SamPotter wrote:dan wrote:About the time you started using scent control, is probably about the time you got serious about hunting big deer. Less mistakes = less getting busted. Even if it did make a difference, it would not be my cup of tea. It takes away the whole thing that makes hunting deer a challenge. They are coming real close with Ozonics and such, and personally, I hope they never make hunting deer as easy as putting on a magic suit. It would take the fun out of it and make accomplishments not so big a deal.
This is fair. It's impossible to rule out variables in a hunting situation that can't be attributed to whether a deer actually smelled you or not.
At the end of the day, all of our observations are anecdotal and certainly have no scientific significance, and a lot of times we see the result we want to see. Even the "scientific studies" referred to in the podcast have to be taken with a grain of salt. I spent 2 years at the Michigan State dairy farm as a student employee and another 10 years on a dairy farm in NY that performed privately funded feed additive research. There were two things I learned very quickly; even under the premise of doing scientific research, mistakes are made by the people conducting the experiment, and when the research is all said and done, if the results are not what the entity that commissioned the research wanted, there's no law that says the results have to be published. It just gets swept under the rug and they repeat a study several times until they are convinced their hypothesis was wrong or they get the results they want.
Even with his arrogance, it is hard to deny that John Eberhart is the OG of killing mature bucks on public land, especially when you take into account where he has been doing it. He is either the biggest sellout ever or his extreme scent control routine actually works for him. Taking it that far is too much of a PITA for my taste, but I'm not going to say it won't work because I've never done it and I have $10 that says there's nobody commenting on this thread that has either. You show me your "head cover with drop down face mask" and I'll shake your hand and put $10 in it.
I mostly agree... Thats why I tend not to trust funded studies, I have seen that before. Like Wisconsin firing a researcher cause her study found the opposite finding they wanted in regards to CWD. However, the tests done by Myth busters, were done by guys who did not care either way how it went, And if Field and stream did a test, or even published the results of a test, it would be more in there interest to find scent control working flawlessly. This is simply because they have pressure from advertisers. You better believe they had backlash for what they put in print and I tip my hat to them for putting it out there. We also get cut off of a lot of studies and tests done because the scent control manufactures threaten to sue anyone showing negative results. Thats why a lot of video's and shows have been taken down from public viewing. The big picture that is obvious to most people is every independent test, even going to the degree John does while hunting, fails to stop the dog from smelling or knowing where the person was or traveled. I would like to see more testing to look at results cause I am seeing trends that are interesting. Like the fact that in every test I have ever watched or looked at the results of where a dirty sweaty guy went up against a clean dry scent control guy, the sweaty guy is "harder" for the dog to find... I even know plenty of scent control advocates that question why.
One would think the sweaty guy would either be found faster or randomly the same as the clean guy. I have to wonder if its that a clean dry body sheds skin cells into the air stream better than an oily body. Or maybe its some other reason, but we will never get to the answer for two reasons. #1 it takes funding to do tests, and who would fund it? #2 the scent control industry would do anything to stop such studies.
Bottom line is, if I am wrong, and you can use activated charcoal to lessen your scent enough to fool a deer, it is such a minuscule difference based on people I know using it and not using it, that the difference would not be worth the pain. I doubt it could make a difference in the outcome for almost all hunters.
As far as me dismissing Johns success using scent control, yes, I suppose I do, cause when tests show that using scent control to his degree don't make a difference, I could "maybe" believe a claim that he only gets winded a few times, but to put in print that he has never been busted ever in 18 years since the day he started using scent control makes me question everything he says. Do you believe that? If not how do you believe anything he says? I was floored when I read that in Deer and deer hunting magazine. He also says he is a public land hunter, but from what I have been reading only a few of his deer came from public land, most are killed on many different private pieces he has gained access to. Not that I care about where he shoots his deer, but there is a big difference between shooting big bucks on private land, and shooting big bucks on public. Not only are the deer smarter and more seasoned on public, your also limited on crops, apples orchards, cutting limbs, leaving stands, etc... There is a reason Drury's, Andrea, and others all have private land.
How about his claim that walking a dog down wind of boxes that have a guy who came in from the opposite direction can't work cause they were not repelled from 500 feet up by a helicopter?
I think John is a good hunter, and people would benefit a lot more, and like him a lot more, by hearing his tactics rather than hearing every time he speaks that the only thing that matters is if you buy a magic suit.