04-12-2016, 09:59 PM
Again, experimentation is one thing, theory is another. When people research things and study the cause and effect relationship they often spend months, or years experimenting under various conditions, building up a huge amount of data... so that their argument is lock tight and statistically relevant. You witnessing this happening a few times is not anything close to being statistically relevant. See my gambling analogy again. I see this line of thinking WAY too much in fishing... a guy puts on a new color and shortly after catches a fish, and he thinks the color change made the difference... (it could have been any number of factors that resulted in finally catching a fish... water temp warming up, location change - entering an area where the fish are holding, etc, etc.... same goes for scent... )
On the theory side of this: What on earth would make a fish be attracted to a non-biological agent (in terms of scent only)? It doesn't make any sense. Again, research the sensory organs of fish and how they respond to the chemistry of biological things... it isn't rocket science. Their organs are developed for searching out real things to eat and avoiding things that are potentially harmful or simply not food. You already admit to this because you suggest it is necessary to cover up other scents..., and we all know this is true... fish are not attracted to gasoline, oil, and any number of artificial non-biological scents...
It is very understood in this day and age what exactly fish are attracted to and how, via their sensory organs, and chemistry. It is not up for debate. We know these facts from science, not from angler experimentation. Fish are not attracted to hydrocarbons... if they were, you could soak a rag in gasoline and put a hook through it and catch all the catfish you want. If you are catching catfish on a bait with WD-40 sprayed on there, it is because the bait itself has more productive and real scents overriding the negative ones coming from the WD-40. The WD-40 doesn't help though, I stand by that claim.
I can handle other peoples opinions, I can't handle people promoting this nonsense, and that is exactly what you are doing coming on here saying it produced 10 to 1 results. Goodbye!
[signature]
On the theory side of this: What on earth would make a fish be attracted to a non-biological agent (in terms of scent only)? It doesn't make any sense. Again, research the sensory organs of fish and how they respond to the chemistry of biological things... it isn't rocket science. Their organs are developed for searching out real things to eat and avoiding things that are potentially harmful or simply not food. You already admit to this because you suggest it is necessary to cover up other scents..., and we all know this is true... fish are not attracted to gasoline, oil, and any number of artificial non-biological scents...
It is very understood in this day and age what exactly fish are attracted to and how, via their sensory organs, and chemistry. It is not up for debate. We know these facts from science, not from angler experimentation. Fish are not attracted to hydrocarbons... if they were, you could soak a rag in gasoline and put a hook through it and catch all the catfish you want. If you are catching catfish on a bait with WD-40 sprayed on there, it is because the bait itself has more productive and real scents overriding the negative ones coming from the WD-40. The WD-40 doesn't help though, I stand by that claim.
I can handle other peoples opinions, I can't handle people promoting this nonsense, and that is exactly what you are doing coming on here saying it produced 10 to 1 results. Goodbye!
[signature]