I will drop this here because it really is an awesome discussion to have. People are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Some people absolutely swear by it, and some think its completely nonsense.
I am not sure if this addresses the entire reasoning for scents. The article talks about scent being a factor in bass locating the bait. In that regard I would agree in that their sight, lateral line/sound, and their pure instinct help them find bait. However them striking it and holding it is another piece of the puzzle. I think fish ?attractant? is kind of a nonsense term. It doesnt ?attract? fish. However, scents do mask the odors of the plastisol and whatever may be on our hands. When heated, plastisol is a nasty smelling substance and we as humans also give off a scent. Masking those scents is pretty important. On the flip side its also about the taste. We are in the realm now of giving them salt, coffee, and garlic to hide the smell and taste of an imitation bait. Without the small and taste I feel like we would see more bites where they are looking to inspect the bait rather than eat it.
Best example I can give is trout fishing with my father when I was 10. We both had the same rod, reel, line, and set up. We were both using the same power bait. When we would cast, our baits would be literally side by side. I would catch fish at a rapid pace and he would get skunked. A neighboring angler finally pointed out that my father is a smoker and his rolling that ball and putting it on the hook with his smokey hands may be the difference. I started baiting his hook for him and like a light switch he started catching fish. He didnt believe it at first, so he would bait his own hook. I would continue to catch them while he didnt. Around and around we went, but in the end we did come to the conclusion that his odor being on the bait made a difference.
