https://deernz.us5.list-manage.com/t...c&e=506c7c21e9
Printable View
Does that look like a hard peice of land to trap and shoot instead of 1080. With a road and several tracks through it and all. Man this world is screwed
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
2 things.
Repellent use seems to be tied to lobbying. Its expensive, but if its lobbied for it will more likely be used. The Tararua, Rimutaka and Haurangi operations over the next couple of years are all with repellent.
And this is an OSPRI/TB operation. Deer will be a by-kill, but not the target species. In any event, 1080 is not registered for use on deer so will not be used anywhere as a targeted/primary poison on them (thats not to say that in their operations DOC aren't quietly pleased when there is a deer by-kill).
And another annual dump further down the coast of around 20k ha @ Abbey Rocks.Although not renown as a deer spot.The minting machine printing dollar notes @ treasury must be on 24/7 shifts.
mates got a wee block not a million miles from there,the last big drop was 4-5 years ago and there is still bugger all animals around....well we cant find them anyway.
Teramakau otira and deception all before Christmas as well
Sucks big fat hairy ....
That place was a deer factory before the last nine aerial 1080 drops.Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebaiter222
Deer repellent is actually very cheap. All it is, is dried blood or blood and bone - both bi-products of the meat processing industry.
I would guess that 50 kg added per tonne to the mix before it goes through the pellet extruder would be plenty enough.
If repellant is not being used it is because deer are being targeted.
But just as many coons and rats before those 9 drops.Oh well next year will round it out to an even 10Quote:
Originally Posted by Puddleduk
In 2019 the addition of deer repellent added 40% to te cost of production for 1080. Im not sure though if that was when it was sprayed on after making the pellet or how they combine it in to the manufacturing as they do now.
I would suggest there was some creative accounting going onQuote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
To be honest Tahr, I would be surprised if the cost of production of 1080 was a significant portion of the overall cost of the operation when you’re talking about many hours of helicopter operation.
In 2019 at Abbey Rocks they apparently laid 2kg of cereal pellets per hectare, and the pellets had 1.5 grams of 1080 per kg of pellets - so 3 grams of 1080 per hectare which is less than a teaspoon per hectare.
Sodium mono-fluoroacetate is not a complex chemical by any means. If you knew what you were doing you could make it in your kitchen. The main cost of producing it commercially will be in complying with red tape requirements.
Cereal pellets are also cheap to produce. You can buy a 20 kg bag of layer pellets for around $33 retail.
It's a wet and damp outfit so pellet effectiveness may be reduced. Should be coon and rat free if the stuff works after so many drops. Anybody know what the deer numbers are like now?Quote:
Originally Posted by bluebaiter222
@Sauer that previous '19 top dressing was a typical govt dept fiasco.2 Squires and 2 500's & a 44 all flying off the same strip for 5 straight days.Not one of the dumb arse Doc lackies tipping the pellet bags into the hoppers noticed the pellets were disintegrating into dust.Bad factory run of bait.So of course green dust blown out in the rotor wash.Woops,oh well just repeat the drop all over again in the next fine window.Hey what's another $400k between friends
Agree with this, but suggest that further examination of the additional cost of using repellent could be warranted? We've been told its expensive, and no doubt the pricing of the original EPRO repellent reflected the work they had done to develop and test the product......but after that then pricing of almost everything in life is determined by the level of competetion and what the market will stand........ can't help wondering if DoC might also be 'quietly pleased' at the 'prohibitive cost' of repellent?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
Yes, cost of consent and the inevitable legal challenges used to far outweigh the combined cost of the application and the bait back 20 years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sauer
I doubt anything has changed.
You say this but the last time they poisoned the hihitahi bush up our way they were targeting possums and I walked in to zekes hut in the night a 2 hour walk with head torch and I only saw one possum. And then the deerstalkers had ospri come and talk to us in one of the deerstalkers meetings and we gave him the question about why they 1080d it and how many possums did they actually find for reason of poisoning and he was very good at dodging the question .Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
Sent from my SM-G998B using Tapatalk
Their classic tactic is to say they know from experience that their poisoning will have been a success and therefore no or minimal monitoring required. Classic example of self perpetuating beauracracy. Several regional councils issue 10 year resource consents. The pre poison drop applications which are supposed to fully identify effects on non target species including native birds and invertebrates have become unquestioned standardised box ticking farcical paper shuffling. However, unlike the old Animal Health Board; now OSPRI and DoC are subject to OIA information requests as well as scrutiny by Ombudsman and even SFO and Audit. Concerned persons need to formulate very specific carefully constructed series of single vsry specific questions and backed by reasonable evidence to activate the investigation processes and be warned; such process is very hard work and fraught with obfuscations in the OIA stages -- and often thankless.