Myth Busters-Bloodhound-Human Odor

The latest news from Deer & Deer Hunting magazine!
User avatar
SwampLife
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:10 am
Location: South FL, BooHoo...

RE: Myth Busters-Bloodhound-Human Odor

Postby SwampLife » Mon Nov 15, 2010 5:52 pm

"It works 60% of the time, all the time."
No Shortcuts. No Excuses. No Regrets.

bmorris
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:14 pm

RE: Myth Busters-Bloodhound-Human Odor

Postby bmorris » Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:39 pm


I looked up the link. Maybe I missed it but I would like to see the program that used the carbon.

The bottom line is if you can't beat a bloodhound or search and rescue dogs nose you have no chance against a deer, Research tells us that a deer's nose is better than a dogs. I don't care what you say about carbon it can't beat a dogs nose and it can't fool a deer. So if you want to defend carbon out of ignorance go ahead.

I still want to see one of our hunting superstars dress up in their carbon suits and take on a dog on TV and then explain to the world why they were found.

User avatar
charlie 01
 
Posts: 665
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 4:44 am
Location: Illinois

RE: Myth Busters-Bloodhound-Human Odor

Postby charlie 01 » Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:15 am

Well, here we go again. More on scent control. Such a conflict. I don't know why we bother discusing it. Everyone has their own beliefs, and regimented things they do to control their scent, so be it. I'm sure some of you know my stance on the subject, I use nothing, not even knee high bubber boots any more (since my findings). Yet, last week I rattled in a small buck that walked about 30ft. on a trail I walked in on and walked by me as relaxed as could be, and so close that if I had something 10ft. long I could have touched him with it. I don't know, am I just lucky. But, that is 40 plus years and many deer. Can't be all luck. Sure, some have winded me, I won't deny that. I can tell you stories of deer that did, but didn't believe their noses, that I harvested anyway. The bottom line, what ever works for you. For your own peice of mind, do what you believe in.
never say never
patience is the companion of wisdom

User avatar
JPH
 
Posts: 3419
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:28 am

RE: Myth Busters-Bloodhound-Human Odor

Postby JPH » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:30 am

ORIGINAL: bmorris

The bottom line is if you can't beat a bloodhound or search and rescue dogs nose you have no chance against a deer, Research tells us that a deer's nose is better than a dogs. I don't care what you say about carbon it can't beat a dogs nose and it can't fool a deer.


Can you back this statement up by providing references? I have had coyotes catch my scent more often than deer. This is particularly true with ground scent as opposed to airborne. I'm not convinced that being tracked by a bloodhound is the ultimate way to test the effectiveness of a deer hunter's scent control, so I'd like to check your facts.

User avatar
Gulfcapt
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:30 pm

RE: Myth Busters-Bloodhound-Human Odor

Postby Gulfcapt » Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:19 am

yotie have there nose to the ground more often then not trying to detect rodents and such! so they are more likely to pick up where a person has stepped, or like a deerdog picking up a deer scent nose to the ground.. A deer play more of a wind game when trying to detect a sent!

Deer sense of smell is 1/3 greater then that of a canine.

bmorris
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:14 pm

RE: Myth Busters-Bloodhound-Human Odor

Postby bmorris » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:11 pm

ORIGINAL: JPH

ORIGINAL: bmorris

The bottom line is if you can't beat a bloodhound or search and rescue dogs nose you have no chance against a deer, Research tells us that a deer's nose is better than a dogs. I don't care what you say about carbon it can't beat a dogs nose and it can't fool a deer.


Can you back this statement up by providing references? I have had coyotes catch my scent more often than deer. This is particularly true with ground scent as opposed to airborne. I'm not convinced that being tracked by a bloodhound is the ultimate way to test the effectiveness of a deer hunter's scent control, so I'd like to check your facts.


I actually think I can. There are a lot of resources available and if we could have a good discussiom we can all learn from each other. I have been working directly with two blood hound handlers and both are hunters who have passed on valuable information. Resarch will show you that a dog has about 240,000 receptiles to smell with while a deers are around 290,000. I will go back and try and find you a reference. It only makes sense that you have to defeat a dogs nose first.

There are about 30 public published or filmed reports of dog-man-carbon test with the latested being Myth Busters. Every one of them has shown that carbon doesn't work to stop human odor.

I have spent time communicating with Dr John Shivik who has done the most scientific study to date (Availble On line) concerning carbon clothing and human scent and search and rescue dogs. His results are scientifically verified .

There is so much misunderstanding when it comes to using dogs because of the different kinds of dogs used. These dogs are a
"air sniffing" and are not "tracking" types. The Myth Busters program showed "sniffers" and "air scent" (Morgan) dogs. I have talked at length with my dog handlers on how to reduce the air borne particles that the dogs are using to find the hidden subject. At the same time we need to develop a better understanding of human odor as it related to the hunting situation. Most sprays don't work either and have been used in some of these dog-human encounters.
The reason I made the statement is that it is only logical that if you can't defeat an animal with inferior smelling ability how can you expect it to work on an animal that has superior smelling abilities.

Note to GulfCapt: A blood Hound is an "air sniffer" like a deer and not a tracking dog. That was clearly shown by Myth Busters as Morgan was able to follow across a body of water with no tracks available.

PS: Acorrding to Dr. Shivik he believes that a coyote is the best smeller of the animals and has done research with them before he retired

User avatar
Gulfcapt
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:30 pm

RE: Myth Busters-Bloodhound-Human Odor

Postby Gulfcapt » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:44 pm

lol Bmorris i never said a bloodhound, but since you brought it up! jump on the internet and check out bloodhound tracking!
every breed of dog has a different number of receptors giving some better sense of smell then others!

But I can tell you for a fact Deerdog WALKERS, BEAGLES have their nose to the ground when trailing I have had both breeds..

I currently have 10 GreatDanes

User avatar
Gulfcapt
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:30 pm

RE: Myth Busters-Bloodhound-Human Odor

Postby Gulfcapt » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:47 pm

BTW a wet animal gives off a stronger scent then a dry! In my oppinion

Let me add this to a hound can pick up a scent 4 days old if the conditions are right! for that to happen something has to be on the ground.. again in my opinion
ORIGINAL: Gulfcapt

lol Bmorris i never said a bloodhound, but since you brought it up! jump on the internet and check out bloodhound tracking!
every breed of dog has a different number of receptors giving some better sense of smell then others!

But I can tell you for a fact Deerdog WALKERS, BEAGLES have their nose to the ground when trailing I have had both breeds..

I currently have 10 GreatDanes

User avatar
Marc Anthony
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:37 am
Location: Illinois

RE: Myth Busters-Bloodhound-Human Odor

Postby Marc Anthony » Tue Nov 16, 2010 1:34 pm

ORIGINAL: bmorris
Resarch will show you that a dog has about 240,000 receptiles to smell with while a deers are around 290,000. I will go back and try and find you a reference.
ORIGINAL: bmorris

Actually, deer have about 150 million scent receptors. Not to pick on anyone here, just thought it was important to mention!

Virginia Tech did a study with ALL of the major brands of scent elimination products on the market and found that activated carbon was the most effective in reducing human scent. When analyzing carbon, it's important for everyone to use some discretion here. The Scent Lok suits have awakened "a sleeping giant" with regard to how effective carbon is. I never ever thought for one minute that those suits were ever any good but that's my opinion and was only based on theory. I don't want to get into why I don't think they didn't work as that is now open to the public but it is a prime example of how something that does work is blown out of proportion.

Activated carbon works in reducing human scent, period. It does not eliminate ALL of it! It works better than anything on the market today. I've tested them all and so has many other entities. When you throw in words like "all, 100%, total, etc.", You're just asking for trouble. When you mislead the public regarding it's lifespan, etc. you're asking for a lawsuit. Separate all of the nonsense and what you have left is something you can use to HELP control scent.

There are many factors why some hunters can be successful while not exercising scent control through commercial products. Sometimes they are hunting downwind of an animal, etc. and are not aware of it. The older these deer get, the smarter they are and they use their nose more than any other resource they have for protection. One good example is from a friend of mine who shot a 190" typical last week (it would have been a 200" typical if the g5's weren't broken off) that was about 7.5 years old. We later found out that this buck had lived in that same spot for years undetected. That buck undoubtedly used his nose for defense against humans for years. There are just too many other examples to mention but the fact remains, deer use their nose and carbon does work when used properly.

I watched Myth Busters many times and have found that their methods aren't always the scientific standard. I'm not discrediting them but rather exposing "one way" of testing as compared to many. If it was the suit they tested and not the carbon itself, maybe they are backing up what I say. I'm not sure though as I did not see that episode.
"A fool learns from his own mistake but a wiseman learns from a fool's mistake "

bmorris
 
Posts: 99
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 8:14 pm

RE: Myth Busters-Bloodhound-Human Odor

Postby bmorris » Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:08 pm

Marc:
Give me the way to get ahold of the Virgina Tech study. I would be interested in seeing the results and their test used.
There are like you said a lot of varibles that go into how to really understand this.
I have participated in a number of these dogs -human scent test both as a subject and as an observer and have carefully studied the results.
Marc , if you want to supply some new ideas on a way to test activated carbon with one of these dogs I would be interested.
The bottom line about activated carbon is not that it doesn't work but the it won't work with the wrong application. In carbon clothing the fact that an adhesive of glue is used would negate the ability of the carbon to work. There are too many other varibles as well. These led the carbon expert hired by Scentlok when his reputation was on the line to state as his expert opinion that carbon was ineffective in stopping human odor from escaping and that was further confirmed by these test with dogs.

This area of scent control has so many untested applications. Take for example spraying of an antimicrobial on fabric. Unless the antimicrobial touches the skin it is useless. Wearing a jacket with an antimicrobial over other clothing accomplishes nothing to stop odor causing bacteria.

PreviousNext

Return to Breaking News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests