I mean come on, do you really think everyone in the scent containment industry is a scam artist?

I will be glad to talk science with you too.. Regeneration of carbon clothing does not take high intense heats...YES reactivation does... but not regeneration...

Scent lok admitted they did their customers a disservice by phrasing their product as being reactivated. Instead they should have used regeneration.

Deer and Deer hunting did a nice article on it in the June 2005 issue..

when I first started wearing scent lok, and paying close attention to detail involving scent minimization..

SCENT ARTICLES

Search and Rescue Dogs of Colorado, Inc. P.O. Box 1036 Ft. Collins, CO 80522-1036


Feature article

This issue of Scent Articles features an article submitted and written by John Shivik. It is the summary of a research project he did utilizing several of our search dogs. Studying the ability of search and rescue dogs by John Shivik, National Wildlife Research Center, and Northern Regional Director, SARDOC There are many anecdotes about the amazing capabilities of scenting dogs for law enforcement and search and rescue work. One study reported on a dog that could distinguish between twins and even track a subject through a field that has been contaminated by the subject’s identical twin and three other family members. Other reports and opinions, however, highlight the limits of dogs’ tracking and scent discrimination capabilities. For example, some studies showed that scent discriminating dogs are able to correctly identify a subject based on scent much better than by random chance, but that they are not perfect: error rates are usually around 10-20%. Another study using explosive detection dogs found that they had an impressive, but far from perfect, 86% detection rate of explosive mines. Most authors agree that dogs have the ability to detect small quantities of scent, but some scientists have recently questioned the use of scenting dogs, especially scent discriminating dogs, in important forums such as criminal court.Understandably, anyone who is the defendant in a court case, the handler behind a mine detection dog, or the subject of a search effort wants to be confident that scenting dogs indicate only correct evidence and don’t miss any important clues. When training dogs for search and rescue, we also need to be confident of our dogs’ ability to efficiently find the correct subject. Therefore, we need to determine what conditions are likely to influence search dog abilities. We must ask two questions: 1) what is the limit of our search dogs’ abilities (how far and well can they detect a subject under optimum conditions, i.e., the maximum ability to detect) and 2) what are the factors that limit the dogs’ ability (what things, e.g. subject clothing or weather factors, can keep the dog from detecting a subject and how much do these factors affect search dog ability)? With this knowledge we can form strategies in training, searching, and estimating probability of detection that will allow us to maximize our effectiveness by counteracting the factors that limit our dogs. I initiated this study for a few reasons: 1) to improve my knowledge of search dog capability, 2) because studying the sensory capability of canids is part of my job, 3) because of an honest curiosity about the subject, and 3) because Jayne was wondering if she should add one of these flattering suits to her hunting wardrobe and needed advice. Therefore, I performed a study to determine if odor-adsorbing clothing could hide people from the noses of search and rescue dogs. I purchased a suit that is touted as something that can conceal hunters from animals and is sold in many outdoor stores and catalogues. The suit is reportedly lined with activated charcoal that binds organic vapors released from the human body, making a human undetectable to mammalian noses. Study design The study design was relatively simple: I established two 100 x 100 m plots in an open field in Fort Collins. Each plot contained 10 randomly placed 53 x 61 x 122 cm cardboard boxes. Subjects were placed in randomly chosen boxes and plots, and were randomly assigned the experimental treatment (i.e., wearing a suit or wearing normal clothing). The boxes were used to conceal the subject so the handlers did not know where the subjects were or if they were wearing a suit or not. A trial consisted of placing the subject by driving them to the box they were to occupy, having them wait inside for 5-10 min, and then having the dog team work the area in a fine-grid search pattern. Each of the seven dogs used was tested three times during January-April, 2001 using a different subject (two female and one male) for each trial. I measured the time it took for the dogs to indicate which box contained the subject and recorded weather data during the trial (temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, atmospheric pressure, percent cloud cover, and the circular standard deviation of wind direction—a measure of wind variability). Subject wearing an odor- adsorbing suit. Subjects wore the jacket, pants, gloves, breath mask, and hood. Results The results were interesting. Of the 42 trials run, I was happy to determine that none of the dogs ever indicated an incorrect box. Trials lasted between a few seconds and the duration of the 10-minute trial. The average time it took to find the subject, whether or not they were wearing the suit, did not very significantly. Sometimes the dogs found the person wearing the suit faster, and other times they found the plain-clothed subject more quickly. Therefore, I concluded that the suits did not limit the dogs’ ability to find the subject. I did some fairly fancy statistics to determine which weather factors had the most influence on the dogs, and found that the wind variability was the most important factor, accounting for as much as 58% of the time it took to find a subject in some trials. Other weather data, such as atmospheric pressure, was also positively correlated with the time it took to find the subject, but did not seem to be as important as wind variability. Overall, there were no obvious trends in dog perfor- mance: the time it took to find the subjects was statistically indistinguishable between dogs. Implications for handlers In regards to the odor-adsorbing suit, the results may provide an interesting story to relay during public demonstra- tions. Also, in an actual mission, if the subject was a hunter wearing an odor-adsorbing suit, handlers should not worry about the ability of the dogs to detect the subject. If the suits are effective at all, it’s likely to be too little to keep the dogs from detecting the lost person. I suspect that they won’t limit deer ability to smell people either, and that it’s probably best for Jayne not to buy one (unless she likes the alluring appearance of the garment as opposed to its supposed scent-adsorbing capability). The weather analysis may be a little more useful for handlers. Although the geographical scale of this study was small (many times handlers had to hold back the dogs, which were alerting before we could get to the boundary of the study plots), I was able to determine that wind variability was positively and strongly correlated with the time it took to find a subject (i.e., the more swirly the winds were, the longer it took to make the find). Handlers who have suffered through days when wind-indicator flagging swirled in every direction and an efficient search strategy and find were difficult probably expected this result. There was some evidence that atmospheric pressure was also positively correlated with the time it took to find the subject; the chemists that I’ve talked to feel that lower atmospheric pressure may make the odiferous chemicals more apparent to the dogs; just as the lower pressure at higher elevations makes water release vapor and boil easier, lower atmospheric pressure should make the compounds the dogs detect more volatile. For handlers, the variability of the wind (and perhaps atmospheric pressure) is an important factor to monitor before choosing grid size and estimating the probability of detection. This study was successful in that it helped me to formalize and quantify search dog ability scientifically. Because the Scent Articles is not the most appropriate forum for a detailed description of the study methods and results, I plan to publish a technical paper about the experiment in a scientific journal. I will be certain to provide reprints to SARDOC, but the peer-review process is long and arduous, so if anyone would like to discuss details of the study before then, please contact me and I can provide more information. Relaying information to the public is important too, and when speaking at demonstrations, it is important to acknowl- edge the amazing capabilities and usefulness of well-trained dogs. For handlers, however, it is also extremely important to strive to identify the weaknesses in capability that may be due to individual or environmental variability or training. By testing ourselves constantly, and pushing the limits of training, we will be able to produce the most capable dogs that will perform flawlessly when it really counts—when lives are at stake.

ORIGINAL: mobowhuntr

All it looks like to me is just another article that you hold no faith in. Well......unless it is written in your favor....

I plan to publish a technical paper about the experiment in a scientific journal

ORIGINAL: mobowhuntr

But it doesn't PROVE anything. I mean, you gotta remember, this is the internet. How do I know they didn't write that paper up and display it on the web?? People can write a paper and put anything at all on it. Doesn't prove a thing to me.
This is my last post on the topic. I am becoming bored with it.