Anyone used this stuff and is it effective.
I am thinking mainly of foxes but have never had to use a deterrent before.
Ta, Jim

"Jim Paterson" wrote in message
...
Anyone used this stuff and is it effective.
I am thinking mainly of foxes but have never had to use a deterrent
before.
Ta, Jim


I used a cocoa shell product soaked with renardine to repel cats in my
garden. it worked but I think the smell was worse than the cat cr*p
--
Martin & Anna Sykes
( Remove x's when replying )
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~sykesm

The message
from "Jim Paterson" contains these words:

Anyone used this stuff and is it effective.
I am thinking mainly of foxes but have never had to use a deterrent before.

Is it still made? Coo!

My information says that it is not effective. The best deterrent is a
·243" rifle. Or a pet mongoose.

--
Rusty Hinge
horrid·squeak&zetnet·co·uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

"............Anyone used this stuff and is it effective.
I am thinking mainly of foxes but have never had to use a deterrent
before......"

Neither have I.... but thinking.........I used Armilitox a few years ago to
stop Badgers going for my sweet corn, watered around the outside of the plot
and it kept them away for almost a month.
Now I am being plagued the last couple of weeks by moles digging just under
the surface, then at night.or early morning the foxes are digging up all the
runs looking for them.
Now if I watered on Armilitox would it keep both at bay?
Just a thought



--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

"David Hill" wrote in message
...
"............Anyone used this stuff and is it effective.
I am thinking mainly of foxes but have never had to use a deterrent
before......"

We used it to protect our hens. It keeps fox away but needs to have repeated
applications.It's also quite expensive.

Get complacent and ... :-(

Mary

In article ,
Jaques d'Altrades wrote:
The message
from "Jim Paterson" contains these words:

Anyone used this stuff and is it effective.
I am thinking mainly of foxes but have never had to use a deterrent before.

Is it still made? Coo!

My information says that it is not effective. The best deterrent is a
·243" rifle. Or a pet mongoose.

Er, that is a red FOX, not a red DEER, which is being discussed.
A .22 long cartridge (not even a magnum) is the appropriate load.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from "Martin Sykes" contains
these words:

I used a cocoa shell product soaked with renardine to repel cats in my
garden. it worked but I think the smell was worse than the cat cr*p

Sprinkle Aluminium ammonium sulphate crystals ove cat-affected areas. No
smell as far as my nose goes, and harmless.

You might have to find a chemical wholesaler. I think I had to buy their
smallest pack - a 500g plastic drum.

--
Rusty Hinge
horrid·squeak&zetnet·co·uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

"David Hill" wrote in message
...
snip.
Now I am being plagued the last couple of weeks by moles digging just
under
the surface, then at night.or early morning the foxes are digging up all
the
runs looking for them.
snip David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

I remember a famous mole catcher who when asked how he disposed of them,
replied that he buried the little b*****s alive

"Jaques d'Altrades" wrote in message snip Is
it still made? Coo!

Its in the current Kays catalogue, £6.99 I think
Jim
snip
Rusty Hinge
horrid·squeak&zetnet·co·uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
In article ,
Jaques d'Altrades wrote:
The message
from "Jim Paterson" contains these words:

Anyone used this stuff and is it effective.
I am thinking mainly of foxes but have never had to use a deterrent
before.

Is it still made? Coo!

My information says that it is not effective. The best deterrent is a
·243" rifle. Or a pet mongoose.

Er, that is a red FOX, not a red DEER, which is being discussed.
A .22 long cartridge (not even a magnum) is the appropriate load.

Needs an accurate head shot with ·22RF to be sure. A ·243 OTOH.......

That's usually what we use - sometimes a triple two. We only shoot
injured deer ATM as they aren't about in enough numbers here to be a
nuisance.

One roe doe failed to get out of the way of a beet harvester last year.
Broken leg. ·243. Freezer.

--
Rusty Hinge
horrid·squeak&zetnet·co·uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

The message
from "David Hill" contains these
words:

Now if I watered on Armilitox would it keep both at bay?

No. But infusion of ferret litter would.

--
Rusty Hinge
horrid·squeak&zetnet·co·uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

In article ,
Jaques d'Altrades wrote:

My information says that it is not effective. The best deterrent is a
·243" rifle. Or a pet mongoose.

Er, that is a red FOX, not a red DEER, which is being discussed.
A .22 long cartridge (not even a magnum) is the appropriate load.

Needs an accurate head shot with ·22RF to be sure. A ·243 OTOH.......

Sorry, but that is the converse of the truth. A long cartridge
will make a hole 3" deep and 1" wide, which would kill cleanly even
with a thorax shot. I have killed goats with a .22 magnum (a head
shot), which punched a large hole in the skull (when I missed their
eye) - and they are considerably larger than foxes!

However, please note that I am talking about garden distances, which
is relevant here. At longer ranges (even 100x), I agree that a .243
would be a better weapon for a fox. At short range, it would probably
go straght through.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from (Nick Maclaren) contains these words:
In article ,
Jaques d'Altrades wrote:

My information says that it is not effective. The best deterrent is a
·243" rifle. Or a pet mongoose.

Er, that is a red FOX, not a red DEER, which is being discussed.
A .22 long cartridge (not even a magnum) is the appropriate load.

Needs an accurate head shot with ·22RF to be sure. A ·243 OTOH.......

Sorry, but that is the converse of the truth. A long cartridge
will make a hole 3" deep and 1" wide, which would kill cleanly even
with a thorax shot.

And that's hollowpoint only. A ·22 LR can miss any immediately fatal
areas, and run off and die.

Even a HV centrefire rifle expanding bullet doesn't always kill.

There was a particular fox which was costing the shoot thousands. (No
exaggeration) We were particularly keen to shoot it. One night, out with
the lamp and the ·243 I caught it in the beam. The keeper tried to
whistle it up, but it was too canny, and moved away. One shot.

We drove on to the stubbles to the spot we had last seen it. There was
blood across the ditch and through the hedge. Shining the lamp there,
the fox was just on the other side. The underkeeper poked it to make
sure it was dead.

It got up and went further into the field.

We had to drive down the hedge for several hundred yards to get across
the ditch, and then back again on the other side. The fox was watching
us. Keeper finished it with one through the head.

Now, the first shot had eviscerated it and removed its manhood. Its body
cavity was hollow right up to the diphragm.

And this is why I support fox hunting rather than shooting - the fox is
either quickly killed or it gets away.

(I used not to support fox hunting, but experience has taught me differently.)

I have killed goats with a .22 magnum (a head
shot), which punched a large hole in the skull (when I missed their
eye) - and they are considerably larger than foxes!

However, please note that I am talking about garden distances, which
is relevant here. At longer ranges (even 100x), I agree that a .243
would be a better weapon for a fox. At short range, it would probably
go straght through.

A softnose expanding bullet shouldn't. It's not going significantly
slower at 300 yards. Longer shots than that are usually only taken as a
last resort - in my circle of keepers, that is.

--
Rusty Hinge
horrid·squeak&zetnet·co·uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm

In article ,
Jaques d'Altrades wrote:

Sorry, but that is the converse of the truth. A long cartridge
will make a hole 3" deep and 1" wide, which would kill cleanly even
with a thorax shot.

And that's hollowpoint only. A ·22 LR can miss any immediately fatal
areas, and run off and die.

Eh? I was referring to hollowpoint! Don't they make .22 LR hollowpoint
any longer - it used to be virtually the only kind you could buy.

Even a HV centrefire rifle expanding bullet doesn't always kill.

As I said, using too heavy a rifle is one of the known causes of
NOT killing cleanly. It is quite likely to go straight through.
Also, most of those bullets are designed to expand, whereas a .22
(long or magnum, not short) typically breaks up.

Now, the first shot had eviscerated it and removed its manhood. Its body
cavity was hollow right up to the diphragm.

And this is why I support fox hunting rather than shooting - the fox is
either quickly killed or it gets away.

(I used not to support fox hunting, but experience has taught me differently.)

I certainly agree with that. The unspeakable Burns report very carefully
did not consider the cruelty involved in banning foxhunting - only that
in foxhunting itself.

Note that the method you were using was the one favoured by the Burns
report, except that it referred to a .22 rather than a .243. If the
keeper had hit where he was aiming for, of course, the fox would have
been dead with either.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

The message
from Jaques d'Altrades contains these words:


And that's hollowpoint only. A ·22 LR can miss any immediately fatal
areas, and run off and die.

Oops! Missed the fox innit.

What I meant to say was: A ·22 LR (solid) can miss any immediately fatal
areas, and the fox can run off and suffer a slow and painful death.

--
Rusty Hinge
horrid·squeak&zetnet·co·uk
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/tqt.htm