RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

i find it funny tat that happens right around the time the patanit is denided

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

No, unless the knife was faulty causing you to stab yourself or impale yourself allowing you to sue for medical expenses and other punitives. You can only sue for damages you incurred, in this case, $20.

I have no problems with this lawsuit. Let it play out. IMO Scent Lok is making false claims, but that is just the way they worded their slogan.

People on here have said we live in a sue-happy society. To some degree I would concur, but we also live in a society where people try to scam other people out of money. If Scent Lok is indeed scamming, and they were fully knowledgeable of their scam, then they should pay the price, whatever that is.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

Very interesting. Another story.

http://www.kare11.com/news/ts_article.aspx?storyid=265815

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

the guys suing are money hungry aholes ,scent lok works excellent i guarantee there r many hunters as myself that would testify for that fact,go SCENT LOK

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

i have no proplem with any lawsuit that is true if someoen sells youa knife that needs o sharpeningand it causes you to cut yourself then you shouldsue if you buy a suit that cot 1000 dollar to kill your scent and it costyou a deer because it does not work not that i am sayingscent lok does not work i do not know
then you should sue

asfor the always sharp knifes i bought a knife kit from te tv ad for the showtime knife set from ronco that never need sharpening but they do and one of the knifes called the slice and serve i think that is made for chopping got dint and pits in it and i had to spend half anhour sharpning because they tell you if get goes dall there send you a new one ya they will after you mail the old one in with 5.00 each knife

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

exactly. there nothing but a bunch of low- life scum, who happened to see an opportunity. if they do win all of you pro sue guys will see what damages come from it. there's many other people just like these minnesota guys lookin for handouts. maybe a past poster on here was right, maybe they will question the credibility of realtree or mossyoak to camoflauge hunters from deer. haha.you'll all be eatin a big plate of crow.companies get sued and prices go up. maybe all camoflauge will cost as much as scentlok one day.
my main point on this topic is that america is a great coiuntry and people exploit it everyday.there's a fine line between having the right to do something and doing the right thing.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

I will start off saying that I have not used scent lock at all, and do not plan on using it. The guys that say it works and are willing to pay the money for it probably have success in it. They are also the same guys that practice total scent control and that helps the most IMO. The guys that do not say it work probably are the ones that sweat all day, put on the suit and want to be scent free only to get busted. I think it is a scent control programthat the hunter uses that is important. I do not know if they have anything else in them to help with scent other then carbon. But from what a friend at work said the suit has to do with the claims related to the carbon. I had a saltwater aquarium and did lost of reading on activated carbon. Anyone who knows about carbon knows that what they say about it is false. The temperatures that carbon has to get to to be reactivated, even a little are far above what a cloths dryer could do. And even if it could be reactivated in your dryer, then congratulations, you go hunting smelling like everything in your laundry room. Carbon also only works when you have a solid, compacted layer of it that the air has to pass through, the sprinkle that they put in the suit does nothing. Again, I think it comes down to scent control the old fashioned way. Scent free soap and keeping your cloths free and outside in a outdoors environment. I don't wash every time right before I go out, or store my cloths with leaves. But I try to be conscious about it. They make fine clothing, but it is false what they say about the carbon.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

Forgot to add, I do not think suing and making people lose there jobs is the way to go. It would be nice to see a point made, but millions of dollars going to rich lawyers does not help the guy working at the factory trying to feed his family IMO.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

The good Dr has a point. Everyone should know you have to question the claims in today's marketing of any product. How many broadhead's claim to fly like field points? Under perfect conditions and a well tuned bow, they do. Scent proof clothing have special directions for use and if you follow them percisely, is there a benefit? Who knows. I've been in situations where I thought it made a difference and then in others well I thought it was all bunk. A well respected hunter once told me he's tried every product for scent elmination since the early 70s and the only thing that he could recommend is pure skunk urine, if you can stand the stench. Consumers have to do their own due diligence and make their own decisions based on the information available to them. Luckily, we have a great testing ground and information exchange for hunters here at HNI.Especially by those of us (me included) who jump atthe newest technology in the sport.

RE: Minnesota Hunters Sue Scent Lok
 

I'm mostly with gamespooker on this one.

Atlas, this is not personal health (the FDA) or the finance industry (SEC). It is hunting equipment.

The hunting industry is rife with product embellishments, misleading advertising, unjustified
endorsements, and get a big deer quick and easy pitches. It is a gadget intense industry, and if
you want to spend your extra $$$ on something due to advertising than so be it.

This isn't grandma's prescription drug that causes her heart problems. You need to have a frame
of reference when considering the potential harm caused by any fraud or misleading statements.
It is like suing a toy maker because it didn't "provide hours and hours of enjoyment for your tyke" or
they didn't grow up to be "Einstein" after you bought all those boring dvds for them.