United States Department of Agriculture: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
United States Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services: Staff Publications
Accessibility Remediation
If you are unable to use this item in its current form due to accessibility barriers, you may request remediation through our remediation request form.
Document Type
Article
Date of this Version
2000
Abstract
Foraging by forest mammals can be significantly detrimental to reforestation efforts. Repellents may offer a nonlethal solution for some situations. Hot Sauce® animal repellent uses capsaicin, a trigeminal irritant that should be aversive to most mammals. We conducted a series of tests evaluating the impact of Hot Sauce on foraging by 5 species of forest mammals. In our first study, we examined its potential to reduce browsing by black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus). Damage to Western redcedar seedlings (Thuja plicata) was initially reduced with application of a 6.2% Hot Sauce solution, but efficacy began to decline after 2 weeks. Big Game Repellent Powder® reduced deer damage to redcedar for the entire 6-week study (F≥ 143.9, P≤0.01). Two-choice pen tests evaluated 0.06, 0.62, 3.1, and 6.2% Hot Sauce solutions as a repellent for pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama), porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum), and mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa). Mountain beavers were not repelled by any concentration of Hot Sauce (F≥1.94, P≤0.18). Pocket gophers were repelled moderately by the 0.62, 3.1, and 6.2% concentrations, but even the 6.2% solution rarely reduced consumption below 50% of the food available. Porcupine foraging was reduced >48% by all repellent concentrations (F≥ 7.08, P≤0.04). Beavers (Castor Canadensis) were not repelled consistently by Hot Sauce in multiple-choice tests of the 0.06, 0.62, and 6.2% solutions. Although Hot Sauce effectively repelled some species, at a cost of $12.25/gallon for the 6.2% repellent solution, it may not be cost-effective for most situations. Additionally, our data indicate there may be difficulties with product durability under field conditions.
Comments
Published in Wildlife Society Bulletin 2000, 28(1):76-83.