Scents + ethics/morality

People do what they need to do to survive or to just get a little extra.
Some do it at the expense of others - no morals.
What do they care if you buy a product that does not work. "I wanted to buy
the BASS O' MATIC from SNL." - There's a sucker born every minute. Some are
just so ME oriented they stink. Some just want to help others for no
recognition. The bigger the ego the bigger the jerk.

In a tournament where each cast is a potential fish catch, a Pro is not
going to take the time to spray his lure with some scent. The time lost
doing that could mean 2 to three casts per minute. That is a lot of missed
cast per tournament. The lost fish potential is too great.

If scent worked we would all be "stink bait dead stick fishing" for Bass - I
haven't seen any lately? Color, vibration/sound and the Bass's nature to eat
what excites it or bothers it works. Spinners, buzz bait, poppers, chuggers,
plugs, jigs, cranks - is there a theme here... I would not want to throw a
stinky plastic dip bait worm around my boat. What scent would I pick if they
worked? - my choice is a combo of rotted garlic/worm/frog with sprinkles of
grasshopper.


"Josh" wrote in message
...
Well as long as many of us are sitting around till springtime only wishing
we could get out on the water, I thought I'd try this perhaps
controversial
question out on you guy/gals.

I'm not sure if scents work or not. I tend to think they do, but
perhaps
that's just a psychological crutch I use (which is ok if it works . . . I
think). But I get the drift that many . . . perhaps even most members of
ROFB agree they do not work eg. see recent thread information with Joe
H's response. I know there's been an ongoing debate and am not sure of the
numbers, but let's assume most members agree that they do not work. . . .
That being the case,

I've seen just about every major tournament competitor (BASS, FLW etc)
endorse scents at one time or another. Do group members see any issues of
an
ethical or moral nature in the peddeling of those products by the pros
(who
must have a good idea if they legitimately work or not) if they don't
really
work.?

I recall some time ago asking a similar question about endorsements
of
other products by pros (eg. Hank Parker's long time Hummingbird is God's
greatest gift to fishermen. . . now with someone else). And everyone
seemed
to have no problem with it because "it's how they make their living." I
did
and do have a problem with it. I very much enjoy Bill Dance as a
fisherman
( though he fishes nothing but stocked ponds any longer) and a person. I
understand he's a golden human being, but everyone has to know Bill would
endorse tying a cow on the end of his line if someone paid him a buck to
say
it.

I guess the core question is, does anyone else feel like it's
inappropriate for people to endorse "any product" recieve endorsement
monies
just because it's a sponsor and the mouthpiece is a name competitor? Just
wondering how rest of you feel. ok...shoot.
--
God Bless America

Josh The Bad Bear