06-27-2020, 08:37 PM
Over the years, you and I have been part of quite a few discussions on this subject. We have both known folks who swear by the use of WD40 as a fish attractant. And we both know all of the scienterrific reasons why it ain't a good idea to use it in ANY waterway. Maybe it does not cause significant harm in small quantities. But it is still a petroleum distillate product and combined with all the other stuff being dumped in our water it don't do no good. The argument that the fish that bites it is going to die anyway just ain't a good argument.
I kinda believe it is like the choice of rods, reels, line, hooks, lures and other baits. We tend to glom onto anything that caught a fish for us...at least once. And it is forever the best thing to use. And as we have both come to realize, you will usually do better fishing something with confidence than something new and untried. In fact, I have known folks to go out of their way to disprove something if they don't want to give up their fave stuff.
I am a firm believer in using some kind of "anointment"...animal, vegetable or mineral...if it attracts more bites and/or at least masks the human odor. Most fish are olfactory motivated and apply the "smell test" before chomping. Most fish are also repelled by the human scent "L-serine". Some folks exude more than others. Still other folks slather on the sunscreen or mess around with gasoline covered items before fishing...and wonder why their nonsmelly fishing buddies catch more fish. Bottom line is that even if you aren't just trying to attract the fish, it is a good idea to disguise or cover up the non-attracting odors that might be reducing your success rate.
This is no doubt a response to FastRandy's open admission to using WD-40 as an attractant. It is in his history. He was introduced to it by some successful catfish anglers...who he trusted and respected. No reason to doubt either the effectiveness or the legality. And in his own side by side comparisons against other attractants since, he still believes WD-40 to be best. And once a fisherman's mind is made up you best not try to confuse him with facts.
I kinda believe it is like the choice of rods, reels, line, hooks, lures and other baits. We tend to glom onto anything that caught a fish for us...at least once. And it is forever the best thing to use. And as we have both come to realize, you will usually do better fishing something with confidence than something new and untried. In fact, I have known folks to go out of their way to disprove something if they don't want to give up their fave stuff.
I am a firm believer in using some kind of "anointment"...animal, vegetable or mineral...if it attracts more bites and/or at least masks the human odor. Most fish are olfactory motivated and apply the "smell test" before chomping. Most fish are also repelled by the human scent "L-serine". Some folks exude more than others. Still other folks slather on the sunscreen or mess around with gasoline covered items before fishing...and wonder why their nonsmelly fishing buddies catch more fish. Bottom line is that even if you aren't just trying to attract the fish, it is a good idea to disguise or cover up the non-attracting odors that might be reducing your success rate.
This is no doubt a response to FastRandy's open admission to using WD-40 as an attractant. It is in his history. He was introduced to it by some successful catfish anglers...who he trusted and respected. No reason to doubt either the effectiveness or the legality. And in his own side by side comparisons against other attractants since, he still believes WD-40 to be best. And once a fisherman's mind is made up you best not try to confuse him with facts.