of the test).
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 12, 2012 22:15:56 GMT
Agreed, a fish in a pool that has a lot of people walking by is unlikely to get spooked by vibrations in the ground or humanoid shadows on the water.
Of course one problem here is that in order to get helpful results, and a decent pond/pool, they would have to build a large pond, stock it with fish and then leave it for a while for the fish to get settled into their new home while keeping people as far away as possible. They'd need a fairly large pond so the fish have a 'quiet' corner they can swim to.
Either they would need to see if anyone on the show has a big yard and wants a large pond. Or an alternative would be to check to see if any schools, colleges or retirement homes etc in the SF area were planning on putting a large pond in or would be interested in having one. The latter would be slightly less controlled, but I can't see anyone passing up the option for the MB to come in and either build or share the cost of building a pond with them even if the terms of the agreement included not going anywhere near it for a few weeks.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 12, 2012 22:41:18 GMT
I like that idea, but wouldn't they need a pool/pond that's somewhat transparent in order to see whether or not the fish are reacting? Maybe an average run-of-the-mill pond wouldn't be optimal for that. Perhaps a tank of some sort...
|
|
|
|
Post by freegan on Nov 12, 2012 23:22:03 GMT
I like that idea, but wouldn't they need a pool/pond that's somewhat transparent in order to see whether or not the fish are reacting? Maybe an average run-of-the-mill pond wouldn't be optimal for that. Perhaps a tank of some sort... Perhaps the camera crew could rig up some submersible cameras with wide-angle lenses. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 12, 2012 23:37:29 GMT
Not really.
They could keep an eye on the fish using underwater cameras and maybe cameras that are looking directly down onto the water using polarised filters - which *should* cut out any glare. (Although this being SF chances are its going to be raining). The overhead cameras could be rigged to hang off cables stretched over the top of the water (the higher the better I'd think). The cables would have to be set up at least a few days prior to filming, to give the fish a chance to A; Get used to them and B; Recover from the disruption of them being put in place.
Ideally the cameras would be set in place and kept filming for a few days, so they can see the 'natural' habits of the fish and where they tend to congregate during the day - which gives them the control footage they can use to compare to the tests.
A fairly new pool that has been given time to settle, is correctly stocked and has a decent filtering system *should* remain clear enough to get a good look a the fish.
Using a tank runs into a couple of problems. One of which is that the sides of a tank would transmit vibrations better than dirt. You *could* build a pond that has an underwater window in the side they could film through. But apart from being difficult and expensive to make, it would only show you a small section of the pond and the fish may just avoid this area for the hell of it.
Testing *should* be fairly simple. Set up hides on each side of the pond during construction, at the sort of distance a fisherman would be from the water. They can then run the sound and vibration tests in the hides; Say for a voice just have CD with two people talking playing, for the vibration tests have a machine that hits the ground in time and with the pressure of a walking person and for the shadow test you just have someone walking next to the hide.
Having multiple hides allows them to run the tests where the fish are, which is useful if they happen to avoid one side of the pond for some reason. They could also run the tests in different hides, to double check to see if the fish are really reacting to the stimuli rather than being annoying by swimming elsewhere - and if they notice the fish ARE reacting to one or more of the tests they can run different tests in different hides to see which they find least threatening.
This set up could also be used to test other fishermen's tales, such as avoiding wearing bright clothing, without any other alterations being needed for their 'rig'.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 13, 2012 12:12:37 GMT
Sounds like this is about as thought out as it can be at this point |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2012 15:47:10 GMT
one thing that everyone's missing (actually, a few)
underwater microphones - to see if speech on the shoreline is even audible under water.
"domestic" fish are accustomed to connecting human presence with food.
so you would need to put the cameras into a natural waterway where fish tend to congregate, and then check on their reactions to the various stimuli.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Nov 14, 2012 16:24:02 GMT
Microphones are a good idea, and how well sound and/or vibrations in the ground are transmitted through/into water is something that they could test to give them an idea as to how loud sounds/vibrations would have to be. This testing could be carried out in the shop, or in another large body of water - in fact they could rig up such tests the next time they go out to film in the lake. *Muses* In fact this type of testing would help 'pad' the segment out nicely while they allow the new pond to get settled. Good thinking light The point about 'domesticated' fish has already been considered, and is in fact the main reason for building their own pond for testing since they can stock it with fish that are not used to humans. Come to think of it...maybe they could rig up an automatic feeder near each of the hides. If the fish are used to finding food in these locations (even even if the food is released randomly) they may be more likely to naturally congregate near those locations. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Nov 14, 2012 16:45:28 GMT
Microphones are a good idea, and how well sound and/or vibrations in the ground are transmitted through/into water is something that they could test to give them an idea as to how loud sounds/vibrations would have to be. This testing could be carried out in the shop, or in another large body of water - in fact they could rig up such tests the next time they go out to film in the lake. *Muses* In fact this type of testing would help 'pad' the segment out nicely while they allow the new pond to get settled. Good thinking light The point about 'domesticated' fish has already been considered, and is in fact the main reason for building their own pond for testing since they can stock it with fish that are not used to humans. Come to think of it...maybe they could rig up an automatic feeder near each of the hides. If the fish are used to finding food in these locations (even even if the food is released randomly) they may be more likely to naturally congregate near those locations. ummm... guess how they get fish that they use to stock ponds with... and where their food comes from. I have a landscaper friend who announces dinner time at his koi pond by knocking the food container against the post for his patio shade. and they say fish have no memory. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Nov 14, 2012 18:32:21 GMT
Regarding the memory thing, I was thinking...
What if fish living in bodies of water where people often come to fish, learn the signs to stay away from in order not to get caught? If that's the case and they use fish that are not used to having to avoid fishermen, the results may not be accurate.
|
|
