Thread: Deer repellant..Crock of crap

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 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!!

Bloody 1080 threads
You can see why it goes bad a, two guys I have a lot a respect for @Maca49 and @Tahr both battling it out with reasonably sound arguments either way and no ground given.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by BRADS

Bloody 1080 threads
You can see why it goes bad a, two guys I have a lot a respect for @Maca49 and @Tahr both battling it out with reasonably sound arguments either way and no ground given.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Thanks @BRADS I just hate closed companies, I have worked in a few. They had bloody excellent employees but the top management never engaged or told you what was happening. The controversy over 1080 could be simply put to test with some open dialogue. My thoughts are they know it's wrong but there's money and govt forces telling them to shut up? I would hope I'm wrong, but you would think today opossums could be irradiated with Genetics, this, if it happened would kill the Golden Goose?
Lake Taupo, a place I've been around for 50 yrs is a bloody disgrace but seems to be driven by greed and money?
Back to painting!!!!! I'm polluting the ground water washing my brushes in the back yard

Originally Posted by BRADS

Bloody 1080 threads
You can see why it goes bad a, two guys I have a lot a respect for @Maca49 and @Tahr both battling it out with reasonably sound arguments either way and no ground given.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Hah. I've retired hurt.

Originally Posted by Tahr

Hah. I've retired hurt.

Your too young to retire!!!

Originally Posted by Maca49

Your too young to retire!!!

Ive only retired from this thread

What actual hard data/info is there on the original trials of the repellant? I seem to remember an article on research done by Cam Speedy on it can't remember where it was published and it was many years back

Was just pointing out the bush to some degree evolved from browsing long before deer where on the scène.

Originally Posted by Boaraxa

Was just pointing out the bush to some degree evolved from browsing long before deer where on the scène.

There is simply no comparison.

Originally Posted by systolic

There is simply no comparison.

Oh yes there is. The birds in NZ evolved to fill roles mammals did elsewhere, and the plant life evolved to counter them. We have a number of plants that grow to counter the damage mammals/marsupials/birds do. We have virtually flightless birds that climb and eat from trees, much like possums. We have birds that dig holes and burrow. And funnily enough we had big grazer roles filled by the moa, and an eagle that was big enough to prey on them, just like other mammals did elsewhere like lions, wolves, etc.

The deer very nicely fill the void left by the moa. Check out what they both ate and how high they could reach to graze.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

Oh yes there is. The birds in NZ evolved to fill roles mammals did elsewhere, and the plant life evolved to counter them. We have a number of plants that grow to counter the damage mammals/marsupials/birds do. We have virtually flightless birds that climb and eat from trees, much like possums. We have birds that dig holes and burrow. And funnily enough we had big grazer roles filled by the moa, and an eagle that was big enough to prey on them, just like other mammals did elsewhere like lions, wolves, etc.

The deer very nicely fill the void left by the moa. Check out what they both ate and how high they could reach to graze.

Did the 58 000 moa eat the same amount as the deer? Between 1945 and 1955 around 300 000 deer were shot in New Zealand. That's just shot, not deer alive in the bush still eating. In 1956 alone 91 000 were shot.

I think just the ones shot would have eaten a fucking lot trees more than the moa did. I there was / is no way for the bush to cope.

That's why the deer cullers, Forest Service and now DoC try to control deer and possum. And goat, mustelids and rats etc.

"The deer very nicely fill the void left by the moa." Yeah, tens of thousands of times over.

Originally Posted by systolic

Did the 58 000 moa eat the same amount as the deer? Between 1945 and 1955 around 300 000 deer were shot in New Zealand. That's just shot, not deer alive in the bush still eating. In 1956 alone 91 000 were shot.

I think just the ones shot would have eaten a fucking lot trees more than the moa did. I there was / is no way for the bush to cope.

That's why the deer cullers, Forest Service and now DoC try to control deer and possum. And goat, mustelids and rats etc.

"The deer very nicely fill the void left by the moa." Yeah, tens of thousands of times over.

You should have noticed by now it is not 1945 anymore

Originally Posted by systolic

Did the 58 000 moa eat the same amount as the deer? Between 1945 and 1955 around 300 000 deer were shot in New Zealand. That's just shot, not deer alive in the bush still eating. In 1956 alone 91 000 were shot.

I think just the ones shot would have eaten a fucking lot trees more than the moa did. I there was / is no way for the bush to cope.

That's why the deer cullers, Forest Service and now DoC try to control deer and possum. And goat, mustelids and rats etc.

"The deer very nicely fill the void left by the moa." Yeah, tens of thousands of times over.

You hit the nail squarely on the head rite there (I THINK) so you are speculating on every front so go back & crawl under your little crown fern & have a real long study up on proven facts if they exist about what animals ate & how much they consumed on there daily diet 500-1000 years ago vs what animals eat now how many there are & report back with some hard evidence ...my lance wood is a proven fact moas ate them....they evolved

Originally Posted by systolic

Did the 58 000 moa eat the same amount as the deer? Between 1945 and 1955 around 300 000 deer were shot in New Zealand. That's just shot, not deer alive in the bush still eating. In 1956 alone 91 000 were shot.

I think just the ones shot would have eaten a fucking lot trees more than the moa did. I there was / is no way for the bush to cope.

That's why the deer cullers, Forest Service and now DoC try to control deer and possum. And goat, mustelids and rats etc.

"The deer very nicely fill the void left by the moa." Yeah, tens of thousands of times over.

And you've factored in the changes in land use, relative animal sizes, digestive efficiency, .... No, I didn't think so.