May be we should
08-09-2008, 01:33 PM
#41
Typical Buck
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Becker County, MN
Posts: 550
RE: May be we should
ORIGINAL: bigtim6656
i think if you have 200 hunters wearing scent loc and 300 with out it and 150 of the scentloc guys get bucks. Then only 150 of the 300 guys with out the scent lock get a buck it would show it helps.
it is not a one person to one person thing but a large group of each that would show it works.
What would it hurt to do it i think there should be alot more looked ta though.
Tree stand or ground hunting blind or out in the open.
How far it was shot.
Time of year
where at in the country
in a field thicket or trail.
i think if you have 200 hunters wearing scent loc and 300 with out it and 150 of the scentloc guys get bucks. Then only 150 of the 300 guys with out the scent lock get a buck it would show it helps.
it is not a one person to one person thing but a large group of each that would show it works.
What would it hurt to do it i think there should be alot more looked ta though.
Tree stand or ground hunting blind or out in the open.
How far it was shot.
Time of year
where at in the country
in a field thicket or trail.
ORIGINAL: cooter144
So let me get this straight.
Lets say aguy who wears scentlock goes out and shoots a 80 inch buck this Fall...I on the other hand don't wear scentlok and decide to pass on all bucks that are under 125 inches or so and end up eating tag soup.
Your study would conclude the other guy had a more successful season than me since he shot a little buck and I didn't...AND that it was because he wore a scentlok suit
Keeping track of these numbers would prove absolutely nothing. Besides...science already proves that the suits cannot be reactivated.
So let me get this straight.
Lets say aguy who wears scentlock goes out and shoots a 80 inch buck this Fall...I on the other hand don't wear scentlok and decide to pass on all bucks that are under 125 inches or so and end up eating tag soup.
Your study would conclude the other guy had a more successful season than me since he shot a little buck and I didn't...AND that it was because he wore a scentlok suit
Keeping track of these numbers would prove absolutely nothing. Besides...science already proves that the suits cannot be reactivated.
Would you conclude that scentlok decreases someones chance of shooting a buck?
There are way to many factors involved to make any assumptions.
I wore scentlok suits for eight years until I decided it wasn't benefitting me in any way. If you don't play the wind and thermals right...deer willsmell you no matter what IMO.
BTW...the three biggest bucks on my wall were taken on years that I wasn't wearing scentlok.
08-09-2008, 01:49 PM
#42
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,867
RE: May be we should
i would figure if less people with the scentloc killed bucks it either did not work or did not work enough to help.
i do not think this would be a perfect study but i think the results would be enough to show weather it would or would not work.
If you do not belive it works what propelm would you have with doing the study.
i do not think this would be a perfect study but i think the results would be enough to show weather it would or would not work.
If you do not belive it works what propelm would you have with doing the study.
ORIGINAL: cooter144
Whatif the group that didn't use scentlok had a higher success rate than those that used it?
Would you conclude that scentlok decreases someones chance of shooting a buck?
There are way to many factors involved to make any assumptions.
I wore scentlok suits for eight years until I decided it wasn't benefitting me in any way. If you don't play the wind and thermals right...deer willsmell you no matter what IMO.
BTW...the three biggest bucks on my wall were taken on years that I wasn't wearing scentlok.
ORIGINAL: bigtim6656
i think if you have 200 hunters wearing scent loc and 300 with out it and 150 of the scentloc guys get bucks. Then only 150 of the 300 guys with out the scent lock get a buck it would show it helps.
it is not a one person to one person thing but a large group of each that would show it works.
What would it hurt to do it i think there should be alot more looked ta though.
Tree stand or ground hunting blind or out in the open.
How far it was shot.
Time of year
where at in the country
in a field thicket or trail.
i think if you have 200 hunters wearing scent loc and 300 with out it and 150 of the scentloc guys get bucks. Then only 150 of the 300 guys with out the scent lock get a buck it would show it helps.
it is not a one person to one person thing but a large group of each that would show it works.
What would it hurt to do it i think there should be alot more looked ta though.
Tree stand or ground hunting blind or out in the open.
How far it was shot.
Time of year
where at in the country
in a field thicket or trail.
ORIGINAL: cooter144
So let me get this straight.
Lets say aguy who wears scentlock goes out and shoots a 80 inch buck this Fall...I on the other hand don't wear scentlok and decide to pass on all bucks that are under 125 inches or so and end up eating tag soup.
Your study would conclude the other guy had a more successful season than me since he shot a little buck and I didn't...AND that it was because he wore a scentlok suit
Keeping track of these numbers would prove absolutely nothing. Besides...science already proves that the suits cannot be reactivated.
So let me get this straight.
Lets say aguy who wears scentlock goes out and shoots a 80 inch buck this Fall...I on the other hand don't wear scentlok and decide to pass on all bucks that are under 125 inches or so and end up eating tag soup.
Your study would conclude the other guy had a more successful season than me since he shot a little buck and I didn't...AND that it was because he wore a scentlok suit
Keeping track of these numbers would prove absolutely nothing. Besides...science already proves that the suits cannot be reactivated.
Would you conclude that scentlok decreases someones chance of shooting a buck?
There are way to many factors involved to make any assumptions.
I wore scentlok suits for eight years until I decided it wasn't benefitting me in any way. If you don't play the wind and thermals right...deer willsmell you no matter what IMO.
BTW...the three biggest bucks on my wall were taken on years that I wasn't wearing scentlok.
08-09-2008, 01:50 PM
#43
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,867
RE: May be we should
also i agree you should play the wind you should do everything you can with scent controll. i see no proplem with someone using scentloc even if it only helps 10% of what were told it does
ORIGINAL: cooter144
Whatif the group that didn't use scentlok had a higher success rate than those that used it?
Would you conclude that scentlok decreases someones chance of shooting a buck?
There are way to many factors involved to make any assumptions.
I wore scentlok suits for eight years until I decided it wasn't benefitting me in any way. If you don't play the wind and thermals right...deer willsmell you no matter what IMO.
BTW...the three biggest bucks on my wall were taken on years that I wasn't wearing scentlok.
ORIGINAL: bigtim6656
i think if you have 200 hunters wearing scent loc and 300 with out it and 150 of the scentloc guys get bucks. Then only 150 of the 300 guys with out the scent lock get a buck it would show it helps.
it is not a one person to one person thing but a large group of each that would show it works.
What would it hurt to do it i think there should be alot more looked ta though.
Tree stand or ground hunting blind or out in the open.
How far it was shot.
Time of year
where at in the country
in a field thicket or trail.
i think if you have 200 hunters wearing scent loc and 300 with out it and 150 of the scentloc guys get bucks. Then only 150 of the 300 guys with out the scent lock get a buck it would show it helps.
it is not a one person to one person thing but a large group of each that would show it works.
What would it hurt to do it i think there should be alot more looked ta though.
Tree stand or ground hunting blind or out in the open.
How far it was shot.
Time of year
where at in the country
in a field thicket or trail.
ORIGINAL: cooter144
So let me get this straight.
Lets say aguy who wears scentlock goes out and shoots a 80 inch buck this Fall...I on the other hand don't wear scentlok and decide to pass on all bucks that are under 125 inches or so and end up eating tag soup.
Your study would conclude the other guy had a more successful season than me since he shot a little buck and I didn't...AND that it was because he wore a scentlok suit
Keeping track of these numbers would prove absolutely nothing. Besides...science already proves that the suits cannot be reactivated.
So let me get this straight.
Lets say aguy who wears scentlock goes out and shoots a 80 inch buck this Fall...I on the other hand don't wear scentlok and decide to pass on all bucks that are under 125 inches or so and end up eating tag soup.
Your study would conclude the other guy had a more successful season than me since he shot a little buck and I didn't...AND that it was because he wore a scentlok suit
Keeping track of these numbers would prove absolutely nothing. Besides...science already proves that the suits cannot be reactivated.
Would you conclude that scentlok decreases someones chance of shooting a buck?
There are way to many factors involved to make any assumptions.
I wore scentlok suits for eight years until I decided it wasn't benefitting me in any way. If you don't play the wind and thermals right...deer willsmell you no matter what IMO.
BTW...the three biggest bucks on my wall were taken on years that I wasn't wearing scentlok.
