Report Forum Post
*Note - This report is sent only to the Forum Moderators, no other user will see this.
No, I haven used it. Court rulings on carbon scent control and reactivation prevented the use of 100% effective and reactivated 'as new', but at $7 to $13 a shot, what do you have to lose? A lot of anecdotal stories for and against aren't going to mean a hoot as to what your field experience ends up being, eh? Since it is a particulate suspension in water, and washes off with soap and water, I am suspect about its effectiveness in rain. I searched VT institutes of Research, but could find no link to the study referenced, and which Natural Predator does not provide a link (somewhat disappointing). As all studies, they can easily be 'tweaked' or 're-interpreted' to get desired results, or yielding limited or conditional results by choosing the test environment and parameters. Without knowing under what conditions the tests were conducted, how the statistics were compiled and presented, what sensitivity analysis was employed if any, and how the results relate to the olfactory sensitivity of wild game (deer, hogs, bear, etc.), as a System Analyst (MS-Operations Research), I remain skeptical. However, and many years ago, I was the Surface Forces Pacific Fleet Chemical Warfare Training Officer and dealt with a number of activated carbon products, from gas mask filters, to clothing, to air ventilation filters. I was not impressed with the effectiveness of activated carbon's vapor elimination and disappointed with the short-term period when the activated carbon was moderately effective (the best was the Canadian suits with one weeks worth of field use then discarded). This was military spec activated carbon concentrations, which was purer (% of activation) and applied heavier duty than the commercial products that I've seen. JMHO
Reason for Reporting