Thread: Deer repellant..Crock of crap

Originally Posted by HNTMAD

really, having been in an area where it was used i can confirm

1, yes there was deaths,
2 the death level was no where near that of non deer repellant areas

Its not like the bates run away when a deer comes near or has a sign sayinmg "dont eat me"

If it was a choice i would say deer repellant every time

amazing how all of a sudden 3 dead deer equals it dosent work

Hamish

Thats all good to say, but the fact is the fallow up the Cobb were hit very hard after the first drop, from what i saw of sign when i was up there and many accounts of other hunters backed by the local DOC worker.
With animal numbers already low ,after that second drop for someone to find 3 deer carcasses says something.
By all accounts its hard enough to find anything dead in the bush after a drop, and to find 3 deer dead in a 2km radius suggests that thats just the tip of the iceberg and with low numbers suggests a good percentage was hit.
Says something about the so called repellant to me, it doesnt work very well and if you saying it works far better than without then straight 1080 must be killing a massive amount of deer, esp fallow as they tend to be grazers and the smaller body weight they dont take to it well v a red(not that they take to it well either).
Im not a believer it works, more properganda from the spin doctors but the real proof will be when some actually studies and facts come out about its use.
Hopefully the studies underway will proof it one way or the other but like all things concerning 1080, studies and real facts DOC dont seem interested in sharing unless it their spin on it and its good news for their side otherwise its sweeped under the carpet.
I bet the difference between 1080 with or without repellant is next to none...we wait and see the studies that come out to say if thats the case or not

Originally Posted by systolic

Evolved to be browsed?

Browsed by what? Weta?

The bush evolved over millions and millions of years. Are you suggesting that in the last 150 years it has suddenly changed and evolved to be browsed by deer, goats, feral sheep and cattle etc?

Or is the damaged caused no more than a few moa did?

Yes millions of years of browsing Moa.

Along comes man and eats them all....along comes more man that replace the lost browsers.
Govt fuck it up and protect them too long...there is some wars. The population has exploded...man can fly....money to be made from these browsers....balance is restored.

Sent from my SM-G800Y using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by deer243

Thats all good to say, but the fact is the fallow up the Cobb were hit very hard after the first drop, from what i saw of sign when i was up there and many accounts of other hunters backed by the local DOC worker.
With animal numbers already low ,after that second drop for someone to find 3 deer carcasses says something.
By all accounts its hard enough to find anything dead in the bush after a drop, and to find 3 deer dead in a 2km radius suggests that thats just the tip of the iceberg and with low numbers suggests a good percentage was hit.
Says something about the so called repellant to me, it doesnt work very well and if you saying it works far better than without then straight 1080 must be killing a massive amount of deer, esp fallow as they tend to be grazers and the smaller body weight they dont take to it well v a red(not that they take to it well either).
Im not a believer it works, more properganda from the spin doctors but the real proof will be when some actually studies and facts come out about its use.
Hopefully the studies underway will proof it one way or the other but like all things concerning 1080, studies and real facts DOC dont seem interested in sharing unless it their spin on it and its good news for their side otherwise its sweeped under the carpet.
I bet the difference between 1080 with or without repellant is next to none...we wait and see the studies that come out to say if thats the case or not

Ok so Fallow being grass dwellers may get hit harder, as for reds in the haurangi we came across or know of up to 10 dead from repellent bait as opposed to the drop earlier where they did some with and some without. One of the older hunters said he searched the bush and found deaths many times greater in the area without repel. So does it work for red, damn straight, Fallow, unsure. Propaganda no way, instead of wasting time fighting for complete bans of 1080. Fight for the use of it with repel. That's what we did and our herd while suffering some deaths is really healthy in numbers.

Each to their own

Hamish

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

Landcare estimate there were circa 58,000 Moa at the time of human arrival.

http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/ab...w-zealands-moa

Originally Posted by deer243

Thats all good to say, but the fact is the fallow up the Cobb were hit very hard after the first drop, from what i saw of sign when i was up there and many accounts of other hunters backed by the local DOC worker.
With animal numbers already low ,after that second drop for someone to find 3 deer carcasses says something.
By all accounts its hard enough to find anything dead in the bush after a drop, and to find 3 deer dead in a 2km radius suggests that thats just the tip of the iceberg and with low numbers suggests a good percentage was hit.
Says something about the so called repellant to me, it doesnt work very well and if you saying it works far better than without then straight 1080 must be killing a massive amount of deer, esp fallow as they tend to be grazers and the smaller body weight they dont take to it well v a red(not that they take to it well either).
Im not a believer it works, more properganda from the spin doctors but the real proof will be when some actually studies and facts come out about its use.
Hopefully the studies underway will proof it one way or the other but like all things concerning 1080, studies and real facts DOC dont seem interested in sharing unless it their spin on it and its good news for their side otherwise its sweeped under the carpet.
I bet the difference between 1080 with or without repellant is next to none...we wait and see the studies that come out to say if thats the case or not

There is very little "spin" about it actually. Its one thing that DOC & OSPRI are actually quiet about. In fact, on this topic you create more spin than "they" do.
Sure, it needs a lot more scientific research and there is no doubt that it would be great if it was more effective.

I agree with you to the extent that it probably can be improved, but lets not just reject it out of hand.

So am I'm right now in assuming DOC is not exterminating, but controlling numbers?

@Tahr that's some speedy extinction right there (200 years from go to whoa), 58,000 Moa aint going to even dent the understory either

Originally Posted by Gibo

@Tahr that's some speedy extinction right there (200 years from go to whoa), 58,000 Moa aint going to even dent the understory either

Yeah, that's what I thought about the vegetation when I read it too. But hunters have always trotted out the Moa browsing theory. Maybe we will never know how many there were and what effect that they had on the flora. But we do know that in excessive numbers deer are destructive and bash the environment. So they need to be controlled in some way (I prefer to say "managed").

Originally Posted by Maca49

So am I'm right now in assuming DOC is not exterminating, but controlling numbers?

Extermination has never been a realistic policy. Nowadays DOC have bigger fish to fry with pests, and even controlling deer numbers is outside of their capability and resources. Deer are here to stay, and i believe the pendulum is swinging towards deer becoming a managed resource with the various sector interests more in balance. The Game Animal Council may appear to be ineffective, but the reality is that they were created by statute and that is in itself a glimmer of hope through giving deer some status.

WARO et al will still be around in the future and things will happen that recreational hunters won't like much, but I'm feeling quite optimistic about the future of our deer herds. There are some damn good people doing some excellent work for us - hats off to them. There is far too much negativity and uninformed bullshit around though.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Extermination has never been a realistic policy. Nowadays DOC have bigger fish to fry with pests, and even controlling deer numbers is outside of their capability and resources. Deer are here to stay, and i believe the pendulum is swinging towards deer becoming a managed resource with the various sector interests more in balance. The Game Animal Council may appear to be ineffective, but the reality is that they were created by statute and that is in itself a glimmer of hope through giving deer some status.

WARO et al will still be around in the future and things will happen that recreational hunters won't like much, but I'm feeling quite optimistic about the future of our deer herds. There are some damn good people doing some excellent work for us - hats off to them. There is far too much negativity and uninformed bullshit around though.

Maybe,if it's bullshit, DOC could clean it up by being far more open in their approach? They seem to be a very closed group, which makes me believe they just don't have a clue. Lake Taupo is a classic example of poor management, I don't thing the have any idea over the fishery here. I for one would ban downriggers, especially on commercial operations and jigging, as you can acurately target fish with both.
In the 16 yrs I've been in Kinloch the fish size demise has been dramatic. They talk about water inversion etc. I have very little confidence in them, apart from the money machine side. So why dont they become very open and tell it as it is? Maybe they would have to tell the truth?

Getting on with DOC is a bit like getting on with your neighbours. its not just all about them. We throw a lot of shit over the fence and hardly ever stop to wonder what its like living in their place.

Originally Posted by deer243

Always heard deer repellant on 1080 was crap and doesnt work that well. Someone i know went for a walk up the Cobb Valley after the 1080 drop(deer repellant used they say) and found 3 dead carcasses of fallow. Havnt seen him for awhile and he was up there 3 weeks after the drop. Very little sign of deer aroundand if he came across 3 there be shit lots more but numbers were low . esp for fallow after the first drop last year. Sad story

Biggest load of crap ive heard in a while. might pay to get the story straight and provide some facts and evidence rather than just 'my mate said this'

Originally Posted by Tahr

Getting on with DOC is a bit like getting on with your neighbours. its not just all about them. We throw a lot of shit over the fence and hardly ever stop to wonder what its like living in their place.

They're a professional organisation with millions at their disposal, they have an obligation to be responsible and truthful

Originally Posted by scoped

Biggest load of crap ive heard in a while. might pay to get the story straight and provide some facts and evidence rather than just 'my mate said this'

"Mates" are probably the only way your going to hear about it!!

Originally Posted by Tahr

Extermination has never been a realistic policy. Nowadays DOC have bigger fish to fry with pests, and even controlling deer numbers is outside of their capability and resources. Deer are here to stay, and i believe the pendulum is swinging towards deer becoming a managed resource with the various sector interests more in balance. The Game Animal Council may appear to be ineffective, but the reality is that they were created by statute and that is in itself a glimmer of hope through giving deer some status.

WARO et al will still be around in the future and things will happen that recreational hunters won't like much, but I'm feeling quite optimistic about the future of our deer herds. There are some damn good people doing some excellent work for us - hats off to them. There is far too much negativity and uninformed bullshit around though.

So what hope is there a of being "pest free" by 2025. Why is no one saying very loudly, especially DOC, it cannot be done?