I've had them for about a year now. Here are the basics.
They need a pressured water supply, so outside tap used for the garden hose is ideal.
They will easily directly cover a 20 foot square in front of them with the water jet. But cats hate them so stay clear of a larger area. I have regularly seen them triggered by cats 40 feet away - the cats ran home
Because they are attached continually to a pressured hose, the usual plastic hozelock fittings are not really up to the job. They pop off when you are out and flood the garden. The cure is to invest in metal draper fittings, which totally solve the problem.
Placing them out is easy enough, they have IR detectors so as long as it is pointing at the right angle to 'see' the cats all will be well. They came with a plastic 'stake' so just push them in where you want them.
Other than that, disconnect them and bring them in on frosty nights to protect the internal valves from damage.
Oh and get use to switching them off when you want to go into the area they protect- I get caught out at least once a day.
Sorry Gemma I only had a quick read of it before. Other things on. I just re read the link. £22 to read a study that in the introduction uses the words speculative and estimate.
I correct that Gemma. My opinion/belief based on no scientific data at all. Only the large numbers of wildlife I see daily. Says that they are not a major problem. I believe ecosystems adapt. They are in constant flux. I have not carried out any studies to support this. You are quite right to pull me up on that.
There was a study on our local loch a couple of years ago. A company wanted to build holiday cottages where we know there are otters living. The independent study carried out (paid for by the company) claimed there were no otters. Pretty much all the locals have seen otters. It was argued the water level was higher than normal so signs of otters had been obscured. I'm sorry I don't have links to the study. It was discussed in a meeting a few years ago. I never had a copy. The cottages didn't get built. The loch is still undisturbed.
I had a quick read. I have not had the time to devote to it.
Eco-systems adapt lol. What like in a few hundred years? Do they heck.How can a eco-system that is no longer present adapt to anything?
Off course they said there were no otters there, they are trying to get planning permission without the need for an expensive otter mitigation as part of the conditions - doh!
It happens every day that companies employed by developers say wildlife is not there - it is called the real world, big £££ are involved and there are companies that tell fibs for the big £££.
Lunaria as much as I like talking to you, you do come come across as a bit naive at times.
Sorry Gemma I only had a quick read of it before. Other things on. I just re read the link. £22 to read a study that in the introduction uses the words speculative and estimate.
Obviously you are not familiar with reading scientific studies. They all use that sort of language for good reason. You haven't read it, you don't want to read it, just say so.
Thanks very much for the info Gemma! We've got outside taps front and back so that's not a problem. Any ideas what sort of angle they cover? And one more question, what is the smallest thing you've seen trigger them? I don't want to scare off the birds we've gradually attracted! I can well see me falling foul of them if we do try them (which I think we're going to have to before hubby goes on a rampage)
The sensitivity can be adjusted, as can the range and the arc they cover.
I have one under my bird table. Larger birds like pigeons occasionally set it off if they walk in front of it, but smaller birds do not usually trigger it.
I have not seen any reduction in birds using the table since placing it there. Most fly in over the top of the sensor and the ground feeders are behind it, so don't get squirted. If though you find that little birds are triggering it, just adjust the sensitivity.
Proof isn't speculated or estimated in my opinion. It's undeniable.
Glad you got the point about the otter study. Does say a lot about how much reliance we should put on studies. I do like our debates.
You are taking two words from the extract and trying to undermine the whole paper that you have clearly not read.
Yet you have actually misinterpreted the context they are used in.
I quote:
The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data.
The above relates to previous studies.
Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually.
This is the whole point of the paper, it no longer makes speculative estimates - it makes quantitative estimates (based on actual data) which is accepted in the scientific community as the proof you are looking for. What the paper represents is a very strong argument that all previous qualitative estimates of mortality were unrealistic and in fact cats cause far more damage to wildlife than was ever previously thought.
It is all the proof that anyone could ever need.
I did post you a link initially to an article instead, I did at the time say that it might be easier to take in.
Now I'll leave it at that, I'm beginning to feel like a cat mauling its prey - and the peace of the potting shed beckons.
I am capable of understanding. I think the estimate part of the proof is the sticking point. But I am happy to leave it here I will say no more on the subject of scientific studies and it's arguable validity which you yourself pointed out can be fibs. Have a good day
Nobody said that the validity of a scientific paper was fibs. I said developers tell fibs about wildlife. Chalk and cheese, not the same thing.
This is a peer reviewed scientific paper it is there for you to study the evidence and make your own mind up. The word estimate is used twice in the extract, one to describe speculative estimates made previously by other studies. Secondly to describe the quantitative estimate used in the paper. Now why it is it an 'estimate', well we can't really expect them to have followed every single cat in the whole of the continental United States in the study can we? I mean really you don't think they could have done that do you? I'm not sure with your responses that you are capable of understanding.
We do though have to be careful about who tells fibs. For example the RSPB web site states that their is no scientific evidence that cats are involved in bird declines.
That is a fib. I posted the link to the paper that is the scientific evidence. It is not the only one either. I know this has been pointed out to the RSPB, both by colleagues of mine and also the press numerous times.
They don't update the page though.
What is their motive, why are they misleading the public by telling fibs? Does it involve cat owners being 'animal lovers' who feed the birds and give the RSPB money?
Posts
Hi TCbythesea
I've had them for about a year now. Here are the basics.
They need a pressured water supply, so outside tap used for the garden hose is ideal.
They will easily directly cover a 20 foot square in front of them with the water jet. But cats hate them so stay clear of a larger area. I have regularly seen them triggered by cats 40 feet away - the cats ran home
Because they are attached continually to a pressured hose, the usual plastic hozelock fittings are not really up to the job. They pop off when you are out and flood the garden. The cure is to invest in metal draper fittings, which totally solve the problem.
Placing them out is easy enough, they have IR detectors so as long as it is pointing at the right angle to 'see' the cats all will be well. They came with a plastic 'stake' so just push them in where you want them.
Other than that, disconnect them and bring them in on frosty nights to protect the internal valves from damage.
Oh and get use to switching them off when you want to go into the area they protect- I get caught out at least once a day.
Sorry Gemma I only had a quick read of it before. Other things on. I just re read the link. £22 to read a study that in the introduction uses the words speculative and estimate.
Eco-systems adapt lol. What like in a few hundred years? Do they heck.How can a eco-system that is no longer present adapt to anything?
Off course they said there were no otters there, they are trying to get planning permission without the need for an expensive otter mitigation as part of the conditions - doh!
It happens every day that companies employed by developers say wildlife is not there - it is called the real world, big £££ are involved and there are companies that tell fibs for the big £££.
Lunaria as much as I like talking to you, you do come come across as a bit naive at times.
Obviously you are not familiar with reading scientific studies. They all use that sort of language for good reason. You haven't read it, you don't want to read it, just say so.
Thanks very much for the info Gemma! We've got outside taps front and back so that's not a problem. Any ideas what sort of angle they cover? And one more question, what is the smallest thing you've seen trigger them? I don't want to scare off the birds we've gradually attracted! I can well see me falling foul of them if we do try them (which I think we're going to have to before hubby goes on a rampage)
Link to the manual which gives lots of info:
https://www.contech-inc.com/images/product-support/scarecrow/ScareCrow-Manual.pdf
The sensitivity can be adjusted, as can the range and the arc they cover.
I have one under my bird table. Larger birds like pigeons occasionally set it off if they walk in front of it, but smaller birds do not usually trigger it.
I have not seen any reduction in birds using the table since placing it there. Most fly in over the top of the sensor and the ground feeders are behind it, so don't get squirted.
If though you find that little birds are triggering it, just adjust the sensitivity.
Proof isn't speculated or estimated in my opinion. It's undeniable.
Glad you got the point about the otter study. Does say a lot about how much reliance we should put on studies. I do like our debates.
You are taking two words from the extract and trying to undermine the whole paper that you have clearly not read.
Yet you have actually misinterpreted the context they are used in.
I quote:
The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data.
The above relates to previous studies.
Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually.
This is the whole point of the paper, it no longer makes speculative estimates - it makes quantitative estimates (based on actual data) which is accepted in the scientific community as the proof you are looking for. What the paper represents is a very strong argument that all previous qualitative estimates of mortality were unrealistic and in fact cats cause far more damage to wildlife than was ever previously thought.
It is all the proof that anyone could ever need.
I did post you a link initially to an article instead, I did at the time say that it might be easier to take in.
Now I'll leave it at that, I'm beginning to feel like a cat mauling its prey - and the peace of the potting shed beckons.
I am capable of understanding. I think the estimate part of the proof is the sticking point. But I am happy to leave it here I will say no more on the subject of scientific studies and it's arguable validity which you yourself pointed out can be fibs. Have a good day
Nobody said that the validity of a scientific paper was fibs. I said developers tell fibs about wildlife. Chalk and cheese, not the same thing.
This is a peer reviewed scientific paper it is there for you to study the evidence and make your own mind up. The word estimate is used twice in the extract, one to describe speculative estimates made previously by other studies. Secondly to describe the quantitative estimate used in the paper. Now why it is it an 'estimate', well we can't really expect them to have followed every single cat in the whole of the continental United States in the study can we? I mean really you don't think they could have done that do you? I'm not sure with your responses that you are capable of understanding.
We do though have to be careful about who tells fibs. For example the RSPB web site states that their is no scientific evidence that cats are involved in bird declines.
That is a fib. I posted the link to the paper that is the scientific evidence. It is not the only one either. I know this has been pointed out to the RSPB, both by colleagues of mine and also the press numerous times.
They don't update the page though.
What is their motive, why are they misleading the public by telling fibs? Does it involve cat owners being 'animal lovers' who feed the birds and give the RSPB money?