Thread: Deer repellant..Crock of crap

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

You should have noticed by now it is not 1945 anymore

First results when I googled deer numbers.

Can look up some more recent numbers if you like.

Just to give the North Island guys a bit of perspective, we dont do little wee blocks of bush like they do up north as that is not how you exterminate species and that is the goal here in the top of the south make no mistake about that.

Ruahines 94,000 hectares
Kawekas 68,000 hectares

Here is the areas in hectares aerially dropped ( Just in the top of the south)with 1080 with no hand laid or brodi or anything else added to the numbers.

Done since August. All in Hectares.

32,036
4,077
87,166
2,848
Completed by the middle of this month.
209,821
17,154

It is all there in the poison summary if you would like to check my numbers they are not made up or exaggerated.

There are single operations done here that cover more area than all of the Ruahines and Kawekas combined and they are back to do it again as soon as possible.

Id say a few of you would be upset if they carpet bombed the entire Ruahines and Kawekas and also your private land bordering (cos they are good like that ) in one go with no repellant.

Kahurangi national park 452,000 hectares, the whole lot will be done.


1,000,000 hectares of 1080 dropped for Battle for the birds.

Originally Posted by systolic

First results when I googled deer numbers.

Can look up some more recent numbers if you like.

Wont do you much good as googling possum numbers used to give the same number quoted 30 odd years ago so either 1080 doesn't control possums or they cant count.

You mean to deal to the birds?

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 Maca49

You mean to deal to the birds?

Deer. Tho the rock wren and kea will get absolutely hammered also.

It doesnt help when your local council wants deer exterminated

http://www.nzhuntingandshooting.co.n...te-deer-24035/

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.

My MOA cuts the hectare section I have in an hour and a half but when it's real thick it can take longer. That changes based on the season.

Sent from my E5823 using Tapatalk

The only way DOC will "manage" deer is if they can get away with it politically and make money. They do it at the moment with trout which are an ecologically invasive species. Just ask a freshwater ecologist.

Hypocritical that's for sure all the red tape the rma comes up with & then heres f&g keeping the rivers well stocked with trout lol...carnage but it pay$

DOC shouldn't be managing deer or introduced species now that the Game Council has been formed. I think a lot more good would come from the Game Council as they have interest in both the animals and the environment, DOC mostly want them dead.

Originally Posted by Mooseman

DOC shouldn't be managing deer or introduced species now that the Game Council has been formed. I think a lot more good would come from the Game Council as they have interest in both the animals and the environment, DOC mostly want them dead.

This wont happen while they are still officially listed as "pests"

Originally Posted by veitnamcam

This wont happen while they are still officially listed as "pests"

Should be treated as assets and managed as such. I would hazard a guess more is spent in this country on hunting than bird watching.

I personally visit our back country for the animals, for me the birds are a added bonus. But I wouldn't walk into far away places to watch birds, deer etc are my draw card. If the Game Council aren't going to get full reins on the management of our game animals the government needs to address the reason and if that means taking deer etc off the pest list then they need to do just that.

My understanding is that there is a patent on the deer repellent formula, which means it cannot be added to the baits during production. These normal baits have to be shipped to a warehouse, spread out, then sprayed with the deer repellent. This adds a lot of money to the production of 'deer repellent' baits. I don't think the patent will be lifted any time soon either. This means that the repellent can wash off in wet conditions and doesn't last as long as it otherwise would. From what I can gather it does work. There seems to be a lot of stuff said on the issue of 1080, a lot of it seems to be people thinking with their emotions rather than logic, which makes arguing difficult and seems almost impossible to get a point across in most situations. Deer need controlling, it's well understood the damages they can do when they reach high numbers. I've definitely seen some areas that could do with a few less deer, not only for the bush but for the animals themselves being in such high numbers didn't seem to be getting the feed they need. Deer evolved in an ecosystem which contained predators which kept the population healthy, which is something that is largely missing from the one they occupy here. There is a paper by Dave Forsyth where he looks at impacts of deer and Moa on New Zealand ecosystems which would be worth a read for anyone that's interested. Doc don't use 1080 to control deer, the deaths are by-kill from operations targeting introduced predators.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk