February 22, 2012
Nose Jammer Put To The Test, Part II
According to the rumor mill, there are some folks in the industry wondering, “What the heck does Hurteau have against Nose Jammer?” Not much, really. Other than the fact that it promises something that to me seems both patently ridiculous and empirically untrue, the stuff is innocuous enough and may indeed give hunters an advantage in the woods.
Yes, I do wish the marketers of scent-control products in particular would lay off the insultingly overblown claims; we all remember, as reader RS08 pointed out in the last post, “Forget the wind, just hunt.”
But the truth is, I was relieved to find, based on my tests, that Nose Jammer does not “Jam Big Game Animals’ Ability to Smell.” Thank goodness. If it did, I would have a much more serious objection. So as long as you take the can’s explicit claim with a grain of salt and buy it as a cover scent, I say God bless. Purchase it by the case and envelop yourself in a sweet cloud of vanillin.
But anyone who uses Nose Jammer believing it actually jams noses really should consider the fair-chase implications. It’s one thing to try to cover your own scent; it’s another to introduce an agent to the environment that handicaps the deer, depriving them of one of their most critical natural defenses. If that’s fair chase, maybe wildlife agencies—who are often keen on ways to harvest more deer—could start sponsoring trap-and-release programs to surgically remove deer noses, and we could finally put an end to this whole inconvenience of the sport requiring woodsmanship and skill. Yes, we’d have to take out their eyes and ears, too. But one thing at a time.
Meanwhile, to those of you using it as a cover scent, more power to you. Just don’t be upset if I show up at your stand asking for a cookie.