Study

Relative effectiveness of repellents for reducing mule deer damage

  • Published source details Andelt W.F., Burnham K.P. & Manning J.A. (1991) Relative effectiveness of repellents for reducing mule deer damage. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 55, 341-347

Actions

This study is summarised as evidence for the following.

Action Category

Use repellents that taste bad (‘contact repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

Action Link
Terrestrial Mammal Conservation
  1. Use repellents that taste bad (‘contact repellents’) to deter crop or property damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict

    A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 1989 on captive animals in Colorado, USA (Andelt et al. 1991) found that chicken eggs, MGK® Big Game Repellent and coyote urine, used as repellents on foodstuffs, reduced consumption of that food by mule deer Odocoileus hemionus more than did treatment with thiram, Hinder®, soap and Ro·pel®. Deer consumed less food treated with chicken eggs (89 g/day), MGK® Big Game Repellent (94 g/day) and coyote urine (98 g/day) than food treated with thiram (212 g/day), Hinder® (223 g/day), soap (308 g/day) and Ro·pel® (399 g/day). It was not possible to assess which of these feeding rates differed significantly from consumption of food treated just with water (500 g/day). Three female and eight castrated male mule deer were held in individual pens. Repellents and a control (water) were sprayed daily on commercial deer pellets at a rate of 10 ml/500 g. Pellets were dried for 24 hours. The soap treatment involved hanging a bar of soap above the feed container. Food from each treatment was offered in different containers (500 g in each), which were randomized daily, for four days, in May and June 1989.

    (Summarised by: Nick Littlewood)

Output references

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, terrestrial mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust