And?..... Did they work?... 
LW...
LW...
Kangaroo whistle - sonic repeller
- Thread starter Dignit
- Start date
Help Support Prospecting Australia:
I had a quick look at the Shu Roo site and lo and behold they actually responded to Helen Bender's thesis. Just to clarify, a PHD takes 3 years so Helen Bender is a person who has put a lot of critical thinking into their work under experienced supervision and their work is peer reviewed by accomplished scientists before accepted for publication.
In contrast, there has been no evidence provided by Shu Roo to rebutt the findings in Bender's thesis. Bender's thesis is named "Auditory stimuli as a method to deter kangaroos in agricultural and road environments".
Here is the response by Shu Roo:
http://shuroo.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Does_ShuRoo_Work.pdf
I don't like people taking others for a ride so I'll get back to this response in due course when I reread Bender's thesis but here is the problem right from the onset at the top of Shu Roos response. Shu Roo quote an extract from Bender's thesis I assume, with the intention to seed doubt by cherry picking and alteration in order to undermine Bender's findings:
'The report is flawed...consequently caution should be taken in interpreting the results and extrapolating the findings reported here... Extract from Page 63 of Effectiveness of the ShuRoo by Helena Bender.'
Shu Roo follow this up with:
"Once you admit this flaw, then what possible weight, scientific or otherwise, can be put behind the findings?"
This is incorrect and misleading. The word "flawed" does not even exist in the thesis. What the quote actually says on page 63 is this, which is a standard disclaimer in research and a possible limitation rather than a flaw:
"A flaw of this study was to test only one Shu Roo. It is possible that this device was faulty; consequently, caution should be taken in interpreting the results and extrapolating the findings reported here. Future studies should test multiple units including subsequent Shu Roo models."
So the real question is whether the unit used for the controlled experiments was operating as designed or faulty. Bender has provided the methodology used to study the operation of the Shu Roo and the recorded results. For example, the transmitted frequencies and signal strength of the Shu Roo at various distances. This has not been disputed by Shu Roo.
Shu Roo could easily have stated in their response that the Shu Roo Bender used was not operating correctly as designed based on the readings Bender observed however, it can also easily be proved it was. That absence by Shu Roo is very telling.
Consequently unless shown otherwise by Shu Roo, the Shu Roo used by Bender in their thesis must be operating as designed and the results valid.
Also on page 63 as measured by Bender:
"The Shu Roo signal cannot be detected at any distance above the road and engine noise generated by a moving vehicle"
This is also not in dispute by Shu Roo.
In contrast, there has been no evidence provided by Shu Roo to rebutt the findings in Bender's thesis. Bender's thesis is named "Auditory stimuli as a method to deter kangaroos in agricultural and road environments".
Here is the response by Shu Roo:
http://shuroo.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Does_ShuRoo_Work.pdf
I don't like people taking others for a ride so I'll get back to this response in due course when I reread Bender's thesis but here is the problem right from the onset at the top of Shu Roos response. Shu Roo quote an extract from Bender's thesis I assume, with the intention to seed doubt by cherry picking and alteration in order to undermine Bender's findings:
'The report is flawed...consequently caution should be taken in interpreting the results and extrapolating the findings reported here... Extract from Page 63 of Effectiveness of the ShuRoo by Helena Bender.'
Shu Roo follow this up with:
"Once you admit this flaw, then what possible weight, scientific or otherwise, can be put behind the findings?"
This is incorrect and misleading. The word "flawed" does not even exist in the thesis. What the quote actually says on page 63 is this, which is a standard disclaimer in research and a possible limitation rather than a flaw:
"A flaw of this study was to test only one Shu Roo. It is possible that this device was faulty; consequently, caution should be taken in interpreting the results and extrapolating the findings reported here. Future studies should test multiple units including subsequent Shu Roo models."
So the real question is whether the unit used for the controlled experiments was operating as designed or faulty. Bender has provided the methodology used to study the operation of the Shu Roo and the recorded results. For example, the transmitted frequencies and signal strength of the Shu Roo at various distances. This has not been disputed by Shu Roo.
Shu Roo could easily have stated in their response that the Shu Roo Bender used was not operating correctly as designed based on the readings Bender observed however, it can also easily be proved it was. That absence by Shu Roo is very telling.
Consequently unless shown otherwise by Shu Roo, the Shu Roo used by Bender in their thesis must be operating as designed and the results valid.
Also on page 63 as measured by Bender:
"The Shu Roo signal cannot be detected at any distance above the road and engine noise generated by a moving vehicle"
This is also not in dispute by Shu Roo.
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2018
- Messages
- 766
- Reaction score
- 680
I don't give a bugger what any of them say in my experience they have worked for me.
My Mates Nan swerved to miss a Roo at Hay in the 80's and the NRMA didn't want to cough up. They sent an assessor out as they didn't believe the huge amount of claims for roo damage from such a small place was legit.
Well when the assessors vehicle was written off by a roo out there claims were paid no probs. 8.(
My Mates Nan swerved to miss a Roo at Hay in the 80's and the NRMA didn't want to cough up. They sent an assessor out as they didn't believe the huge amount of claims for roo damage from such a small place was legit.
Well when the assessors vehicle was written off by a roo out there claims were paid no probs. 8.(
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2018
- Messages
- 598
- Reaction score
- 679
go to the panel beaters out my way and sho roos fitted to most of the smashed cars from hitting roos they dont work the only thing to do is not drive at night or get a real bull bar not the look at me crap they fit to most cars which are only for show hit a trolly at the shop and you can bend you cheap bullbar.
This thread has taken on an interesting see-saw.
The fact still remains, if you have whistles, & write your vehicle off on one roo, you still don't know if you didn't hit 1, or 6 others before it!
Other than the $30-35 for a set, its of no inconvenience to have them on your bar. Cheap insurance, for what might, or might not be.
It's no big deal, each to their own.
The fact still remains, if you have whistles, & write your vehicle off on one roo, you still don't know if you didn't hit 1, or 6 others before it!
Other than the $30-35 for a set, its of no inconvenience to have them on your bar. Cheap insurance, for what might, or might not be.
It's no big deal, each to their own.
Spot on Ded but in the case of Shu Roo it's big bucks for some people. I haven't hit a roo for 25+ years now and put it down to a change in the way I used to drive, luck and odds. If I fitted a Shu Roo 25 years ago it would look like it did work but you'd never know so that fact cannot be relied on to say it does.
I have 2 on the bullbar -to keep the car in balance and lose one or both everytime I get the Pathy washed.
and lose one or both everytime I get the Pathy washed.
Jaros said:I have 2 on the bullbar -to keep the car in balance
Dismantle them and screw the mount on your bar then re-assemble them... Haven't lost one yet...
I only use the Metal ones... (Lion Brand)..LW...
I have never hit one but jeez' a lot of close calls-stupid damn animals.
https://abigpeacheyadventure.com.au/kangaroo-whistles/
https://abigpeacheyadventure.com.au/kangaroo-whistles/
sometime in the future we will have infra-red animal sensing laser blasting evaporators on our bull bars :koala: :bomb:
A few pedestrians & cyclists might go missing, but hey, collateral damage
A few pedestrians & cyclists might go missing, but hey, collateral damage
mudgee hunter said:
Current ADR No choice if you want one
Hey Dignit,
I tried those on my truck last year on a run to Emerald, On the stretch between St George and Diranbandi I stopped counting at 14 roo strikes. They were the ones I saw coming, on arrival to my unload site I noticed a bit of damage to the trailer guards etc from the ones I didn't see. I was beginning to think that they are for attracting roos not repelling
I tried those on my truck last year on a run to Emerald, On the stretch between St George and Diranbandi I stopped counting at 14 roo strikes. They were the ones I saw coming, on arrival to my unload site I noticed a bit of damage to the trailer guards etc from the ones I didn't see. I was beginning to think that they are for attracting roos not repelling
