Page 3 of 3
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:46 pm
Posted: Tue Oct 26, 2010 7:40 pm
I was wondering?? if I spay and bit on a spud and use that will I catch ready made Fish and Chips??? Seriously though I get the bit about using oily baits because it's a natural smell, but WD40 isn't natural as far as I know it's petrolium based so can only think it's the oil in it that holds the baits smell and disperses it around the bait, just seems odd that some people say it works, one guy I was talking to today on the Harbour wall was saying that it causes pollution which I suppose any oil does, but just as he said that the pilots boat was leaving the harbour and was leaving a nice diesel slick in his wake as his bilges were pumping out, and looking at it I reckoned it would take one hell of a lot of cans of WD40 to match it, I've no intention of trying it on my bait, but to my mind it totally negated the pollution argument, unless every Sea Angler used it,,,
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:28 am
I get the point that a squirt of WD40 is noting compared to what boats chuck out and do agree.
One last thought from me............if we start using WD40 and such like we could be giving anti bloodsport people more of an argument. Just a thought.
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:37 am
i'm gona neither defend or debunk the wd40 idea. if it works for you go for it...after all if you think scratching your nose and trning twice on the spot before casting works for you... who a i to argue...
however this is worth a look
http://www.wired.com/science/discoverie ... hatsinside
a bit of reverse engerneering by 'wired' magazine, so i rekon a reasonable source of info (better than wikipedia imho).
also, please note the warning on the can!! fancy eating a fish thats eaten it?
Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:12 pm
Wow - never knew WD40 could be so interesting...lol
I'm neither for or against but if the fisherman thinks it works for them, like the fisherman with his lucky pants / socks or whatever - go for it.
That said, I don't think I would want to be seen sat on a beech in the middle of winter having just baited up and just before casting, whipping out a can of WD40 and spraying the bait... I reckon they would have me in a straight jacket in no time.
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:19 pm
Used it today, it did a first class job no complaints .................reel working great ...............................JOLI
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:25 pm
joliroger wrote:Used it today, it did a first class job no complaints .................reel working great ...............................JOLI
Ya.....great for the reel and guide rings.......not so great for the water....leave the wd at home the next time you go fishing........
Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:28 pm
You mean leave the WIFE at home next time you go fishing surely ??????
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:15 am
[quote="joliroger"]You mean leave the WIFE at home next time you go fishing surely ??????
YA FOR SURE AND SHE CAN GUARD THE WD40 WHILE YOU ARE GONE!!!!!!!
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 9:25 am
not so great for the water ?
where do you think the WD40 goes when you use it on your reel ?
into the water system when you next rinse it off under the tap, or when the reel is used in the rain. It isn't taken by the WD40 fairy it has to go somewhere.
As if a spray of WD40 will do any measurable harm to the sea when all the output from sewers and factories all over the world ends up there.... and the oil from spills, natural venting, ships cleaning their tanks and bilges etc etc.
You would probably do as much harm by swimming shortly after spaying deodorant on your body, just how risk averse have we become ?
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 10:42 am
Interesting thoughts on WD40. Perhaps I could add mine.
It's worth bearing in mind the constituents of WD40, which, according to Wiki, include only 15% oil (derived from petroleum not fish oil) and 50% mineral solvent, which gives WD40 low viscosity (very runny and penetrating). How it displaces water is to do with the affect WD40 has on surface tension of water. In short it pushes the water from the surface, the solvent evaporates and leaves behind a thin coating of oil.
It seems unlikely then that WD40 does anything useful in dispersing bait scent to fish; rather it may disperse solvent into their noses. But I agree that any pollution element is likely to be vanishingly small against all the industrial muck that ends up in the sea. Nevertheless my philosophy is to avoid anything that might add to it.
How would you prove whether any bait additive improves fish catching. ?Difficult I would suggest when there are so many variables. One way would be to get 100 anglers on a beach, give half of them treated bait, preferably at random and without them knowing, then see the results. Repeat several times.
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 11:23 am
I have tried it in a simple test, so has my brother, fishing two identical rods, line, traces and bait and cast within yards of each other.... one sprayed, one not.
Results suggest that WD40 greatly increases catch rate.
I can't say that it does definitely, I can't say it always will, but I can say that I have tried it.....
unlike the people who scream that it it is crazy, it will never work, 'I've used petrol' and such tosh ....I have stated experience rather than opinion.
To make the test fair, as far as it is possible, we tried it from the end of Watchet Harbour wall on a neap tide when we were virtually certain to catch conger ie we had caught plenty prior to the test.
Testing baits is incredibly difficult as we all know, one rod will catch more than another, or your mate will catch more than you in identical conditions.
The purpose of a forum is to swap experience, pass on knowledge and to debate....perhaps mods should delete comments that are just silly and provocative.
If you really did dip your bait in petrol, let us know how it performed.
If you didn't then perhaps you might like now to add something truthful and sensible to the debate.
Do I use it now ? no I don't.... there is a limit to how many conger I like to catch.... and that's less than two. I have no idea how it works for certain for other species... I haven't tested it.... I'm inclined to believe those that have tried it more than those who haven't however.
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:35 pm
I think the interesting point having read through these posts is not that its better or worst for catching fish but the fact that I find most interesting is that fish are not put off by the spray and still actually taking the bait!
As this is the case maybe there is something to it
Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 3:34 pm
I think I was right in letting this post run, as we have had a proper debate without ridiculed or animosity. Thanks to all who have contributed.