Scent-Lok or Scent Blocker?

titan23_87
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:50 am

RE: Scent-Lok or Scent Blocker?

Postby titan23_87 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:31 am

Just FYI

Scent Lok licenses to Scent Blocker.....I don't think there can be much difference between the two.

wildchild62552
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:26 pm

RE: Scent-Lok or Scent Blocker?

Postby wildchild62552 » Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:56 pm

I cant speak for all of you but whenever i go out and come back i always wash my scent lok with sport wash and store it in a rubbermaid container with at least 30 (thats whats im up to so far) pairs of earth scent wafers.When i get dressed just before a hunt with my friends they always tell me that i stink really bad like dirt.That brings me to the question,Hmmmmmmm what do deer really smell when they have their nose to the ground?Taking the nesasary steps of scent control and staying downwind increases your odds of having a good hunt.

whitetail swamp
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:34 am

RE: Scent-Lok or Scent Blocker?

Postby whitetail swamp » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:38 am

I think I am choosing ScentBlocker. There products work and even better than I had thought!!!


1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA


In re:

Activated Carbon-Based Hunting
Clothing Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation



THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:


Multidistrict Litigation
No. 09-md-2059 (RHK/JJK)






STIPULATED ORDER FOR SETTLEMENT

Plaintiffs commenced this action on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
persons against Robinson Outdoors, Inc. and Robinson Outdoor Products, LLC
("Robinson") for alleged damages suffered from the marketing of carbon-lined hunting
clothing. Plaintiffs sought permanent injunctive relief, damages and attorneys' fees for
alleged violations of various state consumer protection statutes and other laws. The
Plaintiffs for themselves and the Defendants for themselves hereby stipulate to this Final
Order for Settlement.
The findings stipulated herein are for settlement purposes only. They are not
admissible for purposes of determining the liability of other Defendants.
2

FINDINGS

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action and has
jurisdiction over relief against Robinson. Venue in this district is proper.
2. Plaintiffs and Robinson stipulate and agree to this Order to settle and
resolve all matters in dispute arising from the Complaint to the date of entry of the Order.
Robinson does not admit any of the allegations of the Complaint, other than the
jurisdictional facts. Plaintiffs and Robinson stipulate and agree that this Order constitutes
a settlement pursuant to Rule 408.
3. Robinson waives all rights to seek judicial review or otherwise challenge
or contest the validity of this Order.
4. Robinson has used the phrase "odor elimination" in connection with
hunting clothing apparel and other products.
5. Robinson maintains and the parties stipulate that none of Robinson's
advertising of its "odor eliminating technology" products for at least the past three years
has used the term "100%," "all," "completely" or "totally" in referring to efficacy.
6. Robinson also maintains and the parties stipulate that its advertising of its
"odor eliminating technology" products for at least the past three years has used words
that further qualify this language indicating that carbon-embedded clothing cannot totally
eliminate odor. Robinson maintains and the parties stipulate that Robinson's advertising
in the past three years, taken in context, implies only odor reduction.
7. Robinson maintains and the parties stipulate that Robinson's advertising
over the last three years advocated a multiple phase process using all Robinson's
3

products in combination so that the hunter has the best possible opportunity to eliminate
odor.
8. Robinson's current advertising graphics depict how its "odor eliminating
technology" products work (i.e., that odor goes into the carbon), and Robinson maintains
and the parties stipulate that the graphic is not a depiction of the specific percentage of
odor adsorption.
9. The parties stipulate that carbon can adsorb human odor. The parties
stipulate that the amount of carbon in the product and the process used to embed the
carbon to the product impacts the carbon's effectiveness. The parties further stipulate
that Robinson's carbon-embedded clothing contains substantially more carbon and uses a
different application process than other carbon-embedded hunting clothing products
currently on the market. Robinson has produced evidence of expert testing that
establishes that its garments containing activated carbon are effective at blocking the
transmission of odor through the garments and the amount of carbon used and the process
by which the carbon is embedded in the liner of the hunting clothing makes the odor-
blocking ability of the Robinson products more effective at reducing human odor than
other hunting garments containing carbon as well as non-carbon hunting garments.


10. Robinson has provided evidence of expert testing that establishes that,
after washing and drying, its carbon fabrics continue to be effective at reducing odor
permeation.

4

11. Robinson has provided expert testing that shows that after washing and
drying its carbon fabrics are "reactivated" and such clothing is restored to some extent for
continued beneficial use.

12. Robinson denies all the allegations and claims made by the Plaintiffs in
this and the related actions.
13. The parties have agreed to settle all claims that have been brought or
could have been brought against the other parties and forever release and discharge each
other from all possible claims except for performance of the settlement obligations.
14. The Court adopts these facts for purposes of this Order.
ORDER

ADVERTISING AND MARKETING RELIEF

II. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

Robinson is hereby permitted to continue to use its phrase "odor eliminating
technology" but only in conjunction with other words or phrases that expressly make
clear that the clothing in question can only reduce the release of human odor. Robinson
may 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.
Robinson is hereby permitted to continue to use the word "regenerate" or
"reactivate" as a description of the process of removal of some trapped odor from the
clothing, as long as they do not include additional words or graphics that say or depict
5

regeneration or reactivation as a process that will restore the clothing to pristine or like
new condition.
RELEASE

III. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED

Any and all claims (except for performance of the settlement obligations) that the
Plaintiffs have against the Defendants and any of their officers, directors, shareholders,
members, employees, agents, affiliates and attorneys, of whatever nature, whether known
or unknown, from the beginning of time, are hereby dismissed, discharged and satisfied
in full.
RETENTION OF JURISDICTION

III. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that this Court shall retain jurisdiction over this
matter for purposes of construction, modification and enforcement.

ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT

IV. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to Federal Rule 54(b), that there is no
just reason for delay and the Clerk of Court shall immediately enter this Order as a final
judgment as to relief against Robinson.

Stickman
 
Posts: 141
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 2:02 pm
Location: Hayden,Alabama

RE: Scent-Lok or Scent Blocker?

Postby Stickman » Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:26 pm

Do not use scent elimination clothing. I use Shines White Oak Acorn Scent, made in Chelsea, Alabama. It can be used as a cover and attractant scent. I have not been winded to date while wearing it, saves alot of money too.
If you can find it you can kill it.

User avatar
buckhunter21
 
Posts: 2981
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:28 pm

RE: Scent-Lok or Scent Blocker?

Postby buckhunter21 » Tue Jun 29, 2010 1:36 pm

ORIGINAL: wildchild62552

I cant speak for all of you but whenever i go out and come back i always wash my scent lok with sport wash and store it in a rubbermaid container with at least 30 (thats whats im up to so far) pairs of earth scent wafers.When i get dressed just before a hunt with my friends they always tell me that i stink really bad like dirt.That brings me to the question,Hmmmmmmm what do deer really smell when they have their nose to the ground?Taking the nesasary steps of scent control and staying downwind increases your odds of having a good hunt.

 
I use Scentblocker. 
 
I'm not sure if you are aware, but washing your carbon clothing in anything else but carbon wash will 'fill up' your carbon.  Also, the odor from those scent wafers will take in and fill what is left of your carbon clothing, rendering it 'useless.'  I put quotes in there since by washing your clothes and using those scent wafers, you are probably good to go, but kind of defeats the purpose of carbon clothing.
QDM!

User avatar
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4933
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

RE: Scent-Lok or Scent Blocker?

Postby Woods Walker » Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:03 pm

but washing your carbon clothing in anything else but carbon wash will 'fill up' your carbon.


If you think about it, in theory, unless your ScentLok/Block was in a scent sterile environment from the moment it was manufactured, then it's already "filled up" by the time you buy it, as the dryer "regeneration" is a hoax.

He's probably best to just continue to do what he's doing.
Hunt Hard,

Kill Swiftly,

Waste Nothing,

Offer No Apologies.....

>>>--------------------------------->
NRA Endowment Life Member

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

RE: Scent-Lok or Scent Blocker?

Postby bmorris » Thu Jul 01, 2010 2:56 am

For Whitetail Swamp to put up thr settlement statement means nothing.
Scent Blocker entered into a settlement to avoid being found guilty in 9 states.
The agreement entered into and the statement idicates " The Findings stipulated here in are for settlement purposes only "
 
For  Whitetail Swamp to indicate that the US District Court is saying that Scent Blocker works is not true.
There is no difference between Scentlok and Scent Blocker other then  name. Search and rescue dogs both in the Fox Investigative Report and individual testing have no trouble finding either one. In fact ScentBlocker has paid Scentlok for years to use carbon. The court has done research and has shown that carbon does very little to reduce human odor.
 It is very clear that they are trying to avoid the fact that they settled and want the public to go on buying a product that doesn't work as they claim.
While they were left out of the Minnesota trial for a very specific reason . Perhaps its time for Minnesota hunters to file suit against them so the real truth can come out. There are tons of information all ready available.

boxcallkid
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 7:03 am

RE: Scent-Lok or Scent Blocker?

Postby boxcallkid » Tue Jul 13, 2010 6:03 pm

Same scent eliminating suit for over ten years now, Still waiting for woodswalkers diatribe to convince me it's all just an illusion! I must be hunting the trained whitetail herds of northern Michigan?
Like gramps used to say, "Why is it there's never time to do it right, but there's always time to do it over?"

User avatar
Woods Walker
 
Posts: 4933
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:21 am
Location: Northern Illinois

RE: Scent-Lok or Scent Blocker?

Postby Woods Walker » Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:12 pm

ORIGINAL: boxcallkid

Same scent eliminating suit for over ten years now, Still waiting for woodswalkers diatribe to convince me it's all just an illusion! I must be hunting the trained whitetail herds of northern Michigan?


And this proves what? I have not used one for the same amount of time, and have killed a pile of deer, on the ground, and many at very close range, including a 145 typical and a 180 typical.

I can tell you this, you DO have good hunting skills, because any scent elimination properties that your suit may have had was used up YEARS ago, as the dryer regeneration was judged to be fraudulent also, and has the science to back it up.
Hunt Hard,

Kill Swiftly,

Waste Nothing,

Offer No Apologies.....

>>>--------------------------------->
NRA Endowment Life Member

User avatar
poohbear
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 12:54 pm

RE: Scent-Lok or Scent Blocker?

Postby poohbear » Tue Sep 07, 2010 7:10 am

ORIGINAL: Woods Walker

ORIGINAL: boxcallkid

Same scent eliminating suit for over ten years now, Still waiting for woodswalkers diatribe to convince me it's all just an illusion! I must be hunting the trained whitetail herds of northern Michigan?


And this proves what? I have not used one for the same amount of time, and have killed a pile of deer, on the ground, and many at very close range, including a 145 typical and a 180 typical.

I can tell you this, you DO have good hunting skills, because any scent elimination properties that your suit may have had was used up YEARS ago, as the dryer regeneration was judged to be fraudulent also, and has the science to back it up.




"In addition, the Court found claims that the Scent Lok clothing could be "reactivated" to "like new" or "pristine" condition to be false as a matter of law.

An injunction barring ALS/Scent Lok, Cabela's and Gander Mountain from "further deceptive practices" will be issued.

With that ruling, claims against the companies could move to trial.

The case began in 2007 when Minnesota hunters Mike Buetow, Gary Steven Richardson, Jr, Joe Rohrbach, Jeff Brosi and Dennis Deeb, filed suit against ALS, Cabela's, Cabela's Wholesale and Gander Mountain, claiming their odor controlling clothing failed to perform as advertised.

Their complaint alleged that the clothing did not "eliminate" odor, and could not be "reactivated or regenerated in a household (clothes) dryer after the clothing has become saturated with odors".

During the course of the lawsuit, scientists from both sides worked to prove-or disprove-the claims.

As you can imagine, the results disagreed in all but one key area: both plaintiff's and defendant's attorneys and scientists agreed that carbon-embedded clothing cannot eliminate 100% of a hunter's odor.

In this case "eliminate" was the key decision point- the court ruled that the word "eliminate" meant "a complete removal" the same way a claim to remove roaches from a home would mean "all roaches" not just some."


Woods Walker, where are you getting your info from about regeneration? Both sides of the lawsuit state facts for and against it. The main issue is that the product was advertised as 100%, and it shouldn't be, case closed. The company tried a marketing strategy and go burned. If you know something i don't, please enlighten me!

I do agree though, that scent clothing alone doesn't make a good hunter, but it is another tool for success. Eliminate as much odor as possible, hunt for the wind, stand placement, shot placement and good ole fashioned luck, thats what it takes. When i hunt deer/bear, i use scent clothing, spray down, and stay as odor free as i can. I've been pretty successful doing this, but i have been "busted" by bruisers who caught my wind, so i know its impossible to be 100% clean.

PreviousNext

Return to Scent Attractants/Scent Eliminators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest