Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
09-25-2007 | 08:21 AM
#111
Boone & Crockett
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 11,682
Likes: 0
From: Michigan/Ohio
RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
ORIGINAL: Dr Andy
Someone here mentioned that the loser of the lawsuit should pay expenses. This is how it's done in England. The problem with that system is if you are truly injured,and are poor, you might not be able to afford to sue. If you lose,even if you were right, you could lose everything you have. In this scenario only the wealthy could afford to sue. Not a solution either!
Someone here mentioned that the loser of the lawsuit should pay expenses. This is how it's done in England. The problem with that system is if you are truly injured,and are poor, you might not be able to afford to sue. If you lose,even if you were right, you could lose everything you have. In this scenario only the wealthy could afford to sue. Not a solution either!
09-25-2007 | 08:22 AM
#112
Banned
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,145
Likes: 0
From: IOWA/25' UP
RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
I have read page after page on hunting forums where guys refuse to acknowledge the SCIENTIFIC FACTS regarding carbon and its' ability to be reactivated. They always make statements that it "Gives them confidence" or " The clothes are good quality so who cares whether it works or not". Why should a consumer pay extra for carbon clothing, when science says it can't be reactivated in a homeowners dryer? Imagine all the sweaty guys with cologne on trying those Scentlok clothes on in a sporting goods store, while their nagging perfume laced wife, holding their child with a crappy diaper, watches dad try on the carbon clothing. What little carbon in that clothing is saturated with odor before it even gets to the woods. If a rabbit foot in your pocket gives you confidence, go for it, but please don't tell me that the rabbits foot gave you an edge when it came to hunting whitetails. The info is readily available on carbon and how to reactivate it. If you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the facts, then you are a lost cause.
On another note, I don't believe that these guys are out to get rich by suing Scentlok. I think that they are educated men that know the facts on carbon and think that enough is enough when it comes to duping the hunting public.
On another note, I don't believe that these guys are out to get rich by suing Scentlok. I think that they are educated men that know the facts on carbon and think that enough is enough when it comes to duping the hunting public.
09-25-2007 | 08:34 AM
#113
Giant Nontypical
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 7,571
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
ORIGINAL: hardcorehunter
I have read page after page on hunting forums where guys refuse to acknowledge the SCIENTIFIC FACTS regarding carbon and its' ability to be reactivated. They always make statements that it "Gives them confidence" or " The clothes are good quality so who cares whether it works or not". Why should a consumer pay extra for carbon clothing, when science says it can't be reactivated in a homeowners dryer? Imagine all the sweaty guys with cologne on trying those Scentlok clothes on in a sporting goods store, while their nagging perfume laced wife, holding their child with a crappy diaper, watches dad try on the carbon clothing. What little carbon in that clothing is saturated with odor before it even gets to the woods. If a rabbit foot in your pocket gives you confidence, go for it, but please don't tell me that the rabbits foot gave you an edge when it came to hunting whitetails. The info is readily available on carbon and how to reactivate it. If you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the facts, then you are a lost cause.
On another note, I don't believe that these guys are out to get rich by suing Scentlok. I think that they are educated men that know the facts on carbon and think that enough is enough when it comes to duping the hunting public.
I have read page after page on hunting forums where guys refuse to acknowledge the SCIENTIFIC FACTS regarding carbon and its' ability to be reactivated. They always make statements that it "Gives them confidence" or " The clothes are good quality so who cares whether it works or not". Why should a consumer pay extra for carbon clothing, when science says it can't be reactivated in a homeowners dryer? Imagine all the sweaty guys with cologne on trying those Scentlok clothes on in a sporting goods store, while their nagging perfume laced wife, holding their child with a crappy diaper, watches dad try on the carbon clothing. What little carbon in that clothing is saturated with odor before it even gets to the woods. If a rabbit foot in your pocket gives you confidence, go for it, but please don't tell me that the rabbits foot gave you an edge when it came to hunting whitetails. The info is readily available on carbon and how to reactivate it. If you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the facts, then you are a lost cause.
On another note, I don't believe that these guys are out to get rich by suing Scentlok. I think that they are educated men that know the facts on carbon and think that enough is enough when it comes to duping the hunting public.
If you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the facts, then you are a lost cause.
Both sides seem to believe they are right and have what they believeare facts and"Scientific Evidence".
09-25-2007 | 09:07 AM
#115
Nontypical Buck
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,188
Likes: 0
From: Balt, MD (orig: J-town,PA) The bowels of Hell!!!
RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
The issue I have with them suing is why buy the stuff in the first place?
My issue isn't if it works or not. Mine is that it's just not needed if you do everything right to begin with. People have been killing deer at close range for a long time before scent proof clothing.
I agree with hardcore on the fact that guys buy the stuff off the shelf, then hang it in a closet, take it out, put it on, drive to their hunting spot with the stuff on, maybe even stop for gas and/or breakfast and a coffee and then walk out in the woods and expect it to help them. it just isn't going to no matter what. Sure, your scent is held in check under the garmet but you have all sorts of scents now on the outside.
unless you climb inside a plastic bag with an oxygen tank you are not going to eliminate all odors.
My issue isn't if it works or not. Mine is that it's just not needed if you do everything right to begin with. People have been killing deer at close range for a long time before scent proof clothing.
I agree with hardcore on the fact that guys buy the stuff off the shelf, then hang it in a closet, take it out, put it on, drive to their hunting spot with the stuff on, maybe even stop for gas and/or breakfast and a coffee and then walk out in the woods and expect it to help them. it just isn't going to no matter what. Sure, your scent is held in check under the garmet but you have all sorts of scents now on the outside.
unless you climb inside a plastic bag with an oxygen tank you are not going to eliminate all odors.
09-25-2007 | 09:08 AM
#116
Banned
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,145
Likes: 0
From: IOWA/25' UP
RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
ORIGINAL: BobCo19-65
Both sides I'm sure will have to show their "Scientific Facts" in the case. That's good.
Just wondering.....Who exactly are you addressing in the above quote?
Both sides seem to believe they are right and have what they believeare facts and"Scientific Evidence".
ORIGINAL: hardcorehunter
I have read page after page on hunting forums where guys refuse to acknowledge the SCIENTIFIC FACTS regarding carbon and its' ability to be reactivated. They always make statements that it "Gives them confidence" or " The clothes are good quality so who cares whether it works or not". Why should a consumer pay extra for carbon clothing, when science says it can't be reactivated in a homeowners dryer? Imagine all the sweaty guys with cologne on trying those Scentlok clothes on in a sporting goods store, while their nagging perfume laced wife, holding their child with a crappy diaper, watches dad try on the carbon clothing. What little carbon in that clothing is saturated with odor before it even gets to the woods. If a rabbit foot in your pocket gives you confidence, go for it, but please don't tell me that the rabbits foot gave you an edge when it came to hunting whitetails. The info is readily available on carbon and how to reactivate it. If you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the facts, then you are a lost cause.
On another note, I don't believe that these guys are out to get rich by suing Scentlok. I think that they are educated men that know the facts on carbon and think that enough is enough when it comes to duping the hunting public.
I have read page after page on hunting forums where guys refuse to acknowledge the SCIENTIFIC FACTS regarding carbon and its' ability to be reactivated. They always make statements that it "Gives them confidence" or " The clothes are good quality so who cares whether it works or not". Why should a consumer pay extra for carbon clothing, when science says it can't be reactivated in a homeowners dryer? Imagine all the sweaty guys with cologne on trying those Scentlok clothes on in a sporting goods store, while their nagging perfume laced wife, holding their child with a crappy diaper, watches dad try on the carbon clothing. What little carbon in that clothing is saturated with odor before it even gets to the woods. If a rabbit foot in your pocket gives you confidence, go for it, but please don't tell me that the rabbits foot gave you an edge when it came to hunting whitetails. The info is readily available on carbon and how to reactivate it. If you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the facts, then you are a lost cause.
On another note, I don't believe that these guys are out to get rich by suing Scentlok. I think that they are educated men that know the facts on carbon and think that enough is enough when it comes to duping the hunting public.
If you choose to bury your head in the sand and ignore the facts, then you are a lost cause.
Both sides seem to believe they are right and have what they believeare facts and"Scientific Evidence".
09-25-2007 | 09:19 AM
#118
Dominant Buck
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 21,043
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
All people that choose tonot research carbon and its' inability to be regenerated in a homeowners' dryer.
So....you believe one scientist over another.....IF it fits your train of thought?....and dispel it if it doesn't?
If we went about life like that....the helicopter wouldn't be able to fly nor a bumble bee.
09-25-2007 | 09:23 AM
#120
Dominant Buck
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 21,043
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
These companies have shown proof that it can be reacitivated/ regenerated in the dryer?