As typical microsmatic visually guided fish, pike, Esox lucius, and other representatives of Esox genus do not respond to food odors (Devitsyna & Malyukina, 1977).

Pike larvae decrease the frequency of attacks on zooplankton prey and show other anti-predator responses on chemical cues of Eurasian perch, Perca fluviatilis (Lehtiniemi, 2005; Lehtiniemi et al., 2005). Chemical cues of perch (water from under adult predators, 15 cm length, fed on pike larvae until experiments) affect alone, but chemical and visual cues offered together are more effective.

Among pheromones, pike are respond to the conspecific sexual pheromone (Devitsyna & Malyukina, 1977).

Furthermore, it is shown that pike are attracted by alarm pheromone of fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas (Mathis et al., 1995; Chivers et al., 1996; indirect data by Wisenden & Thiel, 2001). In addition, pike demonstrate distinct foraging responses to artificial hypoxanthin-3(N)-oxide (Mathis et al., 1995) identified as an active component of ostariophysan fish alarm pheromones.

On this background, Lineaeffe Co., Italy, offers the pike attractant under the name Attirante Per Pesci # 5883500 (luccio, pike, brochet) in the spray flacones.

The exact composition of this attractant is unknown. As feeding attractant (with food extracts, amino acids and related chemicals), it cannot work. Nothing is known whether pheromones are included.

Basic References

Chivers D.P., Brown G.E., Smith R.J.F. 1996. The evolution of chemical alarm signals: attracting predators benefits alarm signal senders. The American Naturalist 148, 649-659

Devitsyna G.V., Malyukina G.A. 1977. On the functional organization of the olfactory organ in macro- and microsmatic fishes. Journal of Ichthyology 17, 493-502

Lehtiniemi M. 2005. Swim or hide: predator cues cause species specific reactions in young fish larvae. Journal of Fish Biology 66, 1285–1299

Lehtiniemi M., Engström-Öst J., Viitasalo M. 2005. Turbidity decreases anti-predator behaviour in pike larvae (Esox lucius). Environmental Biology of Fishes 37, 1-8

Mathis A., Chivers D.P., Smith R.J.F. 1995. Chemical alarm signals: predator detterents or predator attractants? The American Naturalist 145, 994-1005

Wisenden B.D., Thiel T.A. 2001. Field verification of predator attraction to minnow alarm substance. Journal of Chemical Ecology 28, 417-422

Among various Blue Fox’s Dr. Juice pheromone attractants, the nature and the effectiveness of the Dr. Juice Northern & Musky attractant, offered for Northern pike, Esox lucius, amd musky, E. masquinongy, are unclear.

In accordance with data received in the laboratory and field scientific experiments, pike (and musky) do not respond to conspecific odors and feeding substances like fish blood, tissue extracts or worm juice.

On the other hand, pike respond to (and are attracted by) the conspecific sexual pheromones as well as on the so called alarm pheromones, which are contained in the skin of cyprinid fish and released in the water chiefly after its damage (for example, by pike teeth).

For more information, see Olfactory behaviour of microsmatic fish, including Northern pike (Esox lucius)

It this context, the Fishermen Advocates group offers Blue Fox, the member of the Rapala Group, to publish in the Internet statistical data confirmed the effectiveness of Dr. Juice Northern & Musky attractant within, say, 1-2 months after this claim. To the point, what Dr. Gregory Bambenek, the author of the attractant, thinks about? In the absence of argued data after expiration of that term, lawers of the Fishermen Advocates group will have the right to include the Dr. Juice Northern & Musky attractant in the category of forgeries with the appropriate legal effects.