From: jfox@hooksett.East.Sun.COM (John Fox - SunExpress IR)
Newsgroups: rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: Deer Whistles (was Re: Hearing ultraso
Date: 16 Dec 1992 22:07:55 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jfox@hooksett.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: hooksett.east.sun.com

In article 26201@newshost.lanl.gov, srlee@beta.lanl.gov (Stephen R Lee) writes:
>In article <1gnh1iINNlde@seven-up.East.Sun.COM> jfox@hooksett.East.Sun.COM writes:
>>In article 21536@newshost.lanl.gov, srlee@beta.lanl.gov (Stephen R Lee) writes:
>
>>>I have these on my automobiles.  Mine are not electronic.  They
>>>are very simple plastic devices that, when separated by the correct
>>>distance on your car bumper, resonate at frequency that humans cannot
>>>hear (when you are driving and forcing air through them).  They do seem 
>>>to work for me.  The deer and elk that I see usually stop what they are 
>>>doing and watch me intently.  This is how they are supposed to work.  The 
>>>animals are sort of supposed to "freeze" and watch you go by, as opposed to 
>>>spooking and darting out in front of you.  Unfortunately, deer and elk standing 
>>>in the road just stand there and watch you (until you honk) :-) .
>>>
>>>They do not affect my dogs inside the automobile at all.
>>>
>>I've heard these devices do more harm than good, which your note seems to
>>imply. I don't have the reference handy, but some state yanked them off
>>their cruisers when they found the number of cruiser-deer collisions went
>>*up* after employing these whistles! You want something to scare them away,
>>not perk their interest - which is what they do.
>>
>>
>>John
>>
>
>Sorry, I did not mean to imply that they do more harm than good.  In
>my opinion, they do more good than harm.  I disagree that you
>want something to scare the animal.  That is the whole point.  A scared
>and confused animal will not necessarily "run away."  It may run right
>into the path of the car.  Devices that "hold their attention" are better
>in that the animal stops and watches you.  An animal standing in the middle
>of the road is surely visible to a driver.  These are easy to avoid hitting.
>Is the animals that run in front of you from the side of the road that
>are the problem.  Devices like this, in my opinion, that freeze the
>animal prevent this, to a certain degree.
>
>My experience has been that they work.  I live in an area where there are loads
>of elk and deer, as well as many other forms of wildlife such as bears,
>coyotes, and so on.  I have never hit any of these animals.  Many people that
>live in the same region have.  Most of the people that have hit animals that
>I know of did not have devices like this.  These things are certainly not
>fool-proof, and by no means a substitute for an alert driver, but I think they
>help.
>
>Just my 0.02.  Your millage may vary.
>
>-- 
>============================================================
>Stephen R. Lee                 | 
>OooWoo Racing Kennel           | I'd rather be driving sled
>E-Mail: srlee@beta.lanl.gov    | dogs.


I would tend to agree with you, but you must remember that a sample population
of one is not statistically reliable. However if you take the miles logged
by every state trooper for a given state, and compare accidents with and
without deer whistles, you have a much better picture of their effectiveness.

Again, I don't have the reference, but their findings were *less* accidents
without the device than with. I imagine the number of miles they collectively
drive a year is in the mid six-digit range. Shouldn't their conclusions
carry a bit more weight than those of an individual?


John