Has anyone used this device on their bike or car? did it work for you? or did you still manage to collect something Ed.
no picture so ill presume you mean those little whistlers, my cousien had one fitted to his car and my brother had one on his car and both have hit roos and destroyed there cars ive never had one fitted and have more country miles than both of them put together and have never hit one . :eek1
thumper's observation reflects pretty much what i've heard. i think (it was) csiro tested them and discounted any benefits from memory... i'd invest in better lights perhaps. here found this: <TABLE width="100%"><TBODY><TR vAlign=top><TD colSpan=2>From the CSIRO magazine "Wildlife Research": Frequency and causes of kangaroo–vehicle collisions on an Australian outback highway Ulrike Klöcker A , David B. Croft B , C , D and Daniel Ramp B A Museum Alexander Koenig, Rheinische Friedrich Wilhelms Universität Bonn, 53113 Bonn, Germany. B School of Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. C University of New South Wales Arid Zone Research Station, Fowlers Gap, via Broken Hill, NSW 2880, Australia. D Corresponding author. Email: d.croft@unsw.edu.au Abstract Kangaroo–vehicle collisions are frequent on Australian highways. Despite high economic costs, detrimental effects on animal welfare, and potential impacts on population viability, little research has been done to investigate the impact of road mortality on kangaroo populations, where and why accidents occur, and how the collisions can be mitigated. We therefore collected data on species (Macropus rufus, M. giganteus, M. fuliginosus, M. robustus), sex and age of kangaroos killed on a 21.2-km bitumenised section of outback highway over 6 months in far western New South Wales, Australia. The spatial and temporal distribution of road-killed kangaroos was investigated in relation to the cover and quality of road-side vegetation, road characteristics, the density of kangaroos along the road, climatic variables and traffic volume. A total of 125 kangaroos were found killed on the road at a rate of 0.03 deaths km–1 day–1. Grey kangaroos of two species (M. giganteus, M. fuliginosus) were under-represented in the road-kill sample in comparison with their proportion in the source population estimated during the day. No bias towards either sex was found. The age structure of road-killed kangaroos was similar to age structures typical of source kangaroo populations. Road-kills mainly occurred in open plains country. In road sections with curves or stock races, road-kill frequencies were higher than expected. Greater cover and greenness of roadside vegetation at the verge probably attracted kangaroos to the road and variation in this vegetation affected the spatial distribution of road-kills. The temporal distribution of road-kills was positively correlated with the volume of night-time traffic. The probability of a kangaroo–vehicle collision increased exponentially with traffic volume. Results are discussed in relation to the potential for mitigation of kangaroo–vehicle collisions. Wildlife Research 33(1) 5–15 </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <FORM action=/forumcentral/addpost.asp?forum=19 method=post>and...</FORM> <FORM action=/forumcentral/addpost.asp?forum=19 method=post> </FORM> <FORM action=/forumcentral/addpost.asp?forum=19 method=post>Roo-Guard® sound emitters are not effective at deterring tammar wallabies (Macropus eugenii) from a source of food Sarah Muirhead A , Dominique Blache A , Boyd Wykes B and Roberta Bencini A , C A School of Animal Biology, M085, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia. B Defence Estate Organisation LB 5001, Fremantle, WA 6959, Australia. Abstract Auditory deterrents such as the Roo-Guard® sound emitters (Shu-Roo Australia Pty Ltd) have been used to keep kangaroos off crops and airstrips. We tested the efficacy of the Roo-Guard® Mk II sound emitter in deterring tammar wallabies (Macropus eugenii) from a known source of food on Garden Island, Western Australia, where up to 400 tammars are killed yearly by vehicles. The device was not effective in deterring the tammars from the food even when an alternative source of food was available. It was concluded that the Roo-Guards in their present form are not suitable to keep tammars off the roads of Garden Island. Wildlife Research 33(2) 131–136 Submitted: 27 April 2004 Accepted: 13 February 2006 Published: 12 April 2006 Full text DOI: 10.1071/WR04032 © CSIRO </FORM> <FORM action=/forumcentral/addpost.asp?forum=19 method=post> </FORM> <FORM action=/forumcentral/addpost.asp?forum=19 method=post> </FORM>
Yep thats the one, a friend in 3 springs fitted one to her car and never hit anything, but then she never hit anything before fitting it
ed, not that i've a strong desire to read this 170 page thesis on the subject but you'll find the summary at the start suggests you develop an effective way to imitate a foot thump if you want a deterent... might be time to get the xr650 out of the shed again masochist i am, here is a little quote from page 49 Abstract: [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]The Shu Roo<SUP>® </SUP>[/FONT]is a commercial ultrasonic deterrent device designed to protect vehicles from collisions with kangaroos. The manufacturer claims the Shu Roo covers a 400-m area ahead of the vehicle, is audible to kangaroos and results in kangaroos moving from the path of the vehicle. I conducted laboratory and field trials to evaluate these claims. The Shu Roo signal had only a small component of ultrasonic frequencies and could be detected on grass and bitumen only to a maximum distance of 50 m, and was not detectable above the noise produced by 4 different moving vehicles. In static tests, the Shu Roo signal did not alter the behavior of captive eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus) or red kangaroos (M. rufus) in any way. The ineffectiveness of the Shu Roo should caution people against using other ultrasonic deterrent devices, at least for kangaroos. <SUP>[FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman]</SUP>[/FONT]
Shooroos seem like a good idea but I have never noticed roos moving away from the only vehicle I ever had them on. Now a DR with unbaffled Staintune scares the shit out of them.
Yep, a loud exhaust appears to be the best protection,if they hear you coming,they are gone before you can spook them into running in front of you.......had a shoo-roo on the bike and still cartwheeled the bike at 110k's when it ran in front of the front wheel!By the way,don't be fooled into thinking they are only out early in the morning and at night,cos with the drought we have had over the last few years,the little buggers are out foraging for the green pick on the roadsides pretty much all day.The bit of rain we have had on the south coast over the last month or two has eased the situation a bit as they can get tucker well away from the roadside.Just remember to keep one eye open for them!
The only thing I know thats shoo's Roo's away is a 12 gauge. Kam Boom.. I think a loud exhaust note is best as not only does it let them know you are comming but lets the Tin Tops as well. I grew up on a farm and we had them on the car..did not stop us hitting them still.
Knew a truck driver that had one fitted(not his idea), first run, hit a roo. First one for a long time, according to him Loud exhaust?-probably,I live surrounded by national park, and am beginning to think they have Doppler radar, sudden speed change seems to alert them to your presence. Worth braking hard if you see them in time, don't just hope(in a car) unless you have a very good roobar. As for bikes, clipping a big red at speed when he dashed out and then turned parallel:eek1 to my course has been my closest. I don't like riding here after dark.
Roo Shoos don't work for any other Australian natives. Had a roo shoo gizmo on the front of my 640 on a ride last year near Tomingley. Was riding with gman640 and an emu deceided that attempting to tbone me would be more interesteing that standing under the tree......avoided it just.......sideways off the road, around the culvert, back up on the road, tank slap and then back to normalality. Feathers in the pannier to prove it.
I think everybody seems to miss the point of these things. First the electronic ones may work, however you do have deafness in animals, as well as humans. The little whistle ones, theoretically work just as well. but most people just stick them on their bummper/bullbar/bike mudguard. Right out of the clean airflow. A lot of places I have seen them, the air flow would have been going backwards, so of course they dont make a noise. I am always amazed, at what people expect of the things. I think the majority of people expect the 'Roos to jump up, and flee the scene at a million miles an hour (hopefully in the other direction than you). Thats not going to happen. What the original idea (and it seems to have been lost in the myths of urban legend), is they are designed to make the animal move, in other words, sit up, or turn around to see what the noise is about. How many times, have you seen a kangaroo jump across the road, and you saw it, however as you slowed, and drove past where it was, you saw some more, just sitting stationary. You didnt see them originally, because the eye is drawn to moving objects. If you automatically looked at all non moving objects, imagine trying to drive, it would be impossible. The purpose of these items, is to make the animal move, so your eye identifies it as a moving hazard, and take appropriate action sooner, in other words avoid a collision. Used with this knowledge, they are an effective tool, in avoiding animals, BUT THEY DO NOT SCARE THE STUPID THINGS OFF, nor were they ever ORIGINALLY intended to.
Not sure I follow your agument there GT. I prefer it when the roos stay put under the trees and bushes. After all there are countless roos just about everywhere that we don't see, and I'd much prefer them to not move than start jumping about in all directions when I'm approaching. Why interfere with their normal daytime nap? Shooroos are just products that give a false sense of security.
Was just quoting the inventor of the Shu-Roo. When they were first released, years ago, a salesman was travelling around properties trying to sell them. Was his explanation, and if you think about it, it makes sense. As regards letting them loaf around, and passing them, is why most people hit roos, particulary in the daytime. They wake up, just before you get to them, and disorientated, they will jump (according to murpheys law) out in front of you. All these devices are designed to do, is to alert the animal to your presence sooner, so you see, and avoid it, way before you hit it. Only reason I replied to this post, is because people seem to regard them as some magical item, that moves kangaroos out of your path, with no input from the driver. Loud exhausts, and blowing your horn, are just as effective, however this does become tiring and annoying. But I am sure everybody has their own opinion.
gt, not too sure if i read that thesis properly but i have a feeling it mentions somewhere round p50 that the shu roo did not manage to invoke any form of action that she could measure and attribute to said shuroo... but i guess it figures givn she also reports that the noise is not evident further than 50m away and is mostly inaudible over the vehicle noise. shame we didn't catch up at condo, i was looking forward to meeting you
Years ago Road Users had poorer Headlights. Now we make daylight for 250 mtrs in front? If you were an animal where would you stand? So go on add more Driving Lights. Think about it? I live and travel in a heavey animal strike area. Tasmania's West Coast. I drive and ride slowly with my lighting on low. NO strikes. Yes I do have the whistles. They don't work? Well why do sheep in a Paddock run-away from my quiet BMW Gs1100 after many other bikes have passed in the same group and they yet to move? Headlights turn them down and drive slowly at night. BIGJim.
