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