09-11-2006, 09:20 PM
Scent Sense, Yet Again
By Ralph Manns
The efficacy of commercial scents has been debated on the BFHPs two or three times a year ever since the BFHPs were created. Anglers will believe what the want to believe and scent makers will claim what they want to claim. Logic and scientific proof have little to do with it.
As I said years ago in BFHP Article # 7, titled "Scent sense," bass are primarily sight feeders and scent trails seldom are sufficient to lead bass to lures. Taste however, is a direct factor, but both taste and scent are short range phenomena underwater. Bass are constantly surrounded by the trace scents of live and dead prey and seldom do they find scent trails of sufficient strength to lead them to new and catchable prey. However a strong scent locally can increase their activity level as they look around to find the source of food. Scents may encourage bass to bite and hold lures, but they seldom function as attractants to lures.
The term "fish attractant" is grossly misleading. A more accurate claim might be that scents make bass hold lures longer in their mouths and sometimes encourage short-range bites. If they actually attracted bass you might do best by going to your favorite spot and dumping the entire bottle in the water and then just waiting for the action to start. Chumming is a long recognized aid to fish-catching. I experimentally tried this once with a highly touted scent product. It didn?t work.
Scents that stimulate bass activity are created in the local area whenever a bass eats. Food particle traces are left in the immediate feeding area. In conjunction with the sights and sounds of feeding, scent encourages other bass to look around for food.. I?ve watched as turtles and bass respond with increased activity when other bass or turtles actually eat food. But turtles, like catfish, are genetically programmed to search areas for dead food. Bass are not. They start looking not sniffing.
I?ve seen this phenomenon over and over in the pond where I feed bass Trained bass feed by sight up to a distance of 15 feet or more, rushing to known food and engulfing visually identified food without any delay. But, I?ve also watched bass that have not learned to recognize as food the shad I toss. If unrecognized, a dead shad on the bottom goes uneaten, even though a hungry bass may move close by. Hungry, ready to eat but untrained bass (bass that don?t recognize immobile shad are edible) may hold 6 inches to a foot away, apparently not reacting to any scent of the dead fish for periods of up to 30 minutes. But, if one of these bass drifts close enough, about two inches, to these real foods with real odors, the scent is then enough to get them to eat dead baitfish.
This is how scent works in the water as far as bass fishing is concerned. If bass are moving visually to baits they want to hit it has no effect on the catch, except to the extent that bass will swallow or hold tasty plastic baits longer. Tasty lures enable comparatively insensitive anglers to better set hooks.
If bass are moving to simply check-out a possible food (such as a slowly sinking or moving plastic lure), an up-close and personal food taste (salt or amino acid) or otherwise interesting scent (garlic or pepper) may encourage a fish to taste-test a bait. This may increase a catch.
If bass are not moving and actively searching for food, they likely won?t find even a very smelly bait unless they drift close enough to it. While scent may then add a fish or two in a day of fishing, the difference won?t usually be easily discerned as few bass will be landed..
In a sense, bass fishing is a numbers game. The more casts you make, other factors being equal, the more bass you catch. It always pays to have your lures in the water. An attractive or interesting scent on a lure can only help, unless it?s the rare situation where bass have learned to recognize and avoid a specific scent through multiple catch-and-release experiences.
But, applying scent to lures takes time. Long lasting scents inserted or applied to lures before fishing allow maximum fishing time. But, use of scent that must be reapplied requires sacrificing lure- time-in-the water. To be worth this time loss, the scent must catch sufficiently more fish to out-weigh the fish not hooked while scent was applied. I suggest that in most cases when bass are biting fairly well, constantly applying scent costs more fish than are gained.
However, on those bad days when they aren?t biting the addition of scent may be worth the time loss. If you could see your lures underwater on every cast you would see hundreds of bass either totally ignore your fast-moving lures or drift up to slow plastics and then drift away without a taste test.
Scents are "confidence factors," and as such may help any angler to catch more bass. But, most anglers haven?t even come close to making scientific evaluations of the scents they tout in scent ads or on BFHP posts. Valid tests require blind comparisons of identical scented lures by the same anglers, at the same times and places. The fact that an angler fished for five hours with only one bite, then tried the scent and caught six lunkers in a row proves only that something changed.
When an angler catches 20 bass using scent while the guy in the boat with him get zip, it only means that something the successful angler was doing was different. For every time in a boat when an angler using scent has caught more than I, I?ve caught more than they without scent or one of us was merely a better angler than the other. I?ve many friends who outfish me consistently, with out there being scent on their lures and even when I?ve used the scents so highly touted on these pages. Skill is more important than smell almost every time.
Sometimes a switch to a scent seems to work. But, often it?s the time of day and the fish suddenly became active,. Sometime you merely move to a better fishing location or switch presentations so the bass start biting. Sometimes it?s a change in underwater lighting, water quality, or the arrival of a school of baitfish. Unless you KNOW it?s none of these factors, concluding that the scent did it is a non sequitur (illogical conclusion). To conclude it was the scent that did it requires you make the blind tests mentioned above. Hardly any scent maker has been willing or able to publish valid scientific proof that their product works. Most testimonials are base on worthless observations of uncontrolled events.
I?ve attempted several scent tests on ponds holding enough adult bass so that I might catch a significant number of adult bass from the same place at almost the same time. Most tests provided an inadequate catch sample. But using two identical rods, identical casts and retrieves, alternated rods every five casts, and applied scent to only one of the two lures, my catches were about 48% unscented and 52 % scented in one test where I caught 100 fish in four hours.
This sounds like scent was slightly better, and perhaps it was "slightly," although the difference was not statistically significant and was more likely due to random chance. But, I was having to put scent on one lure over and over again and might have made a larger total catch if I just had kept casting the unscented lure. Unfortunately it?s hard to find fishing situations such as this in which catch comparison tests might be made.
So, use scent if you must. If it gives you confidence it helps. But, remain aware that the capture of a few bass doesn?t prove either that it works or that it doesn?t. Keep records of every bass you catch and make sure that you fish equal time using and not using your favorite scent. Make sure that you aren?t favoring using scent at times when bass are active and adjust for any differences in effort with or without the products. If you do, after about 100 recorded trips to the same water you may be able to legitimately claim that, for you at least, the chosen scent actually increases or decreases the catch.
The next several times you watch pro-anglers on video, note how many times you see them spray their lures. You won?t see it often, unless its time for the on-screen verbal commercial. Why?: because the pro can?t afford to waste time in the water unless it?s one of those days when the fish just won?t hit anything but a slow-sinking or almost immobile lure on the bottom. Then, you need a lure that tastes and smell like food or possible food.
by Ralph Manns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Ralph Manns
The efficacy of commercial scents has been debated on the BFHPs two or three times a year ever since the BFHPs were created. Anglers will believe what the want to believe and scent makers will claim what they want to claim. Logic and scientific proof have little to do with it.
As I said years ago in BFHP Article # 7, titled "Scent sense," bass are primarily sight feeders and scent trails seldom are sufficient to lead bass to lures. Taste however, is a direct factor, but both taste and scent are short range phenomena underwater. Bass are constantly surrounded by the trace scents of live and dead prey and seldom do they find scent trails of sufficient strength to lead them to new and catchable prey. However a strong scent locally can increase their activity level as they look around to find the source of food. Scents may encourage bass to bite and hold lures, but they seldom function as attractants to lures.
The term "fish attractant" is grossly misleading. A more accurate claim might be that scents make bass hold lures longer in their mouths and sometimes encourage short-range bites. If they actually attracted bass you might do best by going to your favorite spot and dumping the entire bottle in the water and then just waiting for the action to start. Chumming is a long recognized aid to fish-catching. I experimentally tried this once with a highly touted scent product. It didn?t work.
Scents that stimulate bass activity are created in the local area whenever a bass eats. Food particle traces are left in the immediate feeding area. In conjunction with the sights and sounds of feeding, scent encourages other bass to look around for food.. I?ve watched as turtles and bass respond with increased activity when other bass or turtles actually eat food. But turtles, like catfish, are genetically programmed to search areas for dead food. Bass are not. They start looking not sniffing.
I?ve seen this phenomenon over and over in the pond where I feed bass Trained bass feed by sight up to a distance of 15 feet or more, rushing to known food and engulfing visually identified food without any delay. But, I?ve also watched bass that have not learned to recognize as food the shad I toss. If unrecognized, a dead shad on the bottom goes uneaten, even though a hungry bass may move close by. Hungry, ready to eat but untrained bass (bass that don?t recognize immobile shad are edible) may hold 6 inches to a foot away, apparently not reacting to any scent of the dead fish for periods of up to 30 minutes. But, if one of these bass drifts close enough, about two inches, to these real foods with real odors, the scent is then enough to get them to eat dead baitfish.
This is how scent works in the water as far as bass fishing is concerned. If bass are moving visually to baits they want to hit it has no effect on the catch, except to the extent that bass will swallow or hold tasty plastic baits longer. Tasty lures enable comparatively insensitive anglers to better set hooks.
If bass are moving to simply check-out a possible food (such as a slowly sinking or moving plastic lure), an up-close and personal food taste (salt or amino acid) or otherwise interesting scent (garlic or pepper) may encourage a fish to taste-test a bait. This may increase a catch.
If bass are not moving and actively searching for food, they likely won?t find even a very smelly bait unless they drift close enough to it. While scent may then add a fish or two in a day of fishing, the difference won?t usually be easily discerned as few bass will be landed..
In a sense, bass fishing is a numbers game. The more casts you make, other factors being equal, the more bass you catch. It always pays to have your lures in the water. An attractive or interesting scent on a lure can only help, unless it?s the rare situation where bass have learned to recognize and avoid a specific scent through multiple catch-and-release experiences.
But, applying scent to lures takes time. Long lasting scents inserted or applied to lures before fishing allow maximum fishing time. But, use of scent that must be reapplied requires sacrificing lure- time-in-the water. To be worth this time loss, the scent must catch sufficiently more fish to out-weigh the fish not hooked while scent was applied. I suggest that in most cases when bass are biting fairly well, constantly applying scent costs more fish than are gained.
However, on those bad days when they aren?t biting the addition of scent may be worth the time loss. If you could see your lures underwater on every cast you would see hundreds of bass either totally ignore your fast-moving lures or drift up to slow plastics and then drift away without a taste test.
Scents are "confidence factors," and as such may help any angler to catch more bass. But, most anglers haven?t even come close to making scientific evaluations of the scents they tout in scent ads or on BFHP posts. Valid tests require blind comparisons of identical scented lures by the same anglers, at the same times and places. The fact that an angler fished for five hours with only one bite, then tried the scent and caught six lunkers in a row proves only that something changed.
When an angler catches 20 bass using scent while the guy in the boat with him get zip, it only means that something the successful angler was doing was different. For every time in a boat when an angler using scent has caught more than I, I?ve caught more than they without scent or one of us was merely a better angler than the other. I?ve many friends who outfish me consistently, with out there being scent on their lures and even when I?ve used the scents so highly touted on these pages. Skill is more important than smell almost every time.
Sometimes a switch to a scent seems to work. But, often it?s the time of day and the fish suddenly became active,. Sometime you merely move to a better fishing location or switch presentations so the bass start biting. Sometimes it?s a change in underwater lighting, water quality, or the arrival of a school of baitfish. Unless you KNOW it?s none of these factors, concluding that the scent did it is a non sequitur (illogical conclusion). To conclude it was the scent that did it requires you make the blind tests mentioned above. Hardly any scent maker has been willing or able to publish valid scientific proof that their product works. Most testimonials are base on worthless observations of uncontrolled events.
I?ve attempted several scent tests on ponds holding enough adult bass so that I might catch a significant number of adult bass from the same place at almost the same time. Most tests provided an inadequate catch sample. But using two identical rods, identical casts and retrieves, alternated rods every five casts, and applied scent to only one of the two lures, my catches were about 48% unscented and 52 % scented in one test where I caught 100 fish in four hours.
This sounds like scent was slightly better, and perhaps it was "slightly," although the difference was not statistically significant and was more likely due to random chance. But, I was having to put scent on one lure over and over again and might have made a larger total catch if I just had kept casting the unscented lure. Unfortunately it?s hard to find fishing situations such as this in which catch comparison tests might be made.
So, use scent if you must. If it gives you confidence it helps. But, remain aware that the capture of a few bass doesn?t prove either that it works or that it doesn?t. Keep records of every bass you catch and make sure that you fish equal time using and not using your favorite scent. Make sure that you aren?t favoring using scent at times when bass are active and adjust for any differences in effort with or without the products. If you do, after about 100 recorded trips to the same water you may be able to legitimately claim that, for you at least, the chosen scent actually increases or decreases the catch.
The next several times you watch pro-anglers on video, note how many times you see them spray their lures. You won?t see it often, unless its time for the on-screen verbal commercial. Why?: because the pro can?t afford to waste time in the water unless it?s one of those days when the fish just won?t hit anything but a slow-sinking or almost immobile lure on the bottom. Then, you need a lure that tastes and smell like food or possible food.
by Ralph Manns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
