Thread: 223 on deer

Originally Posted by Peeaye

Why would any "Hunter" shoot 72 deer in a year? That's one every 5 days...... that's a hell of a lot of walking, butchering, carrying, unless........

because our dearly beloved leaders will want to nuke them with 1080.

Originally Posted by SmokeyJason

because our dearly beloved leaders will want to nuke them with 1080.

1080 is not used for deer management. Please don't spread misinformation.

Originally Posted by gimp

1080 is not used for deer management. Please don't spread misinformation.

1080 is certainly not licenced for use as a management tool for ungulates, but as we have seen time and again, when authorities time its use, don't use repellant, etc etc, it sure 'manages' deer populations

Originally Posted by SmokeyJason

because our dearly beloved leaders will want to nuke them with 1080.

Its not registered to be used on deer as a targeted primary poison. Simply, it is illegal. That though does not dismiss by-kill of deer which of course does occur. The use of repellent greatly reduces deer by-kill. There are lots of examples, e.g. the number of deer in the Haurangis. We should lobby for repellent on every occasion. @flock thats why we ought to all belong to NZDA or an affiliated organisation. And yay for the Game Council. They are interested in deer management.

The greatest danger to the deer populations is the .223. There would be mayhem on the deer population if .223 ammo was subsidised. I was half expecting to see it in the budget

Originally Posted by Tahr

The greatest danger to the deer populations is the .223. There would be mayhem on the deer population if .223 ammo was subsidised. I was half expecting to see it in the budget

The eternal optimist!