May 9, 2007
What did you say?
That was about my response when I was asked to review a water repellent and lubricant I’d never heard of. Jig-A-Loo what? Sure, OK. Send some over. What I got was an orange can of spray about the size of a can of Pam cooking spray and an orange hat I doubt you could wear any place for long in the United States with out getting something kicked.
After a little internet searching, reading, and checking up on this stuff I found it’s a pretty well established product in Canada and hails from Quebec where they have this funny habit of speaking a lot of French. Thus the name, Jig-A-Loo, and the company’s claim it derives from a saying they have up north, “I’ve got it!”
Well, ok. If you guys say so, but what I really care about is, does it work.
Water repellent? Lubricant on a par or better than WD40? No smell and a line or two later in their ad it claims to have a pleasant aroma or some such phrase. Now my skeptic radar is lit up like a Christmas tree son so let’s get right on this and get it figured out.
First I got out a pure white paper towel and a white cotton shop towel. Both were perfectly clean to start and I folded each over in half. On the side up I sprayed a good coating of Jig-A-Loo, just like I would with any other water repellent. Then I hung both of these over a fence in the sun to dry.
Despite their claim to be odorless this is when you will notice an odor, when you are spraying it. Considering a warning like this, “CAUTION Contains: methylene chloride, perchloroethylene, isobutane, and propane… ” you get a pretty clear picture of the odor. Not really objectionable but not exactly odorless nor exactly pleasant and definitely one you should not smell in a confined area or around an open flame. The label on the can makes this perfectly clear as well.
If did my own little flammability test I won’t describe in detail but I’ll say it’s less flammable right out of the can than hair spray but not much and it doesn’t appear to have any affect on the flammability of material after it is dry at all. So be careful where you spray it but once dry I don’t consider it an issue.
I must say when it dries, there is no odor my nose could detect so I’ll call Jig-A-Loo odorless at that point and there was no stain and both materials appear plain white again when dry so I’ll definitely call it nonstaining as well. I like that it was dry after a few minutes to prevent collecting dirt and dust when used on a weapon as well and after a month of humid summer weather I see absolutely no sign of rusting on my blue steel 10/22 I sprayed with Jig-A-Loo and after about 500 rounds since lubing it I’m still not experiencing any of the stove pipe malfunctions with sub sonic ammo that motivated me to give Jig-a-loo a try as an action lubricant.
The only area of their advertised claims I found deficient was in the area of water repellent. Both materials I originally tested soaked up water from a spray bottle equally on both the treated area and the untreated area. I couldn’t tell any difference no matter which position the fabric was in when sprayed, it still soaked right in to both the cotton shop cloth and the treated paper towel. In order to make sure I was giving this a fair test I even sprayed my army surplus field jacket from the middle of the shoulder over to the left side and when it finally rained a little last week I wore it to go out and feed the dogs. I wasn’t outside more than five or ten minutes but when I got back in I couldn’t tell a bit of difference looking at the back of the jacket or feeling it on my back. It was just plain wet and it felt wet.
Jig-a-loo worked great quieting the squeaky truck door and the hinge on the back door of the house with the advantage over WD40 that I wasn’t worried about staining the wood or stinking up the house. Ten minutes later you couldn’t look at it or take a whiff and know I’d done a thing until you opened the door. Then I was smooth and squeak free.
I’d recommend this to gun owners and I’m using it as a lubricant on my own guns now instead of most other oils but I think I’ll keep my umbrella handy for feeding the dogs in wet weather.
Richard Becraft J
May 7, 2007
To what depths of despair will some people reach to fulfill an agenda? That question may have been answered for one Idaho man recently.
It was rapidly approaching my usual bedtime, when the telephone rang. On the other end was a man who wanted to share with me an experience he had just encountered that he described as both frightening and repulsive. He was obviously shaken.
Honored that he had sought me out as someone he felt he could trust, I listened intently as he told his story.
Because this man expressed that after hearing what he heard, he feared for his wife and family, himself and his job, he wanted to remain anonymous. I quizzed him further about the need to remain anonymous.
“This is an emotional issue and I’m exposing the hidden agendas of two respected sportsmen. It’s just best to remain anonymous.”
I will not reveal his identity for these reasons.
For the purposes of this story, let’s give the caller the name of John.
John saw an advertisement in the Wild Idaho News about a meeting that was to be sponsored by the Idaho Wildlife Federation on April 21, 2007 at the Red Lion Hotel Downtowner in Boise, Idaho. He said the ad listed the meeting as “open to the public and free”.
Not being able to find any advertisement on the Wild Idaho News website, I visited the IWF website and pulled up a pdf file containing an ad for this event. Included with this was another ad announcing the annual banquet and fundraising event for the Idaho Wildlife Federation.
The banquet was scheduled for later in the evening with doors opening at 6:00 p.m. and dinner buffet at 7:00 p.m., the ad read.
The meeting that caught John’s eye was one scheduled for 1:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Listed to be discussed on the agenda were three current issues: 1.) Snake River, 2). Canned Hunts, and 3.) TRAsH (Teach Responsibility & Save Heritage).
John decided he would drive to Boise and learn more about the canned hunting issue. He told me he went for information because he had heard that there might be a citizen’s sponsored voter initiative in November 2008 and thought it a good opportunity to start learning more about the issue.
Arriving early for the meeting, John decided to sit in the restaurant and have a meal while he waited. He sat two tables away from a group of other men gathered around a table. He recognized one man as being Kent Marlor, president of the Idaho Wildlife Federation, whom he had met several years earlier.
John ordered his meal and within moments he saw a familiar face enter the restaurant. It was Don Clower, former commissioner of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. He entered the restaurant and passed by John on his way to sit at the same table with Kent Marlor and others. John had also met Clower several years earlier when Clower was the spokesman against a citizen initiative that, if passed, would have ended most bear hunting methods in Idaho.
John couldn’t help but overhear much of the conversation at the table, as there was little attempt to not be overheard. He later described the demeanor to me to be brazen and arrogant.
What follows are excerpts from that conversation. Any direct quotes from anyone at that table will be in quotations.
According to John, he heard Kent Marlor say that it would be hard to pass an initiative without positive tests for chronic wasting disease. John said he was unable to hear the resulting conversations and could only clearly state hearing, “one year” and “Montana” and “Wyoming”. * The initiative being referred to by Mr. Marlor would be in reference to a citizen brought initiative that has been publicly debated as a possibility by both the Idaho Wildlife Federation and the Idaho Sportsmen’s Caucus Advisory Council. *
The group discussed a Twin Falls Times-News editorial that had claimed the sportsmen’s group (ISCAC) would be hurt if they accepted out of state money for the campaign on a citizen’s initiative. Marlor expressed concern over how much money it would take to run the campaign. Don Clower replied, “I can get you the money, but you won’t like where it comes from.”
To help put this in perspective, you have to understand that John had met Clower before and was familiar with the bear referendum Idaho faced back in 1996. That initiative would have ended bear hunting by all means except stalking. Clower was the lead spokesman against that initiative.
This is a quote Mr. Clower made on October 28, 1996 in the High Country News. “The animal-rights people are imposing their values on the people of Idaho and the rest of the U.S.,” he warns. “They’ll peck away at us, one little group at a time.”
Imagine the shock and amazement John was feeling hearing this coming from a man who just a decade earlier was avidly fighting for all hunters and trappers, chastising those wanting to impose their values on the citizens of Idaho.
Don Clower shared with the group that he had been turkey hunting in North Idaho over the past week and sportsmen there told him not to bring an initiative because it would divide hunters “right down the middle”.
At one point during the conversation, someone at the table used the word hunting while referencing game ranches where hunting is allowed in fenced in areas. Mr. Clower quickly corrected the person and said, “Don’t call it hunting. Call it butchering.”
Clower seemed to be the one dominating much of the conversation and at one point he made reference to the elk industry as “self regulating” and laughed at the term. He too pointed out that it would be difficult to win an initiative based on ethics alone. He said, “What’s ethical to me may not be ethical to you.”
The conversation turned to property rights and how it applies to the elk industry debate. Clower said that it would have to be proven that someone else’s private property rights were being put in jeopardy by elk farms in order to be successful at shooting down the property rights argument being used successfully by the Idaho elk ranchers. He asked the group if they knew who would vote for this initiative if they could convince the public that their property values are decreasing because of elk farming. “Boise,” was his reply.
They even discussed the elk that had escaped from Dr. Rex Rammell’s ranch near Rexburg, Idaho last summer. Part of the debate that has been in full swing since then Gov. Jim Risch had several of Rammell’s elk killed outside his ranch, has been about property rights. Rammell and others have argued that whether the elk got out of the enclosure or not, they still belong to the rancher.
The last part of the conversation that John heard before he decided to leave was when Don Clower told the group that what was needed to get support for passage of a citizen’s initiative against the elk industry is, “a public health scare”. He said that people have to be worried about disease.
As you have just read, this is extremely damning and disturbing information. I asked John several follow-up questions. I asked him, why should people believe this story?
“I believe that some of the things I have shared can be proven accurate with further questioning and investigating.” John went on to exclaim loudly that he was willing to take a lie detector test and questioned whether or not those sitting at that table would.
There are two key indicators for me in concluding that John was being honest. The first is he has nothing to gain from this in any way. He went to a public meeting as an outdoor sportsman seeking information. That’s all.
The second key was his prior opinion of the two gentlemen he is outing in this conversation. Hearing what he heard left him in a state of shock and confusion because he had quite a bit of respect for both Don Clower and Kent Marlor prior to this.
I also wanted to know from John why he was electing to come forward with this information?
“The people of Idaho must know the truth. The gentlemen at this meeting want to put several families out of business by scaring the public into supporting an initiative. This is wrong on so many fronts.”
I don’t know who else sat at that table but I am determined to find out. I can tell you this. Two groups have publicly stated that they had discussed the possibility of a citizen’s initiative against the Idaho elk industry with each other. One we have already spoken about and the other is the Idaho Sportsmen’s Caucus Advisory Council. This group has actively lobbied and protested against the elk industry.
The burning question that now should be in everyone’s mind is how far will these individuals, some representing the interest of other people, go in order to achieve the goals of their own agendas?
I have talked at great length with many people about this event. I have no axe to grind with any of these people. Writing this kind of story goes beyond my usual journalistic endeavors. I find no pleasure in exposing people for such things but this is different.
I personally find this revolting. I find it abhorrent that individuals, Americans, would entertain such thoughts, say nothing about carrying them out.
As has always been the message of the articles I write, we need to search for the truth. The only ones that get hurt when truth is examined thoroughly are the liars and purveyors of misinformation, deceit and fear mongering.
The good citizens of Idaho have to be made aware of the fact that those behind a movement to run lawful elk ranchers, good families with children and real people out of business are doing so by lying.
What are the people of Idaho and America to think of people who would sit in a public place and be so brazen as to discuss acts of terrorism for the sole purpose of political agendas? Can we now only assume that everything that has come from these two individuals and the groups they represent, been lies?
I made several attempts to talk with both Mr. Clower and Mr. Marlor. Clower responded to only one email saying “I don’t answer e-mails from people I don’t know.”
Mr. Marlor was kind enough to respond to my last email saying he had been out of town. I called him and we talked for perhaps 5 or 10 minutes. Marlor acknowledged being at the Red Lion Restaurant in Boise on April the 21. He said there were several meetings that took place in that restaurant that day and couldn’t remember what meeting specifically I was referring to.
I asked him directly if he said, “it would be hard to pass an initiative without positive tests for chronic wasting disease”. He denied having said that and that he would never say anything like that. He explained to me the process by which chronic wasting disease is tested, saying that it would be impossible to find any cases of chronic wasting disease because the only testing that can be done is on the brain of a dead animal.
When I quizzed Mr. Marlor about a statement that Don Clower made that he could get the money for an initiative and that they wouldn’t like where it came from, all I got for a response was that no decision has been made on an initiative. He was quite emphatic in stating that no decision has been made. He did not acknowledge nor deny Clower’s statement.
Marlor said he thought that probably there were members of the Idaho Sportsmen’s Caucus Advisory Council present at the afternoon meeting (1p.m. – 3p.m.). He didn’t know if any representatives of ISCAC were present at this restaurant meeting. He again stated there were several informal meetings that went on that day.
I asked Mr. Marlor if there was anyone at any of the meetings that day from Idaho Fish and Game. He said no and cautioned me not to get Idaho Fish and Game mixed up in the discussion about an initiative.