Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Scent Lok Notches Victory in Appellate Court

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Whitetail 365
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

August 26, 2011

Scent Lok Notches Victory in Appellate Court

By Scott Bestul

Proving that it can certainly be re-activated in legal matters, ALS Enterprises—maker of Scent Lok clothing—is celebrating a decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals last week. That decision overturned a summary judgement ruling issued last year that found Scent Lok guilty of false advertising when it claimed its clothing “eliminated” human odor. We covered this issue in this space last year and in my “Whitetails” column titled “Something Stinks at Scent Lok” in the magazine.

The judge presiding over the appeal ruled that ALS’s use of the terms “odor eliminating” and “reactivation” was not literally false. According to a press release issued by ALS, the judge ruled that “the district court had erred in ‘basing its determination of literal falsity on the most absolute of competing dictionary definitions of the word eliminate.’” Interestingly, the appellate court also gave substantial weight to the fact that ALS “introduced evidence of substantial customer satisfaction with ALS’s Scent Lok ™ products.” The court also ordered the dismissal of all claims for injunctive relief, stating “Plaintiffs failed to prove both the requisite irreparable injury and their core allegations that Defendants’ use of the terms ‘odor eliminating and reactivation’ were literally false.’”

I spoke to Scent Lok vice-president Mike Andrews this week and he was, obviously, celebrating the Appellate Court decision. “We want to start spreading this good news,” he said. “We’re a quality-driven company with high customer satisfaction that has long stood behind our products. We want hunters who may have been on the fence and not bought our products [after the initial decision] to try them. We’re anxious to get our clothing out of the courts and into the woods, where it belongs.”

 

Comments (34)

Top Rated
All Comments
from sgtsly wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I can't believe that we are wasting the judicial systems time and money on something as trivial as this. Whoever brought the suit certainly can't be a hunter and if they were, they should no longer be allowed to waste their money on a license.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

sgtsly:
I think the people who brought the suite were hunters, but from the first, I believed it was ridiculous of them to blame the company because of their hunting results.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

This is one of those where the plaintiff needs to be held liable for the defendants "legal" fees!!

Bubba

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from johntalbott wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

The people who brought the suit were hunters, who were dismayed at disparity in the actual performance of Scentlok clothing vs. Scentlok's claims about the performance. I understand the point they were trying to make, ie, companies should be honest about the performance of their products; however I doubt anyone seriously believed that Scentlok would completely eliminate all of their scent, or that the clothing was impervious to killing scent. Seems like a huge waste of resources to me, but then again maybe the comapy will advertise more accurately.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from johntalbott wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I think I read that one or two of the hunters who brought the suit were lawyers? Anyone know if thats true?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

This whole thing reminds me of when President Clinton argued over the definition of the word "is"....

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from ethan_3 wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

they still arent receiving my money for the overpriced clothing

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Camo is camo is camo is camo!
Me neither, ethan. I try not to buy junk, but I'm NOT paying for "Scent-lok" name and "technology(?)"
It's just not worth the extra dollars!
If you smell bad, take a shower!

Bubba

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from NHshtr wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I don't have a strong opinion of Scent-Loc clothing one way or another. They do what they do. I don't own any, nor do I plan to buy any.

Most experienced hunters can discern valid gear claims from exaggerations. My concern here is for the newbies. They may be walked down the primrose lane. So just as when entering any new undertaking, they need to ask questions of hunter friends and/or instructors before they make purchasing decisions or go whole hog on a product.

Maybe this case will cause some manufacturers to tamp down some of the baloney that's out there.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I've never have and never will buy any product that claims it reduces human scent-- There just isn't anything that will do that 100% of the time and I won't spend the extra money on hype! Like Bubba said "take a bath!".

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from davycrockettfv wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

NHshtr, the problem a lot of newbies find is that when they ask the "more experienced" which gear is best, they get about a dozen different opinions. All defended vehemently. Sometimes it's not much help...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from bmorris wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

It will never cease to amaze me how the carbon companies continue to fool people. Scott Bestul just published how badly it performed with a test with an animal. According to research deer have many more odor reciples than a dog. In fact in their own magazine "Point Blank" Gregg Sesselmann made the statement in print that "what ever a canine can smell a deer can smell" They can play all the games in the lab but they never to my knowledge have fooled an animal (Dog) In the test done by Myth Busters on Discovery the dog even followed the subject in water.

Lawyers and courts can be fooled too. Rather that making the case about whether or not carbon works it centered on advertising. Now that Scentlok feels that they have won why not release the depositions and testimony to the public instead of having it sealed. I have heard that Greggs deposition would be quite revealing. How about it Scentlok? I'm sure they don't want their own experts testimony to be seen when as a Activated Carbon Hall of Fame member,Dr.Amos Turk, admitted under oath that the product shown to him would be ineffective in stopping human odor.

Scott Bestul's article in Field and Stream shows that carbon used in this kind of application just is ineffective.

And no, none of the was an attorney and there were hunters in 9 other states that also filed suits.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pa deer hunter wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I believe the hunters that started the suit were just looking to make a buck. (pun intended)
Call me foolish if you choose but I bought a scent-lok suite in 2006 and am satisfied with the results. I am not a company spoksperson, just a hunter. I know that nothing can eliminate all human oder but i'll take all the help I can get.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I spent ten years in the water treatment industry. We used PAC (powdered activated carbon) to treat "taste & odor" problems. Carbon, in water, works by "absorbing" the dissolved gases in the water that produce the "taste's and odors". But carbon can only soak up so many molecules, then you're pouring a gallon of milk into a half pint glass. You may have a minor over flow!

Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I think it's an old "Greek" saying,
"Let the buyer beware."
Wake up America! It's not the Gov't's job to hold your hand when you go to the store. Use a little common sense. Realize that the cigarettes, candy bars and soft drinks at the checkout are there for a reason! Not everybody goes through the entire store. EVERYBODY goes through the checkout! Think about it!

Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2Poppa wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Prior to the lawsuit, I was on a forum that educates hunters worldwide. The question came up whether Scent-Lok was a reliable product and in fact was it "scent free", that some of their earlier adds claimed.

A comment, in the form of a question, from a forum user submitted the question to the TV show, Mythbusters,(that prove or disprove particular claims) "Could they prove that "Scent-Lok" is absolutely scent free as claimed in their EARLIER, MARKETING ADDS."

This link was provided to several hunting forums across the nation, that allowed hunters to encourage the production team (On Mythbusters) to access, without prejudice, conduct several experiments to deny or confirm the claims by the Scent-Lok Company.

As well as expected, most hunters comments were skeptical of the product, but wanted the truth. In my own opinion, the people that filed the original lawsuit against the Scent-Lok Company, saw and read these posts. Mythbusters, never commented or performed any tests or experiments, as I'm sure, and rightfully so, smelled a lawsuit of Monster proportion, with years of litigation.

Again the key words were, "odor free, scent free and reactivation."

Personally, anything that gives me the edge catches my interests.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I think everyone agrees the product gives a slight advantage but the suit challenged the marketing claims of total scent elimination and not the product itself. I have to agree some of the claims in by the scent elimination industry over the years were ridiculous. "Forget the Wind"? Really? To a degree the lawsuit worked. The industry has backed off of these ridiculous claims and now rely mostly on testimonials.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

the fact is that they cannot and do not ELIMINATE scent. it cannot be done. you can reduce it but not eliminate it. the company gave a false claim and escaped because it has the money to do so. they won't get my money, period.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bmorris wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Actually trhe lawsuits were filed in all states prior to MythBusters doing the test. I saw the test and sentlok failed just like it did when Scott Bestul did his test with Chance. With only 27% as testified in the trail what would you expect.
It is so frustrating when an individual what's to post false information.
Look up this link to see that mythBusters did run a test with Scentlok.

www.edersbow.com/forums/viewtopicphp?f=28t=2881

Scentlok can publish the court testimony for all to see or keep hiding the testimony. Lab test prove nothing because your not dealing with an animal.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bmorris wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Sorry you will have to go to google and type in the link

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I haven't made an effort yet to locate a set of chemical warfare suits. I've been told they work far better and keep you warm in the winter! O'ya, there a fraction of the price of the others!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

If a product isn't covering your head--hands--and feet how is it hiding your scent??? C'mon hunters pull your heads out!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

If a product isn't covering your head--hands--and feet how is it hiding your scent??? C'mon hunters pull your heads out!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SD Bob wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Several commented about using a little common sense, try this...A dog's sense of smell is exponentially better than a deer, so why do we use a dog's nose to determine whether a deer can detect enough of your odor for it to become concerned? Another fact, the dogs used for these tests are trained to react to the smell of people similar to how my dog is trained to react to the smell of upland birds. Ever watch an untrained bird dog react to bird scent? Take a dog not trained to react to the scent of people and watch how they react. Sure, nothing is foolproof but if you think a deer will always turn tail at the hint of any human odor, your reading too much and not hunting enough! I unequivocally know they work at reducing my odor from spending time in a tree stand, not because I read the propaganda.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Whackdaddy wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Just think, all this could have been avoided if they would have just bought NOSEJAMMER!!!!! instead. Haha.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sanjuancb wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

"Satisfied hunters" who use Scent-Lok are likely those so-called hunting personalities that do more advertising and marketing than actual scouting or preparation. I honestly can't recall one person who wears Scent-Lok in my hunting circles.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bmorris wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Just to set the record straight.
ie-"a dogs sense of smell is exponentially better than a deer"
Wrong according to research deer have 297 million receptors, vs dog at 220 million vs man at 5 million.
Verify at
: www.imbmonsterbucks.com/infophp?id=243

article was written by Darrin Bradley is one of the best you will read.
If you think a trained dog is not a good test trying using your your own bird dog qnd use all your scent knowledge to hide from him.
Read Scott Bestuls artcile in Field and Stream (Aug Edition) as he tested the carbon.
You can't trust advertising
> Scent Blocker is claiming what they call "Cold Fusion" was something new. This process was used in 1997. Its just a another way to try and trick the public. They entered into a settlement with other states to avoid a trial

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Walt, you bring up a valid point!

MAN, THOSE BOOTS STINK AND YOUR LUCKY HAT?

WOW!

CALL HAZ-MAT!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ALS Enterprises wrote 2 years 32 weeks ago

Keep in mind folks that a dog's instinct is to search for a single odor molecule. So all the studies done on our products with dogs are misleading from the stand point that the dogs have the goal to search for human scent whereas deer are not consciously searching out human odor. If they come across it then they notice it. Please keep in mind though that deer tolerate certain amounts of human odor. Scent-Lok has never proclaimed to control odor 100%. We reduce the odor substantially, in fact anywhere from 96%-99% of odor is controlled as found by the court.

Our products do not make up for sloppy hunting habits and poor care of your clothing. Our products are a tool to give you an edge in the field. Scent-Lok products buy you time. If a deer senses something is out of place or notices a slight hint of humans it likely won't send him high tailing it because they encounter human odor on practically a daily basis. All of us have seen deer sensing something out of place and edge forward carefully. If you are not wearing activate carbon clothing you chances of being detected drastically increase and your chance of that deer presenting a shot or even leaving cover becomes much slimmer.

We thank all who stood and continue to stand behind us. Your success in the field speaks for itself and we promise to continue to make the most effective and highest quality apparel in the hunting industry.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ALS Enterprises wrote 2 years 32 weeks ago

Here is the press release we distributed after the court ruling.

ALS Enterprises, Inc., owners and marketer of the Scent-Lok® brand of scent control hunting apparel, has claimed a major victory in the long-standing class action lawsuit that challenged the products’ ability to control human odor. After four years of litigation, which was brought by a group of five Minnesota hunters, a federal appeals court issued its decision on August 18, rejecting plaintiffs’ core allegations and overturning an injunction issued last year.

Among other things, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit noted that evidence introduced in the district court showed that carbon-containing hunting clothing dramatically outperformed non-carbon clothing at adsorbing odors: “Defendants’ expert, Dr. Hartman, conducted quantitative permeation testing and estimated that Defendants’ products ‘blocked’ ninety-six to ninety-nine percent of odor compounds, whereas non-carbon garments blocked only five to fifty-five percent.”

The Eighth Circuit also ruled that ALS’s use of the terms “odor eliminating” and “reactivation” in describing its products was not literally false, and that the district court had erred in basing “its determination of literal falsity on the most absolute of competing dictionary definitions of the word ‘eliminate.’” In support, the Court noted that “Defendants introduced evidence of substantial customer satisfaction with ALS’s Scent-Lok® products, as well as evidence that, when those products first came on the market in the early 1990’s, numerous soaps, powders, and cover sprays were being marketed to deer hunters as ‘odor-eliminating’ products.”

The Court also ruled that “Plaintiffs led the district court into error” in entering an injunction, and ordered the dismissal of all claims for injunctive relief because “Plaintiffs failed to prove both the requisite irreparable injury and their core allegations that Defendants’ use of the terms ‘odor eliminating’ and ‘reactivation’ were literally false.”

Scent-Lok® president and inventor of activated-carbon hunting apparel, Greg Sesselmann, commented: “We are gratified by the decision. It gives me great satisfaction that our products continue to provide hunters the ability to get close to wildlife and experience the beauty of nature like never before. At the same time, we are saddened at the burden that this lawsuit has caused our team members and their families, as well as the frustration that our retailers, field staff and sales rep organizations have experienced. We thank all of those who have stood beside us in this fight, especially our ultimate customers—people who have purchased Scent-Lok® gear and know that it works.”

“Customers have never needed an attorney to get total satisfaction from our company.” Sesselmann remarked. “Our satisfaction level is extremely high and, based on the unsolicited testimonials that we receive and our own experience in the field, we know that Scent-Lok® products are highly effective at reducing odors. On behalf of our retail partners, we remain focused on making the best hunting apparel in the world.”

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jmshackelfo@aol.com wrote 2 years 32 weeks ago

I have a scent loc jacket, not because I beleive it actually blocks the smell of any thing but because I like the camo pattern on it. My thought is the jacket hangs in my house all year long, as such wouldn't it pick up the smell of the house. My granddad told me a long time ago, if your worried about being smelled rub some sage on yourself it will cover it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 32 weeks ago

It's an absolute shame that our court system was tied up for FOUR (4) years on something as inane as the veracity of the Scent-Lok advertising claim! It's even a shame that ALS Ent was forced to defend itself.
If you buy something that doesn't work; return it, have it worked on or buck up and never buy another one. Suing for false advertising? Gimme a break!

Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Andrews wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

Thanks for the support and update.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from VoiceOfTheWild wrote 1 year 36 weeks ago

There was no reason other than greed for this lawsuit. Scent-Lok has always stood behind their products. They would have refunded the plaintiffs money if they were dissatisfied with the clothing. It cost Scent-Lok millions of dollars to fight this lawsuit, which caused a number of Scent-Lok employees to lose their jobs. The plaintiffs should have been made to pay Scent-Lok's legal fees.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

This is one of those where the plaintiff needs to be held liable for the defendants "legal" fees!!

Bubba

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

This whole thing reminds me of when President Clinton argued over the definition of the word "is"....

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Camo is camo is camo is camo!
Me neither, ethan. I try not to buy junk, but I'm NOT paying for "Scent-lok" name and "technology(?)"
It's just not worth the extra dollars!
If you smell bad, take a shower!

Bubba

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I've never have and never will buy any product that claims it reduces human scent-- There just isn't anything that will do that 100% of the time and I won't spend the extra money on hype! Like Bubba said "take a bath!".

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from davycrockettfv wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

NHshtr, the problem a lot of newbies find is that when they ask the "more experienced" which gear is best, they get about a dozen different opinions. All defended vehemently. Sometimes it's not much help...

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steward wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

sgtsly:
I think the people who brought the suite were hunters, but from the first, I believed it was ridiculous of them to blame the company because of their hunting results.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from ethan_3 wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

they still arent receiving my money for the overpriced clothing

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pa deer hunter wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I believe the hunters that started the suit were just looking to make a buck. (pun intended)
Call me foolish if you choose but I bought a scent-lok suite in 2006 and am satisfied with the results. I am not a company spoksperson, just a hunter. I know that nothing can eliminate all human oder but i'll take all the help I can get.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 2Poppa wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Prior to the lawsuit, I was on a forum that educates hunters worldwide. The question came up whether Scent-Lok was a reliable product and in fact was it "scent free", that some of their earlier adds claimed.

A comment, in the form of a question, from a forum user submitted the question to the TV show, Mythbusters,(that prove or disprove particular claims) "Could they prove that "Scent-Lok" is absolutely scent free as claimed in their EARLIER, MARKETING ADDS."

This link was provided to several hunting forums across the nation, that allowed hunters to encourage the production team (On Mythbusters) to access, without prejudice, conduct several experiments to deny or confirm the claims by the Scent-Lok Company.

As well as expected, most hunters comments were skeptical of the product, but wanted the truth. In my own opinion, the people that filed the original lawsuit against the Scent-Lok Company, saw and read these posts. Mythbusters, never commented or performed any tests or experiments, as I'm sure, and rightfully so, smelled a lawsuit of Monster proportion, with years of litigation.

Again the key words were, "odor free, scent free and reactivation."

Personally, anything that gives me the edge catches my interests.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I think everyone agrees the product gives a slight advantage but the suit challenged the marketing claims of total scent elimination and not the product itself. I have to agree some of the claims in by the scent elimination industry over the years were ridiculous. "Forget the Wind"? Really? To a degree the lawsuit worked. The industry has backed off of these ridiculous claims and now rely mostly on testimonials.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

the fact is that they cannot and do not ELIMINATE scent. it cannot be done. you can reduce it but not eliminate it. the company gave a false claim and escaped because it has the money to do so. they won't get my money, period.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from sgtsly wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I can't believe that we are wasting the judicial systems time and money on something as trivial as this. Whoever brought the suit certainly can't be a hunter and if they were, they should no longer be allowed to waste their money on a license.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from johntalbott wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

The people who brought the suit were hunters, who were dismayed at disparity in the actual performance of Scentlok clothing vs. Scentlok's claims about the performance. I understand the point they were trying to make, ie, companies should be honest about the performance of their products; however I doubt anyone seriously believed that Scentlok would completely eliminate all of their scent, or that the clothing was impervious to killing scent. Seems like a huge waste of resources to me, but then again maybe the comapy will advertise more accurately.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from johntalbott wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I think I read that one or two of the hunters who brought the suit were lawyers? Anyone know if thats true?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from NHshtr wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I don't have a strong opinion of Scent-Loc clothing one way or another. They do what they do. I don't own any, nor do I plan to buy any.

Most experienced hunters can discern valid gear claims from exaggerations. My concern here is for the newbies. They may be walked down the primrose lane. So just as when entering any new undertaking, they need to ask questions of hunter friends and/or instructors before they make purchasing decisions or go whole hog on a product.

Maybe this case will cause some manufacturers to tamp down some of the baloney that's out there.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bmorris wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

It will never cease to amaze me how the carbon companies continue to fool people. Scott Bestul just published how badly it performed with a test with an animal. According to research deer have many more odor reciples than a dog. In fact in their own magazine "Point Blank" Gregg Sesselmann made the statement in print that "what ever a canine can smell a deer can smell" They can play all the games in the lab but they never to my knowledge have fooled an animal (Dog) In the test done by Myth Busters on Discovery the dog even followed the subject in water.

Lawyers and courts can be fooled too. Rather that making the case about whether or not carbon works it centered on advertising. Now that Scentlok feels that they have won why not release the depositions and testimony to the public instead of having it sealed. I have heard that Greggs deposition would be quite revealing. How about it Scentlok? I'm sure they don't want their own experts testimony to be seen when as a Activated Carbon Hall of Fame member,Dr.Amos Turk, admitted under oath that the product shown to him would be ineffective in stopping human odor.

Scott Bestul's article in Field and Stream shows that carbon used in this kind of application just is ineffective.

And no, none of the was an attorney and there were hunters in 9 other states that also filed suits.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I spent ten years in the water treatment industry. We used PAC (powdered activated carbon) to treat "taste & odor" problems. Carbon, in water, works by "absorbing" the dissolved gases in the water that produce the "taste's and odors". But carbon can only soak up so many molecules, then you're pouring a gallon of milk into a half pint glass. You may have a minor over flow!

Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I think it's an old "Greek" saying,
"Let the buyer beware."
Wake up America! It's not the Gov't's job to hold your hand when you go to the store. Use a little common sense. Realize that the cigarettes, candy bars and soft drinks at the checkout are there for a reason! Not everybody goes through the entire store. EVERYBODY goes through the checkout! Think about it!

Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bmorris wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Actually trhe lawsuits were filed in all states prior to MythBusters doing the test. I saw the test and sentlok failed just like it did when Scott Bestul did his test with Chance. With only 27% as testified in the trail what would you expect.
It is so frustrating when an individual what's to post false information.
Look up this link to see that mythBusters did run a test with Scentlok.

www.edersbow.com/forums/viewtopicphp?f=28t=2881

Scentlok can publish the court testimony for all to see or keep hiding the testimony. Lab test prove nothing because your not dealing with an animal.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bmorris wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Sorry you will have to go to google and type in the link

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

I haven't made an effort yet to locate a set of chemical warfare suits. I've been told they work far better and keep you warm in the winter! O'ya, there a fraction of the price of the others!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

If a product isn't covering your head--hands--and feet how is it hiding your scent??? C'mon hunters pull your heads out!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

If a product isn't covering your head--hands--and feet how is it hiding your scent??? C'mon hunters pull your heads out!!!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Whackdaddy wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Just think, all this could have been avoided if they would have just bought NOSEJAMMER!!!!! instead. Haha.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sanjuancb wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

"Satisfied hunters" who use Scent-Lok are likely those so-called hunting personalities that do more advertising and marketing than actual scouting or preparation. I honestly can't recall one person who wears Scent-Lok in my hunting circles.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bmorris wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Just to set the record straight.
ie-"a dogs sense of smell is exponentially better than a deer"
Wrong according to research deer have 297 million receptors, vs dog at 220 million vs man at 5 million.
Verify at
: www.imbmonsterbucks.com/infophp?id=243

article was written by Darrin Bradley is one of the best you will read.
If you think a trained dog is not a good test trying using your your own bird dog qnd use all your scent knowledge to hide from him.
Read Scott Bestuls artcile in Field and Stream (Aug Edition) as he tested the carbon.
You can't trust advertising
> Scent Blocker is claiming what they call "Cold Fusion" was something new. This process was used in 1997. Its just a another way to try and trick the public. They entered into a settlement with other states to avoid a trial

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Walt, you bring up a valid point!

MAN, THOSE BOOTS STINK AND YOUR LUCKY HAT?

WOW!

CALL HAZ-MAT!

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ALS Enterprises wrote 2 years 32 weeks ago

Keep in mind folks that a dog's instinct is to search for a single odor molecule. So all the studies done on our products with dogs are misleading from the stand point that the dogs have the goal to search for human scent whereas deer are not consciously searching out human odor. If they come across it then they notice it. Please keep in mind though that deer tolerate certain amounts of human odor. Scent-Lok has never proclaimed to control odor 100%. We reduce the odor substantially, in fact anywhere from 96%-99% of odor is controlled as found by the court.

Our products do not make up for sloppy hunting habits and poor care of your clothing. Our products are a tool to give you an edge in the field. Scent-Lok products buy you time. If a deer senses something is out of place or notices a slight hint of humans it likely won't send him high tailing it because they encounter human odor on practically a daily basis. All of us have seen deer sensing something out of place and edge forward carefully. If you are not wearing activate carbon clothing you chances of being detected drastically increase and your chance of that deer presenting a shot or even leaving cover becomes much slimmer.

We thank all who stood and continue to stand behind us. Your success in the field speaks for itself and we promise to continue to make the most effective and highest quality apparel in the hunting industry.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from ALS Enterprises wrote 2 years 32 weeks ago

Here is the press release we distributed after the court ruling.

ALS Enterprises, Inc., owners and marketer of the Scent-Lok® brand of scent control hunting apparel, has claimed a major victory in the long-standing class action lawsuit that challenged the products’ ability to control human odor. After four years of litigation, which was brought by a group of five Minnesota hunters, a federal appeals court issued its decision on August 18, rejecting plaintiffs’ core allegations and overturning an injunction issued last year.

Among other things, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit noted that evidence introduced in the district court showed that carbon-containing hunting clothing dramatically outperformed non-carbon clothing at adsorbing odors: “Defendants’ expert, Dr. Hartman, conducted quantitative permeation testing and estimated that Defendants’ products ‘blocked’ ninety-six to ninety-nine percent of odor compounds, whereas non-carbon garments blocked only five to fifty-five percent.”

The Eighth Circuit also ruled that ALS’s use of the terms “odor eliminating” and “reactivation” in describing its products was not literally false, and that the district court had erred in basing “its determination of literal falsity on the most absolute of competing dictionary definitions of the word ‘eliminate.’” In support, the Court noted that “Defendants introduced evidence of substantial customer satisfaction with ALS’s Scent-Lok® products, as well as evidence that, when those products first came on the market in the early 1990’s, numerous soaps, powders, and cover sprays were being marketed to deer hunters as ‘odor-eliminating’ products.”

The Court also ruled that “Plaintiffs led the district court into error” in entering an injunction, and ordered the dismissal of all claims for injunctive relief because “Plaintiffs failed to prove both the requisite irreparable injury and their core allegations that Defendants’ use of the terms ‘odor eliminating’ and ‘reactivation’ were literally false.”

Scent-Lok® president and inventor of activated-carbon hunting apparel, Greg Sesselmann, commented: “We are gratified by the decision. It gives me great satisfaction that our products continue to provide hunters the ability to get close to wildlife and experience the beauty of nature like never before. At the same time, we are saddened at the burden that this lawsuit has caused our team members and their families, as well as the frustration that our retailers, field staff and sales rep organizations have experienced. We thank all of those who have stood beside us in this fight, especially our ultimate customers—people who have purchased Scent-Lok® gear and know that it works.”

“Customers have never needed an attorney to get total satisfaction from our company.” Sesselmann remarked. “Our satisfaction level is extremely high and, based on the unsolicited testimonials that we receive and our own experience in the field, we know that Scent-Lok® products are highly effective at reducing odors. On behalf of our retail partners, we remain focused on making the best hunting apparel in the world.”

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jmshackelfo@aol.com wrote 2 years 32 weeks ago

I have a scent loc jacket, not because I beleive it actually blocks the smell of any thing but because I like the camo pattern on it. My thought is the jacket hangs in my house all year long, as such wouldn't it pick up the smell of the house. My granddad told me a long time ago, if your worried about being smelled rub some sage on yourself it will cover it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from FirstBubba wrote 2 years 32 weeks ago

It's an absolute shame that our court system was tied up for FOUR (4) years on something as inane as the veracity of the Scent-Lok advertising claim! It's even a shame that ALS Ent was forced to defend itself.
If you buy something that doesn't work; return it, have it worked on or buck up and never buy another one. Suing for false advertising? Gimme a break!

Bubba

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Andrews wrote 2 years 5 weeks ago

Thanks for the support and update.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from VoiceOfTheWild wrote 1 year 36 weeks ago

There was no reason other than greed for this lawsuit. Scent-Lok has always stood behind their products. They would have refunded the plaintiffs money if they were dissatisfied with the clothing. It cost Scent-Lok millions of dollars to fight this lawsuit, which caused a number of Scent-Lok employees to lose their jobs. The plaintiffs should have been made to pay Scent-Lok's legal fees.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from SD Bob wrote 2 years 33 weeks ago

Several commented about using a little common sense, try this...A dog's sense of smell is exponentially better than a deer, so why do we use a dog's nose to determine whether a deer can detect enough of your odor for it to become concerned? Another fact, the dogs used for these tests are trained to react to the smell of people similar to how my dog is trained to react to the smell of upland birds. Ever watch an untrained bird dog react to bird scent? Take a dog not trained to react to the scent of people and watch how they react. Sure, nothing is foolproof but if you think a deer will always turn tail at the hint of any human odor, your reading too much and not hunting enough! I unequivocally know they work at reducing my odor from spending time in a tree stand, not because I read the propaganda.

-1 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

bmxbiz-fs