Home General Fishing

Magnetic Hooks for Catching More Big Black Drum

MathGeekMathGeek Posts: 455 Deckhand
“Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" - The Messiah
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
«1

Replies

  • JonsredfishinJonsredfishin Posts: 1,943 Captain
    Editing note: Couldn’t get past you smacking your lips every two seconds. Bailed out. 

    I’ll go back to sipping my coffee now. 
    One president put a man on the moon.
    Another president put a man in the Lady's bathroom.
  • FishingpervertFishingpervert Deltona, FloridaPosts: 637 Officer
    edited March 27 #3
  • MathGeekMathGeek Posts: 455 Deckhand
    Since I don't fish for drum, I didn't watch the video.
    BUT ... I always put the hooks I use for tying flies on a magnet before I use them.  

    Magnetism and electricity are linked forces.  Many fish are able to detect electrical signals from other living creatures.  Magnetism may give that little extra "taste" to a lure and keep the fish holding on a little longer.

    I don't know if it truly does this ... but I catch enough fish with my fly rod to know it doesn't DETER the bite.
    Interesting.  What species are you catching?  I suspect it doesn't deter the bite because the resulting magnetic fields are much weaker than the earth's magnetic field.  All the careful studies I'm aware of use magnets whose fields are much stronger than the earth's magnetic field.  And (so far), black drum are the only species where the magnet increased the catch rate.  A strong magnet has been shown to decrease the catch rate in redfish, hardhead catfish, and numerous species of sharks and rays.  
    “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" - The Messiah
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FishingpervertFishingpervert Deltona, FloridaPosts: 637 Officer
    edited March 27 #5
  • MathGeekMathGeek Posts: 455 Deckhand
    Freshwater in the St. Johns, mostly.  Sunfish of all kinds, bass, the occasional catfish, bowfin and gar.

    Interesting.  So far, magnetoreception has only been found in a few freshwater species - trout and catfish mostly.
    “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" - The Messiah
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • FishingpervertFishingpervert Deltona, FloridaPosts: 637 Officer
    edited March 27 #7
  • SaltygatorvetSaltygatorvet TallahasseePosts: 4,355 Captain
    MathGeek said:
    Freshwater in the St. Johns, mostly.  Sunfish of all kinds, bass, the occasional catfish, bowfin and gar.
    Interesting.  So far, magnetoreception has only been found in a few freshwater species - trout and catfish mostly.
    Yep ... I don't know if it really does anything.  I just know it doesn't HURT my fishing success.
    How do you know?
    You should have been here yesterday
  • One DropOne Drop Posts: 234 Deckhand
    Uh oh Saltygatorvet, now you've done it. We need a definition of what is fishing success. Remember it's called fishing not catching for a reason. I've had a few successful fishing days without a single fish landed. Maybe a square grouper but that goes back 4 decades to when I was 10 and had no idea why the adults we're hooting and hollering over a burlap wrapped bag of something. When I got into high school I understood. 😂😂
  • FishingpervertFishingpervert Deltona, FloridaPosts: 637 Officer
    edited March 27 #10
  • SaltygatorvetSaltygatorvet TallahasseePosts: 4,355 Captain
    edited February 4 #11
    Yep ... I don't know if it really does anything.  I just know it doesn't HURT my fishing success.
    How do you know?
    Hmmm ... maybe it's because I've been fishing for 54 years, and spend about 100 days a year on the water?  Because I know that my hooks haven't always been magnetized?  Because I know that not all the flies I've used in the past few years have been on a magnet, so I can reasonably assume they weren't magnetized?  Because I catch as many, or more fish now than I ever have, no matter what kind of lure or fly I'm using?

    My question is:  Do you need to learn how to gauge your own fishing success or failure?  Maybe you need to get out more.
    I only asked you how you knew. Don’t get defensive, yet.... and no reason to ask about me or how often I get out ( at least once a week).. yet. We are talking about magnetic hooks here .....
         Maybe your catching more because your a better fisherman and became more patient...
        I believe you think you know, but there is no way to know for sure. You’d have to do a double blind study ( you have 2 identical lures, one w magnetic hooks and one without. You’d have to randomly use both without knowing which was magnetic. After that when you have 30 fish from each lure, you could begin to have statistically relevant knowledge, until then, it’s a guess.) What math geek was politely trying to point out is your weak magnetic hooks aren’t doing anything, you need to go w a more powerful magnetic to see any results(on the ones that have been shown to respond ), and only shown scientifically in a couple of species ( trout and catfish, and there aren’t trout in the St. John’s). Also remember certain species like sharks are strongly deterred be magnets. There are too many variables and lack structure to know anything for sure. 
        You have told us all what a great fisherman you are, believe me, Ive got it. But you say a lot of things on here as fact, when that are far from fact. 
    You should have been here yesterday
  • FishingpervertFishingpervert Deltona, FloridaPosts: 637 Officer
    edited March 27 #12
  • Jack HexterJack Hexter New Port RicheyPosts: 4,778 Moderator
    Magnetic hooks were the rage in the late 70's. I recall one of teh major hook companies even marketed them.  But I never saw any difference in success and apparently neither did a lot of other anglers and they went away.
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 4,594 Captain
    I don't quite understand the point of magnetic hooks.  Seems silly.  I would rather catch a keeper drum than a large one. 


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • MathGeekMathGeek Posts: 455 Deckhand
    kellercl said:
    I don't quite understand the point of magnetic hooks.  Seems silly.  I would rather catch a keeper drum than a large one. 

    Did you watch the video?  It is clear that magnetic hooks are for a specific niche.  In that niche (targeting big drum) they will help.  Even the threat title suggests the niche.  
    “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" - The Messiah
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 4,594 Captain
    edited February 4 #16
    I didn't watch the video.  I'm not into watching 10 minute videos when a two sentence post provides the same explanation.  

    A quick search seems to indicate there is no science behind the idea that magnetic hooks offer any benefit. 


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • tankeredtankered Gainesvill, FlPosts: 168 Deckhand
    This thread is stupid.
  • MathGeekMathGeek Posts: 455 Deckhand
    kellercl said:
    I didn't watch the video.  I'm not into watching 10 minute videos when a two sentence post provides the same explanation.  

    A quick search seems to indicate there is no science behind the idea that magnetic hooks offer any benefit. 

    I guess you failed to find the peer-reviewed scientific journal article where these results were originally published.
    “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" - The Messiah
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • tankeredtankered Gainesvill, FlPosts: 168 Deckhand
    No one cares. Big black drum are a waste of time.
  • Doc StressorDoc Stressor Homosassa, FLPosts: 2,578 Captain
    Here is the study he's citing:

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1511/1511.09302.pdf

    The sample size is very small.  Even though the black drum result is considered statistically significant by convention (P<.05),  you would expect a deviation from 50:50 at least that great by chance alone 3.3% of the time. 
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 4,594 Captain
    edited February 5 #21
    MathGeek said:
    kellercl said:
    I didn't watch the video.  I'm not into watching 10 minute videos when a two sentence post provides the same explanation.  

    A quick search seems to indicate there is no science behind the idea that magnetic hooks offer any benefit. 

    I guess you failed to find the peer-reviewed scientific journal article where these results were originally published.
    Nah, I saw it and laughed.  I mean if you want to go down the path of laying out everything wrong with considering that scientific evidence, I will be happy to partake.  I feel obligated to warn you I have spent the last 15 years of my career doing scientific studies, including multiple publications (in actual journals) along with over two dozen patents.  Rather, if you would like to avoid nonsense, we can agree that a single published article with a ridiculously small sample size that took place on a single boat in a single day at a single spot doesn't equate to scientific evidence.  The article that you are putting a lot of faith in is interesting, and perhaps points to additional studies required.  But calling it (scientifically) conclusive is silly.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • MathGeekMathGeek Posts: 455 Deckhand
    Here is the study he's citing:

    https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1511/1511.09302.pdf

    The sample size is very small.  Even though the black drum result is considered statistically significant by convention (P<.05),  you would expect a deviation from 50:50 at least that great by chance alone 3.3% of the time. 
    Right, that is the proper interpretation of the p-value.  With the given results, there is a 3.3% chance the results can be explained by random chance and a 96.7% chance that the black drum have an actual preference for the magnetic hooks.

    One may also think of the results like this - suppose you went fishing 17 times targeting tarpon at multiple locations over a 6 month period.  You used two baits at all times, one hook with a live mullet and one with a slice of cut mullet.  Each time you caught a fish or freshened your bait, you switched the positions of the bait in the water.  Over that time, you caught 11 tarpon on the live mullet and 3 tarpon on the cut mullet.  You could conclude with a 96.7% confidence level that tarpon have a preference for live mullet, but with a 3.3% chance that tarpon have no preference and your results are do to random chance.

    There are other cases in the peer-reviewed literature where a 9-2 split between the non-magnetic hook and the magnetic hook are used to conclude (p-value < 0.05) that certain species (southern stingray and black tip shark) have a preference.  So drawing a similar inference from the black drum data is consistent with what other scientific papers on magnetic hooks have done.

    “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" - The Messiah
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 4,594 Captain
    edited February 6 #23
    The question isn't about the math being correct.  It is about the study design itself.  Data output is only as good as the input, regardless if the math is correct.  As a silly example to prove a point, if I flip a coin 3 times and get heads 3 times....  the first major question is about the sample size.  The other questions include sampling only 1 day, 1 weather condition, 1 water temperature, 1 spot, etc, etc, etc.

    It also appears to me that the weight used for the control may not have matched the weight of the magnet....  If that is true, then we don't know which variable was actually responsible for differences.  


    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • MathGeekMathGeek Posts: 455 Deckhand
    kellercl said:
    The other questions include sampling only 1 day, 1 weather condition, 1 water temperature, 1 spot, etc, etc, etc.

    As some kind of purported scientist who claims to have read the paper linked above, I am surprised that you keep repeating inaccurate information about the published report.  It is clear in the published report that the study covered multiple days and multiple locations.   I have reviewed the raw data in the spreadsheet and it shows that the study was performed over 17 different sample collection days and a variety of conditions and locations over a 6 month period.  

    kellercl said:
    The question isn't about the math being correct.  It is about the study design itself.  Data output is only as good as the input, regardless if the math is correct.  As a silly example to prove a point, if I flip a coin 3 times and get heads 3 times....  the first major question is about the sample size.   
    You are arguing with the math.  The math is correct that the sample size reported with an 11-3 split in favor of the magnet really does lead to a p-value of 0.033, which means there is only a 3.3% chance the results are due to random chance and a 96.7% chance the results reflect a true preference for the magnetic hook.

    You conveniently ignore the other cases in the peer-reviewed literature where a 9-2 split between the non-magnetic hook and the magnetic hook are used to conclude (p-value < 0.05) that certain species (southern stingray and black tip shark) have a preference.  So drawing a similar inference from the black drum data is consistent with what other scientific papers on magnetic hooks have done.

    Listen, if you are really a scientist and convinced these studies are in error regarding the math and study designs, then you are invited to publish your objections by submitting them to the same journals as the original papers.  I expect the original authors will embarrass you in their replies, since your objections reflect both a misunderstanding in the original reported experiments, and a misunderstanding in how p-values work.

    “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" - The Messiah
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Doc StressorDoc Stressor Homosassa, FLPosts: 2,578 Captain
    You're missing something here about how science works.  You can never base any sort of conclusion on a single study.  The work needs to be reproduced by other independent groups who test the original hypothesis and try to prove it false.  There are always confounding variables in every study that the authors can't fully control.  Only after a study is repeated and the hypothesis is used to correctly predict and support additional results can it be accepted on consensus.  That next step is called a theory, which is used to predict further results.  If a theory survives many years of people trying to prove it false, it can be accepted as a scientific "fact". 

    FIshery studies are almost always weak or incomplete science.  That's because the problems are hard and not enough people and funding are involved in the research.  This particular line of research was initiated to see if adding magnets to hooks could reduce the amount of shark bycatch in the long line fishery.  That is a reasonable hypothesis since sharks and rays have receptors that allow them to sense electromagnetic fields.  As far as I can see from the papers I've read the results are still inconclusive. 

    Teleost fish don't have electromagnetic receptors like sharks, rays, and electric fish.  But there is good evidence that some can detect and respond to EMF for navigation and prey detection.  How their physiology allows them to do this is not fully understood.  Only a tiny fraction of the many different fish species have ever been studied.  It's possible that black drum may have evolved the ability to detect injured crustaceans by detecting the electromagnetic field that develops between the gills and a wound when a shell is broken.  Crabs ordinarily produce weaker electromagnetic fields than finfish because the shell acts as an insulator.  But thinking that sticking a magnet on a hook might mimick this effect is a bit of a stretch. 
  • kellerclkellercl Posts: 4,594 Captain
    edited February 9 #26
    MathGeek said:
    kellercl said:
    The other questions include sampling only 1 day, 1 weather condition, 1 water temperature, 1 spot, etc, etc, etc.

    As some kind of purported scientist who claims to have read the paper linked above, I am surprised that you keep repeating inaccurate information about the published report.  It is clear in the published report that the study covered multiple days and multiple locations.   I have reviewed the raw data in the spreadsheet and it shows that the study was performed over 17 different sample collection days and a variety of conditions and locations over a 6 month period.  

    kellercl said:
    The question isn't about the math being correct.  It is about the study design itself.  Data output is only as good as the input, regardless if the math is correct.  As a silly example to prove a point, if I flip a coin 3 times and get heads 3 times....  the first major question is about the sample size.   
    You are arguing with the math.  The math is correct that the sample size reported with an 11-3 split in favor of the magnet really does lead to a p-value of 0.033, which means there is only a 3.3% chance the results are due to random chance and a 96.7% chance the results reflect a true preference for the magnetic hook.

    You conveniently ignore the other cases in the peer-reviewed literature where a 9-2 split between the non-magnetic hook and the magnetic hook are used to conclude (p-value < 0.05) that certain species (southern stingray and black tip shark) have a preference.  So drawing a similar inference from the black drum data is consistent with what other scientific papers on magnetic hooks have done.

    Listen, if you are really a scientist and convinced these studies are in error regarding the math and study designs, then you are invited to publish your objections by submitting them to the same journals as the original papers.  I expect the original authors will embarrass you in their replies, since your objections reflect both a misunderstanding in the original reported experiments, and a misunderstanding in how p-values work.


    MathGeek said:
    kellercl said:
    The other questions include sampling only 1 day, 1 weather condition, 1 water temperature, 1 spot, etc, etc, etc.

    As some kind of purported scientist who claims to have read the paper linked above, I am surprised that you keep repeating inaccurate information about the published report.  It is clear in the published report that the study covered multiple days and multiple locations.   I have reviewed the raw data in the spreadsheet and it shows that the study was performed over 17 different sample collection days and a variety of conditions and locations over a 6 month period.  

    kellercl said:
    The question isn't about the math being correct.  It is about the study design itself.  Data output is only as good as the input, regardless if the math is correct.  As a silly example to prove a point, if I flip a coin 3 times and get heads 3 times....  the first major question is about the sample size.   
    You are arguing with the math.  The math is correct that the sample size reported with an 11-3 split in favor of the magnet really does lead to a p-value of 0.033, which means there is only a 3.3% chance the results are due to random chance and a 96.7% chance the results reflect a true preference for the magnetic hook.

    You conveniently ignore the other cases in the peer-reviewed literature where a 9-2 split between the non-magnetic hook and the magnetic hook are used to conclude (p-value < 0.05) that certain species (southern stingray and black tip shark) have a preference.  So drawing a similar inference from the black drum data is consistent with what other scientific papers on magnetic hooks have done.

    Listen, if you are really a scientist and convinced these studies are in error regarding the math and study designs, then you are invited to publish your objections by submitting them to the same journals as the original papers.  I expect the original authors will embarrass you in their replies, since your objections reflect both a misunderstanding in the original reported experiments, and a misunderstanding in how p-values work.

    There are so many things wrong with your post I am not even sure where to start.  

    1) I'll be honest, I do not see in the paper where they clearly state they fished for black drum 17 different times over 6 months.  Maybe it is in the raw data (which I do not have at the moment), but it doesn't appear reported in the paper.  But by all means show me where they outline such details in the experimental design.  A side note, if they caught 14 black drum in 17 attempts over 6 months...  well now I have another issue, assuming what you claim is accurate.  

    2) No I am not arguing the math, I am pointing out the flaws in the experimental design.  The question is if the statistical model is appropriate with such a small sample size.  It is not, plain and simple.  As replicates increase, we approach the true sample mean.  14 fish isn't a large sample size, not when there are such a wide variety of variables.  If the sample size isn't large enough, the statistics are irrelevant.    

    3) As for other literature, nothing is being ignored.  Sharks and rays are completely different species, how they behave is irrelevant as it pertains to black drum.  You can't apply apple data to orange data.  The fact you have suggested to do as such tells me you have literally zero idea how science works.    

    4) It isn't necessarily about error, but more about viewing the data as it should be viewed.  Which is preliminary, a first attempt if you will.  The results, as previously mentioned, are interesting.  More data is required to draw any strong conclusions.  And perhaps most interestingly of all, the authors agree with me.  They mention more than once follow up studies should be executed..  huh?  Curious isn't it?  The authors themselves agree with me.  

    5) As for me being a scientist, one of my publications can be accessed below:

    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jo200877k



    “When you're good at something, you'll tell everyone. When you're great at something, they'll tell you.”

    -Walter Payton
  • MathGeekMathGeek Posts: 455 Deckhand
    I don't think I ever really claimed rigorous scientific proof, just evidence sufficiently compelling for me (and perhaps others) to benefit from using magnetic hooks to catch drum.  It worked well enough for me to win a tournament with the big drum shown in the video and on other occasions as well.

    But if you guys always demand a high standard of scientific proof when choosing fishing methods, who am I to suggest you do it differently?
    “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" - The Messiah
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • SaltygatorvetSaltygatorvet TallahasseePosts: 4,355 Captain
    Congratulations on the win. Never heard of a drum tourney. I personally believe anything that gives you confidence helps catch fish.  
    You should have been here yesterday
  • BarrellBarrell Posts: 1,238 Officer
    tankered said:
    This thread is stupid.

    One thing I learned about fishing is to have an open mind. Magnets may or may not work but trying new things out you sometimes discover a real gem. Like Gulps. When I discovered Gulps no body knew what they were but I tried them anyway and for fluke they became the best bait to use. I tried braid in its infancy. Not one person I knew had ever heard about braid. Non of the local tackle shops carried it. But look around now!
  • MulletMaster239MulletMaster239 Southwest FloridaPosts: 111 Deckhand
    tankered said:
    No one cares. Big black drum are a waste of time.
    LOL always knocking what other people fish for. Some people enjoy loading up on dink fish for the cooler, some people enjoy fishing for stuff that actually fights back, to each man his own. 

    Btw, last time I was in that city, it was spelled ‘Gainesville’ but I guess you don’t have to be able to spell it to live there.
  • tankeredtankered Gainesvill, FlPosts: 168 Deckhand

    Not sure how many big black drum you've caught but they don't really fight. They are pretty weak for their size, but will put trout-size tackle to the test because....they're big.

    And a colossal waste of time.

    Gee. I forgot the E when I re-logged in. Astute observation.

Sign In or Register to comment.