# Scent control podcast series with John Eberhart & Dan Infalt



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

jme said:


> Great respect for both John and Dan. Have read John's books and seen some of his videos, fantastic. Only heard id Dan Infalt recently and have been devouring his practical and applicable techniques. As someone said, they're both alphas who are passionate about their own approaches. They have the racks to back up their methods. I'll bet if John hunted Dan's area, and vice versa, using their own methods they'd both be successful.
> 
> Anyone read the posts on Dan's site, thehuntingbeast.com, about these podcasts?? Those boys are very loyal to Dan! After reading their comments against John I almost wondered if they heard the same podcast as I.


Yeah understandably there's a bit of bias on Dan's site. I've heard the saddle hunter forum has a similar bias to John but haven't checked it out myself. Both guys are next level hunters. 

IMO the thing about John that turns a lot of guys off is the product pushing. Lately he sounds more like a salesman and some of his comments come off as deceptive. There seems to be a lot of contradiction in his statements with his tactics too. I don't remember many of these issues when his books and DVD's came out. Not sure if something changed or I just didn't notice at first.

Dan comes across as an honest guy with nothing to hide or sell. Just your average machinist next door, but his walls are loaded with monsters! His videos are unlike anything else out there and he walks you through his hunts with great detail and illustrations. His common sense approach is very appealing to the average public land buck hunter that only gets to hunt on afternoons and weekends.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

The majority are against John on Dan site. That's ashame, because they are being very judgemental . They both kill very nice bucks and there is no one size fits all method for doing it. I take both guy's approaches and advice and apply it to my own ways. You never have enough knowledge when it comes to chasing whitetails IMO.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

This is an older map but how can u even compare a michigan Hunter to a Wisconsin Hunter? Wisconsin destroys MI when it comes to deer & deer hunting.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> This is an older map but how can u even compare a michigan Hunter to a Wisconsin Hunter? Wisconsin destroys MI when it comes to deer & deer hunting.
> View attachment 272595


Probably the same reason John doesn't hunt the northern 2/3's of this state.

It's also unclear how often he hunts public land in MI anymore.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> Probably the same reason John doesn't hunt the northern 2/3's of this state.
> 
> It's also unclear how often John hunts public land in MI anymore.


Sounds like John leaves MI to hunt also


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> Sounds like John leaves MI to hunt also


Yeah it's like he knows, no matter how scent free you try to be, you can't shoot big bucks where they don't exist.


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> Yeah understandably there's a bit of bias on Dan's site. I've heard the saddle hunter forum has a similar bias to John but haven't checked it out myself. Both guys are next level hunters.
> 
> IMO the thing about John that turns a lot of guys off is the product pushing. Lately he sounds more like a salesman and some of his comments come off as deceptive. There seems to be a lot of contradiction in his statements with his tactics too. I don't remember many of these issues when his books and DVD's came out. Not sure if something changed or I just didn't notice at first.
> 
> Dan comes across as an honest guy with nothing to hide or sell. Just your average machinist next door, but his walls are loaded with monsters! His videos are unlike anything else out there and he walks you through his hunts with great detail and illustrations. His common sense approach is very appealing to the average public land buck hunter that only gets to hunt on afternoons and weekends.


John speaks as passionately about activated carbon clothing as he does hunting primary scrape areas and the importance of pre and post season scouting. It's one of his keys to success. I don't think of it as product pushing at all. If he left out his scent control regiment all together, he be misleading us in a way.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

thill said:


> John speaks as passionately about activated carbon clothing as he does hunting primary scrape areas and the importance of pre and post season scouting. It's one of his keys to success. I don't think of it as product pushing at all. If he left out his scent control regiment all together, he be misleading us in a way.


It's the way he presents it. You or I could follow his regiment to a T and still not have the success he has. It's because you have to do everything else right for scent control to even be a factor. John would still kill big bucks no matter what clothing he was wearing, and he has, but good luck getting him to admit that. 

Then there's the ridiculous claims of "never being winded in 17 years" and "I don't pay attention to the wind at all". Then in the next breath he completely contradicts those statements. It's hard to believe he's being 100% honest.

He's definitely a smart business man. He created his brand of "I'm doing something nobody else is doing" and he's running with it. I can't blame the guy for wanting to make a few extra bucks off something he loves to do. But his level of scent control isn't practical for the common man. New hunters would be better off focusing on strategy and tactics rather than gimmicks and pixie dust.


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> But his level of scent control isn't practical for the common man.


This is it in a nutshell. You should never expect "common man" results from doing "common man" tactics. No one, I don't care what profession you're in, will ever rise to the level of success John has achieved in his profession by doing "common man" tactics or having a "common man's" work ethic. Both John and Dan have shown us exactly how they kill big bucks. Neither of them rely on a magic product or "pixie dust" but they both put in more work than the "common man", like 100 x's more work. That is probably the single most important variable in their success. If you replicated only a fraction of John or Dan's hunting tactics you should only expect a fraction of their results.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

thill said:


> This is it in a nutshell. You should never expect "common man" results from doing "common man" tactics. No one, I don't care what profession you're in, will ever rise to the level of success John has achieved in his profession by doing "common man" tactics or having a "common man's" work ethic. Both John and Dan have shown us exactly how they kill big bucks. Neither of them rely on a magic product or "pixie dust" but they both put in more work than the "common man", like 100 x's more work. That is probably the single most important variable in their success. If you replicated only a fraction of John or Dan's hunting tactics you should only expect a fraction of their results.


John seems to think pretty highly of the pixie dust in his magic suits.

I agree though that it takes effort to get the results these guys do. I just think 1 guy is a lot more honest about his efforts than the other.


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> John seems to think pretty highly of the pixie dust in his magic suits.
> 
> I agree though that it takes effort to get the results these guys do. I just think 1 guy is a lot more honest about his efforts than the other.


You're fully entitled to your beliefs. I don't have the time or desire to try to change your mind. What you don't know, won't hurt the rest of us. 

Good luck this season!


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

thill said:


> You're fully entitled to your beliefs. I don't have the time or desire to try to change your mind. What you don't know, won't hurt the rest of us.
> 
> Good luck this season!


Same to you!


----------



## Firefighter (Feb 14, 2007)

"Until I talked to you, I'd never even heard of Dan"

(John speaking with the host).

I'm waiving the BS flag on this one, although John doesn't look at flags anymore anyways because of Scentlok...


----------



## LabtechLewis (Nov 20, 2008)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> "There's absolutely no way to test if your Scent Lok suit is wore out." - John Eberhart
> 
> Think about that for a min!


This has been an interesting discussion and I'd like to add a couple points to this comment above. I think it's a bit out of context. Granted, the everyday hunter is not going to be able to test the effectiveness of the suit, but it can be tested -- consider the Rutgers study. Same comment could be made about scent sprays, ozone, or simply playing the wind. You cannot test these things, but you can get a general sense of whether or not you think they are effective.

With respect to testing the suit. You could generate a volatile compound fingerprint of the air inside the suit and compare that to the volatile fingerprint of the air outside (having permeated through) the suit. If the carbon is not spent, it will have adsorbed some of the compounds and that will show conclusively on the volatiles scan.

Second way to test if the suit is warn out is to scan the porosity of the carbon particles with a microscope. If the carbon has become pulverized through use or washing, it will have less porosity and less adsorbative capacity, and therefore be less effective.

In either case, we can't test this as hunters. I agree with you there.

Obviously, John's research and discussion on world wide uses of carbon is all true and discoverable. It is just wrong to say that it doesn't impact odor. Now, does it fix all ills? Equally hard to say. I would think that if you approach it with the level of detail that John does, then theoretically it should work exactly how he describes.

I will admit, I am a bit confused by why he doesn't wear the drop down facemask on the way to the stand. Seems like the odor on his breath would be of equal concern on entry and exit as it would be on stand.


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Firefighter said:


> "Until I talked to you, I'd never even heard of Dan"
> 
> (John speaking with the host).
> 
> I'm waiving the BS flag on this one, although John doesn't look at flags anymore anyways because of Scentlok...


And Dan said he's never heard of John until this debate. I believe both of them.


----------



## HUBBHUNTER (Aug 8, 2007)

LabtechLewis said:


> This has been an interesting discussion and I'd like to add a couple points to this comment above. I think it's a bit out of context. Granted, the everyday hunter is not going to be able to test the effectiveness of the suit, but it can be tested -- consider the Rutgers study. Same comment could be made about scent sprays, ozone, or simply playing the wind. You cannot test these things, but you can get a general sense of whether or not you think they are effective.
> 
> With respect to testing the suit. You could generate a volatile compound fingerprint of the air inside the suit and compare that to the volatile fingerprint of the air outside (having permeated through) the suit. If the carbon is not spent, it will have adsorbed some of the compounds and that will show conclusively on the volatiles scan.
> 
> ...


Here is a real world test anyone can do...

So one Sunday afternoon during deer season several years ago I was lounging on the couch watching the Lions lose and stuffing my face with bag of Doritos. As my fingers were covered in orange Doritos seasoning I thought about my scent free spray and it's effectiveness. So, I did a pre smell test and yep, my fingers smelled like Doritos. Then I sprayed them with scent killer spray and did a follow up smell test. Well, I was a believer after that because they no longer had any smell that I could detect.

Case closed.


----------



## Ol Mucky (May 8, 2006)

stickbow shooter said:


> The majority are against John on Dan site. That's ashame, because they are being very judgemental . They both kill very nice bucks and there is no one size fits all method for doing it. I take both guy's approaches and advice and apply it to my own ways. You never have enough knowledge when it comes to chasing whitetails IMO.


Good post


----------



## Ol Mucky (May 8, 2006)

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> This is an older map but how can u even compare a michigan Hunter to a Wisconsin Hunter? Wisconsin destroys MI when it comes to deer & deer hunting.
> View attachment 272595


This would add credence and validity to John's methods.


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

Great podcast. Lots of good info from both hunters. 

They agree on more things then they disagree on. 

I think the biggest difference is where they hunt.


----------



## Ol Mucky (May 8, 2006)

personally, I'd do whatever I can do and afford in regards to scent control. 
Wind clearly is an issue as well
I'd bet both men have run off deer with their smell and never knew (bucks can scent check from quite a distance).
Understanding how wind works, still doesn't allow you to beat it. Reduce your chances to get busted, but it still does funny things in the woods 
Why not do what you can to increase your chances? If u can great, if you can't that's ok too. Do what you can. 
We sometimes make these animals out to be some sort of mythical beasts with super powers. They are just animals. 
Get in the woods, study, learn, take mental/written notes, keep logs, find land, take care of whatever gear you use, hunt, repeat. 
Put those hours in, and then make a podcast yourself


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

HUBBHUNTER said:


> Here is a real world test anyone can do...
> 
> So one Sunday afternoon during deer season several years ago I was lounging on the couch watching the Lions lose and stuffing my face with bag of Doritos. As my fingers were covered in orange Doritos seasoning I thought about my scent free spray and it's effectiveness. So, I did a pre smell test and yep, my fingers smelled like Doritos. Then I sprayed them with scent killer spray and did a follow up smell test. Well, I was a believer after that because they no longer had any smell that I could detect.
> 
> Case closed.


I should try that after dingle berry removal


----------



## HUBBHUNTER (Aug 8, 2007)

brushbuster said:


> I should try that after dingle berry removal


You might want to look into the X-tra strength scent killer. Having a 2nd scent checker there would good too.


----------



## d_rek (Nov 6, 2013)

HUBBHUNTER said:


> Here is a real world test anyone can do...
> 
> So one Sunday afternoon during deer season several years ago I was lounging on the couch watching the Lions lose and stuffing my face with bag of Doritos. As my fingers were covered in orange Doritos seasoning I thought about my scent free spray and it's effectiveness. So, I did a pre smell test and yep, my fingers smelled like Doritos. Then I sprayed them with scent killer spray and did a follow up smell test. Well, I was a believer after that because they no longer had any smell that I could detect.
> 
> Case closed.


Clearly your test was executed using scientific means of the highest order. Bravo, sir.


----------



## d_rek (Nov 6, 2013)

brushbuster said:


> I should try that after dingle berry removal


That's what wives are for...


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

d_rek said:


> That's what wives are for...


Hey smell my fingers


----------



## LabtechLewis (Nov 20, 2008)

HUBBHUNTER said:


> Here is a real world test anyone can do...
> 
> So one Sunday afternoon during deer season several years ago I was lounging on the couch watching the Lions lose and stuffing my face with bag of Doritos. As my fingers were covered in orange Doritos seasoning I thought about my scent free spray and it's effectiveness. So, I did a pre smell test and yep, my fingers smelled like Doritos. Then I sprayed them with scent killer spray and did a follow up smell test. Well, I was a believer after that because they no longer had any smell that I could detect.
> 
> Case closed.


I like your style!


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

LabtechLewis said:


> I will admit, I am a bit confused by why he doesn't wear the drop down facemask on the way to the stand. Seems like the odor on his breath would be of equal concern on entry and exit as it would be on stand.


I asked him about that on this site. He doesn't wear his suit at all on long walks in, but yet he claims he still doesn't pay attention to the wind or get winded. Something doesn't add up.

As for activated carbon, there's no doubt it does what it's suppose to. However, there's no way for hunters to know when it needs to be recharged or how well or how often it can be recharged. They claim you can get 4-5 hunts before it needs to be recharged, but everyone's situations and body odors are different. I might get 5 hunts and you might only get 3. How are you suppose to know that? It also seems logical that on hunts 2 and 3 that the suit isn't as effective as the 1st hunt because some of the carbon's adsorptive properties are spent.

As for "ignoring the wind" I think this is a huge mistake and something that we shouldn't be teaching new hunters to do. I also don't think that statement is 100% honest. How do you hunt the downwind side of a doe bedding area or a scrape area if you "ignore the wind"? It also leads me to believe John has never hunted hill country, where the wind basically dictates where the deer will bed and travel.

Even Bill Vale, a respected big buck killer from MI, believes big bucks use the wind to their advantage on a daily basis. He's a scent control freak too but he still plays the wind because he believes pressured big bucks like to head into the wind, when food/bedding is available in several different directions. Maybe the "pressured deer" Bill hunts are different than the "pressured deer" John hunts?


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> I asked him about that on this site. He doesn't wear his suit at all on long walks in, but yet he claims he still doesn't pay attention to the wind or get winded. Something doesn't add up.
> 
> As for activated carbon, there's no doubt it does what it's suppose to. However, there's no way for hunters to know when it needs to be recharged or how well or how often it can be recharged. They claim you can get 4-5 hunts before it needs to be recharged, but everyone's situations and body odors are different. I might get 5 hunts and you might only get 3. How are you suppose to know that? It also seems logical that on hunts 2 and 3 that the suit isn't as effective as the 1st hunt because some of the carbon's adsorptive properties are spent.
> 
> How do you hunt the downwind side of a doe bedding area or a scrape area if you "ignore the wind"?


You (and John) are right, hunters don't know exactly when they need to recharge their suits. There's no indicator that says for example "50% charged" so why not charge them every other time? Problem solved. 

And how about a little clarification on your question above? Do you really mean how do you hunt the downwind side or why? I'm sure you know the answer to why...because that's where the buck will be...downwind scent checking for does. At least that's my guess.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

FWIW, I've read John's books, own his DVD's, and even own an entire Scent Lok suit. I followed his procedures as closely as I could, keep my gear in tote, and spray down everything that's not scent Lok, and still got busted. A key difference though, is I hunt on the ground from stumps and blowdowns about 50% of the time. 

I'd like to see John test his scent control on the ground with deer 20 yards downwind. Not sure how he would know when a deer is downwind of him though since he doesn't pay attention to the wind.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

thill said:


> You (and John) are right, hunters don't know exactly when they need to recharge their suits. There's no indicator that says for example "50% charged" so why not charge them every other time? Problem solved.
> 
> And how about a little clarification on your question above? Do you really mean how do you hunt the downwind side or why? I'm sure you know the answer to why...because that's where the buck will be...downwind scent checking for does. At least that's my guess.


If you go to a camp without electricity or running water, like many hunters do, it's not possible to reactivate your suit or even shower completely.

My question above is, how can you hunt the downwind side of anything if you "don't pay attention to the wind" like John claims? You wouldn't know what side is downwind if you truly ignored the wind. The answer is simple. He's not being honest in favor of making Scent Lok sound better. Aka product pushing.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> Even Bill Vale, a respected big buck killer from MI, believes big bucks use the wind to their advantage on a daily basis. He's a scent control freak too but he still plays the wind because he believes pressured big bucks like to head into the wind, when food/bedding is available in several different directions.


When did John say bucks don't use the wind? He says _he _doesn't worry about it. He said that he hunts downwind of primary scrapes because that's where bucks tend to travel to scent check. It doesn't matter if you don't get winded if you are too far away for a shot. I've heard Bill Vale speak a couple of times. He says that he hunts very high up but _upwind _of where he thinks a buck will come from. He is also says that he "never kills a big buck unless the moon is right" and then "oh by the way I have moon calendars for sale."


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> If you go to a camp without electricity or running water, like many hunters do, it's not possible to reactivate your suit or even shower completely.
> 
> My question above is, how can you hunt the downwind side of anything if you "don't pay attention to the wind" like John claims? You wouldn't know what side is downwind if you truly ignored the wind. The answer is simple. He's not being honest in favor of making Scent Lok sound better. Aka product pushing.


Ok, I understand your question now and I think you are taking his words extremely literally. I took his words to say he doesn't worry about the wind when he hunts, not that he is oblivious to what direction the wind is blowing or is incapable of knowing the difference between upwind or downwind. It's like when someone claims they don't pay attention to politics. I would never actually think they don't know who is president. 

And fwiw, I also read a couple of John's books, own his DVDs and all of Dan's DVD's and I own 5-6 scentlok suits but I don't have nearly the same confidence in scentlok that John does. I know they work and I know they give me an advantage but I still pay close attention to the wind and my entry/exit routes. I don't believe it's possible to be 100% scent free 100% of the time or even close to that. But I do believe that being 90% scent free is a huge advantage over being 0%.


----------



## LabtechLewis (Nov 20, 2008)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> I asked him about that on this site. He doesn't wear his suit at all on long walks in, but yet he claims he still doesn't pay attention to the wind or get winded. Something doesn't add up.
> 
> As for activated carbon, there's no doubt it does what it's suppose to. However, there's no way for hunters to know when it needs to be recharged or how well or how often it can be recharged. They claim you can get 4-5 hunts before it needs to be recharged, but everyone's situations and body odors are different. I might get 5 hunts and you might only get 3. How are you suppose to know that? It also seems logical that on hunts 2 and 3 that the suit isn't as effective as the 1st hunt because some of the carbon's adsorptive properties are spent.
> 
> ...


Agree. I've thought the same things about the "ignoring the wind" statement.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

Dish7 said:


> When did John say bucks don't use the wind? He says _he _doesn't worry about it. He said that he hunts downwind of primary scrapes because that's where bucks tend to travel to scent check. It doesn't matter if you don't get winded if you are too far away for a shot. I've heard Bill Vale speak a couple of times. He says that he hunts very high up but _upwind _of where he thinks a buck will come from. He is also says that he "never kills a big buck unless the moon is right" and then "oh by the way I have moon calendars for sale."


His exact words were "I don't pay attention to the wind". He even tells a story of one of his hunts and says "I'm not sure what the wind direction was because I don't pay attention to it". Im not sure how you could take those statements any other way?

What about his ridiculous claim of never being winded in 17 years, except for that one time he got winded? He doesn't wear his Scent Lok on the way to his stand, doesn't pay attention to the wind, and somehow still doesn't get winded?!

Or his claim of not using scents because he doesn't want to introduce new scent into a bucks home but then he goes on to tell a story of a buck he killed that came in to a tarsal drag he used! He needs to stop speaking in absolutes because it makes him sound ridiculous at times!

As for Bill, he was just an example. There's plenty of things I don't agree with him on either and he contradicts himself a lot too. Maybe all the "pressure" from these deer are starting to drive these guys crazy?!


----------



## LabtechLewis (Nov 20, 2008)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> Or his claim of not using scents because he doesn't want to introduce new scent into a bucks home but then he goes on to tell a story of a buck he killed that came in to a tarsal drag he used! He needs to stop speaking in absolutes because it makes him sound ridiculous at times!


Funny you mentioned that. I was thinking the exact same thing!


----------



## Firefighter (Feb 14, 2007)

As mentioned, my biggest disappoinment with both guys is their all or none attitudes, and how highly they view themselves.

There's a hunter that frequents these forums (although he doesn't post much) that blends both approaches and in the past 15 years, has killed as many mature bucks in the Midwest as John and Dan combined. 

John and Dan could learn a thing or two from him, but I won't embarrass him by posting his name. 

The point is, a blended approach without a blind acceptance to a single style is the true key to success. 

AND hunting the wind


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> "There's absolutely no way to test if your Scent Lok suit is wore out." - John Eberhart
> 
> Think about that for a min!


O.k..I thought about it.
Due to no longer practicing scent control to any extreme , Had I a new scentlock item I would wrap a dog snack in it and see if any of my dogs noticed it.
Caution needed as they unwrap their presents ( smelly ones first) at Christmas , so the item would need to be wrapped without their knowing and casually set where they go past it.
" Boy! ,don' t pee on that!"
Then IF they did not bust the snack when new ,try it again prior to each new season.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

How about this? I _think_ we can all agree that these three hunters, John Eberhart, Dan Infalt and Bill Vale are very successful hunters. More so than a lot of us combined. Each one of these guys hunts differently from each other and way differently than the average guy. The amount of work and attention to detail set them apart. So instead of trying to pick apart things they say or do that we don't believe in, we take the the things that each of us think can be applied to our own situation and let them help. I love that these guys are willing to share some tips and tactics. And yes maybe they are making a little money from workshops, seminars, books or dvds. Good for them. I would much rather hear what these three have to say than 99% of the TV hunters that switch broadhead companies every year or hold up a bottle of doe urine hoping to get real in another hunter's dollar. Although different these three share one belief (IMO). That is if you want hunt deer then keep doing what your doing. You want to *consistently *kill 3.5 year old or older bucks in high pressure areas then you must step outside the box because they are a different animal.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

Firefighter said:


> As mentioned, my biggest disappoinment with both guys is their all or none attitudes, and how highly they view themselves.
> 
> There's a hunter that frequents these forums (although he doesn't post much) that blends both approaches and in the past 15 years, has killed as many mature bucks in the Midwest as John and Dan combined.
> 
> ...


Thanks for not mentioning my name


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Firefighter said:


> As mentioned, my biggest disappoinment with both guys is their all or none attitudes, and how highly they view themselves.


:lol::lol: Yer killin me ........


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

RMH said:


> If proper care is taken before and after your hunt you can get multiple hunts from Scent-Loc (like four or five hunts) before you need to reactivate. You only need to own two garment changes to get you easily through a full week long hunt


How do you KNOW that? Because John and Scent Lok said so? Both parties know that there's no way you can test their product without a controlled lab environment. 

BTW, I'm selling a product that you can't tell if it's working or if you're using it right, but I promise it works. Sounds like I'll have plenty of buyers on this site!


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> He may have a couple from Clare but that's about as far north as he hunts. Many people don't even consider Clare as "up north"! His family also owns a lot of farmland in Clare too.
> 
> However, the majority of his bucks came from SLP and several of those were on private land. It also doesn't appear that he spends much time on public land in MI anymore. So if a guy occasionally hunts public land, and kills many of his bucks on private land, does that still count as being able to consistently kill mature bucks on public land in MI?



Same can be said about Dan. He hunts private land in Iowa and other big buck states. I don't remember ever hearing about him hunting MI and I think the reason is obvious. I still think there's a lot to be learned from both of them.


----------



## d_rek (Nov 6, 2013)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> How do you KNOW that? Because John and Scent Lok said so? Both parties know that there's no way you can test their product without a controlled lab environment.
> 
> BTW, I'm selling a product that you can't tell if it's working or if you're using it right, but I promise it works. Sounds like I'll have plenty of buyers on this site!


It takes one year for the carbon filter on my reverse osmosis purifier to become saturated to the point of replacing. Talking on average of 2-3 gallons of RO water used per day, which it takes 3 times the amount of unfiltered water to make the purified water. So the RO carbon filter probably, on average, has 6-9 gallons of water forced through it per day. But what I’m getting at is... I’m pretty sure activated carbon works like they say it does because science. Not because anyone says otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> How do you KNOW that? Because John and Scent Lok said so? Both parties know that there's no way you can test their product without a controlled lab environment.
> 
> BTW, I'm selling a product that you can't tell if it's working or if you're using it right, but I promise it works. Sounds like I'll have plenty of buyers on this site!


Recharge after every other hunt and you'll never have to wonder. Problem solved.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

d_rek said:


> It takes one year for the carbon filter on my reverse osmosis purifier to become saturated to the point of replacing. Talking on average of 2-3 gallons of RO water used per day, which it takes 3 times the amount of unfiltered water to make the purified water. So the RO carbon filter probably, on average, has 6-9 gallons of water forced through it per day. But what I’m getting at is... I’m pretty sure activated carbon works like they say it does because science. Not because anyone says otherwise.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Can you tell the difference between your purified water and un filtered?

Not really an apples to apples comparison because there's a lot more open air than 6-9 gallons of water per day. Plus you're not trying to reactivate your filter, you throw it away when you're done. And there's no way for you to cross contaminate your filter once it's installed. Plus all of your water is forced through that filter. With Scent Lok, nothing is concentrated or forced. Air can leak out anywhere. If your breath isn't 100% filtered, all that other clothing isn't doing you much good anyway.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

thill said:


> Recharge after every other hunt and you'll never have to wonder. Problem solved.


That's not possible for a lot of guys that go to camp.

And there's still no way to tell how much carbon is being reactivated and what the overall life of the suit is.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

We get it ,you do not believe John. Enough already. It's like you have a vendetta against him. If you honestly believe Dan is the Man cool good for you. Move on, please. There are some folks might want to learn a few things on here about scent control.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

thill said:


> Same can be said about Dan. He hunts private land in Iowa and other big buck states. I don't remember ever hearing about him hunting MI and I think the reason is obvious. I still think there's a lot to be learned from both of them.


He's admitted to killing bucks in MI. I asked him about that on his forum.


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> That's not possible for a lot of guys that go to camp.
> 
> And there's still no way to tell how much carbon is being reactivated and what the overall life of the suit is.


So don't buy it. Problem solved. Man, what would you do without me?? 

Do you expect to be able to recharge a suit without a dryer? Com'on man!!! It sounds like you are looking for some magic pixie dust, which scent lok is not. 

I hunt public land 75% of the time and many times I'm in my camper no where near a dryer. So, in that situation I will rotate between my suits, which will get me through at least a week. Almost all of your objections are easily dismissed with common sense.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

stickbow shooter said:


> We get it ,you do not believe John. Enough already. It's like you have a vendetta against him. If you honestly believe Dan is the Man cool good for you. Move on, please. There are some folks might want to learn a few things on here about scent control.


I thought we were having a good discussion. None of this is personal. Is it wrong to question things that don't make sense? "Learning about scent control" also means not having blind faith in something that can't be proven.


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> He's admitted to killing bucks in MI. I asked him about that on his forum.


That's news to me. Great! Do you know if it was private or public?


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

thill said:


> So don't buy it. Problem solved. Man, what would you do without me??
> 
> Do you expect to be able to recharge a suit without a dryer? Com'on man!!! It sounds like you are looking for some magic pixie dust, which scent lok is not.
> 
> I hunt public land 75% of the time and many times I'm in my camper no where near a dryer. So, in that situation I will rotate between my suits, which will get me through at least a week. Almost all of your objections are easily dismissed with common sense.


I have yet to see anything easily dismissed. All I hear is a bunch of guys that have blind faith repeating what 1 man says. How is that proof of anything?


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

thill said:


> That's news to me. Great! Do you know if it was private or public?


I didn't ask him that but I should have. It wasn't important to the discussion at the time.


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> "Learning about scent control" also means not having blind faith in something that can't be proven.


This statement is wrong... Activated carbon including scent lok has been proven...many times over.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

thill said:


> This statement is wrong... Activated carbon including scent lok has been proven...many times over.


It's been proven in a controlled lab environment. Does that sound like where you hunt?


How come Scent Lok is the only activated carbon product out there that claims you can reactivate it in a household dryer?


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

Does a household drier even get hot enough to reactive it.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

And you guys were having a good discussion, it just was going back and forth saying the same things. My bad if I interfered with it.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

And r the record, I do not believe you can hide all human scent. I just play the wind.


----------



## LabtechLewis (Nov 20, 2008)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> I have yet to see anything easily dismissed. All I hear is a bunch of guys that have blind faith repeating what 1 man says. How is that proof of anything?


Hey, I gave you first-hand experience! I wasn't just repeating what one man said. You should avoid "absolutes"...

Haha

This has been a good discussion as far as I'm concerned...


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

stickbow shooter said:


> Does a household drier even get hot enough to reactive it.


That was one of the main topics when they got sued. The lab found that a household dryer was capable of reactivating SOME of the carbon. I don't believe they stated a percentage but I could be wrong. Typically it takes much hotter temperatures to fully reactivate carbon.

This brings about another question, if you're only reactivating some of the carbon, does the suit become less and less effective every time its reactivated?


----------



## LabtechLewis (Nov 20, 2008)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> That was one of the main topics when they got sued. The lab found that a household dryer was capable of reactivating SOME of the carbon. I don't believe they stated a percentage but I could be wrong. Typically it takes much hotter temperatures to fully reactivate carbon.
> 
> This brings about another question, if you're only reactivating some of the carbon, does the suit become less and less effective every time its reactivated?


Might just be semantics, but I don't think the goal is to fully "reactivate" the carbon. You are just trying to desorb some of the adhered odor bodies. I don't know enough about it, to say what the minimum temp required is, though. The term reactivation means something different I think.

Maybe a good analogy would be making jerky at low temps. Do you cook at 212 F? No. Then how could you remove water if you don't heat it hot enough to boil it off? 

Time and temperature, time and temperature...


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

stickbow shooter said:


> And r the record, I do not believe you can hide all human scent. I just play the wind.
> 
> Please do so quietly , and hold still once in a while.


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> How do you KNOW that? Because John and Scent Lok said so?


My personal observations. It's nice to hunt an area with high deer density.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

RMH said:


> My personal observations. It's nice to hunt an area with high deer density.


Nice to hunt an area with more bucks ,and dense ones at that!


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> Can you tell the difference between your purified water and un filtered?.


Sure can.

Ask a basement pot grower how they feel about carbon filters.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

RMH said:


> Sure can.
> 
> Ask a basement pot grower how they feel about carbon filters.


That was kinda my point. You can see a finished product with the filtered water or smell the results of a grow room. You can't see any immediate results with Scent Lok to know how well it's working. Those filters also have a lot more carbon and get thrown away instead of "reactivated". 

I still challenge ANYONE to get as "Scent Free" as they can and then hunt from the ground (no blind) and see if a deer can wind you from 10-20 yards downwind. I'll bet you still get busted!


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> That was kinda my point. You can see a finished product with the filtered water or smell the results of a grow room. You can't see any immediate results with Scent Lok to know how well it's working. Those filters also have a lot more carbon and get thrown away instead of "reactivated".
> 
> I still challenge ANYONE to get as "Scent Free" as they can and then hunt from the ground (no blind) and see if a deer can wind you from 10-20 yards downwind. I'll bet you still get busted!


I'm just as scent free in a tree as I am on the ground.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

RMH said:


> I'm just as scent free in a tree as I am on the ground.


I'd argue that being 20+ feet above a deer's nose makes you think you're more Scent free than you actually are. Try it


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Waif said:


> Nice to hunt an area with more bucks ,and dense ones at that!


I always have more bucks on the property at the end of October then I do the beginning of October.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

RMH said:


> I always have more bucks on the property at the end of October then I do the beginning of October.


It' s the dense,(slow ones) that wander about in the open during daylight I' m after....the rest don' t really count. 
This sulking in the thick stuff is gettin old.
If they don' t wander out the back,or side of the sanctuary , they survive.


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> It's been proven in a controlled lab environment. Does that sound like where you hunt?
> 
> 
> How come Scent Lok is the only activated carbon product out there that claims you can reactivate it in a household dryer?


I didn't know any other companies were using different activated carbon and my only experience is with scent lok. I know scent blocker was paying scent lok royalties for using their technology.

And no I don't hunt in a lab...cute question though.


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> That was one of the main topics when they got sued. The lab found that a household dryer was capable of reactivating SOME of the carbon. I don't believe they stated a percentage but I could be wrong. Typically it takes much hotter temperatures to fully reactivate carbon.
> 
> This brings about another question, if you're only reactivating some of the carbon, does the suit become less and less effective every time its reactivated?


This was covered in detail in the podcast and some of John's other posts.


----------



## thill (Aug 23, 2006)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> I have yet to see anything easily dismissed. All I hear is a bunch of guys that have blind faith repeating what 1 man says. How is that proof of anything?


Why do you assume some of us are using blind faith "repeating what 1 man says"? Again you are 100% wrong! I was using scent lok before I ever heard of John. And I know it works because I've seen it with my own eyes! I'm guessing you won't take my word for it and there's no way to prove it to you. You have probably dismissed countless guys giving 1st hand testimonials because for some reason it's easier for you to not believe than it is to believe.

Even when i see deer react to my scent, at the worst, they will put their noses in the air, bob their heads and scurry away WITHOUT blowing or alerting other deer. Without using activated carbon those deer would have normally busted out of the woods as if they were shot at and alerted every deer within ear shot.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> . You can't see any immediate results with Scent Lok to know how well it's working.


I disagree completely. I have seen the effects in the field not a lab so you can dismiss this if you like. I use carbon and I still constantly check the wind with milkweed to locate potential "bad" spots. Dan Infalt is right about milkweed, it way out performs anything you can buy for checking wind currents and thermals. My point is that I have seen many, many times not just deer but mature does and/or bucks, walk right through my milkweed/scent current without spooking. At times they will stop and nose the air because they got something but either cannot pinpoint it or just don't consider the source to be a threat. Would absolutely not happen without my scent regime which is heavily reliant on carbon.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

thill said:


> I was using scent lok before I ever heard of John. And I know it works because I've seen it with my own eyes!


Ditto! But then again I hunt the SLP which some on MS seem to think equates to Iowa. Yes there are more mature bucks here than farther north but there is also 12 treestands in every 40 acre parcel. Pressure is very heavy. BTW we were typing at the time I guess. (post 113 and 114)lol


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

I've been following this conversation here and on the other site and I just had one question - what are "primary scrape" areas that John and Dan refer to? Is it an area that has a scrape every year? (I have a couple of these on my property but always heard them referenced as perennial scrapes - they are visited and stay open all year).

Also, FWIW, most of John's bucks and CBM certificates are on the wall at Jay's in Clare. I'm fairly certain I've seen that a few bucks came from the UP and at least one from Montmorency (not 100% positive). Next time I go I'll try and pay better attention.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

Anecdotal evidence can go both ways. Just because a deer did this or didn't do that, doesn't mean he didn't smell you. There's a lot of variables at play to determine how an individual animal will react. 

I've had plenty of times where deer should've winded me but didn't, and I don't use Scent Lok. However, I do many of the same things you guys do to reduce my scent. I'm willing to bet if you took all your other steps to be "scent free" but didn't use Scent Lok, you would still see the same results. 

On the ground it's much harder to get away with. I've never noticed a difference with or without doing scent control procedures. Breathing through your nose seems to buy you a little time but can be hard to maintain with a deer 5 yards away!


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> I'd argue that being 20+ feet above a deer's nose makes you think you're more Scent free than you actually are. Try it


There is less of a difference than you think.

I don't need to try, been there and done that. I'm not having the problems like you are. That tells me there's a hole in your efforts.

As far as your breath is concerned, if it has been a problem for you use a carbon mask.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

RMH said:


> There is less of a difference than you think.
> 
> I don't need to try, been there and done that. I'm not having the problems like you are. That tells me there's a hole in your efforts.
> 
> As far as your breath is concerned, if it has been a problem for you use a carbon mask.



Your scent is much more diluted by the time it hits a deer's nose if you're sitting in a tree. The higher you go the more diluted your scent. Simple matter of volume.

I was getting winded but have since improved my game. Solid tactics far outweigh any clothing products. They sell camo for hunters, not deer.

Find a mask you can comfortably wear the whole time you're in the woods with a replaceable carbon filter and you'd have my interest


----------



## d_rek (Nov 6, 2013)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> Your scent is much more diluted by the time it hits a deer's nose if you're sitting in a tree. The higher you go the more diluted your scent. Simple matter of volume.
> 
> I was getting winded but have since improved my game. Solid tactics far outweigh any clothing products. They sell camo for hunters, not deer.
> 
> Find a mask you can comfortably wear the whole time you're in the woods with a replaceable carbon filter and you'd have my interest


I do think there is merit to the idea that the higher you sit in a tree the more you scent stream is carried over deer and even, like you said, possibly diluted by thermals and wind tunnels higher in an air column. I tend to sit pretty high 25-30 ft up and have not gotten winded a couple of times by deer that were more or less dead down wind. Of course who knows what the deer that I can’t see are smelling. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

Thanks for clarification on that John. I didn't know that. And yes I do shoot tradbows, but also compounds. Unfortunately the end is getting near for the trad bows. Thanks again.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

It's unfortunate that you can't disagree with someone without a bunch of guys getting their feelings hurt.

None of this was personal on my end. John is a great hunter with or without Scent Lok. I didn't mean to make it sound like I was attacking him, I just wanted him to explain some of his claims.

None of those products are necessary to kill big bucks every year, but if you need them to feel more confident in the woods, then do whatever makes you happy. 

Good luck and stay safe this season!


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

RMH said:


> BTW Scent-Loc totes are on sale today at Ben's in Marlette.


How much?


----------



## d_rek (Nov 6, 2013)

John I have a question about storing rubber boots. Do you place them into a bin or tote or leave them out in the open. 

I have a pair of rubber and neoprene lacrosse boots that have been sitting in my garage... along with the lawn mower and a very stinky rototiller with some leaky seals (the gear worm oil stinks everything up). 

I was considered storing these in a tote... but am worried about residual foot odor contaminating the exterior of the boot. What are your thoughts on this?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Ranger Ray said:


> How much?


All Scent-lok was 20% off this weekend. Not sue how long the sale lasts.


----------



## J Eberhart (Jul 27, 2006)

Boopoo

You can also drive a car with 4 flat tires but it won't be as productive. 

I have no horse in the activated carbon race and am tired of talking about it. I don't get winded and you and a bunch of other skeptics can hunt with milkweed or whatever and pay attention to wind direction. No doubt who will have the most success.


----------



## J Eberhart (Jul 27, 2006)

d_rek said:


> John I have a question about storing rubber boots. Do you place them into a bin or tote or leave them out in the open.
> 
> I have a pair of rubber and neoprene lacrosse boots that have been sitting in my garage... along with the lawn mower and a very stinky rototiller with some leaky seals (the gear worm oil stinks everything up).
> 
> I was considered storing these in a tote... but am worried about residual foot odor contaminating the exterior of the boot. What are your thoughts on this?



I leave my boots out in the open and with a new pair I keep them in an outside garage for at least a year before using them. Sometimes if they still have the rubber odor I'll put them in dirt for a period of time.


----------



## d_rek (Nov 6, 2013)

J Eberhart said:


> I leave my boots out in the open and with a new pair I keep them in an outside garage for at least a year before using them. Sometimes if they still have the rubber odor I'll put them in dirt for a period of time.


Hmm ok... I have had deer walk down my trail sniffing the ground wearing these boots before and not bust. I was worried they were the cause of my quite visible scent bust this morning. Mature doe pegged me at 70-80 yards dead down wind. It's possible she saw some movement as i craned my neck to look at the other doe with her (I didn't see her at first). 

The only other gap would have been my bow which has been handled frequently as of late. I did wipe it down with a dead down wind wipe completely before the hunt including the riser, wrist strap, arrows, quiver, cams, and even strings. 

All of my other scentlok clothing, tree harness, and bow release has been stored in an airtight container with a carbon web adsorber and maintained very religiously. 

I'll have to take a closer look (sniff?) at all my gear tomorrow...


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Hunt the wind?

As bow hunters, we've learned to be hyper aware of wind direction and velocity, as our quarry is a wary prey animal driven largely by its olfactory sense. One thing that's obvious to anyone that's given anything more than cursory thought about the application of wind and human scent to avoiding detection by deer is that......wind direction changes. All the damned time. Sit around a campfire and note how often the wind does a total 180 on you. Bottom line: unless you hunt in a controlled, indoor setting(right) you cannot rely on wind direction to protect you from getting busted.


----------



## Walt Donaldson (Feb 23, 2015)

J Eberhart said:


> I leave my boots out in the open and with a new pair I keep them in an outside garage for at least a year before using them. Sometimes if they still have the rubber odor I'll put them in dirt for a period of time.


Man, thought I was crazy for burring my new boots a couple years back


----------



## Walt Donaldson (Feb 23, 2015)

farmlegend said:


> Hunt the wind?
> 
> As bow hunters, we've learned to be hyper aware of wind direction and velocity, as our quarry is a wary prey animal driven largely by their olfactory sense. One thing that's obvious to anyone that's given anything more than cursory thought about the application of wind and human scent to avoiding detection by deer is that......wind direction changes. All the damned time. Sit around a campfire and note how often the wind does a total 180 on you. Bottom line: unless you hunt in a controlled, indoor setting(right) you cannot rely on wind direction to protect you from getting busted.


Very true statement, LEGEND!! I think Groundsize was on the right track when mentioning how the height of his stand placement has made a difference for him. I try to stay at least 25 - 26' and for me, it has made a noticeable difference over the years. 

I think it's important to pay close attention to the wind forecast as that will be where the wind is blowing, most of the time. Can it swirl at the worst possible moment? Yup, and it probably will! East winds can be unpredictable as heck and very frustrating. Any winds under 10mph, will most likely swirl often. Considering the wind is important when accessing stands also, in my opinion. Personally, I don't want my scent blowing into a bedding area as I'm headed out to my stand. 

I think the bottom line is do what works for you. If you're consistently getting opportunities at your target animals, then stay the course. If you're consistently getting busted, then maybe it's time to look more closely at your regime/tactics, and make adjustments. If you have zero sightings of your target animal while on stand, but have trail cameras telling you they are in the area, then it's definitely time to go back and start from square one.

The B1G1 is waiting. 

GOOD LUCK!

Walt


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

Walt Donaldson said:


> Man, thought I was crazy for burring my new boots a couple years back


Was anybody wearing them at the time?:16suspect


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

Dish7 said:


> Was anybody wearing them at the time?:16suspect


Probably his other neighbor.


----------



## Groundsize (Aug 29, 2006)

J Eberhart said:


> Lots to answer
> 
> First off I'm not a ScentLok advocate, I'm an activated carbon advocate and anyone that doesn't thing activated carbon doesn't work is just out of touch with reality. I beat up on the Scentlok so called TV experts all the time because in my opinion they haven't a clue on proper care and what to do in conjunction with it. It just so happens that ScentLok applied for and received and OWNS the United States patent on using activated carbon in hunting garments and any other mfg. that uses it has to pay them a royalty and they can only use it if ScentLok allows them too. Is that so difficult to understand.
> 
> ...


Excellent information John!


----------



## J Eberhart (Jul 27, 2006)

d_rek said:


> Mature doe pegged me at 70-80 yards dead down wind. It's possible she saw some movement as i craned my neck to look at the other doe with her (I didn't see her at first).


That's my bet that she picked you. I had an old doe come in last evening with 2 fawns and at one point she hit my entry and stopped, she could smell any human odor but she did take 2 steps to the side and then kept moving the same direction. She smelled the ground disruption but not me. Had she smelled human odor she definitely would have bolted and spooked. 

Old does are so keen to any movement and if you moved to view another deer and she was nearby and searching the area as they typically do, you got picked.


----------



## d_rek (Nov 6, 2013)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> Can you tell the difference between your purified water and un filtered?
> 
> Not really an apples to apples comparison because there's a lot more open air than 6-9 gallons of water per day. Plus you're not trying to reactivate your filter, you throw it away when you're done. And there's no way for you to cross contaminate your filter once it's installed. Plus all of your water is forced through that filter. With Scent Lok, nothing is concentrated or forced. Air can leak out anywhere. If your breath isn't 100% filtered, all that other clothing isn't doing you much good anyway.


Just saw your response.



> Can you tell the difference between your purified water and un filtered?


Abso-friggin-lutely. We have atrocious well water. Without filtration it's not potable for human consumption. The difference is, literally, night and day.

I know it's not an apples to apples comparison, but just wanted to illustrate that carbon filtration *does* work. Of course there are many more variables in a hunting situation and hard to know what you have contaminated or haven't, or where air/odor is escaping or not escaping.


----------



## johnhunter247 (Mar 12, 2011)

J Eberhart said:


> Johnhunteer - Couldn't agree more
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree more about your comment that deer teach you more than anything as that is so spot on!
> ...


I couldn’t agree more John. I also think I have an upper hand over most here in Iowa because I had to grow up hunting Michigan and look at it so much differently than most here. Heck most of the guys I have met here in Iowa hunt lazy and take lots for granted. Your right, they would struggle tremendously in Michigan. These guys have no idea what it’s like to mostly see young deer because they see 130+ class deer almost every sit and they don’t go the extra mile to do anything. They think I’m wasting my time and putting to much into it the way I hunt. I always tell them to keep doing what there doing and pay no attention to me. But I bet if I can consistently start laying down booners they might start paying attention. Having an extreme scent control regimen isn’t for the casual hunter. You almost have to be an extremist and not get lazy as the season progresses just because your not getting an opportunity. Because if that opportunity comes and you got lazy and then winded after all that time you put in that’s a horrible feeling. I know because I have done that before. Let’s just say I learn from my mistakes! I missed out on a booner class deer a few years back in northern Missouri because of that. You have to keep your focus and be extreme in all aspects of scent control or save your money and time and just play the wind and forget about the deer that get down wind. In my mind when it comes to scent control it’s all or nothing. The slightest thing makes a big difference...


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

d_rek said:


> Just saw your response.
> 
> 
> 
> Abso-friggin-lutely. We have atrocious well water. Without filtration it's not potable for human consumption. The difference is, literally, night and day.


That was my point. With your purified water, you can literally see the difference. With Scent Lok you cannot. All we have to go on are people's stories and interpretations of what they think the deer was thinking. Unless someone finds a way to interview a deer, there's no way to tell if it smelled a human or why it acted the way it did. There is no proof of anything.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> That was my point. With your purified water, you can literally see the difference. With Scent Lok you cannot. All we have to go on are people's stories and interpretations of what they think the deer was thinking. Unless someone finds a way to interview a deer, there's no way to tell if it smelled a human or why it acted the way it did. There is no proof of anything.


That pretty much covers everything then now doesn't it. We can never prove anything when it comes to any animal that is incapable of speech. I guess I'm just stuck with my own experience of using carbon vs not using carbon. I know the answer. I don't need Dr. Doolittle to consult with Big Louie, as he is taking his dying breath, on whether or not he got a whiff of me 20 yards down wind just before he felt that sharp pain behind his shoulder. Wait, we would have to ask if really felt any pain as well. Can you see where I'm going here with your endless circle? SMH.


----------



## d_rek (Nov 6, 2013)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> That was my point. With your purified water, you can literally see the difference. With Scent Lok you cannot. All we have to go on are people's stories and interpretations of what they think the deer was thinking. Unless someone finds a way to interview a deer, there's no way to tell if it smelled a human or why it acted the way it did. There is no proof of anything.


With the RO water filtration the carbon does more than just clean up the visual presentation - it primarily removes unwanted odors from the water. You can literally smell the difference. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

