Natural History Magazine & Links I Hunting Magazine & Links I Outdoor Photography Links I Christian Links

White-tailed Deer Info I Duck & Goose Info I Turkey Info I Elk Info I Talk Forum / Message Board

Links I Linking & Advertising With Us I Advertising Pages

TRMichels.com Outdoor / Hunting Webring

Testimonials I Contact Us

Special Edition

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Log on here; "T.R.'s Outdoor & Hunting Tips" Talk Forum / Message Board

If you would check in here regularly, you would have seen it here first, 'cause we published it first. If you read this page, and page 2 of this Special Edition - and believe you were defrauded or lied to by Scent Lok, about the effectiveness of their product at reducing your odors, or about the reactivation capability of their product - and you want your money back - contact the lawyers a info@heinsmills.com. It is FREE.

10/9/2009 10:59 AM  I wanted to email you and thank you for providing the information you have regarding Scent Lok and taking a stand for what is right.

I learned a lot this morning by reading your website. I found you while looking for information on my New Mexico Elk hunt next week and ended up reading probably every page of your site!

The Scent Lok stuff had me hooked!

Again, thanks for the information on Scent Lok. If it wasn't for you, none of this info might have ever came to light and it looks like a lot of people have been hurt ...

--Aaron Cooper
www.huntandfishfinders.com

I met and talked to a couple of outdoor writers while I was giving seminars at Game Fair in Anoka , MN this weekend. And I realized there is some misinformation or misunderstanding about my role in the Scent Lok lawsuit. So. I though I should set the record straight.

I first met Greg Sesselman while he was exhibiting his product at the Madison Wisconsin Deer Classic, in about 1991.Upon learning that I did a lot of guiding, deer research and field testing of hunting products, and that I was an outdoor writer, Greg asked me if I would like to try one of their suits, explaining that it would totally eliminate any odors given off by me that would alarm the deer. I took the suit and wore it several days, probably a month, and believing that it actually did work, I wrote a testimonial type letter to Scent Lok, explaining that I believed it did work. The letter eventually ended up on the testimonials page of the Sent Lok website.

One compliant I had was that my skin turned black when i sweater, because some of he carbon stuck to my sweaty body. I also noticed that there was a black residue in the washer and dryer after I washed and dried the suit. When I asked Greg about it, he asked me how many days a year I would end up wearing the suit while I was doing research,. Upon hearing that I wold be in the woods for about 120 days, and average of 4-7 hour per day, Greg told me I would probably need 2 or 3 suits per year.

When I though about that , I realized that the suit would not last as long as I was originally told, and that it would not keep the deer from smelling me, for as long as was led to believe. Do, I began researching how
activated carbon worked, and how it could be reactivated. And I learned that I had been mislead about both of those things - which, as a Christian and outdoor writer, I did not like. So, I decided to do some in-depth field testing of the suit.

And I found that, due to the fact that I spent so much time researching the same deer, they had become accustomed to mot only the site and sound of me, but also to the smell of me. Whether I word the suit or not, they reacted the same - they did not act alarmed at the smell of me. I came to the conclusion, based on what I had learned talking to several chemists, and from information on the internet - that the product did not work the way I had been led to believer, because it could not work the way I had been told.- I believed had been lied to - for the purpose of getting an endorsement from me.

When I began to write about what I had learned on the ArcheryTalk hunting forum, I was rebutted, and then attacked (personally) by Mike Andrews, who I learned worked for Scent Lok. In fact, he began a campaign to tot ally discredit anything I said, and y the research I had done, and many of the
articles I had written.

And then I heard that Scent Lok had bankrupted one of the original owners of No Trace, threatened to sue the owners of Contain clothing, and used tactics to get several catalogs not to buy their clothing, and wanted to charge the owner of Eliminator an exorbitant royalty fee if he chose to manufacture his
scent reduction clothing. I felt that was wrong, id made me mad, and I decided to do something about it.

So, I set about checking to see it Scent Lok's patents were valid, which they were not, so, with the help of others and a good lawyer, I got all of their patents nullified - because they were never good n the first place.
And then I began to publish all of the information I had on activated carbon, how it worked and could not work as Scent Lok claimed, and how it could be reactivated, and could not be reactivated as Scent Lok claimed.

Which eventually led to the 9 law suits currently going on. I do not know any of the hunters in the lawsuits, and I stand to gain nothing if the lawsuits are won. I have however, provided the lawyers every bit of information I have on Scent Lok..

I have continued to published everything I learn about the patent fight and law suites, because non of the large hunting publications will publish it, because they all take advertising dollars from Scent Lok. I am the only editor/publisher who will publish any information on the subject, and they all know everything I do, because I sent them updates on a regular basis.

At this point I am no longer a concerned party, or an investigative reporter, I am just a reporter, updating the hunting public, the hunting magazine editors and publisher, and hunting or outdoor writers, on the
current status of anything to do with Scent Lok.

I asked Scent Lok several times to remove my testimony from their website, but they refused, until I wrote a letter to the Patent Office, telling them that I had rescinded my testimony, which Scent Lok was now using i n the Patent Application. They have also done the same thing to Myles Keller, who, in his upcoming deposition, will clearly explain that he no longer believes in the product.

If you want the whole story, log on to the Activated Carbon/Scent Lok pages on my website, it is all there. .

God bless,

T.R.

T.R.

That's interesting - I was involved with a lot of e-mail exchanges with the folks at No Trace, and had even started doing some writing for them. Then they disappeared, without explanation.

Rick Greminger (former owner of No Trace) and I became friends over the phone, and I was going to help him market the products, along with a friend of mine who eventually wanted to buy them out. Scent Lok bankrupted Rick and No-Trace, because of the patents they supposedly had, but which we did not find out until later, were never valid. Meanwhile Rick lost his house, his business, his, next Job with Fox Rich, and his wife. All because Scent Lok threatened to enforce a patent they knew was no good, and even if it was good, did not cover NO Trace, because it contained no carbon. No Trace should have been allowed to manufacture and sell, but court motions, and hearings, with lawyer fees, broke their back.

Another friend of mine, the owner of contain, lost $50,000 in sales in one year, and has never recovered. He too is out of business.

And the owner of Eliminator (a close friend), even though he has a product that does not use carbon, and does have a product that actually stops many odors, proven by several fields tests, is afraid to manufacture, because he is afraid Scent Lok will bankrupt him. Plus, they wanted a 40% royalty if he sold any activated carbon suits.

Scent Lok is currently keeping many manufacturers, with new technology, and better products, from being on the market and being available to the hunters, simply by threatening to take them to court, and bankrupt them. So, if we can once and for all establish that their patents are invalid, which they currently are, the hunting public will have access to better, or efficient scent reduction clothing. But, Scent Lok will try to keep anyone from selling competing products.

T.R.

What truly matters in life is standing on principle...which it appears you have done and continue to do.

If the large magazines want to stay silent...it only speaks to their true motivations...and Scent-Lok's money will run out sooner or later for them...

As a fellow Christian I can state that God will correct what needs to be corrected....and I would hope that as you send this out to fellow Outdoor Writers and Sportsmen...that if they have any principles themeselves...they will stand with you...as I will!

I have felt for years that products that claim to eliminate scent are a waste of money...

Stand strong and know that others like me are supportive of you and what you are doing...as I believe that you are helping many people not to waste their money...believing in products that are all sizzle and don't
deliver! Sometimes...the old fashioned way is the best way!

Eph. 6:10-11
Matt. 5:11-12

hi T.R., - I have been following the Scent Loc debate and have read your research with much interest and agreement.

Three hearty cheers for speaking up loud and clear about Scent Lok and--by extension--the generally absurd claims made by the marketers of these products.

The Class Action motion in the Scent Lok case has been denied, because each plaintiff has spent a different amount of money on clothing. Each case will be judged on its own merit, and its own cost - which may mean hundreds of lawsuits (not just one) that Scent Lok will have to fight, costing them a lot of money.

Myles Keller was originally subpoenaed to testify in the Scent Lok case. The motion for him to testify has been dropped. Having talked to Myles, and finding out how dissatisfied he was with Scent Lok - and how they treated him, and because he personally told me he did not believe it worked, I suspect Scent Lok decided that his testimony would be detrimental to their case.

Many major hunting publications have been subpoenaed to testify in the lawsuit, therefore they are all unwilling to publish anything, including the facts, about the lawsuit, the ineffectiveness of Scent Lok products, or the fact that it cannot be reactivated as Scent Lok claims. Two publications were going to publish articles, but not now.

I just found this on the Quality Deer Management Association talk forum at http://www.qdmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=12393, while I was looking on the internet to see if anyone else is reporting on the Scent Lok Lawsuit. It was posted on the forum on 11-05-2007. Other than the initial court filing, it is not being followed, or mentioned by anyone on the internet, or in the print publications. I guess I'm the only person or magazine that is not afraid to talk about this.

"And a Minnesotan -- T.R. Michels, 57, of Burnsville, an outdoor writer, author, hunting guide and frequent hunting seminar speaker who has his own website (www.trmichels.com) -- acknowledges he is responsible for raising much of the stink.

"Hunters have been screwed," he said. "They have been misled. And they [companies] are making tons of money off the stuff."

He said he has no ax to grind and began looking at the clothing because his job as a writer and outdoor expert is to "look into myths and dispell them."

Said Michels: "I was lied to, and that really ticked me off."

He is not involved in the lawsuit, and won't be because, while he has used Scent-Lok clothing, he's never purchased it, he said. However, Michels has questioned the performance of the clothing with the U.S. Patent Office and has posted numerous exchanges he's had with the company on his website and others.

He said outdoor magazines won't write about the issue for fear of losing lucrative advertising dollars for the hunting clothing, and that he has lost freelance work because of his stance."

The following is from a chemist within the clothing industry. I have put the lawyers in contact with this person, who may shed some new, and "unwanted, yet informative", light on the subject. This person contacted me out of the blue, because he too, believes the hunting public is being misled.

T.R.

I can shed some light on this subject because I am very, very close to it. The founders of one of the leading activated carbon brands are good friends; even though I believe their product mis-leads the public a lot based on hard data I have on file.

Remember even Dr. Schols used activated carbon. There is a lot of "twisted" facts about what odor is. Smell from sweat is caused by bacteria and fungi. Perfume, cat dong, smelly garbish is a type of odor that is great for activated carbon; thus trash bags use it; as does the DoD for absorbing chemical agents, but even the DoD has an SOP for DECON procedures because no suit is full proof.

The only way to gage a fabric or piece of apparel is to test in the labs using globally accepted test methods like AATCC 100; or various ASTM Test Methods.

You should take a new ScentLok shirt and have it tested using AATCC 100. I could probably arrange an independent lab for a quick peak if you want to consider a test on your own.

Send me your number and we can chat.

TR, the field of hygiene, cosmetic claims, antimicrobials, activated carbon etc. is very complicated. If a company is making "cosmetic claims" than that falls under the http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm074201.htm

As an example a company like Cocona which used coconuts (activated carbon too) uses a claim of "absorbs odor" on all of their literature. I personally have a hard time with this because the odor they are referring to in active wear is bacteria or fungi; yet they refer to OAV in their literature which is stuff like perfumes and garbage. Activated carbon can not kills bugs; period. The theory is the pore size of the "activated carbon" will fill up with the bugs and "store them" which is bunk because if only 30% of the fabric has activated carbon there are two problems with Cocona: (1) How does the fabric work if only 30% is in the constriction? And (2) activated carbon can not kill bugs because is has no way to disrupt the DNA or RNA of the microbes so please understand how does the product absorb all the bugs and other OAV scents in the air with only 30% constriction and work?

Do you follow this logic?

In my opinion companies like Scentlok and Cocona are playing games and the EPA should nail them because they do not have EPA registered products (links below for EPA claims) to make antimicrobial claims because they play games with the wording and cross the line between "cosmetic and antimicrobial" and play a legal game.

A cosmetic claim is very tricky because the cosmetic industry plays games all the time with beauty products that claim to reduce all wrinkles; to making you look younger. In the case of Scentlok is it simple. Show me the data. If the company has no AATCC 100 or 147 data or any ASTM data to support killing bugs than it is "cosmetic" and if cosmetic I am willing to bet they have no data to show human odor caused by bugs and the death of these bugs on fabric substrates tested under lab conditions.

You also have the debate of "regenerating" the carbon which is at much higher temperature than a normal dryer and again we are back to how much carbon is in the over all fabric substrate to even work? Much smoke and mirror in my professional opinion.

It the claims are antimicrobial than they fall under http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/contacts.htm

In summary, many of the anti-microbial textile products available in the market involve applying an organic compound to the textile in the final stages of production. These organic compounds typically target specific microbes - a limited range of bacteria, fungi, or viruses. Like other medicines that carry expiration dates, they tend to oxidize and denature in time and easily wash off fabrics, usually in the first washing. To overcome this problem, some manufacturers add the organic compound to the slurry of a synthetic fiber. However, this process of burying the organic compound inside the synthetic threads typically causes the compound to lose much of its efficacy as the process renders most of the compound unavailable to do its job. Eventually, it too will denature. Amicor is an example of an anti-microbial product in which the active compound is introduced into an acrylic fiber in the slurry stage. This is common in the field of anti-microbial textiles, however, the Amicor product leaves questions regarding it's overall performance.

Cheers and best regards,

You must keep in mind everything in nature to include humans have an odor. A pig smells like a pig; deer a deer and we humans all have throw off different odors depending on our own unique biology.

Bugs all reproduce differently. Some micro-organisms will re-produce every 6 hours while others at 20 hours. With regards to a fabric substrate it is a matter of construction.

A question often arises regarding exposure time. Does the microbe need to be in contact with a copper or silver ion for 4, 18, 24 hours to be effective against the microbe?

In general microbes, both bacteria and fungi, have different mechanisms to deal with metals, including copper or silver. Copper molecules are needed to an extent by microbes as well. Thus, when a microbe is exposed to copper, including a copper ion, it uses the amount of copper that it needs and then tries to get rid of the rest (by chaperons, pumps, etc.). Copper or silver ions may also cause reversible damage when they are in low concentrations, for example to DNA molecules. This damage is reversible because microbes (but not viruses) have mechanism of DNA repair and thus they can repair the damage and survive. However, when there is a constant exposure to new copper ions or molecules, the capacity of the microbe to deal with them is exhausted and damage starts to occur, up to the extent where the microbe is irreversibly damaged and killed.

Thus, it is basically a matter of dosage and equilibrium between the capacity of the microbe to deal with the copper (or silver) and the amount of copper interacting with the microbe, and how fast the microbe is killed.

The higher the concentration of copper or silver to which the microbes are exposed to, the faster the kill effect will be achieved.

If the concentration of the copper is too low (like only 20% of the over all fabric or in the case of activated carbon with a 30% construction) , the microbes can cope with it and generate new neutralizing proteins to deal with the new incoming copper molecules, or even repair the damage caused by the copper.

So it is a matter of threshold. If you have a high enough concentration of ions, you will see kill within very short periods of time, e.g. 30 minutes.

However, when you reduce the level of copper, longer exposure is needed since the accumulative copper uptake by the microbes and copper damage to the microbes is slower. When we do not see damage in 4 hours, we may see damage in 24 hours, since the bacteria are still constantly exposed to copper, although to relative low levels, but enough to kill them eventually, or reduce their capacity to reproduce.

For example, let us imagine a microbe that is exposed to a Copper sheet fabric with 5% copper fibers for 10 minutes before it is transmitted by hand contact to another fabric where there is no copper. This microbe will probably not be killed, as the exposure time and copper content was relatively short/low and the microbe was able to cope with it. In the new fabric after getting rid of the excess copper and repairing possible damage caused to it, the microbe may be able to proliferate. If the concentration of copper in the initial sheet was high enough it may be that that particular microbe during those 10 minutes of exposure was so badly damaged and overwhelmed by the copper ions that it will not survive even when removed to another fabric.

This is why I advocate all the time to try and put as much copper (or silver) into the fibers, and as much copper fibers into the final product. This is the sole reason products must be reviewed in construction and a complete understanding must be attained at all times for each final product style.

This is also measured and tested using AATCC Test Method 100 by taking fabrics and finished clothing articles and testing them with various microbes and wash cycles up to say 50 times. You measure the log reduction of microbes against all samples and get a base line to determine how effective the product will be when it is on a consumer. Nothing is 100%.

In the case of deer hunting and scent: It would make sense to me that combinations of both would offer maximum advantage. When I say combinations; I mean using metals (like copper and silver), not activated carbon in combination with a spray. Keep in mind there is no scientific data to support this theory when using combinations.

The following interchange is in the court records from May 5, 2009 in the Minnesota Federal District court.

Page 80 - line 15 to page 81 - line25

"We bought a $300 Jacket. We cut it apart. I've shown opposing counsel this today. This is just a liner. This is the carbon liner we have been talking about. If you pull it apart, that's carbon , those little black dots. If you hold it up to the light you can see the spacing. (See Amos Turk deposition ) If you want to hang on to that , I'll explain why that matters.

Dr. Miller said two things in his affidavit that he put in class. He said one. I don't even think I even have to do testing. I'm an activated carbon expert. I pulled apart their liner. Remember, they use one liner. They put all different camouflage on the outside, but they only use one liner. I pulled it apart. I looked at it. There is spaces between the carbon. Carbon has no magnetic pull. If the odor doesn't touch the carbon , it can't stick to the carbon.

He looked at that and he said-and then he put it under a microscope and he counted the little things and he said 27 percent of the surface area has the little carbon dots , meaning that 73 percent has a place where odor would never come in contact with carbon. He said I can tell you as a Ph.D. who works in activated carbon there is no way this can eliminate odor. This thing can't reduce odor if it doesn't touch it.

Their own expert, by the way, was deposed by us. Dr. Turk. They had hired Dr. Turk. Dr. Turk is in the activated carbon hall of fame. We didn't know that but he is. And Tom pulled it apart and showed him , and he said it can't work. We have that extensively in our opening brief , the whole dialogue. That can't possibly work. That can't touch all the odor as it's coming out.

This argument that we have to test products from before and after, first of all, I don't think we have to test anything. Second we are testing everything they say is their best product line.

T.R.:

Thank you for your email.

To update - the status of litigation (in the Scent Lok case): Cases are on file in eight federal courts; each case seeks to represent a statewide class of consumers from that state. Those cases are in D. Minn.; E.D. Wisc.; S.D. Ind.; N.D. Ill.; D. Maryland; N.D. Fla.; N.D. Cal.; E.D. Wash. Additional cases will be filed on behalf of class members in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Class certification was argued on May 5, 2009 in the D. Minnesota case. The transcript of that hearing, by Local Rule, is available to the public (on PACER, the court's document cite, or in the public file) 90 days after the transcript is completed. The transcript was completed on May 15, 2009.

In Minnesota, our merits expert reports were due on May 1, 2009, with limited exceptions. The reports of our testing expert, our survey expert, our financial expert, and our game animal expert were served on defendants. Defendants' expert reports are due July 25, 2009.

Last, we have moved the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for transfer and coordination of all cases to one court. We expect a ruling transferring all cases to one court in the next few weeks.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Regards,

Renae

You can check the current status of the Scent Lok Patent on the United States Patent Office website.

You can find latest Patent Office action at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html by clicking on "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.

This is what the Patent Office - filed on May 22, 2009 - another rejection of Scent Lok's Patents. I believe this means Scent Lok has no patents - which means other manufacturers can now compete with Scent Lok- which means prices on activated carbon clothing - should become less expensive, even if they don't work.

Hunters in Indiana and Florida have filed Class Action Lawsuits against Scent Lok. The Florida suit names not only Scent Lok, Cabelas' Inc, Browning, Gander Mountain Bass Pros Shops - but also includes Cabelas's Wholesale Inc. and Robinson Outdoors (Scent Shield). Since the notice and subpoenas have not been served yet, Scent Lok may not even know this is coming - I guess I should notify them. I'll do it now. That makes a total of five states: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois and Florida.

On www.Justia.com, one of the people who filed a law suit against Scent Lok, stated in their deposition, that they filed suit because they had been to this (my Scent Lok / Activated Carbon Science, www.TRMichels.com/ActivatedCarbonScience.html) web page, and realized that they'd been ripped of - by Scent Lok. To find lawsuits against Scent Lok - type in the letters ALS.

Anyone with a lick of sense, who actually reads what is on this page - and on page 2 - knows that activated carbon cannot work the way the manufacturers of hunting clothing say it can.

At the same time I heard that ALS's corporate heads have also been deposed, but that their testimony has been sealed. What's with that ... I thought we had a little legal precedent here in the USA called the "Freedom of Information Act". Why is it that the depositions of those suing Scent Lok are made public, but Scent Lok's lawyers have the depositions of the Scent Lok corporate heads sealed? Is that fair - to the hunting public?

Want to talk about Scent Lok and Activated Carbon Clothing issues? Log on here; "T.R.'s Outdoor & Hunting Tips" Talk Forum / Message Board

 

 

It seems Scent Lok is becoming more blatant about their product, instead of laying low, like they should be in the face of a Class Action Lawsuit for "diversity fraud". I suspect they may be trying to "make hay" before the "cold, hard reality of winter" sets in.

 

 

Here is what Scent Lok has claimed in one of its full-page advertisements in the major hunting magazines.