I use scent-lock but only as one tool. Frequent showers, scent free detergent , keeping clothes outside, and all the other things I use too.
I know being downwind is the most effective and foolproof method. However, in our woods with the wind and thermals being so fickle I figure every little bit helps.
One thing that I used in Iowa last fall because the Farmer had one and swore that it worked was an Ozonics. A couple of my friends used them too with positive results. I never got winded once in Iowa. In fact, when I got home it made its way to the top of my Christmas list. I was impressed, of course I may have been lucky, but I'll be using it again this fall.
Good luck with the heel
At first I thought the scent lok really worked, but as I started slacking I didn't notice a huge difference. However, I agree with Gobbler in that the wind swirls so bad in these hollers that every little thing can help.
Well, anybody with common sense knows that you can't just forget the wind.
I respect Roger Rotthaar for what he has done but I think comments like that really don't help. Maybe he does use Irish spring that even I can smell from 30 foot away.
I really think there is an additive effect from scent free detergents, carbon clothes, frequent showers etc.
First, you have to pay attention to the wind, but in those cases when the wind switches or the thermals drop the extra protection that the clothes, soaps, and scent blockers may give you the extra few seconds you need before a buck fully winds you.
Do you need them? No, but I think they can help.
They use army surplus camo and older bows. These guys always fill their tag with quality game. ie. buck, bear, pronghorn.
Think about the elk hunters that bivy for days.
They are woodsmen and always...ALWAYS.. watch the wind.
When I decided to quit wearing my Scent Loc base layer; I seen just the same amount of game as before.
If it gives you confidence; wear it. IMO it is just a gimmick that ups the price of hunting apparal.
I have seen the studies that state that the heat required to reactivate the suit would burn it up. Also if it worked so well; the drug guys would use it for smuggling.
Also think of this. The guy in China that fabicated that suit could have been smoking at the time. It then goes into a bag and sets in a ware house with anything you could imagine. Then it gets shipped with who knows what. After all of the handling and transportation, it makes it to the store. There it hangs on a rack and handled by people that have all kinds of smells on them.
So now this scent absorbing garmet has already absorbed the worlds stench before you ever wear it.......
As we get older and wiser we learn that nothing works 100% of the time in 100% of situations.
Even if we hunt the wind, it's not 100%. How many times have you sat in a stand facing into a northwest wind, then feel the wind come out of the south?
I look at the additive effects of frequent showers, cover scents, scent blocking clothes, ozonics etc. Do I think they are going to be 100% effective ? No. But I do think the additive effects can give us more time. If a buck takes 30 seconds to a minute longer to recognize our scent, that is very likely the difference between no shot and a dead buck.
But that is just my opinion.
Speaking as a hunter, be clean and hunt the wind.
Furthermore, speaking as a hunter, Scentlok/blocker make nice, well-designed hunting clothes. If you can buy them on sale/clearance, they are worth it. Just don't spend a bunch of money to get carbon, or think it's doing any good.
Just as I think nothing hardly ever works 100% as claimed 100% of the time, I think it's unlikely that a product works 0% as claimed 100% of the time. If it does, it never makes it to market or is out of business soon.
When you get down to stuff like scentblocker, field sprays, and ozonics, though, you're talking about chemistry. And in chemistry, the plural of anecdote is not data. There are right and wrong answers in chemistry.
For the activated carbon/charcoal clothing, the science is settled. The carbon layer CANNOT be regenerated in the dryer to any appreciable extent. The binding coefficient is much too high. There is a reason that it's regenerated at 600 degrees C in industrial applications. Once the available "seats" for scent molecules are taken, there are no more seats available. And unfortunately for the hunter, you don't get to pick the scents. They start accumulating the minute that garment is exposed to the atmosphere.... in other words, some sweatshop in china. Again, use them if you like, but they're not cutting down your smell. They are nice clothes... that's it.
As far as ozonics goes, the chemistry of ozone oxidation of volatiles is valid chemistry. In a closed system, where the reactants (ozone and the scent particles of interest) cannot escape each other, and where the ozone is generated in excess, yes, the smell will be eliminated. Ozone generators work quite well to eliminate scent in closed containers, provided you don't allow the ozone to react long enough to start degrading plastic and rubber, etc. However, in the field, you have a very different situation. You have your scent stream, flowing down wind from you. You have an ozone source, placed approximately in your scent stream, but not exactly. You have continuous molecular diffusion in and out of the scent stream. You have not only your undesirable human scent molecules available to react, but also all the other natural scents of the woods available to react. You have a source that admittedly doesn't generate very much ozone, or it would exceed OSHA limits for health and safety(it doesn't, so it doesn't put out very much ozone). Finally, the kinetics of these reactions are slow... something on the order of 10^-1 1/s, which means about ten molecules per second. If your scent can travel from you to the deer in a few seconds, only a small percentage of your total scent would be eliminated in the available time. I for one, would love to see Tom Nelson solve a mass balance equation for ozonics on one of his commercial breaks... ;)
So, the chemistry behind ozonics is solid, but in a hunting application there are so many unaccounted for variables that it's laughable. When I saw the first commercial for one I almost fell out of my chair laughing. And then I found out they're $600!
As far as scent control products that DO work.... most of the field sprays are pretty good. They are either peroxide/baking soda or cyclodextrin based, both of which you can apply directly to clothing/gear and they DO eliminate some odor. Not all, but a good bit.
As for me, I take a shower with scent free soap, use scent free laundry detergent, and a little field spray. Total cost: $20 a year.
I studied chemistry for 9 years of college and make my living with it. And frankly, it makes my blood boil to see unscrupulous turds like Scentlok and Ozonics bilk working folks out of hundreds of dollars for snake oil.
However, if these companies want to sell their product, as long as they don't advertise falsly( like scent lock did, and got its hand whacked), I say go for it.
Let the consumer decide. If they decide it's not worth it or dosen't help they will quit buying it.
Some people shoot 400.00 bows, some people shoot 1500.00 bows, some people ride 5000.00 atvs, some ride 12,000.00 atvs. What difference does it make? And who cares anyway? I'm certainly not going to get mad about it.
Now, if people were forced to buy them, yeah I think it would be wrong, but no one is forcing any one to buy carbon clothes or an ozone producer.
What pure chemistry has a hard time explaining is the "placebo" effect. When you are dealing with humans that is a very real result that is obtained when there is no scientific basis for that response.
If somebody believes that by wearing a scent lock suit, sitting under an ozonics device, or having their grandpas lucky rabbit foot in their pocket they are a better hunter, maybe they are because of some unknown "placebo" effect. They have more confidence, they decide to stay that extra half hour.
