Guns spook fish?

[FarmerDave]

duckfoot wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

duckfoot wrote:
Scientifically speaking, no. Air waves do not transfer to water, and vice versa.

Scientifically speaking, you are wrong.

I guess I should have used the phrase "technically, yes". Air compression waves traveling in parallel to the water's surface would eventually reach the waterline at an angled plane and disturb the water just enough to emit a very, very small compression wave throughout the water, provided there is no thermocline to disrupt the wave's path.

I was thinking of being underwater and not being able to hear people shouting or clapping above the water while you watch them. But, scientifically, I was wrong.

I'm sure that in the trout's evolution they developed a keen sense of surface noises to avoid predatory responses.

From my experience, fish do not care what you say or shoot above the water. It's making noise IN the water, or IN a boat, that'll spook them every time.

So, yes, technically, you are right.

LOL! Got you going!

You may have also forgotten how well low frequency components travel through land and into the water. ;-)

Did I mention I used to work for the Navy and my job dealt with sonar?

Fish in a pond would easily hear gunshots or any loud noises nearby. Heck, my catfish would start making a bee line towards me when I was still 50 feet from the pond's edge (when I was still feeding them) .

If the question was, will gun shots disturb trout in flowing water, I'd say I doubt it. Especially if they are accustomed to it.

 

[duckfoot]

FarmerDave wrote:

duckfoot wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

duckfoot wrote:
Scientifically speaking, no. Air waves do not transfer to water, and vice versa.

Scientifically speaking, you are wrong.

I guess I should have used the phrase "technically, yes". Air compression waves traveling in parallel to the water's surface would eventually reach the waterline at an angled plane and disturb the water just enough to emit a very, very small compression wave throughout the water, provided there is no thermocline to disrupt the wave's path.

I was thinking of being underwater and not being able to hear people shouting or clapping above the water while you watch them. But, scientifically, I was wrong.

I'm sure that in the trout's evolution they developed a keen sense of surface noises to avoid predatory responses.

From my experience, fish do not care what you say or shoot above the water. It's making noise IN the water, or IN a boat, that'll spook them every time.

So, yes, technically, you are right.

LOL! Got you going!

You may have also forgotten how well low frequency components travel through land and into the water. ;-)

Did I mention I used to work for the Navy and dealt with sonar?

Fish in a pond would easily hear gunshots or any loud noises nearby. Heck, my catfish would start making a bee line towards me when I was still 50 feet from the pond's edge (when I was still feeding them) .

If the question was, will gun shots disturb trout in flowing water, I'd say I doubt it. Especially if they are accustomed to it.

Yes, you did. I have a bad habit of oversimplifying things...comes from teaching middle schoolers science. Gets me in trouble with adults.

Yes, I remember. Go Navy!

Nearby shots, yes. The gun range 1/4 mile downstream? Doubt it. The accustomed thing is the largest part, especially moving water and "white noise of the environment". That's why I don't worry about spooking fish in freestone streams...just walk slow and don't slam your toes into rocks. They don't care about the noise you make.

And yes, low freq is the best way to transfer any energy signal over long distances and strange materials. That's how we talk to stars!

 

[geebee]

in my experience, fish will generally not shy away at constant sound or light, it is only changes in either that spook the fish or attract them.

hence turning on dock lights will attract stripers and redfish eventually, but wading with a head lamp is a no no.

 

[FarmerDave]

geebee wrote:
in my experience, fish will generally not shy away at constant sound or light, it is only changes in either that spook the fish or attract them.

hence turning on dock lights will attract stripers and redfish eventually, but wading with a head lamp is a no no.

I think most wildlife is that way.

How many of you have walked through the woods and as soon as you stop, and especially when you restart, that is when the deer, rabbit, grouse, mountain lion, Sasquatch, whatever take off. Walk at a steady rate and see nothing.

Totally irrelevant, but geebee's remarks made he think of this.

 

[redietz]

I believe the question was settled long ago:

"In order that we might be enabled to ascertain
the truth of a common assertion (viz.) that fish
can hear voices in conversation on the banks of a
stream, my friend, the Rev. Mr. Brown, of Grat-
wich, and myself, selected for close observation a
Trout poised about six inches deep in the water,
whilst a third gentleman, who was situated behind
the fishing-house, (i. e.) diametrically opposite to
the side where the fish was, fired off one barrel of
his gun. The possibility of the flash being seen
by the fish was thus wholly prevented, and the
report produced not the slightest apparent effect
upon him.

The second barrel was then fired ; still he re-
mained immovable ; evincing not the slightest
symptom of having heard the report. This expe-
riment was afterwards often repeated, and precisely
similar results were invariably obtained ; neither
could I, or other persons, ever awaken symp-
toms of alarm in the fishes near the hut by shout-
ing to them in the loudest tones, although our
distance from them did not sometimes exceed six
feet. The experiments were not repeated so often
as to habituate them to the sound. "

Alfred Ronalds -- The Fly-fisher's Entomology 1836

 

[pcray1231]

Air compression waves traveling in parallel to the water's surface would eventually reach the waterline at an angled plane and disturb the water just enough to emit a very, very small compression wave throughout the water, provided there is no thermocline to disrupt the wave's path.

Cept your assumption that the wave is travelling parallel to the water's surface is perhaps not a great assumption. It's kinda like assuming elephants are spherical to simplify the math.

If the land were flat as a board, there are no trees or other obstacles around, and the gunshot were at a sufficient distance, then yes, you could estimate a horizontal sound wave. It's only minor rounding. Even so, the water surface typically has ripples and individual areas can be at a pretty good angle!

And anyone who's experienced the first day of buck in PA knows that gunshots echo all over the place. Trees, hills, rocks, etc. It's hard to tell what direction they come from!

I'd be confident to say that, yes, at least in some circumstances, fish could hear gunshots. It may be that in others, they can't, and working it out is rather complicated. Even if they do hear it, how they'd react, I dunno.

 

[geebee]

. Even if they do hear it, how they'd react, I dunno.

the answer to that is simple :

1. they don't know its a gunshot. so like any other noise, if they do hear it they have two choices - good or bad to respond to.

2. good, go towards or stay. bad - move.

3. how they make that decision depends on instinct and association.

we know that sound can attract fish - Ho Chi Minh's carp to his clapping, and stockies to the 'rain' that pellets make on water, due to the association.

similarly, the splash of a seal will send hidden stripers darting across a flat.

in the aged example given - the fish may well have heard the gun shots, but not having any understanding of what it was or any visual threats to associate it to, simply stayed where it was.

in general then, it would seem that sight spooks fish more than sound.

 

[FarmerDave]

Actually three choices, but who's counting. What about indifferent. They hear noises all the time.

Other than that, I do agree.

Even if they do hear it and perceive it as a threat, they wouldn't know where it came from so unless they are near the surface or in an otherwise vulnerable position, they might not see it as enough of a threat to move anywhere, but they would likely stop feeding.

The earlier example didn't prove anything other than the fish did not PHYSICALLY react. It didn't talk about whether fish continued to feed or not.

A gunshot nearby would probably sound like a click from underwater (educated guess). I'd imagine someone walking along dragging their feet would be far noticeable to a fish.

In a stream other variables come into play. Background noise for one. It would drown most of that out anyway.

Was it a fairly large stream? Trout are more spooky in small shallow streams.

Etc, etc, yadda yadda.

 

[JackM]

I didn't know fish have ears.

 

[LeTortAngler2]

Only one way to find out.. LRAD

 

[duckfoot]

pcray1231 wrote:
Cept your assumption that the wave is travelling parallel to the water's surface is perhaps not a great assumption. It's kinda like assuming elephants are spherical to simplify the math.

Works for calculus!

 

[Gone4Day]

JackM wrote:
To the point of the OP, however, I think the answer can be found here, but I couldn't get past the first paragraph to find it:

https://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/waves/soundwav.htm

Reading beyond the first paragraph it states:

Waves from the air do not penetrate into water, and sound waves in water do not penetrate into the air. The two media are acoustically separate. This may be of interest to anglers, who can feel free to talk while they fish. They should beware of casting moving shadows on the water, however.

A shock wave is a different story though. It could propagate into the water if strong enough, although most will still be be reflected. Maybe fish are 1000 times more sensitive to shock waves then we are, I don’t know, but unless it’s heavy artillery or explosives, I doubt it makes much difference.

 

[wildtrout2]

JackM wrote:
I didn't know fish have ears.

The lateral line serves as their ears.

 

[pete41]

Went red fishing with a guide down in Florida.Redfish are ultra spooky in shallow water.However you could make all the noise you want and they never noticed.Drop something or bang something in the boat and they would scatter.i am with those that believe vibrations in the water cause the problem not above water noise.

 

[bigslackwater]

I get that about sound waves...The hand guns and most riffles were fairly loud, but then they broke out something that was unbelievably loud, like a cannon. There was a definite "felt" shockwave. I don't know a whole lot about firearms but My wife who worked for the county thinks it was a bean bag gun or something specialized for law enforcement. I could see a riffle from a distance. I was surprised that there wasn't a cannon!

 

[Gone4Day]

Well, if you could feel the shockwave, I’m sure the fish could too. Considering it’s a police range, maybe the SWAT team was disposing of expired flashbang grenades. :-o

 

[AkDan76]

your new catch ALL fly. expiredflashbangerator. Makes them rise when nothing else will. I wonder, should I use paste floatant or powder