Four Minnesota Hunters Suing “ScentLok”
September 24, 2007
*Scroll for an Important Update*
Four hunters from Minnesota, Mike Buetow of Shakopee, Theodore Carlson of Edina, Gary Richardson Jr. of St. Paul and Joe Rohrbach of Shakopee, are suing ALS Enterprises, Inc. of Muskegon stating that the clothing they manufacture doesn’t work. The Scentlok clothing claims that it locks out or actually locks in, the human scent prohibiting game from smelling the human odor which can frighten them away.
The lawsuit says the company is the largest maker of such clothing and licenses it to at least 22 others, including Gander Mountain Co., Cabela’s Inc., Bass Pro Shops Inc. and Browning Arms Co. — which are also named as defendants.
Scentlok.com has opened up a new section on their website in hopes of helping consumers understand how the fabric works.
Over the past few months a number of forums and other internet discussions have raised questions concerning the science and capabilities of activated carbon technology. To help answer the questions raised by some participants and hunters, Scent-Lok Technologies enlisted the help of several highly qualified experts in the field of textile research, human odor and the sciences related to activated carbon. These experts represent some of the most qualified and respected universities and research facilities in the world.
We asked these experts to evaluate our test methods, results, and to answer the challenges to our product claims based on scientific facts and principles. We captured the results and testimony of our independent research team and have prepared a video program for review by interested customers and hunters.To watch the video please visit http://www.scentlokscience.com
Go ahead and follow the link and you can view a video and play close attention early on in the video to the woman clad in a fashion statement of Scentlok with the mascara, blush and perhaps even a hint of some lip gloss.
Does Scentlok clothing work? Do scents, masks, lures, etc. work? Do deer whistles you place on the front bumper of your car work?
Perhaps the courts will tell us. Stay tuned!
*Update 3:15 p.m. September 24, 2007* Skinny Moose Media’s Vice President of Global Operations, John Stabley, was able to obtain a full copy of the original lawsuit that has been filed against ALS Entreprises, Inc. et. al. To view that entire pdf file, click here.
Tom Remington
Most Commented Posts
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
[...] J.R. Absher is covering the story and so is Tom of the Black Bear Blog. [...]
[...] Minnesota Hunters Suing “ScentLok†Iowa Independent wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptFour Minnesota Hunters Suing [...]
Thanks for mentioning my blog. It will definitely be interesting to see how all of this unfolds.
Bryan, Some people may pass this off without much thought but when we stop for a second and consider the possible ramifications of such a lawsuit, it could directly and indirectly affect many millions of us.
This lawsuit should not be taken lightly or just overlooked. If a court hears this case, it could have sweeping results.
We all should stay on top of this.
Tom/all sportsman,
How many sportsman think scent-loc clothing and scent eliminator work?
How about a poll Tom?
Paul
Here’s one who doesn’t, and I also believe that all this trendy camo is primarily bullshit, also.
jetdrvr – I don’t own any camo of any kind nor do I subscribe to Scentlok clothing. I’m just old school I guess. You clearly have an opinion about whether you think Scentlok works, could you further explain why you think “this trendy camo is primarily” not to your liking?
I have my doubts it works as well as they would make you think it does. I don’t use it I just use the spray and try to utilize the wind as much as I can. Now I’ve had deer during turkey season when I’m not concerned about my scent walk with in mere yards of me with no cover scent and the wind blowing their direction.
Scent lok may help a little but I doubt it’s as good as they say. Heck if we sued people based on their products not living up to their hype there would be a long list of companies to go after.
Moose – Isn’t that the key to this whole lawsuit? I would think that if a court were to entertain such a suit, they would have to see evidence that Scentlok, went out of their way and above and beyond all that we as consumers are subjected to on a daily basis.
Perhaps they can do this, perhaps not. Like I said, I’m not a user of their products and have never followed or paid any attention to their ad campaigns. I will be looking more closely at the lawsuit to see if that tells us more specifics.
The key issue I see is not so much is did Scent Lok lie but did all these other companies like Cabela’s, LL Bean, Bass Pro, Gander Mountain, etc. conspire with Scent Lok to push the product. One only has to watch a few hours of hunting shows to see that many are little more then an infomercials for the sponsors’ products. I suppose that some people think that T/C is a superior muzzleloader to the rest of the industry because it seems that 90% of the shows use them exclusively. Only a few years ago it was Knight but you hardly see any hunting show personalities using a Knight muzzleloader. Does that mean that product is no longer good? I suspect T/C just has more money to throw around and both weapons are capable of getting the job done.
I to haven’t followed the Scent Lok ad campaign closely over the years but you’d have to be an idiot to believe any product could totally remove human odor. “Forget the Wind just Hunt†is a slogan to me not necessarily a promise to remove all human odor. I think they’ll have a hard time proving all these other companies were also co-conspirators. It certainly will be interested to see how this plays out.
My question is how on earth can these 4 guys prove that it doesn’t work? If Scent Lok can’t prove it does then wouldn’t it be difficult to base your lawsuit on evidence one way or the other. Either way, this will be interesting to see how this pans out.
I’m no lawyer so I’m guessing here at bit and taking from other lawsuits that have been filed that might be similar. I don’t think the courts give a rat’s patootie about whether the Scentlok works or not. I am assuming the focus will be in whether or not, as Moose says, the company itself or all of the named conspirators, presented the product through ad campaigns etc.
[...] ongoing discussion at the Black Bear Blog [...]
I’m not involved in the lawsuit, ’cause I never bought a suit. I’d have to have paid for one, I got mine free to field test. And science shows it does not work as claimed!!!
Knowing how Scent Lok fought the Patent Office for about three years, to keep their (now) invalid patent – I suspect they will file several motions and appeals over this case – so it will not be done before 2-3 years.
This means they continue to sell products that science shows cannot work as they claim.
The Plaintiffs lawyers know this – and yet are willing to take on this case, at great expense, because they believe they can win.
I’ve read the complaint, and common sense tells me Scent Lok and the others will lose this case, because they violated consumer fraud laws in MN.
I can’t believe Heins etc. and Merchant & Gould (one of the largest patent and trademark firms in the USA) would take this case on – unless they are very, very confident they can win.
The only way a law firm gets paid in this type of case – is by the loser – if they win.
The 4 guys in the case, and any others who join, will make less than they spend on their clothing. Not much incentive for the hunters – is there?
Except knowing they possibly exposed a fraud …
This lawsuit applies only to those people who bought clothing in MN, from ANY activated carbon suit manufacturer.
So, anyone who believes they were deceived by any activated carbon company could start a suit in their own state.
I suppose you could contact the MN attorneys to find a lawyer in any state.
God bless and good hunting,
T.R.
Here is another interesting tidbit.
Scent Lok Patent – Rejected By The Patent Office
On 9/13/07 the United States Patent Office posted a “Final Rejection Mailed” notice on their web site for Patent # 90007331, which WAS the “double patented” application of Scent Lok for activated carbon clothing for use while hunting. It is illegal to patent something that has already been patented.
I have fought hard to get this application over-turned. I did this because:
1. I believed some companies were either wrongfully sued by Scent Lok, because their products did not infringe on the “supposed” (now rejected) patent application of Scent Lok,
2. because Scent Lok may have stopped sales of other scent control clothing to stores in some way, and
3. because at least one company did not come out with scent control clothing -because they were afraid of being sued by Scent Lok – even though their product did not contain activated carbon and did not infringe on Scent Lok’s non-patent.
What does this “Patent rejection” mean for those companies who have been paying royalties to Scent Lok, or for those companies who have an agreement with Scent Lok, or for those companies who have been bankrupted by Scent Lok for infringing on the now rejected patent application of Scent Lok? It may mean that Scent Lok’s demand for royalties for the past 16 years was never enforceable.
The consequences now – who knows? Maybe new technology, with lower clothing prices, for you hunters.
You can find this Patent rejection at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html and click on View “Public PAIR”. On the next page check the “Application Number” circle, and then type 90007331 in the “*Enter Number” box. You can then click the “Image File Wrapper” and “Transaction History” tabs at the top of the page to view more information.
Thanks for the valuable information. I’ll check it out!
It would seem to me that if this suit IS won in Minnesota, then wouldn’t that set up a domino effect throughout more states?
I suspect this type of lawsuit will expand to other states, countries and provinces.
T.R. Michels
TRMichels@yahoo.com
trinity Mountain Outdoors Hunting E-Magazine
http://www.TRMichels.com
I think it is obvious that the crux of this case is the fact that the suits “can’t” work as claimed. The science of activated carbon would show this use as “inplausible”. If it’s true that activated carbon has a “scent-life” of 45 days. Then you are talking about a one time use item. Who would pay 100’s for that? If a dryer cannot reactivate the suit as described …… your suit is useless..unless hermetically sealed prior to purchase. Then you have 44 days of use..allowing 1 day for manufacturing time. Not to mention the outright fraud of claiming the material of the suit is treated with a compound to kill off bacteria that causes odor. If such a compound was not on the clothing.
This should be a really interesting case to follow. Looks like the lawyers will be busy over this for quite some time.
[...] [...] WebWire wrote an interesting post todayPhillip: One of the common untruths used byBrent: I think it is obvious that theSome Science About Weakening The Big Buck Gene… · Hunting and Fishing in Vermont: [...] [...]
How many of you folks actually have taken the time to watch the scent-lok propaganda? It IS actually very convincing and interesting in that they differentiate chemical and physical regeneration issues. Dryers ARE effective-not forever, yes-but they work for a good 3-4 years on a suit that’s kept up right.
This is a ridiculous suit against a company that has done nothing but try to help hunting with technology. “Old school” or not, people want an edge, whatever they can get.
Actually, I hope you many of you disbelievers keep on doing it, because you CANNOT convince me in my home state of North Dakota that 20-30 deer passing me 20 yards downwind with NO idea that I’m there does not work!
Fine! You get scented! I’d rather hunt!
Watch the video and then comment!
I think it is becoming clear that the majority of hunters feel the lawsuit is unnecessary. The question now becomes one of whether or not a consumer thinks the product works at least to the degree they are willing to spend money to try it.
There are tons of items on the market today that fall into that category and it is a consumer’s choice as to whether they are convinced of what is promoted as the benefits of owning such a device.
Obviously, Scent-Lok has loyal users and there will always be skeptics and those not willing to spend the money to try. That’s human nature.
To Dan
Of course the Scent Lok commercial says it can work. They are trying to SELL something. Problem is science and knowledagable sceintists (who have nothing to gain either way) say(s) activated carbion cannot work as claimed (100% of your odors, 100 % of the time, which is in a Scent Lok ad), and human perspiration odors cannot be deactivated from the carbon at temperatures below the boiling point of human perspiration, which is mainly water which has to be heated to 212 degrees. Houeshold dryers do not get above 165-180 degrees, because it would set the clothes on fire. So it cannot be reactivated.
To Tom Remington.
I don’t believe any nationwide studies have been conducted to determine the percentage of hunters who don’t think there hsould be a lawsuit. But it makes no difference – there is a lawsuit and it ios getting more plaintiffs every week. Where is the data behind your statement?
If you check POLL at this link (http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_113902.asp) you will find that of the 300+ people who have taken the poll; over 70% think activated clothing does not work as advertised.
If you want some easy to find facts about activated carbon, and the story behind Scent Lok’s tactics, you can log on to this link http://www.trmichels.com/ActivatedCarbonScience.htm
T.R. Michels
Mr. Michels – I was remiss in making the statement that I did without clarifying where I got that info. I was referring to my own small poll that I have been running on the home page of the Black Bear Blog. What few have opted to participate, it is nearly split 50/50 as to whether Scent-Lok works. It also shows the majority of responders don’t believe the lawsuit should be ongoing. That’s the basis of my statement. I have made this statement before and have also declared that is is nothing more than a poll of readers. I should have clarified further – my bad.
My questions has been and always will be, where does the onus fall? Is it the responsibility of government, manufacturers, consumers or someone/something else to look out for and tell people whether advertised products work the way it is presented? Where do we draw this line?
These are questions not statements. Nobody has answered any of these questions yet – nobody.
What is needed is a few clear-cut field trials that test the extent to which deer (and other animals) can actually smell something that is covered with the clothing. You can also test whether or not the clothes can be regenerated that way.
Mr Remington,
Understood, and I would agree, that after looking at responses on at least 15 different talk forums, with over 4000 posts, it seems that the question as to whether or not there should be a lawsuit; it seems to be about evenly split.
However, as I mentioned, it does not matter what anyone thinks at this point – there is a lawsuit – which I believe is waiting to be certified as a “class action lawsuit”. My sources also tell me that this may eventually become national lawsuit, or at least be instigated in several other states.
As to where does the “onus” fall. As a manufacturer myself, and having been inviolved in the hunting industry with several other manufacturers since 1989, I can tell you that usually it is the manufactuers who take it upon themselves NOT to make false statements, mis-leading statements, unfounded statements or statements that cannot be backed up by verifiable sources or scientific proof.
But, we all know that false or misleading claims are made about some products. Recently one large scent company lost a lawsuit due to what was termed “false advertising” here in Minnesota.
In my efforts to determine if activated carbon can eliminate “100% of your odors, 100% of the time”; I dont think anyone can make that statement, it is simply not possible – according to what I have learned in talking to a couple of scent/odor experts, a couple of activated carbon experts, according to everything I can find on the absorbtive capabilities of activated carbon in the amounts used in hunting clothing (especially the fabric shown on my web site) and according to the Shivik “Search and Rescue Dog study”.
If you have not seen the fabric on my site you should look at it.
Secondly, all of the information and studies I have looked at show that in order to “desorb” odors from activated carbon, which will adsorb any and all odors, you can’t even desorb activated carbon of human persopiration odors in a houselhold dryer, non-the-less the hundreds of other odors that will be adsorbed by activated carbon worn by hunters.
Commone sense tells anyone ane everyone that at some point it has to become full of odors…
Common sense also tells us that not all of the odors can be desorbed from the carbon, thus – at some point – it can no longer adosrb ANY odors – and it is no longer any good to the hunter. I don’t think there is any way to dispute this argument.
Thus – both the statement that actvated carbon can “reduce 1005 of human odors, 100% of the time” is false/misleading; and the statement that activated carbon can be desorbed/reactivated by removing adsorbed odors in a household dryer at temperatures below 180 degrees is false/misleading.
In any state that is considered fraud.
The Federal Trade Commission is responsible for this type of fraud, but as most of us know they are swamped with health issues due to lead, and infections diseases. And they have failed to respond to any complaint.
When Federal regulatory agencies fail to act, or cannot act, it then falls upon consumer advocates or groups to expose fraud. And I suppose I have ended up in the category of an “advocate” because I have been involved, and I am very vocal about my beliefs.
I believe, I, as an outdoor writer, author and seminar speaker since 1989, owe it to the hunting public, to make known my beliefs – that they have been misled about this multi-million dollar making “activated carbon clothing business”. I owe to the hunting public becaue they are how I make my living.
I do not belive any outdoor writer has reserched this more than I have.
I also suppose that when the public feels they have been misled, or defrauded of their money, that they DO have the right to go to the court system, make their case, and if they are found to be in the right, to ask for punitive camages. That is part of the right of people in the United States – no matter what anyone else thinks.
Let me add that having spoken to several law firms about class action law suits, no law firm takes on such a suit unless they feel they have the evidence to win. And they do this knowing that they (the law firm) will pay for all of the required research, all of the legal motions and appeals, etc, over the course of the lawsuit. And I have been told by the lawyers that they expect this suit to take 2-5 years to complete. One can only wonder at the total cost to the plaintiff’s attorneys.
So – why would they take the case – unless they felt very strongly that fraud has been commited by Scent Lok????
At first, I believed what I had been told about how good sctivated carbon was. After all of my research – I believe fraud has been committed. But, since I never bought a suit of clothing, I cannot be involved in the lawsuit. I stand to gain nothing monetary in the lawsuit.
Incidentally, I was told that Scent lok had 30 days to appeal the Final Rejection notice of their patent# 9000337, which was mailed on September 13, 2007. I checked today and see no notice of appeal. What avenues Scent Lok now has to retain or regain that patent I do not know.
Any hunter who wears an activated carbon suit that is over two months old, should give himself the credit for not being winded – not the suit …
God bless,
T.R. Michels
In a scientfic research study, Dr. Shivik tested 40+ people wearing activated carbon suits, using search and rescue dogs in Colorado. He wanted to know if they woudl work in his research on wild canids (coyote, fox, wolf). The dogs found everyone of the humans, and it took them only about 4 seconds longer to finf those wearing the suits.
In comparison to dogs, deer have more nasal receptors (meaning they may smell better than dogs). Most deer researchers feel that if the dogs could smell the humans in suits, they deer could – end of story.
Obviously this research study will be part of the attotney’s case against Scent Lok.
God bless,
T.R.
If I may? Obviously you are versed and passionate. I would like to add something as an “innocent” bystander, if you will.
It is moronic in my opinion for any manufacturer to claim 100% effective, although it is done throughout American manufacturer’s advertising campaign. I believe that this fact will also play some role in any decisions rendered.
You talk about common sense but we all know that once inside a courtroom, we can easily discard any amount of common sense. We see it everyday.
I’m not a scientists and don’t believe I have to be to understand that Scent-Lok says 100% effective, 100% of the time. Idiots!
I also agree that the lawyers must figure a good case but I don’t believe for a minute it will be as easy as some say.
Where’s the conspiracy? Is there one and how can they prove it. I assume, as it was part of the original suit, that the lawyers must also believe they can prove conspiracy. That will be difficult.
And one final thought. In your last comment you mentioned Dr. Shivik’s test. You spoke strictly about one animal versus another animal in its “believed to be” ability to sniff out odors.
While I am not challenging the results of that test, it certainly would have been much more effective had there been a way to bring in the deer after the dogs. You would have to agree that both animals have different ways of “educating” themselves to recognize or associate certain odors with danger.
It has been shown and I’m sure in your travels you have seen or heard about wild animals having never encountered man before, certainly react differently than those who have learned that the smell spells potential danger.
So while the “smell test” can reveal how dogs detect odors escaping from the 100% effective scent blockers, one cannot directly correlate that to how deer react. The point of the test is well taken though.
Personally, I would like to see consumers become smarter shoppers. I think mostly speaking manufacturers do an okay job of advertising their product. I think Scent-Lok erred in promoting 100%/100%.
Yes the lawsuit is underway and is growing and will continue to grow. I am just the kind of individual that believes that it is me who should look out for me and ignore idiot advertising campaigns.
What I do have an issue with is the conspiracy theory. If this is true and all of these companies actually knew Scent-Lok didn’t work and they conspired to make sure the consumer didn’t find out while they raked in $$$$$$$$$$$$$$, I hope they all get more than what’s coming to them.
Please keep us updated with the progress of this suit.
[...] many other carriers of their products). If you’d like more info on this lawsuit, check-out Tom Remington’s post or one of my earlier [...]
[...] all someone else releases a product far beyond my imagination. Not too long ago we heard about the Scent Lok Lawsuit that Tom reported on over at The Black Bear Blog. Then Othmar told a tale about the “Good [...]
[...] a class action lawsuit filed in the state of Minnesota by Mike Buetow of Shakopee, Theodore Carlson of Edina, Gary [...]
As long as we’re discussing the effectiveness (claimed or tested)of hunters’ scent control, is there any data or studies comparing the other (non-carbon) scent-control clothing or spray products out there? I’m thinking the silver-based clothing and what about carbon sprays, since those would eliminate the “old”/re-activated issues of carbon clothing???
[...] I read the article about the lawsuit (click here), I was thinking to myself how you would prove that the clothing did not work. The experiment would [...]