DOCSLIB.ORG

Protection of Coniferous Seeds from Rodents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Protection of Coniferous Seeds from Rodents - , A reprint from WILDLIFE AND REFORESTATION IN THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST , T Hugh C. Black hI'S f ile W Ab ' as c out T iV1iss reat hi.s F cans ed b ile· I·de y sca , h o ntI·.(:· nn " We. v lle. d ing t - er, S bY th he P Otne e so rint tnls ftw a ed P take re h Ublic s tna ave atio y rern be en n \ ain. Cor recte d, : I SYMPOSIUM PROCEEDINGS 1969 COPIES OF THESE PROCEEDINGS are available for $3.00 each from School of Forestry Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331 SCHOOL OF FORESTRY OREGON ST ATE UNIVERSITY PROTECTION OF CONIFEROUS SEEDS FROM RODENTS M. A. Radwan Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Expt. Sta. Olympia, Washington ABSTRACT Methods for protecting coniferous seed from rodents are reviewed. These include mechanical devices, poison baits, toxicants and repellents, and biological control. The review suggests the need for strengthening research on the protection of seeds, because today, available methods for the control of rodents arc inadequate. INTRODUCTION concentrations of the formulation does not impair the effectiveness of the bait (W. E. Dodge, personal Regeneration of conifers from seed is often delayed or communication). More infonnation is needed to accurately entirely prevented by various biota that destroy the determine levels of rodent populations that require baiting before the seeding of conifers and whether baiting is really disseminated seed before germination. The destructive agents · include seed-cating rodents, birds, insects and other necessary when seeds are treated with endrin . invertebrates, and fungi (2, 6, 14, 17). Although the \ Today, control of rodents is possible only for short periods depredation by these agents varies by area, seed species, and of time with poison baits, because elimination of the initial year, seed-eating rodents, especially deer mice (PeromysclIs sp.), rodent populations is incomplete and reinfestation from shrews (Sorex sp.), ground squirrels (Citelllls sp.), and untreated areas is often rapid. Control may sometimes be chipmunks (ElIlumias sp.) are generally recognized to cause the effective if buffer strips are included in the baiting operation greatest losses of seed in the Pacific Northwest. Although we (8)-or by rebaiting (24). Also, poisons today are hazardous to have measures to protect seed primarily from rodents, valuable nontarget species, antidotes are ineffective against primary and seed is still lost to them and to other destructive agents. If, secondary poisoning of nontarget species, and warning however, the actual causes of the loss of seed and effective symptoms are absent after ingestion. The University of chemicals to protect seed from each of these agents can be more California at Davis is now experimenting with Diphacin accurately determined, surely a mixture of chemicals can be (Diphacinone) at concentrations of from 0.005 to 0.05 percent formulated to protect seed from all the destructive agents. Until in oats. This chemical is a slow-acting anticoagulant and its then, a thorough knowledge of available methods of protection antidote is vitamin K-I. It is considered much safer than the will help to guide our present and future efforts. acute poisons, and preliminary experiments in California show it as effective as 1080. DISCUSSION Compound 1080, directly applied at low concentrations to coniferous seed, has successfully protected untreated seeds Mechanical Methods because, after a sublethal dose of the bait, the rodents Seed in seed spots has been protected, with variable subsequently avoid the seed (25). Similar experiments with success, by many mechanical devices. These include mulches 1080 (15) and tetramine (3) failed, however. Consequently, the (26), paper pieces (7), and beer cans· (I I ). hypothesis of aversion to protect direct seeding or natural Wire screens, made of hardware cloth, or window screens seedfall appears unpromising today. provide the most practical protection, mechanically (12, 16 ). Addition of chemosterilants to poison baits to inhibit the Some screens are partially closed at the top and do not require reproductive ability of rodents that survive the toxicant has not removal after the seed germinates (21). Screens, securely been tried. This approach might be possible, if suitable anchored with stakes, can withstand some trampling and frost chemosterilants were available. heaving. Although they offer positive protection from rodents and birds, screens do not protect the seed from insects or fungi. Direct Application of Toxicants and Repellents to the Seed For many years, chemicals have been applied directly to Poison Baits seed to protect it from rodents. Compounds tested in early A formulation of oats or wheat, with thallous sulfate or trials included borax, carbolic acid, iodoform. naphthalene, sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and a coloring material, has been quinine, tannic acid, zinc chloride,. zinc phosphide, and 1080 devised to control seed-eating rodents (8. 18). (22, 26). Recently, the U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Now, most poison baits for rodents on forestlands in the Wildlife tried tetramine and endrin. Pacific Northwest con tain Compound 1080. It is applied to Tetramine was obtained by the Bureau's Denver Wildlife grain (usually soft. white wheat) at 2 ounces for each 100 Laboratory from the Bayer Company in Germany in the early pounds for hand distribution of from 2 to 4 pounds of grain for 1950's. At first, the chemical was applied by soaking seed in an each acre, and at 10 ounces for each 100 pounds for aerial acetone solution for I hour. Later the treatment was changed to application of Y2 pound for each acre. The basis for these coating the seed with the chemical. The number of seedlings formulations and rates of application is not clear, although the produced from treated seed shows that both treatments original basis for th concentration of the formulation centered protected the seed somewhat (4, 9). The treatments, however, on the development of a bait that contained enough poison on sometimes inhibited seed germination (5, 19) and did not one grain to kill a mouse. Recent tleld trials by the U. S. Bureau protect seedlings, unaffected at germination, from rodents as of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife have shown that reduction in the originally claimed (19). Also, the Bayer Company discontinued 52 , manufacture of the chemical, mainly because of its extreme Another approach to the protection of seed with chemicals toxicity. Tetramine, therefore, became unavailable for further has been tried. Laboratory studies at the University of seed treatment. California showed that deer mice detect seeds by sense of smell Endrin to protect coniferous seed has been recommended (10). Possibly, then, the odor of the seed could be masked with by the U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife since 1956. a chemical to make the seed undetectable by rodents. A coating at 0.5 percent concentration (active ingredient from As our knowledge of factors that affect preferences of 50 percent wettable endrin powder), with an adhesive (Dow rodents and birds for seed increases, the application of naturally latex 512 R or Rhoplex AC33) to hold the ingredient to the occurring compounds as repellents may be possible. Such seedcoat and a coloring material (aluminum flake or monastral compounds, I believe, will be safer and more effective than the green pigment) is recommended. The treated seed is chemicals now available. identifiable, and feeding by some birds may be discouraged with this treatment. Sometimes, 2 percent Arasan has been added to Biological Control the formulation to protect the seed from disease, to repel birds, Introduction of predators or disease to reduce rodent and to increase effectiveness of the treatment against rodents. populations and thus protect seeds is among the possibilities for Essentially, seed is treated by either of two ways. A mixture of biological control. Today, however, such methods may lack the endrin (or endrin and Arasan) with the adhesive is applied sufficient promise for serious consideration. to the seed. Or the seed is moistened with the adhesive and the active ingredient is applied. The seeds are then coated with CONCLUSIONS AND RESEARCH NEEDS aluminum flake or coloring pigment. Then, they may be returned to containers or left to dry overnight. Methods now available for protection of coniferous seed The treatment with endrin protected the seed adequately from rodents are: (1) screens, (2) poison baits, and (3) endrin. from rodents and produced satisfactory regeneration of Each method has limitations that can be eliminated only Douglas-fir in several field trials (I, 4, 13, 20). The treatment, through research. Research is needed to: (I) reduce the cost of however, especially when Arasan was added, sometimes screens; (2) determine the minimum concentration of 1080 inhibited germination (23). Also, it protected ponderosa pine required for effective control of rodents, examine the value of seeds inadequately from chipmunks and ground squirrels. Some prebaiting, and introduce safer rodenticides with attractants and forest managers have recently indicated dissatisfaction with the chemosterilartts; (3) devise a more effective bird repellent for recommended treatment of 0.5 percent on Douglas-fir seeds and addition to the recommended endrin treatment; and (4) test, in have frequently increased t.l1e concentrations of endrin. the field, seed impregnated with endrin. Also, chemicals and For more than a decade, the endrin treatment of other factors that affect detection of and preference for seed by Douglas-fir seed has remained unchanged, except for the animals should be investigated. Such investigations may lead to elimination of Arasan. This fungicide apparently failed to nonchemical methods of protection or, to chemicals that are increase the effectiveness of the treatment as originally claimed safer and more effective than endrin. (1). Improvement of the treatment can be done by carcful evaluation, both in cages and in the Held, to determine: (I) the LITERATURE CITED best method for treatment of seed, (2) the minimum amount of endrin required for effective protection of seed, (3) the need for I.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1080 Sodium Fluoroacetate
    Wild dog facts 1080-Sodium fluoroacetate 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) is used to control wild The owner must ensure that signs are put up dogs, feral pigs, foxes, cats and rabbits in immediately before any 1080 baits are put out Queensland. It occurs naturally in a number of on the property. native plant species including Acacia georginae The signs must be placed at all entrances to (Georgina gidgee) and members of the the property and at the extremities of property Gastrolobium and Oxylobium genera. Sodium boundaries that front a public thoroughfare. fluoroacetate is a fluffy white material at room This must be done even if the adjoining temperature, which forms colourless solutions property is carrying out 1080 baiting. with water and is normally odourless. Signs must remain in place for a period of 4 weeks after baits are laid and permanent How to access 1080 signs are required for on-going or extended baiting program. Only authorised persons can supply 1080 baits to landholders.The use of 1080 is subject to strict Toxicity of 1080 regulatory control according to which: Dogs and foxes are highly susceptible to Minimum distances 1080, and the small amount required to No baits are to be laid within 5 m of a fenced target these species poses a minimal threat boundary. to non-target species. Feral pigs and rabbits No baits are to be laid within 50 m of the are also susceptible, although higher doses centre line of a declared road. are required. Table 1 compares the No baits are to be laid within 20 m of susceptibility of different animals to 1080.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Law and Vertebrate Pest Control
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Proceedings of the 1st Vertebrate Pest Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings Conference (1962) collection February 1962 FEDERAL LAW AND VERTEBRATE PEST CONTROL Justus C. Ward Director, Pesticides Regulation Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpcone Part of the Environmental Health and Protection Commons Ward, Justus C., "FEDERAL LAW AND VERTEBRATE PEST CONTROL" (1962). Proceedings of the 1st Vertebrate Pest Conference (1962). 25. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/vpcone/25 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings collection at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Proceedings of the 1st Vertebrate Pest Conference (1962) by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. FEDERAL LAW AND VERTEBRATE PEST CONTROL By: Justus C. Ward, Director, Pesticides Regulation Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Presented at the Vertebrate Pest Control Conference, Sacramento, California, February 6 and 7, 1 962 Shortly after the passage of the Federal Insecticide Act of 1910> mammal control specialists in the Bureau of Biological Survey began to consider a similar law to cover the chemicals with which they were concerned. Work on the project went slowly a nd spasmodically, but reached the point of having a Federal Rodenticide Act available for study and possible revision in 1928. At this time, the mammal control chemicals in use were limited to strychnine -- alkaloid and sulphate -arsenic, barium carbonate, th allium sulphate, phosphorus, s odium and calcium cyanide, carbon disulphide, and red squill.
    [Show full text]
  • Sodium Fluoroacetate
    United States Prevention, Pesticides EPA 738-R-95-025 Environmental Protection And Toxic Substances September 1995 Agency (7508W) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Sodium Fluoroacetate UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES CERTIFIED MAIL Dear Registrant: I am pleased to announce that the Environmental Protection Agency has completed its reregistration eligibility review and decisions on the pesticide chemical sodium fluoroacetate. The enclosed Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) contains the Agency's evaluation of the data base of this chemical, its conclusions of the potential human health and environmental risks of the current product's use, and its decisions and conditions under which this use and products will be eligible for reregistration. The RED includes the data and labeling requirements for products for reregistration. It may also include requirements for additional data (generic) on the active ingredients to confirm the risk assessments. To assist you with a proper response, read the enclosed document entitled "Summary of Instructions for Responding to the RED". This summary also refers to other enclosed documents which include further instructions. You must follow all instructions and submit complete and timely responses. The first set of required responses are due 90 days from the date of this letter. The second set of required responses are due 8 months from the date of this letter. Complete and timely responses will avoid the Agency taking the enforcement action of suspension against your products. If you have questions on the product specific data requirements or wish to meet with the Agency, please contact the Special Review and Reregistration Division representative Frank Rubis at (703) 308-8008.
    [Show full text]
  • 1080 Characteristics of Use
    1080 – Characteristics and use The following information provides details on the characteristics of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and its use in Western Australia 1080 is an extremely dangerous toxin with no effective antidote. Great care is required with its use Sodium fluoroacetate (commonly known 1080-baiting programs also have a long as ‘1080’) is used extensively as a vertebrate history of proven safety in Australia and New pesticide in Australia and New Zealand. With Zealand. In Western Australia, for example, care, and provided the directions for use are there have been few reports of concerns with followed, 1080 can be safely used to control human safety, environmental persistence, vertebrate pests with few potential risks to accumulation in the food chain, or adverse non-target animals or the environment. In impacts on non-target species. many instances, 1080-baiting programs are Why control vertebrate pests? the only viable strategies available for broad- Introduced vertebrates such as rabbits, foxes, acre control of vertebrate pests. wild dogs, and feral pigs have a significant 1080 was introduced into Australian rabbit and profound impact on agricultural control programs in the early 1950s. Since production and biodiversity in Australia, then, it has been shown to be highly effective including much of WA. These impacts include against a number of pest species, particularly soil erosion, crop and pasture losses, the foxes, rabbits, wild dogs and feral pigs. Well- spread of weeds, degradation of on-farm planned and executed 1080-baiting programs bush remnants, damage to tree plantations, usually achieve rapid, high-level population prevention of native plant regeneration and knockdowns.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Sodium Cyanide in Wildlife Damage Management
    Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Use of Wildlife Damage Management Methods by USDA-APHIS-Wildlife Services Chapter VII THE USE OF SODIUM CYANIDE IN WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT May 2017 Peer Reviewed Final October 2019 THE USE OF SODIUM CYANIDE IN WILDLIFE DAMAGE MANAGEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY USDA-APHIS Wildlife Services (WS) uses sodium cyanide (NaCN) to manage coyotes, red foxes, gray foxes, arctic foxes, and wild dogs that prey upon livestock, poultry, and federally designated threatened and endangered species or animals that are vectors of disease. This human health and ecological risk assessment is an evaluation of the risks to human health, nontarget animals, and the environment from NaCN use by WS. WS uses the M-44, the name for the ejector device that delivers a single dose NaCN from a capsule, to target canids. The M-44 is spring-activated and is actuated when an animal pulls up on the capsule holder; a plunger propelled by the spring breaks through a capsule with dry NaCN to deliver the contents into the mouth of an animal. The WS applicator baits the M-44 capsule holder sides to attract target canids. Sodium cyanide reacts rapidly with moisture in the mouth or mucus membranes of the nose and eyes to form hydrogen cyanide (HCN), a toxicant. One NaCN capsule contains enough cyanide to be lethal to animals through oral contact, inhalation contact, and moist dermal pathway contact. WS annually averaged the known take of 13,959 target canids and 362 nontarget species with NaCN between FY11 and FY15, recording 1,548,000 Method Nights with M-44s in 17 States.
    [Show full text]
  • Diagnosing the Cause of Failure to Eradicate Introduced Rodents on Islands: Brodifacoum Versus Diphacinone and Method of Bait Delivery
    Conservation Evidence (2011) 8, 100-106 www.ConservationEvidence.com Diagnosing the cause of failure to eradicate introduced rodents on islands: brodifacoum versus diphacinone and method of bait delivery John Parkes *, Penny Fisher & Guy Forrester Landcare Research, PO Box 40, Lincoln 7640, New Zealand *Corresponding author e-mail: [email protected] SUMMARY Two types of anticoagulant rodenticides have proven successful at eradicating invasive rats and mice from islands. Brodifacoum is the most commonly used and has a low failure rate both when delivered from the air and from ground-based systems. It does, however, present a risk to non-target animals such as birds. When such risk is not acceptable or cannot be mitigated, diphacinone has been favoured by some managers because it is less toxic to birds and less persistent in rodents. However, unlike brodifacoum, diphacinone requires a rodent to eat several baits over several days to ingest a lethal dose. This increases the risk that not all rodents will be killed. When data on attempts to eradicate rats and mice for both aerial and ground-based methods are combined, brodifacoum has a significantly lower failure rate at 17% (54 of 322 attempts) than diphacinone at 33% (13 of 39 attempts). The difference is more significant when just rats are considered. Ground-based methods show similar failure rates for both rodenticides, but to date the very few attempts using aerially sown diphacinone baits have had a high failure rate compared with that for brodifacoum. BACKGROUND Nevertheless, a large number of islands still have exotic rodents and invasion of rodent-free The rodents associated with human islands remains an ongoing problem (Russell colonization, house mouse Mus musculus , et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Compounds Used As Rodenticides Are Tremendously Varied in Their Chemical Structure and Mechanism of Action
    THE PHARMACOLOGY OF RODENTICIDES S. A. PEOPLES, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, Colifomio The compounds used as rodenticides are tremendously varied In their chemical structure and mechanism of action. With a few exceptions, these agents are generally poisonous to all animals, Including man, and a great deal of study has been directed to their toxicity In animals other than rodents. However, the development of new compounds as Norbormlde and certain antlfertlllty drugs which are highly selective In their action may justify the hope that the Ideal rodenticlde free of secondary toxic hazards will soon be available. Until this happy announcement Is made, a review of the pharmacology of the older com­ pounds Is In order to enable us to understand the limitations on their effectiveness and hazard. The tremendous chemical variety of the compounds precludes any obvious systematic grouping of the compounds for discussion so that I have arbitrarily divided them Into Inorganic, Organic, and Fumigants. The discussion of each one Is limited to the primary pharmacological mechanism of the toxic action and will only briefly mention Interesting but non-essential side effects. ORGANIC AGENTS The Anticoagulants The discovery that dlcoumarol was the active agent in the hemorrhagic disease caused by spoiled sweet clover has led to the synthesis of two series of compounds derived from coumarln (Olcoumarol, Coumachlor, Warfarin) and I, 3 lndandlone (Plndone or Plval). These chemical compounds differ In solubility, rate of absorption and duration of action but not In their basic mechanism of action. Their basic chemical structure is sufficiently similar to vitamin K that they competitively Interfere with Its conversion to prothrombln In the liver.
    [Show full text]
  • Retaining Or Retrieving Older and Trying to Identify Novel Rodenticides
    Retaining or Retrieving Older and Trying to Identify Novel Rodenticides Charles Eason Centre of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Lincoln University, Lincoln, and Connovation Research Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand Elaine Murphy Dept. of Conservation, Christchurch, New Zealand Shona Sam, James Ross, and Helen Blackie Centre of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Lincoln University, Lincoln, New Zealand Ray Henderson PestTech, Canterbury, New Zealand Lee Shapiro and Duncan MacMorran Connovation Research Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand Troy Gibson and Neville Gregory Royal Veterinary College, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom Daniel Conole, David Rennison, and Margaret Brimble University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand ABSTRACT: Anticoagulant compounds are likely to play an important role in the control of commensal rodents for crop protection and conservation for the foreseeable future. However, there are concerns regarding their persistence and the development of more widespread resistance. We are seeking to retrieve and retain older alternatives as well as developing novel rodenticides. Our three- pronged approach is, firstly, to improve the performance of older non-anticoagulant rodenticides, such as sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and zinc phosphide; secondly to optimise the performance of 1st-generation anticoagulants; and thirdly, to identify alternatives to anticoagulant rodenticides with the same mode of action as para-aminopropiophenone (PAPP), which was registered in New Zealand as a predacide in April 2011. Zinc phosphide was also registered in New Zealand for the first time in 2011, and combinations of ultra-low-dose cholecalciferol with first generation anticoagulants are being advanced to provide the performance characteristics of a 2nd-generation anticoagulant with a lower risk of bioaccumulation and secondary poisoning. KEY WORDS: 1080, cyanide, New Zealand, PAPP, para-aminopropiophenone, rodenticides, vertebrate pesticides Proc.
    [Show full text]
  • HRE05002-004.Pdf(PDF, 1.7
    1080 Reassessment Application October 2006 Appendix C Source: Landcare Research (1964). Control of poisons. Royal Society of Health Journal 84, 52-53. Keywords: poisons/non-target species/fluoroacetamide/livestock Occupational Health Bulletin: Sodium Fluoroacetate Compound 1080. New Series No 1 (revision of Vol.6 No 11, July 1962). 1967. Wellington, Department of Health. Ref Type: Pamphlet Keywords: sodium fluoroacetate/fluoroacetate/1080 (1969). Fluoroacetate. In 'Clinical toxicology of commercial products'. (M. Gleason, R. Gosselin, H. Hodge, and R. SmithEds. ) pp. 116-117. (The Williams & Wilkins: Baltimore.) Keywords: fluoroacetate/sodium fluoroacetate/diagnosis/treatment/acute toxicity Poisonings. 20. 1976. Surveillance 1976 No.4. Ref Type: Report Keywords: poisoning/1080/analysis/muscle/liver/livestock/witholding period Abstract: 1080 poisoning was in the public eye in Canterbury when sheep died after they were returned to a block pronounced "safe" after poisoning operations. About 160 ewes died out of 800, and 1080 poisoning was confirmed. It is reported that errors were made in the analysis of bait tested to determine if it was safe to stock. Recently a workshop on 1080 analysis was held at Invermay AHL. These are the recommendations for sampling: 1) Take the samples from the animals which are first to die in the outbreak even though they may be more autolysed. 2) The best specimens in order of preference are muscle, stomach contents then liver 1080 poisoning. 26. 1976. Surveillance 1976 No. 4. Ref Type: Report Keywords: 1080/poisoning/birds/persistence in animals/non-target species/secondary poisoning/humans Abstract: Recently, Canada geese around Lake Benmore were poisoned by oats impregnated with 1080 Diagnosis of 1080 poisoning in dogs.
    [Show full text]
  • Two Killers That Need to Go an Essay by Brooks Fahy, Executive Director of Predator Defense, and Diana Cornelius, Deputy Director of Predator Defense, May 2008
    Two Killers That Need to Go An essay by Brooks Fahy, Executive Director of Predator Defense, and Diana Cornelius, Deputy Director of Predator Defense, May 2008 We now we have the opportunity to outlaw two Quick Facts about Compound horrific poisons that threaten American wildlife, 1080 and M-44 Poisons companion animals, people and our national security. • Compound 1080 and M-44s are H.R. 4775, the Compound 1080 and M-44 Elimination extremely dangerous and inhumane. Act, is now before Congress. Both poisons—sodium • Compound 1080 is one of the deadliest fluoroacetate (commonly known as Compound 1080) poisons on earth and has no antidote. and sodium cyanide (the toxicant in devices called M- • Compound 1080 is a potential terrorist threat to water and food supplies. 44s) are used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s • These poisons are not selective—they Wildlife Services program to kill native predators that often kill non-target species including are perceived as threats to livestock. Formerly called endangered species and pets. Animal Damage Control, Wildlife Services kills some • People have been seriously harmed by M-44s and Compound 1080; at least 100,000 native predators each year such as coyotes, 16 people have died from exposure to mountain lions, wolves, bobcats, foxes, bears, Compound 1080. raccoons, and badgers. • Paradoxically, killing coyotes increases their numbers. Read letter by wildlife Wildlife Services’ love affair with poisons began with ecologist Dr. Robert Crabtree on the Coyote page of our website at the program’s inception in the early 1900s and http://www.predatordefense.org. extends beyond their use of sodium cyanide and • Rather than killing predators, ranchers Compound 1080.
    [Show full text]
  • 3017.0001 the Fluorides of the Actinide Elements
    ADVANCES IN FLUORINE CHEMISTRY VOLUME 2 EDITOR8 M. STACEY, F.R.S. A,Iaso~t Professor and tIead qf Deparlment of Chemistry, University of Birmingham J. C. TATLOW, Ph.D., D.Sc. Professor of Organic Chemistry, University of Birmingham A. G. SHARPE, M.A., Ph.D. Universi!~ Lecturer in Chemisto,, Cambridge WASHINGTON BUTTERWORTHS 1961 3017.0001 THE FLUORIDES OF THE ACTINIDE ELEMENTS Templeton, D. H. and Dauben, C. H. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 1953, 75, 4560 Carniglia, S. C. and Cunningham, B. B. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 1955, 77, 1451 Westrum, E. F. and Eyring, L. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 1951, 73, 3396 Feay, D. C. Some Chemical Properties of Curium, Thesis, University of California. See also U.S.A.E.C. Report, UCRL-2547, 1954 Eyring, L., Cunningham, B. B. and Lohr, H. R. J. Amer. CAem. Soc. 1952, 74, 1186 Yakovlev, G. N. and Kosyakov, V. N. Proc. 2nd U.N. Co~fc. Pc’a@d Uses Atomic Energy, Geneva, 1958, paper 2127, 28, 373, 1958 Asprey, L. B. and Keenan, T. K. J. Inorg. Nuclear Chem. 1958, 7, 27 Asprey, L. B., Ellinger, F. H. and Zacl~ariasen, W. H. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 1954, 76, 5235 Wallmann, J. C., Crane, W. W. T. and Cunningttam, B. 13. J. Amer. Chem. Soc. 1951, "/3, 493 Asprey, L. B., Ellinger, F. H., Fried, S. and Zachariasen, W. H. J. Ame~’. CheDz. Soc. 1957, ~, 5825 Asprey, L. B. and Ellinger, F. H. U.S.A.E.C. Report, AECD-3627, declassified 1954 Crane, W. W. T. U.S.A.E.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation-Attractants-Toxins-For-Improved-Target-Specificity-Control-Feral-Pigs
    Evaluation of Attractants and Toxins for Improved Target Specificity in the Control of Feral Pigs Report to the National Feral Animal Control Program P.G. Elsworth, J.L. Mitchell, R.W. Parker Robert Wicks Pest Animal Research Centre Department of Natural Resources and Mines Inglewood Qld 4387 August, 2004 1 Table of Contents Summary………………………………………………………..………3 Introduction…………………………………………………………...4 Current baiting techniques……………………………………4 Bait Substrate…….…….……………………………….4 Bait Attractants….……..…….….……………………...5 Toxins……………………….……….…………………..5 Delivery………………………………………………….6 Behavioural differences…… ………………..…………………6 Methods…………………………………………………………………9 Animal Ethics……… …………………………………………….9 Animal care and maintenance………………………………….9 A Target Specific Pig Bait…………………………………….9 Attractants trial…………………………………………….9 No-choice trial……………………………………………..9 Choice trial………………….………...…………………10 Non-target trial……………………………………..……10 Additional Toxins……………………………………………..11 Warfarin paddock trial…………………………………..11 Cyanide pen trial………………………………………..12 Results………………………………………………………………...13 Attractants Trial…………………………………………………13 No-choice Trial………………………………………………….15 Choice Trial……………………………………………………..15 Non-target Trial…………………………………………………16 Warfarin Paddock Trial…… …………………………………..21 Cyanide Pen Trial………………………………………………21 Discussion………………… …………………………………………24 Acknowledgements…………………………………………………25 References……………………………………………………………26 2 Summary Feral pigs (Sus scrofa) are an environmental and economic pest across Queensland. Current baiting programs primarily use meat baits
    [Show full text]