Comparison of active ingredients and delivery systems in deer repellents

in some situations chemical repellents are a socially appealing nonlethal alternative to reduce deer (Odocoileus spp.) damage to plants. New products are continually becom- ing available, but their ability to repel deer is very variable. We tested 20 repellents rep- resenting 4 modes of action (fear, pain, taste, and aversive conditioning) and 2 delivery systems (topical applications and area repellents (scent packets)) to evaluate current products and identify trends that could be used to predict efficacy of future products. During fall 1998, we placed treated western red cedar (Thuja plicata) seedlings in pas- tures with black-tai led deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and recorded number of bites taken from each seedling at weekly intervals for 18 weeks. Four of the 5 most effective repel- lents used fear as a mode of action. We tested the 5 most effective repellents again in spring 1999 when trees were growing actively and were more palatable to deer. Only PlantskyddTM and Deer Away Big Game Repellent@ powder reduced damage. However, unlike the winter study, the Deerbuster'sTM and Bye Deer@ sachets were hung on stakes at half the height of the seedlings instead of near the terminal buds. When an additional study was conducted with the sachets mounted near the terminal buds so that repellent could drip from bags onto the plants as in the winter study, Deerbuster's sachets and Bye Deer sachets reduced deer foraging. In general, products using fear as a mode of action were more effective than products using other modes of action and topical repellents were more effective than area repellents.

[1]  M. T. Harris,et al.  Preliminary Screening of White-Tailed Deer Repellents , 1983 .

[2]  D. Nolte.  Efficacy of selected repellents to deter deer browsing on conifer seedlings , 1998 .

[3]  D. Nolte,et al.  POTENTIAL REPELLENTS TO REDUCE DAMAGE BY HERBIVORES , 1994 .

[4]  G. Epple,et al.  Effects of predator odors on feeding in the mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa) , 1993 .

[5]  Kenneth P. Burnham,et al.  RELATIVE PREFERENCE OF CAPTIVE COW ELK FOR REPELLENT-TREATED DIETS , 1992 .

[6]  D. Nolte,et al.  Evaluation of Hot Sauce® as a Repellent for Forest Mammals , 2000 .

[7]  G. Witmer,et al.  Repellent Trials to Reduce Reforestation Damage by Pocket Gophers, Deer, and Elk , 1995 .

[8]  Conover,et al.  Review of Human Injuries, Illnesses, and Economic Losses Caused by Wildlife in the United States , 1995 .

[9]  H. C. Black,et al.  ANIMAL DAMAGE PROBLEMS AND CONTROL ACTIVITIES ON NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM LANDS , 1990 .

[10]  J. Russell Mason,et al.  Effectiveness of odour repellents for protecting ornamental shrubs from browsing by white-tailed deer , 1994 .

[11]  D. Decker,et al.  WILDLIFE DAMAGE TO CROPS: PERCEPTIONS OF AGRICULTURAL AND WILDLIFE PROFESSIONALS IN 1957 AND 1987 , 1991 .

[12]  R. Swihart,et al.  Reducing deer damage to yews and apple trees: testing Big Game Repellent, RO.PEL, and soap as repellents. , 1990 .

[13]  G. Örlander,et al.  Browsing deterrent and phytotoxic effects of roe deer repellents on Pinus sylvestris and Picea abies seedlings , 1996 .

[14]  K. Burnham,et al.  Effectiveness of capsaicin and bitrex repellents for deterring browsing by captive mule deer , 1994 .

[15]  W. Palmer,et al.  Evaluation of White-Tailed Deer Repellents , 1983 .

[16]  Amos B. Smith,et al.  Feeding Responses to Predator-Based Repellents in the Mountain Beaver ( Aplodontia rufa ) , 1995 .