ATTRACTANTS

[Raul]

The two best attractants I've ever used are the right depth and the right speed,

but sometimes they're just so hard to find

Roger

Roger and myself were poured in the same mold.

[CyBasser]

The two best attractants I've ever used are the right depth and the right speed,

but sometimes they're just so hard to find

Roger

No doubt about that - if you don't hit those two correctly, then all the scents in the world are useless. But once you find the right depth and speed (or presentation), the use of attractants can make a difference - especially on reluctant or highly pressured bass.

In general I don't think it's a black / white situation. There is no doubt that you can catch bass without attractants - I seriously started fishing for bass in 2000, and did not use any attractants until late 2002 - and of course still managed to catch plenty of bass. But, especially with soft plastics, I did notice an improvement in my results after using them. I have to admit that until mid-2003 it was the "secret weapon" for me and another two guys here, then other anglers took some notice...and now it's a matter of "beating" the other guys with using a more attractive scent!

[CyBasser]

On a similar note, in 2003 I had an amazing experience with attractants in regards of a different species of fish - rainbow trout. With two friends we discovered a very small pool behind a small dam on a mountain stream. We initially used small spinners with no avail, then we decided to try some live worms just to see if there were any fish in the pool. The water was crystal clear, and we saw smallish trout, around 8-10" long coming up to the (very lively) worms, going around them in circles, and disappearing again in the grass of the bottom. One of the guys had a small bottle of Berkley powerbait trout attractant, so we decided to see if it worked. Well, the trout re-appeared around the three worms, but this time around they just snatched it. We did try again with attractants, another 3 trout caught. Out of curiosity we casted again worms without attractants, again trout circled them without getting them. A drop of attractant, the trout again bit the worms...

Now, I think that trout may have a better sense of smell than bass. But still, that incident remains well written in the hard disk of my brain - it was such a strong indication of the power of the attractant (it was like watching a before-and-after commercial live!).

So, I am sure that at least in some instances, with soft plastic lures, attractants could make the difference between success and failure.

[RoLo]

In general I don't think it's a black / white situation. There is no doubt that you can catch bass without attractants - I seriously started fishing for bass in 2000, and did not use any attractants until late 2002 - and of course still managed to catch plenty of bass. But, especially with soft plastics, I did notice an improvement in my results after using them. I have to admit that until mid-2003 it was the "secret weapon" for me and another two guys here, then other anglers took some notice...and now it's a matter of "beating" the other guys with using a more attractive scent!

I definitely agree, it is not a black or white issue.

The reason it's not black or white is because it's something that's extremely difficult to prove or disprove.

Let's suppose that you're using an attractant and you're whacking the bass. That's fine, but now it's time to stop using attractant,

otherwise nothing was learned. Let's further suppose that after you tied on a new lure, the same lure but without adding attractant,

the action seemed to slow down. This is the break you needed, because now the addition of attractant should restore the action

to its former level.

I typically fish with my wife, so instead of comparing me to myself, I have a distinct advantage.

Since I have a cooperative boat mate, I'm able to conduct a bilateral test simultaneously in half the time.

Tested in that manner, I've yet to witness a time when attractant seemed to make a clear difference in action.

I realize that this doesn't prove or disprove anything, nor does it fuel my enchantment for fish attractants.  

When we turn to Mother Nature, we see that bass do not possess barbels as do catfish, bullheads and carp,

and I think that speaks volumes about their dependence on the sense of smell.

      In the meantime, the manufacturers of attractants are sitting pretty, because in effect they're selling "confidence" in a bottle,

and proving or disproving its effect is extremely difficult. The placebo effect is very powerful, that is to say,

we all tend to see what we want to see.

Roger

[CyBasser]

Turning to Mother Nature, we see that bass do not possess barbels as do catfish, bullheads and carp,

and I think that speaks volumes about their dependence on the sense of smell.

In the meantime, the manufacturers of attractants are sitting pretty, because in effect they're selling "confidence" in a bottle,

and proving or disproving its effect is extremely difficult. The placebo effect is very powerful, that is to say,

we all tend to see what we want to see.

Roger

I surely agree with Roger in these two points! That bass are not really dependend on smell is scientifically proven, no doubt, and as I mentioned in an earlier reply, their only usefulness would be to provide a "cover" for smells/taste that would be offensive to them (that they do recognize offensive smells is also proven).

As for the huge variety of attractants now available, yes, the manufacturers are taking advantage of the craze of us bass fishermen to always want to have that extra confidence in whatever we try for bass. The confidence factor is a huge selling point in bass fishing lures, and practically everyone has confidence lures (and some of us scents!) that just by believing in them help us be more attentive to our techniques - and the manufacturers in selling more of their products!!! But then, this is part of the magic in bass fishing!

[CyBasser]

Also, how many of the natural prey items for bass have a smell / taste of anise or garlic? In a sense you can tell that crawfish or shad attractant could be expected to work yet perhaps the most popular attractant smell is probably garlic! At least, the number of bass we catch on garlic-scented soft plastic lures proves that they do have a liking for garlic....

[senile1]

I'll use Megastrike now and then to mask the smell of my hands.  Does it work?  As stated by others, it would be difficult to prove.  When fishing for bass, I'd say I really don't see a difference.  However, when my wife and I go crappie fishing, there seems to be a noticeable difference in how the crappie bite my Southern Pro grubs.  

[scott000]

i dont use taste or scent attractants, but i use worm rattles for lizards, creatures, worms, etc. a tube rattle just doesnt fit in a skinny worm.

[flippin4it.]

   I use Jack's Juice in craw,shad and lizard. It seems to get the fish to hold on a second more, or maybe hold the bait more agressivly allowing for a better hook set. I don't feel that it brings the fish to the bait. One thing I will say, if your fishing a soft plastic in a weed bed,lilly pads or grass. It allows tha bait to slide right in.

[Catt]

I use attractants for two purposes first as a lubricant because I fish in grass a lot and the attractant helps my plastic baits slide through easier. Second I add anise oil to mask any scent my bait may have picked up from me or anything else.

[WhiteMike1018]

Just picked up some BANG 100% PURE Crayfish!

Thanks for the advice!

Should work wonders

[JT Bagwell]

I use the Original MegaStrike and the Yamamoto Crawfish

scented MegaStrike. Both worked equally well.

JT Bagwell