blacktailslayer

RMEF Calls on Congress to Reform Endangered Species Act MISSOULA, Mont.—The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is calling for immediate Congressional review and reform of the Endangered Species Act following a judge’s decision yesterday to reinstate full federal protection for gray wolves. The Aug. 5 ruling means state wildlife agencies no longer have authority to manage skyrocketing wolf populations—even in areas where wolf predation is driving cow elk, moose and elk calf survival rates below thresholds needed to sustain herds for the future. RMEF says the judge has opened a door for perhaps the greatest wildlife management disaster in America since the wanton destruction of bison herds over a century ago. “When federal statutes and judges actually endorse the annihilation of big game herds, livestock, rural and sporting lifestyles—and possibly even compromise human safety—then clearly the Endangered Species Act as currently written has major flaws,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We have already begun contacting the Congressional delegations of Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to ask for an immediate review of this travesty—and reform of the legislation that enabled it.” Allen pointed out an irony, if not an outright error, in the decision issued by U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy. “Judge Molloy said wolves in the northern Rockies are a single population that cannot be segmented based on political boundaries. But he essentially did that very thing himself, because he considered only the wolf population within the U.S. There are 75,000-plus gray wolves across Canada, yet Judge Molloy stopped at the border and did not consider the entire Rocky Mountain population. The gray wolf is simply not an endangered species,” said Allen. Animal rights groups who continue to litigate over wolves are “gaming the system for their own financial benefit,” he added, saying, “There are no elk in Iowa, but we are not suing folks to reintroduce them. This is simply a financial scam for the animal rights groups, and it’s all being paid for by the American taxpayer.” Additionally, Allen urged the governors in Idaho, Montana and Wyoming to begin the process of formally implementing “the 10(j) rule” as provided within federal law. For all species reintroductions classified as a “nonessential, experimental population,” as is the case with gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act, the 10(j) rule allows states more flexibility to mitigate for unacceptable impacts on big game populations, livestock and domestic animals.

I think you need to keep up with what is happening in the whole court case with those products. I just posted another thread on the newest stuff. I can even email people more information that has just come up in the courts this past week.

Has anyone heard about this? Quote: Finally The Truth About Carbon Clothing? “Finally the real truth about carbon clothing may be released. In a subpoena issued to Scent Blocker by Scentlok on July 15, 2010 to force Scent Blocker to make available all their sealed information and testing to the public. This is interesting in that Scentlok sealed all their depositions and testing from the public during their trial but now when it’s to their advantage they want the public to know. Interesting.(Attached is page 10 of the subpoena where Scentlok states that the public’s right to know overcomes Scent Blockers right to seal their testimony and testing) The only way for the public will learn the truth is through the release of testing details and deposition testimony. Through the few details that have been released we have learned that inspite of Scentlok and Scent Blocker’s claims the court has found them guilty of not telling the truth. They have been hiding from the public what they have known and have made million’s. Now with this new court case with the two companies now fighting among themselves the public should finally see the truth about carbon. Just the basic fact already revealed that there is only 23% coverage of carbon covering that is sealed to the fabric with adhesive makes Scentlok effective in doing anything to control human odor as Sentlok’s own expert testified under oath.”

Has anyone heard anything about this? Quote: "I guess you saw the superior statement from Scent Blocker. That statement earned then a lawsuit in Minnesota. They essential laughed in the face of the court. On June 23,2010 a new lawsuit was filed against them im Minnesota District court.(0:2010cv02584)."

Here is another little article I got sent to me. Quote: Scent Wars “The first volley in the war between Scent Blocker and Scentlok was sent by Scent Blocker in a news release to Hunting Net News. All over the internet and on most of the hunting blogs are postings stating that the Federal Court has found that Scent Blocker products are superior. Superior to what ? This was never stated by the court or is part of the settlement agreement. Despite entering into a settlement agreement in 9 separate lawsuits filed against Scentlok and their CEO Scott Schultz to avoid being found guilty. Scent Blocker took advantage of the court by presenting some false data that they told the court showed that Scent blocker was superior to Scentlok. Scent Blocker presented to the court a testing program done by the University of Minnesota and claiming to the court that Hextane related to human odor. A careful study reveals “ hextanes are significant constituents of gasoline. They are all colorless liquids at room temperature with boiling points between 50 and 70 degrees C with gasoline like odors. They are widely used as cheap, relatively safe , largely unreactive and easily evaporated non-polar solvents.”( Wikipedia) Sent Blocker specifically chose Hextane to use for testing purposes because it fit into the temperatures of a home dryer. Just as Scentlok had used EMA’s as their testing compound with Intertek Scent Blockers sole effort was to fool the hunter into actually believing that the product worked on human odor. The testing had nothing to do with human odors with boiling points of compounds that are higher than reached in a dryer. By testing against Scentlok , which has already been found guilty, Scent Blocker is trying to increase their market share. The bottom line is that although Scent Blocker for years relied on Scentloks patents and testing to bring their product to market, paid thousands of dollars in royalities has now chosen to try to undermine their competition with some very false and misleading statements to the court and the public. The is an old saying “ you shall know the truth and the truth will set you free “ Scent Blocker and CEO Schultz know full well that their product has been tested ,using their directions , and failed to stop enough human odor to keep a search and rescue dog from finding an individual in their clothing using their sprays as well. It seems that after making millions at the expense of hunter’s the truth would be refreshing.”

I just read some new information. Anyone else hear about this? Quote: "Scent Blocker’s Schultz makes a mockery out of US District Court Ruling. Schultz the CEO of Robinson entered into a settlement agreement for his company and personally that was issued by the US District Court. Scent blocker and Schultz were sued in regard’s from the marketing of carbon lined clothing. The parties stipulated to this final order for settlement. The findings stipulated herein are for settlement purposes only. The parties have agreed ….. except for the performance of the settlement obligations. Schultz is quoted in a release to Hunting News that the Court has found Scent Blocker’s products superior. The whole article is full of half- truths and falsehoods. They were sued for false advertising not how their product performed and the court in its decision never stated about how their products actually worked. For Schultz to make the statements he did to Hunting Net shows contempt for the hunting public and he knows these statements are not true. It is becoming, in my opinion, that the truth is lost in the search for the almighty dollar. The media and the magazines are not interested in whether a product actually works but only in the revenues it can produce. They failed to do any amount of checking to see if the claims made by carbon clothing makers are accurate and true. One program gave Scentlok a full half hour to spread the claims that the US District Court found to be false. The media is largely responsible for where we find ourselves today. Human Odor Testing by Scentlok and Scent Blocker In order to show how effective carbon was in reducing human odor in clothing these company’s chose to do what they call” independent testing” even though they paid for the testing. Scentlok hired Intertek labs to do their testing and the compound that they chose to test was EMA (Ethyl Methylamine- which has a low boiling point of 97-99 degrees) Scent Blocker went to the University of Minnesota and chose Hexane to test which in turn has a boiling point of 158 degrees. Why EMA and Hexane were chosen was because they had boiling points the fit into the temperature of a home dryer not because of any real relationship to human odor. Essentially what Scentlok and then Scent Blocker did was to rig the test to get the results they wanted, to fool the hunting public that their products worked despite the courts clear ruling that they did not."

I just read this somewhere. Does anyone know anything about this? Quote: "Independent testing ? Scent blocker is now claiming that they have done independent testing to prove how effective their product is reducing odor (Not Human) They choose Hexane to use in the testing. According to Wikipedia” hexanes are significant constituents of gasoline. They are colorless liquids at room temperature with boiling points between 122 and 158 with gasoline like odor. ( Carefully chosen to fit into the dryer temperature. Just as Scentlok chose EMA with a boiling point of 96 in the Intertek testing.) They are widely used as cheap , relatively safe , largely unreactive , and easily evaporated non-polar solvents. “ It has always surprised me why these companies chose to use compounds other than human odor for testing purposes and then turn around and state their findings. Scott Schulz knows better than anyone that when his product is tested with animals it fails miserably as revealed in the Fox Investigative report and other test that he is aware of. Yet Haxane is proof positive of the superior product that they claim to have even it has nothing to do with human odor. Why won’t a hunter with a chemist background like Lee Lakosky come out and be honest and upfront with the hunting public ? We know from the transcripts that he notified Scentlok that their product was not working and he was being winded."

I would agree that the scent blocker works right after it is made. I would assume they used new clothing in the court case. Now after the clothing is full of odor; how much can the clothing hold then? Is it only 5% of what it could hold after the first wash and then only 1% after the second wash? That is a question I would like to know the answer to. Quote: "What is this "huge" difference? No carbon filter can be regenerated or reactivated in a household dryer, period. Since you say it is "fact" I would love to see the published data that proves Scentblocker's carbon can be regenerated or reactivated at temps anywhere near the low temps dryers are able to reach. I can very easily provide the facts and references for the use of activated carbon as a VOC filter and trust me...those will not back up the use of carbon as a filter in clothing once the carbon is spent. Like I said..show me the data, not a statement. By data...I mean real life, unbiased scientific data. If Scentblocker really had a way to reactivate carbon at low temperatures they would forget the hunting market and be a giant in the environmental field. This would mean that they have figured out what all other engineers and scientists around the world have not been able to figure out and utilize in the real life use of activated carbon as VOC filters. If I had a real dog in the fight it would be very easy to set up a controlled experiment to show just how quickly any of the carbon clothing manufacturer's clothing is rendered useless for filtering out VOCs...and how a dryer does nothing to change that...but I don't care that much about it. A swatch of fabric, a VOC medium in a glass container, and a PID with timed detections of VOCs passing thru the fabric...pretty easy experiement. Wash and dry according to directions and repeat. Hmmm... I said in this thread early on that no matter what the reality of activated carbon reactivation and regeneration is...there are plenty of convinced hunters that will continue to purchase because they just believe that somehow their clothes defy what is known about carbon filters. I have also said many times, and still say that I believe if the carbon clothing companies can continue to make money, more power to them." Robin@AimLow

Here is something the people from Scent-lok and Scent Blocker along with all the celebrities should have known about. It may have saved them all the trouble and money they are going through by loosing their court cases on their products. For Release: 10/05/2009 FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials Changes Affect Testimonial Advertisements, Bloggers, Celebrity Endorsements The Federal Trade Commission today announced that it has approved final revisions to the guidance it gives to advertisers on how to keep their endorsement and testimonial ads in line with the FTC Act. The notice incorporates several changes to the FTC’s Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising, which address endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations, and celebrities, as well as the disclosure of important connections between advertisers and endorsers. The Guides were last updated in 1980. Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of the Guides – which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as “results not typical” – the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor. The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims. Celebrity endorsers also are addressed in the revised Guides. While the 1980 Guides did not explicitly state that endorsers as well as advertisers could be liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement – or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers. The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media. The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act. The Commission vote approving issuance of the Federal Register notice detailing the changes was 4-0. The notice will be published in the Federal Register shortly, and is available now on the FTC’s Web site as a link to this press release. Copies also are available from the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,700 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s Web site provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. (FTC File No. P034520) (endorsement testimonial guide.wpd)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Mike Buetow, Gary Steven Richardson, Jr., Joe Rohrbach, Jeff Brosi, and Dennis Deeb, individually on behalf of themselves and all other Minnesota residents and entities similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Civ. No. 07-3970 (RHK/JJK) INJUNCTION v. A.L.S. Enterprises, Inc., Cabela’s Inc., Cabela’s Wholesale, Inc., and Gander Mountain Co., Defendants. On May 13, 2010, the Court issued an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 335). In that Order, the Court found several of Defendants’ advertisements to be literally false, holding permanent injunctive relief to be appropriate under the Minnesota Consumer Fraud Act and the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act. Pursuant to the Court’s Order, Plaintiffs have filed and served a proposed Order Regarding Injunctive Relief and Defendants have submitted objections thereto. As discussed in more detail in the Court’s Order, Defendants have published numerous advertisements promoting their carbon-embedded clothing. Almost all of these advertisements utilize the slogans “odor-eliminating technology” or “odor-eliminating clothing.” Many utilize phrases such as “eliminates all types of odor” and “odor elimination,” or assert that the clothing can eliminate “100% of your scent” or “all human odor,” thus making the wearer “scent-free.” Some advertisements utilize graphics indicating that odor cannot escape carbon-embedded fabric. Additionally, Defendants have published advertisements stating that their carbon-embedded clothing can be reactivated to “like new” or “pristine” condition. Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ experts agree that carbon-embedded clothing cannot eliminate odor. The experts also agree that carbon-embedded clothing, once saturated with odor, cannot be reactivated to “like new” or “pristine” condition. Accordingly, Defendants’ advertising described above and set forth in detail in the Court’s Order is literally false as a matter of law. Based on the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, it is ORDERED that: 1. Defendants A.L.S. Enterprises, Inc., Cabela’s, Inc., Cabela’s Wholesale, Inc., and Gander Mountain Co., or anyone that advertises on their behalf at any Defendant’s direction and within any Defendant’s control,1 are enjoined from publishing in Minnesota any advertisement that reasonably may be viewed by customers, including, but not limited to, print (including product packaging, accessories packaging (such as sprays, socks, or other accessories that include the slogans “odor-eliminating technology” or “odor-eliminating clothing”), catalogs, point-of-1 To the extent that Defendants’ advertisements are now distributed to third parties and are therefore outside Defendants’ control, the underlying Injunction does not apply. Sale (including banners and display cases) or sales training materials, logos, hangtags, graphics, clothing tags, and sewn-in labels), television, video, radio, or internet advertising that contains the following language: a. Any statement or claim, whether in words or pictures, that carbonembedded clothing is odor-eliminating technology, an odor-eliminating product, or that it can eliminate odor, or can make the wearer of the product or the air coming from the wearer “scent free”, “odor free”, or otherwise quantify any odor reduction as complete or removed in its entirety;2 or b. Any statement or claim, whether in words or pictures, that carbonembedded clothing can be reactivated or regenerated to “like new” or “pristine” condition or otherwise represent that all odor can be removed from the product. 2. Defendants shall remove depictions from websites (including but not limited to www.scentlok.com, www.scentlokscience.com, www.gandermountain.com, and www.cabelas.com), and physically from retail stores, all advertising, including clothing, hangtags, accessories (sprays, tote bags and washes), logo wear (hats, shirts, etc.), decals, license plates, posters, banners, display cases, and other similar items that contain the words or phrases prohibited in paragraphs 1(a) or 1(b) above. 2 Several of Defendants’ advertisements use the slogans “odor-eliminating technology” or “odoreliminating clothing,” but further qualify this language with words or phrases indicating that carbon-embedded clothing cannot eliminate odor. These advertisements were not found by the Court to be literally false. The Court notes that qualifying language must be clear and conspicuous in order to prevent advertisements containing prohibited language from running afoul of this Injunction. 3. Defendants shall fully comply with this Injunction on or before July 30, 2010, and file with the Court a sworn statement, titled “Proof of Compliance,” signed by an officer of each Defendant and its attorney, stating that all materials (written, electronic, video, sound) and products containing the false advertising have been removed from commerce. Such Proof of Compliance shall detail the steps taken by the Defendants to assure that their false advertising is no longer in commerce. Dated: June 17, 2010 s/Richard H. Kyle RICHARD H. KYLE United States District Judge Case 0:07-cv-03970-RHK-JJK Document 346 Filed 06/17/10 Page 4 of 4

Well it looks like "Scent-Lok Technology" is missing in action after the truth came out and Scent-lok refuses to release the sealed evidence from the lawsuit to the public.

Here is a list of other home remedies that can help the hunter further their scent-free tactics for the hunt. Body odor can be under control in 3 days by adding 5-10 drops of Rose Water to bath water and soak for at least 15 minutes.Serious body odor can be controlled by adding 3 cups of tomato juice to bath water and soak for at least 15 minutes. It is recommended to rinse and exfoliate after one of these or any bath/shower to rid dead cells off body and then use non-scented soap to finish showering. The following remedies below can also help total body odor. Bad Breath Causes: ·Alcohol ·Stress ·Diet/Food ·Dehydration ·Milk intolerance ·Poor Digestion ·Imbalance of Good and Bad Bacteria in the Gut ·Dental Problems ·Smoking ·Medications like decongestants and diuretics Changes to Make: Oral Hygiene ·Brush teeth/tongue and floss ·Get teeth cleaned and cavities filled at dentist ·Use Hydrogen Peroxide as mouth wash ·Brush gums and tongue with powdered cloves or myrrh ·Brush tongue with antibacterial products like chlorhexidine Dietary ·Eliminate or reduce high-fat and high-protein foods because they can be hard to digest and give off gas. ·Eliminate acidic foods that create great places for bacterial growth. ·Eliminate or reduce sugars because bacteria feed off the sugar. ·Garlic, onions, and exotic spices (Ex. Curry) can have compounds exhaled for 24 hours in your breath. ·Cut out cheeses (blue, camembert, and Roquefort) and canned tuna and anchovies. ·Cut out acidic drinks like coffee and tea. ·Eat more fruit like kiwi, papaya, and pineapple along with vegetables (green is better). Supplements ·Vitamin B & C, along with Zinc can help bad breath. Digestive System ·Yogurt, Acidophilus, or Bifidus can add beneficial bacteria and improve digestive system. ·Decreasing hydrochloric acid comes with age and can be fixed with taking a tablespoon of apple cider vinegar before each meal or take betaine or pepsin tablets to help digestion. ·Drink plenty of water. ·Eat plenty of fiber. Cures ·Apple cider vinegar before meals. ·Brush teeth with baking soda or baking soda/hydrogen peroxide paste. ·Take charcoal tablets. ·Gargle hydrogen peroxide or salt water. ·Take alfalfa tablets. ·Chew anise (licorice flavored seed), cardamom, dill, or fennel seeds. ·Take Chlorophyll and/or Spirulina in liquid or tablet form. ·Drink Wheat Grass with water on an empty stomach. ·Eating filberts (hazelnuts) absorbs bad breath. ·Chewing mint, parsley, basil, rosemary, thyme, and wintergreen help bad breath. ·Suck on a lemon with salt on it. ·Dissolve Silicea tablets under tongue twice a day. Foot Odor Cures ·Soak feet for 30 minutes in 1 teaspoon or Alum and 1 or 2 gallons of water. ·Soak feet in Apple Cider Vinegar with warm water. ·Pour Baking Soda in socks and boots. ·Take Zinc tablets. Sweaty Hands Cures ·Witch hazel or alcohol wipes wiped on hands will shrink pores and reduce sweating. ·Drink Sage Tea. ·Take Zinc tablets.

Below is from a research article by the FBI: "Human scent has been historically defined as a biological component of decomposing dead skin cells, also known as the skin raft theory (Syrotuck 1972). Scent-dog handlers have relied on this theory, but it has had no supporting scientific basis. Current research suggests that human odor is more complex. Human Skin Emanation Research for Mosquito Attractiveness Research has been conducted to determine the components of human odor that is breathed out or is deposited by the skin, not for purposes of specialized canine use, but to identify a mosquito's attraction to human odor. In a study, test subjects transferred their odor by touch onto 2 to 25 2.9mm glass beads. On this small amount of surface area, 346 discernable peaks were detected by cryofocused gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer analyses. All but 43 component peaks were classified and identified (Bernier et al. 2000). " If you really want to see how hard it is to truly get rid of this thing we call scent, read this article : http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/fsc/backis...research03.htm

That looks great!

Field & Stream Article http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2010/05/bestul-scent-lok-found-guilty-false-advertising Outdoor Life Article http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/big-buck-zone/2010/05/scent-lok-showdown

Scent-Lok Class Action Download the Complaint: Minnesota | Illinois The consumer protection attorneys at Heins Mills & Olson are investigating consumer complaints involving Scent-Lok odor-eliminating clothing manufactured and sold by A.L.S Enterprises, Inc.; Cabela's, Inc; Gander Mountain Co.; Bass Pro Shops, Inc.; and Browning Arms Co. Heins Mills & Olson attorneys already represent several Minnesota and Illinois consumers who have filed complaints in Minnesota and Illinois Federal Court. Consumers have alleged that these companies defrauded the public by misrepresenting the efficacy of their products and the ability to regenerate the odor-eliminating properties of their products. Submit Your Complaint If you believe that your Scent-Lok odor-eliminating clothing does not perform as advertised, please click here to contact an attorney at Heins Mills & Olson experienced in consumer cases. There is no charge or obligation for our review of your case. About Heins Mills & Olson Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. is a national law firm that represents businesses and consumers in complex cases involving anti-competitive agreements and fraudulently marketed or labeled products. Our consumer protection attorneys are nationally recognized for their prosecution of complex class action lawsuits. Trademark Notice The companies listed above manufacture and sell odor-eliminating clothing under various trademarks that are the registered marks of those companies. The use of these marks is solely for product identification purposes. Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. is in no way affiliated with these companies or their trademarks. http://heinsmills.com/scent-lok.html

Well I just heard from someone that justia's website said Scentblocker and Scott Schultz just settled 9 lawsuits. There must be enough evidence for them to settle. Of course its all sealed from the public. They must know their product doesn't work. They just don't want us to see the real evidence. I wonder is Scent-lok will ever share the sealed evidence with the public. It is funny that they are still trying to claim their product works, but then hide all the scientific evidence and testing from the public. [/font]

I have heard nothing but great things about Hoyt bows. Good luck on your Canada bear hunt.

So why did they have the court seal the scientific testing? I guess Scent Lok has something to hide. Maybe if they want people to believe them; then they should allow the public to read the scientific testing used in the courts decision. Here is a letter sent to people asking questions about the case. Quote: "Thank you for contacting us about the recent Scent Lok decision. Contrary to some posts on internet forums, getting a refund or some other amount of money back (such as the extra amount you paid for Scent Lok over the cost of the same garment without Scent Lok) is not as simple as just contacting us. In the Minnesota case, the Court did not certify a class of Minnesota purchasers of Scent Lok clothing. So, the only way we can seek a refund for Minnesota hunters is if they hire us to represent them. As we have done with other hunters, if we decide to represent you, we would do so on a contingent basis, meaning that we will only get paid if we prevail. Proposed class action cases are pending for hunters in California, Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois, Maryland, Indiana, New York and Michigan. We will be moving the Court on July 2, 2010 for certification of classes of hunters in those states. If you live in one of these states and would like to join these cases, please let me know. If you would like us to represent you, either individually or a class representative for hunters in your state, please fill out this questionnaire. Then, we will give you a call to discuss. The Court has only issued an Order on the question of whether the products can eliminate odor. Many of you have asked whether the product can reduce odor, and, if so, how much. In the coming weeks, we will be posting on our website ( http://heinsmills.com/scent-lok.html ) information about this question and the question of how much the product can be reactivated. Much of the information in the lawsuit has been designated as “confidential” by defendants. We intend to ask the Court to unseal the scientific testing."

Here is a letter sent to people asking questions about the case. Quote: "Thank you for contacting us about the recent Scent Lok decision. Contrary to some posts on internet forums, getting a refund or some other amount of money back (such as the extra amount you paid for Scent Lok over the cost of the same garment without Scent Lok) is not as simple as just contacting us. In the Minnesota case, the Court did not certify a class of Minnesota purchasers of Scent Lok clothing. So, the only way we can seek a refund for Minnesota hunters is if they hire us to represent them. As we have done with other hunters, if we decide to represent you, we would do so on a contingent basis, meaning that we will only get paid if we prevail. Proposed class action cases are pending for hunters in California, Florida, Wisconsin, Illinois, Maryland, Indiana, New York and Michigan. We will be moving the Court on July 2, 2010 for certification of classes of hunters in those states. If you live in one of these states and would like to join these cases, please let me know. If you would like us to represent you, either individually or a class representative for hunters in your state, please fill out this questionnaire. Then, we will give you a call to discuss. The Court has only issued an Order on the question of whether the products can eliminate odor. Many of you have asked whether the product can reduce odor, and, if so, how much. In the coming weeks, we will be posting on our website (heinsmills.com/scent-lok.html) information about this question and the question of how much the product can be reactivated. Much of the information in the lawsuit has been designated as “confidential” by defendants. We intend to ask the Court to unseal the scientific testing."

Very well said Doc.

That is one sweet looking bow. I still need to get out and shot one.

I think Scent-lok would have been just fine if they never claimed people could hunt 360 degrees and that it covered 100% of human scent. They should have advertised like Primos does their scent control products. I don't have any problem if people still want to wear the clothing or if they think it makes them more successful. I would say keep it up and good luck. I just think people have the right to know that it does not work as claimed in all of their advertisments over the years. There were and probably still people out there that really believe in the false advertising and may see this on the internet for the very first time. I would assume realtree.com gets new members and people viewing the website for the first time every day. This is a thread for those people.

I just found this out for those that care. If you want to get your money back from Scent Lok, contact [email protected]. It is FREE. I have a link that talks about the case if anyone is interested.

I have never fallen for the ads and never have bought the products. I'm just sharing so hunters can read the truth. There are numerous new hunters that get on these websites every day that have no idea what has been going on. They have a right to know that these companies have lied about their products. I think the U.S. have come to think it is ok for companies to lie to consumers and say it is ok. I'm don't think it is right in any way. Look how well companies like "Primos" have advertise their scent control products. Those companies in the lawsuit should never have said 100% of the time.