Matt
-
Content Count
3,357 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by Matt
-
I don't know fella What I do know is that the site admin and the moderators have got better things to do than remove pictures for no reason Seems like a lot of fuss about not a lot to me
-
I've not really had anything to do with this one, but I would suspect that if a 'playful' member had posted a picture of a cut finger, and deliberately made it look like a penis, it may be deemed to be against the new rules? Whatever Is it really worth all this fuss? This is a hunting site, not a youth club. Perhaps if folks don't like the site they could stop logging in rather than constantly posting threads designed purely to provoke a reaction? Just a thought folks
-
OK guys, I worded it badly The point is that the secondary poisoning problem is not caused by raptors eating dead rodents. It's linked to raptors eating non target small rodents that have consumed bait laid for rats Sorry for the confusion
-
Fox dropper, I largely agree with you The problem is that it's often easier to chuck a bit of bait down than try and actually sort the initial issue out. The secondary poisoning problem has been caused (in my opinion) by the biggest pest control companies selling the 'perimeter protection' theory. They thrived on selling service contracts that maintained bait in perimeter bait stations that are used by non-target rodents, which in turn, become food for raptors. The problem is that instead of using rodenticide as a tool to deal with infestations, it's become an insurance policy
-
I do have some information that I'm unable to share because it's someone else's intellectual property. There's lot's of stuff on the net if you use google, and also there is a very good (but technical) book written by the worlds leading experts on the subject. It's out of print now, but copies do come up on Amazon occasionally. I'll find you a link if I can.
-
It's a large percentage of those samples tested BUT....... it's 'residues' and it's not actually the cause of death Oh, and the problem is a rural one, not an urban one I've controlled large numbers of resistant rats with terriers and traps, and I can assure you that you are only ever taking the top of the population off. Usually, within a year, the problem is back to the same level it was. Part of my business for a number of years was providing field services for a university that was researching this issue. I worked exclusively with genetically sampled resistant popul
-
A 'hobby' Twenty five years a professional You see, you've made a serious error there, Barn Owls are in fact one of the most seriously effected species, along with kestrels. The bait kept down permanently for rats is actually being eaten by small mammals, like woodmice and fieldmice, which are in turn being predated by Barn Owls and Kestrels. For many years now, residues of rodenticides have been found in liver samples taken from dead birds. There is very little actual evidence that these residues are causing deaths, but the BoP lobby have made as much of it as they can.
-
Whatever you say fella My experience is that when people start a sentence off with the words "with all due respect", that's not what they really mean The fact is, sensibly used, by professionals, and for limited periods of time, Brodifacoum, Floucoumafen and Difethialone represent far less risk to BoP than to be continually chucking Difenacoum and Bromadialone at them while the target populations grow. As was said on the TV programme, Barn Owl numbers are increasing, and car accidents cause far more deaths than rodenticide. When successive governments place more importance on
-
Anyone who thinks that serious rat infestations can be controlled with nothing but terriers and traps is living in cloud cuckoo land I'm afraid. And I say that as a professional trapper, who has done alot of work with resistant populations.
-
Have I ever come across the so called 'super rats' ? Yes, one or two..... I haven't actually seen the programme yet, but the problem of rodenticide resistant rats is not a new one. It started in the 60's when rats started to become resistant to Warfarin and other first generation rodenticides, and at that time the second generation baits still worked. Around 30 years ago, resistance to second generation baits started, and later, the gene type was identified and became known as L120Q type resistance. I've done quite a bit of work on this subject, and the problem is on of p
-
Not here in the UK.... If you can prove the debt, then go for it
-
Make sure any letter you send are sent via Recorded Delivery
-
Alternatively, as you have 10 acres, you could just restrict the terrier until you have your problem fox sorted
-
In which case I'd suggest you invest in both a cage and a few snares. Snares are cheap (certainly much cheaper than chickens!) and can be deployed on anything that looks vaguely like a run, and a cage can be set up near the birds with something good and smelly in it as bait. This problem isn't going to go away when you get an FAC, the FAC will just widen your control options.
-
As Heritage suggests, snares are a cost effective and efficient method. The only thing that worries me is finding viable runs in a small area like a garden. A decent cage trap, permanently set up may be a worthwhile long term investment. I can't really comment on the collarum as I've never used one.
-
New blog post published guys I love the idea of 'turbo' cider
-
One of These (link) makes sterilising bottles childs play. I also use one of These (link) to dry the bottles afterwards.
-
To make 'proper' zider, you need a pulper and a press and lot's of time. What you end up with is an astonishingly good scrumpy, but nothing like the commercial ciders available. The advantage of kits is that you can be drinking your own stuff, for less than 50p per pint within weeks. The 'On the Rocks' cider kits are simple to use and make, and although there is some initial outlay for equipment, the cost is easily recouped from the savings you make on commercial ciders. The kits use concentrated apple juice; you just add water, sugar and the yeast (supplied in the kit). On
-
Top advice there
-
Alcoholism is an illness not a lifestyle choice. It may start out as a lifestyle choice, but things often develop into more serious problems. People suffering from illness deserve your sympathy, not your scorn. Blood is thicker than water; the fact that he wouldn't spend a fiver on a kebab is neither here nor there; it sounds like the issues run much deeper than that. I'm not in a position to judge anyone, but I'd urge you to try and help rather than look for reasons to escalate the issue.
-
LOL, yep, I'm up for that.... The trouble is, I never worked for R and got myself brainwashed into thinking that theirs was the best training and no technician is as good as an R technician.... Sadly, they learned the hard way that their training was out of date; that's why they now have to put all their guys through the RSPH It's not a competition; I don't even work in mainstream pest control anymore. The days of me worrying about State of Service and Optimum Treatment Times are long gone.... I just do my 'thing' and struggle on, safe in the knowledge that others will always k
-
Another 'big Money', Rat Job !
Matt replied to earth-thrower's topic in Snaring, Trapping & Pest Control
In my own right? Not on your nellie When I worked for one of the big boys, with good technicians, admin, and technical staff available? Possibly. These things are rarely what they seem I've run some big contracts in my time; including the Palace of Westminster, various utilities and local authorities, and to be honest, the best way of finding out what is needed is to speak to the chaps actually doing the job. The trouble is, with a contract like this, you are into the unknown.... you have to allow for all sort of shite that you didn't expect when the pre tender -
I understand fully what you are saying......... BUT...... The fact that no-one has ever been prosecuted (yet) doesn't make it legal. Mixing a stronger concentration than that clearly specified on the label is an offence. As anyone who has sat the RSPH level two knows only to well So the answer to the question asked is, yes, it's an offence to use a pesticide in a way other than that specified on the label, and in particular that specified in the statutory box
-
Ah, so you only commit an offence if you use the product you've over mixed? The actual process of mixing at a higher concentration than that approved isn't an offence Now I get you Do as you please when mixing, heaven help you if you actually apply the product
-
I don't know who you've been talking to, but I suspect they need to get themselves up to date. What does 'statutory' mean? If you (or anyone else) thinks they can ignore what the statutory box says, then good luck to you I think it's even an RSPH question. Non-compliance with the label of an approved pesticide is misuse. If you don't believe me, ask the NPTA, NPTC or the BPCA. Tell me I'm wrong and do as you please by all means; just don't mention my name in court; and good luck !
