Download:
pdf |
pdfUEl iTE3 STATES €ti'/ i?O!iPii#TAL
PROTECTIOH
-.
- 0
ih=.\lCy
3EFlzRE -YE J , ~ ) i I ~ I S P ~ J T C ?
In the /4atczr of
,)
Noticc of Hearing on the
Applications t 3 Use Sodium
il u o r o a c e ~ a t e(Covpound 10aO)
To Control Predators
,
FIFFW 9ocket No. 502
)\
i
-
I n i t i a l Oecisicn
This i s a proceeding under Seciion 5 ( d ) of rhe Federal Iasec:icide,
Fungicide and Rodenti ci de Act, as amended ( 7 U. S . C . 136 ( d ) ) , t o recons7. c, e r
-
rne A d m i n i s t r ~ t o r ' sorder (P4 72-2, Harch 9 , 1 9 7 2 , 37 F?, 5713,
"arch 18, 1972) suspending and cancelling ihe r e g i s t r a t i o n s of sodium
f l uaroacezare (Cs~pound1086) for the control of pr2dacors .
The cr-oceodi na
4
was triggered by a p p i icacions i ~ regi
r s t r a t i o n o r erner2eccy sxempcicn dncer
Secs. 3 and 18 o f the Act, f i led by the i i s h and ' r i i l d l if. S e r . ~ i c eo f i h 2
U.S. Oepartinent of I n t e r i o r , and ihe S t a t e s of Xoneana, S o u t h Oakora and
2yornming.
-1
i
ne Administrator's Setowinaxion t o h o l d i nearing sn che
applications and the issues t o be csnsiderzd (Atxacbnenc A ) s r s s e t
i o r ~ hin ;he Xotice of Hearing, d a ~ e iUecember
December 7 , 1981 , a t 5 9 , 6 2 2 , e t s2q. ) .
:,
i9E:
(16 F?, l o . 2 3 2 ,
The issues t o be addressed aer.
expanded t o include smear posts as a delivery mechanism by n o t i c e , dace:!
March 3, 1982 ( 4 7 FR Eio. 4 7 , Piarch 10, 1982, a t 10,258).
This ~ r a c e ~ d i ni s jeing concucwd under
joverning h e a r i n ~ sunder
-
~ n 2
r2cer:i
8
3 2
Zules
9f
, Inszczicide, F ~ n ~ i ice : 3r,d ?>acen?'c: 2 2
Act ( 4 0 CF2 Part i o ~ )and i n ? a r t i c u l a r Sujparz D ;?,ereof.
?
?
?mctic2
*
I n acc~rdanc2
with h r a g r a p h 164.131 ( a ) , t n e Adni ni s r r a t o r rcvi evded fne appi f caci ons
f o r r e g i s t r a ~ i o n07 Compound 1080 and d e t n i n e d t h s i r?consideration of
the suspension and cancellation order kas warranted.
The cited secticn provides in par::
"The Administrator shall de12rnine thac such reconsideration
i s [warranted When he finds chat: ( i ) the appl icanc has
presmted sunstancia1 new evib2ncc 1,qhich aay ~ a t ~ ta:- iy
i
e f f e c t zhe ? r i o r cancellation o r 3us;ension or&r a n d which
was not avai l a b l e t o t h ? Adzi ni s f r a t o r , a t the tire he nade
h i s f i n a l c a n c e l l a t i o j . or suspensian d e t m i n a c i o n and ( 2 )
such evidencs could not, chrough the zxercise o f due
d i l i g e n c e , have been discavered by rhe p a r t i s s t a tne
canc2llation o r susgension proceeding p r i o r TO che issuance
of the f i n a l o r d e r . "
Paragraph 164.132(a) o f tne Subpar: O rules orovides t h a t ihe burden sf
proof in the hearing shall be o n the a ~ p l i c a n to r applicants who shall
proceed f i r s t .
This section f u r t h e r provides:
"The issues i n the hearing shall be whether: ( 1 ) s u b s t z n t i a l
new evidence e x i s t s and ( 2 ) such substantial new evidence
requires reversal o r modification of e x i s t i n g c a n c e i l a ~ i o n
or suspension order. The deternination of these issues s h a l l
be made taking i n t o account the human and environmental r i s k s
found by the Administrator in h i s ,canceiiation and suspension
determination and the accurnu?ative e f f e c t of a l l past a n d
present uses, including the requested use, and uses which may
reasonably be anticipated to occur i n the future as a r e s u l t
of grancing the requested reversal o r modification."
The ALJ ruled t h a t , although the i n i t i a l determination under
Paragraph 154.1 31 ( a ) as t o whether the evidence warrants reccnsi d e r a i i on
3
-
of the sus9ensi;n 2nd czncellation order must b$ 5ased on .vid?nc?
.yai!?h?,l
s t the tim? of the s c s ~ z n s i o narc! c ~ n c e : i ~ c ix~dne r
3f
not
7272,
,ssoc;a~; on arcd a f i i 1 ia=,-, Q - or s i m i l a r ; r s z n i z a ~ ~ a n s
--.,
t h e r e t o i n 36 s ~ a t e s ,the National %oolgrowers As;ocia:ion
and 3 ~ ~ 1 1 i a t 2 s
or organizations s i m i l a r thereto i n 13 s t z t e s , the Public Lznds Council
and the New Mexico Public Lands Council, vzrious individuals including
11
Dr. ',dalter soward- of the U n i v e r s i ~ ys f C a l i f o r n i a , the forecoing
par-ci es referred t o h e r s i n a f t e r a s dyomi ng , e t a1 . ; ;he S t a t e s of Montana
2nd South Dakota;
the Fish and :Ji!dlife Servic?; Rznchers Supply, Inc.
and The Toxi -Collar Company; Cr. Clai r E . T s r r i ? 1 ; h l e r i c a n Farm 3ureau
Federation, ~ n dFam 3ureaus in che S ~ a ~ eo fs Hontana, Yew Nexico,
-i exas,
Utah and Wyorni n g , h k r a i n a ~ t e rA i 3 F ; ~ i a tonai
i
Animal Damage Control
-
Assaci a t i on; Campbell Caunty Predatory i s s o c i a t i a n ; ; e x a i Cepartxenc ? f
Agricui tur:!;
ilew b\e;ii co Depart~iento f A ~ rcul
i t u r e ; Oef enders o f 'ii1 d l i i e ,
?lacionallIAucukon Soci ery , The Humane Society of the Uni t - d S t z r e s , The
Arneri can Humane J ~ s c caci
i on, Animal Protection I n s t i tuze o i h e r i ca ,
Nationa'l Parks and Conservation Associati on, The Animal We1 f a r e !ns;i t u t e ,
The Fund f o r Animals, )iatural Resources Defense Counci I , I ne S i e r r a
-7
Club, Yational Vi ldl i f e Corimi t t e e , Friends of :he E a r t h and Environmental
Defense Fund, herei naf tor referred
io
as Deienders of 'Ni I' d l i i e , e t
31
.
o r Defenders; National N i l d l i f e Federation, h e r e i n a f t e r NNF; friends of
Dr. Howard, a witness f o r Wyoming, e t a1 . in t h i s proceeding,
I/
f i led-an a p p l i c a t i o n , d a t e d December 17, 1981, f o r a n experimental us2
permit involving Compound 1080 in a Bait Delivery Unit (BOU) to control
depredating coyotes.
1
5
%
Ir.imalz, I n c . ; the United St3t.s
cap art sen^ o i l s r i c u l t u r e
n v i r c n n e n t a l P r a ~ e c t i o nAgency.
Hearings
oii
2nd
the
-L l
17
1
t h i s mattor c o m e n c ~ din Wasning~on, O.C. on narcn 35,
1982 and were subsequently held in San kngelo, -lexas and Denver, Cclorzdo,
3/
concluding in Washington, O . C . on A u g u s t 6, 1982.
Based on the e n t i r e record, including the proposed findings and
conclusions and b r i e f s subrnirted by the p a r t i e s , I find t h a t che f o l lcwing
-4/
f a c t s a r e established:
F i ndi nas o f Fact
8
Issue l ( a ) (Attachment A )
1.
Although d a m on sneep losses t o predaticn p r i o r t s 1972 a r e
fragmentary and inccrnplete, the most reasonable conclusion i s
I n a d d i t i o n t o b r i e f s f i l e d by a c t i v e p a r t i e s , amicus b r i e f s
2
vere iiled by the i n t e m a t i c n a l Asiociai/el1 4ncwn
h e r e i : d s cesn
i3
enchers.
P O S j ~i Q~ 53
I n t h e q e a t ra;ori:y
o f ins;znces
veri iy ~ r z d a ~ ii s~i ine s as recorxed
by ranchers, i: has Seen cetomined thac t h a cause o f loss ;qas
accuratzly reported.
The a s s e r t i o n i s mad2 t h a t a sheep or lamb
dying o f o t h e r causes might be scaven~edand thus incorrectly
i d e n t i f i e d a s a predator l o s s .
Xhile t h i s could happen i f , f o r
example an eagle or oiher carrion eaiing predator scaveng2d a
carcass, i t i s unlikely i n tho casa o f coyoses because cseth zarks
i n the t h r o a t , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c
3 i
a coycte k i ? 1 , 1 ~ 0 ~ 1be3 nisslng
Noreover, such s c a r ~ n g i n grtould be mcrs i i kely t o occur in che
winter o r colder months b e c ~ u s enost ,?recators prefar fresh meai i n
the s u m e r .
I t i i c l e a r thac i e hignes:
predrijnn losses io l m b s
occur i n rhe s u m e r .
Rancners c o n s c i e n t i o u s ~ yand in good faich s i r i v e
4
repor1 thei r I O S S ~ Si,ncluding 1 osses
?redatars.
I
However, I,o e c,A7 1A4 - a
4
\-
most ranchers do n o t maintain accurate records o i the cause of l o s s e s ,
t h e i r r e p o r t s o f predaticn 1 orses nay be uni ntentiona: ly i nflac-d
due t o f a u l t y memory o r "telescoping,"
incorrectly a ~ t r i b u c i n g
a loss or l o s s e s t o one period of t i m e , which, in f a c t occarrcd I n
another period.
This would seem t o be especially t r u e o f surveys
asking f o r data on losses f o r several previous years or f o r a f i s c a l
year.
A f i s c a l year may bear no r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the rancher's
production cycle, thus increasing the d i f f i c u l t y o f accurately
a t t r i b u t i n g losses t o the period when the loss occurred.
sheep and l a m b s l o s t t o ,/arious causzs.
k e i n d i c 5 ~ 2 dth2c his
report ~ r o v i d e dreiiab12 indications of geographical areas and types
of operations having the most predation and t h a t the t o t a l number
of producsrs affzcted was probably q u i t e r e a l i s t i c , b ~ a u ,s emost,
-
1
I
groducers wer2 alttarz o f whether c o y o t ~ swerz pr2ying o n t h e i r herds.
Gee,
2t
a l . s t a t e d , however, t h a t numbers of sheep and lambs l o s t to
coyctes and numbers o f procuc2rs w i t h d i f f s r e n t levels ci loss
must be considered mor2 caut'ously becaus2 t h e besree o f 9roducer
judgment i s higher. 13.
Under a71 che c i r c u m s t a n c ~ s ,the aost serious obstacle ca acc2ptizg
The Gee,
2;
a1 . r2sul t s i s the high level o f iamb losses a c t r i b u x - :
co pr2dation-
2
For exanplz, in ?xczss of $5 percznz of 'lamb losses1
I
t o a l l czuses i n levada were a t t r i b u t d t o predation, apprgximat2iy
5 9 percent in Colorado, approximat2ly 54 percen
5 6 percgnt
i n 'Ayorning.
in Utah 2nd approxirnaceiy
Because these losszs include pre-docking
losses and substantial numbers of lamb d e a ~ h sduring t h a t period
a r e au2 t o lambing complications, weather, disease, m a l n u t r i t i o n ,
e t c . , these high reported predation l o s s e s a r e d i f f i c u l t t o accept.
Moreover, Gee, e t a l . s t a t e t h a t while most of the large-scale
operators reported losses from l e s s than 5 percent t o more than 20
percznt, many sna11-scale producers had no predation problems a t
.-.
a l l , and t h a t 5,000 o r about one-tenth of the w e s t ' s sheep ranchers,
.I
r s p o r ~ o di ~ s i 2e x~c e e c i l n ~ 10 7erz2nt c f Izrnzs x r n .
ma: hi:n
11 .
-z r e S L - r e r e a 5y
prsda;;~n s
Combined sheep
216
1 ai:b
3
?:nor!ry
-
,
~i ; i
cl?a~
cf i r ~ ~ ~ > ~ s / ~ .
1 o s i e s i s a1 1 c i z s e s i n 15 :.ies'.?r-~ ;:a:es
have remained s t a b l e during rne 7eriod 1960-81, constiiur1,n3 8.9
percent of the January 1 inventory p l u s lamb crop d u r i i g the years
1960 t o and including 1971 and 9 . 0 percenr from the period 1972 t o
and including -1,981. i f lamb losses a r e separated from sheep : c s i e s ,
sheep losses ts a11 causes
jn
1 5 western jtaces have declined from
an average of 7 . 9 percenc during the period 1560-71 to an average o f
6.9 percent during the period 1972 to and including 1981 .
The
rec5rd w i l l not suppart a fjnding t h a t average p r e h t i a n losses i n
these s t a r e s i o sheep o r to sheep and lambs ccmoined have increased
sine? 1972.
Lamb losses l o a l l causes as a perceni of lamr c r o p
have increased from an average o F 10.G perceni dur-ing
in2
2erigd
1960-71 t o an average of 12.3 ?ercent during the period 1972 t o and
including 1981.
Wnile t h i s n i g h t support an inference chat iamb
losses t o predators o n an overall b a s i s have increased since 1972,
the record 'does n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h i s i s so.
Lamb 10sies to
predators as a percent of l o s s e s t o a l l causes have not increased
since 1972.
In f a c c , lamb losses to predators appear t o have
decl ined s i nce 1978.
Individual producers have, hcwever , suffered
increassd predation l o s s e s since 1972 and f o r some producers i t i s
c l e a r t h a t predation i s a very s e r i o u s problem.
12
Ijsues i ( 5 ) a n d ( c )
i t could be i n f e r r e d thac c a t t l e l o s s e s t o predators were not
a ?roblem p r i o r t o 1972, predator l o s s e s c f calv?s have increased
since 1972.
Texas i s by f a r the l a r g e s t goat producing s t a t e a n d
r
the evidence supports the conclusion t h a t l o s s e s sf s o z t s t o
predarorz i n Texas have increased since 1972 and thar losses o f
goars t o predators as a p e r c a t o f losses t o a l l c3oszs hsve a l s o
increased
1972.
I t does q p e a y , however, t h a t ? c s s e s of gcats
t o predarors decl rnea in Texas i n 1981 .
Coyotss a r e by f a r the p r i n c i p l e caus;! o f preaaTor losses
13.
t3
lives-lock.
Foxes a n d / o r f e r a l doss Jay be s i g n i f i c a n t c a ~ s z sg f przdation
i s o l a t s d instances.
i 7
Whero predation i s causzd by " f s r a l i o g s " i t
i s usually packs of dornescic dogs wnich hav? s ~ r a y e dfrcm nearby
towns or communities .
Issue 2
-
Zfficacy
The use of 1030 in toxic c o l l a r s i s 1 i kely t o reduce predation in
14.
instances where sheep or goats a r e cjrazed in ienczd past9res.
-Ine
7
t o x i c c o l l a r i s unlikely t o reduce predation on open ranges because
of the d i f f i c u l t y o f t a r g e t i n g predator a t t a c k s to collared animals.
Compound 1080 i n s i n g l e - l e t h a l dose b a i t s (SLDs) has not been
1
u t i l i z e d f o r the control of predation i n the United S t a t e s .
Similar
b a i t s containing strychnine, r z f e r r e d t o as drop-baits, were
%
-
extensively u t i l i z e d f o r t h a t purpose p r i o r t o 1972.
Because of the
concurrent use of strychnine b a i t s and 1080 large-bait s t a t i o n s , i t
.
-
A
-;kzs
4
'.".
~~;c-lt
t g
,
L
i ;a
--~
~, , I<
~nl l ~Li
21:2
. .
(3f
-,: ~ C. ~. ; . j = _ f ?t;y ~ - +~i . f b z r c-nj-~ol
con+,ain i n g 1 zSu zrz uszd
c-nc-rr?-,tl y :?/i'-,h
in Bri t i s n Ccl,;;;;bia f r ~ rt h e csntrgl
3f
Austrailia f o r the control o f dingoes.
:oyo n s ,
- i-.c
s o - c a : 'led
"Kansas Extension System" is, basi cal l y an educational and t r a i n i n g
s ~ ~ s t e1;;hercSy
z
r~fichei-s ai-e
L
-
~ d u g i l it
o handle predatlcn problems
on
t h e i r own.
I t i s n o t , however, ?n al'ernaf2 lri"zho0 of s r d 2 t o r
c o n t r o i , becaus2 i t i s c h i z f i y penning a x n i g n c t b d c r?sulzs i n i z w
pr2cation r a t s s in Kansas.
25.
Open range s i t u a t i o n s a r e grazing condi t i a n s under which- i t i s l e a s t
l i ke1y t h a t any current1 y avai 1zbl e rnethgd o i predator control w i 1 1
be conri s t e n t l
e f f e c t i v e and economical I y f e a s i b l e .
Issue 4 ( ( 1
23.
-
3eneii t s
The number of sheep in t h e Uniced S t a t z s has dzciin2d over the l a s t
f o r t y y e a r s , from a high o f 56,574,000 in 1 9 4 2
in 1 9 7 9 , increasing t o 13,176,OCG as
-
3f
t3 3
law o f 12,220,QOO
January 1 , 1982.
The deciine
i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to declining dernand f o r 1 a m ~and rnuxton ( p e r c a p i t a
consumpti o n bei ng approximatei y 1 . 5 pounds a?nual ly ) , a v a i 1 a b i 1 i t y ~f
s y n t h e t i c n a t e r i a1 s
3s
substi ts t e s f o r wool ( p e r czpi t a consunpci on
o f wool being approximateTy cne pound annually of wnich f i i t y
percznt i s imported), the f a c t t h a t r a i s i n g c a t t l e i s 1 e s s 1 abor
intensive than r a i s i n g s k e p and more a t t r a c t i v e opportunities being
The dec! ine cannot be a t t r i b u t e d s o l e l y or
avai l a b l e elsewhere.
even c h i e f l y t o gredation.
Approximately 80 percent of the sheep
in the United S t a t e s a r e raised in the 1 7 nost western of the 48
contiguous s t a t e s .
A1 though approximately 51 ,000 western farmers
and ranchers r a i s e sheep (1974 d a t a ) only 21 ,000 or 41 percent have
comercia1 operations of f i f t y o r more stock sheep.
These producers,
however, own nearly 93 percent o f a l l stock sheep in the regicn.
Large s c a l e producers w i t h a thousand o r more of stock sheep c o n s t i t u t e
only 6 percent of the producers, b u t a c c ~ u n tf o r 63 percent of the
region ' s stock sheep.
3C.
-
ix7ei-t t s t i i c c n y from witnesses f o r "is
cne m n g p i a n d i n :he :ies:sm
Jroponencs of t h e
U n i t e d S:aies
~PC::S~F~;~SR
r q u i r ? s ~ r z z i nb y~
catt12 sheep and goazi r a t h e r than by a s i n s l e species.
Grazing
c a t t l e , sheep and goats i n t h e proper combinations and ac s u i t a b l e
i n t e n s i t y not only increases the production of anixal product: p e r
acre, b u t tends t o maintain the carrying capacity of the land i n
tha-c sheep and g o a x can he1 p csniro! deeds 2nd brush ,' thus avoiding
the use of herbicides or e x p e n s i v ? ~ e c h a n i c a lx e ~ h c d sof c o n t r o l .
Because s h e e p and g o a s have zhe capacity t o turn ?asxur? and range
\teget;tion i n c o meat a n d ! f i b e r a r a r e l a t i v e l y 1oi.i cosc,
572
ri5ir;g
c o s t of ?nerg;/ i n recen-r: y e a r s has i,~il;lrovedthe ?r,snornic c:rr;peci;iveness o f sneep 2nd go2ts rzlatilre bo c ~ h e rmeax and oi' ~tlooi and
A
nonai r re1 azi v e to syniheri c ; .
-,
I
,
*
n i s may 2x91 a 1 n ,he r2c2nr in c ~ e a s e
i n s h e ~ pnumbers.
31.
Wj
m e s s e s f o r the proponents o f lO8O r q i s t r a t i an a1 5 0 t z s t i ii2d c h a t
areas s u i tab12 f o r t r e g r a z i n g of s h e e p and g o a t s Iwere n o t being
usilized f o r t h a t purpose because o f predation o r the f2ar thereof
t h a t was forcing t h e abandonment of many sheep o r goat o p e r a t i o n s .
These witnesses a s s e r t e d t h a t young people wer2 no loncjer e n w r i n g
the sheep or goat business because o f predation and t h a t excessive
predation was a f a c t o r i n l e n d i n g i n s t i c u t i o n s being unwilling t o
advanc? capita7 for such operations.
The r e s u l t of t h i s s i t u a t i o n
a s s e r t 2 a l y includes a l t e r a t i o n s in the economy, decreased importance
o f ? g r i c 8 ~ l + u rtc!
e + h ? e r ~ ? r n ? ?ass. 1 c!e:?ir?
ir 'rdust~4ez-~,,k~~cS
depend on and support t h e a ~ r i c u tls r a l secyor, a n d i o r c z d chang$s
in 1 i l f i n g conci t i o n s of rur31 fami l i ~ s . Yh; I ? ~r2ca:;on
conczrcs
sr? real and i n some instanc2r c l e ? r l j j u s ~ i f i e a ,i; i s cancluded
t h a t f a c t o r s l i s t a d in finding 29 r a ~ h e rthan 7rgda:ion
iire c h i s f l y
responsible f o r the decline in the number o f operators r a i s i n g sheep
and goats in a r g a s s u i t a b l e f o r t h a t purpose.
32.
!JSDA conducted a survey of f c m e r sheep produce
Utah and 'tlyoning.
;
-
' n Colorado, , e x a s ,
Predation \,vas gi5ier; a s a s i c i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n
the decision t o discontinue she?? prcduction by f 3 m e r ?roazc2rs i n
each o f tne four s I a t e s , a1 though shorrag9 of good hired 1abor, lamb
and :vool prices and age of the okvner lrlero other1s i sni f i c a n t reasons.
Financial returns were frequently meager or nil 2nd the majority
gf
f o m e r producers in lrlyomi ng ,dere s u f f ~ t -ni q operazi ona 1 1 o s i e s , i . e . ,
not even a e e ~ i n gcash c o s t s , wnen :hey discontinued 3 r o d u c t i ~ n .
-,
I I I ~
number o f sheep praduczrs declified by 1 2 percent in 1973, The p a r
fol lowing r e s t r i c t i o n s on the u i e of t o x i c a n t s , the greatest , ? e r c ? n t a ~ e
of reduction since 1975.
This declin? was followed 5y f u r t h e r
declines of 5 percent in 1974 and 10 percent in 1375.
I n Colorado and
Texas Eore producers stopped production i n 1969 a n d 1970 than in other
years betwegn 1968 and 1974.
The biggest decline in number of producers
in Nyomi ng and Utah occurred i n 1969 and 1371 , r?s?ecti ve1,y.
Cecl i nes
in these four s t a t e s i n 1973 were not o u t o f 1 ine with the number of
producers discontinuing production i n other y e a r s .
I t i s concluded
t h a t although predation may have been a f a c t o r in producers discontinuing
sheep operations, such discontinuance cannot be r e l a i e d t o the-
-
suspension of the use of toxicants as a means of predator c o n t r o l .
-
have been ?srima-",
dc
$13 z i i 1 ien
5 year.
3as2d on ? s z i z a t e a c a i f
1 osses t o coyocos a f 0.4 percenx in I977 and 1977 pri c ~ , scacti?
producer losses have been s s t i n a t e d zt $20 m i l l i o n .
i t i s assertzd
t h a t t o t a l 2concmic losses t o producers would nearly d o u b l e i f 1980
p ~ i c 2 5were used and would nearly quadmple i f the higher range of
estirnatsd 1oss2s l,qas used.
T o t a l economic losses
73
?roducars frcm
coyow predation on.sheep a n d ca:ves i n 1980 hzve been esziinated so
be i n t h e range cf $75 t a S l i O illi ion.
-;he
l a t t e r figures ?rs 3?rncst
csrtainly f a r t o o h i c h .
34.
The USDA survey (Gee, et a1 . ) estimated chat sheep ?reducers l o s ~
$27 n i l i i o n to ? r e d a ~ o r s ,wizh cansuners l o s i n g an addition 510
s i l l i o n due co higher prices and reduced supply.
? ~ S S ~ i Sn
foregone
lamb s a l e s amcng t h e approximate 3,OCO ranchers who report26 lamb
losses to predators exceeding 10 p e r c e n t were estimated t o average
about $4,000.
Based on 1977 p r i c e s , USDI estimated t h a c sheep
producers l o s t $1 9 mil 1 i o n t o c o y o t e s and t h a t o t h e r producers gained
56 million because of higher p r i c e s caused by reduced supply for a
t o t a l net l o s s t o producers o; $1 3 mi 11 ion.
Texas sheep producers
a r e estimated t o h a v e l o s t $4,317,600 t o predators i n 1981 and goat
producers a r e estimated t o have l o s t $2,765,450 i n t h a t year.
Dr. Nielson e s t i m a h d d i r e c t income loss t o Utah sheep ranchers becween
$ 3 . 6 million a n d $5.6 million annually.
The Texas and Utah estimates
as appearing i n USOA's s t a t i s t i c s and make no allowances f o r pric2
chagses c a u s ~ d3y ;- q c r e a j ~ dsupply.
!
T+e 2ifsc:
! s t o 3vorszats
C C % ~
'
~ O S S ~ S .
35.
Whether an increase in supply of shes? and lamb would i n f a c t r z s u l t
i n a decrease i n price depends on ~ h es 2 n s i c i v i f y o f p r i c e t o the
quantity s o l d , which i s "Le.med p r i c e f l e x i bil i t y o r p r i c e e : a s t i c i t y
e f demand.
"Price f l e x i b i l i t y " i s che percent.age change i n p r i c e ;.rhich
will r e s u l c from a one perccnt change in the quanticy cffered f o r
s a l e , wni 1 2 "el a s t i c i ty o f dernand" i s bhz eercentage change i n q1 ~ n c tiy
L
purchased t h a t resul ti: frcm a
on2
p e r c z n t change i n p r i c e .
- 1
I
nere i s
evidence t h a t :he dernand f o r lamb i s i n e l a s t i c and thac i n view of the
f a c t t h a t only a minbrity o f producers s u f f e r gredation l o s s 2 s , <, , E - p
1
-
n
.
TL$: dt,,t: -pl*i..la
p
3-mav.
A
"
-
q LA.
U,L
refinement of mare s e n s i t i v e t e s t i n g methods, e . g . , gas chrornatogrdphy
svith e l e c t r o n captur-2 d 2 t ? c t j ~3~~ 6
,T~SSs ~ ? c ~ T c J I T , ~ ~ h
T :2/ ,~ 20r.zi7 ?d , o u ~ b , cts Se che resul X f
c m t r a l nervous sysxm a'sorders,
56.
Tests with rats t r e a t e d with f l u o r o c i t r a z e have demonscrated zarked
kidney damage.
~ e s t swith r a t s wherein i l uoroci t r a t e was admini s tered
in drinking water in concentrations as low as 5 ppm f o r seven days
have a l s o shcwn mor?nologicaT damage to t s s c e s .
This t2st snowed
t h a t chere was some regeneraticn , a 1 chough recovery was n o t c m p l s t ? ,
a f t e r 21 days.
Seen shown
LO
i ntraperi :onedl
fatal
.
Rars given sub-lethal doses of f l u o r o c ~ t r a ~ have
:
grow ncm,al?y f o r seven conchs acd hen to survive an
4082-of 71 uoroci t r a t ? hi ch would normal ? y have been
T h i s indi catzs t h a t a c e r t a i n tolsrance f o r f l uoroci t r a c s
nay be develosed.
O ~ h e rstudies ' ~ a v eshown rhac r e ? e a x i sub-;e:ha!
doses o f ~ o n o f l u o r ~ a c c ~have
a c ~increas2d :he cclerance o f scme
l4
speci 2s , e . g . , go1 den 2agl2s , r a t s , nice 5 n d pcssi bl;/ r h e s ~ s-nonA?ys.
gepeatod sub-lethal doses o f inonofluorccitraie a i r n i n i s ~ ~ r oto
b dogs,
guinea p i g s , rabbirs and mallard ducks, however, have accumulated o:
lethal levels.
The reason more data i s n ' t a v a i l a b l e o n whether
f l u o r o a c e t a t e accumuia-ies in an animal i s because i t i s so t o x i c .
Issue 6
57.
-
Human Safety
Sodi urn monoil uorcscetate i s a white, odor1 e s s , pcwaery , f l uoro-crsanj c
s a l t s i m i l a r i n appearance t o f l o u r , powdered sugar o r baking powder..
I t i s e s s e n t i a l l y t a s t e l e s s having o n l y a mild, s a l t y , sour or vinegar
t a s t e t o indi,vidu;ls.
1: i s highly so:.~b:z in l&:t:r,
but reiicivsly
37
".
insoluble in o r g a n i c s o l v e n t 5 such as ierosene, ~ l c ~ b o zcs:one,
l,
, - .
i n anizal 2nd :ili<;<~~b:.. i2ts and c?;;S .
;OC:L.;;I
or
-r I ~SrZzce',ac? i z
absorbed t h r o u ~ ht h e cjascrointescinal t r a c t , t n r o u ~ hopen 'ijounds and
the pulwi nary epithel iurn ( t h e 1 :ni ng coverin; a i r passages in rhe
lungs).
I t i s not considered to be absorbable through i n t a c t s k i n .
Monofluoroacetate, in g e n e r a l , i s chemicaliy. s t a b l e due t o the
strength o f the carbonfluorine bond.
i n canines i s charact2rized.by
3
Scdiurn iluoroacetatp poisonin9
latency period from one-half hour
t o two hours a f t z r i n s e s c i c n , wnich i s r 2 l a c e d co the metabolic
process2s described pr?viousiy ( f i n d i n g 3 5 ) .
In humans the l a r e n c y
period may be as lonQ a s f i j ~ e$ours and' death o f any species i s
usually within 23 hours a f t e r ingestion.
58. Reported deazhs a c t r i b u t a b l ~t o 1080 5ave been in cgnnectior! 1,vizh
i t s us? as a rodenticide r a t n e r t h a n
2s
us2 as a predaciie.
-7
I
,rier-?
i s restimony that 1080 poisonings a r e difficult co diagnosz a n d t h a t
many poisonings a r e 1 i kely t o go unreported.
A 1 though t ~ wo i tnesszs
who a p p a r m t l y suffered adverse e f f e c ~ sfrom TO80 ~ o i s o n i n gt e s t i f i e d
a t the hearing, the preponderance o f the evidence e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t
individuals handling 1080 i n connection with the preparation of
b a i t s o r toxic c o l l a r s d o not s u f f e r i l l e f f e c t s provided proper
precautions are taken.
59.
R e l a t e d t o both environinental and human s a f e t y 'is t h e matter o f possi bie
misus e of Compound 1080.
There i s evidence t h a t i t was n o t possible
t o monitor o r control the a p p l i c a t i o n of strychnine drop b a i t s
and , i t
18
may be assams.j
G?
7 1280SLDs.
,
Aifficy: r ? z s t ~ c u l dze i.tcl;rred
ha-, sini 1 a r
-'
, sess r i s k s z r s real
.
,
I
I1-e us2.
ne deci s i c n r e r s i n , ncit*rever,
7 c
I
1 imi t s ~ h use
e
o f 1280 SLSs t o sovernmenr ernpi oyees and i z i s
considered t h a t t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n subscantially reauczs ch,e ? o s s i b i l i c y
of mi suse.
A1 though t h e record establ i shes chai here were r i o l a t i o n s
of regulations and p o l i c i e s concerning the placement and disposal
o f 1080 b a i t s t a t i o n s , i t a l s o e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t regulations and
pol i c i e s re1 d t ; ng- t o ,
i .g
. , coveri ng
o f strychni ne crcp-bsiii and
removal of 1 arge-oai ts from h ; ghi?r e l evations , wer? impracti ;a1 a n d
could not be f o l l owed in some i nstanc2s .
The use o f ' such 1 arge-bai
i s not, however, being approved by ;his i e c i sion.
rs
Becausa leverthe1e s s , f o r
i ndi vidual producers predaf i on renai ns a s i gni f i cant c2use of
l o s s , which a v a i l a b l e a1 t e r n a t i v e means o f ?rodator concr3l are
not c o n s i j t o n t l y e f i e c t i v e i n reducing ac c o s t s which a r e reasonable
and f e a s i b l e .
7.
Compound 1080 when used in l a r g e - b a i t s t a t i o n s as a means o f predator
control has not been shown t o acccmpl i s h i t s intended ?urpose,
t h a t i s , a reduction in area o r regional cgyote populations followed
by a reduction in predation l o s s e s .
A 1 t h o u g h no generalized reduction
i n the populations o f non-target species from the use of 1080 large-
b a i t s has been shown, the evidence does n o t e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h i s
conclusion i s applicable t o endangered s p e c i e s , wnich was
concern underlying the suspension and cancellation order.
3
major
The
burden of proof i n these respects i s c l e a r l y o n the a p p l i c a n t .
The
hazards o f 1080 l a r g e - b a i t s t o endangered o r threatened species a r e
clearly substantial.
In view thereof and in v i e w of the f a c t t h a t
sheep l o s s e s t o predators on an overall basis have not been shown
41
"i have increased rir,co 1 9 7 2 , i t i s conc?c;d2d t h a t t5,e risks d o not
c,ut>!zign .he b e r i n f i t s a n d ~ c dfii c a z ' 3 n ~i
;h2
-I
e-,
,?/L
2rcer
resp9cz io t n i s i;se o f Coinpound YO80 i s ncc reauired.
,di:i
Accard!ng;y,
the application f o r r e g i s t r a t i o n of Compound !C8O i n l a r g e - b a i t
s t a t i o n s w i 11 be di sni ssed.
8.
Although the use of Compound 1080 i n smear posts as a means of predator
control was not considered i n the 7972 suspension and cancellation
o r d e r , f o r a l l t h a t appears snear ?osts a r s a l o int2nded for <
1080 for ? r e l a t o r czntrol coverad b y che A6mini:tratar's
notic? (16
,Yarch 10, 1982). Consequently, t h i s delivery ~echanismmay o a t be
considera9d or the use tt7ereof authorized by t h i s d e c i s i ~ n .
10.
Substantial new evidence e x i s t s with respect t o the use o f Compound
1080 in i h 2 toxic c o l l a r and i n s i n g l e l e t h a l dos? (SLD) b a i t s as
means of ?redator control and modification o f :he 1972 order to
permit these uses of Compound 1080 for predator concrol i s required.
Because no party has argued t h a t the Adminjstrator's det2rmination
t h a t reconsideration of the 1972 suspension and cancellation order was
warranted and t o hold a public hearing in accordance with 40 CFR 164.131
was i m p r o p e r , i t i s n o t necessary t o address t h i s s u e s t i o n .
-
Although, as s t a t e d a t the o u t s e t of t h i s opinion, no p a r t of the
decision i s dependent upon the v a l i d i t y of the ALJ's ruling thar the d e c i s ' c n
.. .
order would be inade tipon t h e e n t i r z r2cord, xn; s n a t t z r s,+?rrants 3 e n t i . s ~ .
Counsel f o r ;?,A
have 3;t?rnpzzi
t a : c r p a r ~ ~ e c ~i ze
a l zvidence ?rgperly
admissible and f o r consideration i n chis prcceeding.
For ?xanpls,
w h i l e contending t h a t the p r i n c i p l e of f i n a l i t y precludes consideration
of pre-1972 evidenca conc3rning fundamental issues such as the e f f e c t i v e n e s s
of 7080, counssi s t a t e t h a t i t may he ? s p r o p r i a t e t o consider ?re-1972
evidence r e l a t e d t o sucn narrow issues as ;he gredaror loss rzt2s and
the s i z g o f t h e livestock induszry.
I t i r contznded t h a t the A c h i n i s z ~ ~ ~ o r ' s
deci sion i n the M-44 proceeding (FIFRA Cocket No. 382, Sept2mber 1 6 ,
1975), "L the 2 f f s c t that-s\ri dencs zvai 1ab1 e pr? or t o 1972 coui'd be
ccnsidered i n d e t e m i n i n g the avai l k b i l icy o f an antidot2 f o r scdium
cyanide, i s not precedent f a r io;:sl c z r a i i cn o f are-i 972 evi lencz , beczuse
the 1 9 7 2 finding chat there was na a n r i d o x was 2rrgneous and noc sdogortzd
I '
by Ihe record.
Csunsel arsue t h t ; t h l ~ruling was ? r a p e r , c i t i n g the r u l e
concerning an agency's inherent power to c o r r e c t i:;
nistakes.
9
- ,/
-
IL is
a s s e r t e d , however, t h a t an agency's power t o corroct i t s a i s i a k e s dces
not extend t o changing a basic decision or policy, e . g . , suspension and
cancel l a t i on of the use of 1080 as a ?radaci d e .
Under t h i s vie8,q the
more egregious the mistake, the l e s s ?ewer the agency has t o c o r r e c t i t .
Surely the Administrator has the a u t h o r i t y to inquirz i n t o a l i findines
While the absence of an e f f e c t i v e antidote i s aroncj the c r i t e r i a
9/
t h a t may t r i p a e r a Rebuttable Presurnotion Aqainst Registration ( R P A R ) in
accordance w ~ t h40 CFR-152.11, i t i s c l e a r t h a t the lack of a n a n t i d o t e i s
,
not in and of i t s e l f suf-iici?nt reason f o r e i t h e r denying an e x i s t i n g
application f o r registr-a tiion o r cancelling an e x i s t i n g r e g i s t r a t i o n .
Accordingly, i i e e x i s i e n ~ , * ora I d- i n o f ail a n t i d o t e i; not 2 ;;;ci2?
or
control1 ing finding d n d the decision in the M-44 proceeding would a i m o s ~
c a r t a i n l y have been t h e !oreover, by focusing on the "newly 2iscovered
evidence" requirement o f 164.131 (a), which is the requirement t o hold a
hearing , i nsuiii ci ent a t t e n ~ on
i i 5 given to the 1 anguage of 1 5 d . 7 32 (a)
providrng in pertinen: ?arr "The det~rninationof these ijsiies ;hal!
te
iilaae taking in10 account the human and envircnrnenxal risks found by t h e
Adrninistraior in his cancGllation or suspensjon deterninaticn and rhe
cumul ati ve eiiect of a1 l oast and presenz ~ s e ,s incl udi ng t h e requested
--/-
U S ~ ,* * - .
I'
(emphasis suopl id). The cxrnulaiive e f f e c t of ai: ~ a s t
and present lses can nardiy b? properly iddressed by
1
r i ~ i dlim~tarfcn
concerning evidence available only since 1972.
Counsel's concern that scarce agency r2sources ?/ill be ,vastld
in r2litigating issues previously litigated and detemined is understandable,
but unwarranted. Since the issuance o f the suspension and cancellation
order in 1972, the Agency has previously denied applications for registration
o f 1080 and it is clear that applications deemed not meritorious may be
deniee i n accordance with 40 CFR 164.131 without a public hearing. This
provides ample authority to preclude the necessity of holding a p u b l i c
hearing where substantial new evidence which may materially effect :he
prior suspension or cancellation order in accordance with the cited
s e c t i o n has n o t b ~ : n subrpi t t o d .
Y ~ r - r o o ~:./en
,
if a ;r;bl< h e a r i n g i s
granted, the Administrator controls the issues to be adjudicated therein
accordant?
;qj
:h 49 CF?
7
I
a4.131 ( c j and h z s
F
the ro-opening of i s s ~ e scsnsi2erza
1
p r i o r proceedi ngs.
,
~3
7
trip i e
,.
. .
a ; screc;on
i3
3rPc r uae
7
,
nav? been ? r c c e r i y bdetz.miced i n
8
For 2xamp12, the ,Admi n i s c r a t o r night have i ini'2c
the issues t o 1G80 delivery mechanisxs n o t ccnsidersd in the I 9 7 2 o r d e r ,
b u t appears to have chos2n instead t h a t a1 1 issues i n ccnnection w i t h
the use o f 1080 as a method of predator control would be adjudicated.
.
L
The Adininii~.ratorshould not and cannor be rlqu'r-?d
ro isnore the
f a c t t h a t a1 though the 1972 order misht have been contzsted i n administratjve
or judicial proceedings, no such cancest was i n s t i t u t d , a n d c h a t fjndings
suppcrti ng the 1372 ordsr rema i n ni ghl y contr.oversi a,1 ,
tinder these
circumstances, r i g i d p r i n ~ i p l s so f f i n a l it y appropriat2 f s r t ? e c a u r t s
a r e n o t appl i c a b l e and i nasnuch as t h e Administrator *defer7ined t h a t a1 1
issuns b e a r i n g o n 'fie I972 order wctild be adjudicated n e ~ e i n ,t,ye
,4drrii,ni;traior and the ALJ may, a f t e r evidence mee-cing :he
srl ria o f
I
154.131 ( a ) has been presented cn the record, and consi s t s n t with 10 CF?
164.132, appropriately consider the e n t i re record in determining whether
reversal or modification of the 1972 order i s required.
32 t h a t as i c
may, the 1080 delivery systems authorized herein, the toxic c o l l a r and
SLD b a i t s , were not considered i n the 1 9 7 2 order and were beyond the
scope of t h a t proceeding.
Accordingly, there can be no question, b u t
I
t h a t evidence whether pre- o r post-1972 i s properly f o r consideration.
I t has been contended t h a t the testimony of Nr. Harry Loats, a
witness f o r USDA who sponsored a mathematical model projecting the
? f f z c t i v e n e s s of Compound 1080 l a r g ? 5ai: i t a x i o n s in retucing p r z d a ~ o r
iosszs o f s ? e $ ? 2nd ?ifer,ts o n non-carset
data f r o m the
LS;!
o f such s:acions
l d l i f e ~ c p ual ~ons
i bas?< sn
i n '!liycming during t h e y.ar
1975-7'7,
should n o t have bean admitted o r i f properly adnitczd, should not be
g i v e n any weight, because the model was not produced f o r use by counsel
.
, i n cross-exani nation.
Rr. Loazs ' testimony has n o t been found t o be
persuasive f o r reasons, among o t h e r s , t h a t the model f a i l e d t o cgnsider
i m i g r a x i o n of coyotes, possible " b a i t shyness" and assumed :ha:
resource base renatned f i x s d .
she
The objections, howevsr, a r e rejected a s
lacking i n merit 2ssential l y f o r the reasons s ? t f a r 3 i n the USOA ? e p l j
1 o/
3 r i e i , thac i s , counsel had access to Texas A&?! Ilniverslty (TRNU)'and other data u p o n which the model was based, b u t f a i l e d
sucn d a t a .
f3
'mke use of
Couns21 object2d to h a v i n g the analysis run and dis?layed on
The n i c r o c ~ m p u ~ 2presenx
r
i n the hearing room and a r e no:
. .
i n a 20s; ::cn
tc. complain i i; such a showing n i g h t h a l ~ e~hrown addi t i 2 n a l 1 i gn?: cn
operation of rhe model and s u g e s t 2 d additional questions f o r c r o s s -
exami nation.
Moreover, carefu 1 exami nati on of the transc7.i p t rp_vea1 5
t h a t a1 though ?lr. Loats did s t a t e t h a t the model (computer codes) das
considered t o be proprietary, he did not f l a t l y refuse t o producs i t ,
b u t s t a t e d t h a t he would have to consider the matter.
I t appears c h a t
Mr. Loats d i d n o t f u l l y understand t h e nature of a p r o ~ e c t i v eorder t h a t
m i g h t have been i s s u e d by t h e ALJ i n order t o p r o t e c t the data from
unauthorized d i s c l o s u r e .
In any event, the matter was n o t pursued by
counsel and nay not now be used a s a basis f o r objecting t o i4r. Loats'
! O / USE!, assert: t k t t h e TAXU d a t a were avai iabie to counsel f o r
EPA and Defenders as e a r l y a s April 1982.
,
The
as
3
rjenc2
e1,j
2 jtsbi
i shes t h a t ~~cmoo!,~nfl
1 sZ0
,
ar;e-Ga?
. cs a r ? intended
.
f r c n l,vn:ih
i t ir
general coyota jopuiatisn iuporession 'ec!?nl;ce
,
. tne
,.
assuned that oenefi ts in
f o m of r ~ d i l c t i ~ ni sn ?redation i o s s ? ~1,4ii1
,
flow.
I
Wyoming, the applicant f o r regi s t r z t i o n of 1080 large-bai i s , has
not established thac use of such b a i t s reduces coyotz populations over
l a r g e areas o r t h z t reducrions in ?redator losses o f livestock r e s u l t
from such use.
In s h o r t , the effecriveness o i 1020 large-baits
predaxor conrrol technique has not been pstablished.
3s
a
This being so and
the r i s k s t o &L l e a s t endangered and threatened specizs frcm such uses
not having been shown t o have been overest~mated i n 1 2 7 2 , t h e applicanr
has not met i z s burden of-proving t h a t the benefi Ti outweigh' %e r i s k s .
1l /
-
This concl,usicn i s buttressed by che f a c t thac overall losses ~i
sheep
and lambs t o ? r e c a ~ o r shave n o t be5n shown l o have incrersed since 1972.
Accordingly, nodification of the 1972 order with respect za 1C60 1zr:eb a i t s i s noc required
2nd
m e application f o r tne r e g i s t r z t i o n of 1080
in large-bai t s will be dismissed.
Different considerations apply t o the us2 c f lQ80 i n toxic c o l l a r s
and in single-lethal Cose (SLD) b a i t s .
Toxic c o l l a r s are c l e a r l y f o r
rhe rsmoval of p a r r i c u l a r de?rsdaiing coyotes and fox25 and the f i n d j n g i
herein e s t a b l i s h t h a t 1080 in the toxic c o l l a r can be used iichbuc
unreasonable r i s k s t o health and the environment.
If scatt2red or
spread over wide a r e a s , 1C80 in SLD b a i t s might also be used as a general
coyote population suppression technique.
objections as 1080 i n l a r g e - b a i t s ,
Such use i s open to the same
i t s effectiveness has not been
11/ I t i s a well established principle t h a t where ihe evidence does
n o t pKponderate i n favor of one c o n c i u s i u r ~iii a n . ths p a i t j : h;vl-:
the burden of proof on t h a t issue cannot p r e v a i l .
?roved.
The l i n ~ x e duse of 1080 in Si3 b a i t s auchorizzd her2ir: i s c a s z z
2 n x s x ; c c r , j . :il2:
and scsncs can
sk:n
1
.
:31cs
-
22 S ~ T S~
C
F
L
'
~ s z d: n : 2 n J c n c ~ i : n
isprsc+iz:?
: v ei n r?.r,o\ii ng parxi c a l.r
; ~ i t h o u xundue r i s k s t o non-target, species.
!L
;sr-.ls
depredaci i;g c3yc-,ss
i s concluded r,hat the
hazards o f lC80 in toxic c o l l a r s and SLD b a i t s as authorized herein a r e
s u f f i c i e n t l y minimal
hat broad prohibitions on t h e i r use + t h i n
range o f endansered species a r e not required.
the
The r e s u l t ~,vould,o c
course, be d i f f e r e n t , i f , f o r ~xarnple, iE was shown thaz miangered
species such as the
Sdn
Joaquin k i t
f3x
( ~ e r 2in the ar2a and t h a t t h e y
m i g h t a t t a c k collared livestock o r be a t t r a c ~ e dby scnnTs designed f o r
12/
co~yotes.
-
For a l l t h a t appears, us2 of lC8O i n the sxear
POST
i s intended as
a general coyote pogulazion ruppressicn x c i ? n i q i i e 2nd chis 2 p p l i c a c i o n
i s being disrnisszd f o r the same reason as the appiicatjon f o r us? o f
1080 i n l a r g e - b a i t s , i . e . , i t has not been scewn t o be sffeczive
fqr
the
intended purposz.
Nyorning, e t a1 . have contended t h a t the evi'dence i s sufficient to
r e g i s t g r t h e b a i t delivery u n i t (BDU) tzsted by J r . Powarc
supra) as a means of ?redator c o n ~ r o ,l
( 7 0 1
~,
1: i s iqell s e t t l e d , however,
t h a t the issues in a suspension o r cancellaxion proc2eding may not be
expanded t o include us?s or r e s t r i c t i o n s not proposed i n the notice
issued by the Administrator.
Shell Oil Carn~anv,et al.,
---
F I F 4 A Docket
Nos. 401, e t a1 . (Decision on I n t e r l o c u t o r y Appeal, April 9 , 1 9 7 9 ) .
12/ Because Executive Order No. 1 1643, February 8 , 1972 (37 FR 2 8 7 5 ) )
p r o h i E t i n g the use of toxicants on Federal lands f o r predator control has
been revoked ( 4 7 FR No. 20, a t 4223, January 27: 1982), no ~ r o h i b i c i = n
of the use o f t o x i c c o l l a r s and SLD b a i t s a s authorized herein o n Federal
lands i s being imposed.
18
The r3t;onale f o r 13i s decision i s :Sac
Adninis:ra;or
u n d 3 r : k e s t a c u z e g n l y :he
or his d e ; ? s a t e can i s s u e a notjce of
suspend and chaz such a notice neczssarily
f o r che conduct of
he hearing.
~
2
iflt2flt
t o ~ 2 n ~ 2G ri
che
~
5sczndard of r2hvance
7-1
i n e i n s t a n t hearins i s being conduct?d
under Section 6 of che Act and the sane reasoning i s a p p l i c a b l e .
Accordingly,
the ALJ has no auihori t y t o d i r e c t t h a c the BDG be registered as a means
of predazor c o n ~ r o l .
The use r e s t r i c ~ i o n sf o r 1080 i n SLD baics imposed herein bear
l i t t l ? re1 a t i onshi p t o chos2 proposed by ;he appl i c a n t s .
S t r i ngent
l i m i ~ a t i o n sara being placcd o n aL I s ~ ~ c t o r y
o f i cs c c s z or because o f j i n j t l t j c n s
on i t s us? 3i!e t o c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o= t $ e control method, .
!,ltih
I
,
- ?
'
Nhat a r e the n a t i o n a l , r e g i o n a l , 2nd local e f f e c t s o f predation on
the livestock industry and the general economy?
'
5.
What impact would the avai labi 1 i ty of 1380 have on che p r o f i t s s f
individual ranchers and the 1 ivestock i n d u s t r y , as a ldhole?
Environmental Safety
Whether a v a i l a b l e data , i n d i c a t ~t h a t use o i lSSO i n ~ s x ' c c o l l a r s
and/or SLD b a i t s wculd be 1 i k e l y t o r9sul t i n lower direcx or indi r s c t
exposur? to non-tarcyet l,.ii 1 dl i f ? than resul ted frcm us2 of 1 C8O l arcjebait stations.
'dhether a v a i l a b l e data i n d i c a t e t h a t the r i s k of primary andjor
secondary poi soning was overestimated i n 1972.
6.
Human S a i s t y '
'Ahether U S ? o f 1380 in toxic c o l l a r s , SL3 b a i t s , and/or larrjeb a i t s t a t i o n s i s l i k e l y to r e s u l t in human injury or dea;h.
1,dhether an a n t i d o t e and/or medical t r e a t x e n ~s x i s t s which e f f 2 c t i c / e l y
caun t z r a c t s the e f f e c t s of 1080 poi soni n g .
7.
Use R e s t r i c t i o n s
Whether prohibition of the use o f 1C80 in the range of c e r t a i n
protected and/cr endangered s p e c i e s , e . g . , ihe San Joaquin k i t f o x
or Cal i forni a . Condor, would e f f e c t i v e l y reduce o r el imi nato the r i s k s
to t h o 5 2 species, and what e f f e c t would such a prohibition have:
( a ) in those areas
(b)
on the 1 ivestock industry as a whole
Whether r e s t r i c t ' i o n of the use or' 1080 t o trained Government employees
or c e r t i f i e d a p p l i c a t o r s would reduce human and environmental r i s k s
w i thout s u b s t a n t i a l l y reducing benefits .
Whether a requi rernent iha t 1 ivestock predation be veri i i e d by s t a t e
employees before use of 1080 was authorized would l i m i t use of 1080
t o sit!!ations i n which i t was most l i k e l y t o ppqvide s i g n i f ' c z n t
benef i t s .
Whetner users inould be required :a post warnings i n me v i c i n i t y
of SLD b & i ts and iarcje-bait stations.
W h e t h e r users snould b e required t o check i o x l c c o l l a r s , SLD
b a i x i , a n d b a i t s t a t i o n s periodical 1y.
Vherher u s e r s s h o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o keep rocords o f rhei r use of
1080, and i i so, wnac records.
Yhether o t h e r raszrictions waul a reduce r i s k s wi thcut i u b s t a n ~ ; a i? y
reuuc'ng o e ~ e i2is .
Fttacnment 8
1.
a
r';
TI.
Przdaci on Loss Rates
A.
Sheep Losses Prior t o 1972
3.
Sheep Losses After 1972
C.
Caczle LOSSBS
0.
Goat Losses
Efficacy
A.
,
-
~ o x i cCollars
'
B.
Single-12thaI-Dos2 3 a i ~ s(SLZs) -
C.
Large-aai t S t a t i 3ns
A.
Uenning, Shooting,
8.
;1-44
C.
Aversi ve Conditioning
D.
R e p r ~ d u c t i v eI n h i b i t o r s
i.
Chemical R e p e l l a n ~ s
F.
Husbandry Practices
(1 )
Guard Dogs
(2)
Shed Lambing
(3)
Addi tional Herders
(4)
Fencing
,5j
Pmin:7;
I
G.
-I r3pping,
or > r u ~ l l i ? ~
Mechanical Repel 1 a n t s
Snaring
\1 .
Environmental Safety
A.
Exposure'
(1)
8.
131
-
13.1
135
138
-
136
123
Risks o f Primary and Seccndary P o i s o n i n g
(1)
VI.
Toxic Collars
Primary-
aurnan S a f e t y
i
A.
Physical P r d p e r c i e s o f 1033 and Stinan i n j u r i e s
8.
Misuse
C.
~ n t i d o t eand Treatment
VII.
Use R e s t r i c t i o n s
VIII.
Smear Post
-
- l5i
Attachment C
136
-
157
I
i
,
The Ca: n Cornmi i ~ e e ,h e r 2 i n a i t e r i a i n o r Cal n , e i a1 . , :./nose reocrz
was ihe primary basis f o r the 1372 order suspending and cancelling
r e g i s t r a t i o n s o? Compouna lO8O f o r tne control of predators, referred
t o a study conducted by. Utah S t a t e Ilni:ler;icy,
hereinai~sr'the
I
1
Niel sen-Curie study, on
3
The ranchers were asked
t3
23 Fsrcen:
sdrno!
n of &;ah ' s shees ranchers.
?stiqa;s t k i r i 3 ~ a ilosses 3ur:ng 122
Fiscal Year 1963-69 and t a repor- ihe ounaer
predators.
3f
shes? i a s i
;3
The r e s u l t showed an 3verage ?redator loss o f 61
i w e s and lambs per i;000 ewes, ' of which d p n r o x i ~ a t e i y? / I :verz co
1 ambs.
O a ~ ao n he 1 amb crop p e r 1 ,CCO swes :.ier- no, ita:ed,
b ~ i
d e ~ e n d i n go n t!?at l a ~ a ,jredator lssies Ners 2 Terceni of ;ne ewes,
4 t o 5 percrnr o f the 'anbs and ~ e r ~ a 3s sserceni s f the b t a l
flocks.
Coyotes were reporteo 2s aeing rhe m;or cius2 o i p r ? d i t s r
1 oss.
2.
Cain, e t a l . a l s o referred to estimates c o m p i l e d by izhe Oirector of
the Division of Wildlife Servic2s f o r the S t a t e of U t a h during the
period of the s a r l y 1040's t o 1965, r l f e r r e d t o as the Owen Xorse
estimates.
These estimates were cornpi 1 ed from yearly reports
furnished by a leading sheep rancher i n each ccunty, who i n turn
contacted sheepmen in h i s county f o r data on sheep l o s s e s .
Cata
reported were in terns of actual numbers o f sheep l o s t and n o t
1/
Pursuant
~ n n n c h;
~/ ~?c;,
j
vn"aUr tu.C7J,
t o a motion f i l e d by counsel f o r E P A , which vas n o t
n<44~l
; 3u1 I I V L
-; - +L- l a~- - A C I I u;- - L I I ~r e ~ u r aupon wnich
the 1972 suspension and cancellation order was based.
rr---
,
u l
I
I L
8
m n A ; - ~
ILS.
L L -
1/
-
3ercentases.
3y civicing the to<;:
Cain arrived a: j e r c s n t a ~ ? s07
flumS2r o f sheep i n the s t a c 2 as
1 3 5 5 2 s ;3
jredat'cn ; n the range o f
7-10 percent in t h 2 l a t 2 1923's and 1 0 ~ ~ o2f s 2 t o
t h a t time.
Cain, e t a1
.
4
percent sinc3
observed t h a t t h i s r e s u l t was in clos?
agreement with the Ni el sen-Curl e Study f o r 1969.
3.
The Division of N i l d l i f e Services ccmpiied loss d a t a , referrpd to
as the Reynoids and 2ust.d
S u m a r i ? ~ ,as reported by the Crcp a n d
Livestock Reporti n~ Services f o r the 5 tazes o f Yontana , ',!/yomin g ,
Colorado and Tzxas.
I n :he courss of regular annual surveys,
conducted by mai i questf onnai r e , stockmen i n, the 1 i sted s t a t e s ;vere
asked t o regort the numbers of sheep l o s t t o ?r:dacors
years 1366 to 1969.
during che
Losszs reported as a gercentage o f a l l sheep
and 1 arnbs ranged from '3.6 percznt i n Texas i n 1967 to 7.9 ?ercent
in Wyoming i n 1969.
Extrapolating t h i s data t o 1 6 wesi2rn
S Y ~ W S ,
Reynolds and Gustad concluded t h a t predators were responsible f o r
24.8 percent of a l l sheep and lamb deaths o r 5 . 3 9ercent of the
t o t a l i nventory .
4.
Cain, e t a l . a l s a had a v a i l a b l e USGA Forest Service estimates which
a r e based on records maintained by d i s t r i c t rangers as t o the
numbers o f livestock placed in national f o r e s t s a t the beginning o f
each grazing season and the number removed a t the end of the each
season.
T h e difference between the two figures c o n s t i t u t e s the
I
including those t o predators.
R e s u l k , c : z p i ~ c d f o r Utah > f a t i g n a i
Forests, showed losses t c p r z d a ~ c r sranging beF,veen 0 . 4 and 1 .Q 2ercznt
o f herds grazed.
Secause rhe grazing s2ason
Oi7
national f o r e s t s
1 as"L on1 y two t o t h r e ~ ronths.
,
o f the year a n d because 1 osses during
1
I
c1th2r seasons, 3speci a 1 7:j : v i n x r , rihich nay Se subsr,antl a i a r e n o t
r .
i n c i l ~ d e d ,Cain concluded c h a t thesz ~ : ? u r e sagrred r3asonabiy d e l l
w i ~ nthe Pli?l sen-Cilr'le a c a Owen Yorse estimat2s f o r the z n t i r e
year.
3.
Cain, e t 3 1 . a l s a had a?tai!abl2 dam ,on, inventorfes of sheep
2s
of January 1 of sach y e z r , lamb c r o p and t o ~ a llosses to a!l
causes a s raporr,sd b y USZA's Stzsistical ,?e?orting Serxlice ( 3 2 s ) .
These d a m a r e compiled tnrougn nail q u e s z i c n n a i r s 2nd do noc
anernpt t o br~akdown l s s s e s t o cause.
! c t z ! losses thus repcrc2d
varied betwe n 9 a n d 1 1 9ercent i n Utah (individual years ranging
between 7 . 9 and 1 4 . 9 ) ; between 7 and 8 percznt i n Idaho ( 6 . 1 and 16.1
for e x t r e m e s ) ; and between 8 and 9 percent in Wyoming ( 5 . 4 and 13.5 f o r
3
the extremes) during t h e same period.
Cain, e t a1 , recarded thes?
t o t a l reported 1osses as s e t t i n g a cei 1 ing o n , predation 1 asses . 3as2d
on an analysis o f the Nielsen-Curle d a t a , the committee concluded t k a t
n o s t operators experienced ininor losses i n z2ms of percenIages ( w i t h
80 percent o f t h e t o t a l f a l l i n g i n the two lowest c l a s s e s ) , w h i l e only
a small f r a c t i o n of the operators experienced heavy l o s s e s .
=, a l . , z u t i l o r z i a:]
,-I
3 r r ~ i c l e" ? r ? d a t s r L C S ~ ~ I::S 2ne
-r ~ o c ko f
7
Shes?
and Goats ," ,dhich re?ort?d o n losses co flocks ~ a i n t a i n e doy the
Texas Agricultural fxperiment S t a t i o n .
Sheep losses t o p r z d a ~ o r s
during the f i ve-year period 1967 through 1971 averaged approximatel y
3 - 4 percenx of the inventory, while losses co a1 1 causes averaced
9.27 percent o f the inventory.
-..,
lnese sercentages include loss2s co
1 ainbs , which !+/ereconsidered essi?ni-,ially post-marki n g a s 1 amoi ng
.
occurred i n c ~ n f i n e s e n t . ?redator
1 0 8 ~ 2as~
a percent of a11 ;asses
averaged 36.30 percenx, the highest being Q2.14 3ercent in 1577 ana
rn rne . v ? c z c
>
a;pdrenti;i
3 r ~ c u : a r c s u l 2 i- 7- 3 r i .
,
- -
n o t dsed i n r n l s a r z a ~ r i c r s
1 1
n
I Y , ~ ,
1--
1
I
,
:zs
sir;,,-;nlne
sadjum clianiie, tne l a ~ t e ri~the royot. gei-ec, piere .red.
i.
-; n e
9
f o r q o i n g makes !t c l e a r c h a t dara o n pre-1372 prodaiion lcsses
t o sheep a r e f r a ~ n e n t a r yand t h a t no sne loss f i g u r e i s pcssible.
-he
m o s t reasonable conclusion, however, is t h a t predation 1 0 ~ ~ 2 s
' >
1
o f sheep a r e somewhere between 3 . 6 and 7.J oercsnt
:he
?eynolls and Gustad surrmariss.
Cain,
2t
reporred i n
a1 . had questioned t h a
Reynolds and Gustad d a t a because i t iiilplied t h z t precs:!sn
:vas a iilajar
causa of totas1 l o s s e s , which )was quesiioned, becruse o f ihe s ~ a r i s t i c . 1
d i s ~ r i c u t i o nof predztion l o s s e s , i . e . , only a small ~r3pcortionof
i h e producers suffering major predaiian 1 a s s e s .
8.
I n 1975, a m i l questionnaire to determine sheep and iano
:asses
t o gredatars in 15 western s t ? .es i n 197a !,vas csnducted by the
S t a t i s t i c a l &porting Service of the U . S . Department of Agricul ture
(Agricul t u r a l Econorni c Report No. 369, l p r i 1 1977, herei a a f t o r
Gee, e t a1 . ) . Of 28,000 questionnaires mailed, responses were
received from 8,910 farmers and ranchers o r 32 percant representing
I
a l l s i z 3 s 2 n d tySas s f
52-9
si- 1 5 I,l;eszrn
-$ 3 i n s ~ i r ere1 i a b i l ' : I ,
ST~:~S.
n o t rsspondincj was c3n:acced
nser?:icns
and z l i cjmgraph?caI 2 7 2 3 s
3 safin;?
l ~ ':;:CS~
f
by v ~ al i?.na personal i n e r v i s l , ~ . -,i n ?. i
was rhe nosL comprehensive sGrvey of s h e ~ pand ianb i o s s z s t o
predation e v z t conductzd.
P r e d a t i o n , p r i n c i p a l l y by the coyote, was
t h e major cause a i sheep and lamb deaths during 1974, l ~ s s e s
a t t r i b u t d t o coygxes numbering 728,000 lambs and 229,COO adulc
sheep, r e p r e s m t i n g a ~ h i r dof the t o t s 1 lamb deachs
and a f a u r r h o f t n e a d u l r sfieey dea-ths.
t3
a l l causes
Lanos were attacked m c h
more than a d u l t sheep, o v e r a l l ios3es t o coyot2s b e i n g 8 percen1 of
the lambs and 2 - 3 DePcent a? t h e sheep.
L o s s r a t z s of lambs and
sheep t o coyoces were h i g h e s t i n s t a t e s wizh pubiic range g r a z i n g
and mountaincus t 2 r r z i n ?/hi1 2 ccmparacively few deaths frcm cgyotes
were incurred in the S c a t 2 s o-f Kansas, >lebraska and ?/ortn 2nd Souc!~
I
I
I
Dakota.
Predation l o s s e s o t h e r than t o coyo-ces, c c n s ~ i : u z x i 2 . 3
percent of lambs and 0 . 9 perc2nt of sheep.
9.
Gee, e t a1 , r s p c r t 2 d t h a t lambs l o s t -co p r e d a t o r s c o n s t i tuted
1 1 .4 percent of lambs born and 4 9 . 3 qercent of l o s s e s of lambs t o
a1 1 c a u s e s .
Adul t sheep l o s t t o ? r e d a t e r s t o t a l e d 3 :4 percent of
t h e January 1 inventory and c o n s t i t u t e d approximately 33 percent o f
,qere
2 . 5 percent i n 1966, 2 . 2 percent in 1970 and 3 . 3 percen; in 1971.
The comparable Ses
I
lcjure for a d u l t sheep 1orc t o p r e d a t o r s
f o r the y e a r 197a i n Colorado was 3.5 p e r c o n t .
1974, t h e 1 a " L ~ rbased sn Gee,
?'i
31.
i:.ie l o s s e s a t ~ r i b u t e czo
m
8
predation iiere 2.6 perc2nt o f inventory i n 197Q-71 and 2 . 8 ?ercznc
in 1972-73.
These f i g u r e s a r e t o be compared with t h e 1 . 8 p e r c e n t
of s t o c k sheep l o s t t o coyotes i n Idaho in 1974 ( 2 . 0 percent l o s c t o
p r e d a t o r s ) reported by Ges,
d a t a a r e based
2n
2t
a1 . The 1970-71 and 1972-73 l o s s
a study of range jhee? o p e r a I o r s , which ?rescnably
would have higher l o s s r a t e s tgan farm flock operations.
12.
Lambs l o s t t o p r e d a t c r z i n Xontana a s co a percgnt of lambs born
cotaledi 7.3 percent In 1968, 5.1 percent i n 1969 and 17.5 percent i n
1974.
The rnajori ty o f ttle l o s s e s ( 1 3 . 3 p e r c ~ c t )i n 1974 were t a
coyotes.
A d u l t sheep l o s t zo predators in >loncana f o r ~ h eabove
year; a s a percenTage of stock sheep on hand as
3f
January 1
c o n s t i t u t e d 1 . 5 percent in 1968, 1 . 5 j e r c e n r in 1969 and 6 perc2nc
i n 1974.
All of t h e s e f i g u r e s a?pear i n G?e, ec a l . , the source
of t h e l o s s co predators f o r 1968 and 1969 being the Nontana Crop
and L i vestgck Reporti ng Servi c2.
13.
For Nebraska, lambs l o s t t o p r e d a t o r s a s a percont of lambs born
t o t a l e d 7 percent i n 1971, 8 percent i n 1972, 8 . 7 percent i n 1973 2 n d
1 . 8 percent i n 1974.
Adult sheep l o s t t o p r e d a t o r s a s a percent of
stock sheep on hand as of January 1 t o t a l e d 3 percent i n 1 9 7 1 , 3.5
".
;:;ares
i r e f r c n Gee,
2; 2 ] . ,
1,972 and 1973 being !iebraska Li\/2s:3ck
14.
-.
c b e s z s ; ~ . s=
isji
i l i i ;:gsres
Reports ( 1 9 7 2 - 7 < ) .
In Yew i.lexico, iamhs l o s t t o predarors as a percent o f lambs borr;
!were
5.2
p r c e n t i n 1972, 5.5 percent i n :973, 5.18 percent in
1975 and 7.35 percent in 1975.
surveys
3f
These r e s u l t s , which are based on
99 r3nchus i n souihe~s;ern New Xexico (81 rzncSes i n
1975 and 75 ranches in 1976) a r e l i m i t e d
i9
posr-dock:ns I C S ~ P S
and a r e ro be com~aredw i z h the 17.1 perceqt l c s s r a t . ss a
percentase of 1 ambs born i n 1374 reporrea sy Gee,
9:
a1 .
,Adu; r
snesp l o s t t? predators a s c m p i l e d by ,Yr.L i t t a u e r , based on
surveys sponsorzd by :he ~VerNexica 'Xaoigrchers, show a precacjon
loss raze . s r 2 . 5 percent i n 1970, 3 . 5 percent i n i371 and 1 2 7 2 .
C
6 . 1 percent i n 1 9 7 3 and 9.6 percenc in 1 9 7 4 .
collected Yron 33 ranches in a r
Tbese d a t a aer.
sponscred by rhe Yew :?exits
Voolgrowers, Inc. i n which the ranchers were asked to r e g a r t on
predation losses f o r the preceding f i v e y e a r s .
a:
be compared wi:h
-1
inese r e s u l t s are
the ioss r a t e of a d u l t sheep t o predators
reparted by Gee f o r :dew hlexico in 1974 of 5 . 9 perceni.
Losses of lambs t o predators as a percenrage of lambs born i n
S o u t h Dakota were 1 . 2 percent i n 1963, 2 . 3 percent i n I970 and 3
percent i n 1974.
Losses o f a d u l t shaep as a percentage o f stock
j~7:,
f r o n S o u ~ hCakotB L i v e s t o c k and P o u l t r y L o s s s s ( 1 370). A tab1 e
compiled from USOA SRS d a t z showing l c s s e s o f sheep a n d l m b s t o
a1 i c a u s e s i n S o u t h Dakota f o r the , y e a r s 1960 t o and i n c ' u d i n g 1981
shows t h a t combined l o s s e s ranged fron a low o f 5 . 5 p e r c ~ n ti n 1961
t o a h i g h o f 9 . 3 p e r c e n t i n 1 3 6 7 , {were 3 . 7 ? e r c 2 n t i n 1 9 7 7 , aca
i n 1977, d e c l i n i n g t o 8 . a perc2nt i n 138;.
Lamb de3chs t o a11
c a u s e s a s a p e r c 2 n t a g e o f lambs docked r a n g e d f r o n a ics,v o f 7.3
p e r c e n t i n 1961
t3
a h i s h o f 1 3 . 0 i n 1971 , ere 1 2 . 3 p e r c e n t i n
1 9 7 2 , and ranged frsrii a low of 7 0 . 7 F e r c e n x i n 1373 t o
1
'
12.4
sheep
for
5
iiich o f
7 e r c e n t i n 1 3 7 9 , d e c l i n i n g t o 1 1 . 3 p e r c e n t :n 19S1, Losses o f
70
ti12
a1 1 causss f c r t h 2 p a r s
y e a r s 1 9 6 5 t h r o u g n 1972.
7
-7
i ~
1
t3 h r ~ u ~1185
h s r e : o i ~ e r :b,an
A;~hougn he acknowledged t h a t he
h a d no d a t a on t h e p e r c a n t a g e o f lamb 1 o s s 2 s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o c o y o t z s ,
Mr. Roger P e a r s o n , S e c r e t a r y o f the South Gakota g e ~ a r t ~ e no ft
A g r i c u l t u r e , c o n t e n d e d :ha;
i t was !ogica! t o a t t r i b u t e i n c r e a s e d
lamb losses s i n c ? 1372 t o p r e d a t o r s .
3 percen:
i n 1073 and 1 9 7 5 .
2 1 s aaya was ; o l : ~ c ~ e da n d ccmp;ied
E;/
the Texas Crop and L i v e s t o c k R ~ p o r ~ l nSge r v i c e a n d , w i t h t h e e x c s p t j o n
o f t h e daca f o r 1967, i s a l s o c a n t 2 i n e d i n Gze, e t a:.
repo'r;ed
G2e, e: a:.
lamb l o s s e s i n T2xas ra p r e d a t o r s a s a p e r c e n t a g e o f larncs
born totaled 11.3 r
! n t in 137? of which 5 . 3 p e r c z n t o f iambs born
-.
.
were l o s t ;o ~ 3 ~ 0 ~ 2n si .i c 3 r r e s p o n d s c:os21y with t h e 1 i . d percan1
of lambs born l c s ; 1 s p r e d a t o r s a s
L i v e s t o c k Reporting S e r v i c e .
r e p o r t e d by t h e T2xas CTOD a n d
Alehougn lambs last t o p r e d a t o r s a s
a p e r c e n t o i l i m b s bdrn a s r e p o r t e d by t h e a a l s Crop and Liveitsck
l
-
Reporting S e r v i c e t o t a l e d 3 F e r c e n r i n 7373, ; l r . i i r ~ a u e rreviiea t b i j
-.
r i y r i . upwari
n3
1 1 . 0 F e r c e n t b a s z d c n da:.
c s n : r i ~ e d :. 7 -i e x a s
Sheep i ~ Goat
d
OearS Losses and Xarkeiing ? r a c t i c e s ( 1 3 7 2 ) ~ n l
USOA SRS d a t a on larno c r o p s i a r t h e y e a r s 1567 and 1371-78.
Hr. l i t r a u e r
made a s i m i l a r . c a ! c u ? a t i a n and d e r i v e d larib l o s s e s a s a p r c e n t of
lambs born o f 1 2 . 3 percenx i n 1976, 3 . 2 p e r c e n t i n 1977 and 1 1 . 9 Fercen:
i n 1978.
The l o s s e s of a d u l t sheep a s a p e r c e n t of scock sheep o r e
y e a r o r eider on ?and i s of J a n ~ a r y1 as r e p o r t e d by che Texas Crc?
and L i v e s t o c k Reporting S e r v i c e t o t a l e d 1 . 9 p e r c e n t i n 1367, 3 . 1 p e r c e l t
i n 1971 , 1 . i p e r c e n t i n 1972 and 2 . 4 p e r c e n i i n 1973 and 1 . 7 7 e r c e n t i n
72
1573.
I
;ne
1di:h
of
f
hese f i $ u r ? s ? r e c e n t z i n e d i n See, et a ? . 2 n d at-5
$23
r z o o r ~ e aadui t sheep 13s; :J
S T G C ~sheep
:3
?rsdascrs i n i3xas
be cor;ar?d,
2s
2 . 3 serz?nr
i n 1374..
1 7 , The Wyoming Crop and Livestock Reporting S e r v i c s has col izcr2d and
r e p o r t e d d a t a on t h e p e r c ~ n tof lambs docked l o s t t o coyotos s i n c c
1965.
T h i s d a t a a s compiled by Mr. L i t t a u e r s h ~ as l o s s r a t e
ranging frorn 3.31 p e r c e n t i n 1968 t o 6.C3 p e r c d n t i n 1372, i n c r e a s i n g
t o . 8 . 2 3 ?erca-f, i n 1973 and 9.29 p e r c z n t i n 1974.
Gee, es a l . reporr,
lamb l o s s e s t o 7rea3cor-s a s a ? e r c 2 n t of lamos born of 1 1 . 7 perc?n:
i n 1974, of which 9 . 3 p e r c e n t were t o c o y o r e s .
'Jyoming A g f i c u l t u r a l T t a t i s t i c s , Gee,
2t
3ased on a pub1 i c a t i o n ,
a i , re7orr. lambs 10s; t o
p r e d a t o r s ' a s a p e r c 2 n t o f lambs born t o r a l l n g 5 . 5 7 e r c e n t i n 1966,
percenr. i n ? 971 , 7 . 9 percenc i n 1972, i O p e r c e n t i n :9
p e r c e n t i n 1975.
ano 1 0 . 8
I
Xyoning USDA SRS d a t a showed lamb 10853s ro :cyot?s
a s a p e r c e n t a g e of lambs docked t o t a l i n g 9 . i 3 p e r c 2 n t i n !975, 3 . 2
p e r c z n t i n 1976, 7 . ?0 PerconT i n 1377, 7.07 7 e r c e n t i n 1978 and 11 .03
p e r c e n t i n 1979.
Adult sheep l o s t t o p r e d a t a r s a s a p e r c e n t of s t a c k
sheep on hand as o f January 1 o f 2ach y e a r a s r e p o r t e d by t h e S t a t e
Reporting S e r v i c e and t h e Wyoming Crop and Livestock Reporting S e r v i c l
were 2 . 3 p e r c e n t i n 1966, 1 .6 p e r c e n t i n 1968, 2 . 3 p e r c e n t
n 1569,
2 . 2 p e r c e n t i n 1970, 1 . 7 p e r c e n t in 1971, 1.8 p e r c e n t i n 1972, 2 . 9
p e r c e n t i n 1973 and 2.8 p e r c e n t i n 1975.
f i g u r e f o r 1974 was 3 . 5 p e r c e n t .
The comparable Gse, e t a1 .
13
;4r, i a r y y 3 g ~ r r ? ~3f, T
~ ~ I C -
~
^. C ' / S T ? . r ; i 2 n 3 n
,--=, 2 1. l'S
= a m ? b r e a u F e ~ e r i t i c n ,a i ~ x e ~r 3 1 ~ 7s:s i 3 n e r ~f
Pepar'xen:
IZf
ti8
,!;e
t
4-/GRl
,
ng
,>ijczir~
o f A g r i c u l t u r e and a w i t n e s s f c r A i 3 i , przparod a c a b l e
o i sheep and lambs l o s t t o a l l c a u s e s i n Wyoming f o r che y e a r s
1971 through and i n c l u d i o g 1980 from d a t a c b r a i n e d i r c n t h e ',4yorning
Crop and L i v e s t o c k 2 e b o r t i n g Service.
Oividi ng t c t a i r e p o r r e d
l o s j 2 s d u r i n g t h e 10-year 2 e r i o d o f ?,9 1,300 by t h e c u m u l a ~ i ~ / e
i n v e n ~ a r yd u r i n g :ha;
o e r i o d o f :S,CdS. 00, he a r r i v e d a t an a v e r a g e
l o s s rare o f 14.26 percent.
,Ac:arding
ro Hr. 3 o u r r e i , t h e s e l o s s e s
were c a l c u l a t 2 d i n e x a c t l y t h e same manner a s t a m 1 1oss2s l,ver4
c a l c ~ l a t e db y C a i n , 2t a l . , wh!ch had a r r i v e d a t an 3l.3 9er:eni
aver392 t o r a l l o s s r a t s i n Qyoming f a r t h e 2 e r i o d 135G-79.
Comparing t h i s r a t e w i t h t h e 7 . 3 p e r c r n t averat;? l ~ s sr s t e i n
Wyoming f o r t h e p e r i o d 1940-19,i a j n , e t
l o s s r a w s had
10;
21,
had concjuded
3.2:
s i g n i f j c a n t l y changed d u r i n g ;fie ; e r i o d wneo
By c o n t r a s t ,
Yr. B o u r r e t ' s c a l c u l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e d
t h a t an approximace 6 gercen:
i n c r e a s e i n t h e i s t a l a v e r a g e sheep
1080 was u s e d .
and lambs losr. d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d 1971 -80 a r an approxjmate 71
p e r c e n t i n c r e a s e i n total l o s s e s d u r i n g t h a g e r i c d .
19.
The i n v e n t o r y f i g u r e s used by Mr. B o u r r e t t o nake t h e c a l c u l a t i o n s
r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e preceding f i n d i n g were based on s t o c k sheep on
hand a s of J a n u a r y 1 of each y e a r .
This s t o c k sheep i n v e n t o r y i s
e x c l u s i v e o f sheep and lambs on f e e d and Mr. B o u r r e t used t h e s e
.
,\It-.
j ~ ~ r r e x c' 2j l c ~ l a : i 2 n s a ; so j n c l ~ c e d$ r e - c o ~ k i f i s l C
S ~ ~53S 1 am58
as r @ p o r ~ e bd y ~ n e:hdt 1 6
<22c
yezr
percent of high l o s s ranchers reportsd i ncrcassd
predation l c s s ~ sf o r t h a t y e a r , 62 percent reported lower ?redation
losses and 22 percent reportsd no cnange in losses f o r t h a t p a r .
From t h i s i t might be concluded t h a t :oss?s wer? decrpas'ng i,,rom
1974 t o 1975.
22.
The study "The 2concnics o f Shesp Prodacion i n Scuchwes~srn ]:an"
atx2mp~2d t o veri f y predation 1~
flocks in sau;hweste?n
S S ~
o n S can
ranches havi ng rsnge
Utzh durlncj zhe period 1972-75.
ihji sxdy
i n d i c a ~ s dt h a t tne predation loss r a t e o f lambs i n 1375 was l a s s chan
half of t h a t prevailing in 1972.
!-as: o r missing animals 1,4hos2
carcasses were never locatzd w2re a p p a r ~ n t l ya t t r i b u t e d a:
a n d o t h e r causes in fhe same p r o p o r ~ i o nas v e r i f i e d 1ossss.
7reda:crs
Though
he did not dispute the f i g u r e s reported, Dr. Plielsen questioned
whether the area could be considered representative of the S t a c e of
Utah o r of the 1 7 western s t a t e s .
23.
S t a t i s t i c a l data frcm USCA and Utah indicatz t h a t combined sheep and
docked lamb losses t o a71 causes f o r the years 1931 t o and including
1980 have fluctuated in a r e l a t i v e l y narrow range, varying from a
low of 8 . 2 percent i n 1966 t o a high o f 13.75 percent in 1975,
decreasing to 8.6 percent in 1979 and 9 percent i n 1380.
sheep f l o c k s in Utah.
Tile
s t u d y (tias primarily con.cerned :vi r n she
econorni cs o f farm f l ock production, was conducted by psrzonal i n h r v i ~w
and included a sample o f producers having f r o m lG0 t o ,500 brzading 2wes.
Coyotes were r ~ p c r t 2 dto have accountsd f o r 5.6 percent of t h e annual
.iamb crop i o s s ? s , including pre-docking l o s s e s , and 1 . 4 ~ e r ~ 2 3? it
adul t ewes
25.
-
Dr. C l a i r E. l e r r i : ? , a r e t i r e d Aninal S c i e n t i s t ~orrneriysnplayed by
3/
the U . S . Depar~nento f Agricul t u x and a w i t n e s s i n t h i s proczeding,
I
C
p r e s ~ ted
n d a t a purpo~c2dly s howi ng a dramaxi c incrlzse i n 7r24a t i cn
loss r a r s an snecp a n d lambs sinca 1Y2 and the ban on Scnpound 1 3 G .
Dr. T 2 r r i l l appeared t a a c ~ r i b u t ?alnost ,he
sheep i n v e n ~ o r yfrom the 57 n i l l i o n i n 1 9 4
LC
30 n l l l i o n i n iS5C t o
He developed a n i n d e x t a det2mine trznds and losses
przdation.
.
e n t i r ? r3duc~'on i n
-
using percentages of death2 o f l m b s minus percentages o f d e a t h s o f
sheep as report2d i n USCA s s t a t i s t i c s showing inveniaries on hand
as of January 1 of each year and deaths from a l l caus3s f 3 r the
years 1940 to 1980.
He f o u n d t h a t t h i s index was highly r e i a t s d co
predation losses as reported i n data compiled by t h e U.S. Forest
Service.
His c a l c u l a t i o n s a r e based on the theory thac ltdnen predator
losses a r e increasing, the percentage of lamb deaths increases f a s t e r
than t h e percentage of sheep deaths.
He concluded t h a t lamb and
sheep deaths from predation acount f o r a much greater percentage o f
Although Dr. T e r r i l l s t a t e d a t t h e hearing t h a t he represented
3/
the Aiierican Society of Animal Science 12 not::c
GT ~ t h i bppearance
i
oy
t h a t organization has been made in the proceeding.
i 'I
x z a 1 l o s s e s ehan befor? 1372.
c v e r a l l Ian5 l o s s e s
t2
Accgrding
ar-ecazicn
t3
Dr. Tlrril I ,
2s 2 22rcont 3 f
caus2s were / 2 ;srtsnx i n 1970, 80 ;erc?nL
lssszs
.4-7,.
-
7
2 1 ,
IYIL,
73 percent
i n 1974, 84 perc2nt i n 1977 and 82 ? e r c s n r i n 1580.
Likewise,
7 .
in
he concluded t h a t l o s s e s of shee? t o p r e d a t o r s 3s a percent of
l o s s e s t o a1 1 causes ~ ?,s': :',ai 1 st;:-3 fo:- :ro?r -c,
.P~:
;
any proper j t a c i j t i c ~ ! analysis o r cz!nci~sicn;.
A 3-year s t u d y of f i v e ranches i n southern Wycming resulted i n
predation being confirmed as causing loss of 1 . 5 percent of lambs
docked i n 1973, 2.1 percent in 1974 and 3 . 2 percent i n 1975.
Corrospondi ng confi med ?,.re ? osses t o predators were 0 . 2 per-cznt
of the inventory i n each of the t h r e e years which i s t o be
compared with 1974 losses reported by Gee o f 11.7 ? e r c s c o f tke
lambs born and 3.5 percent losses c f ewes.
A study of 3 bands of
sheep i n Idaho r2poced coniimed predation l o s s of lambs ta be
1 . 3 percsnr of 1 ambs born in 1973, 1 . 7 percent in 1974 and 1 . 2 Jercznc
in 1975.
Ewe loss2s as a ;2rc:nt
p e r c ~ n tin 1373, 0 . 7 percent i n
of tcxal ewe i nvencory derz 1 . 6
19id
and 0 . 3 percenc i n 1975.
An
" a d j u s t ~ d "predator 1 oss r a t e ,das d e t e m i zed by applyi ng the ?erc?nt,Age
v e r i f i e d predation losses bore t o t o t a l losses and appiying This
percentage t o missing animals.
This resulted i n lamb losses being
3.1 percent o f 1 ambs born i n 1 9 i 3 , 3 - 3 percent in 197c and 1 . 3 percent
in 1975.
Adjusted ewe losses were 2 . 3 percent, i . 3 percznt and 0 . 8
percent, r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o r each o f the three years.
r a t s s a r e t o be compared with a predation
:ass
These loss
r a t ? f o r Idaho of
5.8 percent o f lambs and 2 . 0 percent of sheep i n 1974 reported by
Gee,
34.
.,
2t
a7 .
A study of 10 large sheep operations in Utah resulted in reported
ccnf i rm~d1 ;.ma ;gases
~ L I
pre;;ato?s- o f - ? .7 pe?ccerr*,of lambs docked- ir,
1972, 1 . 5 percent in 1973, 2 . 6 percent in 1974 and 2 percent in 1975.
A d j i ~ s ~;ant
d
lasszs were
7 2 e r c e n t c f iarnos d o c ~ ? ai n 1911, : . I I,
p e r c ~ n ti n 7 373, 5 . 3 percent i n
'I "
7 1
21%
on w e losses :ver? noc a v a i l a b l e .
and 2 . 3 7ercen; i n 1 3 7 5 .
3y conzrasz, Gee, e s
31
.,
3aca
found
Utah predaxor lamb losses of 72.9 percznt of '~ambs b o r n and ewe
losses t o predators
i n 1974.
3 i
5 . 2 percent of the inventory as of January 1
Another f i e l d of biological s t u d y appearing o n
i)r. Grandy's t a b l e i s t h a t o f
t7,tlo inigratury
sneep bands i n ?levadz
ldhi ch were studied during the period 1373-1 97J. Repor~sd 1 osszs
t o predation 'dere 6 . 5 percent of lambs docked and 0 . 7 percznt o f
the ewe inventory for r,he ;/ear 7 9 7 4 .
This
is
t o be cmpar3cf 1,qiti7
the 1 amb 7ossss reported by G e , e t a1 . i n Nevada i n 1974 as 3 0 . 4
percent o f 1 ambs born and ewe 1 osses in t h a t year of 11 - 7 p e r c s n t
o f the January 1 stock sheep invcnrsry.
i
,
3ecausz the ianc los:zs
LJ predators i n Nevzda reported by Gee exczedecf 85 percenc c i
t a c a l lamb l o s s z s , Dr. Grandy asszrtzd thar they c o u l d not be taken
skeriausly.
35.
. ,
Gee, e t a i . p r d a c i c n i a m b l o s s 7ercentages wer? c a l c u i a t ~ don zne
basis o f lambs born and thus i n c l u d e d ?re-docking l o s s e s .
This was
n o t t r u e of the 'Ayoming, Utah and Nevada s t u d i z s referred ~o above
and shown in T a b l e 1 of Dr. Grandy's t2stirnony, as these studies based
the lamb count on lambs docked.
Gee, e t a1 . , however, a l s o calsolat2d
p o s t - d o c k i n g loss2s t o predators and i f pre-docking losses a r e
eliminated the percentage o f lamb losses t o predators f o r the c i z e d
s t a t e s are reduced t o 9 . 2 percent for Wyoming, 1 1 percent f o r Utah
and 14.8 percent f o r Nevada.
36.
!!r, S r a n d j a l s o men:icrfd ;:ss;es
pradator c g n t r o l .
1~nder:rriZt9n3y she " s h a n d i / ?i ~ i fl ?
3e rzf2rred t o a study of
2
'
band of range sheep
under the control of herders i n an area i n C a l i f o r n i a , during the period
June 8 t o September 2 9 , 1976, where there had been no predator c ~ n t r o l
practiced f o r over nine y e a r s .
care of herdevs
7,40u?d seem
T h e f a c t hat tr,e band was under the
t o negats t h i s as a nc control s t ~ d y .
Reported v e r i f i e d lamb loss t o predators was 6 . 3 7erc2nt and the tots1
loss of ewes and 1 ambs t o 7redacors was 3 . 8 percent.
I nis
-3
o f l e s s than 4 months duratjon i s , of course, very skcrx.
s t o d y being
~Icr2ovzr,
alrhough the researchers i n t h i s study were confident ' h a t t h e y had
f o u n d possibly 100 percent of the l o s s e s , / s t h e r sta.3..&,
ltiith
possible exception of Texas, :he !ow ?redaiisn rites a r e
a t t r i b u t a 3 1 e in p a r y t a the f a c t that nost :beep a r e main~zin2d i r
f a n flocks ;vhich enhanc2s insnacenent przctic.5,
. .
,
night, to rebcce o r mn;:s?;e predation.
such as 2enning a t
Anoiher l o s s i b l e r2aian ; s
~ tl ~ s ; ? ~
t o lambs during the period o? b i ~ t ht h r o u g h s z l z I,vere 2 percent i n
i972, 20 percent in 1974, 22 percent in 1975, 27 percent i n 1975 2nd
approximately 30 percent in 1978.
percent o f lambs born.
These losses ar2 in terns of
Losses in 7975 and 1976 ivere a l l to coyotzs.
1
>
He s t a i e d thar. 1 3 i ~r e c ~ i l dduring
~
the jurrxer -.oni.hs ner? zaintained
by a nan and his wifp who looked a f t s r the she?? a n d chat because
:he sheep were i n fmced paszlires, i r : as ; j o s s i j ? ? t o I O C Z ' L ~qeariy
a l l ehe kii I s .
iiis ciirreni: przdation r a t s was
of sheep a n d lambs a ~ d1 percznt t o guord dogs.
sca12d
to be 10 17ercen;
:?s acxri b u t 2 d the
reduction in loss razes t o the use o f guard dogs, flnczs and us? of
2
helicopter in a e r i a l h u n x j n g ~f ccyo:?s.
37.
Nr. 4 . K . Siddoway, a large migratary j h ~ a pcperassr f r c n S T . ,J,nthony,
I d a h o and a w i tnzss f o r Wyoming , e i a1 . , t e s c i f i e d ;hat he and iis
sons have suf- ?red high oredator l o s s e s , in one year losing about
600 lambs from a t o t a l of 9,000 t o 10,000 or approximately 5 t o 6
percent.
He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t i h e highest percentage of losses
from docking t o shearing was due t o disxise and t h a t 30 t o 40 perc2nt
o f losses from shearing t o the time the sheep a r e t r a i l e d t o s u m e r
range wer2 due t o predation.
He stated t h a t ~ o s ot f the weak or sick
lambs had been "weeded out" by the time the sheep a r e on the surraer
range and t h a t 90 percent of losses durfng the s u m e r were due to
predation.
He acknowledged t h a t he h a d n ' t kept good records on l o s s e s
t o a l l causes and t h a t for every lamb l o s t t o coyotes, there m i g h t be
I
-5
5
I
l
l
r+
U
0
0
3
0
(D
3
(D
-43
C
0
0
C
3-
3
2
(
1
w
-_1
a,
1
0
-0
0
V,
0
C
--I
FU
m
c+
VI
*
ln
3
-.-
ct
3
-2.
-r
a
CA
(D
I3
(D
7
a,
rt
2.
0
3
V1
3-
m
(D
u
I
PJ
3
7
CS
03
0
7
i
Ct
U b
PJ
rD
A
Ill
C>
cr-
-
0
rU
-1
2.
7
ul
&-
t
c
UI
m
Ll
2.
3
3
A.
UI
Fu
7
(0
0,
-A.
I)
'it
IS'
n
1U
m
(Il
LlJ
-5
S
-5
d
-h
I
0
3
0
3
0,
2.
a
"
(>I
0
U)
"
3-1.
i-l
0
2
0
7
a,
a
0
U)
i n 7 381 .
3ecausz hs d i d no: have r x c r s s o f 1 a m s born or sockzd,
on the open range.
He s t a t x i t h a t they converxed t o a p i r t i a l
shed lambing pera at ion in 1980, wherein approxirnat~!ly50 p e r c ~ n tof
the ewes were shed lambed.
He f u r t h e r s t a r e d t h a t i n 1281 e x t r e ~ e l y
1
\
high coyore l o s s e s n e r i n i ~ r r e c !\,then one ionch old shed laabs &Here
turned onto t h e summer range.
lambs.
I n one nonth coyoc2s ki!i?d 79 o f 590
He t s s t i f i e d chat p r e d a t o r l o s s c s
f o r an occasional 5 e 3 r .
der9
due ro z o y o ~ 2 sexcep:
A? though hi: w r i t t z n s z a t s n e n i i s t~ t h e
e f f e c t t h a t ; they have n o t suffer2d any ia s s e s rso 2agi e s ' i n 1 5 y e a r s ,
heb t e s t i f i e d cha-;. i n 1982 t c t h e d a t e o f t h e hearing 1C6 lambs wer?
I
i i l l z d by e3g1ss and 73 by coyot2s.
-,
: n a cnly ;os;
by I;?. Pzpoulas a r e l o s s e s co predac3r;.
I
recgrds z a i n t a i n e d
kie 3 t t r l b u c e d the Icw lcss?s
' 1
irl 79g0
c3
f h e fact_ luckolls ii: c a n n e c t i o n w i t h zn a p p l i c a t j o n f o r ;;he
placement o f a 1080 b a i t s t a t i o n on h i s p r o p e r t y ,
h i s lamb l a s s e s averaged a b o u t 4 percon:
ii
a p c e a r s tnar.
d u r i n g the y e a r s ~ e n c i c n e a
and t h a t he l o s t o n l y f i v e a d u l i sheep t o c o y o t e s d u r i n g :ha:
period.
59.
Hr. Don Meike, a sheep and c a t t l e r a n c h e r from Kaycee, Uyoming,
c u r r e n t l y Chainan of t h e a o a r d of t h e National Woolgrowrs Associatlcrn
and a w i t n e s s f o r Wyoming, e t a1 . , t e s t i f i e d t n a t r e c u r r i n g k i l l s
o f sheep and lambs were common on h i s ranch i n t h e 1 9 3 0 ' s and
1940's.
He s t a t e d t h a t when t o x i c a n t s were i n t r o d u c e d i n t h e
p r e d a t o r c o n t r o l program i n t h e 1 9 5 0 ' s and 1 9 6 0 1 s , l o s s e s t o p r e d a t o r s
-
(IJ
-v
.r
I-)
a
x
-I-'
t'
L
.r
f
aJ
4 '
rd
V)
. - - w
rtf
w
_TI
cr7
f J
00
c-lI-'
Z
fu
TJ
nl
4 -
nj
I-'
u
(I)
-c
V1
'r-
I)
w
QJ
9-
'i-
0)
X
L
(U
>
0
h
C
U
-t-J
U
4-1
(I)
LI
0 1
-
2
vl
ClJ
t fl
OI
'3
nJ
T-
OJ
m
vr
h
TI
v,
0
L
m
r.r-
E
- r-
tn
r-
0)
-0
:L
rd
tn
5-
w
3
r
y
W
a)
L
n-
-U
v
ti-
0
A
w
m
3
c=
IL
- 0)
0
I-,
U
-r-
"
-'
v,
m
w
o
>,
m
U
-I-'
I-,
f
3
3
(3
m
w
v
c-
IT1
3
-tJ
.a
a
[
I
,
L
w
m
rd
E
-r--
J3
Z
-c
r:
5
L
-0
I7
' X
.--0
L
5-
!J
LII:
C,
(I)
3
0
0
C;
f
1.7
0
U
rn
Cc
-
't-
L
rd
m
W
>
-
a)
v
in
o
w
C
W
w
3
c,
m
v,
-
L T 3
5
f
r
a
'
L
01
vr
m
a
0
L
J
o
w
L
w
w
c
U
'a
Ea) 2
a)
Ia)
>
Q
L
5
a
r
s
,
0
'i0
.
c
a)
1n
E--
-
-
m
5.
W
'C
>.
r
3
.
o
v
Lz
2
z
E
w
0)
W
rd
43
U
a
cv
-V
SJ
0
-
a
a
C
z
4
v
c
a
ro
In
3
r
0
o
r
V)
rd
'r-
c
ul
w
o
7
c n O +
a
a
o
O
v
w
o
w
m
w
m
L
.-
-U
J -)
rr3
0
w ' i -
I
4'
l
rn
.r-
? m2
o
P--
0
a
L
o
E
m
L
m
Q
I-'
t
c
U
L
l
V)
o
-c,
w
-C
r
0
0
t
V)
.r
w
-7
m
w
v
-
a,
(u
d
V
0
4
-r
~
t'
w
t
'
tn
W v ,
(
a
rd
01
a
3
L
T3
I-!
L
V)
a)
w
'.-
L
r -
c
0
"
W
a
'w
T3
U
'
OJ
'C
.-
C
5
-n
w
v
In
C
.r-
W
-c
-7
+
(V
L
40
3
-I*
O
t
'
c
,
L
OJ
sj:;ply missin2 a t ch?
-
2 ; : ~3 7
. ,
z;:? y 2 z r
3
,
, .
s ;~
?I
CZU;~
6Gt 3i~-z~t
, ,
f o r th? catis2 o f cnat l o s s .
61.
,Yr. John J . Yines, a jfisep a n d c a r z i e rancner from G i i l z t z e , 'tiyoning,
Presidenz of the Campbell Coun-cy Predatory Associarion, and a l ~ i ~ n e s s
?or the Association, t e s t i f i e d tha: there had been a decline i n sheep
numbers i n Carnobe1 i County frcm 1 1 9 , i 71 in 1372 to 37,822 i n 1981 .
Ye
'
a t " ~ i b u t e dt h i s deci ne 3rincipalx1y t o ~ r e d a t i c nproblsms and ?crlac",d
staiernenrs from ranchers who nad s i c h e r gone cu: o f ~ h ?sheep kusicess
o r reduced t n e i r herds becausz of pr.tdaror problenls.
j e indicazed ?ha<
he numbers of coyot2s i n Camooei 1 Counr;~ have i ncreas2d s i n c 2 1912,
b a s i n g t n i s on the f a c t thas o o u n ~ ' e s were ? z ; d on an averase o f
1--
I
~
C
coyoIes 3 ~ yre ? r i n che s2ven years prscsaincj 1 2 7 2 , w h i l e t h a t n ~ x b e r
had increaszd t3 -SO1 f o r 1976. l?e ,-,rti?er t 2 s t i f i e a m a t :he nl;mber
-I
I
of f o x bount'es paid i n Campbell County al)eraged ;85 ;er year dur'ng
the seven .year period p r i o r t o 1972, b u t averaged 666 per y%r during
the perjcd 1972 through 1 9 7 6 .
tsstimony appears
t3
~ l t h o u ~the
h t a b l e s u b m i t t e d wiih his
shcw a decline in bounties p a i d f o r ioch coyotgs
and ioxes a f t e r 1976, no bounties on foxes were p a i d in 1978 a n d
t h e r e a f t e r , bounties were paid only during the perjod April i through
October of each year, because pric2s paid f o r f u r s were considered
a s u f f i c i e n t incentive t o h u n t coyotes a n d foxes.
An a f f i d a v i t
executed by Mr. H i nes on December 1 4 , 1976, i s t o t5,e ef i e c t t h a t
he had no confirmed losses of sheep and lambs t o coyotzs during the
years 1%
t o and ~ n c i u u ~ niy9 7 5 , t k a c
ne l o s t 6u lamos LO coyoces
i n 1976, 50 o f which were before docking, t h a t three coyotes were
k i l l e d and t h a t t o his knowledge. he had no other [coyat?!
during the balance of 1976.
kills
52.
+lr. B a r t c n +i,artza, 3 i y 3 c t c r c f Fish and
of New, Plex'i co 2nd
.,
2 ';r; Tries:
Nil,,? i f ?f o r
f o r 'Xycmi ng ,
2t 21
.
.,,
t,.-'
t ~ -?2 7 ;
,
"7
~~~~;~
r 7 2cl ;:hat 5assd
"'
8
on contacz w i ~ nmembers of h i s iarniiy and o ~ h e rssocknen i n the
Puebl o , both c o y o ~ gnumbers and predasi on have i ncreassd ivlmense i y
i n the region-since c a n c e l l a t i o n of the use of 1080.
He submitted
t h e r e s u l t s o f a survey of sheap producers i n the Pueblo h i c h
i n d i c a t e d t h a t auring t h e ;eriod J u l y 1 c n r ~ u g hOctaber 3 0 , 1577
t o pregators, chiefly coyotes,
and 124 rams.
l ambs
0
AIt5ough he s ~ a c e dt h e r e wer? a ~ p r o x i m a z e l y io,COO
7
heads of shes? on the r 2 s e r v a t i o n a t t h e t i n e o f the h e a r i n g ,
inventory f i g u r e s for 1977 were no; r e p o r ~ dand i:
t o c o n v e r t t h e s e l o s s f i ~ g r e st a p e r c e n t a s e s .
i:
is ns1 ? o s s i b l ?
Fron a e s z figurgs,
appears --4 rdvL' l"
F i e l a :?st8 c f t h e c o ? : z r s
and A l b e r ~ a ,Canada, during
t h e period June 7 , 1978 t o and incl udi ng March 31 , 1980.
Of 28
f i e l d t g s t s during c h i s p e r i o d , 1 7 were consider%! s u c c e s s f ~ l in
t h a t preoation e i c n e r sxopped o r declzned following use of the
collars.
Eleven t e s t s wern
U ~ S U C C ~ ~Sccause
S ~ U ~
predation s t ~ p p e d
f o r unknown reasons o r coyotes did not a t t a c k c o l l a r e d animals.
Of
52 a t t a c k s by coyotes on c o l l a r e d sheep during t h e period June
t h r o u g h October 1978, 36 c r 69 percent of c o l l a r s were punctured
8/ I n a d d i t i o n t o sodium f l u o r o a c e t a t e , f i e l d t e s t s of t h e c o l l a r
have 6een conducted using sodium cyanide and diphacinone a s the t o x i c a n t
So;j."m
fl"oi-fiacetate
has U C C l l
" - A -
'-';"A"^-'
ClUJUUyCd
- A " +
lllU3 L
",""^"F"l
2 U L L F 2 3 1 ul l
- -.
Cdf""L a ~ ~ 32r s 7 1 ~ 2?cisaced
ccyotss ;vere found.
azcacks on co:iar?d sheao or seats c, u r -, n s :he 9 2 r i o d Iiovember
,
through fiarch of 1380, 30 c o l l a r s or 71 percent der? punctured.
Secause coyotes were removed by c c n v e n ~ i o n a l control techn-iqces
o n the t e s t ranches o r on adjacent properties during cbe period
o f the t e s t s , i t i s n o t possible to a i t r i bute the decline or
cessation of predation s o l e l y t o the co'l l a r s .
I t i; clear,
however, t h a t such a reducticn o r cessaiion f n l :owing evidence
o f coyote a ~ ~ a c kans c o i l ar2d animal s dnereby csl 1 a r s -/ere p u n c t u r ? d ,
consti t u t e s c o n v i n c i n ~ , i f c i r c z n s t a n i ~ a l, evidence of col l a r
e i f e ~ t i v e n e s s ; . ,411 ~ ~ s T37s c o l l a r s t o dace have been in Penc&
pasares.
75.
Extensive t e s i s of the toxic c o l l a r on goati have been csnducied
-
a t three separa-e s i t e s on the L . C . Howard Ranch, ? e r l d i a n , ;?xzs
( f i n d i n g 7 1 ) beginning in lace duly 1 4 i 9 .
A t the i i ~ x e ,che ?o;varas
were losing one o r ,Tare ,Angora cjoats t o coyotes eacn day, 1 2 coyore
k i l l s having been v e r i f i e d as occarring i n the week anding July 23,
1979.
Upon the beginning of :he r e s t s (Texas Test ?lo. 1 ) , col l a r s
were placed o n 20 small k i d s .
Collared k i d s were k i l l e d and c o l l a r s
punctured on t h e nights of July 27, Augusc 10, September 6 , 12, 2;
( a collared k i d k i l l e d and the c o l l a r missing, b u t probably a r o i e n )
and 2 2 , Octocer 7 , 2 2 , 23 ( t h e c o l l a r missing b u t probably broken),
January 1 1 and 25 and Febrlrary 2 2 , 1080.
Coyote predation declined
markedly, there being three kt11 s in ilovernber and one i n December
3
-
7
1713,
,.
.
.
- h r 5 ~1 , ; j3nl;ar:/, four I n
?
r2gryary
,A1 zhou~n no ~o:sar,gd c2yo-es , e r e found, ::
l e a s t I 3 coyoc2s were ? r a c a ~ ! y k i l l ? d as
collars.
I
a n d one ; n Y ~ r c n;lf :380.
3
,V;S
C S ~ . C ~ : C ~ CL-~z.: L C
r ~ s u ; ;z f 7unct~r;ng
Becaus? a t l e a s t 1 5 coyotzs wer? taken by conventional
neans *xithin a five-mil? radius o f the t s s c s i t 2 during the same
period, t h e reduction i n predation could not be 2txributed s o l e l y t c
use of xhe c o i l a r .
7
-
10.
During the period of the czst r e f e r r s d co in
c!.-1
orec3ding f i ndi ng
a t leasx one coyote avoiden- a he c o l l ~ r5y attacking g c a t s Trrcrn tne
8
,
rear o r f l a n k , ki 1 1 ing one uncol lared kid, one a d u l t g o a t and
240
c a l l a r e d goat: i n Oc"Lbbr, one co1 lared goat i;n 'Icvmber "379,
a n d two adu? t goats in February and one c a l l a r c a k i d i n ;4arch oP
1980. A i t h o u g n chis point of a t t a c k i i c h a r a c t e r i i t i c of
C G l~ i i l i i ,
dog k i l l s were ruled o u ~because 3f c l 2 a r c o y o ~ 2Cracks i n the
v i c i n i t y 3f scme of the remains.
OSv'ously,
che col l a r i s ine+fect;vc
under such circumstances.
77.
Tests a t another s i t e on the Howard Ranch (Texas Test No. 2 )
resulted in
tn2
k i l l i n g by cgyotes of one collared kid and a c ~ i l a r l d
nanny on August 1 9 and anothzr col lzred kid on August 2 2 , i 973.
1
t h r e e c o l l a r s were punctured and there was no f u r t h e r predation a t
t h i s s i t e i n t o march 1980.
While no dead coyotes were found, it
was concluded t h a t two o r three were probably k i l l e d .
Twelve
coyotes were t a k e n by conventional means within a five-mile radius
of t h i s s i t e during the period l a t e August 1979 through May of 1980.
T h i s t e s t was considered successful and e s p e c i a l l y noteworthy
n
0
--I
--1
P,
k
m
a
cL)
0
a'
r+
LA
z
vl
LU
iD
-0
7
x
7
3.
(0
-0
^I
a,
C
0
C
1
U
CD
rt
ID
in
CD
Lo
a-
P,
A.
3
a
n
0
r+
rt
10
v
(D
a
a,
rt
2.
W
0
IV
P
LU
3
a
3
CJ-
m
-1.
cn
A
.
In
-4
U3
.4
LU
a,
--A
a
(3
3
0
rt
'a-
0
ri
CL,
rn
IL
m
3
c t
2.
n,
A.
CA
L-k
S
0
7
-2
<<
a,
-11
m
-ti
0
7
a
0
iu
c k
u
l
r-t
m
1
2-
m
r)
3
9,
rl
0
cr:
C
3
a
(3
3
ln
a,
rt
d
. 1
3-
(n
1
U
- li
(>
f-l
LU
l f1
IU
"
2.
in
7.3
-I
lA
-4
3LA
C
C
n
0
n
n,
c-t
3
0
>>
UJ
2
ID
_I
0
3
(1.
Ln
c- i
A
e
nJ
lA
0
ID
m
fD
-5
n
r;.
2
c-t
-3.
pl
7
CD
o',
0
0
u7
0
m
rl
LA
-1,
C3
7
u>
fli
<
fD
-3
LU
i
c:
A
-
_J
i
1
-3
IU
hi
7
ID
Lll
i n O c t o b e r , o n l y one i n November, c n r e e i n 3 e c m b e r 1979, on2 i n
J a n u a r y and PAC i n Harch o f 1980.
A1 though 19 coyoces were taken
by o t h e r means wiAhin a f i v e - m i l e r a d i u s of t h i s s i c ? , c h i s z e s t
was c o n s i d e r e d s u c c e s s f u l , s i x c o y o t e s beinS probably t a k s n by t h e
c o l l a r , and t h e c n r o n o l o g i c z l r e c o r d o f c o l l a r p u n c t u r e s by
providing convincing,
,
I
t
lyotzs,
r c i r c u r n s ~ a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , o f t h e e?-f:cri veness
of t h e c o l l a r .
80.
T e s t s o f the t o x i c co1 l a r i n 1979 a t z c o c h e r rancn i n Tzxas , wni cn
had a p p a r e n t l y suffePed heavy l o s s e s o f goat; t o f o x e s and c o y o c e s ,
were u n s u c c e s s i u l , bec2952 ? r ? d s t i o n zlzsed o r d e c l i n ? d f o r
u n a e t s m i ned rezsons and no a z t a c k s on coi : a r e d ? i vestock o c c u r r g d .
At Idaho T e s t S i r e No. 2, c o y o t 2 s k i l l s d 1 4 p e r c z n t of lambs kecqeen
docking and marksting i n 1978.
i o s s 2 s dere caken by y - d n ' s , which means :hat
concl u&d :ha;
2s jezc; . . i 7 1~ & l 1 coyotes
,
2nd
a?pr~xlmat?iy
jcbca ts had been rmo8;ed
from the approximately nine-square-mil2 a r e a .
From a e r i a l t r a n s e c t s ,
i t was cietemined t h a t tne fawn:doe r a t i o on ? i n
1953, chat 195,500 a i such cubes $were used in 1355 a n d r h a t , ;tne
number has sincg s t e a d i l y declined t o 3,240 i n i980/81.
F i f t y 1JSO
meat-bait s t a t i o n s were piaced i n 1351, the number incrcaslng t o 773
in 1957, declining t o zero i n 1978 and numbering 1 4 i n each of the
years 1979/83 and 1980/81.
97.
Hr. Gurba cnarac;eriznd ihe ,Alberta jredaror control 7rogram as
successful, explaining thae i t s object was not t o exterminate coyotes,
b u t t o r g d u c ? predator damage to t o l e r a b l e l e v e l s .
He a t t r i b u t e d
the success of the program, notwithstanding the steady decline in the
number of 1080 meat-baic s c a i i o n s , t o the use of strychnine d r o p - b a i t s ,
cyanid? p n s and c h f hi r i n g by the ?ravine? of 2i;hx
;?2c;alis;
in
1372-73.
r 8
(-2
a;s?rxzi
32'
zcs:
pr2da;or c ~ n x r ~ 1,
123C ma:-bai:
wers placed i n souzh*~es;ern A l b e r s z :;her? cnz-'hjrd
,I
jrl~
cf , h ~ snesp
p r o d u c t i o n i n t h e P r s v i n c e was c o n c e n t r z ~ eand
~ which bad a h i g n
level o f c o y o t e s .
He s t a t e d t h e 1080 s t a t i o n s >/erg an a r e a conxrol
program, w h i l e c y a n i d e guns and s t r y c h i n e d m p - b a i t s were us2d i n
s p e c i f i c c a s e s t o t a k e ki 1 l e r c o y o t e s .
He e s t i m a t e d t h e 3 v z r a g e
number of c o y o t e s taken a n n u a l l y by 3ach 1080 o a i r s x a t : o n , i f ti.,?
b a i t was c c m p l e t s l y consumed, a t 3 0 , zven tnough o n l y 20 c o y o t e s
c o n s i d e r e d t o have keen poisoned by iC30 were found i n t h e i a s ; f i ~ "
years.
,Yr.Gurba i n d i c a t e d c h a t e SL3s
objects.
2nd d 2 t e ~ i n a ; i c n 3y a
'ri75:7
,7
I ,
.
fI;,c
S z ~ 3 CAZT
;
S X R ~ S Sr
2 $ ; j ~ " ? f ' ~
-11 .
;?2 3 : 33 ZI124
d a r a c a l l e c r e d by 'he 'iycrni ng Crop znd Liveszock 2epor'i n g S s r v i c e
on lamb l o s s e s co c o y o i s f o r the y e a r s 1070 :a 1980 i n c l u s i l i e , which
snowed, i n z e r a l i a , I O S ~ ~ofS 84,5GO
3r
8.5 p e r c e n r of lambs born
i n 1974, 72,000 o r 7 . 8 9 e r c e n t of lambs born : n 1975, 65,000 o r 7 . 7
p e r c e n t i n 1976, 51,000 o r 6 . 1 p e r c e n t i n ;077, 43,500 o r 6 . 1 lpercent
of lambs barn i n 1979.
While he acknowiedged c h a t t h e r e wer?
f l u c t u a t i o n s i n l o s s e s of 1 ambs t o c o y o t e s i n o t h e r y e a r s hi ch
CJU!~
n o t be a t z r i b u z e d t o the 1080 bai t i n s p r c g r m and w h i c h he could n o t
e x p l a i n , Nr. CrosSy maintained t h a t :he r e d u c i i o n i n l o s i ~ sdur: ng t h e
h was due a t
p e r i o d 1976 ~ h r a u ~1973
122s:
i n part co u s e o f b a i t
5:at:sns.
114. ;!r,
Harry L a a t i , a Harhematician, P r e s i d e n x and Chief S c i e n t ;
ST
of
Loats A s s o c i a t ~ s , I n c . , a f i r n s p e c i a l j i i n g i n o a r h e m a t i c a i dna1ys:s
and modeling r e l a t e d t o p o p u l a t i o n dynamics, h o s t - a r e a napping,
ri s k l b e n e f i t assessment
igr
? e s t i c i d e s , p e s ~ i c i d ed r i i t and o t h e r
n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e r e l a t 2 d phenomena, and a w i t n e s s f o r USGA, j u b m i c ~ e d
t h e r e s u l t s of a n a l y t i c e v a l u a t i o n s of animal p o p u l a t i o n dynamic;
(modeling) based upon a c t u a l b a i t consumption of 1080 l a r g e - b a i t s a t
640 s i t e s f o r which d a t a was a v a i l a b l e i n Wyoming d u r i n g t h e 1976-77
period.
The a n a l y s e s were performed under a c o n t r a c t with t h e Animal
P l a n t Health I n s p e c t i o n S e r v i c e (APHIS) of t h e USDA.
Expected sheep
and lamb l o s s r e d u c t i o n i n Yyorning was computed by a g g r e g a t i n g
i ndi v i dual b a i t s i t e s i n each count;,y i n t o Crop Reporting D i s t r i c t s
8I
(C2Cs: and J:/
]ear ;erj;c
zl/alliaz?cg or :rcj@,--- L ;??
3
i s \ i e l s i - a n n i g :%
i
,
::~:1
.
z z r ; u , ~ c ~ i o nz v e r a czn-
, ;licala
per
2i.o
f i e i d gar?er?d s a i z consdxpclon daca for 2acJ 3 2 .
-.
I
r - n j z s?
ne r2sul :s
indicatsd tndc popuiaxian reduction of c o y o t x ircm 1080 b a i c
placements in high sheep vu1nerabi:ity areas could r e s u l t in sheep
l o s s r2duction estimated t o be approxirnaieiy 7,000 sheap and lamb
per y e a r .
2e defined h i g h v u i n e r a b i 1 i c y areas as ar2.s
were ?laced
coycte densicy.
tihers ha r t:
on ajsuned reda at ion 1 ~ ~ :3
~ s2 h es e ~~ c ad h i ~ h
The nodel i s hypothecfcsi , -here ' ~ e i n sqo rs.'
method a i zeasuri ng p o p u l a t i o n (coyote 2 n d non-target) d e n s i t i e s
f o r the who1 e a r e a , r s o u r c e (apparent1y ? r e d a v a i 1 a b i 1 i t y was
assumed o; be cgnstanc and b a i z consumotjcn Sy non-car2ec.s was
2 s t i m a t e d bas2c o n zssessiiients o f baic 3ctracr'vcness cc sucn saecies,
b a i t vi s i ts , cansumpti on and popu?a r i on dens i c i e s .
,Yr. Loa ts
i s s t i f i e a t h a s t h e model co~ila be used to ~ 2 cbe
s ~actual use o f
1080 over a cen-year period in Wyoming, ?rovided data on g a i t
consumption r s l a t i v e t o d i s t r i b u t e d s i ; ? s , population d e n s i z y , z t c
were a v a i l a b l e .
He acknowi2dged t h a t the output of the rncael
depended on the v a l i d i t y of inputs and t h a t inputs such as e f i s c t
o f 1080 on population dynamics of t a r ~ e tand non-target s p e c i e s ,
animal s p e c i f i c data inputs, trapper ff e i d s x p e r i e n c ~ ,locations
and d e n s i t i e s of t a r g e t and non-target species, a t t r a c t i v e n e s s o f
b a i t s i t e s and t h e i r probable e f f e c t s on species, animal presence
and abundance, were s u p p l i e d by animal managenent experts., i . s . ,
jr.
L y l e : r - ~ s ~ and
y
i o i i i i f l ~ u ao f ,;;niS.
nt
also
acknowledged t h a t dispersal or m i gration o f coyotes was not considered.
1
r . George 3 . 30s'. , a reci red a m 1 oyat?
31
:he
'\is r i n: 23 Lie2r-s
exper.ler,ce i n rhe (Anizal Ozrna.32 isncroi Pragrarn, i;?s;den;
3f
n e
Yational Animal gamage Conirol Association, Inc. (YAGC) and a
witness f o r the Association, c e s t i i i e d that -he us2 of Ccmccund 1080
in large-bai t sta-cions was e f f e c t i v e in reducing coyate numbers co
a 1eve1 where the a g i i cul tilre- b u s i ness carrnuni t i es coul d sur-iiv e .
His data on e f i n c r i v e n e s j apoeared
TO
be bascl s r j n a r i i y on :he
reduction i n the number of b a i t j t a i i c n s places i n E4S Region 2
-
(Arizona, Ccl orada , Xew !exi c o y Oki ahcna , I exas, Otah and ',dycmi ng j
from a h i ~ hof approximately 3,10Q b a i t s
approxima~eiy4,600 in 1963.
jn
i962-63 t o a law of
He indicated t n a r :he
deccreasei
number of b a i t s placed was r e l a ~ e dt o the lower nunber of requesIi
fr3m AOC iraF;?rs o r d i s t r i c t f i e l d assi s ~ a n s s(3FAs) i n the ci s ; r i c z i ,
who were in tlpe
1
XST
position ;o assess the need for such s t i ~ j o n s .
115. r , Jchn R . Zeck, P r e s l c e n t of 3ioiogical Envjranme~.ral icnsu1:ant
S e r v i i s s , I n c . , a former animai damage c3n;rol
zcjenc for the F,iS
with cver 32 years experiancs in predator control and a vfitresi i - r
Wyoming,
2~ 21
.,
r e i a t a d an i ncideni concerni ng
i
sudden inc?ease
n
coyote predation on 1 zmbs and c a ?ves i n r h e e a r l y 1950' i i n .'Icr-hwestern North Dakota near the confluence of the 8ig M i ~ s o u r i and
Yellowstone Rivers.
He t e s t i f i e d t h a t while i t aid not appear t h a t
coyote numbers had increased, predation c e r t a i n l y hzd and t h a t removal
of many coyotes by t r a p s , a e r i a l h u n t i n g and coyote g e t t e r s f a i l e d to
abate the l o s s e s .
Losses were a t t r i b u t e d t o coyote movements
concentrating coyotes in the area and a baiting program was i n s t i t u t e d
cI~s?
s=gezr.er
2s
.
r y u i a :iazs a l 1 :wed zr;d 2ac, 2 n d ~2 r e a r :r
:ili ssouri 7i.rer was a l j o 'Lre~ceu. , A c c o r b i n ~fcl ?lr. 3ec:(,
1080 t r e a t z d b a i t cgnsuned i n his assigned
greaTer t h a n anywhere
2152
ar22
i n the Uni zed S t a t e s .
-
,
;r,e
-; - _ ,-s
, ,,
t52 Z Z O U ~ L(;f
S ~ r i n gchac ~ e r i c d42s
He t e s t i f i e d t h a t
d u r i n g the next f o u r years ? r e d a t i o n i n t h a t a r a a was a t a very l o w
r a t s and t h a t 1080 was n o t uszd there che n e x t season, there being
no need for i t .
He vias 07 t h e apinion t h a t with quai i f i s a appl i c a ~ o r s
Compound 1080 was a major gosizive factor i n canid predaccr nanagesec:.
1I 11- 1 .
Nr. 'clilliam K. P S e i i e r , a a i o l o g i s t , Supervisor o f (Animal 3anage
Control f o r the FWS i n Yor-ch Cakota, having abouc 25 years 2xqeri~nce
i n predazor a n d coyote control , and 3 witness f a r Seiencer-s of ':/i
131 i f 2 ,
11/
e t al.,
t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e y ? lIvas 1 i x t l e dcuoc :ha: k m ~ c u n a1280
b a i t j ~ a t i o n shad rzduced sne c o y o t e ;cpuiation.
Ye ? s ~ i r n a t ? d ;he
reducT'on ac aaou? cne-third o f t h e ~ o ~ u l a t i o n S. t r y c h n i n e ? T O ? - k i t s
were also used prior t o 1972.
IYr. Pfeifer t e s t i f i e d t n a z silee:, losses
t o coyotes i n c r e a s e d a f t e r 1972 going from 0.25 percsnc i n 1972, t o
0.42 percent in 1974 a n d 1975, 0.48 p e r c e n t i n 1977, and then declining
t o 0.13 percent in 1979 and increasing to.0.33 percent and 0.28 percent
in 1580 and 1981 , r e s p c t i v e l y .
He was of the o p i nion that these
f i g u r e s , w h i c h include only ADC confirned losses, supported the
effectiveness o f 1080 i n reducing predation.
He attributed che decline
i n predation a f t e r 1977 to a harsh winter and an increased h a r v e s t o f
coyotes f o r t h e i r pelts.
. I
1 I / Mr. Pfei f e r was called a s a witness by Defenders because he
had cGducted or supervised a survey of North Dakota ranchers using
guard dogs for predator control.
New f l e x i c ~ ,and
2
wi tness f o r ',4ycrning,
2t
a1 . , x s t i f i e d tha"s 1CEO
large Aai i :tations were a n 2 f f e c t i v e method f o r reduci ng coyote
predation on sheep, goacs and calves.
He based c h i s conclusion on
the f a c t t h a t p l aci qg s t a i i ans resul tsd i n fewer signs o f coyores ,
,
-
such as tracks and droppings, :ewer damage c3muIainis and a rzdticed
catch o f coyctes by trappers.
M r . Anderson iir s t beczme i n v ~ l v e d
in the placznent o f 1380 b a i t s b t i o n s in 1362 i n an area satith 3f
che Edwards ?lateau i n Texas and which he referred t o 3s the "coyotz
factory of the Uniztd Staces. "
He a l s o ?lacad and supervised z h 2
p i acenenc of bai c stacions in Colorado and U"ch d u r i n g che jeriod
1964-67. He t z s t i f i e d chat a f t e r t h e ban on the us2 s f 1289,
i cdicators o f ccycce ;3opui a t i o n s increaszd, c i t i ng a n i ns-tance i i.1
Eray County, Texzs where 40 he1 icoctzr-hcurs o-f h u n t i n g resu 1 ted ;n
a huge take o i approximaceiy 290 coyotes.
He asszibTea tha-, whi l e
1080 was i n use ?pproximately 25 to i O percent o f t h a t numDer c7
coyoces would be expectod t o be taken by t h a t dmcunt s f aer'al
hunti og .
119. Dr. Samuel Beasom (finding 95) conducted a study i n 1975 and 7376
on the e f i s c t s of prsdator control on Angora goat mortality i n
northern Zavala County, Texas i n the S o u t h Texas P l a i n s .
Surviva-
,
b i l i t y and productivity of Angora goats were compared between a
225-hectare treated and a 207 -hecQre untreatsd (no predator control )
pasture.
The study area i s known t o have a heavy i n f e s t a t i o n of
coyotes.
The two pastures were separated by seven kilometers.
. .
,Vai-maii m srzdzfsrs .rers ~ e m o v e d f r x a ! ,55C h e c z a r ?
ine treated :asiure
-
,
2 n d 2 1 . s i:n. j u i f e r
-?re2 i n c l !ic: ng
zone a n rhrer i,ldss. Six:;/-
nine coyotes, 1 1 bobcats and 32 smaller n a m a i i a n predzi3rs :Vera
k i 1 led on i h e tr2atier;c araa i n 1975.
Tile cake in 1976 was 63
coyotes, seven bobcats and 32 small e r predaiors.
Predaizor ac;; v i ty
o n the t r e a t e d a r e a , dersrmined by s c a t counts, was 80 percen:
chan chat o n ihe untreated a r e a .
1esi
Pradation 1 0 s i e s o n the untre::ad
9asTur-e were 33 percenr c i ?he kid c r c o , u h i l e nnkncwn l ~ s s e s
(disappeared without a t r a c e ) t o t a l e d 52 perc3nr ci t h e k i d croo.
Ccnparahle f i g u r e s o n cne t r e a t e d p a s a r e were 16 percent 2nd d3
rercent respecij-iely .
:dost o f t h 2 unknown losses were a c t r i b u r ? <
t o 7redators because of the prosence of coyote s c s t i ccntainlng
mohai r concurrent
' , ~h
:i
an animal ' s disappearance, because s u r v i v a l
r a w s were hisher gn tne creatod area and becaus2 d i s e l s ? and
abnomai it i e s zrnoncj rhe ? i d crop Nere rzre.
?r.-dation sf scu::
goats yas 24 percent of ihe iiock on ihe untreated ?asiure and zero
on the i r e a t e d a r e a .
The study concluded t h a t i n t e n s i i e ?recator
control could i u b s t a n t i a l l y increase the sur-iilial rat. of kids and
goats, bu? vas i n s u f f i c i e n t ra curta:!
when conducted on a small s c a l e or a:
large losses t o pr2iafion
d
level no g r s a t e r than t h a i
in the study.
120. Basic to the oqposi tion t o the use of Compound lC8O i n large-bai t
s t a t i o n s i s the contention that- heavy and sustained exploi taizion of
coyote populatfons merely r e s u l t s in increased reproduction, iower
the sane and char zrianprs xs sappress c c y o ~popularians over ,qide
areas are cauntzr?roduc~iveand aoomed
~3
Tailure.
Opponents of
1080 a7 so contmd t h a t t h e r e is no demonstrat2d r e l a i i o n s h i p beween
coyote ?apulations and livestock predation.
The c o y o t ~t a k ~ n;er-
nan-years-of-2fi3rt index develcped by 3 r . 'dagner and his csnclusisn
c h d t 3 3 2 of 7C80 apoo3rad co s u o p r s s coyote ~ o o u i a r ' c n s i n s?e
e a r l y period o f i t s use i n ine Scares of Icaho, Yontana, iyaning and
Ucah has previously been aentioned (finding I C S ) .
Dr. Wagnsr n o ~ 2 c
t h a t the sopulation reducrion did not 3pcear t o be l a s t i n g and thac
there was no corresponding reduction i n ~ r z d a c i o n . it snoui d :e
noted , however, chat Dr. 'blagner acknowl edged
: " 2 ~appl
icasi on
9T
intensive ?reciacar control techniques i n z r z ?I s czuld degress csyoce
popuiations and reducs ?redation 1 osses .
Dr. Grand.
( findi n~ 31 )
impliedly recognized t h i s f a c t when he excused the heavy precarion
losses o n the Cook Ranch i n Montana as a "no c a n t r o l " study.
1 2 1 . As evidence t h a t coyotes can be removed f r o m a l3rge a r e a , the
Edwards Plzteau area o f Texas, which was l i t s r a i l y coyote f r 2 e during
the period 1930-70, i s frequently c i t e d .
Coyotes were reportedly
removed from the area by the use of s t z e l t r a q s , strychnine, and
hunting, aided b y fences constructed f o r livestock c o n t r o l .
I t is
n o t c l e a r , however, whether t h i s was an area of h i s t o r i c a l l y large
coyote populations or whether the principal predator removed was not
t h e red w o l f , an animal l e s s adaptable and more e a s i l y extirpated
than t h e c o y o t e .
&
122,
-
s x a y ;uhicn ?; l a - i o f i a i
par-, 07 ni;
The s t u d y , c o n d u c t z d d u r i ng the peri c d
1974-78, examined s e p a r a t e c o y o t e p o p u i a t i o n s i n the Curlsw V a l l e y o f
Utah and I d a h o , which -,vas s u b j e c t t3 n o d e r a t e t o h i g h e x p i o i c a t i o n ,
a n d on ",he Idaho i?lar,ional Engi n e e r i ns L a b o r a ~ o r y ( I ? I E L ) , l t ~ h i c hwas
c o n s i d e r e d t o be u n e x ? l o i t e d o r a t
123s-t
moderafely so.
-,
ine stzdy
a r e a s a r e a p p r o x i m a t a i y iGC km a p a r t and ~ n v i r o n n e n e a l l ys i m i l a r .
A v a i 1a b i 1 i t y a n d uti 1 i z a t i o n o f pr2y were a ?so simi 1 a r .
Nei ?her
s p r i n g n o r f a l l , d e n s i t y esiimaces oF c o y o I e s ' ~ e r ?s i g n i f i c a n t l y
d i f f e r e n t betwen a r a a s i n a n y s i v e n y e a r o r cvsrall. Huncing
a c c o u n t e d for r c u g h l y 39 p e r c e n t of a l l a d u l t c o y o t e i o s s z s and 54
p e r c e n t G? j u v e n i l e d e a z h s j n the Curlew Ya112y.
About 25 percznc
o f adui 1 deaths and 12 ?er-c?nx o f juvenil? d e a t h s were d u e co hunting
i n the INEL.
Or. C a v i s o n c o n c I u d 2 d t h a c his s t u d y showed c h a t
s u b s t a n t i a l e x p l o i t a t i o n would n o t be e f f e c - , i v e i n reduciny c o y o t e
d e n s i t i e s o v e r wide a r E a s , b e c a u s 2 ? x ~ l o i t a ~ i o lno s s e s wcuid ke
q u i c k l y o f f s e t d u r i n g f a l l and w i n t e r by r e d u c e d l o s s 2 s t o o t h e r
causes and by r e d u c e d m i g r a t i o n and are further o f f s e t the f o l l o w i n g
s p r i n g by i n c r e a s e d r e c r u i t m e n t ( b i r t h and immigraticn) . He c o n c l u d e d
t h a t i n c r e a s e d r e c r u i t m e n t would p r e v e n t a n y l a s t i n g r e d u c t i o n i n
coyote density.
D e s p i t e a p p a r e n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the l e v e l s o f
~~u,;,zITexpi01 i a i 1 0 f l ,
m e r e were
t10 s t a c i h i l c a i
I Y s i g n l r icane
--
s i g n i f i c a n t differences in hunting caused deaxhs o f juvenile coyotes
b e k ~ e e nthe t-/o areas.
He acknowl edged -,hat conventi ona1 1,lrisdom
among trappers and b i o l o g i s t s was t h a t juvenile coyotes had lower
survival r a t e s than adui ts and (were mar: 'vul nerab;2
He a l s o acknowl2dged t h a t no e f f a r t was made
coyot? concrsl on a r l s s adjacent o:
c3
~2
sx?lo't3cion
2 v a l u a z the ievei o f
rhe s x d y areas s r d :?a:
d z f i n i ng any cgyote o r di 7 d l i f 2 p o p u l aci on Has szmewnat arbi v a r y .
9.
i23. Testimony t h a t coyotes wers primarily scavengers, re!zctanx ra
r i s k injury by a t t a c k s on animals of any s i z e , ,das g i v e n by iioce
Ryaen, an author and a ;vi tness f o r F r i 2cds of Anina:
5 ,
Ific. $,rno had
spent over rwc years clos21y observing packs o f coyot2s i n Wonczna
and ' d y m i n g .
I t appe?rs, h o ~ e v e r , thac Ms. Ryden' s observations
were made primarily i n the winter months i n areas of heavy snow
c o v e r and t h a t animals the coyotes did not a t t a c k \were adui t e l k ,
d e e r , bighorn sheep and a n t ~ l o p e ,lwnich would nomaily b? of
s u f f i c i ~ n ts i z e t o defend themselves 3 g a i nsc c ~ y o t 2 s . 2 e r observafions
*Merg made on packs o f coyotes in Yellowstone National Park and
National E l k Refuge and thus the coyotes were protect2d fram human
exploitation.
She acknowled~ed t h a t during the spring and summer,
coyotes were primarily predators on small animals, such as rabbits
and rodents, and t h a t they were opportunistic feeders and did k i l l
t h e socjzl or;.zni z a t i 3 3 , a z c ! ~hjzr2rchy
2nd < ? ~ r i < ~4
y j igcer.;j!,es
.
*
s~abiiize3 t a iower l e v e l , wi-ch the l i k e l y cansequence of a lcwer
r a t e of 1 ivestock predation.
124, D r . Franz Camenzind, a 3io'iogist and
Animal s , T'nc. ,
Inno
3
i ~ i ~ n e sf os r Friends o f
has conductxi s t e n s
r 2 ~ 2 z r c i ;3n CZ:IOC~~
?opuiaticns s s e n t i a l l y f r w o f man-caused ~ o r t a l i ~ ys u, p p o r r ~ d
tne thecry t h a t a s ~ a b l e ,unex?ioiz2d coyote ? o ~ u ? a c ; o nw o u l d
1 i kely lead t o 1 ower rates of 1 i v e s t a c k predarion.
;3e ooszrvea
ccyotes over an eight-year period o n the National E l k ? e f ~ g enear
Jackson dole, Wyoming.
He 2 s c i f i e d :hat
3 s-,abl2
coycle2 oopu;at;on
c o n s i s t x l o f social unizs or packs of from four t o s i x a d u l ~ sbav-,ng
c l e a r l y x f i ned nierarcnies o r peck orders and we! 1 deii ned,
t e r r i t o r i es .
3e 2xpl ai nec! t h a t w i :h ixoder3ce t o h e 3 ~ yconzrol , t n e
social s t r u c t u r e becomes d i s r u p ~ z dor destroyed, the population i s
i n a constant s t a t 2 O F f l u x , t e r r i c c r i e s a r e not oucl ined or aefsnded
and t h a t the r g s u l t may be nore prey k i l l e d per coyote tnan w o u l d oe
the case i n a s t a b l e population.
Contrary co
5cn2
theoriss,
Dr. Camenzind did not find t h a t a decrease in coyote populations
resulted in an increase i n l i t t e r s i z e .
He acknow7edcjed t h a t t h e u s 5
of poisons could reduce the number o f coyotes.
125. Mr. Eugene Allen, Administrator o f the Wildlife Division of the
btontana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and a witness For the
S t a t e , t e s t i f i e d as t o the r e s u l t s of a study of coyote ecology
I 1 with neck co1:ars.
Coyotz density i n the approximatsiy 1C0
square-mile study are3 was deternined co average approxi:na~s:y one
per square-qi l e during the summer.
The study of cayofe r,overnegTs
cancluded ? h a t coyoizs cc~uldgenerally be c l c s s i f i e d in13 one o f
four soci a1 benavior 110d2s:
den breeders, den su2er nuxer?ries,
nonads and d' s a e r s ~ r .s ;en b r e s c t r s lrrere ;~cu1 t p z t e n - 5
3f
a
::7 ~ 2 7 .
Den supernumeraries aere aaul t s and prooabl y p i p s f r m /erea d u l t coyot2s, which l z f ' ~the den area
?stab1 i shed 1 arg: :rzvei
are2s.
3i sqer;al
2nd
c s y o ~ z swere young,
~
supernumerary or i njurzd den b r e a e r s wni cn 2 e r ~ z r e n t i y1 e f the
study area.
,,,,l
nnnvl
Den coyotes c c n s t i t ~ t e d~ p o r o x i n a t e l jLO 3ercant of tne
a t i cn a n d naz nome ranses 07 three or four square ni 1 es .
I
coyotes ranged over areas from 30 t o 50 squar? ni 12s.
3:hsr
Dispers!ns
coyotes were k i l l e d by hunters a5 distances From 2 i s h t t o 95 q i l e s
from den s i t e s .
A conclusion of the study was t h a t an e f f e c t i v e
coyotg control progran must have the capability c f addr2ssing s i t e s p e c i f i c problems caused by den coyotes with a very small home range
or s i t e - s p e c i f i c problems caus2d by a nomad coyote or dispersing
juvenile coyotes. P r ~ d a t i o ncontrol was practiced on the study area
and i t i s questionable whether t h i s study can be said to c o n t r a d i c t
the Ryden and Camenzind theories r2ferred t o in the preceding f i n d i n g s .
126. There i s c s n f l i c t f n g evidence in the record as to whether coyotes
become bait-shy.
Ur. Crosby (finding 7 1 2 ) asserted t h a t the
existence of such shyness was pure speculation.
He acknowledged,
coyotss f o r one r?aszn o r anoc5er and t h a r ;. r sne ~ ~ s ~ ho fo coyo:?
a
e
concrol was used c o n s t a n t l y , b a i t - s h y n e s s could d e v e l o p i n some
c i rcumstancas.
Mr. Richard Randal 1, a f c n e r OFA for the F,iS,
Ncrth Czntral F i e l d Representative f o r Oefenders cS Wildiifa and
a w i ~ n e s sf ~ Defenders,
r
-+/as of opinion t h z t ccyotss d i d learn t o
avoid o r develop 3n a v e r s i o n f o b a i r s .
Vr.
?obert ? u r ~ e o ,an
AGC agent f ~ t hr e Sobth Dakota Q e p a r a e n t o f Game, f i s h and
P a r k s :vi-lh 37 years
3f
~ x p e r i e n c ti n trapping and a witness f c r
the S t a r e , t e s t i f i a t h a r he would have to be convinced of any such
shyness, because a f t e r consumjng the b a i t no learning sxperiefice
by a coyote was possi b l ? .
i t does a p p e a r , hcwever , tha:
'he
e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f b a i t s declined over t i n e , wnich has been analogized
t o r e s i s t a n c a c o pesticides developed 5y c5rxain i n s x t s .
Yorzover,
2r. Xajzr L . 3 o d d j c ~ e r( T i n d i n g :GO) t z s z i f j e d -,ha:: c o n ~ i n u c u siise
o f a p a r t i c u l a r baiting system resu? t s i n development 07 cgyote
popularionz with a high proportion of coyozes n c ~a t t r a c t x i t o m a t
b a i t i n g systsrn and cnac by 1964 i t Nas widely accepted snaL 1C80
large-Sai t s were unacceptable t o sotTe cayot2s.
Issue 3
127. Testimony as t o t h e e i i ? c t i v e n e s s of dmning, shooting, trapping
and snaring i n reducing predation was remarkably consistent whether
f r o m proponents or cpponents of the use af 7080.
:cr:z
SL3;tncnc
:""S., E.
(*:e?? 2j5fsc:'
A l l seemed t o
:;73?.+ :-. ,
i+. , - A < - 0 ,
,
,,
,,
.
regarded as a jclution t s the ? r o ~ l e ms i gredarion.
For ?xampie,
Hr. Randal 1 (finding 1 2 6 ) described che process of denning, t h a t i s ,
locating the den where coyote pups a r e bein!
tracking of z d u l t coyotes.
reared, 2s requiring
Cejending zn c o r r a i n , t h j s crsck'ng vay
be very di f='cul t and ~ i m ecsnsilrni ng and, in m y event, roqu; res
e x p e r i e n c e and s k i l l .
4 t a b l e in evidence, r e f l e c t ; :taf
6 . 2 9etcenx 1 F coyotas x k e n cy ,4DC rrersonnel of t n e ?AS
by denning.
i n 1976
ere :aksn
Or. IdaCe t e s t i f i e d t h a t removal of denning pairs of
coyotes o r t h e i r young may, and frequently does,
?rodation in 1 scal i z d a r e a s .
;Top
1 ives;sc!<
-.
This isstimony was icnr: n e d by
Yessrs. F. Robert jendersan and Edwdrd K. 3oggess, / r ' i l d l i f e 3 i ~ l c g i ~ t i ,
Coooerati11e Extension Service, Wi 1 dl i f e 9arnage Control , Kansas. S t a t e
121
dni versi cyand witnesses f o r M e n d e r s .
128. Aerial hunting o r gunning i s probably t h e m o s t e f f e c t i v e way of
131
Use o f t h i s method has s i g n i f i c a n t l y increaszd
shooting coyot2s.
since the 1972 order sus7ending the use oi toxicants f o r predacor
control
.
A tab1 e r e f ; e c t s t h ~ in
t 1975, 4 0 . 2 percent ( 2 8 . 6 Fercenc
by helicopter and 11.6 percent by fixed-wing a i r c r a f t ) o f coyotes
taken by ADC personnel were shot from the a i r .
Terrzin and heavy
Mr. Boggess has changed his ernpioynent and i s presently employed
by t h F ~nnesota
i
Department o f Natural Resources, S t . Paul .
12/
-
i 3 / 311~ccingo r ~ ; u n ; i n g wi1a;ir.e i i a m he a i r - 1 5 p r o n i o i t e ~2xcepc
unders'tate authorization or per mi^ (16 USC 3 4 2 j ) . Kansas and Arizona
have not authorized a e r i a l hunting of coyotes.
h i d i n g p l aczs and :.+us r l n c s r aeri ai. iunx: 19
.
-; Y ? T T ? C : ~ I ~ ~ . ,~~Z::ST
conditions aay a l s o prevent o r i n n i ~ti a e r i a l fiuncizg o f coyozes.
iiun ti ng coyotes from f i xed-wi ng a i r c r a i t can be hazaracus .
>It-
. 2andall
(finding 1261, who while an FWS e ~ p l o y e e ,shot hundreds of coyocss
f r o m the a i r , having been involved in b,ro plane t r a s h e s , 3nd
Mr. ;?awthorne ( f i n d i rig 109) a ? 1 udi ng t o a f a ~ a lc r z s h
i n New Mexico.
05 d n AOC 71 ane
U s 2 of h e ? i c o p t ? r s i s probably thc ,xost 2 f f e c t j v e and
l e a s t hazardous way cf hunting coyctas f r c m :he a i r .
Gperazins a
he1 i c o p t ~ ri s , however, very expensive, a s evidence i n the rscord i j
t3
the e f f e c t t h a t t b e hourly c o s t of such opera5'on has r i s z n frcn
590.00 zo as high as 5375.00 during tne l a s t e i a n c t o ren y e z r s *
Aerial hunting i s , o f c ~ u r s e ,s e l e c t i v e t z c a y o z s s .
Exx2nsi1ie f;yi rag
wnereby every coyot2 observed i s rhoc, i s , h o w e v e r , not s e l e c t i v e
coyotes depredating on l i v e s t o c k .
Mr, Randall t z r n e d s:
c3
"war on 'be
species" and a s s s r t e d chat i t d i d n ' t n e c s s a r i i y solve a p a r t i c u l a r
rancher's predation problems.
129. Coyotes a r ? , of cours?, h u n t ~ dfrom the ground.
ADC personnel s h c t
6 . 3 pwcent of coyotzs taken i n 1975 from the grcund.
A n e t h o d oS
luring coyotes within gun-shot range i s by use o f a c a l l , which
mimics an animal i n d i s t r e s s , thus bringing a coyote in search o f a
meal.
Coyotes a r e also hunted by sporxsmen and t h o s e i n c o r e s t x i i n
t a k i n g coyotes f o r t h e i r pel t s .
Herders and ranchers f r e q u e n t 1 y carry
r i f l e s and shoot a t coyotes t h e y see.
-
-
i t i s un L I t e l y enat
many--coyotes
While t h i s scares coyotes away,
a r e ia;cen i n
L n is
manner.
13G. Tr2pping by tnle IS? o f s:20;
-
err2czivz rechod o f pr3ca;or
c o y o x ~ staken
by AGC
le3-nolli Irzcis i s a xrz61 ;:~na7 and
conzrol.
In
7 47,-
IY/O,
37 Gercenx of
personnel were taken by t r z p s .
frequently become inoperable i n
1~1-1
and
-I ,r-a;s
freezing +leaxher, ar?
frequently .disturbed by livestock and non-target animals, requir?
considerable ski71 a s t o p l acernent and require constant chec!iated
by a coyote or other animal tugging on an attached scent or l u r e ,
expels a charge of sodium cyanide i n t o the animal's mouth, k i l l i n g i t
almost i n s t a n t l y .
The 1'4-44 i s q u i t e s e l e c t i v e t o coyotes and foxes.
I n 1975, 6 . 3 p r c 2 n :
by t h e 3 - L l .
problems
ltii
:-s.c@n 3y .j2C 29r50373;
2 r ' C:;ICXS
:,3r'?
xkzp,
.
5cne s c i 1 conci c ; cns a r . c o r r o s ~ v ec a u s i n g cecnzn: ca
.I
t h the ?I-44 and heating and cool ing of ,e t a t : a s
3
fai 1 ure,
asserzing ;ha< they have since l2arned t h a t there i s no dosage a ?
L i C L suiTicient t o e f f e c t coyote behavior t h a t cannot be d i r x r e k
b y them.
14/
-
These were a l l laboratory or pen t e s t s , na f i e l d t e s t s
having been conducted.
135. Dr. Carl Gustavson, a Research Psychologist, Associate Professor o f
Psychoiogy a t North Dakota Scate University and a witness f o r
Defenders, c i t e d he r e s u l t s of a szudy he ~ a r t i c ' p a t e d i n on the
3,000-acre Honn Ranch i n Washington S t a t e as demonstrating t h a t
aversive conditioning using L i C L laced b a i t s could be e f f e c t i v e i n
reducing predation.
The s t u d y , begun in January 1975, involved the
placing of 1 2 b a i t s t a t i o n s u s i n g two types of b a i t s :
one of dog
food laced w i t h LiCL and wrapped i n a sheep hide, and the second,
l a / . This conclusion was based on research conducted by Dr. S t ~ l a r t
~ l l i n s j f i n d l n gi38, i n f r a j .
'
carcasses of shee?, ,,vn;cn h z c 'Ied of natural i a u i a s , * e r e in;ected
8
.
b a i t and the solution i n j x t z d i n t o
8 2 . 4 grams of LiCL p e r l i t e r of d a t t r .
Dr. Gus tavson i ndi cat2d t h a t
he would recamend using a s l i g h t l y lower dose of LiCi a t pressnt.
The study conducted through Xay 15, 1975, suggested a reduction i n
predation lossas of sheep
report o n chis s:ody
07
-from 43 cerc5nt Co 50 percen1.
-7
.r,e
indicasss t h a ~:he range o f oredaaiion r9duction
was from 30 percent t c 60 percent.
of the r a n c h e r ' s pr2dation
T h i s was based an a ccnparlion
1 0 5 ~ 2 sfor
zne preceding three years.
wide v a r i a t i o n i n ~ o s sbii e predaijon reductjon was z::riLu;ed
uncertainty as i a (whe~herparxicglar losses 'were due
XI
Dr. Gusiavson acknowledged that because of the i n a b i i i :y
The
:s
coyotes.
c3
i n c o r p c r a ~ eacequaie cantrois, i h e j t u d ~d j d n o t canclusively
o s ~ a b l i s h:he e f f i c a c y of aversive canditisning i o deierring
predation.
Yoreaver, a dispute arose between the reszarchers and
the rancner regarding the determination of coyote k i l l s and rh?
r e s u l t 5 of t h i s study were l e f t i n d o u b t .
136. Dr. Gustavson a l s o c i t e d a study i n which he p a r ~ i c i p a t e dconducied
in Saskatchewan, Canada.
T h i s study, conduccad over the three-year
period 1976-73, involved the d i s t r i b u t i o n t o ranchers of ground sheep
meat wrapped and t i e d in sheep h i d e laced w i c h LiCL a t the r a t e o f 6
and 4 grams per 100 grams o f b a i t .
Ten flocks having a t o t a l mean
s i z e of 10,508 cornpl eted t h e three-yezr t e s r and f u l i i l I ed requirements
Analysis cS varianco i n d i c a f ~ d caaz
1977 and : . 5 2 ;erz2nt i n 1972.
the reducticn i n losses to p r e d a a r s was s i g n ' f i c e n t .
3ecsuse flock
s i z e s f o r each ranch over he four-year periad ar2 given i n terns a?
means, while the rsported p e r e n t a g e s l o s t to coyotes werz averaged,
i t i s not possible t o detsrmine acziial 1oss2s frsm bass siicmicr2d.
The jtudy concluded, however, char the evaluation did not zllow for
the speci ficacion a ? prggrzrn ~ 1 a r A a 1 ~
responsi
s
ble f o r r-he r x u c z x n
i n losses and t h a t f a c t a r s such as a possible incrnas2 i n nccsers
gf
coyotss taken f o r t h e i r p e l t s , possible bias o r 2rror i n c e t ? m a t i z n
o i coyocs k i l l s ,
It
*Has
and
activities
3n
da- + = , A
the ranches c o u l d not Be sva111
L U U
*
also nor-xi :hat, facrors such as r3?eilancy r2';ker 5hzn
avers i ve condi ti cni ng may have been i nvol ved.
137, Dr. Gustavson wai c r i t i c a l of the study referred t o Sy y y . Ccnnojly
(finding 135). Hi s c r i t i c i s m , however, was based on a 1 it e r a l reading
of the protocol o i the s t u d y . a s "zhe t e s t s i t u a t i o n 5eing repeated
d a i l y unxil each coyote had k i l l e d a n d f ? d on thrze or more jackrabbits a n d one o r more chickens."
3 r . Gustavscn contznded t h a t the
number of animals t o be k i l l e d was established by the ~ r o t o c o l ,t h a t
there was no dependent variable and t h a t i t was inpossible f o r the
two numbers t o d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y .
Because there i s no i n d i c a ~ i o n
t h e number of chickens a v a i l a b l e to the tredtiient group was 1 imi t e d ,
t h i s criticism i s not valid.
--
.-
E l 1 i n s , a 2€s?arch ?sychci cgi s t , ?rofes;or o f ?s;/choI osy a -
California S t a t e Col:ege, San Sernzrdino a n d a witnsss for Defsnderr.
I n 1976, the f i r s x year of the study, two hpris c f sheep ;yere
evaluated, one i r o n 3 , O C G to 7,OOg head, and :be ather numberin5 'rcm
2,COO to 2,500 head.
3 2 i t (sheep) c3rcassss were i n j e c t e d ~wich a
solution o f 450 grams of iiCL or 225 ; r m s o f sodium chiorid?
h
t3
i in 1
i t s o
r
3ai:s
'der? ?iacgO i n areas tnown
be Frequented by c o y o t ~ s . -'Iner? were a s u b s ~ a n t i a lnumber GP
k i l l s i n Herd Xo. 1 during t h e f i r s t seven weeks c i t5,e s t u d y ,
followed by
study.
marked re4ucrion during the rernai n i ng 11
m
3
C
D
U-
0
3
m
3
(I,
C
2
-A.
C
P'
V)
5.
nCu
a
u3
-5
it
(D
tn
3-
LA
2.
<
tD
:c
(I,
n
(/I
3-
D
-..A
IU
-
(I,
-
1.
135
zonths cf
1
115.
2 ~ 2nd
2
has r ~ ~ 7 3 c c:rd rcfdnd2d :he ; d r c , ~ a s ~~: r j c scn
Ms. de ? a Crl.iz c h a r ; s $332 ezch
f 5 r h 2 r dags
and s s t j ~ z - ~ ~d k zfinua:
e
c a s t f o r food, veterinary c a r e , aegreciaxicn, ? t c . a t 5250.
:he
considers r h e average useful 1 i i 2 o f a Grzac 2yrenees t o be f r a n s i x
-
co e i g h t years fol lowing a two-year t r a i n i n g period.
146. Dr. Narion J . Levy, ?roiessor of Soci013gy. aand I n t e r n a c i c n ~ i Affairs
a t Princeton U n i 1 l e r s i ~ y 2nd
,
his w i f e J o y , r a j s e Xcmondornk dogs as
a side1 ing.
Thny obtained t h e i r firs: Xamondor i n
7
fir-
I 501
an6 cver :he
years have raised about cen l i t t e r s or approximately 60 dogs, a f
w h i c h approximately 15 have been pldceti l ~ i t hsheep or g o a t ranch2rs
in the Uni t 2 d Scalss and 'Canada.
9 . L ~ v yt ~ s t ' f i e d :ha:
guard a a ~ s&ere extremely t e r r i t o r i a l and flouid
~ 2 n dt o
'&hi l e
fn a
p a r t i c u l a r srea ii they knew the Soundarigs, they a1 so i l e n t i f i ? d
I
.I
w i c h the l - i ' d ~ ~ t ~and
~ i :a;
m fi,n
-.bc
1 2 32s
a f 3 . 3 9 2 :r: i ,,,.,
raaiices che ?ossiki 1 i :y o f in? ~ n e r g i z e ddir.5
-
!:31 Z S .
I
bji
2 e i n g gro~:nc&
J;,
conTacE , ~t hi vegetation rhus render1 ~g the fence i nefiec:i-/e.
placment of rarning signs
i s recommended,
,dhi ;e
Gr, Gates ex?lained tho-.
the pulsating current made i t unlikely t h a t any person w o u l d be
electrocuted or injured by c o n t a c t with ;he fence.
of the fence t ~ s t ~byd 3 r .
cons.istpd
Sat25
e n e r ~ i z e dand grounded * i r e s
;3
0-f
12
-.oe
configuration
31 t 2 r ~ a t i v e l ; ;
". f a e z .
a neighr o f approximately ;!\/e
An additional energiz2d wire (;rip wire) was placzd 29 cn from :ae
fence and 15 cn above the grgund.
The z l t s r n a t i v e l y anergized and
grounded wires a r e f o r !<:re sabsecuenzly a d d e d t s ,?ak?
was conduciad over a n approxjmaie one-year p e r i c d .
Alfhough cniy
three coyotss were removed from the ~ a s t u r e(by t r a p s and us2 o i a
he1 icoptzr) , a f t e r i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e trip w i r s , Or. Shelcon t e s ~f ii e 3
t h a t not
3
s i n g i e young s o a t was ' r a i s e d , coyote k i ; ? s being con?; rined
i n same cas2s and inferred in otners and :hat ih ?fens !was c2nsidered
ineffective.
He estimated rnaierjai
f o r the 7ence 2 t 52,SOC.
1 1 S t r o b e - l i g h ~ s , sirons a n d ?rapane e x s i o d ~ r so r zon Suns l a 4 / &d i s z
been ;rsrsd ana < t i 1 Iz4d i n a i t ~ q p t it o canirol o r reduce pradaiion
by coyctes .
a 1 r?,nches
Tests by ihe FA5 uci 1 i z i n g strabe-1 ig h t / s i ren devlcls
in
Colorado, Idaho, Cre9cn 2nd Souin gakota, indicsrea
reiucea predation over a period of 5 to
id
weeks a i je\/eg of tsn
t e s t s s i i e s . The resul ts were csnsidered encsuragi n g , b u t addi t i cnal
work was considered necessary t o idenrify s t i m u l i , e . g . , i i g n c , sound
recordings, i h a ~mosr e f f e c t i v e l y repel coyotes.
Dr. Shelton t e s t i f i e d
t h a t he had inesxigated the usa of l i g h t s under f i e l d c o n a i ~ i o n sand
found them t o t a l l y i n e f f e c t i v e .
Testimony a t the hearing ivas to the
e i f e c r t h a t cuyoces soon became habitnated t o the sound o f expioders
and even used them t o locate flocks of sheep.
162. Penning o r c o r r a l l i n g sheep and goats a t night can be very e f f s c ~ i v e
i n reducing predation.
This p r a c t i c e , of course, has no effecc on
predation t h a t occurs i n the daytime.
Moreover, the usefulness of t h i s
oracticn i s confined t a farm flock operations as i t i s impractical t o
pen 1arge f 1ocks under range condi t i ons .
l a s z 40 y e a r s , frcm a h ? g h o f S6,67J,CCC i n ; ? A 2 :a a lsw o f 1 2 , 2 2 0 , 2 0 0
i 6/
i n 1 9 7 9 , i!icreasing s ; i g n z i y ca 12,941,300 in :'?El.
The number o f
shesp increased t o 13,176,G00a s of January 1 , 1982.
P5r
capita
consumption of lamb and m u t t o n is approxirnatziy 1 . 5 7cuncis annually
( c a r c a s s b a s i s ) o f chich 3 ~ e r c e n ti s i~ported. ? o r c.?i t a c c n s u n p ~ i c n
of wool i s appr0xirria~z:y one jound 3nnual1y 50 g e r c ~ n t:f ~ h i c hi s
i m p o r t ~ d . Approximat21y 30 p e r c z n t of t h e s n e q i n he Unised Staces
a r e r a i s e d i n the 17 n o s t western o f the 48 contiguous Statss
Although approxirnafely '51,000west21-n f a m e r r anb r3ncher-s r a i s z
sheep, only 21,000 o r 41 percsnt have c o m e r c i a1 z ? e r a x i ens
more s t o c k snee?.
7- 1
1 n e s 3 ?r:duczri,
o f a1 1 s ~ o c ksneep in the r z g i o n .
nowever, J w n :early
"
CI
YJ
,2f
50
137
gercznz
L a q e scale ? r c d u c ~ r sl w i tn a
i,OCO o r \?ore stock s h e q c o n s t i t u t ~o n i y 6 perc2n:
05 t h e proaucors,
b u t accaunr for 63 gercent of t h e r e g i o n ' s stock s h e s ? .
16J. Data on g o a t s nave previously been discussed ( f i n d i n g 7 3 ) .
-lexas
is
the p r i n c i g a l s o a t producing s t a t e 3 n d the n a j o r i ty a ? ggacs prcduczd
i n Texas a r e Angoras, r 3 i s e d f o r t h e i r m c h a i r .
There ? r e 2pproxirnately
800,000 d a i r y goats and 500,000 S p a n i s h or neat-cype goars i n :he
United S t a t ~ s .Texas produced 9 . 3 milli'an pounds o f mohair in 1979
worth a n estimated $ 4 7 . 4 mil l i o n of w h i c h approximately $30 mill i o n
These f i g u r e s a r e from tables included w i t h the testimony of
16,'
grill, which a r e based on USOA s t a t i s t i c s . Figures i n other
aoeumenes i r l a i a e n c e wnlcn a r e a l s o purporcealy oasea on U S ~ ArLatisz1c.s
differ slightly.
Dr.
.
by T?.xas 9 r X y c e r s f r-n m n a : r
I
. n -: 220
*
8as
I
.
-"n
bju. 3 Ji
.1 ;:n .
!
155. Tesxjmony cnzt sp-c?~un
u i i i i z a t i s n of auch s f t a e rans21anG i n :he
western United Srates requires grazing by c a t t l e , sneeg and 5 0 a t i
r a t h e r than a s i n g 1 2 species was given by Mr. Robert ii. Xznslng,
i x ~ e n s i o niconcmi s t , Texas A&M Univerii ty , Or. Czr1 :4enzi es , Res, d e n i
Oi r e c t o r
3f
Researcn a t the Tmai P&iil Universi t y A ~ rcu!
j i u r a i Reserrcn
and Extlnsion C ~ n t a ra t San Angela, and by Or. dames i. 3ownsJ ?,ange
Ecologist, Utan S t a t e University, w l ~ n e s s e sfor !dycrn:ng,
2'.
al.
.-
1.
was painted o u t t h a t c a t t l e prefer g r a s s , t h a t sheep 3nd goat; s e i a c t
some grass, b u t t h a t sneep s e l e c t l a r s e a o u n x i cf law-gra~ing
nerhaceous pl a n ~ s(:orbs) , whi 1 e goats se1 e c t 1 arge am,ounti o i
browse.
Sfleep and goats a r e abla
ia
3rs;a rougher 3 r r ~ i nand arees
which a r e more sparsely vegetated than c a t ~ e1.
5 r ~ zng
i zat-cl s ,
shee? and goats i n the ?roper combinations and a t s u i t a b l e i n t e n s i t y
not only increases the production si animal praaucxs per a c r e , b u r
tends t o maintain the carrying capacity of the land in t h a t iorbs nor.
properly u t i l i z e d become a weed problem and Drowse n o t pr3periy
u t i l i z e d becomes a brush p r o b i m .
indeed, shoo9 a n d goats can be used
f o r the control of weeds and brush, thus avoiding the use o f herbicides
o r expensive mechanical methods of c o n t r o l .
1 6 6 . Because sheep and goats can turn pasture and range vegetation and crop
residues i n t o meat and f i b e r a t r e l a t i v e l y l o w c o s t ,
171
-
the r i s i n g cost
171 Lower 1 a b o r , machi rrery , fuel , t r a n s p o r t a t i o n , ti 1 l a ~ ,ef e r t i 1i z e r s ,
h e r b i s d e s , e t c . required for range 1ivestock production a r e sometimes
referred t o as " c u l t u r a l energy."
o f e n f r g y in reien; j e d r z nas ~ a j r o v e d
of steep and gozc ,Teais r e i a c i v ? ;o ocher inea;s 3nd of ,vooi znd
mohair r e l a t i v e t o i y n t h e t i c i .
According t o
-I ne
7
U.S.
Sheep and Goat
industry P r o d u c ~ s ,Opportani t y and Limi t a t i o n s , CAST 4eport No.
9L
(May 1982), t h e potential exi s t i f o r increasi ng the production of
sheep and goats in the major range ar?as by a t l e a s t 50 percen:
ay
u t i l i z i n g the brst ava!Iaale s8chnolcgy iin range livestack zanagement,
by grazing areas not now used f o r ineep and goais 2nd by combining
it-
ai ternaxi ng the grazing of sheep and goats wi ch c a c t i e grazing .
Or. Menzies (finding 1 6 5 ) , who chaired cne cammi t ~ e et,vhich suihored
the above r e p o r t , described the 50 percsnt f i g u r e as a reasonable
assurnprion.
He r i s t i f i e d tha-. the ~ r z 2 t - s t 7otonzial f a r inproving
e f f i c i e n c y was through lrnproving che percmtage of k i d s or lancs
raised f r o m a flock.
He ,das of the ooinlon thac Increased procuctian
and lower grices Far lamb and wool aould increase cansumprion o f
these ic2ms.
167. Dr. Menzies nowd t h a t among the lirnitzcions o n tne e f f i c i e n c y and
productivity of raising sheep and goats were inf.ccious
diseases,
p a r a s i t e s , nutritional l i s e a s 2 2 , poisonous p l a n t s , a v a ; l d b i ? i t y of
labor, marketing problems, small s i z e of the industry and predation.
He asserted t h a t predation 1 owers the e f f i c i e n c y of producti on costing
both the producers suffering losses and i n d i r e c t l y che consumer.
He
indicated t h a t an often overlooked e f f e c t i s the i n e f f i c i e n t use of
land resources t h a t r e s u l t when high predation losses prevent the use
of land resources by sheep and goats.
- Yr. K e n s L r , ~ ( l i n < i n g 153) c i 2 d saca indicaziqg ;hz;
,2.
1
3.6 ~ i i ? ; o nneac gf carxlo,
goats in Texas.
.._
1 2 . 3 miiiion
?
s;zc:<
in 13L3
sneeg a n d 3 . 3
n:;;ion
3y 1972, the f i p r 2 s 'wer-2 1 3 . 5 mi1 1 ion c a c z l z , 3 . 3
mi 11ion sheep and 1 .3' m i 11 ion goats a ~ dthatbby 1980, the f i gut-es were
13.2 m i l l i o n , 2.4 million and 1 . 4 m i l l i o n , c a t t l e , sheep and goats
respectively.
He asserred rhat the s i g n i f i c a n t p o i n ~about che
number of animals was the change i n speciss m i x , and
t!-12 d r a s t i c
decline and even ccrnpletz slimination of shee? and soats i n some
areas.
;de deni2d chat the present pradcminazc~a f c a ~ ~ nzrcers
l e
was because cacti 2 were more pro7itable.
Se poi ncsd o u t char. i : Idas
not oractika? i n ~ u c hof Tsxas co s u b s ~ i t ! i t oca:tl?
goars on an q u a i animal uni t b a s i s ,
181
-
f o r sheep a n d
t h a t n o t only was the range
more suicable f o r grazing by c a t t l e , shee? and s c a t s ra:her
than a
single 5pecies, b u t thac such d i v e r s i f i e d operaticns resul tsd i n
;or?
re1 i z b l e cask flow and werz i n the bes-r; i n t e r e s t s of the n,pera-,brs.
He therefore concluded t h a t the switch
10 c a t x l e
\was due t o one o r
more external f a c t o r s over which operators had l i t t l e o r no c o n t r o l .
He assert2d t h a t one of these f a c t o r s was gredation.
He acknowledged,
however, t h a t low pricss played a c a r t in some ye2rs and t h z t sheep
and goats were more labor intensive f o r shearing, drenching, e t c .
i n addition t o being more susceptible t o predation.
Among Mr. Kznsing's
ducies as an extension economist with Texas ABM University i s the
preparation of cost and return budgets f o r livestock e n t e r p r i s e s .
-.
181 - ~ r a dtii o n a l l y an animal u n i t o f one cow and c a l f equals f i v e
ewes E d lambs.
He
sheep shoilced a. ne? r r - x r n of 5 1 3 . 3 2 ,
t2i:
t4t-11
c;:
r2
~ s s s r : t~~ ~c 3 b : i5 n ? d
?roduc2rz cou7d n o t I c ~ gc o l z r a t ? zn a a c i c l c n a ; loss of tsn
percent.
Se indicatzd thac t h i s was t o count2r a s s e r t i o n s i n some
q u a r t e r s thar sheep producers wers rnak?ng coney and could e a s i l y
absorb an additional t 2 n percent l o s s t o predators.
19/
-
1 6 9 . Or, 2awns ( F i n d i n g 165) t e s i i f%ed tnac q r e d a 5 ~ ncauses s2ricus
scsncmic losses co nany ;rcduczr;,
1 ivestcck cerazi cns .
forcing h e abiinacnrnenc 07 r a y
Fe a s s 2 r t z d ti?a"ihese
:osses
reach 1 ? v $ i s
v3
C\I
tl,
C
.r-
73
C
.r-
v-
v
v--
w
'r-
't-
L
3
x
L
r_
,
.
I-
r m a ,
t n t l
lr:
3 mI C'
0LZ
0 (I!-
w
,--- V ' C
4 0 rd
1
shoulc oe o f ? s ? r oy expenses f o r shezring, i e ~ e r i n a r yf ? e s
2nd
e t c . i h a ~waul@ o i n e r a i j e have been inc2rred 5ux for predaiion
of p a r t i c u l a r animals.
iapz ., y. e s ,
1
0
~
~
Fixed c a s t s f o r property taxes, pasture
1e a s e s , o r ranije permits d o not ordi nari l y vary w i t h death l o s s e s .
#orilover, absenx extremely heavy losses labor c o s t s i n managing
flocks would remain a ~ p r s x i m a r s l y:he same.
Czsts for s h e a r i n g ,
vetgrinary f e e s and supplies, e r c . w o u h , of course,
je
lower f o r
3
l e s s e r number af animals, b u t a r e not o r d i n a r i l y s i y n i f i c a n t .
173. i n addition to d i r e c t 1osse.s caused by k i 11 ing l i v e s t o c k , predation
a l s o resu:ts i n i n d i r e c t c o s t s o r l o s s s s .
2s
Dr. 3owns
iist2d thesz
( 1 ) r ~ d u c z danimal 7roduction caus2d by malestaticn; ( 2 ) :zduced
production and doazh losses causzd by ~ f f o r t sfs ~ v a d e;oss2s (exariioils
o a r a s i t e i n f e s ~ a t i c nand smothered aninals r e s u l t i n g from clos?
conii nernent) ; ( 3 ) c o s i o f supplmental feed f o r confined anjinal s ; ( 4 )
labor f o r gathering sheep s c a t t e r e d by predacar a t t a c k s and i r e a t i n g
injured animals; ( 5 ) d i r e c t c o s t s of control ?:for-s;
( 6 ) reduced
a t t e n t i o n t o other phases of f a n and ranch operations and ( 7 )
i n a b i l i t y or unwillingness o f ranchers to produce s h e ? and
areas we1 1 s u i t e d hereto.
oats
in
He acknowledged t h a t t o the extent
r e s t r i c t i o n s were placed on the use of 1033, in the event i t was
r e r e g i s t e r e d , a t l e a s t some o f these i n d i r e c t costs would necessarily
be incurred.
174. Dr. Thomas M. Power, Professor of Economics, Chainan of the Economics
Department a t the U n i i i e r s i t y o f Montana, and a witness f o r Defenders,
disputed the vieur ta:ial: greater o r more e f f e c t i v e predator control
2
~
J
'+/ould nec5s s a r i :;J 5er;er'i -, sheep ?rcrduceri as a ,vP,o?2 .
ou:
t h a t avai 1 a b i 2 daca ( G e e ,
a -i .
2'
\
here
i
LC
+?, :oj
fl:sd
zhe ?.ff?cr '52:
43
percenr of comercia1 ~ r o d u c ~ ri sn che weszern iJnif2d S t a ~ s shaa
no lamb
10552s
t o predators, t h a t 67 percznt incurred no s h e q
l o s s e s t o predators and t h a t o n l y 23 percent had predator losses
of lambs g r e a t e r than 10 percent.
ile explained t h a t zn increasz i n
sup01 y might % e l1 decrzase pri css s u f f i ci e n t l y thaz gross revmce
t o the indus~ryl ~ o u l dbe reduced and t h a t i n such an ovent,
producers sufyeri ng 1 "Ltl2 or no predatior; would rec2iva icwer ? r i c3s
and no correspondi ng benef ii s .
?reducers w i t h h i g h przdacion r a c t s
would g a i n a t ;he expens2 of produc2rs with low predation.
'Ahether
an i n c r e a s 2 i n _supply ~ o u l d , i n f a c t , r e s ~ti in a dscrzasz i n ; r i c ~ s
depends on t h e i m s i z f v i t y o f pricz t o the quanti cy sola which i s
termed " ~ rc ei i l exi b i 1 i t y or price el a s t i c i t y o f denand. " "P7.i ?
\r - -
f l e x i b i l i t y " i s che p e r c e n t ~ g echange in ? r i c 2 wnich will resul i.
from a one p e r c ~ n tchange in t h e quanti ty ofS2rsd f o r s a l s , w h i : e
" e l a s t i c i t y of demand" i s the percznmse change
quantity purchased
jn
t h a t r e s u l t s from a one percent change i n p r i c e .
Dr. Power s t a t e d
t h a t crudely one could be regarded as the reciprocal
37
the ocher
He t e s t i f i e d t h a t the p r i c e f l e x i bi 1it y c o e f f i c i e n t u t i l ized by
USDI of - . I 7 t r a n s l a t e d t o a minimum demand ~ l a s t i c i t yo f 5 . 5 8 ,
meaning t h a t a one percent decrease i n price l~ouldr e s u l t in ;n
He asserted
increase o f almost 6 percent i n quantity purchased.
t h i s had never been observed and was u n r e a l i s t i d .
-
-
-
-
7 - -
I v 2 .
..
;r. ? w e r ssl cilazed a ; a n :.\/el
i r i c e '?astici:y
-
- ..I; 21
. ., -.7 % ;) f
pri zs ;
o f denand f c r ldnb o f - 3 . 1 wn;--
,- j . 5 i
zrLj
7;lesns zha:
2
I L ~ I
,?Re
percent increase i n iuppl) ~ c u l d~ e s u l ; in a grercer i,+an d ace
perc-nt decrzase i n the aric..
demand by less t h d n one percent.
This decrease i n pricz :vou?d incrnase
?e ci tod other studies
showing price f l e x i bi 1 i t y within the range a f his c a l c u i a t i o n s ,
noted t h a t hi8 c a l c u l a t j o n i (based on 7970 s;
m a t the denana f o r iamb was cansran:,
l38C
d 2 ~ 3 )3ssdmed
~ k e r ~ athe
s o a t a suggested
demand :vas dec l ni ng and znersfor? asserzed h a :
his i s ~ i m a t e d
p r i c ~e l a s t i c i t y o f -0.61 was an overt.siima~a. i e concluded i n a f
the demand fur lamb was loss e l a s t i c than his ? s ~ i m a t eGr i n e l a s s i c
and thac increasel eWeccive predator cgntrol
N O U ! ~degress
more t h a n enough to o f f s e t increased revenue frsn
pric~s
j a i e a f an:aa:s
:A?
i'
176. Cr. John Schaub ( i i n d i n g W ) t e s t i f i e d t h a t xhe ;r:ce
f o r lanb &as e l a s t i c , i
.2.,
relarionshi?
t h a t an increase i n quanrity mrkeced
would result i n a l e s s than equivalsnt o r corresponding dectease
i n price.
He asserted t h a t t h i s conclusion was supocrted by a
preponderance of the l i t e r a t u r e and tha; b o t h jraducsrs and consumers
would benefit by a reduction in predation losses and an increased
supply of lamb.
In cdlculating increases in revenue r e s u l t i n g from
assumed decreases in predation losses a t t r i b u t a b l e t o
luse
of 1080
and increases in t h e number of lambs markekd, Dr- Schaub used a price
f l e x i b i l i t y value or c o e f f i c i e n t of - . 4 2 (farm l e v e l , yearly b a s i s )
taken f r o m a USOA p u b l i c a t i o n (Usman & Gee) n o t in evidence.
He
adhered to t h e
.
!,j31~
that
-
,qas
L412 a
L ;
rpropridi
F T ~ Ci:?xi
~
b i ! i ty
vaiue even ;:7cugii sucn $ialues f o r 2ther ccmon zea; i t z r n s ssch
2s
beef, ;art and chicken ?rere a', 1 greater than one, i n a i c l t i n g +~ ~ n a t
the demand was i n e l a s t i c .
%e defended chis r e s u l t upon the ground
t h a t lamb as now so expensive, i t was more of a luxury o r special iy
item.
LIl
-
He acknowledged t h a t pricz f l e x i b i l i t i c s change over time
and tnac the d a t a i n tne ci red USDA pub1 i c a t i cn was c n l i czrrenc
through 1975.
de ?ointed o u t , hcwever, t h t 20. ?ower had not
reported ~ h confidencz
e
i nxarva! dsS0ci axed wi :!-I ni s c c e i i i ci enr
of e l a s t i c i t y and thar Or. Power's single estjmate did n o t indicare
t h a t sufficienx t e s t s had been conduc~ed t h a t j c could be consj2ered
a r e l i a b l e est'mato.
177. Using an estirnatsd average current l c s i of iambs t z coyotes c;
- , - -
3.2
percenc, Sr. Schaub c a i c u l a ~ e dt h a t a one 7ercen: zedcc-ion i n losses
t o coyotes t a 5 . 3 percenT would increase lamb production by 53,300
head and gross revenue t o producers by $ 1 . 3 mi 1 1 ion.
This calculation
i s based o n the - . 4 2 price f l e x i b i l i t y value r e i s r r e d t o i n t h e
preceding finding.
as rea:onable
He defended the 6 . 3 percent es:i,~ated loss f i g o r e
based on Gee, e t a l . , wno derived an average loss to
coyotes of 6 . 4 percent, even though he acknowledged t h a t precise data
on lamb losses t o coyotes were n o t a v a i l a b l e .
He a l s o ackncwiedged
t h a t data on the extent t o w h i c h use of I080 would decrease coyote
predation were not a v a i l a b l e , b u t defended h i s assumptions as reasonable.
Ilj This i s contrary t o a study c i t e d i n the testimony of Dr. Power
which i s t o the e f f e c t t h a t the p r i c e of specialty items could be expected
t o be more responsive t o changes i n supply.
t h a t reduciflg coyoc2 g r ? d ? z ~ o n ~ Q S S ? S xo 4 . 3 serc2nc
N C L ~ ~incr?as?
S
lamb production by 107,lCO head and gross revenue
i k e ? prgducers
by $2. I mi i 7 i o n .
f3
Reducing 1 mb 1 asses tc~3 . 5 percent jxou1 a increase
production by 760,650 head and gross,incorne "L U.S. sheep clr3clucers
by 54.1 mi 11 ion.
A r'urTher reduction -,o 1 . 5 ? e r c s n t
iamb ?roduczfon by 267,750 heau and Sross iqcome zo
$6.5 m i l l i o n .
increiss
IHGU?~
?reducers 5y
Dr. Schaub indicared Enat accsmpanylng ,d~cre2s2d
losses t o c o y o t e s would be m o a e s t d e c r ~ a s s si n prices w n i c h wobld
benefit consumers.
A rzduct'on in c o y o t s predation from 6 . 5 perZen,
t o 1 . 3 Fercenr would be
3
r e d u c t i o n of a p p r c x i n a ~ e l y77 perr2nt,
which i s u n l i keiy even under tile must octimi s t i c asscmpticns
2s
La
che e f f ~ c t i v e n e s sof 1080. Or. Jchaub a s s e r ~ S ,however, xna? z a y o t z s
>I
prey n o t only on lambs, b u t Jn c a i v e s , g o d t s , swine
thae these estimates should be regarded as
gain from rlduced predation.
2nd
7cui t r y
2nd
a lower bound of p o t e n r i a l
S u c h reductions in c o y o t ~pr2darion
xould h a r d l y be c o s t l e s s and t h e s z cost:
should be deductzd i n
considering o v e r a l l benefits.
178. Dr. Schaub used sheep p r o d u c t i o n budgets prepared by the Cooperative
Extension Service, Colorado S t a t e University, i n 2 s t i n z t i n g i n p a c t s
o f the use o f 1080 on individual producers.
He i n d i c a t e d hat i c
was unlikely t h a t f a n flock operators would b e n e f i t t o any appreciable
range lambi ncj wou: d 70s; 1 ikely
b2
-. .
:he p r i nci ?a1 bener;ci ar; 2s
*
Utilizing Csoperative Extension Service oudgets, Dr. 5chaub calculztsd
estimated economic impacA6 of reductions in iamb losses
TO
coyozes
f o r western Colorado produc2rs o f from 0 . 7 percent t o 3 . 0 percgnt f o r
a producer having 500 sheep 2nd shed iamoing, =rcm 3 . 3 7erceni t s 2 . 4
jercsnt f o r 2,WO sweep ,di:h
shed lacbing 2nd i r c m 1 . 5 zerceni r s 1 2
percenc f o r a producer naving 2,400 sheep and ranas larnbino.
fccnonic
irnoac~swerc a l s o e s c i n a t ~ dfor an Eastern Colorado p r o b u c ~ r naving
2,GOO sheep, shed lambing and an ssxizatzd reduction i n coyots loss2s
o f from 0 . 5 percent t o 2 . 7 percznx.
In doing
59,
he made c s r t a i n
assumptions, i. 2 . , t h a c adai tional iambs wouid be nsrkec2d f o r
s l a u g n ~ e r ,t h a t feed, t r a v e l , and hir2d ldbor costs w u l d incr?as?
a t ths average 2we r a t e contained in the o r i ~ i n a ibuagec and rhac
range and f a m i l y labor c o s t s wculd be constant.
Gross inccme f o r the
producer with 2,400 head u t i l i z i n g range lambing wculd increase from
$1 ,845 t o $1 5,454 depending on t h e magni cude o f the r2duction in 1 osjes
to coyotes.
?roductisn COSTS could increase from $707 to $ 5 , 9 2 5
r e s u l t i n g i n returns from p r e d a t o r control and t o management increasing
from 91,139 t o $ 9 , 5 2 9 ,
Comparable increased returns f o r the producgr
with 2,400 head of sheep u t i l i z i n g shed lambing were $1,217 to $5,300,
while production costs could increase from 5539 t o $2,310, r e s u l t i n g
i n returns from predator control and t o management increasing from
i 29
~ c o ,i c
C
I
r ?-.
52,gGC.
F7
.
,:per,:+$?,
354
::::c?
;?:ji
C~U?-J
, ran
increase f r o m 531 7 ;o 51,250, prcducricn c o s r r caul d ir:r??ie
i^
5107 t o 5429 and r-eturns frm predatar c s n ~ r a iand :c aanagsmenz
could i ncreasa from $210 co 5331 .
The a s t s r n Col orzdo producsr :uas
assumed t o operace on privaiz land and to have lower predaiion r a t e s .
For t h i s operaior, gross income could increase from $822 to i4,2&5,
production c a s t s could increase from $533 t s 5 2 , 7 5 6
and
rsturns frse
predacor c o n t r o l and to nanaFemenr c o x l d j a c r e a s e irom 5288
~3
41,189. None of these estimates include increases i n c9s;s for
predator c o n t r o l .
Dr. Schaub :2s:ified
t h a r tnese eszlmates were
f o r losses consicered t o be average or r e ? r e s e n ~ a t i v e , and t h a t l i k ?
a l l averages, i h ~ ycould severely underestirnatz rhe financial
i m p a c t o n individual praducers suffering high 7redar:cn and thus oe
rnisieaaing.
1 7 9 . #r . B i 11 D .. Sneed, President of 'i r s t Col e ~ a n' l a ~ onal
i
3anu o f Sal ewan ,
Texas, a rancher a c t i v e l y engaged in r a i s i n g sheep, soars and c a i t l e
and a witness f o r Yyoming, e t a 1 . , t z s t i f i e d t h a t his bank had denied
requests f o r loans on sheep a n d goats (apparently using them as
col l a t e r a l ) because of coyotes.
He explained t h a t there kere c e r t a i n
areas of Coleman County, which were heavily infested w i t h coyotes and
t h a t i f land
jn
one of -those areas changed hands, his bank would decl ine
a loan on sheep and g o a t s in one o f those a r e a s .
He asserted t h a t a
number of ranchers i n the County had gone o u t of business because o f
losses t o coyotes.
He acknowledged t h a t there were ocher reasons f o r
d a t a i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i n 1,276, tiler?
;wer9
77 ,,ZOO 2eies i n Colerzan
down
County and chat by
t h a t t h e r e werz 204 sheep prcducers i n t h e County i n 1977, bur only
165 i n 1981.
He contended t h a t t h e sheo? i n d u s t r y was v i
xo t h e
County a n d , t h a t many a r e a s were more s u i t e d t o sheep ?robuction o r a
conbinati on o f shee? and c a t t l a production r a t h e r than just c 3 t t l e .
i
k s a i d t h a t on a ; a r t i c u l a r 575-acre i e a s e , he Idas unable t o rtin
sheep due t o ? r e d a t i o n by c o y o ~ s2nd t h a t he (was only one of ,~zn;/
f a c 2 i by t h a t proole!.
:e f u r t h e r c m t e n c e d t h a r only ; q i t h t h e
r e i n s t a ~ e m e n to f Compound 1080 could coyotes be c o n t r ~ ~ l i eand
d ncney
returned to the pockets of the producers.
$.nother s i d e of che
econorni c s of prsdatgr control was p r e s e n ~ i x lby Yr . Robert C ~ r ~ e n t z r ,
a Drews2y, Oregcn c z t t l e rancher and a witness for C ~ T a n d e r s .
Mr. Carpenter has not s u f f e r e d any l i v e s t o c k l o s s e s t o predators
and was highly indi gnan t a t FWS ADC c o n x ~ o l ooeraxi ons , because he
considered these o p e r a t i o n s deprived his sons and o t h e r s o f n29aed
income from the s a l e o f coyote p e l t s .
180. Mr. Charles Howard ( f i n d i n g 7 1 ) estimacsd t h a t h i s t o t a l income from
goats i n 1979 was approximately $28,0CO, while h i s predation l o s s e s
t o goats t o t a l e d $35,619.
This included d i r e c t c o s t s of $14,637
comprised o f $10,657, f o r l o s s of goats and mohair, $1,470 f o r t r a v e l t o
' p a s t u r e s t o pen goats and $ 2 , 5 2 0 f o r ranch expenditures i n t h e control
of predators.
I n d i r e c t c o s t s included $5,400 l o s s of a d u l t goats co
p a r a s i t e s and complications, $3,600 l o s s on goats sold because of
.
.
c r o d u c t i a n a s s ~ r ~ e dSue
l j ~2 p e n n i ? ~ , $;3,413 I n 1 ~ ~ 3 ~f
2 st i c s a c d
xohai r 2nd S823 i n veserinary f2es and 'rugs.
-.
I
n f s e f i g u r 2 s jc: r z c z
and indirec-c c o s c s ) t o c s l e a 541 ,979 from w h i c h was s u b t r a c t s d S 6 , j E O
f o r expected normal iasszs o f a d u l t g o a t s , k i d s and n o n a i r .
issue 5
181. Mr. Cannolly ( f i n d i n g 133) t e s t i i i s d :haz
i n t a c t , ~ n b r 3 k a ncgllars ci:
n o t pose an ? n v ? r c n n e n i a l hazard and wer? not a s i j n i f i c a n c hazarc o:
8
.
c o l l a r a d 1 ivestock.
In t h e FWS f i e l d c e s t s lwich ;he t o x i c ccilar a
22,'
o f which 25 : ~ e r rzccverzd
l
aft2r
t o t a l of 313 c o l l a r s were used,
having been punc:ur.d
by c o y o t ? s , f o u r z o r e c o l l a r s wera p r o b a b l ;
punctured and n o t recover2d and 1 4 were l o s t .
I n a d d i ~ i o n ,11
coi 1 a r s ;rerp, a c c i d e n ~ a 1y1 p u n c t u r e d .
:,he repor? of the
,A1 :nough
aval u a t i o n of t h e s e r,zsts by /4r. Connol l y a c k n o : v ? e d ~ b rha', the
hazard posed by 10s;: c o l l a r s Idas d i f f i c u l " L o oOb.ject.i5~e1j/a s s a s , ir.
was p o i n t a d o u t t h a t the col l a r s were n o s t 1 i k e l y t o be f o u n d by t n e
l i v e s t o c k owner, who would be aware of t h e p o t e n t i a l hazard r a t h e r
than a t h i r d person u n f a m i l i a r t h e r e w i t h .
I t was f u r t h e r p o i n t z d o u t
t h a t t h e principal danger t o the f i n d e r would be from opening t h e
c o l l a r and t a k i n g the lC8O o r a l l y , w h i c h he would do o n l y i f he f a i l e d
221 The a c t u a l number o f c o l l a r s used was 151 small and 94 l a r ~ e
col 1,;a
the. 31 3 f i g u r e b e i n g t h e resul t o f c o u n t i n g s e p a r a ~ eyl col 1 a r r
used on more than one t e s t . Small c o l l a r s c o n t a i n e d approximately 300
mg t o x i c s o l u t i a n w h i l e large c o l l a r s c a n t a i n t w i c e t h a t amount.
. .
t h a t a chi l a 7;;;Snr :var,i?r
a ? a s z u r e , f i n o a ?urc:ur?d
jqr-3
3r
iz:;ti 29
c o l l a r , g e t :he t o x i c soiuxion on h i s hands and then i n t 3 h i s nzuth.
\ h i 1e his possibi 1 i t y cannot be r u l e d c u t , i t i s highly ~ n ilk e l y .
Mr. Connolly recosnized t h a t l o s t c o l l a r s would e v e n t a a l l y d e t e r i o r a t e ,
a1 lowing the :oxicant
by b a c t s r i a l a c t i s n
co e n t e r t h e soi 1 where i r would be d e t o x j f i e d
. The time required f o r d e t o x i f i c a t i o n ,vou! d vary
w i t h he amount o f toxi c a n t , s o i 1 type, t e m p e r a t ~ r z ,z s c . , j u t s t u d i e s
summarized i n Aczert, wer? to che e f f e c t degradation :f Conpo~ind iudO
1 h P
i n s o i l required from 0 to 11 rreeks.
I n sen t e s t s w i t h e i g h ~c3l l a r e d
lambs using dye r a t h e r than Compound 1080 in The c a ? : a r s , scread o f
the dye a f x r the c o ? l a r s Nere p u n c ~ u r e dby ccyot2s varied b e ~ ~ e e n
12 s q . i t . t o 300 jq. fr,. d ' t h the aversge b e i n g i 3 8
o f the dye depended an whether :he
I
time xhe c g l l a r was puncturad,
jc.
f:.
Sc;.=,.-.
- L
lamb 'r/as dcwn or inoving a:
I x was estimatsd tha: an
:he
"A
i1
2v2n
d i s t r i b u t i o n of Compound 1080 over rne average dyed ar2a of 138 ss.
i t . wouid r e s u i t i n conczntration of 2 . 2 ag per s q . f t .
.;..n e proszecc
t h a t such a low c o n c 2 n ~ r a t i o nwould causz s e r i o u s envi ronnencai damage
was considered remote and no such damage was obszrved i n i i e i d t s s t i .
In i n i t i a l t z s t s with the c o l l a r s i n Idaho, some of the c o l l a r s lsaked
and s i x c o l l a r e d lambs died.
Although Mr. Connoily i n i t i a l l y thought
the lambs had absorbed t h e t o x i c a n t through the s k i n , he subs2quentiy
concluded t h a t the 1080 s o l u t i o n dripped i n t o t h e i r mouths
the mode of i n g e s t i o n was o r a l .
d
and t h a t
cr,crns. Jo 2v:zerrce c f silcn ?ur;czl;ras :vas coszr1/2c, sn sn'nal s ~ j ; h
puncUr2d
collars
3r
cn che ground 2ven r9oUGh zhe :oxiz j o i u s i ~ n
c o n ~ a i n s dRhodamine 3 dye
2:
a safocy i n d i c a u r .
Anorher r z u t z o f
potential exposure i s the carcasses of csyotes poisaned by ?uncsuring
toxic collars.
Gniy turkey vulxures a p p e a r t o 3ave scsvenged m y of
.he coyotes found during fWS cesxs :vi ~h the :oi 1 ar. T8~rk2y' i u l tutes ,
bl ack \tuitures , nagpi es , rzvens , red- t a i 1ed hdwks , car3caras,
3
skunk and a coyota Nere known to have scavenges c ~ ~ l a 1ives:ock
r ~ d
killed by coyotes.
Scavengers feeding on c o l l a r e d l i ~ e s i a c kkilled by
cayoles cancencrased on viscera and muscle tfssue racner Than ~ h e
eel 1 a r s .
1Yr. Connol 1y t2st-if i sd chat he 'lad oever o b r e r . i e ~scaveng! ng
on cne neck arc3s 07 col7ar2d ii\iest3c!<. ?ho-cos i n the record o f
collared livestock heavily scavenged show neck ar2as l a r g e l y i n t a c t .
A 1 t h c u g h i t i s ?ossible rhat there were
non-izrze~k i l l ;
from usa O f the c o l l a r s , none ;Yas observed.
Xr. Connolly s i 3 ~ e c lc h a t
fesa::frc
i f there had been any s u b s t a n t ~ a lnumber of non-targer kills, they
would have Seen located by the intensive searcnks o n che Charles %ward
-
Ranch, Meridian, rexss. 3ased on these f i e l d observations, i t was
concluded t h a t ther9 was no reason t o expect s i g n i f i c a n t poi saning of
non-target w i l d l i f e r ~ s u l t i n gf r o m the use of 1680
jn
toxic c o l l a r s .
Non-target deaths of animals suspected sf being poisoned by lQ80 have
not been observed t o date i n t e s t s with the c o l l a r s by Texas A&M
University.
183. A s ~ n a ~ c a t e( di i n o i n g 8 8 ) , SLUs containing id80 have not been e x t e n s ~ v e i y
tested in t h e United S t a t e s .
They have been and a r e b e i n g used in S r i t i s h
C;iumbja
2nd
,;us:r-j:
i a r ~ e; c ? n ~ ii i e s
la.
2 i
cay0t.s
%ere z j e d jy A i C ~ r z a r . r , e i f j r the csnirg;
SL3s used ' n Sri i
(finding 94). X!:houcjr!
jimil ? r s:rjchni ne cai r j ,
< ~ i ioidrnbia
i
;rior
:2
'
-77
,Y,-
7
Ere a v e r e d
~3
minimize the possi bii i t y of t a r g e t s consuming nore than one b a i t acd
t o minimize exposure
io
nun-targei s p e c i e s , t h 2 aoplications f o r
the use of 1C80 in SLDs by Montana, South Dakota a n d Wyoming a ~ o a r e n z l y
do not envisage t h a ~bai:i
ltqill be c3vered.
4 . ?anaal1 ( f i n d ?n g 125)
test! f i e d t n a t he was never inforxe'l hat s t r y c h n i n e d r o o hi::s
b,e covered.
j
houi i
lje f u r t h z r t a s t i fi 2d t h z t i t 'would have seen very
d i f f i c u l t t o do because i n inany areas i here b a j t s were placed :her?
weren't enougn cow chips and rocks were frozen o:
the ground.
asserted t h a t no one covered itrychni ne b a i 5s ; nc?A ynstandi n g
Ye
3
memorandum, datod Decmber 15, 1970, t h a t i: was 3urzau 701 ~ c y:he
Sai zr be covered.
Se Idas o f the opinion :hat
keep track o f such bait:
'her2 was no way t o
or t h a t such a progrzm ;;uld
be prcperly
184. The exposure a f 3L3s :a non-target species &?ends, of ccurse, on the
rate o i application.
?lantana's application Tor r e ~ i s i r a r i o no f
Comoound 1080 envisages 3 . 5 ng of 1 G80 i n a IS-sram b a i t ,xi t h a
maximum piacemenc of 25 per square mile.
South Dakota's application
i s a l s o f o r 3 . 6 mg of 1080 in each b a ? t with no iilore tnan t'tro hairs
t o be placed a t any one draw s t a t i o n and no more than f i v e such
s t a t i o n s t o be located in one square m i l e .
Assuming maxiinurn usage,
/
I
,
r,no,rz
z-Q?~ 53
352
'32; ~5
7 y
zz3;ii?shi3 csnr2.l n i v gm-?rc;:j--a'_-l~
1 , 3 g c f 1CSO c r sli~nslyless :mn
in a ? arge s c a t i c n .
the 1.5 crms 39r 130
'Aycni ng ' s a p p l i c a c i ;n
~ O U ~ SU SS C ~ C
apparenciy i q t s n ~ sc h a t t h ?
amount of 1280 in eacn b a i t a s well as the maximum a p p l i c a r i c n raz2
be l e f t t o the judgmen?: o f t h e applicators.
9 r . :iiliiam suck, Professor
of Vezerinary Toxicology and Director of the Animal Poison Cantroi
Center, Gniversity of I l l i n o i s , lirbana and Dr. '/a1 I?. B 2 ? s l 9 y , 2 0 c t ~ r
of Vetari nary Xedicine and Research ,Asscci a t e i n T o x i c o i c ~ ya:
the
University o f I1 1 inois , w i tness3s f o r Deflndzrs , k s t i f i e d :?a:
Secause
SLDs wer2 designed f o r more widespread use, chey were mcr2 iikoly co
be more a v a i l a b l s t o domestic dogs and c a t s and use o f SLDs c o u l d
r e s u l t in the poiscning of l a r g e numbers of t h e s z and other snail
non-target carnivores.
Dr. Buck acknowledged, however, r h a t a r e q u i r z -
menc t n a t b a i t s be placed no nearzr than a ~i 3 e o r mo from
2
home or
occupied dwei 1 ins would 1 esszn the nazara co n e s e animals.
185. The contzntion t h a t Compcund 1 C 8 C i s a s e l ~ c t i v spoisan i s bas& i n
? r i n c i ? a l par:
on d i f f e r i n g levei s of
s2nsi t i v i
ty
10
rho, j o i s o n .
Carniiores .rp_ i n general Tore s e n s i t i v e t o 1030 than a;her
s jet! es,
while canines are considerzd :o be 2 s p e c i a I i y susceptible t h e r a f 3 .
23/
For example, the LD50
of 1080 for a coyotg has keen determined t c
be 0.10 mg/kg, whils t h a t for a man i s estimated a t 0 . 7 t o 2 . 1 mg/kg
23/ An LD50 value i s a s t a t i s t i c a l estimate of t h e dosage t h a t would
be l
e
t
x
a
l to 50 percent of animals t 2 s t e d .
136
and ;ha.
( 7 .; 5
f o r a scls2n e a g l e i s 1 , 2 5 tg 5.C0 - x / t , .
-1
1
- P 4 ,
tu I
Su2 -i;s-
J.
1 . 5 g o f 1080 per 160 pounds of b a i t , thac a i50-pound man wauid
obtain an LD5g by the consumption of from 4 7 . 6 oz
-LO
142.3 oz and
t h a t a gol'den eagle (average weight 7 pounds) wouid recsive an LDS0
by consuming from 4 . 0 oz co i 5 . 9 oz of such b a i t macerial.
f o r a coy0t2 has been estimated
-
the LDcO values f c r nan and the
3t
0.16 ~ ~ g / k g . i c i s zcparsnt tha;
23912
not precise and have a cgnsiderable
An LDlgO
as n e i l as s c t e r s ? e c i f s ar?
ranee.
-1 2 s z s so 2stablish
:hese
values have obviously n o t been csnducted o n humans 3nd Tne x s t s
3r1
many other species including c o y o t s a n d eac12s have not wen
conducted on a s u f f i c i e n t number o f 3ninals c h a ~a s t a c i s z j c z l
coniidence interval can oe z s t a b l i s h e d .
Inasmuch as the fcod
consurnprion o f an eagle i s approximatoi y h o p o u n d s a d a y ,
L
ii
c l e a r t h a t an eagle could obtain a p o t e n t i a l l y l e t h a l dose in feeding
on
3
bait station.
sgecies.
This i s , of course, a l s o t r u e of c t h e r ncn-carget
There i s evidence t h a t the $350 valu? can vary depending
o n whether the god?
gf
administration i s by a tallow b a i t or water.
Moreover, Drs. Buck and Seasley (finding 184) referred to a study
indicating t h a t a median l e t h a l dose of 1080 a c 22°C was 21 mg/kg,
while a t 8 O C , the equivalent dose was 4 . 5 mg/kg, indicating t h a t
temperature had a g r e a t e f f e c t on the t o x i c i t y of the poison.
LDjO
values a r e more l i k e l y t o have been establ ii n e d in l a b o r a t o r i ? ~a t
or near normal room temperatures.
;usper.sizn o f ;oe
ragi i;ra;i3n
- ; o.i ~ p c u , ~ ;ICaC)
2;
rr-g~r:::;
ibr;e-
bai t s ~ a z - i a n s)was thaC :he n i n ihum number Fecessary co achieve
e f f e c t i v e cayote managenent r a s
f3
be g l a c ~ d . -~ n i iLvas jenerally
8
i n t e r y r e t e d a s requiring or p e n i z t i n g the pliicemerlt of not more
than one stazion per township.
%i:h the approval of the S i a t e
Supervisor, up to tuo s t a t i o n s per cownship could be ?laced wner.
c e r r a i n required a d a i ~ i o n a ipl3cementi i n orcer
i3
achieve needed
Guidelines issued by tne 3 u r z a u f u r t h e r stazed tnac :he
controi.
use of 1020 large 3ai ts was a technique r5served for ar5as
here
other c o n ~ r o lmethods had not been e i f e c t i ~ ein r ~ d u c l n gcayoie
populatjon to a desired level and where such use would have a
minimum e f i e c z o n oon-carget w i l d l i f e and domestic animal:.
s e l e c t s d s i z e d i d net meet m e s s r?quirerneni;,
used.
,. -
LT a
1580 ,das not :s be
Hr. Randa 1 1 ( i f ndi no i 25) , nowever, : e s c i z i 2 d iha: ln jr?ccl c e
the number of b a i t s t a i i o n s pldced each year d j d not vary s i g n i f i i a n r l y
and t h a i the s t a t i o n s were placed in nore o r l e s s rhe same l o c ~ x i o n s
each year.
The tesiimony t h a t b a j i i ~ e r splaced i n aoproxinateiy
t h e same locations each year was c o n f i n e d by Mr. Gene Chaoel, a
Montana c a t t l e rancher, a former ADC employee of the N S and a witness
The theory of not nore than one large-bait s t a t i o n
. f o r the AFBF.
per township was, of course, t h a t coyotes being more rnobilo and
having larger home ranges would be more a p t t o come i n contact with
and feed on the s t a t i o n while smaller, l e s s mobile animals with
6
2
2
r
i
e
A
I
IL,
~ l r .i d o a a I
asserted t h a t thrre..~lrasno place where only coyotes l i v e d .
He
t h a t gany AOC f i 2 1 d ~ e r s a n n e ic c ~ u l d n ' ci s e n ~ i f ytracks 07 various
species, and they had no data o n locations cf endangerzd species
and ocher non-target animals.
The r s s u l c was t h a t ~ a i c swer?
placed away from ~ a t e rand on elevated loc3tions ,&her? the sncw
--
would most l i k a l y be blown or; and d i ~ h o u rregard t c ,ion-t;r;ers.
187. Bureau guidelines a l s o c a l l e d f o r b a i ? sxations t o be ;iac?d as
13x3
as practicabiz i n t h e fall in kegping w i c h ;af?ty "i one5t-eaciflg
mammal s and b i rds , ?f7?cziveness i n c s n ~ r o1i i ng damage, 3nd c o n d i ti ons
o f weather and t r a v e l .
3 a i t s were t o be removed as 2:rly
i n zne
;?ring as weather and travel conditions p e m i cted, a7ssr a l lcwing a
s u i t a b l e , b u ninimum
~
~ i m ef o r .xpis~;.:?,
I n t h e ~ r y his $ 1 irnicatxi
or m i ~ i n i z e dexposara t o bears and oCQer i i b e r n a i i n g aniflais.
1
Hr, Randal 1 r e l a t e d t h a t in many instanc;:~ becaus? o f ~ h esgowpack
~t
higher e l ~ v a t i o n sand the press o f o t h e r d u t i e s , bai t s t a t i o n s could
n o t be rmoved until early s u m e r o r i a c e r , which was l o n g a i z r
hibernat'ng animals would be o u t .
1%. ,As indicated previously (finding 1 ;)2j, l a r g e - b a i t s -were co 02 treated
a t the r a t e 1 . 6 grams o f 1080 f o r each 100 pounds o f meat.
Mr. Randal1
described t h e difficulties i n cbtaining proper d i s t r i b u t i o n o f 1080
i n large meat-baits.
He t e s t i f i e d t h a t even a f t e r 1080 was d i s t r i b u t e d
-
>
i n v i a l s of 0.3 g and 1 . 6 g , i r: :vas i v ~ o s s i b l et s a'stribu:2
;f
"=
, - C~SCY:';H!
a srs,.;: ? % / e n j jz k r a ~ ~e2c:?
n
?sun:', of m ' t .
~ s s d ,; IC!ort3n meat
pliii;D
7
,- ,l
12; ,~;Lv
:he
- r
-3s
?r,,irnsn:
for rhe ?tir?os2 ~f 5 ~ 3 a r~ l i rncj
! hans , a s
a medieval method of a p p l i c a t i o n , a n d a s s e r t e d thac ckbe o?ungars
frpquently leaked and t h a t the pumps did n o t work properly i f u s d i n
below freezing o r zero weather.
2e s t a t e d t h a t 1080 had an a f f i n i t y
for protsin and would not penecr3te membranes.
I F the need?? h i t a
membrsne, i t a ~ t o r n a ~ i c a l lcreated
y
a h o ~s p o t , i . ? . , an ar2a c f mre
conc?ntra-c2d so1ut;on.
He i n d i c a t ~ dt h a t even a S t s r :4GC f i e i d
persor?nel were furnishzd s c a l e s , i t was s t i l l nec2siary
t3
estinat?
the amcunt of bone, hide, e t c . i n each ? c r t i c n i n det~rniniag :he
?roper q u a n z i t y o f 1080 solu-cion t o apply.
containers
hoil'd
He s t a t s d
hat g r a d u a ~ e c
have Deen of assistanc2 i n ~ i x i n sche proper q u a n t i f y ,
bux xhat such con,;-j.iners Were no;
avai i a b i ? .
:!
133. ' i i t h che zxce9t:on o f Er. Randal 1 , tesciinony from
3;
1 ~ i f n e s ~tine
~s
par-cicipated i n o r who wera fami 1 i a r w i z h t h I080
~
baiting program
was to the e f f e c t th{lC deaths of non-target species from the b a i t s
were minimal
.
B e c a ~ s eo f t n e charac12r-i s ti c i at.2ncy period f c r t o x i c
e f f e c t a f t e r the ingestion o f Compound 1080, i t i s p r o b a b l e t h a t x n y
animals and birds feeding on the s t a t i o n s and receiving a l e t h a l dose
would n o t d i e i n the i m e d i a t e v i c i n i t y .
The svidencz i s t h a t s e a r c k s
f o r birds and animals t h o u g h t t o have been poisoned by ~ h es t a t i o n s
were c h i e f l y conducted a t the time of disposal o f remains of the b a i t s
and t h a t these searches varied widely i n scope and i n t e n s i r y .
Sy t h a t
;i rds
2nc
dnjra!
:ocu:c
5 .
3u:22u
p o i i c y :ai l 2 d f c r :5e reporr'
"3
o f coyotes as 3,ueli a s ncn-tjrger ;?eci?s fcl;nd in juch searckes,
#r. Randall i'ndicated tnar. t h i s uas for 7ublic r e l a ~ i o n jpurgoses
~ R C
c a c i t understanding among f i e l d personnel u l t h rihorn
t h a t thera was
he was f a m i l i a r t h a t the actual magnitude o f non-target deaths not
be r z ~ o r t e d .
190.
Aanda! 1 r e s t i f i ed chat he
i3rX10nly fll;!Id
dezd i a d ~ e r s,n, p& p- ,r 1 ca0
b a i i s o r ;he remains of such s ~ a c i o n s . de explainel i h a i saocers
~ o u l ddig a hole underneatn :he s t a t i o n i n a atzempt t o orag che zea:
into ;he hole f o r t h e i r winisr iaod suooi y. Ye iia7.d
rba: i n cne
ioring as Jany as four dead badgers hould be found i n one hole.
conrras;,
Yr. Johnsan (finding :CS) s;ared ;hat he
badger l i v i n g under
3
In
l a d ooservea i
b a i t stacion h h i c h ap?eared t o be i n ;cod heaicn
a n d i4r. Anderson ( i i nd-ng 116) f e s t i f i d :ha1 badgers frzquently
burrowed beneath b a i t s t a t l c n s , spending t h e i r v i n t e r s there and us? n g
the s t a r i o n as
food source without apparenr i l l e f f e c t s .
3
He s t a t e d
thax he had observed t h i s oersonaily on approximaiely one-half dozen
occasions and ;hat
i r had wen mentioned 10 him by others as we1 I .
ke
a t t r i b u t e d a n incident involving the finding of seven dead badgers a t
,
b a i t s t a t i o n s in Texas t o improper dosage caused by use o f i n s u f f i c i e n t
water in t r e a t i n g the horse meat b a i t .
The LD50 f o r a badger i s from
1 . 0 t o 1 . 5 mg/kg , w h i c h indicates t h a t a badger (average weight 19
pounds) would obtain an LCjO dose by consuming from 8.0 ozs t o 13.0 ozs
1080 residues were found i n a sample iram a ccndor, 13 g o l d e n eagles
and one bald eagle received a t the Cenver W j i d l i f ? 2esearch Csnter.
Tests on one of the golden eagle samples *#ere posi zive
L
I
or strychnine.
19i. In the f a l l of 1969, the 3 i v i s i a n of W i l d 1 i ? ? S e r v i c , ? ~;nsci:used
policy o f including a i r a c e r i z e i n I090 solutions
baits.
-I issue
2nd
2
r-trycnnine arc?
samples of a bird or aniinal k i l l e d by e i t h e r o f ;he52
poi sons w a u l d f l uoresce under u i t r a v i si e t 1 i g h t .
Accordi rig
53
Mr. 8andal 1 , he same t r a c s r i ce *das p l acsd i n strychnine and 1 C8G
baics and
WE!
7urpose o f i-,ce !prosram was n o t ;,o nonil-or , , d i i a l i f ?
k i l l e d cy :he b a i t s , b u t t o be i n a 2 o s i i i o n zo d e i e ~ aagainst cls;sj i .
He defended t h i s conclusion as reasonable a s s e r t i n g That x e amount
o f fluoroacatate not converted notild be t r i v i a l even tiloti~n he had no
s p e c i f i c data t o support t h a t concl usion.
Dr. Zimmerman ( findi ng
196) i e s t i f i e d thai d l 1 f l u o r c a c r t a z e uoul d n c t be ccnverted r3
iluaroci t r a t e and t n a t the quantity canverted :vou;d
t i s s u e and the specizs.
>12ry.
v i ~ h;he
Dr. Savzrie i c a t e d t n a t based d c c n
nerahol i sii~ studies a small percentage o i f l uoroacetata d o u l d be
converred t o fl uoroci t r a t e .
Dr. 3ogusky cansi dered t h a i dama~eto
kidneys demonstrz~edby his experiments i o u l d be the same i f
i?uoroci t r a t e a r f l uoroacstai? uere x k e n c r a l i y . He acknowl edged
t h a t he had not perzomed those experjments and t h d i other 5odiiy
functi ons coul d impact i ngesisd F1 uorcci t r 3 t e beiore i I reached
the kidney.
He a l s o acknowledged t h a t the c a n c e n ~ r a t i o n ss f fluoro-
c i t r a t e us2d i n his exper'ments on kidneys
hzve been l e t h a l t o r a t s .
3s
single organs . ~ o u ' i d
Alrhotigh Dr. a o ~ u s k yi s c l e a r l y an
experr on kidneys and t h e i r functions, he i s not an e x p e r t o n
Compound 1080 or the amount of fluoroacetate converted t o f l u o r a c i t r a t e
when ingested.
198. Dr. Zirmerman c i t e d a study ( C a t e r , e t a1 ., 1961) with r a t i treated
with f 1uoroci :rate, whi ch demonstrated marked kidney damage.
He
referred t a another t e s t (Sull ivan, 1979) where r a t s intraduced t o
1 L9
c o ~ c 2 n t r a : i ~ n so f ff;e;.sc;'trat?
; n z r i n k c i : ~: ~ a t z ras :cw as s i x
.i
??n f 3 r
SZVZZ jay5
a i t 2 r 21 days.
izrzse x 13s ~
S ~ C W O7 3
~ r3~:9;c~i~2:
2 ,s
TI; j 5
Rats g i v e n sub-lethal dos2s o f f l u o r o c i r r a c ? i n
dr-inking water )lave been shown t o srow normally f o r seven months
and t h e n t o s u r v i x on a n i n t r a p e r i t o n e a i dose of
normal i y have been f a t a l ( P e t e r r , 1971 ) .
LO
rng/kg wnich dcuid
T h i s i ndi cac3s t h a ~a
c 2 r t s i n t o l e r s n c s f o r f l u o r ~ ctraze
i
mzy be deveiopea.
S ~ u a2s
i ii
by A t z e r t a l s o shcw t h a t regeated s1~b-121ha; dss2s of ~ o n o f l u o r o -
a c 2 t a t 2 h a v e increased che t a l e r a n c e o f scme s g e c i e s ,
e a g l e s , r a t s , mica and possibly rbesus nonkeys.
l.g.,
9 o1l Ad a, .q
Repea tzd s u b - i e t h a l
dosss of ~ o n o f ? u o r o a c e t a t ei n dogs, guinea p i g s , rabbi^; ana ~ al alr d
ducks, hcwever, accumulatod t o l e t h a l l e v e l s .
3 r . 3ogusky ?oinc?d
o u t ~ h a ethe reason more data ~wasn't avai l a b 1 3 o n rlhether f l ~ o r o a c s ~ ~ : ~
a c c u m u l a ~ e swas because i; ,das s o tox'c 2nd c h a t animals i n :he ,di:d
would n o t normally r z c s i v e x p e a t e d jub-lethal d o s e s .
Issue 6
139. Sodi urn rnonofl uoroacetate i s a xhi t 2 , ordor? e s s , powdery, f 1 uoro-
organic s a l t s i m i l a r in apgearanc? t o f l o u r , pcwderad sugar
baking powder.
3r
I t i s e s s e n t i a l l y t a s t e l e s s , h a v i n g o n l y a mild
s a l t y , sour o r vinegar t a s t e t o i n d i v i d u a l s .
I t i s highly s o l u a o l e
i n w a t e r , b u t r e l a t i v e l y i n s o l u a b l e i n o r g a n i c s o l v e n t s such as
kerosene, a l c o h o l , acetone, o r i n animal and vegetable f a t s and oi 1 s .
Sodium f l u o r o a c e t a t e i s absorbed t h r o u g h the g a s t r o i n t e s t i n a l t r a c t ,
t h r o u g h open wounds a n d the pulminary e p i t h e l i u m , the l i n i n g covering
a i r ??ssag?s i n t h e l u n g s .
1:
ij
5o.c
r e 2 c i . i ~3bszr5als' 2 ~ n r g u g h
cata
due t o rhe scrongth of tho c ~ r b o n - f l a o r j c e kona.
(finding 181 ) , however, indicat? t h a t iluoroacecate broaksdown i n
the s o i l , being deccm~osedby e r t a i n s o i l b a c t e r i a .
Sodium
fluoroacetate poisoning i s characlzrized by a l a z n c y period o f
from one-half hour co clrlo $cur3 a f t 2 r insestf on, ~ h i c hi s r e l ~ t e d
co tne me~akoli c prqczss2s gescri bed akove ( f in d i ng 1 5 6 ) .
usual 1 y ldi thi n 24 hours a i w r ingestion.
Death is
Dr. Barry ?umack, Associ a 2
i'rcfesscr of Pediatricr a t tne Universixy of Colorado, Ui reczor o f
the Rocky ILlountain Poison Control Center, Denver and a ~~virlnessf o r
Jefenders, : 2 s ~ i f i s d t h a t he d i d noE c ~ n s i d e rsodium f;uoroacetats
r o be an acc!irnulative p o i s o n in the c h r ~ n o l o g i csense.
fie indicatob
t h a t the l a z ~ n c ygeriod in a numan may be a s long 3s =ive hours.
2GO. Reported deaths a t t r i b u t a b l e t o 1020 have been in connection ( ~t hi i 2
use as a rodenticide r a t h e r than us2 as a prsdacide.
Dr. Rumack
( f i n d i n g 199) contended t h a t t h i s was i r r e l e v a n t because ICSO was
hishly toxic however used.
H2
t e s t i f i e d t h a t 7080 poisonings wer?
d i f f i c u i t t o diacjnos2 and t h ~ zany
t
goisonings were l i k z l y t o go
unreported.
Evidence in the record i s to the e f f e c t t h a t individuals
handling or exposed to 1080 i n connection with precaration of b a i t
s t a t i o n s o r t a x i c c o l l a r s did not s u f f e r any i l l e f f x t s provided
proper precautions such as wearing protective clothing were taken.
For example, Mr. Charles Howard (finding 71 ) ruptured the r e s e r v o i r
frcm a t o x i c c o l l a r i n the process o f adjusting o r removing a c o l l a r
4
fr?m a goac, sp;
with air;.
.*.
i
.
! I ng
;he
j ~ l u C j , : n ,;n :?j 5 iafirjs.
,-e trashed h i s
"
Nr. 2andal l ast ti if e i that i n che caurse o f injec:i,~g
meat b a i t s w i t h 7C80 s o l u t i o n , t h e solution 4r?qu2nzIy s?i173d cn
his pants and shoes.
He suffered na i l l e f f e c t s .
201. Mr. Glenn Oahien, a Gunnison County, Colorado, Deputll Sheriff
became i l l and began hal1ucina:ing
a f t 2 r handling a 9ieco o f eat
i n a p i a s t i c %rapper i n t h e c m r s e of inveszisa-;i!~ga c c m o l a i ~ t
concerning z n e poisoning o f same dogs.
:l!r. 3 a h I s n &as hospicaiizec,
t r e a t z d and rel~assd. Subsequent x s z s r2vealed t h a t ~ h exeac
contained 7080. A ? chougn 'lr. BanJen did not touch other ckan che
wrapper i n which e i n g
admi ni scered scdi urn f7 u o r o a c s ~ a ~ z 0f
. cznc2rn her? i s ,he 3 s s ? r r i on
t h a t an animal administered 1080 i s i n agony.
depend on whether the animal i s c m s c i o u s .
be answercd with c e r t 3 i n t y from evidmc:
This would seen co
While t h i s question cannot
i n the record, Dr. gurnack,
describing t h ? smptcms of lGSO poisoning, szatad rSa1 pati2nz; o i t a n
complain of a t a r t , sour t a s c 2 i n heir x o u ~ n s . He ass2rt2d c n a t :Re
unpleasan-c
:=st2
ivas soon i o l lowed by nausea z n d i s r v c m i ~ng
i , ;; ngl ;ng
sensations in che nose, spreading t o the ams and legs and f a c i a ;
numbness.
S ti 11 1 a x r , i n morg serious ~ osoni
i ngs , the pazi z n t s u f f ~ r - s
soasinodic muscle c c n t ~ a c t i o n sfollowed
3y
generalized s e i z u r s .
Dr. 2urnack explained chac t h e most serious 1080 sympxomz prjrnari 1y
involve the c ~ n c r a lnervous s y s t m and t ~ cardiovascular
e
systsm
that
aft27
and
the numbness, t i n g l i n g , lccntractions a n d s e i z ~ r e sr e f z r r l d
t o a b o v e , pazients may a l s o s u f f e r from agitacicn foliowed by de?rsssed
consciousness and eventilally ccma and d e l t h .
I t i: the hyi;2r3cti1licy,
muscle contractions and seizures t h a t g i v e the vi2vter the impression
t h a r an animal dying from 1080 i s in a s o n y .
In t h i s ccnnection, the
only apparent mention o f pain in the hospital record of Shelley Voodward
( f i n d i n g 204) i s ,dhen she began t o recover a f t e r 53 hours.
i n any
e v e n t , a n i m a l s caught i n t r a p s and snares and wounded, b u t not k i l l e d ,
a f t e r being s h o t , a r e a l s o l i k e l y t o be i n agony.
226.
,2,:
. .
, ,
:hcc;gn !,(ycmini; has app; i z d =;r c ~ ; ?rcci
Y s;.ra<:
, .
on
-
,-
ST,
m u c n p s z f i ~;:,?'
in a snear posz fomulazicn, water. 3lr. 3ur5ee
Cescri bed a smear ? a s t
2s
'
a 4 x 4 post i n t o ~,vhichholes werg d r i ? led
or whicn was scored with an axe i n order to hold scenr nat2ridl acd
which was p l a c d i n the c2nter of an a p p r o x i n a t ~ l y2:-squar2
fcot
~ n c l o s u r e . He explained t h a t f i v e barbed t,vires Idere uszd f o r enclosing
the post i f the post was used on sheep range and four i f the 8;ost
The52 wir3s %er2 f o r the pur?ose o7 keeqing i i v e s m c k
on c a t t l e range.
away from the oost
ar,d b i r d s .
3rd
~ o u l dn o t prevent 2nrr-y by jogs, ima;l ~ a , m a l s
The f o n u l a z i o n used was m o ouncgs o f 1380 3
scsnt n a t e r i a l .
*as
3 221 :on
of
Mr. 3urgee r 2 f e r r ~ dt o the s c a q~ a t e r i a l us& as Y-W
w i t h o u t filrther explanaiion.
;-le indicatzd t h a t there was lanolin in
the formulation, t h a t i t readily stuck zo ~ h eposz and :hat
would be s u f f i c i e n t to t r e a c a; 12ast three posxs.
on2
~allon
Smear 7 ~ ~ x
would
8
be placed near driw s t a t i o n s ( d e b d 1 ivestock) , t h o intenz k i n g t h a t
coyotes would be a t t r a c t e d t o the post by the scent material and in
\
the course of licking i t would receive a lethal dose o f 1080.
lu';,oniingls
application i s s i l e n t a s t o the scent o r a t t r a c t a n t t o be used and the
adhesive t o enable the formulation t o s t i c k t o the post.
and cold-weazner xonths.
Se indjcato?
:gat
Torn s 3 u i d be ~ s ? d
depending on predation and the nunber o f sheep.
Given ;he corrsn; i o s
o f horses, which he referred t o as "tankers" and )/nich he used a i ICE0
b a i t 5 p r i o r t o 1972, and the f a c t t h a t t h e rancher usually i ~ r n i s h e drhe
p o s t s and r i re, #r. 3urgee i e s t i f i e d chat iiiiear posts were chedper than
dlzhough his experience :vi rb smear pcs:s
b a i t starions.
three cons:rr;cted
Has
li.ni t e d t o
for experimental pur7oses in t h e ai n ~ e ro f 7 G56-57,
Nr. Burgee t e s i i f i e d chat chey ere e i f x t i v e , a s s e r : ~ng :he:
rte had
w a i l e d and idenrified by green aye coyores t h a t were tillsd 5y :ne
smear pos-s.
%e s t a t e d :ha:
ne had ? o t found any non-tar;ec
n e i r smear posts because ihere *as 1 e
during cbe win;-?re
3nina:i
--.
i r no non-'.zrgec :,ra:Tic
-7
-.
35;
TO CONTROL STOCK-KILLING C O Y O T E S
SHEEP
OR GOATS IN THIS AREA A R E W E A R I N G
NECK C O L i A R S T H A T CObITAIN A P O I S O N , C O M F O U N O 1080
(Sodium Fluoroacetaie)
DO NOT TOUCH COLLARED LIVESTOCK,
COLLARS, OR DEAD AN1,MALS.
DO NOT R.EI,EASE LIVESTOCK
I
i
-EL V E N E N O ,
4
COMPUESTO 1080,
.
J
E S T ~EN UN C O L L A R T ~ X I,C
OEN LAS O V E J A S 0 CABRAS .QGE
ESTAN ATADAS
NO TOQUE LOS ANIMALES, LOS
MUERTOS. NO SUELTEAl!.w.4S
OVEJAS
0 CABRAS,,
. 2 1 1 j
)
3
J
>
) - -
I
0
i.n
i
5
-5
5 5.
in - w
0
J
LL
.a
--hm
--'.
a
m
a c t
o ro
3
m
I
,-t
P,
-
x
--'-
< fi
C D O
ad
L n <
r I ill
a-s
i
0 - 5
~
0
3 r t U1
0 0
0
---r
<
3 m
C l n
-0 C-t
-i>
n
ID
cto
mc n
a
0-50
lil 13-I
3
-'.
-*
c-t h c l 2 . 2.
-
-0 3 ol
D. -5
I
-
13
3
rl
1L
0
2
a-5
I0
n--I
0
-2-
A
2.
aas.
'-+mnJ
olo
3 3
(U21C-i
er,
a r t m
d
.
o
-h
l-i
I n 0
9.
tihere c21 i a r s a;-E i n US?, ? ~ C Rl o ~ i c a lp o j r t o f access ;;all 3 2
cons;.ic~cuslj/ pcsred :v.i :h a ~ i i n; p a l ( E n g l i sh/S;anl s h ) ;.iarninqn: ;
no^ I e s j cnan 3" x 19" i n s i z s .
Sich sicjns s n a l l be inspecc?~
weekly to i nsurs chei r csnxinued presenco and I egi h i 1 it y , and :ri 1 1
be removed when c o l l a r s ore rmoved.
10.
Each c o l l a r i n use s h a l l be inspected by the a p p l i c a t o r a t l e a s t
once a week t o insure t h a t i t i s properly positioned and unbrok3n.
11.
Damaged a r broken coil a r s shall be removed from the f i e 1 d and ei the?
returned t a the manufacturer f ~ rre p a i r or disposed o f properly.
12.
Disposal o f ?unctured o r unserviceabla c s l l a r s and contamjnated
animaT remains, vegetation and s o i l shall be acc~rnu1ishedby deep
burial a t a safe l o c a t i o n , preferabiy on property owned or managed
by the appl i c a t o r .
13.
A l l persons authorized t o possess and use 1080 c o l l a r s snail s t o r e
such c o l l a r s under lock and key i n a d r y place away from fooa, Peed,
domestic animals and corrosive c h m i c a l s . Collars q ~ i 7 1not be jtcred
i n any s t r u c t u r e occupied by humans.
-.
7
% i t s j h a i l be pro?arzd, s o l d or t r a n s f 2 r r z d and usza c n i y by
Feaer-21 g r Staz3 employees responsibi? i3r 5 n i i r a j t a ~ a g ec ~ n s r 3 1
( , G C C ) , 'clno a r 2 cer-,i-;'i SCI q p ' i icztgrf.
(a)
-
T r a i n i n g i n i a 7 ~hand1 i ng and q i a c m e n z
3 f
iri~s,
(j) i r a i n i n g i n d i s o o s a ! o f b a i ~ r ,c s n ~ m i n a 2 a: n ; ~ a l
rornai ns , and ancmi n a c d 'ie.;ecaci
f
far sr3c;iczl
:r?:cx.n:
( c ) I n s ~ r u c tons
numans and Icnssi7 c 2n!zial s ,
d .
( c ) 1,is;ruc~ions on ~ ~ ~ k3s erp i ng
L
-
12n 2nd
;c;
I,
-
c i 1223 ;o; ;onips :n
s.
% i t s s h a i i c o n ~ a i na n i n z c t i \ l e :ye una",",rzc=iv?
i d 2 r r t i f i a o l ~by humans.
6.
Saics snai 1 j e ? l s c ? d o n l y a f t ? ? , ~ e r i ; ' i c a ~ i o n5 : ~F?a?ra'I 3r S t 3 ~
AOC p e r r a n n e l t h a ~a c g y c t ? k i l l o r k i l l s i a v e c c c u r r o d . 521 ?c:ion
of b a i ~j i t z s ~ c 313cz'i:snt
d
;hall be o n l y by q u a l i f i 2 d ACC 7 ~ r s o n n e l
wno are c ~ r zf ii ed z?pl i cacsrs .
7.
aai-ts shaii iloc
8.
Z a i t s i n a y b e p l a c ~ di n c o n j u n c t i o n with araw s t 3 t i o n s ( ~ n i a a l
czrcass2s). However, not more chan ?do b a i c s s n a l 1 be g l a c d 2 :
any one draw s c a t i o n and no Tor? than one of such s t t c i g n s ar ?do
b a i t s shall be located on one s2ccion (540 acres) o f l a n d .
9.
B a i t s s h a i i be c o v e r e d w i t h cow c n i p s , s t o n e s , Srzss o r hay 3 r
eirnil?r maioria.1 s . !f b a i t s c a n n o t be covered. i a i c s w i 11 not be
::,i i r d s 2nd r?:~,:
p l z c e d w i t h i n 300 i e e x o f ope9 ( ~ a t e or r near2r
than one ni1e t o occgpied human swellings.
p-iated.
1 2 - Nhen b a i c s a r ? ' ~ i x z d each
,
logical ;a;nt 07 Zccssr j h a i i ke
conspicucus::/ ?os:=!
:gi t h 3 5i 1 in p a l (Engl i s h/Spzni sn) ~,.rarni
ncj s i si:
n o t less than 3" x 10" i n s i z o . S i g n s w i 7 1 b e inspectzd ~ e 2 4 1 ;2~n d
w i l l be r m o v e d ahen b a i t s are removed or- deter;nined
have been
cansurried.
2 .
;1CC perscnne: ;ha1 1
rzcsrcs of :he 'I?liilz?r, 13~3::'377
~ I a c s a , A 3 2 1 2 i 12c nao jhowirlg :ac.tior; c f
S a i x placgd s n a i l a l s o be nainrained.
ana a a t s sai ts
14.
~ S S Dlrlri ct.5
'rue72
,
2egorts C T.. 17man
i n j ~ r i e s3nd of a i : a n i g a l s z s ~ n t, a r ; e ~
a s non-sarges, ~i
:1 5e ?a62 2y XCC :ersaccel l o ,?$ a r :ne
~ p p r c p r -az2
i
S i310 r 2 z u i azsry a g e m y .
2:
-
-
,dell
| File Type | application/pdf |
| File Title | Notice of Hearing on the Application to Use Sodium Fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) to control Predators |
| Subject | Notice of Hearing on the Application to Use Sodium Fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) to control Predators, FIFRA Docket No. 502 |
| Author | US EPA/Office of Administrative Law Judges |
| File Modified | 2007-12-10 |
| File Created | 2007-12-06 |