Ultraviolet Light and Its Role in
Predation in Fish
How Fool-a-Fish Was Discovered
By
Milan
Jeckle M. D.
A.
Darwin's Theory and the history of the
invention of Fool-a-Fish.
When skin diving I noticed that at 40
feet of depth and beyond, there is no
visible light, it is absolutely black.
That always made me wonder, “Why do deep
water fish have eyes?”
Darwin's
theory states that if a biological
function is not used, that function
becomes a burden and will be lost. A
great example of this selection process
is the cave dwelling fish of the USA
Southwest deserts. These cave fish live
in underground pools of water devoid of
sunlight. The cave fish have completely
lost their eye structures. Their eyes
have been replaced by fleshy membranes.
According to
Darwin, this eye structure loss is
natural selection, reducing the blind
fish’s biological burden of possessing a
function which is not useful for
survival or reproduction.
Interestingly, the complete loss of
their eye structures didn't take very
long, probably occurring within a time
period of several thousand years.
Natural selection is a powerful force
with rapid consequences. Then I ask
again, “Why do fish have eyes?”
B.
Visible light’s ability to travel
through clear water.
The blue and violet wavelengths of light
penetrate water only about 40 feet at
which time those wavelengths are
completely absorbed. Prior to the
violet-blue wavelength absorption, water
completely absorbs the red light in the
first two feet and yellow-green light in
the first 15-20 feet. So why do fish
that spend the majority of their
lifetimes deeper than 40 feet have eyes?
Visible colors of red, yellow-green and
blue are maximally transmitted only 2-40
feet
in clear water. This 40 foot radius of
transmission is in every direction, not
just depth.
Only because of ultraviolet vision are
fish able to see objects more than 40
feet away
either by reflection or silhouettes.
C. The
answer to the question “Why do fish have
eyes?” is found in recent scientific
research articles.
The first part of the answer came in a
scientific article published by
Duke
University
researchers under the authority of Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institute. That
article states, “it has been
conservatively estimated that there is
sufficient ultraviolet light for vision
down to 200 meters (700 feet) in clear
ocean water”. Other scientific articles
report there is sufficient ultraviolet
light transmission to support
ultraviolet vision for up to one half
mile in clear water. So in summary, I
was reading quality scientific research
articles that were reporting that
ultraviolet traveled through water at
least 700 feet and maybe as much as
2,500 feet before it was absorbed,
unlike visible light which is completely
absorbed in the first 40 feet.
The second part of the answer came in
scientific articles discussing the
recently recognized ultraviolet visual
capabilities of birds, subsequently
enlarged to include bony fish. Many of
these discoveries of ultraviolet visual
capabilities depended upon the
scientific advances in the late 1990s
which made possible chemical analysis of
the optically active Rodopsin proteins
in the retinas of fish and birds. The
result was the scientific recognition
that bony fish and birds have a Rodopsin
protein in their retinas which reacts to
the ultraviolet wavelengths around 360
nm, a wavelength totally invisible to
humans. We also discovered that
insects, shrimp and crabs have similar
keen ultraviolet vision. Indeed,
insects and birds have brilliant
ultraviolet reflecting plumage, feathers
and body parts clearly identifying
species, sexual differences and state of
health to each other, though to the
human eye they may all look alike.
D.
Ultraviolet light compared to visible
light and x-rays.
Ultraviolet light has a shorter
wavelength with higher energy than the
wavelengths 400-700 nm visible to
humans. By comparison, X-rays are even
shorter than ultraviolet light with
correspondingly higher energy than that
possessed by ultraviolet light
(prolonged exposure to x-rays can be
lethal). We all know that x-rays cannot
be seen by the human eye. We also all
know that x-rays can penetrate through
the human body (humans tissues are
largely transparent) except our denser
bones. Ultraviolet light can be thought
of as similar to a long x-ray, invisible
to the human eye but able to penetrate
some solid objects much further than
visible light, in this case-- water.
E.
Ultraviolet light is a
spectrum with many wavelengths similar
to the visible light spectrum
The spectrum of ultraviolet light is
defined as electromagnetic radiation
with wavelengths between 400 nm and 10
nm. Biologists further divided
ultraviolet light into UVA, 400 nm to
320 nm; UVB, 320 nm to 280 nm and UVC
and UVD, 280 nm to 10 nm. Between 10 nm
and 0.1 nm is the spectrum of x-rays.
Ultraviolet vision in fish and birds
occurs in the UVA range of 400 to 320
nm. UVA causes sun-tanning of the skin
in humans but is not humanly visible.
UVB is probably not seen by any living
specie because its higher energy is too
damaging to retinal proteins. Humans
can experience the deleterious effects
of UVB radiation because its high energy
causes progressive sun burning of the
human skin. Lucky for humans and all
other living species, the high energy,
very damaging wavelengths of UVC, UVD
and x-rays are rapidly absorbed in the
environment or by the earth's protective
ozone layer.
F.
Ultraviolet vision is present in most
species except mammals.
Recent research articles report that UV
vision appears to be fairly widespread
in freshwater fish, turtles and most
salt water marine species. Other recent
research articles report that UV vision
appears to be a general property of
diurnal birds.
Scientists have further
determined that insects and crustaceans
possess UV vision capabilities even
though they possess compound eyes which
are structurally different from those of
vertebrates.
Surprisingly, it has been determined
that mammals possess in their DNA the
genes that enable UV vision but these
genes have been disabled by mutation.
These mutation findings suggest that
mammals lost UV vision (and also vision
in the red spectrum) during that time
period of evolution when mammals existed
as underground, night functioning, shrew
like organisms with no Darwinian benefit
accruing for red or UV visual
abilities. Later in the evolution of
mammals, the great apes of
Africa
and humans regained red vision but not
UV vision. All other mammals, except
great apes and humans, see only two
colors, namely yellow-green and blue.
For instance, like all other mammals,
except old world apes and humans, deer
and elk do not have active retinal
proteins sensitive to red light. As a
consequence, red and orange hunter
colors can be worn without the hunter
being color identified by the targeted
deer or elk but are easily seen by other
hunters, leading to greater safety in
the woods.
G. The
ultraviolet light wavelengths used in
fish vision.
Research suggests that most if not all
UV vision occurs in the UVA wavelength
of 400-320 nm with maximum perception at
around 360 nm. In accordance with
quantum theory, which postulates that
electromagnetic energy exists
simultaneously as a wave and as a
discrete packet of energy, the reactive
retinal Rodopsin proteins have a very
narrow range in which they will accept
and react to a particular packet of
wavelength energy.
H. How
this information was used to invent
Fool-a-Fish.
Upon striking an object, visible light
is absorbed, transmitted or reflected or
some combination thereof. The same is
true of ultraviolet light. The problem
then was to find a substance which would
be nontoxic yet highly reflective of
ultraviolet light. Several crystalline
compounds came to mind. For years white
pastes of Zink Oxide or Titanium Dioxide
have been safely used by mountain
climbers and a few beachgoers to protect
their lips, ears and noses from
sunburn. These crystals do not absorb
ultraviolet light rather protecting
against sunburn by reflecting away the
ultraviolet light.
I
rejected using Zink Oxide because it has
been identified as a toxic waterway
contaminate choosing instead to use the
more expensive titanium dioxide. I
studied and then altered and made
substitutions in chemical formulations
likely to result in the product now
known as Fool-a-Fish.
I.
Worldwide Patent Search.
I
employed a patent attorney who performed
a worldwide patent search to determine
the uniqueness of Fool-a-Fish. The
patent attorney subsequently reported
that enhancing UV reflection in a
fishing product was a unique,
one-of-a-kind intellectual concept which
had never been presented as a viable
invention idea to any Patent Office in
any country in the world. I was
understandably encouraged.
J. Dr.
Cleary and Gonzaga University Chemistry
Department.
I
visited the Chemistry Department at
Gonzaga
University
where I employed as a private consultant
the Professor of Physical Chemistry, Dr.
David Cleary. I have a college degree
in chemistry with a year of postgraduate
studies in crystals and metals. I am
also a medical doctor, graduating from
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
School of Medicine in 1964.
Nonetheless, I could not have proceeded
developing the formulation and making
the necessary measurements without the
guidance and help of Dr. Cleary.
K.
Titanium dioxide crystals, the
ultraviolet light reflecting crystal in
Fool-a-Fish.
Titanium dioxide exists naturally in two
different crystalline forms, Rutile and
Anatase. The Rutile crystalline form of
titanium dioxide is the second most
refractive crystal known to science
(Diamond crystals are the most). It is
the inherent nature of crystals that
when they are broken into smaller
crystals, they only become smaller
remaining as identical clones of the
original (much like Russian dolls), with
all the same properties of their parent
crystal. The titanium dioxide crystals
in Fool-a-Fish are machined to
microscopic size yet retain their
reflective abilities, “like thousands of
tiny mirrors”.
L.
Other chemical characteristics of
Fool-a-Fish.
The multiple other chemicals along with
the manufacturing process used to make
Fool-a-Fish results in a transparent,
flexible, odorless, water resistant,
nontoxic coating. This imperceptible
coating holds the microscopic crystals
of titanium dioxide in position no
matter if used on baits or lure while
still wet or first allowed to dry.
Dried Fool-a-Fish looks similar to white
dust. Wet Fool-a-Fish resembles skimmed
milk. Fool-a-Fish is chemically very
stable with a shelf life of at least
five years.
M.
Example of reflectance studies done at
Gonzaga
University.
A
graph of degree of reflectance at
visible and ultraviolet wavelengths
caused by a thin, translucent layer of
Fool-a-Fish on a clear glass slide
proves the power of Fool-A-Fish.
Interestingly, the reflection is
strongest at approximately 350 nm in the
ultraviolet spectrum and 450 nm in the
visible spectrum. These are the
wavelengths where the Rodopsin proteins
in the retina of fish react most
strongly to ultraviolet light and to
blue light respectively.
N.
“Black Light” fluorescence does not
measure ultraviolet light.
A
Black Light is an optical device which
is designed to emit visible violet and
invisible long ultraviolet wavelengths.
This device will cause about 15% of
materials to fluoresce. Fluorescence is
scientifically defined as the molecular
absorption of a short high-energy
wavelength followed by radiation of a
portion of that energy at a longer
wavelength. This Black Light testing
has no scientific relationship to UVA
reflectance or to Fool-a-Fish. The
visible light seen coming from
florescent materials is visible within a
spectral range between 700-400 nm.
Florescent light is therefore just
another humanly visible light and is
limited by the laws of physics to the 40
foot water penetrating abilities of all
visible light.
O.
Anxiety and concerns prior to the first
field tests of Fool-a-Fish .
In
August, 2004 Dr. Cleary and I had
prepared enough Fool-a-Fish for an
initial fishing test. All I knew at
that time was Fool-a-Fish was a
pleasant, odorless white liquid which
efficiently reflected UVA and blue
light. The big three questions were,
“Will Fool-a-Fish attract fish?? Will
Fool-a-Fish make no difference at all?
Will Fool-a-Fish scare the fish away?”
P.
Initial results.
I
used it first aboard Captain Mark
Sappington's Yakutat Charters out of
Yakutat,
Alaska on a combined
halibut-silver salmon ocean fishing
trip. We started halibut fishing in 150
feet of water 10 miles out of Yakutat
Harbor using large halibut hooks baited
with silver salmon heads dropped down to
the bottom.
Captain Mark stiffened his stance in
skeptical disapproval when I applied
Fool-a-Fish to my salmon head bait and
dropped it over the side. He asked me,
“What is that white stuff?” I answered,
“Something I think might make the
halibut bite better.” He shook his head
in disgust. Mark Sappington is a great
charter fishing captain. He tried to
understand and made no move to interfere
with my crazy behavior even though he
obviously disapproved. After 15 minutes
my halibut rod bent over with the first
strike of the day. A fitful struggle
ensued as I used all my strength to
bring this unexpectedly strong fish to
the surface. That first halibut was
about 100 pounds, too large to safely
take aboard the vessel when alive.
Captain Mark killed that first halibut
with a 4-10 shotgun blast to the head.
Mark was busy pulling and lifting the
first halibut onto the boat as I
rebaited with another silver salmon head
to which I again applied Fool-a-Fish.
Captain Mark was watching me out of the
corner of his eye and it was obvious
that he still did not like Fool-a-Fish.
About one minute after my second
Fool-a-Fish coated salmon head bait hit
the bottom I got a second big strike.
The second halibut looked like a 100
pound twin of the first when I finally
got it to the surface.
Jeff Johnson, who was fishing on the
other side of the boat, asked me if he
could use Fool-a-Fish on his bait during
the time Captain Mark was shooting and
muscling in the second halibut. Jeff
applied Fool-a-Fish to his salmon head
and dropped it over the side. Wide-eyed
with surprise, Jeff was nearly pulled
off the boat by a 130 pound halibut
which took his bait immediately as it
hit the bottom. Captain Mark Sappington
was heard to say, “ Hey, that stuff
really works”. We four halibut fishermen
caught our individual limits of two
halibut for a total of eight within two
hours. Seven were caught with
Fool-a-Fish treated salmon head baits
and all seven were at or over 100
pounds. Scott Finley caught the eighth
halibut, a 15 pounder, on an untreated
salmon head bait. We threw Scott's 15
pounder back. We also caught about 10
large Ling Cod, all on Fool-a-Fish
sprayed heads.
Halibut fishing can be a very slow and
unsuccessful venture, even in Yakutat.
Halibut fishing had been slow in the
previous weeks with only a few caught.
We decided to keep the seven largest
halibut and turned to trolling for 10-18
lb silver salmon.
Scott Finley and Jim Finley with two of
the seven 100+ pound halibut caught off
Yakutat,
Alaska
in August, 2004 using salmon head baits
sprayed with Fool-a-Fish. (Several
fishermen from
North Dakota
claim that these are not halibut but are
actually jumbo yellow perch caught in
their
Devils
Lake.
These
North Dakota
fishermen are wrong---note the
characteristic halibut placement of the
eyes in the fish that Scott Finley is
holding.)
Q.
Silver Salmon fishing with Captain Mark
Sappington
Mark trolls for silver salmon using a
single large hook in a 6 inch strip of
salmon belly skin, an inexpensive
effective technique he learned when he
fished for salmon commercially. While
trolling we tossed these Sappington
Special baits to the side of the boat
allowing them to straighten out as we
cruised forward. I applied Fool-a-Fish
to the salmon belly bait but the other
three fishermen did not. Seldom did my
Fool-a-Fish coated bait go through its
45° straightening cycle before receiving
a vicious strike from a silver salmon.
We all caught silver salmon but I caught
seven or eight salmon for each caught by
the other three fishermen. When the day
of fishing finally ended, Captain Mark
Sappington asked me if he could be the
Yakutat distributor if ever my
Fool-a-Fish invention became
R.
Field testing.
On
a cold day in December, 2004 Fred Techel,
Tom Finley and I fished for large
walleyes near the trout rearing fish
pens on Pothole Reservoir in
Eastern Washington.
As a test I used Fool-a-Fish on my night
crawler-leaded jig combination. My two
friends used identical baits without the
Fool-a-Fish. Adding to the test, there
were at least 25 other fishermen in a
dozen boats fishing the same area. 10
minutes after starting I caught and
landed a 6 pound walleye. Within 15
minutes I caught another 6 pound walleye
and 10 minutes later I caught a final
large walleye which broke my 8 pound
test line at the boat. My two friends
did not receive any bites or catch any
fish. We three carefully watched and
listened but did not observe any of the
other 25 fishermen in the area hooking
into a fish of any kind.
That cold morning of fishing was
discouraging for everyone except me. My
two friends were more impressed than I
was. Not only did Fool-a-Fish not scare
away walleyes, every indication was that
it was an effective and helpful addition
to traditional bait.
S.
Marketing
Fool-a-Fish was first sold in early 2005
at the Sportsman's Shows in
Puyallup,
Washington,
Portland,
Oregon and the Internet. Only small numbers
of fishermen used Fool-a-Fish in 2005.
T.
Early Results
Carl Gowin won the 3/12/06
Bassmaster Tournament on
Broken Bow Lake,
Oklahoma using Fool-a-Fish.
Fishermen in
Texas
reported a surprising increase in their
catches of large mouth bass when using
Fool-a-Fish.
Fishermen in
Wisconsin,
Michigan,
Minnesota and the
Dakotas reported increased catches of walleyes, northern
pike, perch, crappies and trout. Ice
fishing for jumbo perch and northern
pike in the northern states and
Canada was
dramatically improved when using
Fool-a-Fish.
Fool-a-Fish received national and
international attention in February,
2006 in an Associated Press article by
Nick Geronias which appeared in
newspapers all over the world. Paul
Harvey talked about Fool-a-Fish on his
morning radio program. I have been
the guest speaker on numerous radio
programs across the
USA.
Prominent sportswriters like John Beath,
David Mull and Rich Landers have written
fishing articles which appeared in
prominent fishing magazines. Many
professional fishermen successfully
tested and used Fool-a-Fish during 2005
in American fresh water and salt water
under many different conditions.
Captain John Keizer, one of the founders
of Salmon University Fishing Institute
in
Seattle,
Washington has written
on several occasions that cut herring
sprayed with Fool-a-Fish caught 3-4
times as many salmon as unsprayed cut
herring identically and simultaneously
trolled behind his fishing boat.
David Mull, editor of the Great Lakes
Angler Magazine, wrote in the April,
2006 edition that he participated in a
fishing tournament on
Lake Michigan.
Using Fool-a-Fish, David Mull caught six
lake trout and one brown trout when no
fish of these species were caught by
anyone else. Mr. Mull then wrote in his
last paragraph, “The next day, half of
our spread had lures with Fool-a-Fish;
the other half of the lures were
untreated. The half with the UV
enhancer caught seven of our eight fish,
including all three of our biggest kings
(King Salmon)….”
Sports Writer, Doug Hubbard, wrote in
the Wild Idaho News, “Researchers at the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute have
discovered vision may be the Sportsman's
key to harvesting more fish. The vision
key is ultraviolet light (UVA)….
Researchers think that the fish see
ultraviolet light as a white glow.
Humans cannot see ultraviolet light
because humans lack a certain protein in
their retina. Fish possess that protein
so fish are able to see up to one half
mile in clear water.”
U.
Flashers and other reflective terminal
fishing gear.
I
think that flashers and shiny lures
reflect ultraviolet light as they wobble
and twist through the water, just like
they reflect visible light, and that is
why they powerfully improve catch rates,
particularly in deep water. From the
standpoint of physics, flashers do not
reflect UVA as efficiently as the
crystals of titanium dioxide, but the
mechanism is different, with Fool-a-Fish
continuously reflecting UVA in every
direction and flashers intermittently
reflecting UVA in a focused band. In my
opinion, the UV attracting power of
flashers or shiny lures is enhanced by a
coating of Fool-a-Fish. I recommend
applying Fool-a-Fish to flashers. You
will get a “double whammy” effect.
V.
Fool-a-Fish with scents.
Yes, scent preparations are a proven,
effective way to improve catches by
appealing to fish’s sense of smell. If
you are a scent user, I think you should
keep using scents but add Fool-a-Fish.
Since Fool-a-Fish is designed to stay on
a lure and scents are designed to leach
off, apply the Fool-a-Fish first and the
scent preparation second. You will have
created your own personal “double
whammy”, much more effective than using
scents alone.
W. What we don’t know. What we do not
claim.
Fool-a-Fish
is advertised as a helpful addition to
any bait or lure resulting in more fish
and usually the largest fish caught for
the same effort. But, Fool-a-Fish is
not magic. Fool-a-Fish is helpful in the
hands of a capable fisherman fishing in
the right spot with the right bait with
much depending on good luck. Fool-a-Fish
is a new product reported to be
effective in the fish species against
which it has been used but there are
many kinds of fish where there no
reports or limited reports.
Compare the
exquisite visual acuity of a whitetail
deer to the limited visual acuity of a
black bear. I believe that different
fish species will similarly have wide
ranges of perceptive abilities in their
ultraviolet visual acuity. Each fish
species probably will be attracted to
ultraviolet reflections in widely
different degrees for different reasons.
Sportscaster Sky Drysdale won the Rock
River Hawg Hunters’ annual Rock River
Open on
April 30, 2006
using Fool-a-Fish. Sky reported that he
also caught numerous white bass, two
walleye, a few drum, a blue gill and a
very large carp. Carp rarely take
artificial bass bait so that was a first
report on Fool-a-Fish v.s. carp, maybe
an accident, maybe not. We wonder if it
will be effective against those large
eyed, shallow feeding exotics like
marlin, tarpon and sailfish but there
are no reports either way yet--
Fool-a-Fish is too new and exotics are
hard to catch. A vexing problem in 2005
for Fool-a-Fish sales was successful
fishermen who discovered that
Fool-a-Fish significantly improved their
catch rates but they kept it under their
hats as their secret weapon.
Just as
humans will never be able to hear the
high-pitched whistles perceptible to
dogs, humans can never know what fish
actually see.
The
perceptive Sports writers, Tom Pollock
and John Beath, have analyzed and
described the scientific reasoning
behind the Fool-a-Fish invention. Their
conclusion was, “This just makes good
sense”.
X. Some
of the reasons inventing Fool-a-Fish has
been so much fun.
Connecting the information contained in
recent chemistry, physics and biological
research articles to come up with
Fool-a-Fish was my enormous stroke of
luck. On a sunny day in 2004 when I was
driving down the freeway the whole idea
of Fool-a-Fish just popped into my
head.
Inventing Fool-a-Fish has been as
exhilarating as going fishing and
hooking into the biggest fish in the
lake. The experience is even more
exhilarating when you do the same thing
in the company of friends, meeting a
whole lot of really interesting people
along the way.