Outdoor Writer

Welcome. Glad to hear you enjoyed the book. -TONY

Dang! If I hadn't already committed to a lab from the local rescue group, I would have jumped at that GSP. -TONY P.S. - This coming to you from in sunny Matzatlan, Mex. as I sit here by the pool ogling all the teeny bikinis.

That's about what suits hazmat folks wear weigh. -TONY

Here's an interesting tidbit that basically mirrors what I've thought ever since this product was introduced. -TONY Suit says clothes don't pass smell test Four Minnesotans claim that a company that makes scent-disguising clothing has duped hunters out of millions of dollars by selling them a product that doesn't work. By Doug Smith, Star Tribune September 23, 2007 Deer hunters know that if a whitetail's sensitive snout gets wind of human scent, it'll flee in alarm -- and the hunt is over. That's why hunters, including 500,000 in Minnesota, spend millions of dollars each year buying special hunting clothing with activated carbon that promises to eliminate human odors. Now that clothing, which has been on the market for about a dozen years and is sold by virtually every major outdoor retailer in the nation, is under fire. A lawsuit filed Sept. 13 in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis alleges the clothing doesn't work and that hunters have been -- and continue to be -- defrauded. The suit was filed against ALS Enterprises Inc. of Muskegon, Mich., which produces and licenses "Scent-Lok" clothing sold under that name and others, including ScentBlocker. The suit says the company is the largest maker of such clothing and licenses it to at least 22 others, including Gander Mountain Co., Cabela's Inc., Bass Pro Shops Inc. and Browning Arms Co. Those four firms also are named as defendants. The suit alleges the five firms conspired to deceive consumers and suppressed and concealed the truth. "Consumers have been duped into spending significant amounts of money on a product that does not work as represented," the suit says. A spokesman for Gander Mountain, the only Minnesota-based firm being sued, declined to comment. Mike Andrews, vice president of marketing for ALS, said the suit is without merit. "We've done years of research ... we have hundreds of testimonials from consumers over the years," he said last week. "We know it works. And we're excited about the opportunity to prove to the world once and for all how effective our product is." Added Andrews: "We have a written guarantee that says you'll experience unalarmed wild animals downwind. You don't build this kind of business on something that's not true." The company says testing done for it by Intertek Testing Services in Cortland, N.Y., has shown its fabric performs as claimed. It also cites supportive studies by S. Holger Eichhorn of the University of Windsor in Ontario and Donald B. Thompson of North Carolina State University. ALS is a privately held company, and Andrews wouldn't reveal sales figures, but some have estimated the activated carbon hunting clothing business may be worth $100 million annually. Four men who bought the clothing -- Mike Buetow of Shakopee, Theodore Carlson of Edina, Gary Richardson Jr. of St. Paul and Joe Rohrbach of Shakopee -- are named as plaintiffs in the suit. But attorneys are seeking class-action status, meaning it would be argued on behalf of all those who bought the clothing. The suit says "tens of thousands" of Minnesota hunters have been deceived into buying millions of dollars of odor-eliminating clothing. Buetow, a bow hunter, said he and the others can't comment on the case on the advice of attorneys. He said he bought $1,000 worth of Scent-Lok gear -- including pants, coats, face masks, hats and gloves -- in 2003. The lawsuit is just the latest salvo fired at ALS and its sellers. The question of whether the company's clothing works as claimed has been the topic of Internet chat rooms for about the past year. And a Minnesotan -- T.R. Michels, 57, of Burnsville, an outdoor writer, author, hunting guide and frequent hunting seminar speaker who has his own website (www.trmichels.com) -- acknowledges he is responsible for raising much of the stink. "Hunters have been screwed," he said. "They have been misled. And they [companies] are making tons of money off the stuff." He said he has no ax to grind and began looking at the clothing because his job as a writer and outdoor expert is to "look into myths and dispell them." Said Michels: "I was lied to, and that really ticked me off." He is not involved in the lawsuit, and won't be because, while he has used Scent-Lok clothing, he's never purchased it, he said. However, Michels has questioned the performance of the clothing with the U.S. Patent Office and has posted numerous exchanges he's had with the company on his website and others. He said outdoor magazines won't write about the issue for fear of losing lucrative advertising dollars for the hunting clothing, and that he has lost freelance work because of his stance. Everyone claims science is on their side. ALS has created a new section on the company's website (www.scentlok.com) to explain how the activated carbon adsorbs human odors. (Adsorption is the adhesion of the gas or liquid molecules to the surfaces of solids.) Andrews said independent experts have verified the company's findings. "It does work as described," Andrews said. "Unfortunately some people refuse to look at the data we've provided." No one disputes that activated carbon adsorbs odors. But even ALS acknowledges the carbon can become saturated with odors. Andrews says the company's clothing can be "regenerated" or "reactivated" many times by putting it in a regular household dryer for 45 minutes. Then it's ready to adsorb more odors. "We know that even after several years of use, it still has enough adsorption capacity to overcome big game animals' [scenting ability]," Andrews said. But the lawsuit and Michels dispute that. The suit says that dryer temperatures never exceed 150 degrees, but temperatures in excess of 800 degrees are needed to reactivate the carbon, and even then it wouldn't be restored to full adsorptive capacity. The suit doesn't cite any independent testing done on the clothing that shows it doesn't work. "Defendants knew or should have known that their odor-eliminating clothing cannot, as a matter of science, eliminate all human odors ... or render a human body scent-invisible to a deer or other game animals," the suit states. The suit says that had hunters known that the clothing doesn't eliminate all human odors and cannot be regenerated in household dryers, they wouldn't have bought it. The suit also claims the defendants violated the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act, the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act and involved civil conspiracy. Andrews said ALS will vigorously fight the suit. ****** The actual 42-pg lawsuit filed in MN. ****** The above photograph is blowup of a piece of Scent Lok fabric, about 6.25 x 6.25 inches square. The tiny black dots on the fabric are the carbon particles. You can clearly see that the powdered activated carbon particles (PAC) are not much wider than one of the threads of the fabric, and there doesn't appear to be more than 30% of the fabric covered with powdered activated carbon. Odors must come into physical contact with the activated carbon before they are "bound" or "adsorbed" to the activated carbon by "electrostatic" or other forces. All odors, including human perspiration odors, will take the "path of least resistance" if they can, meaning they will go around the activated carbon and exit the suit through the large spaces between the small flecks of activated carbon if they can - and they can! This means that many of the scents and/or odors on the inside of a suit made of this material can exit the suit without coming into contact with any activated carbon - they just go around the carbon. And deer, elk, bear and other animals will smell those odors! Scent Lok Patent - Rejected by the Patent Office (9/14/07 1:50 PM) On 9/13/07 the United States Patent Office posted a "Final Rejection Mailed" notice on their web site for Patent # 90007331, which WAS the "double patented" application of Scent Lok for activated carbon clothing for use while hunting. It is illegal to patent something that has already been patented. What does this "Patent rejection" mean for those companies who have been paying royalties to Scent Lok, or for those companies who have an agreement with Scent Lok, or for those companies who have been bankrupted by Scent Lok for infringing on the now rejected patent application of Scent Lok? It may mean that Scent Lok's demand for royalties for the past 16 years was never enforceable. The consequences now - who knows? Maybe new technology, with lower clothing prices, for you hunters. You can find this Patent rejection at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html and click on View "Public PAIR". On the next page check the "Application Number" circle, and then type 90007331 in the "*Enter Number" box. You can then click the "Image File Wrapper" and "Transaction History" tabs at the top of the page to view more information.

Geez, I didn't miss by much with my guess, huh? -TONY

Excellent advice. Too many guys assume animals see camo as humans do. They don't. So what looks so nice to our eyes looks somewhat different to critters. You could use red and grey or blaze orange and yellow in a large pattern and still have effective camo. -TONY

Well I got to the tree after about 4 hours of riding and trailing and of course my camera battery was dead, so I rode back to the truck and took the camera out of a trail cam set up Andy Knowlton had built for me, rode back to the tree and took my usual bad pictures. It was just too dark and too many trees to get a clear view, plus the lion was unusually high up in the tree. My mule was not real enthusiastic about the whole thing, but I gave her a snickers candy bar and she perked right up. The lion was a real dark colored lion and will make a fine mount. I had to get out of there as all the multi unit elk hunters were starting to show up along with the usual amount of quaddies etc. It was a fun day. Hey, maybe you should hire Josh to take pix for you. -TONY

Aha, OK. The only reason I thought it was one in the same was because the lake and all the cottonwood trees looked like those on Henry's place. So it sounds like the EZ Ranch is somewhere in the area of the ? in the below map but farther south toward Cordes Junction, huh? -TONY

Clinical signs of CWD alone are not conclusive, and there is currently no practical live animal test. Currently, the only conclusive diagnosis involves an examination of the brain, tonsils or lymph nodes performed after death. Research is being conducted to develop live-animal diagnostic tests for CWD. Early results indicate that a new live-test utilizing tissues from an animal's tonsils may be viable in deer, but so far has been ineffective in elk. I rest my case. -TONY

When I was in NZ a couple years ago, I got to see quite a few farms where they literally raise red deer like livestock because the venison is in high demand around the world. These farms were prevalent on the south island, and it was rare to drive more than two miles and not see one. If you see venison on a restaurant menu in the U.S., it's a good bet you'd be ordering NZ red deer. And it is indeed excellent eating. I thought the same thing about the buffalo meat until I did some math. At $2 per pound for a buff on the hoof, that would be anywhere from $3,500 to more than $4,000. There are big ranches in NM and TX where you can kill a buff for much less. -TONY

Yeah, the Colorado DOW has been testing this technique on live deer in a captive environment. They actually take tissue samples rather than remove the tonsils, but it requires anesthetizing every animal to do the tests. Plus, the results are somewhat spotty because they don't yet know at what STAGE the CWD prions show up in the tonsils. That's why I used "no reliable test." Maybe some day they will be able to do a simple blood test. -TONY

The captive environment puts every one of the animals with in proximity, thus making for easy transfer of diseases so every one is infected. This is why CWD has spread so quickly in some states where deer congregate around specific feed areas. There is NO reliable test that can confirm CWD in LIVE animals. The only test currently available is done on the brain tissue or lymph nodes of DEAD ungulates. -TONY

And if he needs dies, I have a set from RCBS I'll sell him cheap. I also have a BUNCH of brass -- most of it once-fired factory loads -- but I had promised it to someone else here. If he doen't buy it, though, Ryan can at a fair price. -TONY

The hogs would present few problems. It's the red deer that are the major concern. Not only will they breed with elk, but under the captive environment, diseases such as CWD and brucellosis are easily spread if any of them contract one of them. So if they get out, either disease could affect our wild critters. I think the buffs might also be susceptable to brucellosis. I spoke with my contact at G&F a bit ago and he thought that place had a grandfathered in permit. He also said trying to get a permit for captive deer today was near impossible. And...if G&F became aware of disease among the captive deer, they have the right under Title 17 to go in and kill them all. As far as any penalty for escaped critters, there is nothing written in stone. But they can assess such depending on what happens. -TONY

If the red deer survived, I guess it's quite possible they would breed with our native elk. They already have such crosses in NZ. If the hogs or buffalo escape, they would merely provide targets. As for the property owner, I'm not sure there's anything on the books yet. I'm going to make a call and check, though. -TONY

I think that is probably the same property that once housed Kent Henry's Arizona Hunt Club. That was a put-&-take bird -- pheasant, chukar, bobwhite quail -- shooting preserve, but they also had a very challenging sporting clays course that humbled me more than once. -TONY

Back in the early 1990s, I was invited to bowhunt deer near Roger's City in Michigan. When I accepted, I had no idea what was to come. But...I was cracking up while driving north from the Detroit area at all the signs along the road. You could buy deer bait -- sugar beets or corn by the bag or truck-full -- with you-load or we-load prices. It appeared as if selling bait for deer was big business. When I got to my destination, I was told we HAD to hunt over either a pile of sugar beets or a solar-powered corn feeder. And because there were several of us hunting the same private property, roaming was out of the question. That pretty much chilled my enthusiasm, but since I drove that many miles, I went along with the program. My stand was a little shed with a roof on it that appeared to be built for a gun hunter. The shooting window was about 2' tall and 4' wide, but to draw my bow, I literally had to stoop down or the upper bow limb would hit the ceiling. The corn feeder was hanging from a branch about 15 yards from the base of the stand. It was set to go off once in the early a.m. and once in late afternoon. When it did, it made a gentle whirring sound as the little disk spun to spread corn in a 10' circle. Not surprisingly, critters were moving in even before the thing went off. They had likely made notations on their agendas. The usual array -- all feeding at the same time -- included several deer, a few wild turkeys, porcupines, raccoons and black squirrels. It was fun watching all the smaller creatures scurrying about under & around the larger deer as they battled to eat the corn. Anyway, getting to the point. One day while I was sitting watching the circus, I had two does, both with twin fawns, under the feeder with an assortment of the other critters milling about. While I watched with the window latched up, I lit a cigarette. When I exhaled my first puff, I noticed the smoke gently wafted out the window and moved right toward the feeder. So I decided to do more of a test by inhaling deeply and immediately blowing clouds of smoke out the window. I could see it was all getting to the feeder, too. Not one creature lifted it head or stopped eating. I also figured if the smoke went in that direction, my scent probably was blowing there too. If so, it was little concern. -TONY

Everything you said is pretty much on the mark in regards to the carbon. Obviously that swatch of clothing is quite telling in regards to the area of carbon available to trap anything, and even at that, those teeny particles would have to be 100% active to do much good. The probability of the latter is remote, even from the time it is first manufactured because it is never sealed from the ambient atmosphere. While SOME scent would be eliminated, IMO, it would never be enough to work as advertised -- prevent game animals from smelling the wearer, mainly because of what i mentioned in my last reply. As for the scientific proof behind the lawsuit, perhaps the plaintiffs DO have such and are waiting before they reveal most of it. Did you read any of the actual lawsuit pages? It makes interesting reading. -TONY

Yup on both counts in your first paragraph. And good job on the research. BUT...the rafts do not have to escape from your clothing to give off scent! Bacteria gives off its own odor regardless of where it is located. So while you keep the rafts captive, they still emit the odors. The prime example is a person with obnoxious BO; you smell it regardles of sniffing their rafts or not. Now, since you mentioned dogs, here's something to consider. When I had my shorthair, she often picked up the scent of a single quail at 50 feet or more when the wind was right. If you ever shoot a quail, hold it up to your nose and smell it. You will find it has VERY LITTLE odor that the human nose can detect, yet a dog can smell that bird from many yards distant. A deer's sense of smell is even more acute than a dog's is. Likewise for most game animals and even horses. Over the years, I've had horses I was riding scent bears and other game that were out of sight and more than a 1/4 mile away. By the time I got close enough to see them, the horse was usually going nutso, and I was doing a lot of work to maintain control. Sometimes, that's a difficult thing to do when you have a 5-horse pack string in tow. Whole-heartedly agree about the money wasted on Scent-Lok. I have an educational background in both chemistry and biology. So when I first read the claims about the carbon -- and expecially the reactivation in a dryer part -- I just shook my head. Worst of all, the carbon is probably already saturated by the time a guy buys it off the shelf since sealing out all odors during the manufacturing, shipping and sitting on shelves would be near impossible. Reactivating carbon takes HIGH heat that is not available in a household clothes dryer. And even at that, reactivation with HIGH heat is less than complete, normally resulting in about 70% of the previous reactivation. All a clothes dryer will do is remove any absorbed moisture. -TONY

Bathe? Wasted exercise since your body -- including your breath -- constantly and immediately produces more than 200 types of bacteria and odors that game, with a sense of smell hundreds of times better than ours, will smell. The ONLY answer is to stay downwind of game. -TONY

Tom, The early Kaibab hunts during the '60s and early '70s were some of the more memorble ones of the almost 50 years or so I have spent hunting big game. The fact my grandad, who was already in 70s, was always along and that my oldest son got his start on those hunts has a lot to do with it. And don't feel bad -- I haven't drawn a Kaibab permit over the last 20 years or more. -TONY You might want to check out the The Good Ol' Days thread, where Pollo Hombre and I talked about this particular hunt.

This is one of those questions where the answer is: the mileage may vary. In prime habitat with good forage, i.e. the result of ideal rainfall amounts, deer usually can get most of their water requirements from the food they eat and only occasionally will drink from free-standing water, i.e. tanks, ponds, springs or even puddles. But the latter will increase during dry conditions or when the temps go up, as it does during the summer months. The free-standing water needs will decrease during the winter, and even the morning dew is sometimes enough to meet a deer's daily needs, along with the browse, which produces water as a byproduct of digestion. Conclusion: deer can go for days without free-standing water or they can drink everyday or they can drink somewhere in between the extremes. -TONY

In reality, lead poisoning is quite widespread in terrestial birds (that's the non-waterfowl kind for the unscientific types) and has been well documented in more than 60 species, including both American eagle species, all raptors and yes, ravens, too. Many of these terrestial species are susceptable in two way -- either by ingesting the lead fragments while feeding on game carcasses or entrails or by picking up lead shot when they do their normal pecking for small stones or gravel to aid digestion. Pheasants, quail, chukars and wild turkeys have all suffered from lead poisoning as a result of the latter. The difference between the documentation between such birds and the highly controlled condor is the ability to KNOW when the poisoning or deaths occur. Obviously, the condors are closely monitored, which includes radios, etc. Eagles, raptors or other terrestial birds are happenstance discoveries, however. Thus, the magnitude of lead poisoning losses for individual terrestial species is difficult to quantify. As for knowing how the condors are ingesting lead from bullets and not trash, it's pretty simple. Those who know what they're doing can match lead types exactly by the particular isotopes in specific leads, including those used in shot and bullets. -TONY

This from the Gear chapter of "How To Hunt Coues Deer." MISCELLANEOUS It’s no doubt possible to fill this entire page with a list of goodies that will make your hunt just a tab easier, more comfortable or perhaps even more successful. On the other hand, each one of us probably has such a list already. At least I do. Here’s why. Years ago, I kept a sheet of paper on my desk, and every time I thought of something to take on a hunt, I wrote it down. After several months, the paper was full. So I sat at the computer and broke it down into various groupings such as camping gear, clothing, etc. etc. I even had a section for the stuff I carry in my backpack. Then I printed out a dozen copies and use one every time I go on a hunt as a reminder. Below are some of the items that normally go into my backpack. Rubber gloves Lip balm Duct tape Extra knife Extra ammo Seat cushion Space blanket Compass or GPS Light rain jacket Knife sharpener Nylon Cord (20’) Flashlight w/extra batteries Wad of tar paper (fire starter) Orange, trail-marking ribbon Lens cleaning fluid and paper Matches AND butane lighter Topo map of my area Camera w/extra film Large, self-sealing plastic bags High-energy snack bars Small folding saw

Lark, You might want to read up a bit on how avian critters get lead poisoning. It isn't from having lead embedded in their flesh, as yours is. The problem is more related to INGESTING lead FRAGMENTS, i.e. when bullets come apart in game animals or leave fragments behind, even with pass-throughs. Once a lead shot, bullet or fragments reach the GIZZARD -- an organ unique to avian species -- the acids there dissolve that lead, thus allowing it to easily enter the bloodstream and tissues. That doesn't happen in your shoulder. Plus, wounded deer also die without being found, so it isn't just gut-piled related bullets or fragments that are a concern. Here's some accurate information on the condor problem. Be sure to click on the red X-Ray link to see the extent of bullet fragmentation that occurs. -TONY