• The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
  • We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules

Activated Carbon Information

Ok! So I have a couple of sealed scentlok totes filled with anything and everything scentlok. I have a very good scent free ( almost scent free) regimine . I wash everything in scent free (almost) detergent and activate/reactivate the carbon in the dryer using scent free (almost) dryer sheets. The other totes with everything else I wash and dry the same way then I spray everything down with scent killer Gold (hunt dry) . I keep everything outside away from anything with human scent for the season. I use Ozonics to cover anything I might have picked up along the walk in and have ozonics on and covering my walk in scent . Now I`ve heard Eberhart say he pays no attention to wind direction except when walking in.Do you think I might be able to completely disregard wind direction now? The saddle setup I use gets me 10 ` higher or about where Eberhart sets up around 30 ft. If the deer can't smell me and I see more deer this year I'll post up. Not very scientific but an interesting subject for sure.
 
Your understanding of the case is not correct. Here is where you're mistaken.

A court can not order a third party not involved in the case to do anything. Scentlok went to Rutgers and wanted them to do the testing to help their case. Scentlok wanted the testing conducted in a way that was favorable to the outcome they wanted. Rutgers was willing to play ball in exchange for cash. This is why Rutgers was a witness for the defendants in the case. This is pretty common in lawsuits by the way. "Expert witnesses" are used all the time. Especially by big money corporations with a lot of resources. Additionally - ScentLok wasn't the only defendant in the case. Cabelas, Bass Pro, Browning, Gander Mountain were also named as defendants as they were using ScentLoks marketing claims. So lots of big money here. The point being there was nothing independent about the testing and it wasn't court ordered. It was submitted as evidence by the defendants during discovery. That after they went shopping to find someone willing to do the testing under the conditions they wanted. They're allowed to do that by the way. It's all perfectly acceptable under the law. The plaintiffs are free to do the same and then the court decides. They just didn't have the money.

Scentlok knew this, or their lawyers did anyway and so consequently this legal tactic ensured that only the Rutgers "testing" would be what the court would see. No expert witnesses for the plaintiffs were called to submit their own testing or even question the testing methodology used by Rutgers. They simply didn't have the money to do so.

ScentLok did not emerge from the case vindicated either. The court found that some of their advertising, like how drying the garment in the dryer on high made the carbon "like new" again were BS. Scentlok subsequently changed the verbiage they use to describe the process as "reactivation". It's lawyer speak.

Scentlok was ordered by the court to not use the phrases “elimination” or “odor eliminating” or “scent eliminating” alone or in conjunction with words or graphics that say or depict “scent-free,” “odor free,” “100%,” “all” or “every trace” or “every bit” of odor as removed by the clothing.

Now Scentlok uses the partial and far from independent "testing" they paid for as a marketing tool and sadly - it's working.

This is how justice works in America most of the time, unfortunately. Victory belongs to those with the biggest pocketbook. Not those why may have been right.

You can read the court dockets here. If you want to become more well informed. Unfortunetly the defendents had some of the evidence, documents and dockets sealed. So we'll never get 100% of the story.... I wonder why..

https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Pickering-v-Als-Enterprises-Inc-et-al/flnd-1:2009-cv-00087

Thanks for the link to the court docket. Having testified in court as an expert witness a handful of times myself I am not sure that I agree with your cynicism that a major university would completely manufacture results. I do believe that if the university would have obtained results that didn't benefit scent lok then scent lok would not have submitted the results as evidence. However, you are entitled to that opinion. Thanks again for the court docket, I will peruse it later.
 
Thanks for the link to the court docket. Having testified in court as an expert witness a handful of times myself I am not sure that I agree with your cynicism that a major university would completely manufacture results. I do believe that if the university would have obtained results that didn't benefit scent lok then scent lok would not have submitted the results as evidence. However, you are entitled to that opinion. Thanks again for the court docket, I will peruse it later.

I don't mean to imply they manufactured the results. Simply that the testing was done in accordance with how those paying for it wanted it done. Like, we'll only use these garments that we provide, they've never before been worn, or washed and are fresh off the carbon assembly line and have been kept in an airtight container since. We want the testing done in an enclosed airtight environment so the carbon can't be filled by foreign molecules (like it would in the real world), etc.... That sort of stuff... Closed system tests...

It's entirely possible that they actually had 10 tests done incognito at different universities or labs and flunked 9 of them. They than only disclosed the Rutgers one as it produced the results they wanted. Unless the plaintiffs knew of such testing, they would have no way of obtaining a court order that the defense surrenders the results during discovery. It was disclosed that Scantlok had withheld evidence in the trial as well. Add to that "expert witness" shopping is a common legal tactic. Especially when you have big money that can afford it.

We'll never know all the facts because they sealed some of the dockets and documentation. The finality of all this being that the defense allows the court to see only the test and results they want them to see and the sealing of documentation means that we only get to see what ScentLok wants us to see and ultimately helps their marketing and sales...

So it's all highly suspect.

Here's an article that summarizes the judgment which actually found that Scentlok's claims were in fact false.

https://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2013/07/something-stinks-scent-lok/

the one expert witness the plaintiffs did call ( a Dr with 58 years experience working with activated carbon) basically called Scentlok's fabric a farce..

quotes from the actual trial:

Plaintiffs' lawyer: "Based on your 58 years of experience with activated carbon, how well can the material (Exhibit 61) reduce human odor?"
Answer: "…t would reduce human odor to some extent, but not very effectively."
Plaintiffs' lawyer: "Are we talking 95 percent, are we talking 10 percent?"
Answer: "I can't give you a number, but it would be relatively poor."
Plaintiffs' lawyer: "If the fabric in Exhibit 61 were used as a facemask…how effective would it be…[at preventing] human odor from escaping from the breath?"
Answer: "That would not be effective."


More from the article on the actual trial.

The plaintiffs also introduced tests showing that up to 90 percent of odor trapped by Scent-Lok fabric is released when exposed to open air. They argued that Scent-Lok's own tests conducted in 2006 show that activated carbon has a poor adsorption rate on certain odors, including, notably, underarm odor--and that the reactivation of the carbon could be achieved only to less than 20 percent.

When you start to examine the facts in totality, you start to get a really clear picture of how well it really works, or lack thereof to be more precise. What's also lost in the conversation is that ScentLok actually LOST the trial. They settled on appeal. Hence the Federal Appellate Court docket I linked to and all the court orders regarding their marketing verbiage.

But hey - they still have that Rutgers test... Brilliant marketing. I'll give them credit for that.

So - IMHO based on the preponderance of evidence - I believe ScentLok is a farce designed to separate hunters from their money. Nothing more.

Edit:
For the record, I'm not trying to argue or insult anyone who chooses to use it. Rather I want to inform. To make sure you have actual facts, not just ScentLok marketing hype and spin. ScentLok can spin that test for all it's worth and they have - brilliantly. But the actual facts that came out at that trial tell a very different story than that 1 closed loop controlled environment test they keep talking about and hope we accept as the final word. I think some have because they lacked this other information. After reading this thread, a few more will have access to the truth. My hope is now they can make a decision with eyes wide open. The only thing that ScentLok is sniffing out is your money.
 
Last edited:
I don't mean to imply they manufactured the results. Simply that the testing was done in accordance with how those paying for it wanted it done. Like, we'll only use these garments that we provide, they've never before been worn, or washed and are fresh off the carbon assembly line and have been kept in an airtight container since. We want the testing done in an enclosed airtight environment so the carbon can't be filled by foreign molecules (like it would in the real world), etc.... That sort of stuff... Closed system tests...

It's entirely possible that they actually had 10 tests done incognito at different universities or labs and flunked 9 of them. They than only disclosed the Rutgers one as it produced the results they wanted. Unless the plaintiffs knew of such testing, they would have no way of obtaining a court order that the defense surrenders the results during discovery. It was disclosed that Scantlok had withheld evidence in the trial as well. Add to that "expert witness" shopping is a common legal tactic. Especially when you have big money that can afford it.

We'll never know all the facts because they sealed some of the dockets and documentation. The finality of all this being that the defense allows the court to see only the test and results they want them to see and the sealing of documentation means that we only get to see what ScentLok wants us to see and ultimately helps their marketing and sales...

So it's all highly suspect.

Here's an article that summarizes the judgment which actually found that Scentlok's claims were in fact false.

https://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2013/07/something-stinks-scent-lok/

the one expert witness the plaintiffs did call ( a Dr with 58 years experience working with activated carbon) basically called Scentlok's fabric a farce..

quotes from the actual trial:

Plaintiffs' lawyer: "Based on your 58 years of experience with activated carbon, how well can the material (Exhibit 61) reduce human odor?"
Answer: "…t would reduce human odor to some extent, but not very effectively."
Plaintiffs' lawyer: "Are we talking 95 percent, are we talking 10 percent?"
Answer: "I can't give you a number, but it would be relatively poor."
Plaintiffs' lawyer: "If the fabric in Exhibit 61 were used as a facemask…how effective would it be…[at preventing] human odor from escaping from the breath?"
Answer: "That would not be effective."


More from the article on the actual trial.

The plaintiffs also introduced tests showing that up to 90 percent of odor trapped by Scent-Lok fabric is released when exposed to open air. They argued that Scent-Lok's own tests conducted in 2006 show that activated carbon has a poor adsorption rate on certain odors, including, notably, underarm odor--and that the reactivation of the carbon could be achieved only to less than 20 percent.

When you start to examine the facts in totality, you start to get a really clear picture of how well it really works, or lack thereof to be more precise. What's also lost in the conversation is that ScentLok actually LOST the trial. They settled on appeal. Hence the Federal Appellate Court docket I linked to and all the court orders regarding their marketing verbiage.

But hey - they still have that Rutgers test... Brilliant marketing. I'll give them credit for that.

So - IMHO based on the preponderance of evidence - I believe ScentLok is a farce designed to separate hunters from their money. Nothing more.

Edit:
For the record, I'm not trying to argue or insult anyone who chooses to use it. Rather I want to inform. To make sure you have actual facts, not just ScentLok marketing hype and spin. ScentLok can spin that test for all it's worth and they have - brilliantly. But the actual facts that came out at that trial tell a very different story than that 1 closed loop controlled environment test they keep talking about and hope we accept as the final word. I think some have because they lacked this other information. After reading this thread, a few more will have access to the truth. My hope is now they can make a decision with eyes wide open. The only thing that ScentLok is sniffing out is your money.

I have read in the past the article you linked and I don't disagree with a lot of what you posted. I am sure the Rutgers testing was conducted exactly like you stated. The enemy of scientific testing is uncontrolled variables, they try to eliminate them all.

I admit it's entirely possible 10 tests were conducted and they only submitted the favorable test into evidence. I would fire any attorney that submitted the other 9. I hope your willing to admit that's just conjecture and it's also entirely possible that was the only testing completed. Or that the plantiffs also had testing completed that didn't prove their case and was never submitted as evidence is also possible.

Regarding the plantiffs expert, your earlier statements go both ways. The plantiffs also are only going to put an expert on the stand that says what they want to hear. Your still left with expert testing (admittedly highly controlled) versus an expert witness who can't put a number on it but thinks it won't work.

I was aware they lost the case as they absolutely should have. The 100% elimination 100% of the time claim is obviously impossible.

Does scent lok eliminate all human odor. No. Does it help reduce some odor. Maybe? The meat eater podcast was just talking about some recent testing that was done with dogs. Someone on the podcast was quick to point out the tests showed it didn't work. Rinella pointed out the tests showed that scent lok delayed the dogs ability to smell the person by 30 seconds. His point was 30 seconds was an eternity in the woods and could be the difference between getting off a shot and not. How much is that 30 seconds worth to an individual Hunter? That's up for them to decide.

I personally wouldn't pay full price for it. Have I picked up a few articles at 70% off to compliment the other efforts I take to reduce my scent hoping it might buy me 5 seconds or 5 yards? Yep.

This debate will never be won by either side and I am not entirely sure what side I am on but, I do enjoy hearing other people's opinions especially when the are well researched and thought out.
 
giphy.webp
 
The dog studies are generally misunderstood. First you have to understand that a trained police dog reacts to odor detection completely different than a deer. A police dog detects odor and then determines direction by sensing the slightest changes in concentration to follow the odor to its source. A deer senses odor and then makes a distance calculation to how far away the source of the odor is. Based on its life experience it then decides if it is trouble.

Most of the studies measure how long it takes the dog to track the odor to its source which is something a deer would almost never do with a human. As it relates to hunting the only important part is where the deer or dog show the initial recognition of the odor and even more importantly how far away they think the source of the odor is.

Where scent control comes into play is that humans are the only thing in a deer’s environment that make an effort to control their odor. This reduction of odor throws a monkey wrench into the deer’s distance calculation and causes the deer to perceive that the source of the odor is further away than is actual. This may or may not help in all hunting situations but at the very least can give you that “one more step” that can be so critical.

It would also be important to note that tree stand height plays a HUGE factor in the ability of a dog or deer to determine the location of the source of the odor. They will detect the odor but can have a difficult time determining the location and distance to the source of the odor.
 
redsquirrel

I put this on a different post but thought it should also be in the scent control section.

I'll be happy to start a match on the topic of activated carbon lined suits and their effectiveness. I hunted for 36 years without using a Scent Lok suit and 14 years with it and for any hunter to argue its effectiveness is not only a waste of their time, it shows they have done no research on the technology of activated carbon. Whenever there is a new scent adsorption, eliminating, or cover up technology brought into the hunting market, take my word for it, it was not developed by the hunting manufacturer that brought it to market.

The average R & D cost to a pharmaceutical company to bring a single FDA approved drug to market is around 2 billion dollars and most hunting companies are in the 5 to 70 million dollar a year annual gross bracket and simply can't afford scientists and or a sophisticated R & D department.

Any technology that actually works (and many in the hunting industry don't) for molecular adsorption, killing bacteria, molecular containment in the form of blocking, or an anti-microbial, was researched and developed for a much larger and far more sophisticated worldwide market industry than our little hunting industry. The hunting industry simply piggybacks on the technologies that were developed by other industries and governments worldwide.

Personally I never believe any advertisements from any manufacturers, any of the bloviating endorsements spewed by the so-called hunting experts that get paid to endorse them, or anything on any manufactures website, including Scent Lok's, when it comes to hi-tech scientific technology. Manufacturers and hunting personalities can and do lie and their is no hunting advertising police that hands out tickets for lying or false advertising.

This is where a little research by the hunter questioning any technology should come into play. All anyone has to do is simply Google the technology to see if it actually exists and if it does; how many other worldwide industries, hospitals, restaurants, governments, etc. use it, how it is used, and what does it do, and how effective is it when compared to similar technologies used for the same purposes.

Google activated carbon and you will find it is the most adsorbent substance know to man.

Scent Lok was sued for false advertising by a few Minnesota hunters that got winded and while extremely expensive to defend, it ended up being a blessing in disguise for any hunters willing to take off their blinders and look at what the outcome was. For a United States District Court, an independent lab at Rutgers University proved beyond a preponderance of a doubt that Scent Lok’s clothing worked as advertised.

The following paragraph was taken directly from Court’s final ruling.
-Expert scientific testing found that, using highly elevated odor concentrations that were “likely ten thousand fold greater than a human body could produce in the course of 24 hours”, Scent Lok carbon lined clothing blocked or adsorbed 96 to 99 plus percent of odor compounds, and essentially 100% of surrogate body odor compounds.

Activated carbon is used in literally thousands of industries worldwide for filtration, purification, storage, and molecular adsorption applications and when Googled here are a few of the hundreds of uses for it:

Gas purification, decaffeination, gold purification, metal extraction, drinking water purification, refrigerant gas adsorption, sewage treatment, every countries chemical warfare suits, by NASA in primary life support systems better known as space suits, gas masks, water softeners, paint respirators, filters in compressed air, volatile organic compound capture, dry cleaning processes, automobile filtration systems, gasoline dispensing operations, groundwater remediation, to adsorb radon for testing air quality, for oral ingestion in hospitals worldwide to treat overdose patients, in intensive care units to filter harmful drugs from the bloodstream of poisoned patients, to adsorb mercury emissions from coal power stations and medical incinerators, to filter vodka and whiskey of organic impurities, and by the US Dept. of Energy to store natural and hydrogen gas.

Just as; NASA, auto industry, U. S. Dept. of Energy, hospitals, and every Dept. of Defense in the world didn’t pull activated carbon out of a hat and say, hey let’s use this stuff, neither did Scent Lok.

Microscopic evaluations show that if all the surface areas of the primary, secondary, tertiary pores, and exterior surface of each particle of activated carbon were flattened and laid on a flat surface:
-A tablespoon of activated coconut carbon particles (activated carbon Scent Lok uses) has a surface area of just over 3 ½ football fields.
-And one pound of activated carbon particles (a small butter tub) has a surface area equal to that of approximately 100 acres (more than a half mile in length and a quarter mile in width).

Here's the kicker and the main reason many hunters say Scent Lok's activated carbon lined suits don't work. A suit is not magic and the many hunters that owned them and got winded, had no clue how to properly care for them and what to do in conjunction with them to have a total scent free regiment.

Carbon lined clothing requires very specific care and absolutely must be used in conjunction with a carbon lined headcover with drop down facemask, carbon gloves, knee high rubber or neoprene boots, and a frequently washed fanny or backpack.

Some ifs: If you; exclusively use scent eliminating sprays, wear face paint to look cool like the TV and video so-called experts do, wear a favorite logo ball cap like the TV and video guys do, don’t regularly wash your pack in scent free detergent and store it in an air tight container, don’t wear clean rubber or neoprene knee high boots, or if you wear regular gloves when ascending trees, you should definitely “hunt the wind” because your scent regiment is not perfect and perfect is a must when hunting mature whitetails.

Of course there will always be that guy that says, hey I killed a lot of deer without a scent free regiment. Cavemen also killed dinosaurs with spears and Indians killed with stick bows and wooden arrows. I also killed well over 100 deer with my bow before activated carbon technology was introduced into the hunting marketplace, but I have always been willing to check out anything new and take full advantage of it if it works and I feel totally naked in the woods with a properly cared for Scent Lok suit.

My willingness to look at every new hunting item is also what led me to use an Anderson Treesling in 1981. At first I hated it because it was different and uncomfortable, but I saw the huge advantages it would bring me if I altered it for my personal use. I have been using a harness system ever since and think conventional stands of any type are archaic and outdated.

If anyone would like me to forward them a guide in how to properly care for activated carbon lined clothing, go to my website at: www.deer-john.net and e-mail me your request.
Very well said.
 
Very well said.

Eh. There are some statements he made that are just false though.

"Scent Lok was sued for false advertising by a few Minnesota hunters that got winded and while extremely expensive to defend, it ended up being a blessing in disguise for any hunters willing to take off their blinders and look at what the outcome was. For a United States District Court, an independent lab at Rutgers University proved beyond a preponderance of a doubt that Scent Lok’s clothing worked as advertised."

That statement is false. Yes, Scentlok was sued. However, the Rutgers "lab" or "test" was hardly independent as it was financed by ScentLok and also conducted in accordance with their specifications in a sealed controlled environment. Basically, a closed-loop test that did not in any way emulate real-world open-air conditions. Rutgers was not at all "independent" in the case. They were a witness for the defense, paid for by the defense and worked for the defense. Also the statement "worked as advertised" is factually false. ScentLok LOST the case and the court ruled their advertising was false. In fact, ScentLok even admitted that on the witness stand. If you call that into question you can read the previously linked court dockets to the actual case I have previously provided as well as the Field and Stream article containing actual testimony from the case.

John makes some points about caring for activated carbon properly. I just don't buy it. Not when ScentLok's own internal testing has shown that even if you follow their instructions to the letter- the rate of actual reactivation is extremely poor. That was part of the evidence they were trying to suppress at trial. It's also part of the documentation they've had sealed. When Field and Stream asked to see a copy of the testing after it came out at trial, (and ScentLok had it sealed) they were flat out denied. I can see why.

It is true that activated carbon can do some really amazing things - when employed correctly. Such as some of the examples John makes - like gas purification. However, those use cases are also closed-loop controlled environments and employ activated carbon in massive quantities contained in an enclosed environment (mask respirator cartridge for example) where it can not be contaminated by the outside air. The activated carbon, after all, does not discriminate as to the molecules it absorbs. When exposed to open air as it would be with a hunting garment, the carbon will immediately begin to absorb moisture from the air, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, air pollutants, etc. It sounds impressive when you say things like "a little bit of carbon has the surface area of a football field".... Okay, but how does that stack up against the volume of mass known as Earth's atmosphere? Suddenly that surface area doesn't seem so large.

The argument that because NASA uses it in 55 gallon sized drum cartridges to filter air on the international space station so that teaspoon should keep me scent-free in the woods - they fall very flat with me. The use cases are entirely different (closed vs open environments and massively different quantities).

But the core question being adjudicated in the case was - in the quantities used in ScentLoks fabric, does it do what they advertised? After being adjudicated in not 1 but 2 courts of law (they lost the first case and then settled on appeal) - the answer was a resounding NO. The blessing that John talks about thereafter was brilliant marketing. "Rutgers tested it so it must be true". We'll just ignore the facts that our own testing has shown otherwise and we lost in court.

To Summarize:
I think any hunter who follows John's lead and "ignores the wind" is doing themselves a great disservice. Relying on a trinket here, gadget there, and clever marking will not help you put deer on the ground. John makes a point I do agree with regarding cavemen and Indians. They killed deer without "scent control". That's because they had a skill that modern society seems to be loosing to the promise of quick and easy technological solutions... Good old fashioned woodsmanship.

John is an amazing hunter and he's got the wall that speaks for itself. But activated carbon didn't hang those racks on his wall, his woodsmanship did. I can't help but wonder how much better he could really be if he would drop the dependence on the spacesuit and really got down to brass tax. It's actually scary to think about. Thank got there are bag limits.

This is my opinion - so take it for what it's worth:

I think the 2 most important things a hunter needs when afield are woodsmanship and confidence. If buying a ScentLok suit helps you with the confidence part of that equation, in whatever way, then maybe it's worthwhile for you. But I think you're selling yourselves short if you believe that. I believe it makes no measurable difference at all when afield. When you're putting deer on the wall it's because you're a killer. It's because you put in the effort scouting, tracking, mapping, etc. Not because of a suit you got at ****'s (wants to see your 2nd amendment rights taken away) Sporting goods.
 
Eh. There are some statements he made that are just false though.

"Scent Lok was sued for false advertising by a few Minnesota hunters that got winded and while extremely expensive to defend, it ended up being a blessing in disguise for any hunters willing to take off their blinders and look at what the outcome was. For a United States District Court, an independent lab at Rutgers University proved beyond a preponderance of a doubt that Scent Lok’s clothing worked as advertised."

That statement is false. Yes, Scentlok was sued. However, the Rutgers "lab" or "test" was hardly independent as it was financed by ScentLok and also conducted in accordance with their specifications in a sealed controlled environment. Basically, a closed-loop test that did not in any way emulate real-world open-air conditions. Rutgers was not at all "independent" in the case. They were a witness for the defense, paid for by the defense and worked for the defense. Also the statement "worked as advertised" is factually false. ScentLok LOST the case and the court ruled their advertising was false. In fact, ScentLok even admitted that on the witness stand. If you call that into question you can read the previously linked court dockets to the actual case I have previously provided as well as the Field and Stream article containing actual testimony from the case.

John makes some points about caring for activated carbon properly. I just don't buy it. Not when ScentLok's own internal testing has shown that even if you follow their instructions to the letter- the rate of actual reactivation is extremely poor. That was part of the evidence they were trying to suppress at trial. It's also part of the documentation they've had sealed. When Field and Stream asked to see a copy of the testing after it came out at trial, (and ScentLok had it sealed) they were flat out denied. I can see why.

It is true that activated carbon can do some really amazing things - when employed correctly. Such as some of the examples John makes - like gas purification. However, those use cases are also closed-loop controlled environments and employ activated carbon in massive quantities contained in an enclosed environment (mask respirator cartridge for example) where it can not be contaminated by the outside air. The activated carbon, after all, does not discriminate as to the molecules it absorbs. When exposed to open air as it would be with a hunting garment, the carbon will immediately begin to absorb moisture from the air, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, air pollutants, etc. It sounds impressive when you say things like "a little bit of carbon has the surface area of a football field".... Okay, but how does that stack up against the volume of mass known as Earth's atmosphere? Suddenly that surface area doesn't seem so large.

The argument that because NASA uses it in 55 gallon sized drum cartridges to filter air on the international space station so that teaspoon should keep me scent-free in the woods - they fall very flat with me. The use cases are entirely different (closed vs open environments and massively different quantities).

But the core question being adjudicated in the case was - in the quantities used in ScentLoks fabric, does it do what they advertised? After being adjudicated in not 1 but 2 courts of law (they lost the first case and then settled on appeal) - the answer was a resounding NO. The blessing that John talks about thereafter was brilliant marketing. "Rutgers tested it so it must be true". We'll just ignore the facts that our own testing has shown otherwise and we lost in court.

To Summarize:
I think any hunter who follows John's lead and "ignores the wind" is doing themselves a great disservice. Relying on a trinket here, gadget there, and clever marking will not help you put deer on the ground. John makes a point I do agree with regarding cavemen and Indians. They killed deer without "scent control". That's because they had a skill that modern society seems to be loosing to the promise of quick and easy technological solutions... Good old fashioned woodsmanship.

John is an amazing hunter and he's got the wall that speaks for itself. But activated carbon didn't hang those racks on his wall, his woodsmanship did. I can't help but wonder how much better he could really be if he would drop the dependence on the spacesuit and really got down to brass tax. It's actually scary to think about. Thank got there are bag limits.

This is my opinion - so take it for what it's worth:

I think the 2 most important things a hunter needs when afield are woodsmanship and confidence. If buying a ScentLok suit helps you with the confidence part of that equation, in whatever way, then maybe it's worthwhile for you. But I think you're selling yourselves short if you believe that. I believe it makes no measurable difference at all when afield. When you're putting deer on the wall it's because you're a killer. It's because you put in the effort scouting, tracking, mapping, etc. Not because of a suit you got at ****'s (wants to see your 2nd amendment rights taken away) Sporting goods.
If you don't want to use it don't and if others want to it's their choice. There are reports on both side believe what you want but who am l to tell someone what they should use or not use.
 
@ThePreBanMan this is a heated subject every year. While you have obviously done some research on the subject you are putting a lot of effort in to say something that’s already been said. I don’t think I’ve talked to anyone that used the product properly that says they didn’t feel they benefited from it. I have no delusions that scentlok stops all my odor from reaching a deers nose. I will say that I have seen benefits to wearing it. I simply smell less when wearing it. I don’t follow Johns regiment to a t. I don’t apply antiperspirant in every crease. I don’t shave all my body hair or alter my diet during hunting season. Scentlok is just a small tool in John’s scent control program. I think when hunting pressured areas deer can’t completely escape human odor. It’s something they have to deal with on a daily basis. None of us can assume anything about how a deer perceives danger using its nose. It’s all just a guess. I do think John discounts his own skill by giving so much credit to scentlok. Obviously we can sit in a bubble in the wrong location and never see a deer. It’s also common for deer that have winded people to move a short distance to avoid that person. I’ve been busted by deer many times in archery season that ran short distances but were completely calm when they passed by me at 60 yards. If I can trick that deer into thinking I’m 60 yards away when I’m only 30 I can still put an arrow in that deer.
I can’t say it works 100%. I can also say hunting the wind doesn’t work 100%. It’s just another tool. When purchased at closeout prices it cost no more than any other quality name brand camo. There is no magic button that overcomes being a sloppy lazy hunter.
 
Eh. There are some statements he made that are just false though.

"Scent Lok was sued for false advertising by a few Minnesota hunters that got winded and while extremely expensive to defend, it ended up being a blessing in disguise for any hunters willing to take off their blinders and look at what the outcome was. For a United States District Court, an independent lab at Rutgers University proved beyond a preponderance of a doubt that Scent Lok’s clothing worked as advertised."

That statement is false. Yes, Scentlok was sued. However, the Rutgers "lab" or "test" was hardly independent as it was financed by ScentLok and also conducted in accordance with their specifications in a sealed controlled environment. Basically, a closed-loop test that did not in any way emulate real-world open-air conditions. Rutgers was not at all "independent" in the case. They were a witness for the defense, paid for by the defense and worked for the defense. Also the statement "worked as advertised" is factually false. ScentLok LOST the case and the court ruled their advertising was false. In fact, ScentLok even admitted that on the witness stand. If you call that into question you can read the previously linked court dockets to the actual case I have previously provided as well as the Field and Stream article containing actual testimony from the case.

John makes some points about caring for activated carbon properly. I just don't buy it. Not when ScentLok's own internal testing has shown that even if you follow their instructions to the letter- the rate of actual reactivation is extremely poor. That was part of the evidence they were trying to suppress at trial. It's also part of the documentation they've had sealed. When Field and Stream asked to see a copy of the testing after it came out at trial, (and ScentLok had it sealed) they were flat out denied. I can see why.

It is true that activated carbon can do some really amazing things - when employed correctly. Such as some of the examples John makes - like gas purification. However, those use cases are also closed-loop controlled environments and employ activated carbon in massive quantities contained in an enclosed environment (mask respirator cartridge for example) where it can not be contaminated by the outside air. The activated carbon, after all, does not discriminate as to the molecules it absorbs. When exposed to open air as it would be with a hunting garment, the carbon will immediately begin to absorb moisture from the air, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, air pollutants, etc. It sounds impressive when you say things like "a little bit of carbon has the surface area of a football field".... Okay, but how does that stack up against the volume of mass known as Earth's atmosphere? Suddenly that surface area doesn't seem so large.

The argument that because NASA uses it in 55 gallon sized drum cartridges to filter air on the international space station so that teaspoon should keep me scent-free in the woods - they fall very flat with me. The use cases are entirely different (closed vs open environments and massively different quantities).

But the core question being adjudicated in the case was - in the quantities used in ScentLoks fabric, does it do what they advertised? After being adjudicated in not 1 but 2 courts of law (they lost the first case and then settled on appeal) - the answer was a resounding NO. The blessing that John talks about thereafter was brilliant marketing. "Rutgers tested it so it must be true". We'll just ignore the facts that our own testing has shown otherwise and we lost in court.

To Summarize:
I think any hunter who follows John's lead and "ignores the wind" is doing themselves a great disservice. Relying on a trinket here, gadget there, and clever marking will not help you put deer on the ground. John makes a point I do agree with regarding cavemen and Indians. They killed deer without "scent control". That's because they had a skill that modern society seems to be loosing to the promise of quick and easy technological solutions... Good old fashioned woodsmanship.

John is an amazing hunter and he's got the wall that speaks for itself. But activated carbon didn't hang those racks on his wall, his woodsmanship did. I can't help but wonder how much better he could really be if he would drop the dependence on the spacesuit and really got down to brass tax. It's actually scary to think about. Thank got there are bag limits.

This is my opinion - so take it for what it's worth:

I think the 2 most important things a hunter needs when afield are woodsmanship and confidence. If buying a ScentLok suit helps you with the confidence part of that equation, in whatever way, then maybe it's worthwhile for you. But I think you're selling yourselves short if you believe that. I believe it makes no measurable difference at all when afield. When you're putting deer on the wall it's because you're a killer. It's because you put in the effort scouting, tracking, mapping, etc. Not because of a suit you got at ****'s (wants to see your 2nd amendment rights taken away) Sporting goods.


Very well said. This argument will never end due to the few deer that hunters have “down wind” of them. There’s so many variables that can and do contribute this “phenomenon”....like hunting 30’ in a tree, not understanding thermals and how wind moves throughout the landscape...and idk, maybe hunters’ exaggerating the effectiveness of various gimmicks because they’ve spent so much time and effort attempting to validate some bs products.
We all tell hunting stories exactly how they happened in the field right?
Preban is exactly right. Scent lock doesn’t kill deer woodsmanship, marksmanship and a little luck fill tags. Scentlock’s marketing dept and hunters’ lack of confidence has made a lot of people a lot of money.
John to say that people who doubt this scentlock stuff have no idea what they’re talking about really disappoints me. It’s too bad a pillar of the hunting community like yourself makes comments like this. The proof is overwhelming that the stuff don’t work very well for the purposes of hunting.
Preban and others with the same mindset....
You can lead a horse to water but......
 
I'll admit, Scentlok has quite the racket going. They've spun the results of that case to their advantage brilliantly. That despite the outcome actually not being favorable to them. They had John fooled for sure. Although I hope h reads this and gets up to speed. Not only that, but they've done something even more brilliant. They sell a product that has a limited useful life (according to their documentation). So you have to go back and buy all new stuff every handful of years. So not only do they make money off the initial sale, they got you on a hook to keep coming back for more on a vicious merry-go-round and a predictable business cycle. I'll tell you, what a freaking brilliant business model! I have to give them that.

I know this has been discussed before. But I think it important that discussion continues from time to time. Here's why. Many who read this thread hunt for fun, for the challenge, etc. And such people have the discretionary income they can spend on the process. But there are some who hunt out of necessity. It's food on the table. Those people look at Scentlok like an investment. Is this something that is going to help feed my family? Because it's expensive and if it doesn't then we could end up having to go without food in lieu of that suit.

If someone like the above just read John's words (which are factually inaccurate in regards to the Scentlok case, suits effectiveness, and the court's findings), they could be hoodwinked into buying something they very likely would not have if they possessed the real facts. So the discussion is an important one. Once having all the information, if you still choose to buy, then at least you're going in eyes wide open. That doesn't happen without threads like this.
 
@ThePreBanMan
If you think John is going to change his working beliefs of scent loc on your he said she said compared to his results you are kidding yourself. Prof is in the pudding as far as he is concerned. People will argue that everything you have stated seems to be your interpretation of the facts as others have their interpretation.
I will take any advantage in the woods real or perceived. Even if scent loc don't work they have a great clothing line that I find of great value compared to other clothing lines
 
I'll admit, Scentlok has quite the racket going. They've spun the results of that case to their advantage brilliantly. That despite the outcome actually not being favorable to them. They had John fooled for sure. Although I hope h reads this and gets up to speed. Not only that, but they've done something even more brilliant. They sell a product that has a limited useful life (according to their documentation). So you have to go back and buy all new stuff every handful of years. So not only do they make money off the initial sale, they got you on a hook to keep coming back for more on a vicious merry-go-round and a predictable business cycle. I'll tell you, what a freaking brilliant business model! I have to give them that.

I know this has been discussed before. But I think it important that discussion continues from time to time. Here's why. Many who read this thread hunt for fun, for the challenge, etc. And such people have the discretionary income they can spend on the process. But there are some who hunt out of necessity. It's food on the table. Those people look at Scentlok like an investment. Is this something that is going to help feed my family? Because it's expensive and if it doesn't then we could end up having to go without food in lieu of that suit.

If someone like the above just read John's words (which are factually inaccurate in regards to the Scentlok case, suits effectiveness, and the court's findings), they could be hoodwinked into buying something they very likely would not have if they possessed the real facts. So the discussion is an important one. Once having all the information, if you still choose to buy, then at least you're going in eyes wide open. That doesn't happen without threads like this.
Please let it die. If someone wants to use Scentlok and it makes them fill better about scent control so be it . It's their choice not yours or mine and I'm sure guys have seen the debate over this many times. I just think it's like hitting your head against a brick wall. Some guys are on one side of the fence and some guys on the other. We will never change that one way or another. Their choice.
 
@ThePreBanMan
If you think John is going to change his working beliefs of scent loc on your he said she said compared to his results you are kidding yourself. Prof is in the pudding as far as he is concerned. People will argue that everything you have stated seems to be your interpretation of the facts as others have their interpretation.
I will take any advantage in the woods real or perceived. Even if scent loc don't work they have a great clothing line that I find of great value compared to other clothing lines

I don't care if John changes his beliefs or not. I don't actually expect him to and I'm not after that. I just would like to see him stop perpetuating the falsehood that the Rutgers test was "independent" and/or emulated real-world application, or that Scentlock was found to "work as advertised" in a court of law, or that you can really reactivate this stuff in a meaningful way accordance with their instructions. All of those are just falsehoods. That isn't really open to interpretation, it's been established as fact. Scentlok's own internal testing and testimony on the stand under oath established such. That's much of why they lost the case. Maybe John didn't know. He speaks as if they won. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. We'll see for sure if he continues to perpetuate those falsehoods now that the beacon of truth has begun to shine. If he does then he moves from the "lack of knowledge" column into the "liar" column. That, in turn, calls into question anything he's ever said. Like maybe he doesn't really believe any of this stuff, he's just perpetuating it so that he can get on bucks that others in their spacesuits push to him. There's one thing that is always true when someone intentionally deceives. There's ALWAYS motive. I'm not saying that's the case here. But if he continues to espouse these falsehoods than I think there's little other explanation.

If you want to talk up the product - that's fine. But I take issue with and will continue to take issue with those who deceive in doing so. Creditability matters. If you like the clothing line, fine. If you think it's a good value even after discounting for its actual capability - that's fine. If you just want to rock it because it was on sale, that's fine. It makes you feel warm inside and keeps you warm on the stand, that's fine. I really could not care less as to anyone's reasoning. It's a free country. If your mind is made up and you aren't open to changing it - that's fine too. I'm not out to change your mind. I'm out to inform. Beyond that, your decision is your's alone to make. I don't care which way you choose. I only care that you have access to information.

But as long as a dark lie is told, someone needs to hold the torch of truth.
 
But as long as a dark lie is told, someone needs to hold the torch of truth.
This is getting old. As a matter of fact this thread is five years old about an argument that’s even older. If you really want to protect people from scentlok quit posting and bringing this thread back to the top. If you just have to wave your torch around do it somewhere else. There is no right answer to this debate.
 
You don't have to read it... No one does. Forums like this are supposed to be about sharing information. That's what I'm doing. You say thins is getting old, but everything I have put forward is new information to this thread, previously undisclosed and for all who have participated, probably previously unknown.

If you don't think that adds value, that's fine. I'm sure there are many who are not of that opinion though.
 
And everyone is entitled to share their own ridiculous opinion.
Does scent lok work. I dunno for sure - my opinion Does it help. Maybe

Do I use it. I use it and buy it on sale. I have to wear something anyways
And maybe it might help
My definitive answer


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Last edited:
And everyone is entitled to share their own ridiculous opinion.
Does scent lok work. I dunno for sure - my opinion Does it help. Maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Here’s my opinion.
John stands behind his facts and your not allowed an opinion.
ThePreBanMan stands behind his facts and your not allowed an opinion
Because if your opinion differs from there’s than your a liar and someone needs to be a beacon of light in a dark pit of lies. Or something close to that. If your not a liar your an uninformed dumb arse or something close to that.
That should sum it up! Lol
But my opinion don’t matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Here’s my opinion.
John stands behind his facts and your not allowed an opinion.
ThePreBanMan stands behind his facts and your not allowed an opinion
Because if your opinion differs from there’s than your a liar and someone needs to be a beacon of light in a dark pit of lies. Or something close to that. If your not a liar your an uninformed dumb arse or something close to that.
That should sum it up! Lol
But my opinion don’t matter.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I love freedom of expression

A freedom worth fighting for but not worth fighting over

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
Back
Top