-0 -. UEl iTE3 STATES €ti'/ i?O!iPii#TAL PROTECTIOH ih=.\lCy 

3EFlzRE -YE J,~)iI~ISP~JTC? 

In the /4atczr of ,) 

Noticc of Hearing on the FIFFW 9ocket No. 502 

Applications t3 Use Sodium 

il uoroace~ate (Covpound 10aO) ) \ 

To Control Predators i 

, Initial Oecisicn - 

This is 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) ) , to recons7 cer 

- 

rne Administr~tor's order (P4 72-2, Harch 9, 1972, 37 F?, 5713, 

"arch 18, 1972) suspending and cancelling ihe registrations of sodium 

fl uaroacezare (Cs~pound 1086) for the control of pr2dacors . The cr-oceodi na 4 

was triggered by appi icacions i~r regi stration or erner2eccy sxempcicn dncer 

Secs. 3 and 18 of the Act, fi led by the iish and 'riildl if. Ser.~ice of ih2 

U.S. Oepartinent of Interior, and ihe States of Xoneana, South Oakora and 

-1 2yornming. i ne Administrator's Setowinaxion to hold i nearing sn che 

applications and the issues to be csnsiderzd (Atxacbnenc A) srs set 

ior~h in ;he Xotice of Hearing, da~ei Uecember :, i9E: (16 F?, lo. 232, 

December 7, 1981 , at 59,622, et s2q. ) . The issues to be addressed aer. 

expanded to include smear posts as a delivery mechanism by notice, dace:! 

March 3, 1982 (47 FR Eio. 47, Piarch 10, 1982, at 10,258). 
This ~race~dins i jeing concucwd under 32 Zules 9f ?mctic2 

8 - joverning hearin~s under ~n2 r2cer:i , Inszczicide, F~n~ic: ie 3r,d ?>acen?'c: 22 

??* Act (40 CF2 Part io~) and in ?articular Sujparz D ;?,ereof. In acc~rdanc2 

with hragraph 164.131 (a) , tne Adni ni srrator rcvi evded fne appi f caci ons 

for registra~ion 07 Compound 1080 and detnined thsi r?consideration of 3 

the suspension and cancellation order kas warranted. 

The cited secticn provides in par:: 

"The Administrator shall de12rnine thac such reconsideration 

is [warranted When he finds chat: (i ) the appl icanc has 

presmted sunstancia1 new evib2ncc 1,qhich aay ~at~t-i a: iy 

effect zhe ?rior cancellation or 3us;ension or&r and which 

was not avai lable to th? Adzi ni sfrator,at the tire he nade 

his final cancellatioj. or suspensian detminacion and (2) 

such evidencs could not, chrough the zxercise of due 

diligence, have been discavered by rhe partiss ta tne 

canc2llation or susgension proceeding prior TO che issuance 

of the final order." 

Paragraph 164.132(a) of tne Subpar: O rules orovides that ihe burden sf 

proof in the hearing shall be on the a~plicant or applicants who shall 

proceed first. This section further provides: 

"The issues in the hearing shall be whether: (1) substzntial 

new evidence exists and (2) such substantial new evidence 

requires reversal or modification of existing canceila~ion 

or suspension order. The deternination of these issues shall 

be made taking into account the human and environmental risks 

found by the Administrator in his ,canceiiation and suspension 

determination and the accurnu?ative effect of all past and 

present uses, including the requested use, and uses which may 

reasonably be anticipated to occur in the future as a result 

of grancing the requested reversal or modification." 

The ALJ ruled that, although the initial determination under 

Paragraph 154.1 31 (a) as to whether the evidence warrants reccnsi deraii on 
- of the sus9ensi;n 2nd czncellation order must b$ 5ased on .vid?nc? not 

.yai!?h?,l st the tim? of the scs~znsion arc! c~nce:i~ci~n xder 3f 7272, 

<he decision as to ~hether the zvic!?nce rquir-54 rev2rsal of ch? prior 

cancellation and sils~ension order would be xade on the entire rzcord. 

This ruling was based in part on the Administrator's decision conc2rning 

Applications to 4egister Sodium Cyanide for Us2 in the M-44 Device to 

Control Predators (FIFFZA Docket )lo. 382, September lo', 1975) , whersi n 

, the Admiqistrator ruled that avidence should not and c3u;d not be ignored 

simply becaus? it was not new since th? 1972 order, and in par;, Jn rhe 

fact that, a1 though the vai idi ty of the 1972 order is not ac issue, such 

order is nevertheless being reconsidered. The Acministra,tor detemined 

that all issues bearing on the 1972 order would be adjudicatsd herein, 

and the ?revisions of 40 CF4 164.131 (a) and 164.132(~), quot2d supr3, 

mus-i be read and interpretea in the i i,grl-, of xhe issues the Aaminlistrator 

1 has noticed for determination. issuesl such 3s che 2ffecCveness sf 

Compound 1080 large baits in reducing preda3io nand whez,ler the rrlsks 2-; 

primary and secondary poi soni ng were overest-ii-i~ated in 1972 car! hardly 

be addressed without considering, inter alia, 2videncc of the 2xtent of 

injury to non-target l~ildlife prior to 1972. In view of tne conciusions 

herein, howewr, no par'. of this decision is dependent upon the val idi ty 

of the ALJ's ruling in this respect. 

No r2gistrant or agrieved person filed timely objectjons to the 

1972 suspension and cancellation order and no hearing was held thereon. 

I. 

Active parties throughout this proceeding are the State of Nyorning, 

the Departments of Agriculture of the States of Colorado, ?i ssouri and 
- iirecon, ;he ',ies; '!i rginia Carmisiioner si Agncul csre, cne Zuni i ~joe, 

. . ;he Natiocal Cat:? sizn's >,ssoc;a~; on arcd afii 1 i a-Q- ,,= or similar ;rszniza~~ans 

--., thereto in 36 s~ates, the National %oolgrowers As;ocia:ion and 3~~11iat2s 

or organizations similar thereto in 13 stztes, the Public Lznds Council 

and the New Mexico Public Lands Council, vzrious individuals including 1 

11 

Dr. ',dalter soward- of the Universi~y sf California, the forecoing 

par-ci es referred to hersinafter as dyomi ng , et a1 . ; ;he States of Montana 

2nd South Dakota; the Fish and :Ji!dlife Servic?; Rznchers Supply, Inc. 

and The Toxi -Collar Company; Cr. Clai r E. Tsrri? 1 ; hlerican Farm 3ureau 

- Federation, ~nd Fam 3ureaus in che S~a~es of Hontana, Yew Nexico, i exas, 

Utah and Wyorni ng, hkraina~ter Ai3F; ~iati onai Animal Damage Control 

- Assaci ati on; Campbell Caunty Predatory issoci atian ; ; exai Cepartxenc ?f 

Agricui tur:!; ilew b\e;ii co Depart~ient of A~ri cul ture; Oef enders of 'ii 1 dl i ie , 

?lacionall IAucukon Soci ery , The Humane Society of the Uni t-d S tzres , The 

Arneri can Humane J~scci aci on, Animal Protection Insti tuze oi heri ca , 

Nationa'l Parks and Conservation Associati on, The Animal We1 fare !ns;i tute, 

-7 The Fund for Animals, )iatural Resources Defense Counci I, I ne Sierra 

Club, Yational Vi ldl ife Corimi ttee, Friends of :he Earth and Environmental 

Defense Fund, herei naf tor referred io as Deienders of 'Ni 'I dl i ie , et 31 . 

or Defenders; National Ni ldli fe Federation, hereinafter NNF; friends of 

I/ Dr. Howard, a witness for Wyoming, et a1 . in this proceeding, 

fi led-an application, dated December 17, 1981, for an experimental us2 

permit involving Compound 1080 in a Bait Delivery Unit (BOU) to control 

depredating coyotes. 
% 5 

Ir.imalz, Inc.; the United St3t.s cap art sen^ oi lsriculture 2nd the 17 1 

- L l 

nvircnnental Pra~ection Agency. 

Hearings oii this mattor comenc~d in 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 August 6, 1982. 

Based on the entire record, including the proposed findings and 

conclusions and briefs subrnirted by the parties, I find that che fol lcwing 

- 4/ 

facts are established: 

Fi ndi nas of Fact 

8 - 

Issue l(a) (Attachment A) 

1. Although dam on sneep losses to predaticn prior ts 1972 are 

fragmentary and inccrnplete, the most reasonable conclusion is 

- 2 In addition to briefs filed by active parties, amicus briefs 

vere ii led by the intematicnal Asiociai<on of Fish and Wi id1 i fe Aaencies, 

an inactive party, and by the Ohio Ceparmenx of Agriculture and the 

California Deparwent of Food and Agriculture. An amicus brief was also 

received from The Resources Agency of California, which is not a parry 

to this proceeding. . The Rules of Practice (?O CF? 164.31 (4) ) cemi t 

persons, who are not parties, to file amicus briefs by leave of the ALJ. 

Although the briei of The Resources Agency was not preceded or accompanied 

by an appropriate motion, the briei is accapted. Such a bridf may noc, 

of course, b2 used to introduce evidence into the record and facts alieged 

in the brief will be disregarded unless supported by the record. 

3/ Although the Plotice of Hearing specified that the hearing be 

conclcdded within 60 days, the parties found this schedule impossible to 

meet and the deadline for completion of the hearing was subsequently 

extended by the Adminisrrator to August 6, 1952. 

4/ Proposed findings not adopted are either rejected or considered 

unnecessary to the decision. Surmary and ,,detai 1 findings (Attachment 9) 

are to be read together. 
;-,hat silch 108525 ~2r3 OR <lie 3verage :./ithin the ran~e ;f ,3.9 

perc2nx t3 7.3 2ercsnt. 

2. ?iurrerous s",ildi?s and surveys have Sean csnduc"cd on sheep and lamb 

losses to predators sine? 197'. The most compr2hensive of these 

was the 7975 mail survey conductsd by the Statistical Reporting 

Service of the U. S. Department of A5ricul ture, hereinafter &a, et a1 . , 

. T- which gathered data on losses experienced by shew producers in 12 

westsrn szates in 1974 and wnich concluded, in~r alia, that average 

losses t2 coyotzs in that year were 8 percent cf lanbs and 2.5 

percent of sheep. Reported losses to other predators were 3.3 

percent of lambs and-0'.9 7ercent of sheep. . 

3. The Gee, et a1 . resui ts have hen questioned for ;he reason, among 

others, that fieid or biological studies in Kansas, Idaho, 9tah 

and Wyomi ng have resul t2u in findings of predatzr 1 asses of sheep 

and lambs substantially less than report2d by Gee, et al. for thos? 

states. Sioloqical studies are very expensive and c3n only cover a 

. . 1 imi ted area or number of flocks. Accordingly, it 7s concluded 

that the results of sucn studies cannot properly be extrapolated to 

larger areas, greater numbers of flocks, or to entire stat2s. The 

data from these studies is inadequate to reach any statistical 

conclusions and the most. that can be said is that the data provide 

an indication of loss trends. Iloreover, despi te extensive searches, 

some animals are simply missing and the cause of death or loss 

cannot -, be determined. Tastimony from ranchers is to the effect 

that for every lamb ki1 led by predators, which is located, there 

rn2y he a? many a5 two or three whose remains are never found. 
4. Lamb Izsszs r2p0r224 k;/ Sae, zt 21. incl;~de 7as55s incurr2d SeScr2 

as qxeil as after dockins. 32causa rany rancners naks no aetznpx to 

obtain an accurate counx of iamb numbers until docking ("is is 

alnost always true in range iambing situazicns), producer estimatss 

of losses to predators prior to docking mustbe viewed i~ri th some 

caution. !*areover, the record supports the cbnc1usion that few 

ranchers maintain complete and accurate records sn the causes af a!: 

1 oss2s . 

5. Much time and attention ai the hearing was del~oced co the problzn 

of non-response bias in conducting mail surveys, xnat is, ranchers 

suffering the highest predation losses or nost cgncerneci about 

przdation would be most likely to r3spond co the ques~ionnaire, while 

those suffering 1 izt-lie or no predation aight fail to 3ns~r the 

quest-ic~nai re. The Sta~i s-ci cal Rzporti ng S~r-ii ce of :he USDA has 

been conducting ~ai I surveys for inany years, hcwever, and must be 

re~arded as expert in the conduct of such surveys. Yoreover, the 

telephone and personal interview follow-up conducted with a sample 

of non-respondents, greatly redued, if it did not eliminaes entirely, 

non-respons? bias 2nd any contention that thos2 respcnding to the 

Gee, et al. survey were not representative of all sheep producers in 

the states surveyed i s rejected. The questicnnai re was constructed 

in sach a manner as to de-emphasize predation losses (producers 

being asked to state total losses first) and thus minimize prejudice. 
the ground that th? survey (tias inszitut2d 5; 3 res~i: 3f Csnsressicnai 

action sponscred by rspr?sentatives of ~est~r~ statzs and that its 

purposs, that is, to obtain data supporting reversal of the decision 

suspendi ng and cancell i ng regi strati ons of 1080 for grgdator control , Z 

was we1 1 known. The resulting pub1 ici ty and the ehocional cl imaie 

surrounding the issue of prgdator control arz alizged to qave resulftd 

-r l in exaggerated claims of predation ioss2s. ine evid?nce, kowev2r, 

does not establish thaz the purpose of ihe Gee survey was ca ab~ain 

reregi s~ration of 1080. Even if this was, the puroose or' :he survey, 

there is no evidence-that this a1 leged purpose xas kncem ta produc2rs ' 

or pub1 i ci zed outside of ',{ashi ngxon. 

7. Enphasi s has been ??aced on rne di ff'c~l~ies enc~~nwred by ?rgcucers 

in accurately detzmining the causes ~i deaths o? sheep and iambs. 

Xhile it is true, for example, thac most ranchers would have great 

difficulty in distinguishing deaths caused by disease from tho82 causzd 

by poisonous plants, experienced ranchers have little or no difficulty 

in determining predator Ioss2s, if the rerains are found within a 

reasonable time after the kill. Teeth or fang marks, indications of 

!z / 

- J 1 

flowing blood, bits of wool and evidence of a struggle are indices of 

5/ it is recognized that suffocation is the nornal cause of death 

resulting from coyotes biting the necks or throats of shee? and goats 

and that accordingly, blood flow may not be extensive. 
?rodatisn >/el 1 4ncwn i3 enchers. In the qeat ra;ori:y of ins;znces 

here i : ds cesn POS~~ ji Q 53 veri iy ~rzda~i~n i siies as recorxed 

by ranchers, i: has Seen cetomined thac tha cause of loss ;qas 

accuratzly reported. The assertion is mad2 that a sheep or lamb 

dying of other causes might be scaven~ed and thus incorrectly 

identified as a predator loss. Xhile this could happen if, for 

example an eagle or oiher carrion eaiing predator scaveng2d a 

carcass, it is unlikely in tho casa of coyoses because cseth zarks 

in the throat, characteristic 3i a coycte ki? 1, 1~0~13 be nisslng 

Noreover, such scar~nging rtould be mcrs ii kely to occur in che 

winter or colder months bec~use nost ,?recators prefar fresh meai in 

the sumer. It ii clear thac ie hignes: predrijnn losses io lmbs 

occur in rhe sumer. 

Rancners conscientious~y and in good faich sirive 4 I I, repor1 thei r IOSS~S, i ncluding 1 osses ?redatars. However, oec714-a ,A 4 A \- 

most ranchers do not maintain accurate records oi the cause of losses, 

their reports of predaticn 1 orses nay be uni ntentiona: ly i nflac-d 

due to faulty memory or "telescoping," incorrectly a~tribucing 

a loss or losses to one period of time, which, in fact occarrcd In 

another period. This would seem to be especially true of surveys 

asking for data on losses for several previous years or for a fiscal 

year. A fiscal year may bear no relationship to the rancher's 

production cycle, thus increasing the difficulty of accurately 

attributing losses to the period when the loss occurred. 
sheep and lambs lost to ,/arious causzs. ke indic5~2d th2c his 

report ~rovided reiiab12 indications of geographical areas and types 

of operations having the most predation and that the total number 

of producsrs affzcted was probably quite realistic, b~ause , most, 

- 1 I 

groducers wer2 alttarz of whether coyot~s werz pr2ying on their herds. 

Gee, 2t al. stated, however, that numbers of sheep and lambs lost to 

coyctes and numbers of procuc2rs with diffsrent levels ci loss 

must be considered mor2 caut'ously becaus2 the besree of 9roducer 

judgment is higher. - 

13. Under a71 che circumstanc~s, the aost serious obstacle ca acc2ptizg 

The Gee, 2; a1 . r2sul ts is the high level of iamb losses actri bux-: 2 

co pr2dation- For exanplz, in ?xczss of $5 percznz of ' lamb losses1 

I 

to all czuses in levada were attributd to predation, apprgximat2iy 

59 percent in Colorado, approximat2ly 54 percen in Utah 2nd approxirnaceiy 

56 percgnt in 'Ayorning. Because these losszs include pre-docking 

losses and substantial numbers of lamb dea~hs during that period 

are au2 to lambing complications, weather, disease, malnutrition, 

etc., these high reported predation losses are difficult to accept. 

Moreover, Gee, et al. state that while most of the large-scale 

operators reported losses from less than 5 percent to more than 20 

percznt, many sna11-scale producers had no predation problems at 

.-. all, and that 5,000 or about one-tenth of the west's sheep ranchers, 

.I 
-, rspor~od i~si2~ exceeciln~ 10 7erz2nt cf Izrnzs xrn. ~i ;i cl?a~ 

- - ma: hi:n prsda;;~n s zre SL-rerea 5y 3 ?:nor!ry cf ir~~~>~s/~. 

11 . Combined sheep 216 1 ai:b 1 osies is a1 1 cizses in 15 :.ies'.?r-~ ;:a:es 

have remained stable during rne 7eriod 1960-81, constiiur1,n3 8.9 

percent of the January 1 inventory plus lamb crop duriig the years 

1960 to and including 1971 and 9.0 percenr from the period 1972 to 

and including -1,981. if lamb losses are separated from sheep :csies, 

sheep losses ts a11 causes jn 15 western jtaces have declined from 

an average of 7.9 percenc during the period 1560-71 to an average of 

6.9 percent during the period 1972 to and including 1981 . The 

rec5rd will not suppart a fjnding that average prehtian losses in 

these stares io sheep or to sheep and lambs ccmoined have increased 

sine? 1972. Lamb losses lo all causes as a perceni of lamr crop 

have increased from an average oF 10.G perceni dur-ing in2 2erigd 

1960-71 to an average of 12.3 ?ercent during the period 1972 to and 

including 1981. Wnile this night support an inference chat iamb 

losses to predators on an overall basis have increased since 1972, 

the record 'does not establish that this is so. Lamb 10sies to 

predators as a percent of losses to all causes have not increased 

since 1972. In facc, lamb losses to predators appear to have 

decl i ned si nce 1978. Individual producers have, hcwever , suffered 

increassd predation losses since 1972 and for some producers it is 

clear that predation is a very serious problem. 
12 

Ijsues i(5) and (c) 

it could be inferred thac cattle losses to predators were not 

a ?roblem prior to 1972, predator losses cf calv?s have increased 

since 1972. Texas is by far the largest goat producing state and r - 

the evidence supports the conclusion that losses sf sozts to 

predarorz in Texas have increased since 1972 and thar losses of 

goars to predators as a percat of losses to all c3oszs hsve also 

increased 1972. It does qpeay, however, that ?csses of gcats 

to predarors decl rnea in Texas in 1981 . 

13. Coyotss are by far the principle caus;! of preaaTor losses t3 lives-lock. 

Foxes and/or feral doss Jay be significant ca~szs gf przdation i7 

isolatsd instances. Whero predation is causzd by "fsral iogs" it 

is usually packs of dornescic dogs wnich hav? s~rayed frcm nearby 

towns or communities . 

Issue 2 - Zfficacy 

14. The use of 1030 in toxic collars is 1 i kely to reduce predation in 

- 7 instances where sheep or goats are cjrazed in ienczd past9res. Ine 

toxic collar is unlikely to reduce predation on open ranges because 

of the difficulty of targeting predator attacks to collared animals. 

1 Compound 1080 in single-lethal dose baits (SLDs) has not been 

utilized for the control of predation in the United States. Similar 

baits containing strychnine, rzferred to as drop-baits, were 

% - 

extensively utilized for that purpose prior to 1972. Because of the 

concurrent use of strychnine baits and 1080 large-bait stations, it . 
A '.". ~~;c-lt tg L;--~-<n~ ia~~i ,,I , llL 21:2 . . (3f -,- :~C~;.j=_f?~-~ . . t;y +i.fbzr c-nj-~ol 7ethod. 

- 4 

;kzs con+,ai ni ng 1 zSu zrz uszd c-nc-rr?-,tl y :?/i '-,h 7 i;aa 1 arvz-5ai t stst' sn,s 

, . in Bri tisn Ccl,;;;;bia fr~r the csntrgl 3f :oyo<ss l,vcl v.8 zfiz ; i; 

Austrailia for the control of dingoes. Expert ceszimcny sst2biishes 

that SLDs containing Compound 1C80 could be used in conjunction with 

appropriate scents, 1 urzs or draw stations to remove parti cul ar 

-, depredating coyotzs. Ice effectivefiess of Si9s in xhese circ~mstances 

would not be 62pend~nt ypon ivhether the livescock :ere grazed in 

fenc~d ?zstxr?s or on open r2nges. 

1 The evidence does not eszabl i sh chat use of' Conoound 1080 in largebait staticris is an 2.ffec~ive netnod of predator con;-lrol . Thi s 

conclusion is Sassd upcn che fact that 1ar3ed~ai t .stzt-icns dr2 

intmded to suppress area or rqional coycte scpuiazi3ns dnd zhe 

evi dencg i nai cates that chi s pur~os 5 has not been accompi i shed. 

I i $41 though i c is clear ~hac no metnoa 2f 9reda;or con~roi is ef+xcive 

under a1 1 circumstances, ir is not unfair to addrss the questicn 

of the effectiveness of Compound 1080 iarge-bai t stations on the 

basis of their intended purpose. The declining number of 7C8O bai: 

stations placed by and the increasing number of strychnine dropbaits uszd in the years imediat~ly preceding 1972 would seem to 

consti tute recognition that 1 ar2e -bai ts wer. losing their effectiveness . 

The phenomenon of bait shyness may explain at least in part wny 

1080 large-bai t stations fail to consisi2ntly reduc2 coyote populations 

and predation. 
17. ~t is not jib?? t3 dettrnine from the recard how nuch grzdation 

, . foxj c ~31,: ars, SLzs or i argz-32; t stations . 

Issue 3 - A1 ternatives 

18. Removal of denning pairs of coyotes or their young may, and frzquenxiy 

does, stcg livestock predation in localized areas. Zepending cn 

terrain, tracking coyotes and locating cheir dens zay be very cli ff;cul -: 

and tine consuming and i~ any event, rquires sx?erisnce anb sk'lls. 

Aerial hunting and gunning is probably the most eifxrive way of shoocin; 

coyotes. Use of this method has increased significantly si nc2 the 

- 

1972 order suspending the use of toxicants far prlda~or concroi. 

')Leather, c2rrai n and veger-ati ve cover may render aerial hunxi ng 

i neffecti ve or drasti cai lj l ini t i ts es'?ec-,i veness . In sddi 11 on, 

aerial hunting of csyocss, 3s~eci a1 iy f r2m fi xed-ni qg a1 rcraft, 

is hazardcus and helicopc~rs ar? very ?x?ensiva. 3un:ing coyotss 

from the ground is more difficulr and time consuming as they are 

wary and illusive animals. 

Trap?ing by the use of steel leg-hold' traps is a traditional and 

- 

on2 of the most 2ffective rriethods of predator csntrol . i raps, 

however, frequently becone inoperative in wet and freezing weather, 

can be and are disturbed by 1 ivestock and non-target aninals, rlqui re 

considerable skill as to placenent and use of scents or lures and 

require constant checking to assure operability. Snares may be 

effective in limited situations, i .e., where coyots or other predators 
, - attempt to Pass under cr t'ircugn rei.,tzes, -a? jump f3nr,2S 

being blown into the opening xnere the snar-es are s2C. 

20. A1 though bl-45's ar? quite s2lective to coyot2s and foxes, certain 

soi l condi ti ons are corrosive and c<rrosion causc?s mechani ca1 

problems. In aaditicn, heaci5g and cooling of the gni-LS brlaks the 

s?als, allcwing misture to ?enetra% the sodium cyanide cartrikge, 

thus rendering the Oevicz ineffzci-ive. ;!-44's my also be rendered 

inoperabl? by 1 ives~ock or people and are ineifxtive in warm 

weatber because coyo~s 3re not aztracz~d to the sc2nrs. 3eczus2 

of chese problems and <he r~scrictions placad cn its bi2 men ic Idas 

. -. r2gi;t~red in 1975, many ranchers ir? 3i55az? s~~ed '41 ch tile ?Tiecxi\/?ness 

of the 14-34. 

21 . Aversi ve conai ti oni ng i s che use of a cneni cal such 3s 1 i :hi ilm chl ori ce 

(LiCL) in a bait so as to induce an illness in d coyote or other 

predator. The theory i s that the ill ness wi? 1 be associated wi;h a 

particular ?rey, e.g., a sheep or lanb, and chat thereafter the 

coyote will refrain frsn attacking particular livestock with whicH 

the illness is associated. FWS has concluded that aversive conditioning 

using LiCL is not effective and that even if an aversion is 2szablisheQ, 

the length of the aversion would not be sufiieienc to have any 

substantial effect on predation. Although experiments have been 

conducted from wnich it might be ccncluded that aversive conditioning L 

using LiCt reduced predatgcn rat2s for limited per~sds of time, 

variables such as the availability of alternate food sources, the 
inconclusive. ,& dis;jute ai c3 the detor-nination of coyots kii 1s 

and lack of loss dar2 cast further doubt on the ou;corr,e of the 

tests. Fioreover, i~i tnesses parti ci pati ng i n ;he t~ts aclcnowl edged 

that the concentration of LiCL was critical to the 3version 

allegedly escabl ished, but beyond ass2rring ~hzt it shculd be tne 

mininurn necessary to produce an iliness, appear2d ~3 :be in doubt 

as to precisely what thatcancr-etration should be. It 'was also 

acknowledged that t3ere inisht be other more suitable, isss saline 

or strong t2stjngm chmicals "Lan LiCL. It is concliidej. that the 

2ffectiveness of aversive condit'oning agenrs as a oethod of 

?redator control has not been establ i shed. Such acenci \,vcu: d, 

of course, requir? rqistra~ion by i?A. 

22. Fi,iS has test?d.the us2 of diethylstilbestrol as an anxifzrtility agent 

- 

or reproductive inhibitor. I hese tests have been tzrmi nated , F1,(iS 

concl udi ng that unti 1 a more effective reproducti ve i nhi bi tor than 

sci 1 bestrol and a more effective del ivery system were developed, 

reproductive inhibitors offered 1 i ttle 7rcrni se of lowering predation. 

USDA has reached ess2ntial ly the same conclusion and has terminated 

all tests of reproductive ichibitors. There is no other evidencz 

in the - record as to the effectiveness of reproductive inhibitors 

in reducing predation. While it is contznded that termination of the 

tests was premature, it is obvious that the whole theory of reproductive 

---- - 

inhibitors as a predator control technique is based on the assumption 
, 17 

A' ~nat ihere is 2 41 reciz relai:anshlj be-.:.i?en -.no nui;z?r -,f ZD?:?S 

ana preoari on l asses of i iuesmck. Spponenrs of rne rzgi iiraci o~ 

oi 1083 dispure this zsiumption. 

23. Tests of chcqical repellanis as a neans of reducing coyote pr?daxion 

have been discsnxinuei by FWS and USDA as sflowing no pramise of 

effective predator control. There is no substantiai evidence in 

the record to contradicx these conclusions. Strobe-lights, sirens 

and propane exploders or zon guns have dlia been tested and u:i:izei 

- in attemprs t3 control ar reduca preiatron by c~yotes. tests by 

the PAS uti 1 i zing sxrabe-1 i gnt/si ren devices have shown encauragi nc 

results in reducing oredatisn over 1 imiied psriods of time. it 'fitas 

recognized, however, ihat additional dark was necessary to identify 

1 i , e. g. , 1 ight, so~nd record! ngs , etc. , ;ha: iicuid most 

eilecti vely resel cayctes. Other evidence in the record is to the 

effect that 1 ighn are corally ineifsccive in reducing coyote 

predation 2nd that coyotes quick1 y become habi tuared to expi oders 

or zon guns. It is ccncluded that repellants, chemical or mechanical, 

have not been shown ro be an effective method of deterring or 

controlling pradation. 

24. Guard dogs have apparently been used to protecx 1 ivestock from 

predatsrs in Europe and Asia for hundreds of yeirs. Guard dogs 

protect livestock not so much by attacking predators, but simply 

by their presence deterring predators from attacking l ives;ock. The 

record reveals that in some instances, chiefly small fenced ?astures, 

guard dogs can be effecclve in reducing predation. Guard dogs are, 

however, expensive. The purchase price ranging from $300 to as 

much as ~BUU each. Noreover, rhe dogs require extensive training 
in that as much as i;JO ysars TE~ diapse from the xire of acquiring 

- - a ?up before 1'. can 3e deiersl nec ineraer i I 1 be er:ec~:ve ai 

a nature dag. Ic is clear ha^ guard do~s require supervisisn 2nd 

a great deal of patient attention, that not every dog will develop 

'nto an effective guard dog and that some dogs przy on sheep cney 

are suppose to proceci. Although a survey in the record of rlnchers 

using guard d is in llorth Gakota indicated good o excsl I ent resul tr , 

ranchers wno ~~stified at the hearing ~ho attemoted using guard 

dogs did not have gocd ?x?eriences, indicjting chat it was di fficalI t 

to keep the dogs with the sheep, that the dogs became shee? killers 

or that the dogs wonder;?d onro neighboring ;asturPs and Idere snot., 

25. Shed Ianhi ng can reduce losses of lambs due to weather, lanbing 

ccmpi i cati ons, mai nutri ii on, di ssase and oxher Causes. Yhi 1 e ewes 

and lambs aro subject to lit~le or no predation duriqg the ~eriod 

of confinement, $redatjon can begin again or ccntinue once i he 

sheep are released into pastures or ranges. Shed lambing is labor 

intensive and is not an alternative method of reducing predation. 

Herder; are essential to control and lock after sheep in open ranTe 

si tua ti ons , A1 though addi ti anal herders cou? d in theory reduce, 

predation losses, experienced herders are in short supply and the 

cost of employing and maintaining them (as much as $1600 a xonth) 

nay not be economical ly feasi bl e. 

26. It is theoretically possible to build fences in such a manner as to 

exclude coyotes. Testimony at the hearing centered on the question of 

the effectiveness of electric fencing in reducing predation. Evidence 
. - indicating er~?ctivzness of 2iecxric fmcing chizflj concorned 

., Ai zhougn aa\~anced cnzrcjers have ken de\/el oger lt~h: cn ni nixi zs :he 

likelihood of vegecaticn shorring out such fences, it is clear tha; 

el ectri c fencing i s nevertheless a high maintenance i tern. ??oreo\/er, 

becaus2'of t2rrain and soil conditions it may be difficult or impossi bie 

to ccnstruct a fzncz in such a manner that coygces canno1 =ass or 

dig under the fencz. Sdch fences constructtd on open ranse, if 

effective, rnigh~ well inhibit ;he ,novernenx of di ldi if?. In ;he laic 

and final analysis, however, tne major linitations to exx2nsive use of 

7 4. fencing to sxclude czyotes are economic. i oizl cssts fzr ~he 

construction of such fencing have been estimated to range bet~eon 

$5 thousand co 510 chausand per mile depending cn :be xyps af 

construction and cerrain. ,Azs~rzions chat ,he cosr of jucn fencins 

could be arnorxiz?d over 3 seriod of years by ske iavinss frzm prldati on 

losses are unrealistic and fail to consider how such co'nstrtictign 

could be financzd in view of the thin margin upon which sheep 

producers operace. There is evidence that r5nchers are hard-presszd 

to maintain che fenc?s they have let alone ccnstruct new ones. It is 

concluded that fencing is not an effective and economica11y feasible 

a1 ternative method of predation control . 

27. Penning or corral1 ing sheep and goats at night can be very effective 

in reducing predation. It has no effect on predation that occurs 

in the daytime and is confi ned to farm flock operations as i t i s 

- i,:prtic:ica: -:o 12:~ 1z;';e f:scki ,,-ids,- Fczje t:n$i t'>ns, i-.c so-ca: 'led 

"Kansas Extension System" i s, basi cal ly an educational and training 

L - s~~stez 1;;hercSy r~fichei-s ai-e ~dugili to handle predatlcn problems on 
their own. It is not, however, ?n al'ernaf2 lri"zho0 of srd2tor 

controi, becaus2 it is chizfiy penning ax nignc tbdc r?sulzs in izw 

pr2cation ratss in Kansas. 

25. Open range situations are grazing condi tians under which- it is least 

l i ke1 y that any current1 y avai 1 zbl e rnethgd oi predator control wi 11 

be conri stentl effective and economical I y feasible. 

Issue 4(( 1 - 3eneii ts 

23. The number of sheep in the Uniced Statzs has dzciin2d over the last 

forty years, from a high of 56,574,000 in 1942 t3 3 law of 12,220,QOO 

in 1979, increasing to 13,176,OCG as 3f January 1, 1982. The deciine 

- 

is attributable to declining dernand for 1am~ and rnuxton (per capita 

consumpti on bei ng approximatei y 1 .5 pounds a?nual ly ) , avai 1 abi 1 i ty ~f 

synthetic nateri a1 s 3s substi ts tes for wool (per czpi ta consunpci on 

of wool being approximateTy cne pound annually of wnich fiity 

percznt is imported), the fact that raising cattle is 1 ess 1 abor 

intensive than raising skep and more attractive opportunities being 

avai lable elsewhere. The dec! ine cannot be attributed solely or 

even chiefly to gredation. Approximately 80 percent of the sheep 

in the United States are raised in the 17 nost western of the 48 

contiguous states. A1 though approximately 51 ,000 western farmers 

and ranchers raise sheep (1974 data) only 21 ,000 or 41 percent have 

comercia1 operations of fifty or more stock sheep. These producers, 

however, own nearly 93 percent of all stock sheep in the regicn. 

Large scale producers with a thousand or more of stock sheep constitute 

only 6 percent of the producers, but acc~unt for 63 percent of the 

region ' s stock sheep. 
- 3C. ix7ei-t tstiiccny from witnesses for "is Jroponencs of the ~PC::S~F~;~SR 

cne mngpiand in :he :ies:sm United S:aies rquir?s ~rzzin~ by 

catt12 sheep and goazi rather than by a sinsle species. Grazing 

cattle, sheep and goats in the proper combinations and ac suitable 

intensity not only increases the production of anixal product: per 

acre, but tends to maintain the carrying capacity of the land in 

tha-c sheep and goax can he1 p csniro! deeds 2nd brush ,' thus avoiding 

the use of herbicides or expensiv? ~echanical xe~hcds of control. 

Because sheep and goas have zhe capacity to turn ?asxur? and range 

\teget;tion inco meat and! fiber ar a relatively 1oi.i cosc, 572 ri5ir;g 

cost of ?nerg;/ in recen-r: years has i,~il;lroved the ?r,snornic c:rr;peci;iveA ness of sneep 2nd go2ts rzlatilre bo c~her meax and oi' ~tlooi and 

-, , * nonai r re1 azi ve to syniheri c; . I ni s may 2x91 a1 n ,he r2c2nr i nc~ease 

in she~p numbers. 

31. Wj messes for the proponents of lO8O rqi strati an a1 50 tzsti ii2d chat 

areas sui tab12 for tre grazing of sheep and goats Iwere not being 

usilized for that purpose because of predation or the f2ar thereof 

that was forcing the abandonment of many sheep or goat operations. 

These witnesses asserted that young people wer2 no loncjer enwring 

the sheep or goat business because of predation and that excessive 

predation was a factor in lending insticutions being unwilling to 

advanc? capita7 for such operations. The result of this situation 

assert2aly includes alterations in the economy, decreased importance 

of ?gric8~l+ure tc! +h? er~?rn? ?ass. 1 c!e:?ir? ir 'rdust~4ez-~,,k~~cS 
depend on and support the a~ricul tsral secyor, and iorczd chang$s 

in 1 ilfing conci tions of rur31 fami li~s. Yh; I? ~r2ca:;on conczrcs 

sr? real and in some instanc2r cle?rlj jus~ifiea, i; is cancluded 

that factors listad in finding 29 ra~her than 7rgda:ion iire chisfly 

responsible for the decline in the number of operators raising sheep 

and goats in argas suitable for that purpose. 

- 32. !JSDA conducted a survey of fcmer sheep produce ; 'n Colorado, ,exas, 

Utah and 'tlyoning. Predation \,vas gi5ier; as a sic ificant factor in 

the decision to discontinue she?? prcduction by f3mer ?roazc2rs in 

each of tne four sIates, a1 though shorrag9 of good hired 1abor, lamb 

and :vool prices and age of the okvner lrlero other1 si sni ficant reasons. 

Financial returns were frequently meager or nil 2nd the majority gf 

fomer producers in lrlyomi ng ,dere suff~t-i nq operazi ona 1 1 osies, i . e . , 

-, not even aee~ing cash costs, wnen :hey discontinued 3roducti~n. III~ 

number of sheep praduczrs declified by 12 percent in 1973, The par 

fol lowing restrictions on the uie of toxicants, the greatest ,?erc?nta~e 

of reduction since 1975. This declin? was followed 5y further 

declines of 5 percent in 1974 and 10 percent in 1375. In Colorado and 

Texas Eore producers stopped production in 1969 and 1970 than in other 

years betwegn 1968 and 1974. The biggest decline in number of producers 

in Nyomi ng and Utah occurred in 1969 and 1371 , r?s?ecti ve1,y. Cecl i nes 

in these four states in 1973 were not out of 1 ine with the number of 

producers discontinuing production in other years. It is concluded 

that although predation may have been a factor in producers discontinuing 

sheep operations, such discontinuance cannot be relaied to the- - - 

suspension of the use of toxicants as a means of predator control. 
have been ?srima-- ", dc $13 zii 1 ien 5 year. 3as2d on ?szizatea caif 

1 osses to coyocos af 0.4 percenx in I977 and 1977 pri c~s , cacti? 

producer losses have been sstinated zt $20 million. it is assertzd 

that total 2concmic losses to producers would nearly double if 1980 

p~ic25 were used and would nearly quadmple if the higher range of 

estirnatsd 1oss2s l,qas used. Total economic losses 73 ?roducars frcm 

coyow predation on.sheep and ca:ves in 1980 hzve been esziinated so 

- be in the range cf $75 ta SliO illi ion. ;he latter figures ?rs 3?rncst 

csrtainly far too hich. 

34. The USDA survey (Gee, et a1 . ) estimated chat sheep ?reducers los~ 

$27 niliion to ?reda~ors, wizh cansuners losing an addition 510 

sillion due co higher prices and reduced supply. ?~SS~S in foregone 

lamb sales amcng the approximate 3,OCO ranchers who report26 lamb 

losses to predators exceeding 10 percent were estimated to average 

about $4,000. Based on 1977 prices, USDI estimated thac sheep 

producers lost $1 9 mil 1 ion to coyotes and that other producers gained 

56 million because of higher prices caused by reduced supply for a 

total net loss to producers o; $1 3 mi 11 ion. Texas sheep producers 

are estimated to have lost $4,317,600 to predators in 1981 and goat 

producers are estimated to have lost $2,765,450 in that year. 

Dr. Nielson estimahd direct income loss to Utah sheep ranchers becween 

$3.6 million and $5.6 million annually. The Texas and Utah estimates 

as appearing in USOA's statistics and make no allowances for pric2 
! - chagses caus~d 3y ;qcreaj~d supply. T+e 2ifsc: !s to 3vorszats CC%~ ' 

~OSS~S. 

35. Whether an increase in supply of shes? and lamb would in fact rzsult 

in a decrease in price depends on ~he s2nsicivify of price to the 

quantity sold, which is "Le.med price flexi bil i ty or price e:astici ty 

ef demand. "Price flexibility" is che percent.age change in price ;.rhich 

will resulc from a one perccnt change in the quanticy cffered for 

L sale, wni 12 "el astici ty of dernand" i s bhz eercentage change in q1 ~nci ty 

-1 purchased that resul ti: frcm a on2 percznt change in price. I nere i s 

evidence that :he dernand for lamb is inelastic and thac in view of the 

fact that only a minbrity of producers suffer gredation loss2s, <he 

reduced pricss caused by the increas2a supply qight well result in 

lcwer total revenues co sheep producers as a whel?. Qtner evicenc? is 

ro the effect :hat the denand for l amb is a1 asiic ;~nd :hat, becluse i 5 

I 

i s a luxury or special ty i cem, the reducci on in ?ri c2 .Xiused by 

i ncrla_ced supply wou1 d not offset increassd revenues r~sui ting from 

greater quanti ti being avai lable far saie, It is concluded that the 

contention thac th? demand for lamb is inelastic has not been established. 

Irrespective of whether the demand for lamb is eldstic or inelastic, 

it is clear, however, that only those producers suffering substantial 

~redarion losses would benefit significantly from a reduction in such 

losses. The evidence indicates that these producers are mostly the 

large open range operators. 

36. Based on the assumption that the demand for lamb is inelastic and 

upon the further assumption that the average current loss of lambs 
A 1 percznt reduction in l~sszs to j .3 1;iircenLL l,~o~;d incre5s~ 

lamb product-ion by 53,500 head and gross revenue TO producers by 

$1 .3 mi 11 ion. A 2 perc2nt r~duction in coyote predation 1 osses to 

4.: percent would increase lamb production by i07,lGO head and grms 

r2venue to she?? producnrs by 32.7 million. ?educing lamo losses t~ 

3.5 percent would increase prcductign by 160,550 nead and in grcss 

income co U.S. sheep producsrs by SJ. 1 mi1 i ion. A furlher r2duc;ion 

to 1.5 percznt would increase lamb produc~ion by 267,750 head and 

gross income tc prcdQc2rs by 56.3 mi 1 l ian. A 1 p2rcent reduc;~ gn 

in average coyote pr2dation frcm 6.5 percenT to 5.5 ?ercsnt Is in 

excgss of 15 percenx dnd a rnduction in coyotz predation from 

6.5 percent to 1.3 perc~nt would be a rzduction of approximately 

77 percefle. I"Lis clear Ehac reqistratior; ~f Z~m~ounC 10BC :vjl' not 

el irninate a1 1 predation and there is no evidence frcm hnich i t 

could be concluded 'hat reducxions of suc~ magnitude are likely 

from the reregi strat'on cf Compound 108C. :iloreover, siich rgductions 

in coyote predation wculd hardly be costless and such cost should 

be deductsd i n cons i aeri ng overall benef i ts . 

37. Using budgets prepared by the Cccperative Extznsion Servicz of Colorado 

State University, estimates have been made of the impacts on individual 

producers of reductions in lamb losses to coyotes for prcduc2rs having 

50G, 2,000 2nd 2,100 head of sheep, These calcuiations indicate 

chat ror tne 536 snee+ oper*at:uri hcivlng C! reauction in lam^ iosses 
of frcm C.7 7ercant to 3 p?rcsnt, gross incone couid increas2 frcn , 

$317 to $1 ,260, ?roCuction CosTj cculd increase frcm 5107 to $429 

and returns frsm preda~or contr3l and to nanagsnen: couid incr3as2 

from 3212 to 5831. The largest benefits would be enjoyed by the 

2,400 head sheep operator using range lambing having a reduction in 

lamb losses ranging from 1.5 percent to 12 oercznc. Gross income 

for this produc2r could increase frcm 51,845 to S15,35L and production 

costs could increase frm $707 to 55,925, resul ti ng in retirns frcn 

predator control and to management incre2sins from 51,139 to 2s 

much as $9,529. These estimates do not include increases in cost 

-, for predator conzrol: inese are, of8 course, sstirnates bas2a on 

lasses considered to be average or represzntztive and like all 

averages, ccu13 underest'mate sr over~sti~at2 the financial impact 

cn individual pr~ducsrs suffering predation lossss. 

Issue 5 - Envirm~~en~ai Sfe:;/ 

38. In F1,JS cescs l~i th toxic col 1 ars, :ol 1 ars ere 1 ost , others were 

accidentally punctured 2nd still others probably ?uncmred and not 

recovered. Lost collars woula mcst lik21y 5e found by the rancher 

or 1 ivestock owner ,xilo wcuid be familar wir,~~ tne hazzrds reprgsentoa 

by the collars. An adult finding an intact collar would be unlikely 

to open the reservoir,if he noticed the hazard notic? printed 

thereon. While it is conceivable that a child of tender years 

might wander into a pasture or other area wnere collared livestock 

had been kept and find a punctured or leaking collar, get the soiuti~n 
4. 

on his hancs and xhen Snw 3:s rcuzh, such a so-jsibilicy is 

33. There is 3videnc~ <ha; coyotes bury or ,acne soxic coliars anc 

collars plus other int~ct cgllars that arz lost ldould 2ventuaily 

detetliorate allowing :he toxic soliltion to enter the soil , ic appears, 

however,' that there are certain bacteria in the soil '~hich operafs 

to deccxify the soi ution. The time required for de~oxi ficat.i~n 1,voui d 

vary with. the amount of toxicant, soil type, ~smperatilre, etc. , but 

it appears that dsgradat!'on of Ccmpound lC80 nay be acconoiishec! in 

periods up to eieven \~eeks. Ai though it has been suggeszzd that 

punczured, leaking OF deterioratjng col lars might poi son water iuppi ies, 

thi? possibility is ccnsid3red to be unlik2ly. 

- 40. ioxic solu~ion is a1 so spilled in the course oi a coyote ?:tzIck ;vheroby 

a collar is punc~nred. Pen t2sts 'ndicate chat spr2ad of the eye 

I I 

after the collors liver? pur?c:urec! by coyotes varied betxeen 12 sq. f-, 

to 300 sq. ft. wi~h the average being 138 sq. ft. Spread of the dye 

, 

deaended on whether the lamb was down or moving at the tine ;he 

collar was punctured. It 'was estimated that an even distributjon of 

Ccnpound 1080 over the average dyed aroa of 133 sq. ft. would resuit 

in a concentration of 2.2 mg/sq.ft. The prospect that such a Icw 

concentration would cause serious environmental dzrnage is considerxi 

remote and no such damage has been observed in field tests. ,Another 

route of potential exposure to non-target species is the carcasses 

of coyotes poisoned by puncturing toxic collars. Only turk2y vultures 

1.h 6;gear to :;a14e 5r134~ii ~2d d,,j: 0 ",he LdyOk-; fdl~il~ db:'i rig ~,es i2 hi cr1 
23 I , 

th2 call ar. Scavengers f2edi rg on -31 1 a~zd i i v2s;cck ti 1 i 2s by coycczs 

eonc~ntr~;zd sn visczr3 and . , 

xe ,call ars . 

. also appears that sc?veng?rs fosding c~n collared 1 i5i?stock ki 1 ;ed b;~ 

coyotes do noc ordinarily consume neck areas. Dessit2 intmsive 

searches, non-tar2et deaths r2sulting ircm tzsts with the collars 

have not been observed by FdS and it is conciuded that the probability 

of significant poisoning of non-target ~i 1 dl if? rzsui ti ng Prcm the 

use of 1080 in toxic collars is r2mo~2. 

51 . Exposure of SiD bai~s containing 1 C.80 t3 con-tarset ~,vi?bl i fe &?ends, 

of course, on the rate of application and upon whether the baits 

are covered. In this connection Souch gakota's application ~nvisages 

a maximum of 10 SLD baits per square mile, ,Wontana's applicaticn 

contemplatss 3 ?axinurn of 25 bai c; 3er square mile and ',Jycninc's 

appl ication apparen~l y ccntmpl at$s that the number of bai cs wi 11 be 

left to the discretion of the czrti fied appl ica~ors. \iidespread 

appl ication of such baits would, of course, i ncr~ase their ~x~osure 

to non-target species. While such zxposurs cculd .? reduced if the 

baits were covered, covering of the baits increases the di ifi CU~ ty 

of retrieving uneatened baits and of monitorins the use of such 

baits. AST4 Method i-590 (1976) recovxnends that SLD baits be covered. 

42. Because the use of 1080 SLD baits apprcved herein is upon the assumption 

that such use will be limited and for the purpose of taking particular 

depredating coyotes rather than as a coyote population suppr,ession 

technique, the risk of non-target exposure under such circumstances 

- _ -. is considered to be minimal. 
2 3 i I 

43. ~~YS~J-I 3f Soor' Cisherits and Nild7if2 golicy, ?rior to he suspension 

xas rhax fha mi nizun n~~ker nec2s;ary tz acP,< 2~2 aff 3c~:~i? csyot? 

management was 10 be placed. This was general ly incerprzred as 

requiring or germicting the placement of not mcre than one station per 

township. The guide1 inzs issued by the Burgau further sta~zd zhax ~ke 

use of 1080 large-baits was a t~chnique- res2rq/ed for arias where ctl:?r 

contrgl methods had not been effective 7 n raduci ng coyot2 po~ul3cion 

z3 a desired level 2nd wher? such use would have z minimum 2ffect on 

non-target wildlife and domestic aninals. Although it is clear chat 

the total number of baits plac2d declined in the years imiiiediat~ly 

pressding the suspension of Compound 1080 in 1972, -here is evidenc2 

that the number of bzi t stations pi;c@d in aar~icuiar 1ocal i Li3s zzcn 

year did not vary signifieanrly ,and tnai: ",he stations aere ?lac?d 

in more or less 3-12 sane locations s2ch year. ?laci?g cox nor2 

than one large-baic station per cownship I,vas on ;he theory that 

coyotes, being nore nooi le and having larger home rancj?s, kouli be 

more apt to cone in contact wit^ and feed on the stdsion wnile 

snal ler, less mobi,le animals 1+1i th smzl ler i~crne ranses, would be 

less likely to be exposed to the bait. it is clear, ncweker, that 

there are no significant areas which may be said to be populated 

solely by coyotes. Moreover, raptors and other birds, which depend 

primarily on sight for the location of food sources, are more 

likely to be exposed to 1080 bait stations. 
the baits be placzo 3s la2 in In? =a1 l as ?raczicab:e in kze?ins 

with saf3ty to neat eating na~mals 2nd bjrds ar,d s3ndi tions of weati?er 

and travel. Sai ts were also to be removed as early in the spring as 

weather and travel conditions penittzd, the theory being that chjs 

would el imi nate exposufz to bears and other hibernating animal s. 

Because ai dense snow pck and otker raasons, there were ocr3sions 

when baits could not be renoved and desi~oyed until zarly sumer 

or iatsr, lflnich vras long after animals wcu:id be auz of hi bernacion. 

45. Large baits were to be treatsd at the rate of 1 .5 grams of 1680 per 

1Otf pounds of bait. ' by usi l;g a syri nrj? 

or meac pump 2nd making injecxions of the toxic sold~icn ar eveniy 

. - spaced interval s ~i7: ,? the meat was stil l 61a.m. 3zcaus2 bone, 

hide, erc., had to be deducted in derarmining the #,~eish: af he 

il I 

bai s for app1icat;cn of cha a~propria~ amount of toxic solu~ion, 

and because of .the field condi ti ons under lrihi ch -,he ba~ ts wer2 

prepar?d, even distribution of the coxic solution in the baits !has 

difficult or impossible to achieve. 

46. A1 1 but one witness 1,qho participated in or ~rino :das familiar with the 

1080 large-bai ting program testified that the deaths of non-target 

species kere ninimal. Searches for target and non-tar3et animals, 

however, were normally conducted only at the time of disposal of the 

baits or the remains thereof and such searches varied widely in scope 

and int2nsicy. The characteristic latency period after the ingestion 

of C~mpound 1080 makas it likely :hat a1 1 birds and animals poiscned 

thereby ~ould not die in the imediate vicinity of the bait. Because 
:A :- of these ~~CTS~S, I I~ I, oroi~zo;e :hi; ;Tany birds 2nd animals soisane~ 

8 1 --. Z!j ib~0 pier2 iie\j?r Icc-tsd 2nd a2-?~-2+ ! -;'b, -,-a. 

'7. The c;nient!cn hat Cczocucd !C?3 :i 2 selsc~i~s ;ciio~ Is 5a;zd in 

principle ?art on diifsri ng ;evels if secsizivi zy to 3.2 poiian. 

Carnivores are in genekal more sensitive to 1080 than orher species, 

while canines are considered to be especially susceptible thereto. 

- 6 / 

For example, the LDSO of 1OGO for a csyote feeding on a properly 

dos2d meat bait (treated at the ratr of 1.6 grms oer 100 pounds of 

meat) has been determined to be 0.10 ng/kg, ~hile that for a man is 

esrimat2d at 0.7 to 2.1 mg/kg and that for a golden sag1e rancjes frcm 

1.25 to 5.00 mg/kg. -A 30-gound ioynTe hould therefor. obiain an 

LD50 dose by consumacion of only 1 .; ourices of bait aaterial ~reated 

as indicated above, while a 150-pound man m,~ould cctzin an LCcO by <re J 

consu~p~ion offrom 17.5 ouncss to 162.3 ounces. k solien eagle 

(average weight 7 counds) ~culd receive an LJS0 by ccnsuml ng irom 

4.0 ounces io 15.9 ounces of such bait matariai. ,An LSlO0 for a CZJ~OC~ 

has been 2stirnaczd at 0.16 mg/kg. Ii is apparent that LZ5~ values 

- for some species are noi precise and have a consiaerable range. ~escs 

to establish th2s2 values have obviously not been conducted on humans 

and the tests on many other species, including coyaies and eagles, have 

not been conducted on a sufiicien,t number of animals that a statistfcal 

confidence interval can be established. :*oreover, there is evidence 

that the LD50 value can vary depending on whether he mode of 

C' ;, LC, - '[.llf.e :c . -'..+:.:' I 

6L2 a 

- . - . .. 31' 2::;:nze~ 3- : jc:-se - + 

would-be l etnal "ro 50 percent of animal s tested. 
-. acmjnis:ta:ioo 15 ,I: 2 :si?,';ll.i bz!~ cr in ,%,a:?r ar.~ -I--- ., c w cz I G 

-" tavperatures xay :72~5? a ;reat eT72C; an ik2 :o~i;ii~ 3i Tb? 301SCn. 

48. Atbough ssveral ~ii ~nesses izsti ii.21 322; nan-~ar~e: izecj 25, i zc: LG~ n j 

eagles and badgers, were. observed feeding on 1 C30 bait itations with 

no apparent ill effect;, it is clear ihai speci2s as ell 1s 

ochers were in i3ct kil led by feeding on 1980 baits. it is alio 

clear, however, th3i the loss of particzlar indl~~iduaiis not 

generaily a sufficient basis for deterinifiing adverse irnoacts on tne 

population of a s?ecies as a whoie and that ihere is no orllence 

:ha: the population of any non-tar;et species uas advers2lj effscted 

- -, by 1080 bai c sta~ions. 1172 evidence does nac eszasi i sh zhai chis 

conclusion can be extended to endzngerea s?ecies. It nust, of 

course be recognized tnac 3s 23 jcne species. 2.~., i?e Cd:if~rnia 

Condor, loss of a single individual may be s*l--l , ;;;cip,nt to have an 

adverse impact on the population of that spec;?s. 

49. In tests conducted by the F,4S to evaluate primary hazards of 

Compound 1080, dogs and magpies were allowed to f~ed on the 

carcasses of coyote killed sheep or cjoats having 7uncixred collars. 

No ill effects were cbserveci. 1~ gther tests, tvro golden eagles 

and a rough-legged hawk were orally administered 3 mg of active 

ingredient 1080 in beef taliow baits each day for four consecutive 

days. After administration of the third dose one of the eagles 

showed symptoms-of toxicity, i .e., gross motor irnpsirnent, fluffed 

feathers and loss of appetite. This eagle recovered in about six 

days, the other eagle and the hawk showing no apparent ill effects. 

50. In further tests to determine secondary poisoning hazards to rapiors, 

two golden eagles and a rough-legged hawk were fed ground meat 
I, 

3 3 

obcained iron fire coycces, 2sch cgynxe having been administered 

. . an arai zsse a? 3 agiig acriie ir~r?a~?nc :;€a. CG~C:~'-Q=- ,, -A- Y~ZS 

;he eoi? ssurc. ci food for tkesz birds over ;he 1C-djy perj~b af 

 he test. Inalysi: of :he meat iodicated thac it conzained frsm 

1.8 mg/kg to 3.1 mg/kg 1080. No discernible effects from this 

consurnp~ion of meat containing 1080 were observed. The meat was 

obtained from skeletal or nuicle tissue of the coyoies and it is 

recognized thar rapcJrs ordinarily feed first an the viscera sf an 

animal and that <he viscera might we1 1 contain higher level i of 

1080 or fl uoroci irat- rosidues. Similar tests conducted wi :!I redtailled hawks resuiied in 2 finding of no toxic eifecis 2nd that in 

fact, the hawks ga'ned weight. 

51 . The 5 mg/kg ai 1 CEO admi nist3r.d 10 Erie ioyoTeS in :he iesTi referred 

u in finding % Idas approximacelg 31 '.IX~S the eszimatea -)loo af 

I 

I ' 0.16 mg/kg and a SLS 5aii of 5 ag 1030 wculd csn:a4n aoorcx;sate!~ 

three SLaIOO coses for a 10 kg coyote. it has been estinaced :ha< 

a, coyote puncturing a toxic collar would receive a maximum of 10 mg 

1080 or approximately 6 LOlOO doses for a 10 kg coyote. It is 

therefore unlikely that the carcass of a coyote killed by a SLO baii 

containing 5 mg 1080 or by a toxic col lar would represent a hazard to 

raptors. 

52. One of the difficulties in determining the primary and secondary 

hazards to non-target species from the use of 1030 has be,. OT~ the lack 

of reliable methods of measuring low levels of 1080 residues in 

?. ,.h2s;lt2; $ :f d::jqJ'5 ~~c-*-~- -c L><E- 1- . , , , p n. TL$: dt, ,t: p -pl*i..la 3-mav. A " U,LL. - q A 

refinement of mare sensitive testing methods, e .g., gas chrornatogrdphy 
svith electron captur-2 d2t?ctj~~ 3~6 ,T~SS s~?c~TcJIT,~~T:/, h2~2 0r.zi7 ?d <be " 

. . 

-. detxtion of 128s than 9.1 ppn 11283 fn one cjrm s?rn??ss. i';es~ wthgcs 

;vill facilitate :or? accuratg a;s?ssxent of the hazards of llCEB. 

Although current tsst inetnods can detect fluorocitr3t2, 

flgorocitrate would not be detected in a test for 1080 residues. 

53. In other efforts to determine possible Secondary poisoning hazards 

from the carcsss~s of coyotes poisoned by 1380, the FVS analyzzd 

1080 residues in tissues of coyotes wni ch dizd af~er puncturing 

1 L toxi c cal lars . i L was deterni ned that the average 1 OSO ccnc?n~r3i-,i c,n 

7 / 

in muscle tiss~le of the52 coyot2s 1,vas 0.31 ppn. Ton magpies- were 

confined ~ith skinned carcasses of czyoczs thar died after ~uncturing 

toxic coi lars with no other food available. ;Ait;kicush fcur biris 

died and one o? in2 four contained 'I C80 residues, i t lcras cc~cl uded 

that these birds scarved io death. The other six birds appar2nt;y 

showed no symptoms OF lCSO poisoning. ex per^ tstiizony is to che 

effect that the metabol i c effects of il uoroci trate vimi c diabetes 

me11 i tus, which is a quasi -starvation siaw, and that the birds may 

we71 have died of 1080 poisoning rather than starvation. 

In cther tests, a coyote was given a massive overdose sf 1280 (?CO mg 

or the contents of a toxic collar), a LOlOO being ap7roximately I .8 mg. 

This coyote pias dissected soon after deach and tne soft iisiue fed 

to one group of magpies for seven days and another group of magpies 

for two days. Even though the coyote tissue contained substantially 

- 7/ A l.9~~) l:ilrl ii magpie i s i n the range of 0.6 mg/kg to 1 .3 mg/kg . *. 
.7 hi~her 1G60 resiaups :ban :vera found jn any coyote killed by punczilrjng 

i. ". - t ~3xi c CC~ Izr, 90 ;\/i GO~C~ GT 7 nc,3;i1 ci;i 39 ',/as ' aaszr-~ad. , , qqrz is 

8. 2videnc~ cnat foxss c:ed 2fxr i.ed?ng on vangaroo ra?: scisoned by 

1080 used as a rocen~jcide 2nd chaz iOyQE2S digd aftsr faeding an 

ground squirrels poisoned by oats treat2d with 1030. Neverxheless, 

the FWS tests constitute substantial evidence that the risks of 

secondary poisoning to non-target wildlife f~en use of the coxic 

- 8 / 

collar are not signiiicant. 

- - 

3. The citric acid or Xrsb cycle is the final mechanjim fgr converting 

food into energy in plants and animals. Sodium fluoroacetate, ;vh~n 

ingested, i i metabolized into fl~oroci trax, :vhich inhi bi~i actlviiy 

of ;he enz,me aconi ~ase and deprives ~311 s of energy. This enzyme 

inhibition resuits in tne blocking of the YrcS cycle, einicn sec3ndarib 

blocks glucose metaboiizm, a lesser ecery ~rgducin~ process. 3;ockage 

of chese proc2sses causes the er,er?y supplid LO be red~c2d to tne 

point nhera cel1u:ar peneabilizy barriers aro destroyed, resulying 

in loss of function and finally ce1lu:ar death. The breakdown in 

intracellular processzs eventually rgsultj in the aopearanc? of 

gross organ or organ system disorders. Death nay result from gr~dual 

cardiac failure or ventricular iibri 11 ation, or progressive depression 

of the central nervous system with either cardiac or respiratory 

8/ Defenders emphasize the latency period from the time of ingestion 

of log0 to the onset of toxic effects and the tendency of poisoned aniaal z 

to hide an reasons why a19 animal5 and birds goisoned by 1080 bait stat'ovs 

- wlae uii; 7 kelj LCI 02 T oknu &rid repi)! tra, I nese facts wou i a ai so seem .eo make 

it less likely that the carcasses sf poisoned birds and animals would be 

available to scavengers. 
3 6 

fai 1 ure as cne c3rmi nal ?vent 3r r~s3i r2~3ry zrrls? fc? 1 ~,vi ns 52var2 

convulsions. Seatn in szrnivzres is c>,ou~b,c ts Se che resul Xf 

cmtral nervous sysxm a'sorders, 

56. Tests with rats treated with fluorocitraze have demonscrated zarked 

kidney damage. ~ests with rats wherein il uoroci trate was admini s tered 

in drinking water in concentrations as low as 5 ppm for seven days 

have also shcwn mor?nologicaT damage to tssces. This t2st snowed 

that chere was some regeneraticn , a 1 chough recovery was not cmpl st?, 

after 21 days. Rars given sub-lethal doses of fluoroc~tra~: have 

Seen shown LO grow ncm,al?y for seven conchs acd hen to survive an 

i ntraperi :onedl 4082-of 71 uoroci trat? hi ch would normal ?y have been 

fatal . This i ndi catzs that a certain tolsrance for fl uoroci tracs 

nay be develosed. O~her studies '~ave shown rhac re?eaxi sub-;e:ha! 

doses of ~onofluor~acc~ac~ have increas2d :he cclerance of scme 

l4 

speci 2s , e. g . , go1 den 2agl2s , rats, nice 5nd pcssi bl;/ rhes~s -nonA?ys. 

gepeatod sub-lethal doses of inonofluorccitraie airninis~~rob to dogs, 

guinea pigs, rabbirs and mallard ducks, however, have accumulated :o 

lethal levels. The reason more data isn't available on whether 

fluoroacetate accumuia-ies in an animal is because it is so toxic. 

Issue 6 - Human Safety 

57. Sodi urn monoil uorcscetate i s a white, odor1 ess, pcwaery , fl uoro-crsanj c 

salt similar in appearance to flour, powdered sugar or baking powder.. 

It is essentially tasteless having only a mild, salty, sour or vinegar 

taste to indi,vidu;ls. 1: is highly so:.~b:z in l&:t:r, but reiicivsly 
3 7 

". 

insoluble in organic solvent5 such as ierosene, ~lc~bol, zcs:one, or 

,-. -- in anizal 2nd :ili<;<~~b:.. i2ts and c?;; S. ;OC:L.;;I r I ~SrZzce',ac? iz 

absorbed throu~h the cjascrointescinal tract, tnrou~h open 'ijounds and 

the pulwi nary epithel i urn (the 1 : ni ng coverin; air passages in rhe 

lungs). It is not considered to be absorbable through intact skin. 

Monofluoroacetate, in general, is chemicaliy. stable due to the 

strength of the carbonfluorine bond. Scdiurn iluoroacetatp poisonin9 

in canines is charact2rized.by 3 latency period from one-half hour 

to two hours aftzr insescicn, wnich is r2laced co the metabolic 

process2s described pr?viousiy (finding 35) . In humans the larency 

period may be as lonQ as fij~e $ours and' death of any species is 

usually within 23 hours after ingestion. 

58. Reported deazhs actributabl~ to 1080 5ave been in cgnnectior! 1,vizh 

-7 its us? as a rodenticide ratner than 2s us2 as a predaciie. I ,rier-? 

is restimony that 1080 poisonings are difficult co diagnosz and that 

many poisonings are 1 i kely to go unreported. A1 though t~o wi tnesszs 

who apparmtly suffered adverse effec~s from TO80 ~oisoning testified 

at the hearing, the preponderance of the evidence establishes that 

individuals handling 1080 in connection with the preparation of 

baits or toxic collars do not suffer ill effects provided proper 

precautions are taken. 

59. Related to both environinental and human safety 'is the matter of possi bie 

misuse of Compound 1080. There is evidence that it was not possible 

to monitor or control the application of strychnine drop baits and ,it 
18 , 

may be assams.j ha-, sini 1ar Aifficy: r?zs t~culd ze i.tcl;rred ,I I1-e us2. 

-' 7 c G? 7 1280 SLDs. , sess risks zrs real . I ne deci sicn rersi n, ncit*rever, 

1 imi ts ~he use of 1280 SLSs to sovernmenr ernpi oyees and i z is 

considered that this restriction subscantially reauczs ch,e ?ossibilicy 

of mi suse. A1 though the record establ i shes chai here were riolations 

of regulations and policies concerning the placement and disposal 

of 1080 bait stations, it also establishes that regulations and 

pol i cies re1 dt; ng- to, i .g . , coveri ng of strychni ne crcp-bsi ii and 

removal of 1 arge-oai ts from h; ghi?r el evations , wer? impracti ;a1 and 

could not be foll owed in some i nstanc2s . The use of' such 1 arge-bai rs 

is not, however, being approved by ;his ieci sion. Becausa <he dse 

of che toxic col 1 ar requi rss conrrol of 1 ivestock , i t i s imprac~i cal 

to 1 imit its us? t3 governrneflt empioyees. Ranchers desiring to us2 

the co1 1 ars nust be czrti iied appl i cacors and i t is , of course, 

-9 

pos ji ble that some mi SUS~ wi 11 occur. l ni s 90sii bi 1 i ~y i s noi a 

sufficient reason for refusing to register the use of 1C80 in toxic 

col 'lars. 

60. Efforts to develop an anti dote for sadi urn i1 uoroacetace poi soni ng 

have been unsuccessful to date and treatment is sympto~atic, xeaning 

that there is no specific treatment. 

61. The only evidence in rhe record as ts the use of smear posts as a 

delivery mechanism for Compound 1080 in the control of coyotes is 

testimony concerning three posts cnnstructed for experimental purposes 

in the winter of 1956-57. Use of the posts would be in connection 

with specific attractants and lures and there is no data as to the 

ccmposition and content of these lures and attractants. Although 

there is evidence from which it might be concluded that smear posts 
3 9 

dr? 3n eii?t~ive 72rnad of r3yare i~ntrrj1 2nd ;hat thejr use ;ni/a?ves 

. . ?1!:isai ririi 33 ~tz-iaryc~ ? if, j: 9;;3a~s ~2-i: i-22~ ~~515 

I -. 

sre nat inrencoa for she ;ur?ose of removing speciilc desrsiating 

coyotes, but are ins:e?d in~ended as a general poeu1at:on suppressins 

mechanism. 

Conclusions 

i . The Admi ni stratar properly de~emi ned that reconsideratlcn of the 

1972 suspension and cancel lati on order i nvol vi ng uses ai ~sm~ound 

- 1080 for predaisr can-cral (?R l2-2, "arch 9, 1982) 8,+as warranred 

and to hold a public hearing in eccordance with 10 CFA ;5J.13?. - 

2. Toxic collars and singla-lechal dose baits (SLDs) as delivery 

mechanisms of Compound 1080 for predator contra1 Iwere either not 

available or cot ussd in i 372 ano consequently, here nor csnsidered 

in the 1972 order. Accordingly, all evidence concerning such uses 

may properly be considsred subsiantial and new wichin the ~eaning 

of 40 CFR 164.131 (a) and 164.132(a). 

3. The evidence esrabiishes that Compound 1080 when used in the toxic 

- * collar and in SLDs 3s aurnorized herein can be and is an or-ective 

method of predator cantrol for ihe removal of jarticular depredaiing 

coyotes or foxes. 

4. Among the concerns of the Administrator when the suspension and 

cancellation order was issued was the impact of the use of Compound 

1080 and other toxicants on non-target wildlife and especially on 

endangered species. The Admi ni stra tor was concerned about primary 

as well as secondary poisoning of non-target species. Althougn the 
?ossi bil i y 5: s?csnCzr-y 20- son; ns canno: be r-i 5' x;, r?,e 2videnc2 

a, ?stab1 1 s;?s tna; C2r80cund 1Ceg ;\r~en l~sscl, in the xxic c31 :at- and i i: 

SLDs as autnorizzi her2in aces no: ~GS? 2 significant ri5k 13 nontarget wi1 dl ifo. 

Although there is no antidote for Compound 1080 poisoning and 

treatment is symptomatic, the record establ i shes that wi ch appropr; ac2 

precautions Compound 1280 can be ussd for ;redator control as 

authori zed herein $4 thout si gni fi cant or ~lnreascnzbl eri sks to hunan 

health and he environnent. 

6. The record daes ncE srzblish that over~ll i3sses cf snes? zr 

l ambs to yredatsrs have increased ii nce 1972. 

- 

>leverthe1 ess , for 

i ndi vidual producers predaf i on renai ns a si gni fi cant c2use of 

loss, which available a1 ternative means of ?rodator concr3l are 

not consijtontly efiective in reducing ac costs which are reasonable 

and feasible. 

7. Compound 1080 when used in large-bait stations as a means of predator 

control has not been shown to acccmpl ish its intended ?urpose, 

that is, a reduction in area or regional cgyote populations followed 

by a reduction in predation losses. A1 though no generalized reduction 

in the populations of non-target species from the use of 1080 largebaits has been shown, the evidence does not establish that this 

conclusion is applicable to endangered species, wnich was 3 major 

concern underlying the suspension and cancellation order. The 

burden of proof in these respects is clearly on the applicant. The 

hazards of 1080 large-baits to endangered or threatened species are 

clearly substantial. In view thereof and in view of the fact that 

sheep losses to predators on an overall basis have not been shown 
4 1 

"i have increased rir,co 1972, it is conc?c;d2d that t5,e risks do not 

- e-, c,ut>!zign .he berinfits and ~cdi ficaz'3n ~i ;h2 I ,?/L 2rcer ,di:i 

resp9cz io tnis i;se of Coinpound YO80 is ncc reauired. Accard!ng;y, 

the application for registration of Compound !C8O in large-bait 

stations wi 11 be di sni ssed. 

8. Although the use of Compound 1080 in smear posts as a means of predator 

control was not considered in the 7972 suspension and cancellation 

order, for all that appears snear ?osts arsalo int2nded for <he 

r2duction of general coyote populations. The burden of ?roof being on 

the applicant, the appi ication f~r this use wii 1 be dismissed as ic 

has not been shown to be effxtive for that ?urpose. 

9. The bait del ivery unit (30U) i 5 not a del ivery nechanisx of Compound >< 

1080 for ?relator czntrol coverad by che A6mini:tratar's notic? (16 

,Yarch 10, 1982). Consequently, this delivery ~echanism may oat be 

considera9d or the use tt7ereof authorized by this decisi~n. 

10. Substantial new evidence exists with respect to the use of Compound 

1080 in ih2 toxic collar and in single lethal dos? (SLD) baits as 

means of ?redator control and modification of :he 1972 order to 

permit these uses of Compound 1080 for predator concrol is required. 

Because no party has argued that the Adminjstrator's det2rmination 

that reconsideration of the 1972 suspension and cancellation order was 

warranted and to hold a public hearing in accordance with 40 CFR 164.131 

was improper, it is not necessary to address this suestion. - 

Although, as stated at the outset of this opinion, no part of the 

decision is dependent upon the validity of the ALJ's ruling thar the decis'cn 
.. . order would be inade tipon the entirz r2cord, xn; s nattzr s,+?rrants 3enti.s~. 

Counsel for ;?,A have 3;t?rnpzzi ta :crpar~~ec~al i ze zvidence ?rgperly 

admissible and for consideration in chis prcceeding. For ?xanpls, 

while contending that the principle of finality precludes consideration 

of pre-1972 evidenca conc3rning fundamental issues such as the effectiveness 

of 7080, counssi state that it may he ?spropriate to consider ?re-1972 

evidence related to sucn narrow issues as ;he gredaror loss rzt2s and 

the sizg of the livestock induszry. It ir contznded that the Achinisz~~~or's 

deci sion in the M-44 proceeding (FIFRA Cocket No. 382, Sept2mber 16, 

1975), "L the 2ffsct that-s\ri dencs zvai 1 ab1 e pr? or to 1972 coui'd be 

ccnsidered in detemining the avai lkbil icy of an antidot2 for scdium 

cyanide, i s not precedent far io;:sl czraii cn of are-i 972 evi lencz , beczuse 

the 1972 finding chat there was na anridox was 2rrgneous and noc sdogortzd 

I' 

by Ihe record. Csunsel arsue tht; thl~ ruling was ?raper, citing the rule 

9 / - -, 

concerning an agency's inherent power to correct i:; nistakes. IL is 

asserted, however, that an agency's power to corroct its aisiakes dces 

not extend to changing a basic decision or policy, e.g., suspension and 

cancel lati on of the use of 1080 as a ?radaci de. Under this vie8,q the 

more egregious the mistake, the less ?ewer the agency has to correct it. 

Surely the Administrator has the authority to inquirz into ali findines 

9/ While the absence of an effective antidote is aroncj the criteria 

that may tripaer a Rebuttable Presurnotion Aqainst Registration (RPAR) in 

accordance w~th 40 CFR-152.11, it is clear that the lack of an antidote is 

not in and of itself suf-iici?nt reason for either denying an existing , 

application for registr-a tiion or cancelling an existing registration. 1 - -1 Accordingly, iie exisien~,*a or- I din of ail antidote i; not 2 ;;;ci2? or 

control1 ing finding dnd the decision in the M-44 proceeding would aimos~ 

cartainly have been the <ianc absent an anridote for sodium cyanide. 
<I 

ilpon :uhich tk 1972 order mi 5a;ed jh~~ld it be considered apnrocriacp 3r 

qesir:oi? to do so. 

Counsel fai 1 to sxp1ai n how ! Ssuas such as ,,%/hether :bs2 rj jk cf 

grinary and secondary poisoning were overesiimatad in I372 can be addressed 

absent consideratian of pre-1972 evidence concerning the impact of 1C80 

on ncn-targst wi ldl iie. >!oreover, by focusing on the "newly 2iscovered 

evidence" requirement of 164.131 (a), which is the requirement to hold a 

hearing , i nsuiii ci ent a tten~i on i 5 given to the 1 anguage of 15d. 7 32 (a) 

providrng in pertinen: ?arr "The det~rnination of these ijsiies ;hal! te 

iilaae taking in10 account the human and envircnrnenxal risks found by the 

Adrninistraior in his cancGllation or suspensjon deterninaticn and rhe 

cumul ati ve eiiect --/- of a1 l oast and presenz ~ses , i ncl udi ng the requested 

US~, * * -. I' (emphasis suopl id). The cxrnulaiive effect of ai: ~ast 

and present lses can nardiy b? properly iddressed by 1 ri~id lim~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 of the suspension and cancellation 

order in 1972, the Agency has previously denied applications for registration 

of 1080 and it is clear that applications deemed not meritorious may be 

deniee in accordance with 40 CFR 164.131 without a public hearing. This 

provides ample authority to preclude the necessity of holding a public 

hearing where substantial new evidence which may materially effect :he 

prior suspension or cancellation order in accordance with the cited 

section has not b~:n subrpi ttod. Y~r-roo~, :./en if a ;r;bl< hearing is 

granted, the Administrator controls the issues to be adjudicated therein 
7 F 7 ,. . . 7, accordant? ;qj :h 49 CF? I a4.131 (cj and hzs trip ie a; screc;on i3 3rPc r uae 

1, 8 the ro-opening of iss~es csnsi2erza ~3 nav? been ?rcceriy bdetz.miced in 

prior proceedi ngs. For 2xamp12, the ,Admi ni scrator night have i ini'2c 

the issues to 1G80 delivery mechanisxs not ccnsidersd in the I972 order, 

but appears to have chos2n instead that a1 1 issues in ccnnection with 

the use of 1080 as a method of predator control would be adjudicated. . L 

The Adininii~.rator should not and cannor be rlqu'r-?d ro isnore the 

fact that a1 though the 1972 order misht have been contzsted in administratjve 

or judicial proceedings, no such cancest was institutd, and chat fjndings 

suppcrti ng the 1372 ordsr rema i n ni ghl y contr.oversi a,1 , tinder these 

circumstances, rigid prin~iplss of final i ty appropriat2 fsr t?e caurts 

are not appl icable and i nasnuch as the Administrator *defer7i ned that a1 1 

issuns bearing on 'fie I972 order wctild be adjudicated ne~ein, t,ye 

,4drrii,ni;traior and the ALJ may, after evidence mee-cing :he srl ria of 

I 

154.131 (a) has been presented cn the record, and consi stsnt with 10 CF? 

164.132, appropriately consider the enti re record in determining whether 

reversal or modification of the 1972 order is required. 32 that as ic 

may, the 1080 delivery systems authorized herein, the toxic collar and 

SLD baits, were not considered in the 1972 order and were beyond the 

scope of that proceeding. Accordingly, there can be no question, but 

I 

that evidence whether pre- or post-1972 is properly for consideration. 

It has been contended that the testimony of Nr. Harry Loats, a 

witness for USDA who sponsored a mathematical model projecting the 
?ffzctiveness of Compound 1080 larg? 5ai: itaxions in retucing przda~or 

iosszs of s?e$? 2nd ?ifer,ts on non-carset l dl i fe ~cpul a~i ons bas?< sn 

data from the LS;! of such s:acions in '!liycming during the y.ar 1975-7'7, 

should not have bean admitted or if properly adnitczd, should not be 

given any weight, because the model was not produced for use by counsel 

. ,in cross-exani nation. Rr. Loazs ' testimony has not been found to be 

persuasive for reasons, among others, that the model failed to cgnsider 

imigraxion of coyotes, possible "bait shyness" and assumed :ha: she 

resource base renatned fixsd. The objections, howevsr, are rejected as , 

lacking in merit 2ssential ly for the reasons s?t far3 in the USOA ?eplj 

1 o/ 

3riei, thac is, counsel had access to Texas A&?! Ilniverslty (TRNU)'- 

and other data upon which the model was based, but failed f3 'mke use of 

sucn data. Couns21 object2d to having the analysis run and dis?layed on 

. . The nicroc~mpu~2r presenx in the hearing room and are no: in a 20s; ::cn 

tc. complain i i; such a showing night hal~e ~hrown addi ti2nal 1 i gn?: cn 

operation of rhe model and sugest2d additional questions for crossexami nation. Moreover, carefu 1 exami nati on of the transc7.i pt rp_vea 1 5 

that a1 though ?lr. Loats did state that the model (computer codes) das 

considered to be proprietary, he did not flatly refuse to producs it, 

but stated that he would have to consider the matter. It appears chat 

Mr. Loats did not fully understand the nature of a pro~ective order that 

might have been issued by the ALJ in order to protect the data from 

unauthorized disclosure. In any event, the matter was not pursued by 

counsel and nay not now be used as a basis for objecting to i4r. Loats' 

!O/ USE!, assert: tkt the TAXU data were avai iabie to counsel for 

EPA and Defenders as early as April 1982. 
, . The e1,j rjenc2 2 jtsbi i shes that ~~cmoo!,~nfl 1 sZ0 ar;e-Ga? cs ar? intended 

, . as 3 general coyota jopuiatisn iuporession 'ec!?nl;ce frcn l,vn:ih it ir 

, I . ,. assuned that oenefi ts in tne fom of r~dilcti~ns in ?redation ioss?~ 1,4i i 1 

flow. Wyoming, the applicant for regi strztion of 1080 large-bai is, has 

not established thac use of such baits reduces coyotz populations over 

large areas or thzt reducrions in ?redator losses of livestock result 

from such use. In short, the effecriveness oi 1020 large-baits 3s a 

predaxor conrrol technique has not been pstablished. This being so and 

the risks to &L least endangered and threatened specizs frcm such uses 

not having been shown to have been overest~mated in 1272, the applicanr 

- 1 l/ 

has not met izs burden of-proving that the benefi Ti outweigh' %e risks. 

This concl,usicn is buttressed by che fact thac overall losses ~i sheep 

and lambs to ?reca~ors have not be5n shown lo have incrersed since 1972. 

Accordingly, nodification of the 1972 order with respect za 1C60 1zr:ebaits is noc required 2nd me application for tne registrztion of 1080 

in large-bai ts will be dismissed. 

Different considerations apply to the us2 cf lQ80 in toxic collars 

and in single-lethal Cose (SLD) baits. Toxic collars are clearly for 

rhe rsmoval of parricular de?rsdaiing coyotes and fox25 and the findjngi 

herein establish that 1080 in the toxic collar can be used iichbuc 

unreasonable risks to health and the environment. If scatt2red or 

spread over wide areas, 1C80 in SLD baits might also be used as a general 

coyote population suppression technique. Such use is open to the same 

objections as 1080 in large-baits, its effectiveness has not been 

11/ It is a well established principle that where ihe evidence does 

not pKponderate in favor of one conciusiur~ iii an. ths paitj: h;vl-: 

the burden of proof on that issue cannot prevail. 
?roved. The lin~xed use of 1080 in Si3 baits auchorizzd her2ir: is caszz 

1. 

2n xsx;ccr,j. :il2: sk:n :31cs ~szd :n :2nJcnc~i:n isprsc+iz:? ;sr-.ls 

F - L ' and scsncs can 22 S~TSC ~:ve in r?.r,o\ii ng parxi ca l.r depredaci i;g c3yc-,ss 

;~ithoux undue risks to non-target, species. !L is concluded r,hat the 

hazards of lC80 in toxic collars and SLD baits as authorized herein are 

sufficiently minimal hat broad prohibitions on their use +thin the 

range of endansered species are not required. The result ~,vould, oc 

course, be different, if, for ~xarnple, i E was shown thaz miangered 

species such as the Sdn Joaquin kit f3x (~er2 in the ar2a and that they 

might attack collared livestock or be attrac~ed by scnnTs designed for 

- 12/ - co~yotes. 

For all that appears, us2 of lC8O in the sxear POST is intended as 

a general coyote pogulazion ruppressicn xci?niqiie 2nd chis 2pplicacion 

is being disrnisszd for the same reason as the appiicatjon for us? of 

1080 in large-baits, i .e., it has not been scewn to be sffeczive fqr the 

intended purposz. 

Nyorning, et a1 . have contended that the evi'dence is sufficient to 

registgr the bait delivery unit (BDU) tzsted by Jr. Powarc (70~ 1 , 

supra) as a means of ?redator con~rol , 1: is iqell settled, however, 

that the issues in a suspension or cancellaxion proc2eding may not be 

expanded to include us?s or restrictions not proposed in the notice 

issued by the Administrator. Shell --- Oil Carn~anv, - et al., FIF4A Docket 

Nos. 401, et a1 . (Decision on Interlocutory Appeal, April 9, 1979). 

12/ Because Executive Order No. 1 1643, February 8, 1972 (37 FR 2875)) 

prohiEting the use of toxicants on Federal lands for predator control has 

been revoked (47 FR No. 20, at 4223, January 27: 1982), no ~rohibici=n 

of the use of toxic collars and SLD baits as authorized herein on Federal 

lands is being imposed. 
18 

The r3t;onale for 13i s decision is :Sac und3r :ke stacuze gnly :he 

Adninis:ra;or or his de;?sate can issue a notjce of iflt2flt to ~2n~2i Gr 

suspend and chaz such a notice neczssarily ~2~5 che sczndard of r2hvance 

7-1 for che conduct of he hearing. ine instant hearins is being conduct?d 

under Section 6 of che Act and the sane reasoning is applicable. Accordingly, 

the ALJ has no auihori ty to direct thac the BDG be registered as a means 

of predazor con~rol. 

The use restric~ions for 1080 in SLD baics imposed herein bear 

l i ttl? re1 ati onshi p to chos2 proposed by ;he appl i cants. S tri ngent 

limi~ations ara being placcd on <he ase of such baits, hc~t~ever, because 

the evidencz justi fying chei r lis2 is based on effectiveness in renoving 

parii cul ar depredating coygtes . US& restrictions (Attzchnenx C) are 

considered to 52 fully consist2nt with that purpose. 

No effort has be~n nade to deal with all of the multitudinous 

proposed findings of fact and arguments raised by the parties. The 

findings herein are deemed to be fully suppor-r,ed by rhe record and the 

conclusions are consioer2d to be required by the findings. 

13 / 

conclusionThe applicacions for registration or emergency exemption for cne 

use of iC80 in large-bait stations and smear posts are dismissed. 

13/ The notice of hearing issued by the Administrator specified 

that the ALJ would issue an initial decision. Unless appealed in 

accordance with 40 CFR 16A. 101, @r upless the Adasristrator decides t9 

review the same sua sponte as therein set forth, this decision will 

become the final decision of the Administrator in accordance with 40 CiR 

164.90. 
- 

granted . 

Oated rhis 22nd day of October 1982. 

Attachments A, 3 and C 

14/ It is clear that this decision does not constitute registration 

for tg uses authorized. Appl ications for regis treiion wi 11 be processed 

in accordance with and must confom to usual procedures and regulations. 

I;lhetiler av:i 1 aal? ddla denons:ra~2 in$< ?rec!az;cn oss rases 

nav5 increases sl nc2 1972: 

(a) for sheep 

(b) for cattle 

(c) for goats 

Whether current losses to credation account for a greaEer 

~ercentage of total losszs than before 1972: 

(a) for sh~eo 

(b) for cattle 

(c) for goats 

Yhether coyotes, foxes, and/ar feral dogs are i!gnificanr causes 

of predation. 

-. 7 Efficacy I 

Whetner use of lC8O in coxic callars, single-lethal dose ka? ts, 

and/or 1 arge-baic i~3iiofis is 1 : kei y to rnduce preda-ign : 

(a) in open -range grazing of 1 ivestocx 

(b) in fenced pasiuro grazing of livestock 

1 f use af 1380 is 1 i he I y to reduce ?reda~i cn , by LOW much? 

3. ,A7 cerna t i ves 

Nhether non-chemical methods of predatar control, e.g., denning, 

shooting, trapping, and snaring, are general ly effective in reducing 

predacon. 

Whether the M-44 device using sodium cyanide is generally sn effective 

alzrnacive to the use of 1960. 

Whether non-lethal chemical methods of predator control, e.g., taste 

aversion chemicals, reproduction inhibitors, and repel ldnts, are 

effective. 

whether husbandry practices, e.g., use of guard dogs, shed lambing, and 

additional herders, are general ly effecti ve in reducing predati on . 
!,li th respect to a? 1 a? ternati ves to 1983 oi-?sjacid&s, !,qke<h2r t5~r-g ,. . I, 

is . 

any - si:uatlon in ltin?~~ no curr3ntly avdilzgr? 3]t?rnatS\!? is 

- . -? 

>a L I s~~ctory, 2. .g. , because of i cs ccsz or because of j inj tltjcns 

on its us? 3i!e to characteristics o= t$e control method, ' . 

Nhat are the national, regional, 2nd local effects of predation on 

the livestock industry and the general economy? 

' What impact would the avai labi 1 i ty of 1380 have on che profits sf 

individual ranchers and the 1 ivestock industry, as a ldhole? 

5. Environmental Safety 

Whether available data ,indicat~ that use oi lSSO in ~sx'c collars 

and/or SLD baits wculd be 1 i kely to r9sul t in lower direcx or indi rsct 

exposur? to non-tarcyet l,.ii 1 dl i f? than resul ted frcm us2 of 1 C8O l arcjebait stations. 

'dhether available data indicate that the risk of primary andjor 

secondary poi soning was overestimated in 1972. 

6. Human Saisty' 

'Ahether US? of 1380 in toxic collars, SL3 baits, and/or larrjebait stations is likely to result in human injury or dea;h. 

1,dhether an antidote and/or medical treatxen~ sxists which eff2ctic/ely 

caun tzracts the effects of 1080 poi soni ng . 

7. Use Restrictions 

Whether prohibition of the use of 1C80 in the range of certain 

protected and/cr endangered species, e.g., ihe San Joaquin kit fox 

or Cal i forni a. Condor, would effectively reduce or el imi nato the risks 

to tho52 species, and what effect would such a prohibition have: 

(a) in those areas 

(b) on the 1 ivestock industry as a whole 

Whether restrict'ion of the use or' 1080 to trained Government employees 

or certified applicators would reduce human and environmental risks 

wi thout substantial ly reducing benefits . 

Whether a requi rernent iha t 1 ivestock predation be veri iied by state 

employees before use of 1080 was authorized would limit use of 1080 

to sit!!ations in which it was most likely to ppqvide signif'cznt 

benef i ts . 
Whetner users inould be required :a post warnings in me vicinity 

of SLD b&i ts and iarcje-bait stations. 

Whether users snould be required to check ioxlc collars, SLD 

baixi, and bait stations periodical 1y. 

Vherher users should be required to keep rocords of rhei r use of 

1080, and i i so, wnac records. 

Yhether other raszrictions waul a reduce risks wi thcut iubstan~;ai ?y 

reuuc'ng oe~eii 2s. 

Fttacnment 8 

1. a Przdaci on Loss Rates 

A. Sheep Losses Prior to 1972 

3. Sheep Losses After 1972 

r'; C. Caczle LOSSBS 

0. Goat Losses 

TI. Efficacy , 

- A. ~oxic Collars ' 

B. Single-12thaI-Dos2 3ai~s (SLZs) - 

C. Large-aai t Stati 3ns 

- A. Uenning, Shooting, I r3pping, Snaring 

8. ;1-44 

C. Aversi ve Conditioning 

D. Repr~ductive Inhibitors 

i. Chemical Repellan~s 

F. Husbandry Practices 

(1 ) Guard Dogs 

(2) Shed Lambing 

(3) Addi tional Herders 

(4) Fencing 

I ,5j Pmin:7; or >ru~lli?~ 

G. Mechanical Repel 1 ants 
\1 . Environmental Safety 

A. Exposure' 

(1) Toxic Collars 131 - 13.1 

8. Risks of Primary and Seccndary Poisoning 

(1) Primary - 135 - 136 

138 - 123 

VI. aurnan Safety 

i I 

A. Physical Prdpercies of 1033 and Stinan injuries - l5i 

8. Misuse 

C. ~ntidote and Treatment 

VII. Use Restrictions - Attachment C 

VIII. Smear Post 136 - 157 
i , The Ca: n Cornmi i~ee, her2inaiter iai n or Cal n, ei a1 . , :./nose reocrz 

was ihe primary basis for the 1372 order suspending and cancelling 

registrations o? Compouna lO8O for tne control of predators, referred 

to a study conducted by. Utah State Ilni:ler;icy, hereinai~sr'the I 

1 

- 1 / 

Niel sen-Curie study, on 3 23 Fsrcen: sdrno! n of &;ah 's shees ranchers. 

The ranchers were asked t3 ?stiqa;s tkir i3~ai losses 3ur:ng 122 

Fiscal Year 1963-69 and ta repor- ihe ounaer 3f shes? iasi ;3 

predators. The result showed an 3verage ?redator loss of 61 

iwes and lambs per i;000 ewes, ' of which dpnroxi~ateiy ?/I :verz co 

1 ambs. Oa~a on he 1 amb crop per 1 ,CCO swes :.ier- no, ita:ed, b~i 

de~ending on t!?at la~a, jredator lssies Ners 2 Terceni of ;ne ewes, 

4 to 5 percrnr of the 'anbs and ~er~ass 3 serceni sf the btal 

flocks. Coyotes were reporteo 2s aeing rhe m;or cius2 oi pr?ditsr 

1 oss. 

2. Cain, et al. also referred to estimates compiled by izhe Oirector of 

the Division of Wildlife Servic2s for the State of Utah during the 

period of the sarly 1040's to 1965, rlferred to as the Owen Xorse 

estimates. These estimates were cornpi 1 ed from yearly reports 

furnished by a leading sheep rancher in each ccunty, who in turn 

contacted sheepmen in his county for data on sheep losses. Cata 

reported were in terns of actual numbers of sheep lost and not 

- 1/ Pursuant to a motion filed by counsel for EPA, which vas not 

~nnnc~~j h;/ ?c;, nart.7, n<44~;31 mnA;-~ -- +-la-- -- LLrr--- v"Uu CJ, ul I IL lu 8 IIVL ILS. ; L~ACII u; LII~ re~ura upon wnich 

the 1972 suspension and cancellation order was based. 
3ercentases. 3y civicing the to<;: flumS2r of sheep in the stac2 as I 

Cain arrived a: jercsnta~?s 07 13552s ;3 jredat'cn ;n the range of 

7-10 percent in th2 lat2 1923's and 10~~2s of 2 to 4 percent sinc3 

that time. Cain, et a1 . observed that this result was in clos? 

agreement with the Ni el sen-Curl e Study for 1969. 

3. The Division of Nildlife Services ccmpiied loss data, referrpd to 

as the Reynoids and 2ust.d Sumari?~, as reported by the Crcp and 

Livestock Reporti n~ Services for the 5 tazes of Yontana , ',!/yomi ng , 

Colorado and Tzxas. In :he courss of regular annual surveys, 

conducted by mai i questf onnai re, stockmen i n, the 1 i sted states ;vere 

asked to regort the numbers of sheep lost to ?r:dacors during che 

years 1366 to 1969. Losszs reported as a gercentage of all sheep 

and 1 arnbs ranged from '3.6 percznt in Texas in 1967 to 7.9 ?ercent 

in Wyoming in 1969. Extrapolating this data to 16 wesi2rn SY~WS, 

Reynolds and Gustad concluded that predators were responsible for 

24.8 percent of all sheep and lamb deaths or 5.3 9ercent of the 

total i nventory . 

4. Cain, et al. alsa had available USGA Forest Service estimates which 

are based on records maintained by district rangers as to the 

numbers of livestock placed in national forests at the beginning of 

each grazing season and the number removed at the end of the each 

season. The difference between the two figures constitutes the 
including those to predators. Resulk, c:zpi~cd for Utah >fatignai 

Forests, showed losses tc przda~crs ranging beF,veen 0.4 and 1 .Q 2ercznt 

of herds grazed. Secause rhe grazing s2ason Oi7 national forests 

1 as"L on1 y two to thre~, ronths. of the year and because 1 osses during 1 I 

c1th2r seasons, 3speci a1 7:j :vi nxr, rihich nay Se subsr,antl ai are not 

r. incil~ded, Cain concluded chat thesz ~:?ures agrred r3asonabiy dell 

wi~n the Pli?l sen-Cilr'le aca Owen Yorse estimat2s for the znti re 

year. 

3. Cain, et 31. alsa had a?tai!abl2 dam ,on, inventorfes of sheep 2s 

of January 1 of sach yezr, lamb crop and to~al losses to a!l 

causes as raporr,sd by USZA's Stzsistical ,?e?orting Serxlice (32s). 

These dam are compiled tnrougn nail queszicnnairs 2nd do noc 

anernpt to br~akdown lssses to cause. !ctz! losses thus repcrc2d 

varied betwe n 9 and 11 9ercent in Utah (individual years ranging 

between 7.9 and 14.9); between 7 and 8 percznt in Idaho (6.1 and 16.1 

for extremes) ; and between 8 and 9 percent in Wyoming (5.4 and 13.5 for 3 

the extremes) during the same period. Cain, et a1 , recarded thes? 

total reported 1 osses as setting a cei 1 i ng on, predation 1 asses . 3as2d 

on an analysis of the Nielsen-Curle data, the committee concluded tkat 

nost operators experienced ininor losses in z2ms of percenIages (with 

80 percent of the total falling in the two lowest classes), while only 

a small fraction of the operators experienced heavy losses. 
,-I =, al., zutilorzi a:] 3rr~icle "?r?datsr LCS~~S I:: 2ne - r 7 ~ock of Shes? 

and Goats ," ,dhich re?ort?d on losses co flocks ~aintained oy the 

Texas Agricultural fxperiment Station. Sheep losses to przda~ors 

during the fi 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 of the inventory. lnese sercentages include loss2s co 

1 ainbs , which !+/ere considered essi?ni-,iall y post-marki ng as 1 amoi ng 

. occurred in c~nfinesent. ?redator 108~2~ as a percent of a11 ;asses 

averaged 36.30 percenx, the highest being Q2.14 3ercent in 1577 ana 

<he lowest being 25.32 perc2nt of all losses in 1969. For tne mos: 

cart, animals were ooserved and losses recsrded ,3n a daily casis. 

Coyotzs or possibly a hybridization of coymes and th2 red l~o?f 

- 2 1 

were the prihci?ai ?r~da~or, this hybridization being csnsicerd 

a possible explanation Tor the fact adult sheep were readily killed, 

while coyotes, which are not hybrids, tznd to pr2y more hezvily on 

1 ambs. Predation 1 osses werE stated to be considerably underes tinated 

because, unless the carcass was observed shortly after the ki 1 l , it 

would be scavenged by vul tures, making impossi ble accurate determi nation 

of the cause of death.. These losses were incurred despite intense 

efforts to prevent predation and predation control efforts at a level 

C/ Mr. Roy Yc3rile (find; [ig c5 i nfra; consi~ered thi s cross-breedi ng 

or hybridization as a possible reason for the exrinction or near extinction 

of the red WO~ f. 
- - 1 1-- 

, crp?::er :>rn rne .v?czc >, 3r~cu:ar csul 2i73ri. I , :zs 

- 11 - n a;pdrenti;i not dsed in rnls arza ~ricr rs IY,~, sir;,,-;nlne 

sadjum clianiie, tne la~ter i~ the royot. gei-ec, piere .red. 

- 9 i. ;ne forqoing makes !t clear chat dara on pre-1372 prodaiion lcsses 

to sheep are fra~nentary and that no sne loss figure is pcssible. 

- he most reasonable conclusion, however, is that predation 10~~2s '> 

1 

of sheep are somewhere between 3.6 and 7.J oercsnt reporred in 

:he ?eynolls and Gustad surrmariss. Cain, 2t a1 . had questioned tha 

Reynolds and Gustad data because it iiilplied thzt precs:!sn :vas a iilajar 

causa of totas1 losses, which )was quesiioned, becruse of ihe s~aristic.1 

dis~ricution of predztion losses, i .e., only a small ~r3pcortion of 

ihe producers suffering major predaiian 1 asses. 

8. In 1975, a mil questionnaire to determine sheep and iano :asses 

to gredatars in 15 western st? .es in 197a !,vas csnducted by the 

Statistical &porting Service of the U.S. Department of Agricul ture 

(Agricul tural Econorni c Report No. 369, lpri 1 1977, herei aaftor 

Gee, et a1 .). Of 28,000 questionnaires mailed, responses were 

received from 8,910 farmers and ranchers or 32 percant representing 
all siz3s 2nd tySas sf 52-9 nser?:icns and zli cjmgraph?caI 2723s 

- - si- 15 I,l;eszrn ST~:~S. $3 ins~ire re1 iabi l ':I, 3 safin;? l~f ':;:CS~ 

-, . I not rsspondincj was c3n:acced by v~ai l ?.na personal inervisl,~. in? i 

was rhe nosL comprehensive sGrvey of she~p and ianb iosszs to 

predation evzt conductzd. Predation, principally by the coyote, was 

the major cause ai sheep and lamb deaths during 1974, l~sses 

attributd to coygxes numbering 728,000 lambs and 229,COO adulc 

sheep, represmting a ~hird of the tots1 lamb deachs t3 all causes 

and a faurrh of tne adulr sfieey dea-ths. Lanos were attacked mch 

more than adult sheep, overall ios3es to coyot2s being 8 percen1 of 

the lambs and 2-3 DePcent a? the sheep. Loss ratzs of lambs and 

sheep to coyoces were highest in states wizh pubiic range grazing 

and mountaincus t2rrzin ?/hi 12 ccmparacively few deaths frcm cgyotes 

were incurred in the Scat2s o-f Kansas, >lebraska and ?/ortn 2nd Souc!~ I I 

I Dakota. Predation losses other than to coyo-ces, ccns~i:uzxi 2.3 

percent of lambs and 0.9 perc2nt of sheep. 

9. Gee, et a1 , rspcrt2d that lambs lost -co predators consti tuted 

11 .4 percent of lambs born and 49.3 qercent of losses of lambs to 

a1 1 causes. Adul t sheep lost to ?redaters totaled 3 :4 percent of 

the January 1 inventory and constituted approximately 33 percent of 
. .1 <?a:ns LO dl I c2dses. 522, OT 2'. fzrzn?r :nc7c2tsa :PI?: ;~CD 

1055 rates i3 31 : CdUi2S nave been i ncredi i ng , lwhi i a sheep ; $55 

rates have lee3 declining slign~ly. The Gee repor: sza:eC ;hat lt,hi?e 

most of ihe idr-92 scale sneep ogeracors reporzed losses frcm less 

than 5 percenr to more xhan 20 percenr, many small scale 7roducers 

had no predation problems. , I 1 

10. :Ir. Gary Liizauer, a lwi?dlife manzgement specialiic fzr :iew 

:4exico Jegartnent of Agrical xre and a (wi tnesi i3r Yycmi~g, 2: a1 , 

suminarizeb she" and lamb 10si2~ beizre and af-.er 1972 fsr ei~ht 

sca~es in which cornoarable data were available. ,??lying on daca 

collacted froni iurveys by the Colorado Degartinenx of Agriczlrure as 

repor~ed in Gee, et 31 ., (~hich indicated lambs lost ;o predazcrs as 

a percent of iambs born were 3.2 in 1966, 7.2 in 1970 and 7.i 

perceni in 1971 as compared to 16.5 percent in 197J as r.,- onort2d Sy 

Gee, et a1 . , ?it-. Li t~auer concluded that lambs lost to nrela~ors 

more than doubled. Adult sheep lost to predatc:~ as a percenr. of 

srock sheep on hand as of January 1 of each year in Coiorado >,qere 

2.5 percent in 1966, 2.2 percent in 1970 and 3.3 percen; in 1971. 

The comparable Ses I lcjure for adult sheep 1orc to predators 

for the year 197a in Colorado was 3.5 percont. 
m 8 1974, the 1a"L~r based sn Gee, ?'i 31. i:.ie losses at~ributec zo 

predation iiere 2.6 perc2nt of inventory in 197Q-71 and 2.8 ?ercznc 

in 1972-73. These figures are to be compared with the 1.8 percent 

of stock sheep lost to coyotes in Idaho in 1974 (2.0 percent losc to 

predators) reported by Ges, 2t a1 . The 1970-71 and 1972-73 loss 

data are based 2n a study of range jhee? operaIors, which ?rescnably 

would have higher loss rates tgan farm flock operations. 

12. Lambs lost to predatcrz in Xontana as co a percgnt of lambs born 

cotaledi 7.3 percent In 1968, 5.1 percent in 1969 and 17.5 percent in 

1974. The rnajori ty of ttle losses (13.3 perc~ct) in 1974 were ta 

coyotes. Adult sheep lost zo predators in >loncana for ~he above 

year; as a percenTage of stock sheep on hand as 3f January 1 

constituted 1.5 percent in 1968, 1.5 jercenr in 1969 and 6 perc2nc 

in 1974. All of these figures a?pear in G?e, ec al., the source 

of the loss co predators for 1968 and 1969 being the Nontana Crop 

and Li vestgck Reporti ng Servi c2. 

13. For Nebraska, lambs lost to predators as a percont of lambs born 

totaled 7 percent in 1971, 8 percent in 1972, 8.7 percent in 1973 2nd 

1.8 percent in 1974. Adult sheep lost to predators as a percent of 

stock sheep on hand as of January 1 totaled 3 percent in 1971, 3.5 
". -. ;:;ares ire frcn Gee, 2; 2]., cbe szs;~. s= ilii ;:gsres j~7:, 

1,972 and 1973 being !iebraska Li\/2s:3ck isji Reports (1 972-7<) . 

14. In Yew i.lexico, iamhs lost to predarors as a percent of lambs borr; 

!were 5.2 prcent in 1972, 5.5 percent in :973, 5.18 percent in 

1975 and 7.35 percent in 1975. These results, which are based on 

surveys 3f 99 r3nchus in souihe~s;ern New Xexico (81 rzncSes in 

1975 and 75 ranches in 1976) are l imited i9 posr-dock:ns ICS~PS 

and are ro be com~ared wizh the 17.1 perceqt lcss rat. ss a 

percentase of 1 ambs born in 1374 reporrea sy Gee, 9: a1 . ,Adu; r 

snesp lost t? predators as cmpiled by ,Yr. Littauer, based on 

surveys sponsorzd by :he ~Ver Nexica 'Xaoigrchers, show a precacjon 

. C loss raze sr 2.5 percent in 1970, 3.5 percent in i371 and 1272. 

6.1 percent in 1973 and 9.6 percenc in 1974. Tbese data aer. 

collected Yron 33 ranches in a r sponscred by rhe Yew :?exits 

Voolgrowers, Inc. in which the ranchers were asked to regart on 

-1 predation losses for the preceding five years. inese results are 

:a be compared wi:h the ioss rate of adult sheep to predators 

reparted by Gee for :dew hlexico in 1974 of 5.9 perceni. 

Losses of lambs to predators as a percenrage of lambs born in 

South Dakota were 1.2 percent in 1963, 2.3 percent in I970 and 3 

percent in 1974. Losses of adult shaep as a percentage of stock 
fron Sou~h CakotB Livestock and Poultry Lossss (1 370) . A tab1 e 

compiled from USOA SRS datz showing lcsses of sheep and lmbs to 

a1 i causes in South Dakota for the ,years 1960 to and inc'uding 1981 

shows that combined losses ranged fron a low of 5.5 perc~nt in 1961 

to a high of 9.3 percent in 1367, {were 3.7 ?erc2nt in 1977, aca 

in 1977, declining to 8.a perc2nt in 138;. Lamb de3chs to a11 

causes as a perc2ntage of lambs docked ranged fron a ics,v of 7.3 

percent in 1961 t3 a hi sh of 1 3.0 in 1971 , ere 12.3 percent in 

1972, and ranged frsrii a low of 70.7 Fercenx in 1373 to 5 iiich of 

1 ' 12.4 7ercent in 1379, declining to 11.3 percent :n 19S1, Losses of 

7 -7 sheep 70 a1 1 causss fcr th2 pars i ~13 thr~u~h 1185 sre :oi~er :b,an 

for ti12 years 1965 througn 1972. A;~hougn he acknowledged that he 

had no data on the percantage of lamb 1oss2s attributable to coyotzs, 

Mr. Roger Pearson, Secretary of the South Gakota ge~art~ent of 

Agricul ture , contended :ha; i t was !ogica! to attribute increased 

lamb losses sinc? 1372 to predators. 
3 percen: in 1073 and 1975. 21s aaya was ;ol:~c~ed and ccmp;ied E;/ 

the Texas Crop and Livestock R~por~lng Service and, with the excsptjon 

of the daca for 1967, is also cant2ined in Gze, et a:. G2e, e: a:. 

repo'r;ed lamb losses in T2xas ra predators as a percentage of larncs 

born totaled 11.3 r !nt in 137? of which 5.3 percznt of iambs born 

-. . were lost ;o ~3~0~2s. nii c3rresponds c:os21y with the 1i.d percan1 

of lambs born lcs; 1s predators as reported by the T2xas CTOD and 

Livestock Reporting Service. Alehougn lambs last to predators as 

l- a percent oi limbs bdrn as reported by the aals Crop and Liveitsck 

Reporting Service totaled 3 Fercenr in 7373, ;lr. iir~auer reviiea tbij 

-. . - ri yri. upwari n3 1 1.0 Fercent baszd cn da:. csn:ri~ed : 7 i exas 

Sheep i~d Goat OearS Losses and Xarkeiing ?ractices (1 372) ~nl 

USOA SRS data on larno crops iar the years 1567 and 1371-78. Hr. litrauer 

made a similar. ca!cu?atian and derived larib losses as a prcent of 

lambs born of 12.3 percenx in 1976, 3.2 percent in 1977 and 11.9 Fercen: 

in 1978. The losses of adult sheep as a percent of scock sheep ore 

year or eider on ?and is of Jan~ary 1 as reported by che Texas Crc? 

and Livestock Reporting Service totaled 1.9 percent in 1367, 3.1 percelt 

in 1971 , 1 .i percent in 1972 and 2.4 perceni in 1973 and 1 .7 7ercent in 
7 2 

f 1573. I hese fi$ur?s ?re centzined in See, et a? . 2nd at-5 :3 be cor;ar?d, 

1di:h ;ne $23 rzoor~ea adui t sheep 13s; :J ?rsdascrs in i3xas 2s 2.3 serz?nr 

of STGC~ sheep in 1374.. 

17, The Wyoming Crop and Livestock Reporting Servics has col izcr2d and 

reported data on the perc~nt of lambs docked lost to coyotos sincc 

1965. This data as compiled by Mr. Littauer sh~s a loss rate 

ranging frorn 3.31 percent in 1968 to 6.C3 percdnt in 1372, increasing 

to.8.23 ?erca-f, in 1973 and 9.29 percznt in 1974. Gee, es al. reporr, 

lamb losses to 7rea3cor-s as a ?erc2nt of lamos born of 11.7 perc?n: 

in 1974, of which 9.3 percent were to coyores. 3ased on a pub1 ication, 

'Jyoming AgficulturalTtatistics, Gee, 2t ai, re7orr. lambs 10s; to 

predators'as a perc2nt of lambs born torallng 5.5 7ercent in 1966, 

percenr. in ? 971 , 7.9 percenc in 1972, i O percent in 9:: ano 10.8 

I 

percent in 1975. Xyoning USDA SRS data showed lamb 10853s ro :cyot?s 

as a percentage of lambs docked totaling 9.i3 perc2nt in !975, 3.2 

percznt in 1976, 7 .? 0 PerconT in 1377, 7.07 7ercent in 1978 and 11 .03 

percent in 1979. Adult sheep lost to predatars as a percent of stack 

sheep on hand as of January 1 of 2ach year as reported by the State 

Reporting Service and the Wyoming Crop and Livestock Reporting Servicl 

were 2.3 percent in 1966, 1 .6 percent in 1968, 2.3 percent n 1569, 

2.2 percent in 1970, 1.7 percent in 1971, 1.8 percent in 1972, 2.9 

percent in 1973 and 2.8 percent in 1975. The comparable Gse, et a1 . 

figure for 1974 was 3.5 percent. 
13 

;4r, iaryy 3g~rr?~, 3f T~~IC- ~C'/ST?.r;i2n3 ^. n ,--= , 21 . l'S IZf ,!;e t 4-/GRl , ng 

=am ?breau Fe~eriticn, a i~xer ~31~7: ssi3ner ~f ti8 ,>ijczir~ 

Pepar'xen: of Agriculture and a witness fcr Ai3i, przparod a cable 

oi sheep and lambs lost to all causes in Wyoming for che years 

1971 through and includiog 1980 from data cbrained ircn the ',4yorning 

Crop and Livestock 2eborting Service. Oividi ng tcta i reporred 

losj2s during the 10-year 2eriod of ?,9 1,300 by the cumula~i~/e 

inven~ary during :ha; oeriod of :S,CdS. 00, he arrived at an average . 

loss rare of 14.26 percent. ,Ac:arding ro Hr. 3ourrei, these losses 

were calculat2d in exactly the same manner as tam1 1oss2s l,ver4 

calc~lated by Cain, 2t al., wh!ch had arrived at an 3l.3 9er:eni 

aver392 toral loss rats in Qyoming far the 2eriod 135G-79. 

Comparing this rate with the 7.3 percrnt averat;? l~ss rste in 

Wyoming for the period 1940-19, iajn, et 21, had concjuded 3.2: 

loss raws had 10; signifjcantly changed during ;fie ;eriod wneo 

1080 was used. By contrast, Yr. Bourret's calculations indicated 

that an approximace 6 gercen: increase in the istal average sheep 

and lambs losr. during the period 1971 -80 ar an approxjmate 71 

percent increase in total losses during tha gericd. 

19. The inventory figures used by Mr. Bourret to nake the calculations 

referred to in the preceding finding were based on stock sheep on 

hand as of January 1 of each year. This stock sheep inventory is 

exclusive of sheep and lambs on feed and Mr. Bourret used these 
,\It-. j~~rrex'j c2lc~la:i 2ns a; so jncl ~ced $re-co~kifis l CS~~S 53 1 am58 

i l .7 as r@por~ed by ~ne :<ycning Crqp and Lir~eszsck 2e~orf: n.; Servics ,vni i-? 

Cain Cornittee data was linixd loss2s to iambs aftsr docking. 

Mr. Bourret is correct that Cai n, et a1 . used s-cock sheep i nl/entory 

thus excluding sheep on feed. It is not clzar whether sheep on feed 

wer2 excluded from the total inventory becaus2 fha-c was ;he only 

dam available or becaus2 Cain, e-c al. consider2a tnat pr2daxion 

and other 1 osses 10 such shee? woui d be ni nima? . 82 that as i t nay, 

if the calcula~ions made by i4r. 3ourret are adjus~zd so as t3 incl gde 

sheep on f2ed in the-inventory and to excl~de pre-docking losses, 

the average loss rat2 for all causes for the period 1971-SC is 

reduced to 8.32 percent rather than xhe 14.2 percznt cziicula:?b ~y 

Mr. Bourret. 

20. Mr. 3ourret sumarizsd the percentage of che January 1 sheep 

inventory loss to coyoxes as furnished by the Wyoming Crop and 

Livestock Reporting Service for the years 1965 througn 1980, with 

the exception of 1967 for ~hich data were no^ available. Tkss 

percentages range ,from a 1 ow of .86 percent in 1968 and 1971 , to a 

high of 2.18 percent in 1976 averaging 1.29 percent over the 16-year 

period. The percentage of 1 ambs born lost to coyotes ranse from a 

low of 3.10 percent in 1963 to a high of 11.04 percent in 1979, 

averaging 5.53 percent over the 16-year period, In 1980, 6.5 percent 
c3yo12s lere 25.8 perceni of tstal losses. 

27. Or, Llarwin llielsen, Prof2ssor of Economics at Ut~h St2te Qnl ,srxj :y, 

the Nielsen involved ic the lielsen-Curie study cfx2d in Cain, et a!., 

and a witness for .the AFBF, completed a i~udy of the charactsrissics 3f 

sheep ranchers rsportiog high ?redaci~n ;ossss 2nd ihcse a2crrina 

10:v ?radarion lasses in 1377. Baied on Gee, ec a1 . , Dr. .li.isen 

concluded thar high 10si r3nchers experienced Iosi2s of docked idmbs 

to predation of 3 percent or more, wni le low loss ranchers e,xoeriencsd 

preda~ion lasses of 3 percent or 12s~. Dr. ?lie1 sen '3 study is refsrred 

io in Gee, ex a1 . and included pr-d~cers frcm Colorado, idzho, klevlda, 

Oregon, Utah and 'Ayorning. 3a:a gatered &as for the period 1571 -71 

and showed chat high loss ranchers had lamb losi2s af 7.0 ?ercenr in 

1971, 10.0 percent in 1972, 12.5 percsnt in 1373 and I4 percsnt in 

1974. Low loss ranchers had lamb losses of 2.2 percent in 1971, 1.0 

percent in 1972, 4.7 percent in 1373 and 3.8 perc2nt in 1974. Dr. biielsen 

cancluded that this data indicated a substantial increase in predacion 

losses since 1972. The personal interview survey was conducted in 

1975 and ultimately required 37 high loss producers and 29 low loss 

producers to estimate or recall predacion losses for the preceding four. 

years. He acknowledged that he could have constructed a sample of low 

loss ranchers experiencing no predation losses, that he did not know 

whether the ranchers involved had records of losses for those ;IP~P-~ 
and :hat th2 Survey was csndbct?d 6fZ2r d-,? ban gn Ccnzound 1280 

the survey was concycr?d in 1975, ;rd i~iiiary daza icir <22c yezr 

i ndicatzd t>hdt 16 percent of high loss ranchers reportsd i ncrcassd 

predation lcss~s for that year, 62 percent reported lower ?redation 

losses and 22 percent reportsd no cnange in losses for that par. 

From this it might be concluded that :oss?s wer? decrpas'ng i,,rom 

1974 to 1975. 

22. The study "The 2concnics of Shesp Prodacion in Scuchwes~srn ]:an" 

atx2mp~2d to veri fy predation 1 ~SS~S on can ranches havi ng rsnge 

flocks in sau;hweste?n Utzh durlncj zhe period 1972-75. ihji sxdy 

indica~sd that tne predation loss rate of lambs in 1375 was lass chan 

half of that prevailing in 1972. !-as: or missing animals 1,4hos2 

carcasses were never locatzd w2re appar~ntly attributed :a 7reda:crs 

and other causes in fhe same propor~ion as verified 1ossss. Though 

he did not dispute the figures reported, Dr. Plielsen questioned 

whether the area could be considered representative of the Stace of 

Utah or of the 17 western states. 

23. Statistical data frcm USCA and Utah indicatz that combined sheep and 

docked lamb losses to a71 causes for the years 1931 to and including 

1980 have fluctuated in a relatively narrow range, varying from a 

low of 8.2 percent in 1966 to a high of 13.75 percent in 1975, 

decreasing to 8.6 percent in 1979 and 9 percent in 1380. 
sheep flocks in Utah. Tile study (tias primarily con.cerned :vi rn she 

econorni cs of farm fl ock production, was conducted by psrzonal i nhrvi ~w 

and included a sample of producers having from lG0 to ,500 brzading 2wes. 

Coyotes were r~pcrt2d to have accountsd for 5.6 percent of the annual 

.iamb crop ioss?s, including pre-docking losses, and 1.4 ~er~2?t 3i 

adul t ewes 

- I C 25. Dr. Clair E. lerri:?, a retired Aninal Scientist ~orrneriy snplayed by 

- 3 / 

the U .S. Depar~nent of Agricul tux and a witness in this proczeding, 

pres~n ted data purpo~c2dl ys howi ng a dramaxi c i ncrlzse i n 7r24a ti cn 

loss rars an snecp and lambs sinca 1Y2 and the ban on Scnpound 13G. 

Dr. T2rrill appeared ta ac~ribut? alnost ,he entir? r3duc~'on in 

sheep inven~ory from the 57 nillion in 194 LC 30 nlllion in iS5C to I i' 

przdation. He developed an index ta det2mine trznds and losses . - 

using percentages of death2 of lmbs minus percentages of deaths of 

sheep as report2d in USCA s statistics showing inveniaries on hand 

as of January 1 of each year and deaths from all caus3s f3r the 

years 1940 to 1980. He found that this index was highly reiatsd co 

predation losses as reported in data compiled by the U.S. Forest 

Service. His calculations are based on the theory thac ltdnen predator 

losses are increasing, the percentage of lamb deaths increases faster 

than the percentage of sheep deaths. He concluded that lamb and 

sheep deaths from predation acount for a much greater percentage of 

3/ Although Dr. Terrill stated at the hearing that he represented 

the Aiierican Society of Animal Science 12 not::c GT ~thii bppearance oy 

that organization has been made in the proceeding. 
xza1 losses ehan befor? 1372. Accgrding t3 Dr. Tlrril I, 

-7 cverall Ian5 losses t2 ar-ecazicn 2s 2 22rcont 3f lssszs 21, 

7. .4-7,. caus2s were /2 ;srtsnx in 1970, 80 ;erc?nL in IYIL, 73 percent 

in 1974, 84 perc2nt in 1977 and 82 ?ercsnr in 1580. Likewise, 

he concluded that losses of shee? to predators 3s a percent of 

losses to a1 1 causes <r/ere 21 yercent .in 1970, 27 percent in 1972, 

30 percent in 1976, 38 percsnt in I977 and 33 perent in 1980. 2e 

acknowl edged tha: prdati on 1 oss oerczn tages decreased in the 1 at2 

1970'8, i .2., 1975 through 1980, lcrnich is consist2n~ 'wi :h other 

evidence in che record. Because the evidence establishes that cnly 

am small perc2ntage of sheep pr3ducors i ncur heavy predati on 1 csses , 

Dr. Terrill's zstimates of predation losses as a percznta52 GP cotal 

losses are too high and ?,re no; accepczd. 

26. Hr. Gc~glzs 'lurfi2ld, Statistician in Charge of the T3xas Crap and 

- Livestock Rep0rt.i ng Service and a l~i mess for che ! exas 12?~arr,rnent 

of Agri cul ture, submi tted testimony to rhe effect that predation 

upon the Tzxas sheep and goat indus~ry has been continuously 

escalating since 1967. His testimony was based on surveys of 

Texas sheep and goat producers conducted by the Service in 1968 and 

1979, which ref12cted losses incurred by producers in the pr3ceding 

years. Losses of sheep and lamb5 to predators to~aled 172,300 out 

of an inventory of 4,802,000 sheep and lambs in 1967 for a loss 

rate of 3.5 percent as compared to 241,000 out of any inventory of 
predaiors anounted to 25 3erceni of ail 10sjei incsrrea, ~~hll? prxaaicn 

, losses had rjion ro 58 percenT 07 losses to all causes in 1973. He 

further testified that coyotes were responsible for 21 sercent of 

ai 1 sheep and lamb losses in 1978. According io Mr. ~Yurfisld', ;he 

oredarion ~GSS rar2 for iambs Was 4.5 perceni gi :ne iamb crco 

(includes losses befor. and 3itsr docking) in ;967, 3.7 ;ercent ir-~ 

1973, 12.9 percenz in 1374, 12.5 percent in 1975, 13.5 Ferc2nx in 

1976 and 16.6 cercent in 19i8. These loss rates 3rs baszd sn 

the specia 1 death loss surveys conduczad by :he Texas. Crop and 

ii vestock Repor~i ng iervi ce i n 1368, conducted by nai 1 ed q~ei t! onria? r., 

- r and upon infor7a;icn a5 to losjes sarnered by the ,ex25 ~rop dnd 

Livestack Report: ng Servi c2 as ?ar: of i i~ ncr~al yezrl y : nsient:r;/ 

2nd tot21 loss surveys. 

27. It will be noted rhat the loss rates repor~ed by Xr. Muriield isr 

the years 1972 through 1978 do no: agree a th chose calculated by 

by Mr. Li ttauer (finding 16) for the years 1972 through 1373, tnose 

reported by Mr. Nurfield being consistently iigner. 3ecause both the 

Li ttauer and khirfield data are based upon lamb losses before and af;er 

docking the reason for the divergence in loss races is cot apparent. 

Acceptance of Mr. Murfield's loss rates, however, requires the 
conclusion ma; a1;housn unknc~n csus2s cf sne?? and 7259 ~P~YS 

arn~uric2d to 18 ?ercenc oi all losses in, 1367, ~nkncwn C~LIS~S of 

deachs were only 7 ?ercent of all losses in i973. 

23, A1 though the loss figures reported by Mr. ,Vurfield included lambs 

born during the year which were lost to predators, the loss rates 

wer2 not calculated by zdding the 1,amb crop - for the year in question 

to the inventory as of January 1. Hr. Nurfiela befmded rhis 

result, rejecting the idea that ;he lamb crop during the year should 

be added to the January 1 inventory in order to calculate the 

percentage of predation loss25, because, int:r alia, the invenxory 

as o-i January 1 of eSch year i nc1 uded 1 ambsm born si nce October 1 

of the preceding year and add'ng the lamb crop would resulc in 

dup1.ication. It appears, h~we\/er, that lamb crcp for each year as 

reported by SRS includes lambs born frcm October l of the gr2~2ding 

year thrcugh Segtomber 30 of che succeeding year. Accordingly, ;he 

dupl ication referred ta by Nr. Murfield does not appear to be real . 

A table produc2d by Defenders reflects the percent of sheep and 

lamb losszs co a17 causes in Texas as a percent of the January 1 

inventory plus the lamb crop for each year from 1962 and including 

1981 as reported by the SRS and the Crop Reporting Board of the 

U.S. Departnent of Agriculture. The table reflects that car~bined 

losses to all causes were 10.4 percent in ,1960, 9.7 percent in 1967, 

7.3 percent in 1974 and 6.6 percent in 1981. This table is in accord 
lost 102,800 animals (sheep and lambsj :o pregators in 1381. 

Considering a January 1 , 1981 shep inventory of 2,360,000 2nd 

1981 lamb crop .of 1,250,000, this results in a predztor loss razz 

f~r shesp of a~prnxirnately 3 perc2nt and a predator loss rat? of 

lambs in 1981 of app~~ximar21y 3.7 percsnt. 

29. Dr. gale A. 'rlade, E;ct;nsion ',iiIdiife special is^, Texaj Agricultural 

Extension Service,. a former animal dzma~e control agent for tne Fish 

and Wi 1 dl i fe Seryi ce- of U .S. Departmenx of Inr2ri or and a ~,di tness for 

Yyorning, ec al., made a 1 iczracure raview of bat3 zn or2iation in 

;he western United Staxs. He concluded thac pr2cisz 33ta on 

losses of livestock to preda~ion werz avaiiabl? only from szlxc?d 

farms and ranches, bur that 3s:imaxes suggesrsd that losses to coyot2s 

were approximately 4 percent to 8 percont of lan~s and 1.5 percent to 

2 percent of shes produced in the 17 western states. This c-ta appears 

in Counci 1 for Agri cu! tural Science and Technology, Special Pub1 ication 

No. 10 (March 1982), authored by Dr. Wade and in evid2nce, but its 

source appears to be a Oepartnent of the Interior publication not 

- 4 / 

in evidence. Predation loss data compiled by Dr. Wade appears to 

41 This pub1 ication "Predator Dmage In The West: A Study of 

coyore icfanagement A1 ternatives" (USD I, 1978), was identi fied as F'AS ixh 3 - and proffered as an exhibit. i he proffer was withdraw, however, upon obje,:ti 275 :ba:: +h2 ;a~th~:-s l.+,>~? ,s': :',ai 1 st;:-3 fo:- :ro?r -c,<irvf ,-;i',jdo 

Wyoming, et a1, subsequently moved that the pub1 icaticn be abmiitzd into 

evidence, arguing thae it was entitled to be admitted without a sponsoring 

witness. FWS offered to make sponsoring witnesses available, however, xhe 

proff2r was again withdrawn. 
being uslrf. 

20. Dr. Yaurico She1 tgn (finding 6) , noczd the wide var'sty 3f predztj on 

loss estimates and asserted that thos? who yearn for a sing?? 

accurate and dependable figure for such losses wee bound to be 

disappointed, because - such an objective could never be realized. 

He testified thac he wide ;lariation in eszimates of losses due r,o 

predation could rzasonably be sxpl ai ned by: (1 ) coyox? densi :y ; 

(2) number of sheep (cr soa~s) involved; (3) Jressnce cf ccntr31 

efforts; (4) s2ason of the year; (3) age of przy ~ninals; (6) 

a1 ternative fcod sources or grey species ; (7) animal XanaTexenr 

protection; and (8) methods of collecting 2nd axpressing prdation 

:asses. i-te further tasti iieu chat only rarely is predation observed 

and thus several ai ternatives exi sred for deterni ni ng 2nd ex?ressi ng 

such losses. He 1is~~d these as recording as predation losses: 

(1) only those observed; (2) thos? verified as predator kills bas2d 

on appropriate diagnostic techniques; (3) extrapolating on a percentage 

basis frcm tho52 verified as predator losses tg a lar~er popularion; 

(4) including a1 1 missing animals as predator ki 11s; (5) producer 

estimates fro^ interviews; and (6) producer estimates from nai 1 ed 

surveys. He was of the opinion that producer estimatss of loss2s ' 

came closer to the true situation existing in the induscry than 

most efforts at research verification. 
9egartxct's Animal lanacjo Cm~roi S tzby Advi sory Csmi :se in 

1977 and a w~ tness far Cefmd2rs of !di 1 dl i fey a; a1 . , submi Zed 

testimony to the effect that surveys conductad by mail questionnairss, 

Gee, et a1 . in particular-, subscancially overestinated losses to 

predators. He ~oi ntsd 3ut that they2 was a 2auci ty of rzi jab12 

dzta on che extznr of predation losses ta sheep prior co 1372 and 

maintained that publicity surrounding th? Gee, 2t al. sarvey 2nd 

the emotional clirnacs surrounding the predator control issue, biased 

reported pr?tiat'on lgss figures ucltrard. 

32. Dr. Cr2ndy fashioned a cab12 ccmparing Sield studies on szlxzive 

r3nges in 'Ayc~!~;, Idaho, Utzh and )levada curi ng years ?ncsrrpassi ng 

'he 1974 rssul,$s :-e,"crfed. by Gee, ?t a1 . in field cr biological st~cies, I 

investigators xake an sfforc tc find the carcasses of all dezd aniriai: 

and verify the causz of deazh. Obt/iously, ~LIC~ stsdies 3re labor 

intensive, very ?xpensive, depend sn the cccperation of the ranckrs 

or producers conc2rned and can only cov2r a limited area or number 

of herds. This, of course, means that such studies 3rz sinpiy 

indications of what is happening and cannot 5e vie1:ied as representative 

of losses inc~rrei by greaEer numbers of flacks, ?roduczrs in large 

areas or in scates as a whole. Moreover, despite extensive searches, 

some animals are simply missing and the cause cf loss or death 

cannot be dstermined. It should also be pointed out that extensiye 

human activfty in connection wi €it searches for dead and mlssiny 

animals, might in and of itself be a factor reducing predation 
, , belgt,., c,lc,hat it .:~ouid ce ; n the abs2nce of 3tich activity. Dr. Grandy 

-. . . acknow? ebsed ;hd', frcn ;i 2: 3 sil;di 2s :;las i nzdequzte to Y-> -F.P~: ; 

any proper jtacijtic~! analysis or cz!nci~sicn;. 

A 3-year study of five ranches in southern Wycming resulted in 

predation being confirmed as causing loss of 1.5 percent of lambs 

docked in 1973, 2.1 percent in 1974 and 3.2 percent in 1975. 

Corrospondi ng confi med ?,.re ? osses to predators were 0.2 per-cznt 

of the inventory in each of the three years which is to be 

compared with 1974 losses reported by Gee of 11.7 ?ercsc of tke 

lambs born and 3.5 percent losses cf ewes. A study of 3 bands of 

sheep in Idaho r2poced coniimed predation loss 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 of tcxal ewe i nvencory derz 1.6 

perc~nt in 1373, 0.7 percent in 19id and 0.3 percenc in 1975. An 

"adjust~d" predator 1 oss rate ,das detemi zed by applyi ng the ?erc?nt,Age 

verified predation losses bore to total losses and appiying This 

percentage to missing animals. This resulted in lamb losses being 

3.1 percent of 1 ambs born in 19i3, 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, respectively, for each of the three years. These loss 

ratss are to be compared with a predation :ass rat? for Idaho of 

5.8 percent of lambs and 2.0 percent of sheep in 1974 reported by 

Gee, 2t a7 . 

34. A study of 10 large sheep operations in Utah resulted in reported 

. , ccnf i rm~d 1 ;.ma ; gases ~LI pre;;ato?s- of-? .7 pe?ccerr*, of lambs docked- i r, 

1972, 1.5 percent in 1973, 2.6 percent in 1974 and 2 percent in 1975. 
I, - Adji~s~d ;ant lasszs were 7 2ercent cf iarnos doc~?a in 1911, :.I 

' "7 1 perc~nt in 7 373, 5.3 percent in I 21% and 2.3 7ercen; in 1375. 3aca 

on we losses :ver? noc available. 3y conzrasz, Gee, es 31 . , found 

Utah predaxor lamb losses of 72.9 percznt of '~ambs born and ewe 

losses to predators 3i 5.2 percent of the inventory as of January 1 

in 1974. Another field of biological study appearing on 

i)r. Grandy's table is that of t7,tlo inigratury sneep bands in ?levadz 

ldhi ch were studied during the period 1373-1 97J. Repor~sd 1 osszs 

to predation 'dere 6.5 percent of lambs docked and 0.7 percznt of 

the ewe inventory for r,he ;/ear 7 974. This is to be cmpar3cf 1,qi ti7 

the 1 amb 7ossss reported by Ge, et a1 . in Nevada in 1974 as 30.4 

percent of 1 ambs born and ewe 1 osses in that year of 11 -7 percsnt 

of the January 1 stock sheep invcnrsry. 3ecausz the ianc los:zs 

, 

LJ predators in Nevzda reported by Gee exczedecf 85 percenc ci 

i 

tacal lamb losszs, Dr. Grandy asszrtzd thar they could not be taken 

skeriausly. 

., 35. Gee, et ai. prdacicn iamb loss 7ercentages wer? calcuiat~d on zne 

basis of lambs born and thus included ?re-docking losses. This was 

not true of the 'Ayoming, Utah and Nevada studizs referred ~o above 

and shown in Table 1 of Dr. Grandy's t2stirnony, as these studies based 

the lamb count on lambs docked. Gee, et a1 . , however, also calsolat2d 

post-docking loss2s to predators and if pre-docking losses are 

eliminated the percentage of lamb losses to predators for the cized 

states are reduced to 9.2 percent for Wyoming, 11 percent for Utah 

and 14.8 percent for Nevada. 
36. !!r, Srandj also men:icrfd ;:ss;es 1~nder:rriZt9n 3y she "sh and i/? i~l if? ' 

pradator cgntrol. 3e rzf2rred to a study of 2 band of range sheep 

under the control of herders in an area in California, during the period 

June 8 to September 29, 1976, where there had been no predator c~ntrol 

practiced for over nine years. The fact hat tr,e band was under the 

care of herdevs 7,40u?d seem to negats this as a nc control st~dy. 

Reported verified lamb loss to predators was 6.3 7erc2nt and the tots1 

-3 loss of ewes and 1 ambs to 7redacors was 3.8 percent. I ni s stody being 

of less than 4 months duratjon is, of course, very skcrx. ~Icr2ovzr, 

alrhough the researchers in this study were confident 'hat they had 

found possibly 100 percent of the losses, <her$ wzs apparen~iy an 

incorrect count at sneari ng , 1 e2di ng to the concl usi on cRac veri iied 

7osses exceeded by 53 the number ~f animals cgunted [?robabiy, short 

at shi ppi ng. tine]. 

37. ,4 "no control" study was concucced in 1974 and 1975 in Piew Nexico 

on fencea 1 ambi ng operations wi shout herders. Tne losszs to ~rzdatj on 

in 1974 were 15.6 percent of the 1 ambs . No adul t sheso were lost ta 

7radators. In 1375, 12.2 percent of the Iarnos ?no G.9 Ferc2nc of 

adult sheep were killed by predators. Because adjoining ranchers 

i ntznsi fied prtdator control zfforts, the researchers recogni zsi chat the 

"no control" goal was not entirely fulfi?led. Another study designed 

to measure losses in ,the absence of predator control was cmduct2d en 

the Cook Ranch in Moncana. Sheep were run in fznc2d pastur2s and the 

loss rate of lambs to predators amounted to 29.3 percznt. Dr. Grandy 
, , znd notzd that sne icss rat2 declined substzntia'l;/ a~nder irnpmv?d 

35 Included in Or. Grsndy's testimony is a table shol~ing losses za 

poisonous plants and predators 07 sheep and goats grazed on U.S. 

Forest Servica lands ir~m 4940 to 1976. ihe table shows predation . 

losses 2s a percent sr" anixals grazed during the period of IG8C ?is2 

ranged from a low of 0.79 percent in 130 to a hign of 2.39 percent 

in 1972. L~ss5s jn :he ?cst-iG8C years as 3 percsnt cf 3nicais 

grazed vier? 2 .OT percent in 1973, 2.60 percen?: in 1974, 2. i 7 eerc2nc 

in 1975 and 7.88 pert~ntiin 1976. ihes2 loss ratzs at-: basd on 

producer estiflaces of t9e cause of loss. Actual percent2ges of 

loss~s to pr2dators are spproximat2ly one-half of losses in 

the table, because the number grazed includes only adults (a ewe 3r 

nanny with a lcmb or kid bei3g countzd as one), while gredation 

<? \ losses include lambs and kids. As indicated ?re\/iously (finding -, 

it should, 07 course, be rernenber~d that these fi2ures incIu62 only 

the summer grazing season, ldnich averages 2 1/2 to 3 nonths per yelr, 

chat lambing has ~sually been conpleted ?rior ta irovenent onco 

Forest Service lands and that predation loss?s in ldintzr and early 

spring may be substantial. The tab12 shows predatian as a 

percent of total losses ranging from a low of 37 percent in each af 

the years 1951 , 1952 and 1953, to a hign of 64 perc5nt in i 975. 

39,. Because he concluded that SRS invent~ry and total loss data published 

by the USDA (wit.hol.rt. attmpting to assign a csiuse for loss) were the 
2 3 

mcst t?? iabi?, 3r. Grandy cons2r~cfsC 3 ~2~12 jn~;qins act lanb 

- 7 7 - 3 -,.--, Ycss~s r3 2, I c2uses for the 13 'tq?Si?rI jCaL25 =~r tne yzari 15c~-19;1 

and 1272 to and inc:uding 1381. Averase ioss2s ts a11 causes for ;he 

1960-71 period wer? dotemined to be 8.3 percznc of he Jan~ary 1 

inventory plus the lamb crop and 9.3 percant for the period 1972-81. 

I He concluded that there was esszntially no change in losses to a1 1 

causes over tile 22-y2ar period and no change in total losses dur'ng 

the 12-year period 1960 to 1971 , when 1080 was used and during the 

-, 10 years following the suspension of 1C83. i ne resill t cnanses, 

. .. however, 1T lamb loss~s ar2 sqaratzd frm she?? losses and lanb 

deaths are calculat& as a percmtage of :he lamb crop using S2S 

data. Thesz ca!cu.laticns result in an average lanb loss cf 10.4 

percent during the years 1960 to 1971 , wni 1 e the average for :he 

perioa 1972 to 1981 years is 12.3 percent. Sheep dezths as a percsnrage 

of the inventory as of January 1 cf each year average 7.3 perc2nt during 

the years 1960 to and including 1971 and 6.9 percent during the period . 

1972Ao and including 1981 . 

40, Dr. Frederic Wagner, Associate Dean of the College of Nat~ral Resources 

and girector of the Ecology Center at Utah State University, a nembor of 

the Cain Committee in 1971 and a witness for the National Wildlife 

Federation, testified that higher sheep loss ratos of recent years, 

which appear to be real, are merely the culmination of a trend 

beginning in the 1950's. Although his written testimony refers to 

predation loss ratss, he made it clear that he was actually referring 

3 0 

- ,-+- reduc~i zn i n 1 osses ir;iii~di atel;; fcl 1 -,wi n~ I 733 ~?lay nav2 Seen axri - 

. ,,.-- ?- starxin.; ;n ;Y:Z-~ lamb ;oiies ~382 st2zdiIy du~ln~' ih2 period sf 

1080 use, and continued To rise frxn thre? co five years after the 

suspension of lO80 in 1972. %e norad that losses appear to have 

declined by from three to six percent in the past four or five 

years. 

43. Dr. Zcoert Robel, a Professor of Environmental 3iology ac Kansas 

Stace University and a witness for Sefender's of 'iii ldl i fz ., eT a1 . , 

testifi2d thaz in 1935-76 he supervised a study which focus2a cn 

sheep losses co premiers and olther C~US~S in a nine-coun~ area oi 

south central Kansas. The producers rak'ng part in the sccciy nad 

SO percent of the shee? in the nine-cocnty di?3, constizuring 21 

percent of the sheep in Kansas. Although the primary pLr7ose of this 

study was to evalua:e the effecti\fenesi of various nusbarfary ?rac;ices 

in reducing predation, the study reported losses zo all causes were 

6.8 percent of the sheep and 7.9 percent of the lambs on an annual 

basis. proportion at^ cjuses of lanb deaths prior io cocking included 

lambing complications 74.6 percent, dogs 0.7 percent and coyotes 

5.1 percent. Proportionate causes of post-docking lamb losses included 

disease, weather, unkno~in and other causes totaling 79.9 percent, ;vhi le 

predation losses were coyotes 14.9 percent and dogs 2.1 percent. Annual 

Icsses to predators were 0.9 percent of the stock sheep inventory and 

0.9 percent of the lambs born. Of losses to gredators, coyot~s ki 1 led 

-- . 1 J. , ;~rcs.~i ti? ;he zl-,e2p and ai3.o p2,-;2nr of int: i amci . UG~S KI ; lea 

24.9 percent of the sheep and 19.4 percent of the 1 ambs . These resul ~s 
and 3.8 perc2nc cf In? iqvenrory J; s-? shse? on -2nd as c5 danuary ; 

lost to predators in Kansas in 1374 :e;or;ed by Gee, 2r a? . 

Only a small 7ercentage of the dead sheep and lambs were actually 

necropsied to determine the cause of death. Dr. Xccel, nevertheless, 

expressed confidence in the accuracy of the study, because cooperating 

ranchers reported their 1 asses on a nonth'l y basl s, thus r3d~ci il3 

re1 ijnce on the prcducer's nemory. Ai thou~h i: is 1 i kely that 

Kansas has a 

- 2 / 

larger coyote population ihan in>/ sther sta.3 ..&, ltiith 

possible exception of Texas, :he !ow ?redaiisn rites are 

attributa31e in paryta the fact that nost :beep are main~zin2d ir 

fan flocks ;vhich enhanc2s insnacenent przctic.5, such as 2enning at 

. . , night, to rebcce or mn;:s?;e predation. Anoiher lossible r2aian ;s 

<hat most lambing in Kansas ot;xrs in tne fall, when r,he fcoa I I 

pressures on coyores are inininlized due to ',be f2ct 3ac ;!ips are 

born in the spring. 

SC. Or. John Schaub, an Econornisc, Chief oi ihe Ppst Control aranih, 

Economic Research Service, USOA, and a ritness far OSZA, submitted 

testimony on Lends in sheep, lamb and calf lcsses. 32sed cn an 

examination of USDA SRS data on sheep and lamb inventorler, birch8 2nd 

losses for the period 1961 througn 1081, ha concluded that there was 

an increase in lamb losses to all causes after the suspension of 1030 

- 5/ This is based on an annual coyote harvest or take during the 

,,??-- . 1 a77 - ap,j 1 q;Q 1f ,,,F inn . lnn , (a2 c$a ;.- 1 l7a zn? ~5,?@i '. ? qegl, . ,- 

for exceeding the estimated total take of approximately 70,000 for the 

States of Idaho, Montana, Nevada and Wyoming in 1977 and 1978, these 

states being considered to have relatively high coyote populations. 
7 Arizcna, Idaho and 12xas. He %st';'i?d thzc i: was. nor sossibiz 

to identi fy the proporticn of loss caused by ccyote ?redation. 

A similar analysis conducted for sheep losses showed the percent 

of sheep lost to all causzs increased after the suspension of 1080 

in Cal iiornia, ?{or-h Dakota, Montana, Nebraska and New ~Uexic~. In 

- Arizona, Orsgon, Sou~h Dakozs and ;exas there was a s~aeisticaiiy 

significant decr2asz in sheep losses and no ita~isticaliy sisnificant 

change in losses in Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, Utah and dyoming 

45. As part af a sqecial- 1980 meaz anixals cost of production silrvey, 

conducted in the spring of 1981 by personal inxrviews ;~ich 323 randomly 

selected sheep ?roduc2rs, data on loss2s of lancs and sneeg by cause, 

including przdators, were also collec~ed. The result of this 

survey i ndi ca~ea thac predatcrs were r2spons i bi e for apprcxi mate1 y 

61 percenz of the losses to all causes of post-docked lambs, while 

coyotes werE responsible for approximately 43 percmt of such 

losszs. Losses to a11 causes totaled 10.39 percznt of the lamb 

crop, with coyotes being res?onsible for 4.35 perc2nt 3f loss2s to 

all causes. Comparing such estimated losses with the 35 yercent of 

estinatcd lamb losses to coyotes report2d by Gee, et a1 . for 1974, 

Dr. Schaub concluded that the two surveys may indicate that the 

percentage of lambs lost to coyotes has increased. The 1980 survey, 

however, was confined to post docking losses and if, the comparison 

is made using 1974 data on losses of post-docked lambs as reported 
2y 322, sz 31 . , i CSS~S 50 ~3~3~25 l~f!-z ,:./ST 53 ,:erc?n: 3f : zss2s :3 21 : - 6 i 

- 8 

causes in 137J. , ni s csmoari son ltvoulc, of cours2, I ndicatz cna: ioss?j 

to coyotes were decreasing ratcer thzn incressing. According to the 

1980 survey, toral losses of stock sheep- to all causes consti tu-ced 

10.22 percent of the January 1 i nven~ory with coyotes being responsibi e 

for loss of 1.52 percent of the inventory or lJ.9 Fercent of total 

losses. In cznpari scn, the 1971 survey as repor~ed by Ges, et a1 . 

showed that total 1oss2s 07 scock shes? co all causes consti~uied 

10.4 pe!*cent of the January 1 inventory and that coyotes were res~onsible 

for the loss of 2.5 percenr of that i nventory or :pprcxiiii::el j 24 

percent of total lossss. This asain would ind'cate losses 24 stock 

sheep to cayoxss have declined 3s a perc5ncage of losszs co a71 

causes. 

. 6. 1esti;nony as predation losses incurred by ~roduczrs cr for~er 

sheep pr~ducers in Colorado, Idaho, Ncntana 2nd Wycrning is ir. cne 

record. The highes~ races of losses to predators, chiefly coyotzs, 

6/ Although entitled "Lamb and Sheep Losses In The 17 Westgrn Staces ," 

the 1%0 USDA study referred ro apparently re1 ied on data collected from 

only 13 western st3tes, the States of North Dakota and Kansas, which had 

been included in the Gee, ex al. results f9r 1974, being omitted from the 

1980 survey. A table ?repared by Defenders compares the 1974 Gee, at a1 , 

results wich the 1980 data aft2r subtracting inventory and loss figurgs 

from these two states. Thi s subtraction, however, does not significantly 

change the percentage losses caused by coyotes bear to losses to all causes 

nor the percentage losses caussd by predators bear to losses to all causes. 
- I _- , r ;I ' , 2rrtj d Snyder, a '.ior-!j~oc, L,S 1 orsd~ ,?urejr?j 

jheep,pr~duc-r 2nd 3 witness for cI-;e 52 -=--;=: ,.-LL~ ,ed t>~t l~s;?~ 

to lambs during the period o? bi~th through szlz I,vere 2 percent in 

i972, 20 percent in 1974, 22 percent in 1975, 27 percent in 1975 2nd 

approximately 30 percent in 1978. These losses ar2 in terns of 

percent of lambs born. Losses in 7975 and 1976 ivere all to coyotzs. 1 > 

He staied thar. 13i~ rec~ild~ during the jurrxer -.oni.hs ner? zaintained 

by a nan and his wifp who looked aftsr the she?? and chat because 

:he sheep were in fmced paszlires, ir: as ;jossij?? to IOCZ'L~ qeariy 

all ehe kii Is. iiis ciirreni: przdation rats was sca12d to be 10 17ercen; 

of sheep and lambs a~d 1 percznt to guord dogs. :?s acxri but2d the 

reduction in loss razes to the use of guard dogs, flnczs and us? of 2 

helicopter in aerial hunxjng ~f ccyo:?s. 

37. Nr. 4. K. Siddoway, a large migratary jh~ap cperassr frcn ST. ,J,nthony, 

Idaho and a wi tnzss for Wyoming , ei a1 . , tesci fied ;hat he and ii s 

sons have suf- ?red high oredator losses, in one year losing about 

600 lambs from a total of 9,000 to 10,000 or approximately 5 to 6 

percent. He further testified that ihe highest percentage of losses 

from docking to shearing was due to disxise and that 30 to 40 perc2nt 

of losses from shearing to the time the sheep are trailed to sumer 

range wer2 due to predation. He stated that ~ost of the weak or sick 

lambs had been "weeded out" by the time the sheep are on the surraer 

range and that 90 percent of losses durfng the sumer were due to 

predation. He acknowledged that he hadn't kept good records on losses 

to all causes and that for every lamb lost to coyotes, there might be 
I 

-5 

C 

0 

3- 

2 

w 

a, 

-0 

0 

C 

--I 

FU 

VI 

* 

Ill 

ct 

3 

-2. 

-r 

a 

CA 

(D 

I3 

(D 

7 

a, 

rt 

2. 

0 

3 

V1 

3- 

m 

(D 

u 

I 

PJ 

3 

n 

S 

m 

-5 

-h 

I 

0 

3 

0 

3 

0, 

2. 

a 

" 

i-l 

0 

2 

0 

7 

a, 

a 

0 

5-03 

Ill (D r+ U (D 

10 

0 V, 

m ln 

3 

c+ 7 

PJ 

Ct 

-.- rD A 

7 cr0 

CS - 

0 

0 

3 

-43 

0 

C 

3 

(1 

-_1 

C> 

03 

0 

i 

rU 

Ub 

-1 

2. 

7 

ul 

&- t 

c 

UI 

m 

Ll 

2. 

3 

3 

A. 

UI 

Fu 

7 

(0 

0, 

-A. 

I) 

'it 

IS' 

1 U 

(Il 

LlJ 

-5 

d 

<i 

2 

IL> 

(>I 

0 - 

U) 

" 

3- 

-1. 

U) 
in 7 381 . 3ecausz hs did no: have rxcrss of 1 ams born or sockzd, 

on the open range. He statxi that they converxed to a pirtial 

shed lambing pera at ion in 1980, wherein approxirnat~!ly 50 perc~nt of 

the ewes were shed lambed. He further stared that in 1281 extre~ely 1 \ 

high coyore losses ner ini~rrec! \,then one ionch old shed laabs &Here 

turned onto the summer range. In one nonth coyoc2s ki!i?d 79 of 590 

lambs. He tsstified chat predator losscs der9 due ro zoyo~2s excep: 

for an occasional 5e3r. A? though hi: writtzn szatsneni is t~ the 

effect that; they have not suffer2d any i asses rso 2agi es 'in 15 years, 

heb testified cha-;. in 1982 tc the date of the hearing 1C6 lambs wer? 

I 

-, iillzd by e3g1ss and 73 by coyot2s. :na cnly ;os; recgrds zaintained 

by I;?. Pzpoulas are losses co predac3r;. kie 3ttrlbuced the Icw lcss?s 

'1 I j ' irl 79g0 c3 fhe fact_ <ha5 trappers fsuna f~~r or five coyoi? dens 'n 

the fall of 1979. - .' 

50, Mr. Nic!~ Theos, a she<? rancher fron ~cleeker, Caloraao and a :.ritn?ss 

for 'Ayoming, ?t a1 . , testified that his losses to predation had 

been steadily increasing ever since 1972, the year 1380 was banned. 

He testified that prior to 1972 when he was running approximately 

4,000 lambs and 3,000 ewes, his losses to lambs numbered approximately 

120 or 3 percent and his losses to ewes numbered approximatsly 

60 or 2 percent. He further testified that in 1981 when he was 

running virtually the same number of sheep (4,200 lambs and 3,100 ewes) 

?redatio~i losses reac;;ed an al; cine higl~, totaling 13 percenc of idnos 
7 - 07 lamo i 3552s bec:.resn sirtn and docking and ~zites zo a:-,zmpz XI 

diagncse causes of death or keep recgrds oxer cnan ;r?datsr losses. 

51. ?4r. Michael Devl in, a sheep and cattle r2ncher 7rom Terry, flonxana, 

a member of the Montana Legislature and a witness for Wyoming, et 

a1 . , subrni tted a table showing that lamb losses. to ccyotes ranged 

frcm a low oT 2.0 perc3nt in 1971 to a high of 14.5 percsnt j~ 

- -7 1976, declining to 4.3 Fercznt in id13 and rising to 3.6 gercsnt in 

1381. At the hearing, i.t developed that zhis table included only 

losses of black-iacgd lambs to cgyctes. 51r. Cevlin ?x?lained that 

was becsusz the black-faced iamos zre consid2r~d z3 be :he ash 

- 

crop, while all or a por~i3n of the whi12-facsd lambs muid be k?t 

z L =r re91 acbrnen ts . He acknowl edsed , hckever , -hat the <\ti:- -,?- and 

black-faceo lambs ?/ere run in ihe sdme pastures 2nd silbj,?/c; :3 che 

i 

same predaci on, di j2ase, weather and other probl ems. if wh; -.- d + 

faced lambs are added to the total, the percentage 07 ;ambs 70s.; t~ 

coyotes in 1975 is reduced from 12.2 percenr t3 11.9 percent, the 

percentage lost to coyotes in I976 is reduced from 14.5 percent to 

12.7 percznt and the percsntage of lambs. lost to c3yocss in 1377 is 

reduced from 12.5 percent to 12 percent. During the la-year period 

from 1968 to and including 1381 , Mr. Devl in ke?t records of losses 

to other than predators in only five of those years, because he 

stzted that the biggest percentage of death losses through the years 
-1 - is frc~ coyotas. I nz TCI,T~:C~ZG losses :3 czyo~es are gnl/ ,nos? 

the carcass and verified th3 czus? of death. Secause the bodizs of 

some missing lambs ?re never found, Mr. Devlin testified that it 

was quits possibl~! that his predation losses wzrz even high~r t I 

than his recards i ndi catzd. 

'52. fir. Edward 3. S~zi~h, a sheep and cattle rancher frcm Cagmar, 

Mon~ana, a ,'Jcnzan? 5x2 Senacor and a wi tness for ',~iycrni ng , 3 t a: . , 

testified that in 1975 he so:d his entir? flock of sheep zft3r 

, losing 96 of 500 1am3s to coyotos, nearly 3 2'3 percenr loss. ?2 

further testified t5at from the time Ccnpound 1080 oaic staticns 

lwer: 7laczd on his -3nch in 11247 ~ntii zhe use 07 1 OSC Ittias sanned 

in 1972, he aid not 135s a sing12 lamb To 9reda:;on. :+e sza'sd 

that his losses of lambs to coyoces ([,ere iO percznt ; n 1373. 

Smith acknowledged that he maintained no records ~f caus2s of 

losses of lambs and ;ha;. the foregoing loss percenxges 'filere f:-zn 

memory. 

53.' Mr. Joe T. Helle, a sheep and cattle rancher fron Dillon, Montana, 

subnitt~d a table showing the total lamb losses between docking and 

shipping in the fa11 were 5:8 percent in 1967, 12.2 percent in 1974, 

19.1 percent in 1975, 14.2 percent in 1976, 12.8 percent in 1977 and 

8.1 percgnt in 1981 . He attri outed the increase in losses after 1972 

to predation, in particular coyotes, and the increas? in coyote 

. . - -7 -. , 

SVLZ :i ?? :c 7ng 335 nn ;:e us? cf ':c;-ilpo.,r,a I ,;a. ,7j :nc;gr, EL 22~1 r i 22 

that herders kept records of. predac~r losses on sumer ranges, he 
a cGyoce wculd be either mt~n bythe coyote or would "celt dcwn" 

wi thin cwo days. 

54. iclr. Chase Hi bbard, a fourth gzneration sheep and catt1s rancher frorn 

Helena, Montana and a witness for AF3F, t~stified that the family 

ranch was best suit2d f3r she? and has hisiarically besn a sheep 

ranch. He stated thac in 1969 they Idere running 3,3GC swes and iost 

3 ierc2nt of the lamb crop betxeen dockjng in ezrly June and shi ?piqg 

in late September. Ouring the nex; flve years losses rose from 14 

percsnt in 1971 XI 33 percent in 1973 and 35 perc2nt in 1373. ?e 

acknowis!d~ed +sat ihese wer? totz! 1 osses anc caac i c dotili be vsry 

di "=. I , cult to ~stirnate the loss r2t2 att~i5utabi 2 t3 coyole przdation, 

He asserzed, however, that he ;vas artributing the xaj'cri cy of the losses 

to predators, chi sf7 y coyotes , and that when the numbers jump from 5 

percent in 1970 to 39 percent in 1973, s~mething was happening 

other ",an deaths to natural causes. He asser~~il -,hat the oniy way 

they were able to survive was by switcning frcrn sheeo to cattle and 

I 

thac in 1975 they sald most of the rerna'ining commercial sheep. 

55. Mr. Truman Julian, a sheep rancher from Kemerer, Wyoming and a witness 

for Wyomi ng, et a 1 . , began kee~i ng loss records in 1975 shortly after 

joining his father's sheep ranch. He testified that in 1977 they lost 

700 lambs or 24 percent of the herd and in 1981 they 10s: 635 lambs 

or 10 percent of the herd. Herd figures are based on the numbers of 

lambs docked. He asserted that 477 or 68 percent of the 700 lainbs 

lost in 1977 were lost to predators. He testified that the 477 I 
535 lambs lcst to all causes ii7 I%;, ?j",ima:ing 131 lmos 

were 10s: to predators in that year. He staEzd that he knew coyoc? 

losses Idere very ?ow in the period prior to 1972 \;/hen 1080 was in 

use, losses being approximately 2 to 3 percent. 

C ,- - 

30. l4r. Leo I ass, a sheeg and cattl e rancher frsm 3uf5alo7 '~iyorninq 

and a 1d-i tness for ?,F3F, testi fi ed that they were experi enci ng 

lore and mors 1osses frcm coyote preda~ion and that he was f3rc2d 

to confine his sheep for three months of each year because of 

cayotes. 3y confinenent, h2 zeanc a small pasturn. 3e further 

testified tha~ he sold land, )which he had P~cmescsaded in :ne 7 92G1 8, 

locaczd approximately 20 ~ilzs eas: af :he rancn in 1974 becaus? 

he could not us2 it af+,zr 1972 because of pr2da:icn. 41 ~hough he 

apparently had daxs on his lamb crop and on toral lzsses, he 

subrnittsd no figures on the perc~nt of lambs 1osx to coyores 2nd 

other predators. 

57. Mr. Marion Scott, a third g2n2ration rancher from Campbell County, 

Wyoming and a witness for ,AFYF, testified tha~ during the 25 

years prior to 1972, sheep and calf losses to coyotes were minimal. 

He stated that in 1958, he acquired a small flock of sheep (250 ewes) 

to supplement the income from his cattle operation. Although his 

written testimony is to the effect that they had few problems with 

predators until 1974, he sold the last of his sheep in 1972, 
d2ur;ht~r had a szall fl3ck :1Z ewes) of ~iir.hr.-d jh.25 and that jhe 

was forced to sell in 1976 b~caus2 of 10ssei to ?redators, mos~1y 

coyotes. 

58. ,Vr. Jw Nuckoll s, a sheep and cattle rancher from Hulett, !liyomi ng and 

a witness for ,AFBF, testified thai in he :en jars ?risr tc i98: bij 

loss2s had Seen li ewes and sli~hzly ever a tnousand he2d of ?mbs 

to coyotzs. He asserted that a thcusand head of 73x5s amounted cs 

the lamb crop for one year. Se f3rther tsszified That he iost l i 1 

i lambs ra coyotes in 1981. His heaviest losses ajpear -3 nave been 

in 1977, when he 1 sst 164 or 16 Fercenx 3: hi i lambs ts czyo~~s. 

fiowever, in ccmparing figures of lamb and shee? 1cs;es icczrr:c 

during the period 1972 co and including 1376 as lis~ed in an affidav:; 

executed by t4r. >luckolls ii: cannection with zn applicatjon for ;;he 

placement of a 1080 bait station on his property, ii apcears tnar. 

his lamb lasses averaged about 4 percon: during the years ~encicnea 

and that he lost only five aduli sheep to coyotes during :ha: 

period. 

59. Hr. Don Meike, a sheep and cattle rancher from Kaycee, Uyoming, 

currently Chainan of the aoard of the National Woolgrowrs Associatlcrn 

and a witness for Wyoming, et a1 . , testified tnat recurring kills 

of sheep and lambs were common on his ranch in the 1930's and 

1940's. He stated that when toxicants were introduced in the 

predator control program in the 1950's and 19601s, losses to predators - 
(IJ 

-v 

.r 

I-) 

a 

x 

-I-' 

TI 

OJ 

t' 

L 

aJ 

m 

V) 

rtf 

w 

_TI 

'3 

Z 

'rI) 

w 

QJ 

9- 

'i0) 

X 

L 

(U 

> 

c 

a) 

w 

J3 

T3 

rd 

-c 

r: 

w 

-7 

r 

5 

E 

m 

L 

m 

0 

L 

a 

.--- 

0 

L 

C, 

C; 

0 

U 

h 

T- 

-t-J 

U 

(I) 

IL 

0 

U 

vr 

nJ 

4-1 

LI 

- 0) -' 

I-, 

-rL 

c= -I* 43 0 

"W5 

(V -c -n v, -7 w m+'~ 

wva 

In OJ 

.- 'C 0 

T3 ' t' w " m mw 

WLvl 

r- 0 V) 

.a 4 o 

a U- -r rn L Cc 't- 

.r f 

4' rd cr7 01 

.--w 

fJ-2 

0- 

0 vl c-l- ClJ 

t fl 

OI v, I-' 0 

0 rh 

C -0 U L: 

rd 

tn 

C 

.r- I-, 

-I-' f - 3 3 (3 m v w 

c- IT1 

LryW mv3 

r- a) -U .r- L C 

E n- o - r- U 

tn ti0 >, 0) U 

5- A 3 

w w -tJ 

3 m [I, 

L 

fu TJ 

nl u 4- (I) 

nj -c I-' V1 rn LCW 

rd .r- w 

w3m v, ?2 0 

omc, 

I w'iLT3 0 f L 

aJom 

w L -LO 

w v 

c w a) .- w IE a) 2 o a) > 

QL5 

war 

-U 

0 s, 

Oc,L 

t' OJ 

wL3m 

maw 

rd t' tn 

EWv, 

a, 0 V) - -r-- (u 

L -c, 

Z(d5 

V r 

twt' 

a - 

LW-U 

> 'a V) a) 4' .r - L -C 01 in vr cvlm 

ooa P-- 

0 '.- 

01 

I-! 

J -) 

'i- 1n rr3 v 

0 E-- 2z Lz 

c .--Ewa a) m 0) cv 

5. 'C SJ -V 

W rd W r >. 43 0 3.oU-a 

m aa w C z In ro 

3 4 0 ul 

vrcw 

coo 

r V) 7 

rd 'rcnO+ 

aao 

Q 

I-' 

-0 I7 'X 5- !J 

- LII: (I) 3 f 0 1.7 0 
- ., , ,. sj:;ply missin2 at ch? 2;:~ 37 z;:? y2zr 3s~ ;;?I CZU;~ 6Gt 3i~-z~t 

, , for th? catis2 of cnat loss. 

61. ,Yr. John J. Yines, a jfisep and carzie rancner from Giilztze, 'tiyoning, 

Presidenz of the Campbell Coun-cy Predatory Associarion, and a l~i~ness 

?or the Association, testified tha: there had been a decline in sheep 

numbers in Carnobe1 i County frcm 11 9, i 71 in 1372 to 37,822 in 1981 . Ye 

at"~ibuted this deci ' ne 3rincipalx1y to ~redaticn problsms and ?crlac",d 

staiernenrs from ranchers who nad sicher gone cu: of ~h? sheep kusicess 

or reduced tneir herds becausz of pr.tdaror problenls. je indicazed ?ha< 

 he numbers of coyot2s in Camooei 1 Counr;~ have i ncreas2d si nc2 1912, 

1-- basing tnis on the fact thas ooun~'es were ?z;d on an averase of I~C 

coyoIes 3~r ye?r in che s2ven years prscsaincj 1272, whi le that n~xber 

-I I had increaszd t3 -SO1 for 1976. l?e ,-,rti?er t2stifiea mat :he nl;mber 

of fox bount'es paid in Campbell County al)eraged ;85 ;er year dur'ng 

the seven .year period prior to 1972, but averaged 666 per y%r during 

the perjcd 1972 through 1976. ~lthou~h the table submitted wiih his 

tsstimony appears t3 shcw a decline in bounties paid for ioch coyotgs 

and ioxes after 1976, no bounties on foxes were paid in 1978 and 

thereafter, bounties were paid only during the perjod April i through 

October of each year, because pric2s paid for furs were considered 

a sufficient incentive to hunt coyotes and foxes. An affidavit 

executed by Mr. Hi nes on December 14, 1976, is to t5,e ef iect that 

he had no confirmed losses of sheep and lambs to coyotzs during the 

years 1% to and ~nciuu~ny i975, tkac ne lost 6u lamos LO coyoces 

in 1976, 50 of which were before docking, that three coyotes were 

killed and that to his knowledge. he had no other [coyat?! kills 

during the balance of 1976. 
, 52. +lr. Bartcn +i,artza, 3iy3ctcr cf Fish and Nil,,? if? for t~? -27; ~~~~;~ 

. , t,..-' "' of New, Plex'i co 2nd 2 ';r; Tries: for 'Xycmi ng , 2t 21 . .,, "7 r 7 2cl 8 ;:hat 5assd 

on contacz wi~n members of his iarniiy and o~her ssocknen in the 

Puebl o, both coyo~g numbers and predasi on have i ncreassd ivlmense i y 

in the region-since cancellation of the use of 1080. He submitted 

the results of a survey of sheap producers in the Pueblo hich 

indicated that auring the ;eriod July 1 cnr~ugh Octaber 30, 1577 

to pregators, chiefly coyotes, l ambs 

7 0 and 124 rams. AIt5ough he s~aced there wer? a~proximazely io,COO 

heads of shes? on the r2servation at the tine of the hearing, 

inventory figures for 1977 were no; repor~d and i: is ns1 ?ossibl? 

to convert these loss fi~gres ta percentases. Fron aesz figurgs, 

i: appears <ha; losses of adult sheep to przda~ors werg a~pr?xi,~az;y 

90 ~erc3nt of loss2s of lambs. Elased an rlyorts from she?? produc.rs, 

Yr. Martza scatsd triat predation losszs were gradually Sncreasing 

and that the numbers in the flocks were decreasing. He acknowledged, 

however, that the producers did not k22p any records. While he 

asserted that producers were mostly blaming predation for the decline 

in sheep numbers, he readily cgnceded they had ;roblens with 

overgrazing. From scent-post surveys and aerial observation, he 

concluded that there were a lot of coyotes on the res2rvation. 

Issue l(b) 

63. Cain, et 3.1. apparently had no data on losses of cattle to predators 

and, in any event, made no reference thereto. The only survey data \ 

in the record as to cattle losses to predators since 1972 is that in 

CAST Special Publication No. 10, authored by Or. Wade (finding 29), 
' 7 1dh.j ch j 5 :C'J r,h? ~3.ff2cc :?~i-, 3. ; SS~C?,~; 2; 32- :?:.S : ,I ~52 i , ::?~:f,-:: 

7 :/ - 

stazes tiere i~ss ~3 ~re.dators. Stgtl'~~ic31 arzl2;i s irici jcea ;%I;;? 

, - the te,szimony gf 3r. Jchn Schzub (finding 44) shcws :ha; calr 1csses 

to predators have increas2d since 1972 in i3 of 15 western staizs, 

only New Mexico and North Dako~a sho:liing no ita<ijticaily sisnifjcacz 

- 

manges. Individual ranchers from Colorado, 12xas and 'dyorning 

testified as to ?redation lasses to c~sile, chiefly cal\ies, zinc2 

1972. From this ces~incny it c~ul? be inf2rred that przdztion ro 

caiztle was not a proble5i prior to 1972. Coyozes dr2 ;he ?rincipal 

?reda~or on cattle, przying ,2n calves at birth or sbor-iy -hereafter 

7- 64. #r. Jim 2ar;on, 111, -a rancher frcm Sour, ,exas, !..iho w!:n his family 

owns and operaws CNO cattle ranches, and 3 wirnes: for Nycming, 2t a1 . , 

testified rhzc pr'zr to 1372 losses of cows and cll,/es :o prsdatars 

on the smaller ramp (S7ur Headquarters) were ainiiral. He further 

I 

testified that Compound 1080 had bean used on the 5eadquzrter-s 2ancil 

unti 1 the mid-7950's and that it was used on neighboring ranches aiter 

that time, creating a perimeter, lwhi ch coyotes seldom pe~etraced . ;?e 

stated that in the winter of 1972-73, they lost about 36 calves and 

five CONS to predators, chiefly coyotss. This amcunied to 12.46 

percent c~f calves and 1.73 percent of cows. A table showing cattle 

losses on the Headquarters Ranch, attached to his testinony, Snd'cates 

7/ A document "Cattle and Calf Losses to Predators--Feeder Cattle 

Enterbises in the Llnited States" bv C. Kerry Gee, at~blishino the resliltc of 

an industry survey in 1976 by the USDA and reporting losses for 1975, was 

used as a cross-examination exhibit, but is not in the record. 
of tne herd. Mr. Barron tsstiiied tha; some calf loss25 artrj buced 

to unknown causes, two in 1972 and three in 1973, were actually 

indirectly caused by predation, i.e., :he calves acquired scours 

from ihe praczici of penning heifers and cows so protect them frcn 

coyotes. 

63. Confronxid wixh a tlble from Gee (1ot2 7, supra) dish a~oeared t3 

show average ciitt12 IOSSES in ihe Scuibwest 3egisn, dhich incll~des 

Texas, subsantially-below those shown in his table, Vr. 3arron 

responded thac neighooring rznchers were losing ihe same aaaunt and 

;hat ranchers sere just beginning is realize the extsnt of losses ts 

coyotes. He siated that czlf losses :o coyotes on :he lorger 05 

his ranches (Tongue River) averaged 3 oercenc of ti2 calf crop from 

1975 through 1981. Calf losses to predators on the smaller ranch 

have declined subs~antially, numbering six in 1980 and three in 1981, 

or 1.79 percent and 0.89 percent of the herd respec~ively. Ho cows 

were lost to predators in either of these years. Mr. Barron 

attributed the decline to aerial hunting by the F#S, the use of M-44's, 

guard dogs and ground hunting of coyotes for their pelts. 

66. Mr. Dan Tracy (finding 48) submitted a table showing predator losses 

of calves of one each in the years 1973 and 1975, and two in 1974. 

He had no losses of calves to predators in 1976 and 1977. He did, 

however, 1os2 two c11 VBS to predat~rs in 1978 and i 981 , three in 

1979 and four in 1980. 
-. filie calv~s :3 CS~O'LBS 3nd has lost ar;? CLI ca; i2s fcr -,ha: 

a - 

reason evory year since tha: Tim, %with tne 2xcep~ian cr !982. Ye 

d.id nor loss any calves to coyotes in 1982, because he adopted a 

seni -confi nement cal vi ng aperati on i n order to mi nimi z~ prsadti on 

los$es. He staced that this substantially incraased costs fcr fsed 

and labor. 

Issue 1(2) 

68. Cain, et a1 . ~ade no rzferencs co losses of goats to pradatars. ,As 

we have seen (finding 38), USaA Forgs~ Serv?c~ data ccmbir,es producsr 

reporrs of losses of sheep and goats co predawrs 2nd ?cijonous ?lanu. 

Losszs co preda~ors 3s a perzsric of animals SrlzZa iiirins the ~erj~a 

af 1020 use, ranged frzm 3 ~CW of 3.79 serc?n: In 1330 LO a nish ~7f 

2.39 percent in 1972. Losses to predatsrs in the pos:-:i80 yzars 

as a percent of ani~als grazed here 2.07 percent in 1973, 2.N percont 

in 1974, 2.17 percent in 1975 and 1.88 percenc in 1976. decause che 

number of animals grazed does not include lambs and kids (a ewe and 

lamb or a nanny and kid being countd as one), while ~OSS~S io 

predation does include lambs and kids, actual ?redation losses are 

approximately one-half of the above percsntages. 

69. The article by Dr. Shelton (finding 6) reflec~ed thac goat lossss to 

predators averaged 4.90 percent of inventory (sdul cs and kids) duri ng 
<he five-year ?erioo 1567 through 1 ;7!, .rti;n zh? niqresc being 

1C.37 g2rc2n~ in ! 27J and :ne :olt,es: b?ing 2.1 i ?erc?nT i'n 1369. 

igsses co all c~us2s ddr~qg cnis perica averaged 12.31 Jercenc of 

inventory and iossas co ?redators as a percent of all losszs 

averaged 40.79 percent, ranging from a nigh of 85.29 percenx in 

1970 co a low of 25.1 3 perc2nt in 1367. Beczuse kidding was 

~!ss.sntial ly a confin--nenz operation, thes2 are POST-~arkjng lossss 

70. Catz on ,he precise umber 3f goacs i n the Uni ted S ta t2s 3re apcarentl y 

f unavailablz. ,exas, however, has a greacor number of ;oaEs than any 

orher stat2 (1,450,000) as of January 1, 1982. Surveys by che 

Texas Crop and Livestock ,?e~orci nq Servi ce i ndi ca re chat srec? tors 

were responsi5:e for the loss of 45 percent oS all l~ss2s of Soats 

and kids in :267 and this had rii~n to 72 ~erc~nt ?n 1S73, 4x5 

cgyoces being rs2;onsi51e for 24 2ercent of ail loss2s 3f soars 2nd 

: I 

kids. It ap$?ars, however, that przdator losses of goa:s in 1981 

totaled 67,45'0 head or approximately 4.6 percenT of inventory. 

71. The only rancher owning goats to testify Idas ?4r. i. Charle: Howard, 

Jr. of Meridian, Texas. He t2scifiec ;ha< he sta:ptza qozz ?r:duc:ion 

I I in 1965 and bid not have any problems 1wi~k predators unti 1 1973. 17e 

asserted that coyotes began killing his lamos, forcing him 13 8211 

his small flock of sheep and that during the period 1974 10 1973, 

he was losing approximately 40 goats per year out of a flock of 

200 to predators. In 1977 and 1978, Mr. Howard joined with a group 

of ranchers having predation probiems in hiring a privat2 trapper, 

wnu removed approximately 53 coyotes per year rrm cne r;owarasl 
. ~! 

pastur2s and zdjaining areas. Thinkjng ?ha; the nur,ber of ::oyo:?s 

had been reduced to th~ coj-; ;-2: ;-!e r.su]d s;(c-na, i-;j; .perzi--cn, 

he incre2sed his soat herd ts 11OO he;d in 1973. testifiad 

that as soon as nannies and kids ,Hers turned sut J? the shed, cojotas 

began kil i ing them in the pastures. Xhen the goats were penned at 

night, coyotes would kill in the day~ine. 3e stared hat because 

of severe predation losses in large orusny pasxures, he aas forcad 

co confine hii goats to 3 130-acr? ?asare by Cay and a :cur-acre 

srap at nigh^, ldhicn rssul:ed in a savere sarasi:? crcblsn. 

72. Mr. Howard lost 91 adult joacs t3 ioyctes in i9i9 and an addiziona 1 

91 adults lost to parasites viere attributed to 2redarion caulsed by 

the necessity of penn'ng ihe goats at night or confining :hem to 

sinall pastures for protxtjon from csyoces. Out of a herd of 330 

brseding nanni?s, ~e comaliy could have oxpec7ed 3 cr3o af 2: 

least 240 kids. 3nl y 27 survived, kowever, and he eszimaczd thax 

predators kil led or other*~ise caused the loss of 213 kids or approxi- 

- mately 89 percenr of the crop. ihe remains of approximately onehalf of tnese were found, others being missing or sinply obliterated. 

As an example, he indicated that a hoof or an ear would be found. 

Intensive control measure;, including use of the toxic collar 

(findings 75 - 79, infra), were instituted and lasses of adult 

goats declined to 45 out of 1500 head (approximately 3 percent) in 

1980 to 32 out of 1830 (1.8 percent) in 1981 . Losses of kids to 

predators were 17 in 1980 and 27 in 1981, 15 of which were attributed 

to coyotes and 12 to raccoons or grey fax. 
73. The t~xic col lzr crsnsists 3= 3 rirCcer reswr.ioir zgntainins'a :c~::ic 

- 3 / 

liquid, in chis case a solution of IC80, attached to he necks 

of sheep or goats by straps. Use of the toxic collar is based 

upon th2 principle that coyotes normally attack shee~ and goats 

-, by bicing the necks or ~hroats. ine iS22 is that in the course 

of such an attack the cgllar woui~ be aunctured and ihe csyots 

~ould rocsi ve a lst3a1, sral dose of 1C80. A? though ?unc:ure 3f 

;he collar in this fashion resul~s in rsnoval zf che ofFznding 

coyote, the coyocs's a:tack usually also results in the death of 

the sheep or gcat t3 vdhich the co1 I ar was at-cacned. 

7. The toxic coi lsr has been ?xt?nsil/sly testgd by. cke F:JS unc2r an 

experiinenta; use permi t and the 7,iS has mpi i ed far r",-4-rv'" bt !> -4 d Ll on 

of Ccuncouna 'I 082 in zce ccxic zol iar. Fiela :?st8 cf the co? :zrs 

- 

were conducted in Idano, 3ontan5, 12x2s and Alber~a, Canada, during 

the period June 7, 1978 to and i ncl udi ng March 31 , 1980. Of 28 

field tgsts during chis period, 17 were consider%! successf~l in 

that preoation eicner sxopped or declzned following use of the 

collars. Eleven tests wern U~SUCC~~S~U~ Sccause predation st~pped 

for unknown reasons or coyotes did not attack collared animals. Of 

52 attacks by coyotes on collared sheep during the period June 

through October 1978, 36 cr 69 percent of collars were punctured 

8/ In addition to sodium fluoroacetate, field tests of the collar 

have 6een conducted using sodium cyanide and diphacinone as the toxicant So;j."m fl"oi-fiacetate has "-A- '-';"A"^-' -A"+ ",""^"F"l UCCll ClUJUUyCd lllU3 L 2ULLF23 1 ul l 
Cdf""- - -. La~~2s 3r 71~2 ?cisaced ccyotss ;vere found. 

, , azcacks on co:iar?d sheao or seats cur- ,ns :he 92riod Iiovember 

through fiarch of 1380, 30 collars or 71 percent der? punctured. 

Secause coyotes were removed by ccnven~ional control techn-iqces 

on the test ranches or on adjacent properties during cbe period 

of the tests, it is not possible to aitri bute the decline or 

cessation of predation solely to the co'l lars. It i; clear, 

however, that such a reducticn or cessaiion fnl :owing evidence 

of coyote a~~acks an coil ar2d animal s dnereby csl 1 ars -/ere punctur?d, 

consti tutes convincin~, if circznstani~al , evidence of col lar 

eife~tiveness;. ,411 ~~sTs 37 collars to dace have been in Penc& 

pasares. 

75. Extensive tesis of the toxic collar on goati have been csnducied 

- at three separa-e sites on the L. C. Howard Ranch, ?erldian, ;?xzs 

(finding 71) beginning in lace duly 14i9. At the ii~xe, che ?o;varas 

were losing one or ,Tare ,Angora cjoats to coyotes eacn day, 12 coyore 

kills having been verified as occarring in the week anding July 23, 

1979. Upon the beginning of :he rests (Texas Test ?lo. 1 ) , col lars 

were placed on 20 small kids. Collared kids were killed and collars 

punctured on the nights of July 27, Augusc 10, September 6, 12, 2; 

(a collared kid killed and the collar missing, but probably aroien) 

and 22, Octocer 7, 22, 23 (the collar missing but probably broken), 

January 11 and 25 and Febrlrary 22, 1080. Coyote predation declined 

markedly, there being three kt11 s in ilovernber and one in December 
I 3-7 ,. . . ? 

1713, -hr5~ 1,; j3nl;ar:/, four In r2gryary and one ;n Y~rcn ;lf :380. 

,A1 zhou~n no ~o:sar,gd c2yo-es ,ere found, :: ,V;S CS~.C~:C~C L-~z.: LC 

least I3 coyoc2s were ?raca~!y kill?d as 3 r~su;; zf 7unct~r;ng 

collars. Becaus? at least 15 coyotzs wer? taken by conventional 

neans *xithin a five-mil? radius of the tssc sit2 during the same 

period, the reduction in predation could not be 2txributed solely tc 

use of xhe coilar. 

7 - 

10. During the period of the czst referrsd co in c!.-1 orec3ding fi ndi ng 

8, at leasx one coyote avoiden- a he coll~r 5y attacking gcats Trrcrn tne 

rear or flank, ki 11 ing one uncol lared kid, one adultgoat and 240 

callared goat: in Oc"Lbbr, one co1 lared goat i;n 'Icvmber "379, 

and two adu? t goats in February and one callarca kid in ;4arch oP 

1980. Ai thougn chis point of attack ii characteriitic of CG~ liilii, 

dog kills were ruled ou~ because 3f cl2ar coyo~2 Cracks in the 

vicinity 3f scme of the remains. OSv'ously, che col lar is ine+fect;vc 

under such circumstances. 

77. Tests at another site on the Howard Ranch (Texas Test No. 2) 

resulted in tn2 killing by cgyotes of one collared kid and a c~ilarld 

nanny on August 19 and anothzr col lzred kid on August 22, i 973. 1 

three collars were punctured and there was no further predation at 

this site into march 1980. While no dead coyotes were found, it 

was concluded that two or three were probably killed. Twelve 

coyotes were taken by conventional means within a five-mile radius 

of this site during the period late August 1979 through May of 1980. 

This test was considered successful and especially noteworthy 
n 

0 

--I 

--1 

P, 

7 

CD 

a 

cL) 

0 

a' 

r+ 

LA 

z 

r;. 

CD 

aA. 

2 

_I 

m 

e 

0 

3 

>> 

C 

UJ 

C 

lA 

c-t 

IU 

W 

" 

IV 

P 

LU 

3 

a 

1U 

cn 

.A 

d 

In 

-4 

U3 

.4 

9, 

3 

a 

rl 

2- 

m 

k 

m 

pl 

7 

vl 

-0 

3. 

0 

^I 

rt 

0 

A 

ID 

Lo 

P, 

3 

a 

n 

0 

v 

0 

r+ 

n, 

7.3 

-I 

(D 

a 

a, 

rt 

2. 

0 

3 

CJm 

ln 

a, 

3 

(n 

S 

0 

7 

rt 

-2 

<< 

a, 

-11 

r-t 

m 

1 

u7 

0 

m 

rl 

LA 

o', 

0 

0 

LU 

n 

7 

(0 

-0 

a, 

Ln 

c- i 

C 

1 

ID 

in 

-4 

3- 

2. 

LA 

in 

-1. 

r t 

10 

3- 

a, 

a 

3 

0 

rt 

'am 

rn 

3 

C 

m 

n, 

CA 

-ti 

0 

7 

a 

0 

iu 

c k ul 

-1, 

C3 

7 

u> 

fli 

< 

fD 

-3 

LU 

c-t 

-3. 

fD 

-5 

iD 

x nJ 

lA 

(1. 

C 

2 

U 

CD 

3 

n 

ID 

0 

- li 

(> 

n 

f-l 

LU 

lf 1 

.1 

(3 

3 

LU 

--A 

(3 

0 

cr: 

0 

r i 

CL, 

IL 

r) 

c t 2. 

i 

A. 

L-k 

c: 

A 

- 

_J 

i 1 

-3 

IU 

hi 

7 

ID 

Lll 
in October, only one in November, cnree in 3ecmber 1979, on2 in 

January and PAC in Harch of 1980. A1 though 19 coyoces were taken 

by other means wiAhin a five-mile radius of this sic?, chis zest 

was considered successful, six coyotes beinS probably taksn by the 

collar, and the cnronologiczl record of collar punctures by t lyotzs, 

, providing convincing, I r circurns~antial evidence, of the e?-f:cri veness 

of the collar. 

80. Tests of the toxic co1 lar i n 1979 at zcocher rancn in Tzxas , wni cn 

had apparently suffePed heavy losses of goat; to foxes and coyoces, 

were unsuccessiul, bec2952 ?r?dstion zlzsed or declin?d for 

unaetsmi ned rezsons and no aztacks on coi :ared ? i vestock occurrgd. 

At Idaho Test Sire No. 2, coyot2s ki llsd 14 percznt of lambs kecqeen 

docking and marksting in 1978. ioss2s <he previous year werz 

approximately 50 9ercent great2r. Toxic collars were used ceg'nning 

in June and nine collars were punctured during July and Augusi 

1975. At least 2ight coyotes were considered to have been killed, 

C although no dead coyotes here ,curid. Dredation declined markedly, 

there being only two kills in September and five in October 1978. 

Three more collars were punctured one in December 1978, one in June 

1979 and one in August 1979. There were two kills in November and 

December 1978, none during the period January through Apri 1 1379, 
9 four in /*lay, ihr~n in dune, TNO eacn in Jl~iy and Adgust, four in 

. , -n3n I -r Sepienzer, si~ni 10 3::oter 3ni tiir?r! in ::~\~S.TEBT , . re 

coocerarin: rancher a;?ribu:.d 13wer ~redziion lcsses :n IS72 

to successful use of the collar in 1973. 'iihile circunstant~a? 

evidence was considered to support this conclusion, other forns of 

predator control employed concurrently precluded unequivocal adoption 

thereof. 

41. T2~ij of i1Ao ocher sixs in Idzho in :he summer of I978 Save no 

C r infonation as to collar er-recziveress because pr3ble.n coyoTes Nere 

apparenzly removed by other Jeans and collared an!~als vere noi 

attacked. Like the tests on che Idaho sic? referred to in the 

preceding finding, tests of the collar at ,Xcntana Tisc Yo. 1 were 

conxi nued from 1578. Predation itspoed iron i~te izptembet 1 j73 

throu~h Apri 1 of 1971 after two c3l jars were ?unct;rec by ccyotes 

in September of 1978. A1 though cal lars were rei nzroduced in 13 t2 

Hay of 1979, after five lambs were killed and again in June aixr 

three more lambs were killed, no collared lamb was attacked and the 

only puncture of a collar was attribu~ed to wire. 3ifficuity of 

targe~ing aztacks to collared sheep was attributed to the presence 

at a distance of about one-half mile of a flock not involvea in 

the test. 
3 6 

- 92. Alberta :?st No. 1 !was Scgun sn 3 skse? rznch in Carss:cq, Ai:er~a, 

af~?r six coycc2s ki'led abcuc 15 she29 in 2;rly Ccxber of 1275. 

:line young ewes wighing zgproxixazoiy 100 7cunds each hero csllared 

and placed in an 80-acre pasture cn October 19. On Oc-cober 23, six 

collared ewes were killed along with three Sucks in a nearby field. 

Four oi the ewes were bit~en below the co1 lars and thus the collars 

were not 7unctured. One colla.f* &as 7unctured and one collar das 

mi ssi ng , but appeared co have been punctured. ?lo f~rr2er przdzzj cn 

occurr2d at this site through Yarch of ?Sag, ai~hougn csystes 

continued to frequent zhe ama. This test was liszsd 3.5 a~?zrently 

succ~ssfv1 , notxi thstandi ng the fact, ei slit csyotss :ver2 she: in the 

vicinity of the t2st sit2 in Octcber of 1973, becausz these cgyot2s 

werz apparen~:y k11;ed priar to Octo~er 23. The fac; :?at c~yoczs 

I,vere able to Si es the rhroats of sheep ~,ii:hout punc~uring sc;me of 

the collars emphasized the need for larger collars on :arge she2p. 

53. The Texas Agricui iural Ex?erinent Station applied for and was 

granted (May 1980) an expl rimencai use pernit (E'LIP) icr testing of 

1080 in the toxic collar for the control of coyotes. ~nitialiy for 

a period of cne year, the EUP has been ex~ended and the tests aro 

presently scheduled to end in Deczmber of 1982. During the period 

August 1980 through December 31 , 1981 , col lars were deployed on 10 

ranches (including the Howard Ranch, Meridian , Texas), 69 col 1 ared 

animals were killed or zttacked by coyotes cr dogs and 33 collars 

were punctured. A total of 116 uncollared animals were attacked 
r. or killed in targec ?astures. ~7.42 coyores and one dag were found, 

, .. vnich were corsiaered t3 53~3 SEZ~ ,ii : 1 ?d " ,?uncrjr*q~ I:axic 

01 as. 'laricus :argscinq srrategios were iesr3xl, ih? nozt 

effective being collaring ail animals in a tarzez flsck or coi!aricg 

- t all small animals (iambs or kids) within the tarsst flock. I ne 

latter strategy appeared ta be effective at most sicer. Ineffec~iveness of collars was attribu~ed chiefly to difficuities in dirscting 

attacks iO collired animals. Coyotes were taken :y convenrional means 

on the test sites or on adjaceni prg?er;i?s and ail instances of 

apparent iuccess af the coll ar i n reduci ng or el ioi natiog oredation 

could not be atiributed sailely to ~he collar. 

8c. Toxic collars have also been tested by t;?e !{ex klexico Oeparmnent of 

- 1 Agriculture in 1381 under an exgerirentzi use ,prmi t. I nese ces:s 

wer? conductad by ranchers uhc were qua!!i.iei as cer~ifizd 

appl ica~ors and i siued approxima:ely ton collars each. 3scauie of an 

inadequaxe number of collars, problems with managing sneep so as co 

direct coyote attacks to collared animals and failure of cayotes to 

puncture the col lars at least five of six tescs were unsuccesif~l . 
- . . ,q:pine, ie;(as, ipj,entor of :he taxi: coi lar aod 2 ?wirness for Tb? 

Taxi -Ccli.r Comeany, emphasized ihe sel2c;lvi ty 5f the ~31 i 3r and i;j 

ability ro remove depredating coyoces wnich could not be taken by 

conventional techniques . H2 testi fi ed that the on1 y experi enc2 

required for successful use of the collar was recognition of the 

circumstances where i t bwou1,d work. :+e had conducted t2s ts of the 

?? - col lar under the FWS experiment21 Qse peni t sn 13 ji tes in i exas 

in 1978, nine of wnich were i~c~~ssful. Ye acknowledged tbt hh eiid 

bjased the results in favor of success by rejecting aro~os~d sits, 

e. g . , sporadic ki 11 iigl over a wid? area, ,were rhe coll ar ;vas nor 

. - 1 ikely to 1,vork. He s;ated that li I coyote was kil ling consistently 

in a 1 ocal i zed area, use of the call ar Idas more I i :el y -2 be 

successf31. 

85. Mr. McSri de testifi~d rhai to his knowledge, the collar nad COL 

beea tested under open range conditions and thai because of ;he 

difficulty of targeting attacks to coi l~red 1 ivestock, the co1 1 ar 

was unlikely io be effective in such situations. He rejecred 

s~ggestions that coyotes seemed to sense something d:ffer?nr ahout 

collared animals and thus declined to attack them, or moved elsewhere, 

asserting that coyotes had killed lambs wearing bells and thai if it 

was that easy to discourage coyote attacks, coyote predation would 

not be a problem. He also rejected criticism that targeting coyote 
zttacks cn collared animals was inhumane, declaring that lambs ,&ere 

c3yots punctured the c3l !;r, the cayot2 wzs 3150 kill2d. 

87.. bong tne disadv-inxages of the toxic coll ar is the necesii ty of 

sacrificing col 1 ared 1 ivestock in order to cernove pro01 em coyotes. 

Another di sad)/antage is the labor involved in panning or renioving 

frarn the arza of ant-ici?aiel cgyate attack uncgllared livestock so 

that ihe attack will most 7ikely be on callared aninals. Alio labor 

required to instal? che ccl lars, in checking and r2sei:ing :a1 iars 

which idve s1i;ped out of ?roper ?csi:ian, i.e., xhe llarnyx regjon 

immediazely below the ears can be ex~ens:ive. A1 thouqh ihese labor1 

costs exceed tne cost of me c3l lars ($15.50 to 516.75 ezch) and 

the cost sf sacrificial aninali, :ne col lars 2r2 ice ZX;?I-IS~Y~ :O 

i nsxal 1 on 1 arge numbers c~f 1 i<ie~iock. rcBri la i nd: c5is1 ::at i i 

the ;ol!ars were more *widely used, the unjt ccsi could be reduced. 

Collars are, of course, ineffective against particular cayotes and 

other predators, which attack 1 ivestock at other than throat areas 

and because of the dif:iculcy in taryeting attacks :o collared 

-animals, the collar does noc appear LO prcmise much hope of success 

under range condicions. 
a. dcs?, l.tka1 to c~ni 3es, of tsxi cant. Ai fhcush Mcntafia (Ss;jari.~ent 

of Livestock) , South Dakota (Deparment of Agricul txr~) and Wyoming 

(Department of Agriculture) have applied for the registratior, of 

sodium, fluorcacetate in Siijs to controi co;yotzs, SLas using Ccmpound 

1080 have noc been ?xt?nsively tasted in the Unitzd Sta~es. L3r;e 

quan-ci ti es of sini 1 ar bai ti, referred co as irop bai zs, conzsi ni ns 

strychnine were ~sed prior to I972 far ~ke ccntrsl of pr~datars, 

chiefly cc~yot?s. 

89. Dr. James 'ii. Glosser; Stat? Ve~2rinarian, ACministrst;r of the 

Animal Health Division of the Montana 3eparmen~ of Liveszock and 

a witness for Xycrning, et al., rs?or+zi on the us2 27 1283 in SL3s 

co suppress the pccula~i5n of sway dogs and ca;: on Guzm in 1967 

and thus contrgl an outbreak of rabies. ,At the ci:ne of the first 

confirmed cases of rabies (:4arch 1967), the population of stray 

dogs and cats on the isiand was estimated to range fr,m 20,000 to 

60,000. A program of capturing and vaccinating these animals was 

unsucc~ssful as they easily escaped detection and capture in the 

dense jungle growth. A program involving the ?ick-up of stray ani?ais, 

shooting of stray dogs and cats, and che use of snares and traps 

was begun in June 1967. These methods resul t2d in the removal of 

approximately 12,000 animals. Additional cases of rabies were 

confirmed in August of 1967 and it .was detemined that more drastic 

means of reducing the population of stray dcgs and cats were required. 
u I 

, S trychn: ne (;as cans i iord bux re:sc'-,& Secaus2 of jcs "-\ '-.,; ' I II~~I "UA 1c1 ~JJ b 

8. . - 

c3 3?: 127 T~S 2nd ar::~~s and rr? pi sk - 2 s ; k 41pq3,77-= -djv -.- get4r1' 

was -,rid krisfly but izs ~lse :.,as discon-,i?u?d, ber3hse i:'. 'NZS 

ineffective a;ainst cats, not sufficiently effgctive acjainst dogs, 

rqui red too much time to recri eve and resei and xas ex:rremely 

dangercus to humans; and Comgound 1080 in large meat-bai;i placed 

at garbage dumps was tried, but found wanting, because dogs were not 

lured OUT of the villages and the baits spoiled rapidly in Guam's 

cl imax. 

90. A prcgram involving the us2 sf Cmyound iCaO in SLDs was inscitzred 

in 0c;ober 1967. Each one-ounce bait concainea 3.4 mg. ci ICSO. 

Baits were placed at nisht and on paper plats8 ac l2asc 2013 feet 

aparx in order to minimize ihe possjbi l ixy of target saecies 

ccnsumlng more :ban one bzit 3nd :o facil itat2 rscriev31. Al 1 

uneaten baits werz removed on a daily basis (by 4 a.1.) in ~rder 

- 

to minimize risks to humans and non-target soecies. I he prigram 

continued for 15 months, with the period of most intmsive us? 

October thrcugh Cecemcer 1967. Although only approxjnately onethird of the aninals considered t3 have been ~oisoned by 1C80 during 

this period were found, Dr. Glosier estimated the number of cats and 

dogs destroyed by 1080 during the October - December 1967 period at 

rougnly 6,000. Of 16,239 baits placed during the 15-month SLD program, 

14,053 or 86.1 percent were taken. A total of 16,799 dogs and cacs were 

destrayed by all means in 1967, declining to 3,035 in 1968. This 
i ncl udes only carcasszs '31 13~~2d 3y government ;?rscnr~l 2nd i s 

exclusive oi anixa? s zes~rgyed ?riva;sly or on ~i 1 i c3ry reser<jaricns 

1 There (were no conii m,ed cases of rabies afxsr September of 1967, 2nd 

other means of control were used csncurrently with 1680. ,4lzhougn 

. he acknowl~dged that, depending on whether the origjnal estiinates of 

the dog and cat popuiation were on the high side, them could have 

been as many as 25,000 dcgs and cats on Guam )#hen the 7080 2rosram 

was discontinued, 9r. Glosser considered the program a szccess, 

contsnding that he removal of an additional number of dogs 3nd 

cats lessened their density and stopsed animal-co-animal 

transinission oi rabies. There is svidence thaz stray dogs and car,z 

are still considerzd a problem on Guam and that SL2s con~aining 1080 

were beirg used in che:r centrol as la",? as 2ecs,cer of 1975. 

92. SLDs containing 1380 d5e c;rrently used for wolf and coyote control I 

in 3rilish Columbia. For the la~zer cas2, 3 ~g. of 1C80 in 3 

powder formulation are inserted inzo a~proximately 50 grams of bait 

material. A naximum of 12 baits are placed at the site of 3 confir -ed 

coyot2 attack, that is, around a livestock carcass or scanting station 

 omal ally, however, only two to four baits are placed as the nurk~r 's 

limited to the number of coyotes considered to be causirig the problem. 

Baits are well spaced and buried under soil or snow to minimize :he 

chances of more than one bait being eaten by the same coyote or the 

poisoning of non-target species. Of 108 baits placed in 1980 and 198i 

for coyote control, 64.8 percent were taken by coyotes, 3.7 percent 

by non-target species and the balance were retrieved by Ministry of , 
Envi ranrnenr 3ersonnel in accordanc2 ~.-/i :.;7 2s-3~; I scea ?~-:C~~LT?S. 

in I~SC-~I, four 1C8O ;aii sations ie1gn:ng acc~cx;ca;?,iy 3 kg. 

each :.celn? p?aced, of wnich id kg. or 36.3 T?rcenc :er? consider~d 

TO have been consumed by coyotes. Dr. Frank S. Tcmpa, Ministry 

Staff Specialist in Carnivore and Wildlifz Zanagement, and 

Coordinator of ?redator Control Programs, Mini stry of Envi ronment , 

3ritish Columbia and a ~;ritness for Nyorning,, ot a1 . , considered the 

Csrnpound 1680 program to be as sdcc2ssiul as other predatcr 

contro-i methods in rernovi ~g wolves and csyotas graying c;n 1 ivestock. 

Secause of regul~tions requiring bai :s to be retri2ved no nor? chan 

14 days after placamen~, he acknowledged that ?h2rc wers cccasion5 

-, when deprddaticn continued afkr the bai ts !Mere removed. I ne 

preaator control program in 3ricisn Columbia is rolativeiy small, 

Or. Tcmoa estimatsci that che number gf zoyo;es taxen r?y preda:~r 

cmtrol personnel each year by all mechods nay be as low as 1CC co 

120, whilo the number takn annually for their pel~s was in :he ranse 

93. SLDs impregnated with Compcund 1080 are currently usd for dingo 

control in Queensland, Ausxrailia. aeef, horze or kangaroo meat is 

used as bait and the minimum bait size is 125 grams. While preparation of the baits is apparently restricted to government or authorized 

personnel , distribution of the bai is (I and or air) is by the landholder. 

The 1080 program is considered effective, its use being credited 

with marked reductions in the numbers of "bitten" calves and an 

increase i 1 ambi ng gercentaaes . rornoo~~nd 1090 howver, ; s 31 z? 

used in large baits and evidence in the record is not sufficient to 

enable evaluation of the effectiveness of these methods of 1080 

del i very. 
- ,-c- drop-Sai rls were pi ac2d by AGC ?~rscnnel of the F%S in I :au, :hat 

~lacemenzs increaszd tc appr2xi~az'y 922,CCO in 1964, decrsased zo 

approximatsly 345,000 in 1969 and incr3ased to approximately 

821,000 in 1970-71. During this period, the placement of 1080 

large-bait stations declined from 15,349 in IS60 r,3 ,11,3T3 in 1970. 

The 'concurrent use of 1 C80 1 arge-bai t stati ens compl i cates the 

matter of det~nining he effectiveness af drop-~aits 

95. Dr. Samuel L. Beasom, Associate Prof~ssor in tne '2epart~en; of 

!4i 1 dl i fe and ii sheri 2s Sci enczs at Texas ,A&:4 Uni versi ty and a 

witness for the TexzS Department of Agriculture, perfamed a study 

in 1971 and 1972 to deternine 2ffec;s of przcia ti on on whi te--tai i ed 

7 3 -. deer popuia~jons. . ine sxdy *as pe~fcrrn?d by acpiic2~ion or ~nt~ns've 

control techniques to remove predators frgm a 5,400 acr2 zrza of 

the King 2anch in S~uth Texas and corncaring the resulcs with a 

similar sized area without predator control approximately ,Five mi 12s 

distant. Specific control tschniques institutzd on February 1 of 

each year and terminated on June 30 of 1371 and 1972, included steei 

traps, M-44's, strychnine neat-and-egg-baix and shooting 93th at 

night and during the day. Approximately 2,000 strychnine trgated 

egg-baits were used in each of the two years and approximately 3,500 

meat-bai ts were used in 1971 and 4,530 i n 1972. A total of 188 

coyotes and 120 bobcats were removed frcm the experimental area 

during the two-year period. . Strychnine drop-bai ts were considered to . -- 

have been responsible for the removal of 10 coyotes and two bobcats. 
, ;~fiy-sji -. ccyoies >dere caken by y-dn's, which means :hat a?pr~xlmat?iy 

, . concl u&d :ha; 2s jezc; .i7 1~ &l 1 coyotes 2nd jcbca ts had been rmo8;ed 

from the approximately nine-square-mil2 area. From aerial transects, 

it was cietemined that tne fawn:doe ratio on <he sxperiinental area 

was 0.47 in 1971 and 0.82 in 1972, while rha~ in the controi araa was 

0.12 and 0.32, respectively. It was cancl~ded that intensive predator 

control could ~r=tly i ncrgase lwhi :e-ta.i 1 ed deer derisi ties. 

36. Vr. Joseph 3. Gurba, Head of the Crgp Proc~ction 2nd ?sit Can~ro' 

8ranch 3f the 4-1 berta 3epartnen: of Agricu1 :?IT? and a 14 tness for 

Wyoming, et al. PresSflted a cab12 rhowing the nuncers ai cyanide 

cartridges, strychnine cubes and 1480 bait jzacions used in :he 

-1 Provi,~ce during :he per: od 195: t3 and incl~ding 198C/31. , ge 

-3 -. tab12 rerlects :hat strycnnine cubes wer? rlrst ~s2d ic ,Aloe-->? in 

1953, chat 195,500 ai such cubes $were used in 1355 and rhat, ;tne 

number has sincg steadily declined to 3,240 in i980/81. Fifty 1JSO 

meat-bait stations were piaced in 1351, the number incrcaslng to 773 

in 1957, declining to zero in 1978 and numbering 14 in each of the 

years 1979/83 and 1980/81. 

97. Hr. Gurba cnarac;eriznd ihe ,Alberta jredaror control 7rogram as 

successful, explaining thae its object was not to exterminate coyotes, 

but to rgduc? predator damage to tolerable levels. He attributed 

the success of the program, notwithstanding the steady decline in the 

number of 1080 meat-baic scaiions, to the use of strychnine drop-baits, 
cyanid? pns and chf hi ring by the ?ravine? of 2i;hx pr2da;or c~nxr~1 , 

r 8 ;?2c;alis; in 1372-73. (-2 a;s?rxzi 32' zcs: 123C ma:-bai: , Ijrl~ 

wers placed in souzh*~es;ern Albersz :;her? cnz-'hjrd cf ,h~ snesp 

production in the Prsvince was concentrz~e~ and which bad a hign 

level of coyotes. He stated the 1080 stations >/erg an area conxrol 

program, while cyanide guns and strychine dmp-bai ts were us2d in I L 

specific cases to take ki 1 ler coyotes. He estimated the 3vzrage 

number of coyotes taken annually by 3ach 1080 oair sxat:on, if ti.,? 

bait was ccmpletsly consumed, at 30, zven tnough only 20 coyotes 

considered to have keen poisoned by iC30 were found in the ias; fi~" 

years. ,Yr. Gurba indicated chat <be nunber cf coyate ?el cz mrk2ted 

annually in A1 berta in rxmt years ranged frcn 27,COO to. 35 ,COO, 

;vhi ie ;he average nunber taken by 211 i nethods ?.ch year in 552 

predator control ?rzgrarn ranged from 1,300 to 3,OCO over :ha lasx 

Tive years. 

98. The Montana Oepzrt~ent of Livestock ' s app 1 i ca~ion for an mercenc ; 

exemption under Section 18 of the Act so as to permit the use of 1080 

in SLDs for zne control of de~redating coyot2s and feral dogs was 

filed under dat2 of July 24, 1981. The application envisaged ;he 

- placement of 3.6 rng. of 1080 in 15 grams of bait material and ~nac a 

maximum of 25 baits would be placed on gach section. In Se~tenber 

of 1981, the Montana Department of Agriculture submitted a plan 

proposing a field test of SLDs in order to address questions of, 

inter alia, the attractiveness of such baits to all forms of 

-3 h;':"; i f=. Inr p;iir~ b~zcza Ln&c researcn warn neeaea io assess tne 
521 ectivi zy cf silch hi ',< to cayoxas under /aricuc ael i very cgnc!; c; 23s. 

Or. GI ,ss,r ('i ?<ins SG). 39r.e~ ;nzc i res2ercz s,ij -:csjzjry ant 

t?s:~f?ed ::at :he 3:3n )was in cb,? prccgss of tel?~ ?armula,ed cr 

compi eted. 

99. Iinplementi ng the planned field rest, bai ts were placed cn :he 

surface, at elevations approximately 18" above tke ground and buried. 

Coyo~es accepszd 75 percznt of baits placed'on <he surfacs, i8 

percent of chose piaczd 3: 2levacions and 67 ?erc?nc of those 5ur:ed. 

After 25 days, apparently con-tar921 s?eci?s ?r?icmindn~lj :cc?!~tzd 

the baits. 3uring the ini tia: period of tne czsz, :her2 dere 5 

substantial number o? site! visits by non-carget, s,zai i ,zammais. 

The53 tests werz conductzd using ihr~s or ar~racxants, bus ncc 

cox? cancs . 3r. Gl osser acknowl edgzd :na: 519s US& i ii :?cnt.ana 

could not ha112 the same degree oi sartcy 2: -52 prss2n: as :./as 1 

achieved in !Guam (nightly ar daily rezrisvai of unesten aa: ts zei 95 

irnpracti ca 1 ) and that adai cional cesci ng and riork ta mi n;mi ze .ccecrcanc? 

and hazards ta non-targzcs was necessary. He i nsi s tea, hcwever , tnzt 

sufficient data was available to support reyi strati on becaus? of :he 

oral toxicity data on 1080, i tr selectivity and th? 1 ack of 

documented instznc2s of human deachs or i;lnesszs frain use of 1080 as 

a predacide. He indicated that some "fine tuning" would be required 

as to dosage, placement, type of lure, etc. to minimize non-target 

risks. He considered these to be judgment matters for those 

adrninistzri ng the program. 

100. Testimony on methods of application OF SLDs was given by Er. Major 

L. Boddicker, Extension Wildlife Specialist, Departnent of Fishery - 

and -~i id1 ife Biology, Colorado State University, and a witness for 
--. . USDA. Acccrding to Dr. aoddick~r, 2r~ic:znt ,~lzc~~ent'cf SL2s and 

, , placornent af baits 7~r trap us2 arl idsnziczl. ze expiained thar 

effficient SL3 bajc placemenr in reia3icn co larse fezturos of tne 

landscape (macro location) is zhe same as for traps, that is, along 

roads, streams and mountain features. He further explained that 

SLD bait pi acernent was identical in. ra10c;tion to small features 

(micro locations) of 3 local i ty (cow chips, grass humccks: trai 1 

i ncersections) . Dr. Soddicker testi fied cLha t the carcass 1, i a dead 

horse, sheep Gr cow are often dsed as "drzw bzi~s" or sxcLians ta 

concentra~2 cayoce accivity in an area and incre~sz the ?robability 

chac the coyotes cou:d bc taksn by xechanical devices or SL2s. He 

asserted chac baits can be fornulaced and tailcred to the season, 

animal food pr?ferenc2s, aninal behaviar, aninal size and capacizy 

to nold food. %e described a wide var'ety of lures which c?n be 

used to attracc an animal to a zrap, jnare or an SL3. He sta;?d chat 

the selectivity of lures and kai ts cculd be increased by choosing 

those nos! appealing to the target species and by placement, east, 

coyotes preferring open feeding areas. Cr, aoadicker described two 

instances of specific coyote ~redaticn ~roblems on Color?do r3nches . 

where he considered that placement of SLDs containing 1080 in 

conjunction with appropriate lures would nave an excellent probability 

of providing either immediate relied or removing the offending coyotes 

within three days. Although Dr. soddicker did not advocate any 

specific 1 ini t on the number of SLDs per square mile, townsni p or 

otnei- area, it is ODV~OUS thac Re coniernp lacks u;e of SLWs wi th 1080 

will be extremely 1 imi ted ("minor use" in his words) and only after 
study of the ;arz-icular circ;msz3nc2s 2nd d2te~ina;icn 3y a 

?rq.i;oc dl ,-S: 3fla ! '_,'?2, SJC~ iSf " 5 233?138r; f Z2. ,I 7, . Sz~3; CAZT 2$;j~"?f'~? <v' 

csnc2.ln~la:ed c,ov$ring scme of ;>e SL3s 'ri75:7 fI;,c SXR~S Sr oxher 

objects. Ee c~stified, hcwever , that 2fficiency (coyoc? acceotance) 

l~ias reduced by approximately 40 percent to 60 percmt over that of 

placing the baits on elevated locations up to 23" above ground lsvel. 

701. In 1981, the Fish and Wildlife Servic2 applied for an ex~erimental 

us2 permit in order "L ttest the effecti\ieness and selectj~~ity of 

1C80 in SLDs. A study 'Fieid Evzluazion Of An An;if?rxil izy (Agent, 

Sti 1 bestrol , For Innibi ~i ng Coy012 ?eprcduc~ion," in ?viaencs, 

conducted over a five-year pericd (1,363 through* i 967) by the 3AS 

suggest2d tnac other carnivores, '~i ~h the possi ole excepticn oS 

sklanks and fcxes , sel :om ate i ndi\/idual bai '-:s i rltend2d for ca:iotzs. 

This was a-,tri buted +,o selec~i ve bai L p lacsrr;enc, e9e re1 a:1~2;:4 

small number of baits ger square zi?? and :he extended home rznge 

of coyotes. Coyotes, however were credited with taking only 22 

percent cf the baits. [Mr. Roy McSride (findicg 35), an e~ployee af 

the FWS ac the tine, participated in the djstribucion of these 

baits in soucnwestern Texas. He considered that coyote acceptance 

of the baits was Foor. A Plarcn I981 ?:cis reporc on evaluation of 

baiting txhniques, using markers, i .e., radioactive or similar 

material rather than toxicants, with which Or. Glosser. vras fami liar, 

reflects di fficul ty i n determining coyote and non-target acceptance 

of baits. Dr. Glosser pointed out that the sample size was not 

satisfactory. This was 2pnarently duc to the necessity of killinq 

or capturing particular coyotes and other animals that had consumed 

bai ts . 
., ? 92.. Large +ai tssta~i ons 21-2 su5stanri 2 I ?or:icns of horsz, cor,lr or 

shee? meat inro which has been inj2cxd 2n zcqueous soi~cion of 

1080. Injection was by means of a syringe or meax su~p a< a 

concentration of 1.6 grams of 1080 per hundrgd pounds of meax. 

FWS, formerly Bur~au of Sporrs Fisheries and Wi 1 dl i fe, presently 

Animal Damage Control Division, po? icy was that injections be m'ade 

at evenly spaced inrervals of appl-oxinately four inches (whil. <he 

meat was jxi 11 warn in order to facil ita~? even dist:ribution acd 

-, avoid hot spots. ine minimum r,umber of sta~ior;s rcquired to achieve 

effective management nomaliy were to be olacod, not to exc2ed an 

average- of one per tiwnshi o, As indicated ( fi ndi ng 94) , 15,349 

bait stations were plac2d in 1960, 16,692 in I963 and 11 ,373 in 

1370. Ail stztions (,./ere ?laced dest of The 1COch meridian. Cain, 

et a1 . concluded that evidencs that the stations were off~ctive in i1 

reducing coyote predation on livestock was lackin!. This conclusicn 

was bas2d on 2videnc~- indica~ing that losses of sheep t3 a1 1 caus?s 

rernai ned constan: and t,:at there was no evidence of a signi ficant 

decline in coyote populations. 

la3- Conpound 1080 impregnated in large meat-baits appears LO have first 

been used in the United States for the control of predators in the 

winter of 1944-45. A 1948 article by Weldun Rcbinson, referred co 

in the testimony of Dr. Wagner (finding 4G) but not in evidence, 

reports on the experimental pi acernent of 1080 bai ts in Colorado, 

Nevada and Idaho in areas of several hundred square miles during the 
, 7 1 

,,di nj-2~~ 1944-.L5, 194.5-45 ,?nd 1345-47. -. ; 53 3i2i 5~5 fyz ,,,;zs 

concurrsntiy in simi l?r ?i?caients Zrd had a;parznii~~ been ::red 

for seven ;~re\!icus 14; nsers . ieoar-.s frm rzcchers ; ndi c3:eci :ha: 

lamb losses were reduced by an averas? of 87 Jercsn;. 2ates ci 

predation loss suffered by ;he ranchers previous 29 these ex~erlrnents 

were not furnished. 

, 104. 9. k'agner also rsferrzd to 198: 2rticle iy Lyncn and :iasi (not 

in evidenca), ~hich ccmpiied infanation on annual i3e.p and ;oat * 

 loss?^ to predation in nation,al foresis (Forest 5~rvica Zegjsns i-8) 

during the years 1960-78, and on the annual number ci ;;80 staiions 

used in the same areas during the period 1960-72. Carrelaring annual 

shee?-and-goat-? ass values :ri th the annual number af l O8O jiari cns 

and finding then siaciszical ly sicniiicani, Lynch anc Uasi tsncl~ded 

I that the dec? inirrg number of 1080 s~ations was causally reiat2i to 

1 

increasing sheep and goat \asses. 3r. Uagner auesz:onea ~fie:a?r ;ni; 

correlation represented cause and effec~, srnphasiring that although 

lamb losses in the early 1950's iol1owing the introduction oi 7080 

appeared to be lower than in prerious years; juch losies began 

rising in the mid-1950's and continued ts rise during the perjod 0 f 

1080 use, peaking three co five years after the 1972 ban on 1G80. 

105. Being of the belief that ~idesgread use of 1080 large-bait itations 

was for the purpose of suppressing rcgional coyote populations on the 

assumption tnat there was a relationship between coyote densities and 

predation, Dr. Uagner concluded that the eifec~iveness of the use of 
sheep 10~82~ over areas 9? this sizz. Sheeq iosszs 'Here cansidered 

ante (findings 41 -42). In an effort to deremihe ii cayat2 ~opularions 

had been efiectzd by the use of 1080, during the Cain Cornittee 

deliberations, he developed-an index from the man-years of effort and 

the number of cayates taken by 211 mchods from ?dS rxcrds iar che 

States o? Yontana, 'riycmi ng , Idano, Utah, CJ? orzdo , Taxas, Xew Mexico 

and Arizona. 3e reascned that i i coyote pcuulations were high, the 

number of coyotes taka per man-year of effort r~ou?d Se high and that 

corraspondi ngl y , i f coyote numbers <,Vera 10w, the nurber of coyot2s 

taken per man-year of sffort wculd also be low. For each star?, he 

di\iided the number of csyotss taken by the an-yezrs of 2ffor: 

expended for each year and graphed the rssulcs, in order to csmoare 

the values prior to the period of 1080 use (1 440 co 19a8-50) :vi :h 

rhose prevai 1 i ng during the period of such use (19d8-50 to 1970). 

The results showed markedly lower index values during the ICE0 period 

than in the pre-1080 period for Idaho, Montana, Xyorning and Utah 2nd 

little, if any, differences in the other four states between the 

two periods. He acknowledged that the validity of this index 

depended on the assumption that the level of effort in predator 

control by FWS personnel remaiped constant. 

706. An index similar to that of Dr. Wagner's, was developed by Linhart and 

Robinson in 1972 based on the number of coyotes caught in traplines 

set by PAS personnel in Wyoming, Colcrado and New Mexico during ;he . - 
in cnz iac.:?r thr2o pars ,\ere 13, 2, and 21 Fsrcznc, r2saec=iL/e;y 

of thos? caughc in !Wl, 9rior :he 382 of 1080. The nunkrs of 

coyores caught in Colorado and ?lew ~Vexico in 1950 I,uere substan~ial ly 

below the numbers caught in 1941. 8y 1960 and 1970, however, coyotz 

catches equal lzd or exceeded the 5 941 catch. Val idity of this index 

is, of tours?, dependent ypon 3 consxant level of tr2~iine ei7or-L. 

Gr. 'iagner pi nEd ou~ that these rzsui ts appezred co sarall2i ,iai:a 

in his i naex, i .e., an apparen rsducti on in coyor2 n~mbers in 

Wyoming, but 1 iczlo, if any, effect in Colorado and ?kw Mexico 

during me cuo-deczde period of i080 uss. rie no~ed :ha1 ehe daca 

suggest2d tha; iC8O nay have rlduc2d coyox2 pooula~ions maz?rially 

in tn? normern and c2ntral incermoun~ain states, but had no 

si gni f icanr impact on sta~ewi de coyote populations in ;he nore 

southerly s~a.t~s. The aDparent reducxion in coyote populations in 

Idaho, Ldyaming and Colorado did not appear tc resul? in a corresponding 

decrease in predation (finding 41 ) . 

107. in an effort to measure trends in coyote and other pradat~r ?OCL~IZLLICTIS, 

che FWS in 1972 developed an annual netlaork of "sc~nt-post 1 ines" in 

18 states. A scent-line consists of 50 scent stations spaced at 

0.3 mile intervals totaling approximately 15 miles in length. A 

scent station consists of a three-foot circle of bare, smoothed or 

sifted earth in the center of which is placed a capsule of scent 

attractive to coyotes and other carnivores. Observers check the 
scent 3tati ons i3r four ~ucc=s~ive ni 352 ?zch fzl ? , reczrd r,h$ 

-, 

numcer of tracks by :oyot?s and otke-7 7ariiia i r <5r3c!<.~ 0- 2 SZ?C'~S 

being rocorded as a jingle vi si c rogardlsss of number) 5nd mcccn :ne 

soi? for the following night. Results ar? expressed as total visi~s 

per 1,000 scent-station nights and argoraled for che lines in oach 

of the 18 states. Sc2n-t-station visits are presumed to bear a 

constant re1 ati ocshi o to popul ari on densi ty and the i nai ces provi de 

only a rneasuru of relative abundant? and not an estirnatc of actual 

numbers. . Data from an F7dS pub1 i cati on " Indi cos of ?r?daxr 

Abundance In the Western 3ni red Sca tss" (1 980), wni ch r5ports resu; 7s 

of sc2nt-line surveys, plotted by Dr. Wagner indicat2s that coy~t2 

populations appeared to have i ncreased fol I owing me suspznsi 3n of 

1080 in 1972, declined from the periad 1975 to 1277, inc~~zs2d 

- 1 sl'igh-cly in 1978, and have sinca rernained alxosx constant. ~nis 

information imp1 izs no 'significarit change in coyot? populations . , 

Dr. Wagner speculcced that a possible rzason for the coyotc poculaticn 

remaining constant or relatively so sine 1972, Idas increased aerial 

gunning by PAS animal damage control personnel and increas2d harvesc 

- 9 / 

of coyo~es for their pelts since 1975. Mr. Hswthcrqe ( fi ndi ng 1 C9 ) 

was critical of scent-1 ine survey data, asserting that of 60 lines in 

- 9/ This seems a better explanation than the spread of the parvo 

virus, a disease apparently fatal to canines, which Dr. Terrill advanced 

as a reason for an apparent decline in predation losses during the pericd 

1978-80. - . - 
an error. 

1C2. Mr. Noman i. Johnson, an ASC 'ilildlife 3ialogist employed by :he FHi 

in A1 buquerque, ilen Mexico and a wi ti;ess for 'dyomi ng , et a1 . , 

considered 1080 rneac-baits a neariy perfect control ~301, in 

of environmen~al safety 2nd cost efficiency, for the r2ducsion of ccyoEes 

local areas. ,de cestifi2d :hai Compound 1080 bait trztions ?rovide 

the capability sf selectively reducing concen~rations cf csyoces 

livestock production areas prior to lambing and calving seasans ai 

minimum costs in terns of manoower and ather opera~i anal expenses. 

He ccntended that this ";reven~ive control ' in 1 ives tack procucti an 

areas allowed dDC field 2ersonnel to devote nore ti~e 

problem coyotes, ~hich had eluded the baits or moved in from adjacsnt 

areas.. This testimony was based on extensive e.x:eriencs Yr. Jonnson 

acquired as a District and State Supervisor of ACC speraiions in 

1959-64 and 1568-71 in North and South Dakota, l?4ebraska and Colorado, 

during which 1080 impregnatad meai-baits were used far control of 

coyotes and red foxes. He acknowledged that, lr/hile the need for a 

bait station in a particular area was based on the presence of 

coyotes, there was no attempt to determine coyoce numbers or a 

particular level of coyote population in an area ;he baits were 

intended to achieve. He also acknowledged that the number of 

coyotes taken by the baits was not known, because very few poisoned 

coyotes wet e founa. 
- :SS. Xr. Donald ',4. ??:~~norne, Stat2 Sb8;ervi;or of :he 12xss ,Aninal Sanase 

. -. Czntrol ?rzgr;,m for the Fh'S anc 2 .rr; znoss far ',%iycming, 2: 31 . , 2s:; 7; ?< 

that during his four years (1965 through lS69) of us'ng 1C80 5air 

stations in Utah and Oklahcma, it ,was apparent that che stations 

provided substantial benefits in reduction of livestock losses, 

- . particularly in the Oklahoma Panhandle. He point~d out that lexts 

4as the leading sheep groduc2r in the U.S. and also the Isding stat2 

in Angora goat production. Ye assertd that Tmas shee? and goat 

production !,vas concentrafgd in the Edwards Plat2au area of lest 

Czntral Texas, which due to intensive control efforts was 1 i :era1 ly 

1--m , coyots-free frcn 1945 to 1970. 82 statzd chat sincs th,2 ,r/ L 2an zn 

:080, strychnine 2nd sodium cyanide, ic l,vas no 7ong2r possible io 

prevenr coy0~2 ingress irito che Plateau ;.,r,.J. 31 1 ccunr,;es iq L- ha^ 

srea now i ncur i ivestock IOSZ~S to coyotes ., hother important shes? 

- 1 

producing arga ~n Texas is the ~rans-Pecgs Region, which borders 

the Edwards Pl attau on ;he west. Nr. Hawthorne cesti iied chaz shenp - 3 e- production in the Trans-Pocos nad decreaszd by 48 perc2nt since I?:?, 

many prcducsrs switching to cattle and thoss remaining having great 

- difficulty in reducing or preventing predation losses. The 48 percc'n; 

decrzase in sheep production was based on data compiled by the Texas 

Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. He regarded predation as a 

major cause of this decrease and forecast that predation losses 
52ing inaceouaie fo c~n:ro? ;oyo;e ?reca:ign. 7;; :~s;:'YcI~ ~7:: 

predasion 1oss2s had grsztlj incrzased since 1972 was also kas2d 

on reports by the T?xas Crcp and Livestock Reporting Servicl. 

110. In an effort to docnrnenc che effecriveness of 1C80 bait stations 

i n reduci ng preaati cn , :4r. Haw~horne ac~achea so hi 5 ces timony 

3xc?r?ts from cbe annual r2porrs of cke 745, Prsdatsry Ani~ai 

Control Operatjons , Texas Oi sir: c:, f2r the ii scal 'f8zrs 1950, 

1952 through 1955, and 1961 thr-ugh 19511. 1: a9Fears :ha: eozt 

Compound 1080, at least for Fiscal Y2ar 1953, was used in the 

Panhandle area, sxtogding as izr south as Ward and Crane Counties 

and as far aest as Culberscn Cxntiy. ,Alchcush :5e rmoris do not 

contain any s:atistic21 da~a, :hey do cantain abs~rvatie~s o?a 

great reduction in cayocs si;n and rancher re7orTs gf a reduction or 

-, c2siacion of Coyote predation an cali/es and jheep. : "2 recor: far 

the Fiscal Year 1955 states thaz senerally bai: stdtions placed in 

Texas after the middle of January are /of 1 i Ctl e value. bleverthei ess . 

the report for :he Fiscal Yszr 1961 states that 1080 stations wer? 

~sed effectively to "roll back" heavy coyote infes:af:cns in Webb, 

Maverick and Duval Counties in the extreme southwestern part of 

Texas, next to the Mexican 3order. It is indicatpd that, although 

these are not counties with big sheep and goat populations, it is 

the constanc drift of coyotes from these areas into the,prime she<' 
and goac country 2 fns nsr-n ana -.as; :hacl-r,usc ze ~~zrciga 2<air:SC. 

, . Y,eavy prscaijon :oss2s in :ne shes5 czuncry r ere not ex??r;enc:d, 

neverthel ass, depre~azi ons i n chat area wero re?ort?d i n every mnxh 

of the yar. In a subs~quent narrative on the use of Campound iOaO 

in South Texas, it is reported that coyotes eat the baits as readily 

in February and Mzrch as they do in N~vember and Secember and that 

spoilage is r9duczd by cutting the baits into 9ortians not aver 

75 pounds in weight and placing baits on lags cr sinilar ~leva~sd 

objects. 

111. Predator contrgl reporxi for the Fiscal years 1962 througn i56J j;ate 

chat Compound 1080 is the only practical se~hod of ccycts conzroi In 

large arrid areas of che Trans -Peas Re2ian, that consumption of 

bait has been good (up 'to 38 percent in sene areas), that rrzppers' 

catches of coyotss in important counties adjacent to the sheep 2nd 

goat country have been ireatly reduced, that fwer ccyotes iver? 

observed in ar2as where 1080 s~ations Nere ?lac?d and that losses 

were heavy on a ranch adjacsnt ts an ar2a where the landowners did no7 

wish coyotes to be removed. it is also relaxed thsz th? 2rsctica 

of placing land in the "soil bank" created cover for coyoTes azd that 

traps, snares and "coyote gettsrs" were still being used and were 

"hard to beat" wheq correctly applied. Compound 1G80 stations were 

considered to be useful to reduce coyotes to a lower level in the 

i big cow country. 
1. ?rocjrarn for the 2yonlng 2e$ar~zen, ~f Xgric~izure 2nd a ?q::nass fcr 

Xyoming, 2c dl., cestifiea as to he us? of Cc~scund :SaO bai: 

- 1 o/ 

stations in %yarning during the period 1975-1977. Dspar~rnent 

employees, who were qualified as certified applicafors, began ?lacing 

baits in assigned areas of the State on or about October 15, 1975. 

Rancher certification of predati unn 1 osszs as lwei 1 as l anaaw~er cansent 

to placment of Sai" were rgquird. A total of 1051 ~aits der? 

placed on 399 ranches in che 1.575-76 kiting grogram. 3ecauss of 

heavy Pzeding oy predators, baits were r3piaced cn approx'natziy 43 

~ercent of the ranches. Baits Ner? again ?iacod begjnning cn 

dovember 3, 1375, a total of 1,005 baits being placzd cn 373 ranches. 

11,'. Mr. Crosby consider24 ihe program a suc'zess, ci~ing ~h2 'F,*iS pub1 ication 

" Indices of Predacor ,Abundance i n the 'tiestern ijni ted S t;t,ls," ivni cn 

1O/ Although an injunction issued by the Fzaeral Clisirict Court upon 

the gzund EPA had not complied with the National nvi ronmental Pol icy 

Act prior to issuance of the order susgending and cancelling registrations of Cam~ound 1080 for ?redator control in 1972, was overturned 

(Wyoming v. Hathaway, 525 F.2d 66, 10th Cir. 1975), Wyoming took the 

position that it was entitled ta us2 1C30 for predator control under an 

intrastate registration in accordance ~ith the provisions of Section 24 

of FIFRA and 40 CFR 152. Use of 1080 for predator control in Nycrning 

was hal2d in 1977 as part of a settlenent of an enforcement procgeding 

instituted by EPA. 
30 

-'l - 1 snowed ;he ',4ysmivg i ndex i,r coy?;es ir IL. L j n 1275 and 4: -1 . > 

1 -- and 11 .2, res;ec::vel y, j n the ]ears ; 375 and I 91 1 . ;?2 3: 33 ZI 124 

dara call ecred by 'he 'iycrni ng Crop znd Liveszock 2epor'i ng Ssrvi ce 

on lamb losses co coyois for the years 1070 :a 1980 inclusilie, which 

snowed, inzer alia, IOS~~S of 84,5GO 3r 8.5 percenr of lambs born 

in 1974, 72,000 or 7.8 9ercent of lambs born :n 1975, 65,000 or 7.7 

percent in 1976, 51,000 or 6.1 percent i n ; 077, 43,500 or 6.1 lpercent 

of lambs barn in 1979. While he acknowiedged chat there wer? 

fluctuations in losses of 1 ambs to coyotes in other years hi ch CJU!~ 

not be atzribuzed to the 1080 bai tins prcgrm and which he could not 

explain, Nr. CrosSy maintained that :he reduciion in losi~s dur: ng the 

period 1976 ~hrau~h 1973 was due at 122s: in part co use of bait 

5:at:sns. 

114. ;!r, Harry Laati, a Harhematician, Presidenx and Chief Scient; ST of 

Loats Associat~s, Inc., a firn specialjiing in oarhematicai dna1ys:s 

and modeling related to population dynamics, host-area napping, 

ri sklbenefit assessment igr ?esticides, pes~icide dri it and other 

natural resource relat2d phenomena, and a witness for USGA, jubmic~ed 

the results of analytic evaluations of animal population dynamic; 

(modeling) based upon actual bait consumption of 1080 large-baits at 

640 sites for which data was available in Wyoming during the 1976-77 

period. The analyses were performed under a contract with the Animal 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the USDA. Expected sheep 

and lamb loss reduction in Yyorning was computed by aggregating 

i ndi vi dual bait sites in each count;,y into Crop Reporting Districts 
8 I 

, . (C2Cs: and J:/ zl/alliaz?cg or :rcj@,--- -L ;?? 1:~:: zzr;u,~c~ion zver a czn- 

]ear ;erj;c 3 is\iels i-annig :% i, ;licala 2i.o per r-njz s? 

-. fieid gar?er?d sai z consdxpclon daca for 2acJ 32. I ne r2sul :s 

indicatsd tndc popuiaxian reduction of coyotx ircm 1080 baic 

placements in high sheep vu1nerabi:ity areas could result in sheep 

loss r2duction estimated to be approxirnaieiy 7,000 sheap and lamb 

per year. 2e defined high vuinerabi 1 icy areas as ar2.s tihers ha r t: 

were ?laced on ajsuned reda at ion 1~~~2s :3 shee~ ~cd a hi~h 

coycte densicy. The nodel is hypothecfcsi , -here '~eins qo rs.' 

method ai zeasuri ng population (coyote 2nd non-target) densities 

for the who1 e area, rsource (apparent1 y ?red avai 1 abi 1 i ty was 

assumed ;o be cgnstanc and baiz consumotjcn Sy non-car2ec.s was 

2stimated bas2c on zssessiiients of baic 3ctracr'vcness cc sucn saecies, 

bait vi s i ts , cansumpti on and popu? ari on dens i cies . ,Yr. Loa ts 

isstifiea thas the model co~il a be used to ~2s~ cbe actual use of 

1080 over a cen-year period in Wyoming, ?rovided data on gait 

consumption rslative to distributed si;?s, population densizy, ztc 

were available. He acknowi2dged that the output of the rncael 

depended on the validity of inputs and that inputs such as efisct 

of 1080 on population dynamics of tar~et and non-target species, 

animal specific data inputs, trapper ff eid sxperienc~, locations 

and densities of target and non-target species, attractiveness of 

bait sites and their probable effects on species, animal presence 

and abundance, were supplied by animal managenent experts., i.s., 

jr. Lyle :r-~s~y and ioiiii fl~ua of ,;;niS. nt also 

acknowledged that dispersal or mi gration of coyotes was not considered. 
1 r . George 3. 30s'. , a reci red am1 oyat? 31 :he '\is ri :n 23 Lie2r-s 

exper.ler,ce in rhe (Anizal Ozrna.32 isncroi Pragrarn, i;?s;den; 3f ne 

Yational Animal gamage Conirol Association, Inc. (YAGC) and a 

witness for the Association, cestiiied that -he us2 of Ccmccund 1080 

in large-bai t sta-cions was effective in reducing coyate numbers co 

a 1 eve1 where the agii cul tilre- busi ness carrnuni ti es coul d sur-ii ve . 

His data on efincrivenesj apoeared TO be bascl srjnariiy on :he 

reduction in the number of bait jtaiicns places in E4S Region 2 

- (Arizona, Ccl orada , Xew !exi coy Oki ahcna , I exas, Otah and ',dycmi ng j 

from a hi~h of approximately 3,10Q baits jn i962-63 to a law of 

approxima~eiy 4,600 in 1963. He indicated tnar :he deccreasei 

number of baits placed was rela~ed to the lower nunber of requesIi 

fr3m AOC iraF;?rs or district field assi s~anss (3FAs) in the ci s;riczi, 

who were in tlpe XST position ;o assess the need for such sti~jons. 1 

115. r, Jchn R. Zeck, Preslcent of 3ioiogical Envjranme~.ral icnsu1:ant 

Serviiss, Inc., 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 . , reiatad an i ncideni concerni ng i sudden inc?ease n 

coyote predation on 1 zmbs and ca? ves in rhe early 1950' i in .'Icr-hwestern North Dakota near the confluence of the 8ig Mi~souri and 

Yellowstone Rivers. He testified that while it aid not appear that 

coyote numbers had increased, predation certainly hzd and that removal 

of many coyotes by traps, aerial hunting and coyote getters failed to 

abate the losses. Losses were attributed to coyote movements 

concentrating coyotes in the area and a baiting program was instituted 
. -, - -_- cI~s? s=gezr.er 2s ryui a :iazs a l 1 :wed zr;d 2ac, 2nd~ 2rear :r ;r,e , ;, , , s 

:ili ssouri 7i.rer was aljo 'Lre~ceu. ,Accorbin~ fcl ?lr. 3ec:(, t52 ZZOU~L (;f 

1080 treatzd bait cgnsuned in his assigned ar22 S~ring chac ~ericd 42s 

greaTer than anywhere 2152 in the Uni zed States. He testified that 

during the next four years ?redation in that araa was at a very low 

rats and that 1080 was not uszd there che next season, there being 

no need for it. He vias 07 the apinion that with quai ifisa appl ica~ors 

Compound 1080 was a major gosizive factor in canid predaccr nanagesec:. 

11- I 11. Nr. 'clilliam K. PSeiier, a aiologist, Supervisor of (Animal 3anage 

Control for the FWS in Yor-ch Cakota, having abouc 25 years 2xqeri~nce 

in predazor and coyote control , and 3 witness far Seiencer-s of ':/i 131 i f2, 

- 11 / 

et al., testified that they? lIvas 1 i xtl e dcuoc :ha: km~cuna 1280 

bait j~ations had rzduced sne coyote ;cpuiation. Ye ?s~irnat?d ;he 

reducT'on ac aaou? cne-third of the ~o~ulation. Strychnine ?TO?-kits 

were also used prior to 1972. IYr. Pfeifer testified tnaz silee:, losses 

to coyotes increased after 1972 going from 0.25 percsnc in 1972, to 

0.42 percent in 1974 and 1975, 0.48 percent in 1977, and then declining 

to 0.13 percent in 1979 and increasing to.0.33 percent and 0.28 percent 

in 1580 and 1981 , respctively . He was of the opi nion that these 

figures, which include only ADC confirned losses, supported the 

effectiveness of 1080 in reducing predation. He attributed che decline 

in predation after 1977 to a harsh winter and an increased harvest of 

coyotes for their pelts. 

. - 

I 

1 I/ Mr. Pfei fer was called as a witness by Defenders because he 

had cGducted or supervised a survey of North Dakota ranchers using 

guard dogs for predator control. 
New flexic~, and 2 wi tness for ',4ycrni ng, 2t a1 . , xstified tha"s 1CEO 

large Aai i :tations were an 2ffecti ve method for reduci ng coyote 

predation on sheep, goacs and calves. He based chis conclusion on 

the fact that pl aci qg staii ans resul tsd in fewer signs of coyores , 

, - such as tracks and droppings, :ewer damage c3muIainis and a rzdticed 

catch of coyctes by trappers. Mr. Anderson ii rst beczme inv~lved 

in the placznent of 1380 bait sbtions in 1362 in an area satith 3f 

che Edwards ?lateau in Texas and which he referred to 3s the "coyotz 

factory of the Uniztd Staces. " He also ?lacad and supervised zh2 

pi acenenc of bai c stacions in Colorado and U"ch during che jeriod 

1964-67. He tzstified chat after the ban on the us2 sf 1289, 

i cdicators of ccycce ;3opui ati ons i ncreaszd, ci ti ng an i ns-tance i i.1 

Eray County, Texzs where 40 he1 i coctzr-hcurs o-f hunting resu 1 ted ; n 

a huge take oi approximaceiy 290 coyotes. He asszibTea tha-, whi le 

1080 was in use ?pproximately 25 to iO percent of that numDer c7 

coyoces would be expectod to be taken by that dmcunt sf aer'al 

hunti og . 

119. Dr. Samuel Beasom (finding 95) conducted a study in 1975 and 7376 

on the efiscts of prsdator control on Angora goat mortality in 

northern Zavala County, Texas in the South Texas Plains. Surviva- , 

bility and productivity of Angora goats were compared between a 

225-hectare treated and a 207 -hecQre untreatsd (no predator control ) 

pasture. The study area is known to have a heavy infestation of . . 

coyotes. The two pastures were separated by seven kilometers. 
,Vai-mai im srzdzfsrs .rers ~emoved frx a ! ,55C heczar? -?re2 incl !ic: ng 

-, ine treated :asiure 2nd 2 1 .s i:n. juifer zone an rhrer i,ldss. Six:;/- 

nine coyotes, 11 bobcats and 32 smaller namaiian predzi3rs :Vera 

ki 1 led on ihe tr2atier;c araa in 1975. Tile cake in 1976 was 63 

coyotes, seven bobcats and 32 small er predaiors. Predaizor ac;; vi ty 

on the treated area, dersrmined by scat counts, was 80 percen: 1esi 

chan chat on ihe untreated area. Pradation 10sies on the untre::ad 

9asTur-e were 33 percenr ci ?he kid crco, uhile nnkncwn l~sses 

(disappeared without a trace) totaled 52 perc3nr ci the kid croo. 

Ccnparahle figures on cne treated pasare were 16 percent 2nd d3 

rercent respecij-iely . :dost of th2 unknown losses were actri bur?< 

to 7redators because of the prosence of coyote scsti ccntainlng 

mohai r concurrent ',~i :h an animal ' s disappearance, because survival 

raws were hisher gn tne creatod area and becaus2 disels? and 

abnomai i ties zrnoncj rhe ?id crop Nere rzre. ?r.-dation sf scu:: 

goats yas 24 percent of ihe iiock on ihe untreated ?asiure and zero 

on the ireated area. The study concluded that intensiie ?recator 

control could iubstantially increase the sur-iilial rat. of kids and 

goats, bu? vas insufficient ra curta:! large losses to pr2iafion 

when conducted on a small scale or a: d level no grsater than thai 

in the study. 

120. Basic to the oqposi tion to the use of Compound lC8O in large-bai t 

stations is the contention that- heavy and sustained exploi taizion of 

coyote populatfons merely results in increased reproduction, iower 
the sane and char zrianprs xs sappress ccyo~ popularians over ,qide 

areas are cauntzr?roduc~ive and aoomed ~3 Tailure. Opponents of 

1080 a7 so contmd that there is no demonstrat2d relaiionshi p beween 

coyote ?apulations and livestock predation. The coyot~ tak~n ;ernan-years-of-2fi3rt index develcped by 3r. 'dagner and his csnclusisn 

chdt 332 of 7C80 apoo3rad co suoprss coyote ~oouiar'cns in s?e 

early period of its use in ine Scares of Icaho, Yontana, iyaning and 

Ucah has previously been aentioned (finding ICS). Dr. Wagnsr no~2c 

that the sopulation reducrion did not 3pcear to be lasting and thac 

there was no corresponding reduction in ~rzdacion. it snoui d :e 

noted , however, chat Dr. 'blagner acknowl edged :"2~ appl i casi on 9T 

intensive ?reciacar control techniques in zrz?s I czuld degress csyoce 

popuiations and reducs ?redation 1 osses . Dr. Grand. ( findi n~ 31 ) 

impliedly recognized this fact when he excused the heavy precarion 

losses on the Cook Ranch in Montana as a "no cantrol" study. 

121. As evidence that coyotes can be removed from a l3rge area, the 

Edwards Plzteau area of Texas, which was litsraily coyote fr2e during 

the period 1930-70, is frequently cited. Coyotes were reportedly 

removed from the area by the use of stzel traqs, strychnine, and 

hunting, aided by fences constructed for livestock control. It is 

not clear, however, whether this was an area of historically large 

coyote populations or whether the principal predator removed was not 

the red wolf, an animal less adaptable and more easily extirpated 

than the coyote. 
- 122, sxay ;uhicn ?;<amiced rne ZrTzc: 2f 3~;lgi;~;j:n an :2:/9:2 & 

-. ;opui aticns ,vas csnduczs* 9;~ Sr . ?;cerx ? . ja(jj jan, L??: s, 3;; l,se 

?~pr2sznca:iva for t5e Fi sneri2s and hi ; 21 i f2 Frogran 37 Tge >la-i ofiai 

Irii id1 ife cecierati'on and a witness for -,he ;\I11F, 5s par-, 07 ni; 

doctoral di ssertati on. The study , conductzd duri ng the peri cd 

1974-78, examined separate coyote popuiations in the Curlsw Valley of 

Utah and Idaho, which -,vas subject t3 noderate to high expioi cation, 

and on ",he Idaho i?lar,ional Engi neeri ns Labora~ory (I?IEL) , lt~hich was 

-, considered to be unex?loited or at 123s-t moderafely so. ine stzdy 

areas are approximataiy iGC km apart and ~nvironneneally similar. 

Avai 1 abi 1 i ty and uti 1 i zation of pr2y were a? so simi 1 ar. Nei ?her 

spring nor fall, density esiimaces oF coyoIes '~er? significantly 

different betwen araas in any siven year or cvsrall. Huncing 

accounted for rcughly 39 percent of all adult coyote iosszs and 54 

percent G? juvenile deazhs jn the Curlew Ya112y. About 25 percznc 

of adui 1 deaths and 12 ?er-c?nx of juvenil? deaths were due co hunting 

in the INEL. Or. Cavison concIud2d thac his study showed chat 

substantial exploi tation would not be effec-,ive in reduciny coyote 

densities over wide arEas, becaus2 ?x~loita~ion losses wcuid ke 

quickly offset during fall and winter by reduced loss2s to other 

causes and by reduced migration and are further offset the following 

spring by increased recruitment (birth and immigraticn) . He concluded 

that increased recruitment would prevent any lasting reduction in 

coyote density. Despite apparent differences in the levels of 

~~u,;,zIT expi01 iai10fl, mere were t10 stacihilcai IY signlr icane -- 
significant differences in hunting caused deaxhs of juvenile coyotes 

bek~een the t-/o areas. He acknowl edged -,hat conventi ona1 1,lri sdom 

among trappers and biologists was that juvenile coyotes had lower 

survival rates than adui ts and (were mar: 'vul nerab;2 ~2 sx?lo't3cion 

He also acknowl2dged that no effart was made c3 2valuaz the ievei of 

coyot? concrsl on arlss adjacent :o rhe sxdy areas srd :?a: 

dzfi ni ng any cgyote or di 7 dl i f2 popul aci on Has szmewnat arbi vary. 9. 

i23. Testimony that coyotes wers primarily scavengers, re!zctanx ra 

risk injury by attacks on animals of any size, ,das given by iioce 

Ryaen, an author and a ;vi tness for Fri 2cds of Anina: 5, Ific. $,rno had 

spent over rwc years clos21y observing packs of coyot2s in Wonczna 

and 'dyming . It appe?rs, ho~ever, thac Ms. Ryden' s observations 

were made primarily in the winter months in areas of heavy snow 

cover and that animals the coyotes did not attack \were adui t elk, 

deer, bighorn sheep and ant~lope, lwnich would nomaily b? of 

suffici~nt size to defend themselves 3gai nsc c~yot2s. 2er observafions 

*Merg made on packs of coyotes in Yellowstone National Park and 

National Elk Refuge and thus the coyotes were protect2d fram human 

exploitation. She acknowled~ed that during the spring and summer, 

coyotes were primarily predators on small animals, such as rabbits 

and rodents, and that they were opportunistic feeders and did kill 
the socjzl or;.zni zati33, azc!~ hjzr2rchy 2nd <?~ri<~yj 4 igcer.;j!,es . * 

s~abiiize 3t a iower level, wi-ch the likely cansequence of a lcwer 

rate of 1 ivestock predation. 

124, Dr. Franz Camenzind, a 3io'iogist and 3 i~i~ness for Friends of 

Animal s , T'nc. , Inno has conductxi stens r2~2zrci; 3n CZ:IOC~~ 

?opuiaticns ssentially frw of man-caused ~ortali~y, supporr~d 

tne thecry that a s~able, unex?ioiz2d coyote ?o~u?ac;on would 

1 i kely lead to 1 ower rates of 1 ivestack predarion. ;3e ooszrvea 

ccyotes over an eight-year period on the National Elk ?ef~ge near 

Jackson dole, Wyoming. He 2scified :hat 3 s-,abl2 coycle2 oopu;at;on 

consistxl of social unizs or packs of from four to six adul~s bav-,ng 

clearly xfi ned nierarcnies or peck orders and we! 1 deii ned, 

terri tori es . 3e 2xpl ai nec! that wi :h ixoder3ce to he3~y conzrol , tne 

social structure becomes disrup~zd or destroyed, the population is 

in a constant stat2 OF flux, terriccries are not oucl ined or aefsnded 

and that the rgsult may be nore prey killed per coyote tnan would oe 

the case in a stable population. Contrary co 5cn2 theoriss, 

Dr. Camenzind did not find that a decrease in coyote populations 

resulted in an increase in litter size. He acknow7edcjed that the us5 

of poisons could reduce the number of coyotes. 

125. Mr. Eugene Allen, Administrator of the Wildlife Division of the 

btontana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and a witness For the 

State, testified as to the results of a study of coyote ecology 
I1 with neck co1:ars. Coyotz density in the approximatsiy 1C0 

square-mile study are3 was deternined co average approxi:na~s:y one 

per square-qi le during the summer. The study of cayofe r,overnegTs 

cancluded ?hat coyoizs cc~uld generally be clcssified in13 one of 

four soci a1 benavior 110d2s : den breeders, den su2er nuxer?ries, 

nonads and d' saers~rs . ;en bresctrs lrrere ;~cu 1t pzten-5 3f a : : 7~27. 

Den supernumeraries aere aaul ts and prooabl y pips frm <he ?r?vious 

year. ?lomads ,>/ere adult coyot2s, which l zf'~ the den area 2nd 

?stab1 i shed 1 arg: :rzvei are2s. 3i sqer;al csyo~zs were young, 

supernumerary or i njurzd den breaers wni cn 2er~zrentiy 1 ef~ the 

study area. Den coyotes ccnstit~ted ~poroxinatelj LO 3ercant of tne 

nnnvl I ,,,,l ati cn and naz nome ranses 07 three or four square ni 1 es . 3:hsr 

coyotes ranged over areas from 30 to 50 squar? ni 12s. Dispers!ns 

coyotes were killed by hunters a5 distances From 2isht to 95 qiles 

from den sites. A conclusion of the study was that an effective 

coyotg control progran must have the capability cf addr2ssing sitespecific problems caused by den coyotes with a very small home range 

or site-specific problems caus2d by a nomad coyote or dispersing 

juvenile coyotes. Pr~dation control was practiced on the study area 

and it is questionable whether this study can be said to contradict 

the Ryden and Camenzind theories r2ferred to in the preceding findings. 

126. There is csnflictfng evidence in the record as to whether coyotes 

become bait-shy. Ur. Crosby (finding 712) asserted that the 

existence of such shyness was pure speculation. He acknowledged, 
. e coyotss for one r?aszn or anoc5er and thar ;r sne ~~s~hoa of coyo:? 

concrol was used constantly, bait-shyness could develop in some 

ci rcumstancas. Mr. Richard Randal 1, a fcner OFA for the F,iS, 

Ncrth Czntral Field Representative for Oefenders cS Wildiifa and 

a wi~ness f~r Defenders, -+/as of opinion thzt ccyotss did learn to 

avoid or develop 3n aversion fo bairs. Vr. ?obert ?ur~eo, an 

AGC agent f~r the Sobth Dakota Qeparaent of Game, fish and 

Parks :vi-lh 37 years 3f ~xperienct in trapping and a witness fcr 

the Stare, testifia thar he would have to be convinced of any such 

shyness, because after consumjng the bait no learning sxperiefice 

by a coyote was possi bl?. it does appear, hcwever , tha: 'he 

effectiveness of baits declined over tine, wnich has been analogized 

to resistanca co pesticides developed 5y c5rxain insxts. Yorzover, 

2r. Xajzr L. 3oddjc~er (Tinding :GO) tzszifjed -,ha:: con~inucus iise 

of a particular baiting system resu? ts in development 07 cgyote 

popularionz with a high proportion of coyozes nc~ attractxi to mat 

baiting systsrn and cnac by 1964 it Nas widely accepted snaL 1C80 

large-Sai ts were unacceptable to sotTe cayot2s. 

Issue 3 

127. Testimony as to the eii?ctiveness of dmning, shooting, trapping 

and snaring in reducing predation was remarkably consistent whether 

from proponents or cpponents of the use af 7080. All seemed to 

- i +. ,-A< -0- :cr:z SL3;t ncnc :" ",.S.E (*:e?? 2j5fsc:' :;73?.+ : . , , , ,,, , .
regarded as a jclution ts the ?ro~lem si gredarion. For ?xampie, 

Hr. Randal 1 (finding 126) described che process of denning, that is, 

locating the den where coyote pups are bein! reared, 2s requiring 

tracking of zdult coyotes. Cejending zn corrain, thjs crsck'ng vay 

be very di f='cul t and ~ime csnsilrni ng and, in my event, roqu; res 

experience and skill. 4 table in evidence, reflect; :taf in 1976 

6.2 9etcenx 1F coyotas xken cy ,4DC rrersonnel of tne ?AS ere :aksn 

by denning. Or. IdaCe testified that removal of denning pairs of 

coyotes or their young may, and frequently does, ;Top 1 ives;sc!< 

-. ?rodation in 1 scal i zd areas. This isstimony was icnr: ned by 

Yessrs. F. Robert jendersan and Edwdrd K. 3oggess, /r'ildlife 3i~lcgi~ti, 

Coooerati11e Extension Service, Wi 1 dl ife 9arnage Control , Kansas. State 

121 

dni versi cy- and witnesses for Menders. 

128. Aerial hunting or gunning is probably the most effective way of 

- 131 

shooting coyot2s. Use of this method has significantly increaszd 

since the 1972 order sus7ending the use oi toxicants for predacor 

control . A tab1 e ref;ects th~t in1975, 40.2 percent (28.6 Fercenc 

by helicopter and 11.6 percent by fixed-wing aircraft) of coyotes 

taken by ADC personnel were shot from the air. Terrzin and heavy 

12/ Mr. Boggess has changed his ernpioynent and is presently employed 

by thF~i nnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul . 

- i3/ 311~ccing or ~;un;ing wi1a;ir.e iiam he air- 15 pronioite~ 2xcepc 

unders'tate authorization or per mi^ (16 USC 342j). Kansas and Arizona 

have not authorized aerial hunting of coyotes. 
. -- hiding pl aczs and :.+us rlncsr aeri ai. iunx: 19 ; Y?TT?C:~I~~. ,~~Z::ST 

conditions aay also prevent or inni~i t aerial fiuncizg of coyozes. 

iiun ti ng coyotes from fi xed-wi ng ai rcrait can be hazaracus . >It- . 2andall 

(finding 1261, who while an FWS e~ployee, shot hundreds of coyocss 

from the air, having been involved in b,ro plane trashes, 3nd 

Mr. ;?awthorne ( f i ndi rig 109) a? 1 udi ng to a fa~al crzsh 05 dn AOC 71 ane 

in New Mexico. Us2 of he?icopt?rs is probably thc ,xost 2ffectjve and 

least hazardous way cf hunting coyctas frcm :he air. Gperazins a 

he1 icopt~r is, however, very expensive, as evidence in the rscord ij 

t3 the effect that tbe hourly cost of such opera5'on has riszn frcn 

590.00 zo as high as 5375.00 during tne last eianc to ren yezrs* 

Aerial hunting is, of c~urse, selective tz cayozss. Exx2nsi1ie f;yi rag 

wnereby every coyot2 observed is rhoc, is, however, not selective c3 

coyotes depredating on livestock. Mr, Randall tzrned s: "war on 'be 

species" and asssrted chat it didn't necssariiy solve a particular 

rancher's predation problems. 

129. Coyotes ar?, of cours?, hunt~d from the ground. ADC personnel shct 

6.3 pwcent of coyotzs taken in 1975 from the grcund. A nethod oS 

luring coyotes within gun-shot range is by use of a call, which 

mimics an animal in distress, thus bringing a coyote in search of a 

meal. Coyotes are also hunted by sporxsmen and those incorestxi in 

taking coyotes for their pel ts. Herders and ranchers frequent1 y carry 

rifles and shoot at coyotes they see. While this scares coyotes away, 

- - it is un L I tely enat many--coyotes are ia;cen in Ln is manner. 
13G. Tr2pping by tnle IS? of s:20; le3-nolli Irzcis is a xrz61 ;:~na7 and 

- 7 47,- err2czivz rechod of pr3ca;or conzrol. In IY/O, 37 Gercenx of 

- 

coyox~s taken by AGC personnel were taken by trzps. I ,r-a;s 

frequently become inoperable in 1~1-1 and freezing +leaxher, ar? 

frequently .disturbed by livestock and non-target animals, requir? 

considerable ski71 as to pl acernent and require constant chec!<i ng t3 

assure operabi 1 .i zy . Coyo~s beccne cra~-wi s?. ,A1 ~kouch the 

selec~ivity of traps can ze impraved by increas'ng :he ,;aR xfisicn 

so that, the trap will not be sgrung by smaller non-targ2t 5peci~5, 

traps are nan-sglective. If the tr~ps are not cneckzd ircctiently, 

an animal nay be caugfit in the ',rap for days or a week or more, x~nich 

is not humane. 

131. Snares are sinply a wire locp placzd alang a trail or rioro freouent'y 

a hole in a fenc2 in such a manner as to encirclz the neck of an 

animal attmpti ng to pass. The loop tightms and the aniiilal usually 

strangles to death. In 1976, 3.8 percent of coyotes taken by ADC 

personnel wer? taken by snaros. Coyotes may jump fences and the 

snares may be rendered incpersble by weeds or brush growing or being 

blown into the opening where the snare is set. Snares may a:so be 

rendered inoperable by 1 i ves toc k or con- target species . 

132. The N-34 is a spring loaded cylindrical device, which when act'>iated 

by a coyote or other animal tugging on an attached scent or lure, 

expels a charge of sodium cyanide into the animal's mouth, killing it 

almost instantly. The 1'4-44 is quite selective to coyotes and foxes. 
In 1975, 6.3 prc2n: 2r' C:;ICXS :-s.c@n 3y .j2C 29r50373; :,3r'? xkzp, 

. . by the 3-Ll. 5cne sci 1 conci c; cns ar. corros~ve causing cecnzn: ca I 

problems ltii th the ?I-44 and heating and cool ing of <he units br2:ks 

the seals and allows muistura c3 psmtrate the sodium cyan-ide 

cartridge, thus rendering the )I-43 i noperabl2. They are a1 so 

rende-red inoperable by livestock and ?eo~le and are ineffective 

in warm weather bsca~se coyotss are not attracted c3 cne scents. 

3ecause of thes? ?r3012ns 2nd the restrictions placed on iss use 

when it was regis~ered in 1975, nany ranchers are di ssaci sf'td 

with che H-44. A 1979 r9port by che Texas Crop and ii\/escock 

Reporting' Serl~ics revealed that only 14 pe~cent of I ,195 rznchers 

resgonding to tbe survey w2ro using ,Y-24'5. 

133. Averrive conditioning using i izhiurn cn: srid? (IICL) as rhe aversive 

-, agent has been laboratory 2std by zne F1,-lS. ; ne theory is mat a 

coyore or otner ~redacor wi:l become ill from ingesting Jeaz such 

as nutcon or bai c laced with LiCL, will associate the i 1 lness wi~h 

the particular prey and thus become averted and refrain from attacking 

sheep thereafter. Mr. Guy Connoily, Nildlife Iiesearcn 3iologisi in 

the Predator ?ianagement 2es2arch Section of the Denver ',+Jiidlife 

Research Center, FWS stationed at Twin Falls, Idaho and a witness for 

the FWS, described the results of these tescs. One gram, wo grams 

and four grams of LiCL per 500 grams of bait were tested. Mr. Connolly ' 

testified that coyotes didn't like the salty tasZe of LiCL and that 

the tests here designed to produce the most violent illness ~ithout 
LiCL save tne longes; dversicn :ine, an av2r3ge o? L.3 days be?ore 

the coyo ies agai n began eazi ng 5ai ts . - 

134. In a second group of tests, eighz coyotes of approximat2ly the 

same age wer. divided into two grcrups. One group (experimental ) *as 

fed jackr~bbi t Dair containins LjCL far three consecutive cays, wni 1 e ' 

the orher (control) was f2d jackrzbbi t bait wichou~ LiCL. 3n the 

fgurth day sach grgup was given ;he choic? o= 3 live chicksn or 2 

1 ive jackrabbi t, che theory beinq chat ;he experinentai sroba ,vcul a 

eat more chicksn and 125s jackrabbi;. Yr. Connolly t2stified that 

there was no aiff2r2nc2 as each grcup kiiled :he same number sf 

jackrabbi cs and chic!<ens. He resarded t>,e tat: as 3 fai 1 ure, 

asserzing ;ha< they have since l2arned that there is no dosage a? 

LiCL suiTicient to effect coyote behavior that cannot be dirxrek 

- 14/ 

by them. These were all laboratory or pen tests, na field tests 

having been conducted. 

135. Dr. Carl Gustavson, a Research Psychologist, Associate Professor of 

Psychoiogy at North Dakota Scate University and a witness for 

Defenders, cited he results of a szudy he ~artic'pated in on the 

3,000-acre Honn Ranch in Washington State as demonstrating that 

aversive conditioning using LiCL laced baits could be effective in 

reducing predation. The study, begun in January 1975, involved the 

placing of 12 bait stations using two types of baits: one of dog 

food laced with LiCL and wrapped in a sheep hide, and the second, 

la/ . This conclusion was based on research conducted by Dr. St~lart 

~llinsjfindlng i38, infraj. 
8. carcasses of shee?, ,,vn;cn hzc 'Ied of natural iauias, *ere in;ected 

bait and the solution i njxtzd i nto 

82.4 grams of LiCL per liter of dattr. Dr. Gus tavson i ndi cat2d that 

he would recamend using a slightly lower dose of LiCi at pressnt. 

The study conducted through Xay 15, 1975, suggested a reduction in 

-7 predation lossas of sheep 07 -from 43 cerc5nt Co 50 percen1. .r,e 

report on chis s:ody indicasss tha~ :he range of oredaaiion r9duction 

was from 30 percent tc 60 percent. This was based an a ccnparlion 

of the rancher's pr2dation 105~2s for zne preceding three years. The 

wide variation in ~ossi bi e predaijon reductjon was z::riLu;ed :s 

uncertainty as ia (whe~her parxicglar losses 'were due XI coyotes. 

Dr. Gusiavson acknowledged that because of the inabii i :y c3 

incorpcra~e acequaie cantrois, ihe jtud~ djd not canclusively 

os~ablish :he efficacy of aversive canditisning io deierring 

predation. Yoreaver, a dispute arose between the reszarchers and 

the rancner regarding the determination of coyote kills and rh? 

result5 of this study were left in doubt. 

136. Dr. Gustavson also cited a study in which he par~icipated conducied 

in Saskatchewan, Canada. Thi s study, conduccad over the three-year 

period 1976-73, involved the distribution to ranchers of ground sheep 

meat wrapped and tied in sheep hide laced wich LiCL at the rate of 6 

and 4 grams per 100 grams of bait. Ten flocks having a total mean 

size of 10,508 cornpl eted the three-yezr tesr and ful ii l I ed requirements 
1977 and :.52 ;erz2nt in 1972. Analysis cS varianco indicaf~d caaz 

the reducticn in losses to predaars was sign'ficent. 3ecsuse flock 

sizes for each ranch over he four-year periad ar2 given in terns a? 

means, while the rsported perentages lost to coyotes werz averaged, 

it is not possible to detsrmine acziial 1oss2s frsm bass siicmicr2d. 

The jtudy concluded, however, char the evaluation did not zllow for 

the speci ficacion a? prggrzrn ~1arAa1~s responsi ble for r-he rxuczxn 

in losses and that factars such as a possible incrnas2 in nccsers gf 

coyotss taken for their pelts, possible bias or 2rror in cet?matizn 

-+=,A oi coyocs kills, and activities 3n the ranches could not Be sva111 da LUU * 

It *Has 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 critical of the study referred to Sy yy. Ccnnojly 

(finding 135). Hi s criticism, however, was based on a 1 i teral reading 

of the protocol oi the study.as "zhe test situation 5eing repeated 

daily unxil each coyote had killed and f?d on thrze or more jackrabbits and one or more chickens." 3r. Gustavscn contznded that the 

number of animals to be killed was established by the ~rotocol, that 

there was no dependent variable and that it was inpossible for the 

two numbers to differ significantly. Because there is no indica~ion 

the number of chickens available to the tredtiient group was 1 imi ted, 

this criticism is not valid. 

-- . - 
El 1 ins , a 2€s?arch ?sychci cgi st, ?rofes;or of ?s;/choI osy aCalifornia State Col:ege, San Sernzrdino and a witnsss for Defsnderr. 

In 1976, the firsx year of the study, two hpris cf sheep ;yere 

evaluated, one iron 3,OCG to 7,OOg head, and :be ather numberin5 'rcm 

2,COO to 2,500 head. 32it (sheep) c3rcassss were injected ~wich a 

solution of 450 grams of iiCL or 225 ;rms of sodium chiorid? 

hi in1 its or 3ai:s 'der? ?iacgO in areas tnown 

-' 

t3 be Frequented by coyot~s. Iner? were a subs~antial number GP 

kills in Herd Xo. 1 during the first seven weeks ci t5,e study, 

followed by 2 marked re4ucrion during the rernai ni ng 11 <r/eoks of she 

study. The use of YaCL fcr a ~eriod of time (3ftzr ,,veek 9) cn this 

herd was for the purposg aP having a control during which time it 

was anticipat2d that kills by coyot~ would iccr~3~2. This 

apparently dfd not happen. In lierd No. 2, heavy 10~52s occ~rred 

during the first week of the study followed by a dramatic reducticn 

in kills thereafter. According to Dr. Ellins, this icdicaced chat 

af~er ancounrers with LiCL laced baits, aversigns to carrion baits 

were established in the coyotes and that these aversians were 

transfzrred to I ive sheep, thereby i nhi bi ti ng predation. In the 

second year of the study, which ran from August 1976 to April ?977, 

three herds of sheep were tested, ranging in size frsm 1,500 to 

3,500 head. Coyote predation was considered to have Seen reduced as 
sheep kill; shan cgyot2s 5n sne of the herds. 

139. Aizhougn Dr. Ellin; ccnc2d2b ;ha; :he prcper csncmtr?cion of 

LiCL was critical in that the aversion develcped might be to LiCL 

rather than to the prey (sheep), he was unable to say precis211 

what level of LiCL was nectssary to develop an aversio~ in :oyo:2s 

to ;beep. He ackncw1~Q;cd that che cacczpc of avgrsive cznoi zioning 

was based on the assumpt'on ?I:srna:s faod SCIU~C~S for cgyc~?s we?' 

availablz, that no att~npr was rnade ~o ?valuate these factors in 

Antelope \/allay, cnac tnere was not a clos2 corres?oncenc2 be~crzen 

;he tiine the ii CL Sai ts \were 71 aced and a decreas2 i n ki 1 ; s , chat i c 

was assumed tha: ather coyote control measures (trapai ng , dznni ng 

and shooting) renained canstzni and that :hero nigh; be other more 

suitable, less saline or strong tasting chemicals rhan iiCL. 

Although four ranchers prticipating in the project signed statements 

to the effxt that they considered the taste aversion program to 5e 

a useful method of controlling coyotes and reducing ?reda:ign, tney 

reius2d to continue the crogra;n on their own oRce the study .,vas 

corcpl eted . 

140. Testimony as to the ne~rological Sasis for flavor or tasc2 aversive 

conditioning was given by Dr. John Garcia, Professor of Psychology 

and Psychiatry at the University of California, 10s Angeles and a 

witness for 3efenders. Dr. Garcia has conducted extensive research 
in aversive cond:xic~ing and :ne neurq;(;~y of 'sarning. ~e 

cor1s i cer-2~ :nax c2st2 a\ie!-s1 ve :=nai :: sj-,' r,~ +ids 3 , i 331 2 2rada-fi 1' 

-, r 

ccnxrol alc2rnaciv?, ass2rting tnat gr3cacion !qas 2asicaIly a 

feeding probl~,'f~ and that bo?h laboratzry and field ;cudies 

denonstrated the promi se of taste aversion condi tioni ng in 

control 1 i ng predztory behavior, He 'esti f ied that tne dosage of 

LiCL should be ax cuncsntrations nor detec~zbiz 3s salt by tne 

coyote or the aversicn l~ould be ta the ;a? c. 2e indicated chat a 

- 15/ 

proper dosage would se .12 or .15 moiers, fhe quanci ty of NaCL 

present i n na turai f1 esh. A1 though he considered taat the fi el a 

stuaiss by Qrs. Custavson and Ellins d~rnonstr3ted thar aversion 

conditjoning could reducz predation, Dr. Sarcia recognized ~hac 

furrner res2arcn xas necessary to serfzct the ~xhnique and maks ic 

more workable for ranchers to irnplment. 

The ces1s by the F1dS of the US? of diethy1stiibestrc)I 3s an 

antif2rti 1 i ty agent or reproductive inhibitor have previously be9n 

mentioned (finding 101 ) . A report on these tzsts indicates thac 

the study ar3as in Texas and Yew Hexicg were ~reated with tai low 

baits containing stilbestrol approximat2ly cne month before the peak 

of the coyote breeding szason. Difficul ties wi th coyote acceptance 

of the baits and liigh reproductive success necessitated a change in 

Is/ A mole is a unit based on molecular weight. It is not clear 

that ze concentration recommended by Dr. Garcia corresponds with that 

usec by Crs. ~uszzvsor 2nd t: !i~s :n ~~21.2 :=z::, 
achi2ve mark2d reducxions ii roproaucti./e succ2ss and it was 

c~ncluded that better delivory sysTems of juch baits were needed. 

Xoreover, because stilbes~rol exerts its ;rimary eifecr on the 

female coyot3 during a relatively short period of cine, deveio?ment 

of other anti fzrti 1 i ~y agents was r~ccmenaed. ,Nr. Conno1 1 y 

(finding 133) t2stified thar becausz of these and other ?rob1 ens, 

studi2s af .anzifertil i ty agents by the FdS haqde been tzninatsc!. 

Dr. Noman L. Ga~zs, !/eterinarian and Assistant Dean of Vexzrinary 

Xedi ci ne at Washington State Universi ty , a wi tnesi fcr 'Xycmi ng , i~c 31 . 

and formerly a rzs2areh veterinarian at tne USCA Sheq Experimen; 

Station, Ou~ois, Idaho ~2stifizd that ~sts on ;he conzroi of CG:JGC~S 

by use of r2?rsductive inhi bicors +ad nor be$n succ2ssful and had 

been discontinued by USDA. There is no other 2vicence in the 

record as to che efiecti veness of reproductive i nhi bi tors i n reduci ng 

predation. 

142. Mr. Connolly testified that the use of repellants as a ceans of 

det3rri ng coyot2 actacks on 1 ivestock have not keen develo~ed to 

the point of practical field application. Dr. Gates (finding 141) 

stated that evaluation of all chemical; claimed to have repellant 

properties as to coyotes, e.g., plictran, crude extract of bitter 

sneezeweed, extract of red pepper and decenovonillylamide resulted 
-- \ 9t-cmijz in reducing jheep :css?s 20 ~redacars. ,Yr. Oeviin (finding 21 

used a r??el ianc s2ray "Sheep P?rfurneYH ~dhich was ap~aren~iy 

succ~ssful in repelling or det2rring coyots atcacki on sheep for 

an 12-day period. Cnce the effects of the substanc2 wort off, 

Mr. Rev1 in declined to use it again because he was cmcerned about 

possible contamination of neat and wool . 

143, Guard dogs, l,vhich are tz be distinguished frsm cogs us2d for heriicg 

and gathering livestock, have apparently Seen us& in Fursqe and 

Asia to 7roi2ct s hee? and goats from predators f~r hundrds of 2ears. 

Guard dogs perform their function not so much by at-cacking ~rm!ators, 

but simply by their presmca dererring pradatars from 2reying on 

lives~ock. Common jrends used as guard dogs inci~ci2 cne Gr3at 

Fyrcnens (ori gin: Franc2 and Spai n) , Komondar (origin: juncjary ) , 

Shar Planinetz (Yu.josi,avia), /.tero,ma ( Italy) and Korabash anb 

Akbash (Turkey). According to Ms. Catherine de la Cruz, a Sonorna, 

California woalgrower, breeder of Great Pyrenees dcgs and a witness 

for Defenders, these dogs share numerous traits: cney remain aloof 

- e frcm strangers, ar? not overly responsive to human a~~xcion, prefzr 

the company of sheep to that of humans or other dogs and are not 

overly responsive to verbal commands. 

144. Ms. de la Cruz has been raising and training Great Pyrenees since 

1957. She has placed guarding dogs with ranchers in several states 

including California, Canada, Wyoming and Texas. She regards repeat 
73 

nJ 

V, 

6-t 

c 

I 

(0 

w 

-A. 

rt 

C 

P' 

C1 

-1. 

0 

3 

(I, 

C 

D 

rt 

0 

C) h 

c> 

0 

9, 

0 

-5 

0 

V, 

" 

rt 

3 

a, 

rt 

CT 

m 

0 

P, 

c 

m 

ID 

0 

-11 

r t 

m 

3 

TI 

ID 

-I 

a, 

3 

m 

3 

rt 

0 

-i 1 

UI 

ZI 

0 

c 

2 

n 

CT 

m 

3 

m 

2 

n. 

m 

L1. 

-A. 

3 

i 

-J. 

rix 

0 

tt 

If 

m 

-5 

7 

w 

3 

n 

'3 ' 

C) 

5 

0 

7 

10 

(I, 

PI 

fl 

a 

D 

n 

2. 

< 

2, 

rt 

-1. 

ID ul 

u, -4 - m 

V) 

3 

0 

C 

-1 

a 

3 

0 

rt 

Urn 

I 

(0 

u3 

P, 

I 

n 

CD 

a 

Iy 

(I, 

P, 

U 

-4 

0 

n 

3c 

0 

-h 

Ct- 

-1. 

3 

m 

u 

n, 

t7 

Cu 

C 

V, 

0 

rt 

1 

CIJ 

-1. 

3 

-1. 

3 

cf] 

C't 

3 

m 

ci 

0 

a 

Um 

J 

P, 

< 

2. 

0 

3 

C+ 8 

P, 

i 

a 

Et -5 

rD 

Ln 

5 

m 

r n 

-u 

4-1 

i3 

i 

-l 

ID 

t7 

rt 

IU 

CL 

u, 

3- 

ID 

L= 

(I, 

C 

DJ 

-4 

---I 

v 

'U 

9, 

n 

10 

m 

73 

C 

73 

V, 

5. 

it 

3- 

0 

0 

DJ 

rt 

m 

a 

z 

3- 

m 

-i 

m 

rt 

S 

rD 

2. 

-a 

cu 

n 

rt 

-1. 

< 

-1. 

9. 

n) 

Ln 

C) 

a, 

zl 

LT 

m 

2 

0 

LA 

m 

-a 

,< . 

0 

CT 

(I, 

CD 

-3 -= 

ID 

a 

61, 

3 

nCu 

a 

u3 

-5 

(D 

tn 

LA 

2. 

< 

tD 

U) 

D 

-..A 

IU 

(I, - 

- 1. 

. - -U c 03 I n (-1 

'0 IU -1. 

(I, Ln. i 

- 

m (t iu 

-3 (U 3 '< (I, Cl 

, - rb \ -2. u1 

0 -11 rt f -A. 01 

3 n, ct. a a rv 

11 yu kt Zl 3 rl 

a a, LX C* IU 

PJ ,-I 

(I, rt 

rd ro c: rD (I, n - (/I 3- 

CU 

(I, 
135 

zonths cf 2~2 2nd has r~~73ccd :r rcfdnd2d :he ;drc,~as~: ~rjcs cn 1 

115. Ms. de ?a Crl.iz char;s $332 ezch f5r h2r dags and sstj~z-~d ~ke zfinua: 

cast for food, veterinary care, aegreciaxicn, ?tc. at 5250. :he 

considers rhe average useful 1ii2 of a Grzac 2yrenees to be fran six 

co eight years fol lowing a two-year training period. - 

146. Dr. Narion J. Levy, ?roiessor of Soci013gy. aand Internacicn~i Affairs 

at Princeton Uni1lersi~y, 2nd his wife Joy, rajse Xcmondornk dogs as 

7 fir- a side1 ing. Thny obtained their firs: Xamondor in I 501 an6 cver :he 

years have raised about cen litters or approximately 60 dogs, af 

which approximately 15 have been pldceti l~ith sheep or goat ranch2rs 

in the Uni t2d Scalss and 'Canada. 9. L~vy t~st'fied :ha: '&hi le 

guard aa~s &ere extremely territorial and flouid ~2nd to fn a 

particular srea ii they knew the Soundarigs, they a1 so ilenti fi?d I 

.I wich the l-i'd~~t~~i< and noved with them. Ye stated chac che dogs 

should be trained never co play with the 1 ivestock, co suy wi~h 

the livestock and io know their territory, buc that other+iiie xhey 

should be given leeway to follow their instincts and nake their own 

decisions. He assert2d that the dogs need a minimum of rnainrenznc., 

but that they should be fed once a day and rsgularly checked for 

injuries, health problens, flies, ticks, etc. He testified that 

placing a dog with a proper owner was critical in that the ul timate 

success depended partly on the individual dog, but even more on the 

personality of the rancher. Or. Levy indicated that people who 
., . , , 

cnaz they did not hawe so do anything fcr he dog ce 3 succ2ss=u! 

suardi an. 

147. Or. kvy ,&as of the opinion that guard dcgs werz generally 2fS2ccive 

in reducing predation. !e stated that he and his wife had not had 

any complaints from ranchers with whom xhey had placed logs, that 

they had not had dny dcgs r9turned and that their experienc? :vas 

consi stznt ~i fh surveys re?or;ed in 1 i tzracure co cne effect thzc 

the majority of ranchers using Grat Pyrenees or Kcmondorsk for 

guarding livestock cons'dered chm goad ca excellent in reducing 

predation. ile testified thac an effective guard cog $kas parcl y 

a question of training and ~arcly a queszion of maturi ~y. 

148. 3r. zc? Mrs. L2vy charge $6CO 2ach for dogs chat are ~f "get" quality 

and up to 38GO for dogs that are ccnsidered outstanding. in an 

I 

article agpeari r,g .in the Oecercber 1981 issue of the National 

Noolgrower., Or, Levy cautioned against exaggerated claims as to the 

effectiveness of guard dcgs, chat not every dog wouid turn out to 

be a marvelous guard dog and tnat not every farmer or rancher can 

properiy use such 3 dog even if i; xatures we1,?. !?e ?oin%d sut :ha: 

Koniondorok did not fully mature until they were at least three years 

of age and that until the dog learned the rouzines and duties 

expected by its owner, it required supervision and a great deal of 

patient attention. 
Shee? Z~$eri~enc Stasion, Zu~cis, Idaho, 2nd 3 ,qi:ness for S2A, 

- + has beon involvea -~ith reszarch on the e~rxt~veness of guard dccs 

in reducing preua~ion sincs 1977. Of 63 dogs involved in -,he study, 

45 have actually been tsstsd sufficien~ that performance data is 

, avai lab12 (21 Kornogdor, 18 Great Pyrenees, 4 Ak,bssh and. 2 Snar 

Planinetz) , :he others i,ejng considerzd too young. forty dc~s hay. 

:been xes~zd su?fi cient thax subjective rati ngs could be zssi gned: 

good-dog gecerally regained near sheep, predation I,ras markeaiy 

reducza or kept co a minimum and problems )were ninor in nature.; 

fai r-dog showed ptential and would probably improve wi :n exDerlence 

and maturi cy, ~radation was somewhat re?rsducea 5nd Se~eSi ts cuz;.!e\ cnea 

tne problems; and poor-no appzr2nt 'nfuence zn ?redacion, dog 

1 m exni bi r2d undesirabie behavioral traits and problems cuxltieignea <he 

- benefits. I1,~enry dogs -were ra-lld socd (7 Karnondors, 9 Grzai ?yr?nee,s, 

3 Akbash and 1 Shar Planinetz), 15 dogs were ratrd fair (7 Kcmondors, 

8 Great Pyrenees and 1 Shar Planinetz) , and four dogs were razd pccr 

(1 2 Komondor, 1 Great Pyrenees and 1 Akbash) . Seven~aen dogs fai led 

a test. Howevsr, seven of these dogs were successful in other tests. 

It Nas concluded that more mature and experienced dogs had a greatsr 

likelihood of success and that a majority of dogs could perfom 

successiully provided they were tested under conditions suit2d to 

temperament and abi l i ty. 
- 

saven of the 12 tests, z~recti~/enesi gf cogs in ~,vo of ;h? tls~s 

was questionabie and in xnree of me issts dogs had liczl2 apparlnt 

influence on the number of shee? killed by predators. Kcrnondorok 

kerc not as succ~ssSu1 on rangeland as on pasTuros, while Great 

Pyrsnees appeared to be equally succassf~~l cn rangeland as on "ncod 

pastur~s . 

151. Dr. Gr3en costified rhat )while no special ski 11s were rqui r~d to 

rear and train a succ2srful guardjng dog, ~atience and persistencz 

over a period of aT jeast a year may be required in order fcr 3 icg 

to be er'iecti!;e. He 3s;erted that a rzservoir of trzined dggi 

not availah?$ 2nd that guard ccgs zould not be vsewed as 5 n~idlj 

depl oyable fom of predator con~rol . He further testifix! that 

guard dogs were not free of problems in that they mui; be ;nte:r.ied 

into the sheep operat'on, that they may harass, injure or naim livescock 

they were supposed to pro~ect (two of rhe dogs at USSES having killed 

sheep and four others having been imp1 icated in such i ncidencs) , :hat 

dogs may bi te people, usual 1 y strangers (three dogs at USSES havicg 

bitten a person at least once) and that they are subject to illness 

and injury. Dr. Green viewed guard dogs as one of a number of methods 

for reducing predation on sheep, asserting that they would not normally 

eliminate predation. 
es4;ina%d ancuai food costs ar approximatsly 52CO. Ze indicattc 

USSES had lost 11 dogs to various causes including disease and :hat 

five had been shot, thre maliciousiy by anknown persons, and -,:do by 

a cooperating rancher who was loaned the d~gs for test purposes. k'e 

s~atzd that ncighbcrs and adjoining ranchers shou;b be inforneb :hat 

guard dogs 3rz beicg used so 3s z3 ? assen the chams they wi? 1 be 

shot as narauaers if they scray inta a neighbor's ?as:sr?. 

153. As indicated (finding 11 7), Hr. Pfaif~,r conducsd a survey gi Nortn 

Dakota ranchers using guard dogs for predator control. Of 30 rancngrs 

known to be utilizing guard dogs, data Iftas col locted from 33, :he 

other three having ?ups which wer2 not yat beqng ils2d. Tke r~s~lt of 

the survey i nd.jcat2d a 93 p2rcenr reduction in predation, This 

reduction was csrzpu~ed bas2d on the ranchers ' menory of :he exT2nt 37 

losses. The dogs (d? 6rea~ Pyrenees and 2 Komondorok) here uti 1 iz2d 

in fenczd pastures in W2stern North gakoxa, an arga 07 rolling 

hills, brush,. wetlands and a large coyote population. The Great 

Pyrenees work~d i n pascurzs of 10 to 1200 acrss guarding flocks of 

10 to 1300 animals, with the typical Greac Pyrenees guarding an 

average flock of 590 sheep in a 250 acro pasture. Larger flocks 

and pastures were generally guarded by two or more dogs. Ranchers 

- testifying at the hearing, who tried using guard dogs, did not nave 

good results, indicating thax it was difficult to keep the dogs 

with the sheep, that the dags became sheep killers, or 

that the dogs wandered onto neighboring pastares and were shot. 
or failure of 'A? 2:amb t3 wrse frcm fne ?we for cn2 ??ason sr 

ano~her) , dis2ase and other causss. Whi 1 e the ewes and 1 an~s arz 

subjec~ to little or no predation during the ?eriod of confine~ent, 

predation can begin again or continue once :he shew are rsl~as~d 

inn gasxures or ranges and shod lambing is not an al;2rnacive mechod 

of reduci ng 7redati on. Shed 1 am~i ng i s 1 abor i nznsive. M~xove~, 

lunl ess ?roper prxauci ons ar? taken l~i thregard yo cl ezn i i nesi 

confining sheep or soars can acwa'ly increass :oss?s dus to diszasz, 

parasi cts , eIc. 

. -- 

133, in open range sicgations her?ers ro cantrol and lsok afzzr the ;bees 

zreessenti zl . %hi 1 e at 1 easx as a theoretical iriatyzr addj ti ona? 

herders could reduce ?redation lossss, ~xperienczd herders are in 

- * short supply. Testimony from ranchers is to :he ~~r?ct ;hatheri2rsi 

salaries range from $530 to 5750 a month, but that rhe coca1 COST of 

rcain~aining a herder, i.e., for groceries, supplies, etc. can be as 

high as $l,5GO to $1 ,6a0 a monzh. 

i56. Or. Gates (finding 141 ), while at the USDA Sheep Experi~ent Station, 

tested electric fencing, referred to as New Zealand type, as a nonle~hal method of predator control . The designation l.lew Z2al and refers 

to a type of charger whereby fence wires can be energized by use of 

a 12-vol t battery developed in that country. The charger is of high 
1. m fi, n - c~paci ty 32r~t :zi n? ge >:a; 12 -.bc 32s af 3.392 :r: i ,,,., !:31 ZS. I bji 

raaiices che ?ossiki 1 i :y of in? ~nergized dir.5 2eing gro~:nc& J;, 

conTacE ,~i th vegetation rhus render1 ~g the fence i nefiec:i-/e. ,dhi ; e 

placment of rarning signs is recommended, Gr, Gates ex?lained tho-. 

the pulsating current made it unlikely that any person would be 

-. electrocuted or injured by contact with ;he fence. oe configuration 

of the fence t~st~d by 3r. Sat25 cons.istpd 0-f 12 31 t2r~ativel;; 

". ener~ized and grounded *ires ;3 a neighr of approximately ;!\/e faez. 

An additional energiz2d wire (;rip wire) was placzd 29 cn from :ae 

fence and 15 cn above the grgund. The zltsrnatively anergized and 

grounded wires are for <he purpose of assuring that a coyccs 

atremp~ing to pass through the fence would r5ceive a sutscan~ial 

shock. Tie trip wire is to pr2vent coyotas from digsing uncer ;he 

fence - 

157. A1 though Dr. Gaies considered rhe tests were succesif~l , ne cauc:nnei 

thac such fences would not have universal application. He poinred 

out that terrain may prgvent cons~ruction of :he ience in such a 

manner as to preclude coyotes from passing under it. ;e siat~a :ha: 

. * in sandy soil a coyote could easily dig under the ience. :!oreover, i- 

<he fence was effective, the matter of hindering movements and 

migration of wildlife mighr preclude its us2 in some areas. Fencing 

large areas could easily result in fencing in coyotes already there. 

Material costs were estimated at $1,000 per km. Dr. Gates asserted 
pric2s an avsrags r3ncher in icano could not nain;ain ;he f?nc?s he 

has, much less go out and build new 'enc2s. Cr. Gates operats z 

inall jheep ranch or fa* and indicated that he has incurrd I oss2s 

for the past three years. 

158. F,4S has field tzsxed alertric fencf ng 2s a aeins of predazor c2nr,rci 

in North Oakota and Kansas. In :he ?lorth Dakota tests, new fences 

were csnscructed usjng a1 tsrnazively char~ed and grounded ~ires. 

Coyote predation was not defzrred dn-~il 12 wires !were uszd zr-,d ;he 

height oi the fence was raised to I68 cn, the conTigurztion 1ss2nxial ly 

bein? as -in :he fmce xstsd by 2r. Gates. Ail of chess tzsts x~ere 

in smai 1 enclosures, the largest being 3.7 3cr2s in 5iz~. In the 

Kansas tst~, electric wi res werz i ns~al: ed on conv2nxionai woven 

and barbed wi r~ sheep fences. The addi ci on of four and ii ve cnarged 

ivires eifectiveiy detftrred prdation. Again chess ezsts werz an 

small enclosures, the largest being 1.2 acres. Haterial costs (1980) 

for the 12-wire electric fence were estimated at S1 ,580 per mil?. It 

is not clear whether this includes the charger. 

753. The FN'S has conducted a survey of ranchzrs using electric iznces to 

protect pastured sheep from coyotes. Of 37 ranchers interviewed, only 

74 seemed to have adequate information to permit a comparison of 

losses before and after installation of the fences. According to 

these ranchers, losses to coyotes over a combined total of 271 months 
-,,- - - - 3 3ni 27 IZK~VS s2zj~n5 :~:2i<~ jf!Ssg. zf:?~ :?s 

ins:ai?acion of 3;ectric f2nc95, 3~2r a serfsd of '22 ccn~hs and 22 

iainbing sezsons, ~otal2d 51 sheep or a ?d percen-, r2-C~czicn in 

losses. A reporr: of the survey noeed, however, that dam gathered 

*, 

was based in part on opinions and stinates from memory, tnac 

psychologica7 factors undoub~ealy'played a ?art and chat stveral- 

~anchers providing infcmation were franchiszd to s2i 1 i?ncins 

xai~rials. The cnly rancher ds?ng slectric fencing as a mans 2; 

predator control ta appear 3: the hearing war Yr. LinCon )Icn:gcrr,zry, 

a VcDonai d, Kansas, rancher and fariner and a ;vizness for ':iyomin~, ~c a1 . , 

lwho testi fied that si nca 3nciosing approxi~a~2i;i 25 acres arcund cis 

- ,- farmstad with e1c"ctr.i~ fe~cing in 1978, ne nadn'r. sa:~?r?d 'ny 

loss~s o? sheep or lambs ta c~yotes witiiin <he fenc2d 2r3a. 

760. Dr. tlaurice She1 ton (finding 6) testified that while ir: was \d!;Ctual i)/ 

imoossible LO totally exc?ude coyot2s, it ,was g2nerall~ poss-ible t3 

exclude them by fencing. ile indicated that the 1a;or 1 ini ~ations 

- 

were economic, pointing out that pasturos in large areas of :exas 

are stocked at the rate of 100 sheep per square mile and thac che 

cost of convenrional fencing around a section (J miles) would likely 

cost $4,000 to $6,000 per mile or up to 9240 per head, ~ilich is many 

mu1 tiples of the gross income. Regarding electric fcncing, he related 

his attempt to exclude coyotes from a 200-acre pasture in McMullen 

County, Texas in the South Texas Plains, an area of known high coyote 

density. Fence utilized was seven-wire, alternately charged and 

- - 
. . grounded, with 3 bzr3ed and : ;r:o >!<:re sabsecuenzly added ts ,?ak? 

was conduciad over an approxjmaie one-year pericd. Alfhough cniy 

three coyotss were removed from the ~asture (by traps and us2 oi a 

he1 i coptzr) , after instal lation of the trip wi rs, Or. Shelcon tes~i fie3 

that not 3 singie young soat was 'raised, coyote ki;?s being con?; rined 

in same cas2s and inferred in otners and :hat ih ?fens !was c2nsidered 

ineffective. He estimated rnaierjai for the 7ence 2t 52,SOC. 

11 Strobe-ligh~s, sirons and ?rapane exsiod~rs or zon Suns la4/& disz 

been ;rsrsd ana <ti 1 I z4d in ait~qpti to canirol or reduce pradaiion 

by coyctes . Tests by ihe FA5 uci 1 i zing strabe-1 i ght/si ren devlcls 

a1 r?,nches in Colorado, Idaho, Cre9cn 2nd Souin gakota, indicsrea 

reiucea predation over a period of 5 to id weeks ai je\/eg of tsn 

tests si ies . The resul ts were csnsidered encsuragi ng , but addi ti cnal 

work was considered necessary to idenrify stimuli, e.g., iignc, sound 

recordings, iha~ mosr effectively repel coyotes. Dr. Shelton testified 

that he had inesxigated the usa of lights under field conai~ions and 

found them totally ineffective. Testimony at the hearing ivas to the 

eifecr that cuyoces soon became habitnated to the sound of expioders 

and even used them to locate flocks of sheep. 

162. Penning or corralling sheep and goats at night can be very effsc~ive 

in reducing predation. This practice, of course, has no effecc on 

predation that occurs in the daytime. Moreover, the usefulness of this 

oracticn is confined ta farm flock operations as it is impractical to 

pen 1 arge f 1 ocks under range condi ti ons . 
lasz 40 years, frcm a h?gh of S6,67J,CCC in ;?A2 :a a lsw of 12,220,200 

- i 6/ 

in 1979, i!icreasing s;ignziy ca 12,941,300 in :'?El. The number of 

shesp increased to 13,176,G00 as of January 1, 1982. P5r capita 

consumption of lamb and mutton is approxirnatziy 1.5 7cuncis annually 

(carcass basis) of chich 3 ~ercent i s i~ported. ?or c.?i ta ccnsunp~icn 

of wool is appr0xirria~z:y one jound 3nnual1y 50 gerc~nt :f ~hich is 

import~d. Approximat21y 30 percznt of the sneq in he Unised Staces 

are raised in the 17 nost western of the 48 contiguous Statss 

Although approxirnafely '51,000 west21-n famerr anb r3ncher-s raisz 

sheep, only 21,000 or 41 percsnt have comerci a1 z?eraxi ens ,2f 50 137 

more 7- 1 " CI stock snee?. 1nes3 ?r:duczri, nowever, Jwn :early YJ gercznz 

of a1 1 s~ock sneep in the rzgion. Laqe scale ?rcduc~rs lwi tn a 

i,OCO or \?ore stock sheq constitut~ oniy 6 perc2n: 05 the proaucors, 

but accaunr for 63 gercent of the region's stock shes?. 

- 16J. Data on goats nave previously been discussed (finding 73). lexas is 

the princigal soat producing state 3nd the najori ty a? ggacs prcduczd 

in Texas are Angoras, r3ised for their mchair. There ?re 2pproxirnately 

800,000 dairy goats and 500,000 Spanish or neat-cype goars in :he 

United Stat~s. Texas produced 9.3 milli'an pounds of mohair in 1979 

worth an estimated $47.4 mil lion of which approximately $30 mill ion 

16,' These figures are from tables included with the testimony of 

Dr. grill, which are based on USOA statistics. Figures in other 

aoeumenes irl aiaence wnlcn are also purporcealy oasea on US~A rLatisz1c.s 

differ slightly. 
I . . -* -" n . . by T?.xas 9rXycers f r-n mna: r I n : 220 8as bju. 3 Ji ! 1 ; :n . 

155. Tesxjmony cnzt sp-c?~un uiiiizatisn of auch sf tae rans21anG in :he 

western United Srates requires grazing by cattle, sneeg and 50ati 

rather than a sing12 species was given by Mr. Robert ii. Xznslng, 

ix~ension iconcmi st, Texas A&M Univerii ty , Or. Czr1 :4enzi es , Res, deni 

Oi rector 3f Researcn at the Tmai P&iil Universi ty A~rj cu! iurai Reserrcn 

and Extlnsion C~ntar at San Angela, and by Or. dames i. 3ownsJ ?,ange 

. - Ecologist, Utan State University, wl~nesses for !dycrn:ng, 2'. al. 1. 

was painted out that cattle prefer grass, that sheep 3nd goat; seiact 

some grass, but that sneep select larse aounxi cf law-gra~ing 

nerhaceous pl an~s (:orbs) , whi 1 e goats se1 ect 1 arge am,ounti oi 

browse. Sfleep and goats are abla ia 3rs;a rougher 3rr~in and arees 

which are more sparsely vegetated than cat~1 e. 5r~zi ng zat-cl s , 

shee? and goats in the ?roper combinations and at suitable intensity 

not only increases the production si animal praaucxs per acre, bur 

tends to maintain the carrying capacity of the land in that iorbs nor. 

properly utilized become a weed problem and Drowse not pr3periy 

utilized becomes a brush probim. indeed, shoo9 and goats can be used 

for the control of weeds and brush, thus avoiding the use of herbicides 

or expensive mechanical methods of control. 

166. Because sheep and goats can turn pasture and range vegetation and crop 

- 171 

residues into meat and fiber at relatively low cost, the rising cost 

171 Lower 1 abor, machi rrery , fuel , transportation, ti 1 l a~e , ferti 1 i zers, 

herbisdes, etc. required for range 1 ivestock production are sometimes 

referred to as "cultural energy." 
of enfrgy in reien; jedrz nas ~ajroved 

of steep and gozc ,Teais reiaciv? ;o ocher inea;s 3nd of ,vooi znd 

- 7 mohair relative to iynthetici. According to I ne U.S. Sheep and Goat 

industry Produc~s, Opportani ty and Limi tations , CAST 4eport No. 9L 

(May 1982), the potential exi sti for increasi ng the production of 

sheep and goats in the major range ar?as by at least 50 percen: ay 

utilizing the brst ava!Iaale s8chnolcgy iin range livestack zanagement, 

by grazing areas not now used for ineep and goais 2nd by combining itai ternaxi ng the grazing of sheep and goats wi ch cacti e grazing . 

Or. Menzies (finding 165), who chaired cne cammi t~ee t,vhich suihored 

the above report, described the 50 percsnt figure as a reasonable 

assurnprion. He ristified tha-. the ~rz2t-st 7otonzial far inproving 

efficiency was through lrnproving che percmtage of kids or lancs 

raised from a flock. He ,das of the ooinlon thac Increased procuctian 

and lower grices Far lamb and wool aould increase cansumprion of 

these ic2ms. 

167. Dr. Menzies nowd that among the lirnitzcions on tne efficiency and 

productivity of raising sheep and goats were inf.ccious diseases, 

parasites, nutritional liseas22, poisonous plants, ava;ldbi?ity of 

labor, marketing problems, small size of the industry and predation. 

He asserted that predation 1 owers the efficiency of producti on costing 

both the producers suffering losses and indirectly che consumer. He 

indicated that an often overlooked effect is the inefficient use of 

land resources that result when high predation losses prevent the use 

of land resources by sheep and goats. 
1 ,2. - Yr. KensLr,~ (lin<ing 153) ci2d saca indicaziqg ;hz; in 13L3 

.._ ? 3.6 ~ii?;on neac gf carxlo, 12.3 miiiion s;zc:< sneeg and 3.3 n:;;ion 

goats in Texas. 3y 1972, the fipr2s 'wer-2 13.5 mi1 1 ion caczlz, 3.3 

mi 11 ion sheep and 1 .3' mi 11 ion goats a~d thatbby 1980, the fi gut-es were 

13.2 million, 2.4 million and 1.4 million, cattle, sheep and goats 

respectively. He asserred rhat the significant poin~ about che 

number of animals was the change in speciss mix, and t!-12 drastic 

decline and even ccrnpletz slimination of shee? and soats in some 

areas. ;de deni2d chat the present pradcminazc~ af ca~~le nzrcers 

was because cacti 2 were more pro7itable. Se poi ncsd out char. i : Idas 

not oractika? in ~uch of Tsxas co subs~it!ito ca:tl? for sheep and 

- 181 

goars on an quai animal uni t basis, that not only was the range 

more suicable for grazing by cattle, shee? and scats ra:her than a 

single 5pecies, but thac such diversified operaticns resul tsd in 

;or? re1 izbl e cask flow and werz in the bes-r; interests of the n,pera-,brs. 

He therefore concluded that the switch 10 catxle \was due to one or 

more external factors over which operators had little or no control. 

He assert2d that one of these factors was gredation. He acknowledged, 

however, that low pricss played a cart in some ye2rs and thzt sheep 

and goats were more labor intensive for shearing, drenching, etc. 

in addition to being more susceptible to predation. Among Mr. Kznsing's 

ducies as an extension economist with Texas ABM University is the 

preparation of cost and return budgets for livestock enterprises. He 

-. 

181 - ~radi tional ly an animal unit of one cow and calf equals five 

ewes Ed lambs. 
sheep shoilced a. ne? rr-xrn of 51 3.32, t4t-11 c;: r2 ~sssr:~~ t~c3bi :5n?d 

t2i: ?roduc2rz cou7d not Ic~g colzrat? zn aaciclcna; loss of tsn 

percent. Se indicatzd thac this was to count2r assertions in some 

quarters thar sheep producers wers rnak?ng coney and could easily 

- 19/ 

absorb an additional t2n percent loss to predators. 

169. Or, 2awns (Finding 165) tesii f%ed tnac qreda5~n causes s2ricus 

scsncmic losses co nany ;rcduczr;, forcing he abiinacnrnenc 07 ray 

1 i vestcck cerazi cns . Fe ass2rtzd ti?a"ihese : osses reach 1 ?v$i s <ha-, 

prevent pr3per use of range land 2nd arcper ucl1izac:on 07 'arase 

resources. ?e s~atsd hat ~~OGUCSYS i n ,\ri loria, Colorado, ,Ycntana, 

New thlexico, Utan and rdyoning have aoandonea or avoided ana 

goa; c1per3tij3ns because of sxc?,ssii~e ?r&ation ano :ha< many cersons 

feel chat predacars and fear of :gsses ,Here a riajor faci~r jr~vent!n~ 

young peopi2 from enterins sneep or goat businessss. He iurrher 

testified that an encroachment of cayotes on :he Edwards Plateau in 

Texas has caused many ranchers co abandon sheep and goat ?reduction and 

that other ranchers wouid prefer to uti 1 ize sheep and gcats for beff2r 

management and brush control, but were unwilling to risk major capital 

investments in areas of high predator populations. 2e indicated that 

some banks and loan agencies wi 11 no longer risk capi cal on sheep 

and goats in areas of high predator populations wi thout additional 

collateral as.security. According to Dr. Bowns, the result of this 

- - ,-it-.. Ai :.i\;ugh ~c;~nsel !fur ~S?S~GE~S aS52r-Cd1 Siioi this wzs senlng up 

a "st~ruman," Dr. Power (finding 174, infra) cited a study which purporredly 

demonstrated that Idaho range sheep producers could breakeven at a 14.5 

percent predation rate. 
, . -..- L. ; ,uc Li on i ZC~ ~12s 21 csrazi ons i n the aconczy , :zcr?zs2n- ;nloor:acc? I 

cieaend on and jupporr the agrical~arr? sector, and forced c5an;es 

i n 1 i vi ng condi ti ons of rural f ami 1 i es . Under crass -exarni nati an, 

Dr. 8owns acknowledged that he had not conducted any surveys of 

ranchers abandoni ng sheep and goat ocerari ons or decl i ni ng co mzor 

the business becausz c~f predation. He did indicztz rhat he had 

talked to individual producers that have abandoned ~h2 sheep inlus~ry 

wno gave predacicn 35 a ?r?dcm: nent fzctor in the cban~e in oper?zions. 

He was unab12 to give numbers or names of these individua:~. 

173. In 1977, the USDA published 3 r29or-c 'Factors In the Oecline of the 

'Nestern Shee? Industry." In gathering data for the reFort, a si;rvey 

of a sample of ioner sheep praduc2rs in Colorado, Texas, Utah and 

Yyoming 1~2s conducxed. The rzpcrt c:ncluaed that farm ?lock jrGGllC2ri 

have declined r5pid:y in lunber beca?ise mcre attractive cppartunities 

existed else'rthere for similar or better returns with less ~ime and 

labor required. Although iarge-scale operations declined lesi rzpid1.y 

than farm flock producers, they accounted for nost of -he declioe in 

sheep numbers. LGW prices for lamb and wcol, frustration with 

predation and restraints against strong corrective action, and 

difficulties in obtaining good hired labor were reported as reasons 

for the decline. Financial returns were frequently neager or ni 11 

and the majority of former producers in Wycming were suffering 

operatfonal losses, i.e., not even meeting cash costs, when They 

di sconti nued production. The number of sheep ~roducers decl i ned by 
? - 12 sercspx in 1973, :ne year '~i l cwing r~s;r-icc;~,:s sn :no .; 1 z-? ;ax'czn:s, :he sr%a,:sc ;ercenz3se of rzd~c~jen i;nc? ,,is. 

-, lnis decline ;./as i'ollot*led by fur~ner ieclines sf 5 ;ers?nc in ;371. 

and 70 percent in 1975. In Colorado and Tsxas, marl srcduc?rs 

stopped production in 1969 and 1970 than in other years betxesn 

1968 and 1974. The biggest dec: ine in numbsr of eroducers in Njcming 

and Utah occurred in 1969 and i 971 , respect:: vel y . Cecl ines i n zhes? 

four states j i: 1373 were not ocr -, of 1 ine ,r/i 5h ehe nuxber of ~rsduc2rs 

disccn~inuing praduc.iian in otner years. F'r?da",on '+/as ~iven 3s 3 

significant faczor in the decision to discantinue sh~e? production 

by former rcducers in zach of the four st~ii~, a1;hougn sncn~ce 

of oood hirzd labor, lam^ and ~f\tcal pricos and age of the owner Irterz 

other significant re3mns. Pr?daxion was generally ,?or? of 2 problzn 

i- the larger scale farner groducars chan to the snail operazlons. 

! 171 1 CAty r2pOrTi in ihe record estina te 7rduc.r 1 osses ~i sheep :s 

coyotzs at $1'3 nillion a year, based on estimazd losses of percent 

to 8 percent of lambs and 1.5 percsnt to 2.5 percent of ewes ?roduc?d 

ax 1977 prices. Calf losses to coyotes in 1977 were 2stiimated 2: 

0.4 percent valued at $20 mi 1 ].ion. It is i ndicatecl that total economic 

losses to producers would nearly double if 1980 prices were used and 

would nearly quadruple if the higher range of estimated loss3s was 

used. Economic losses to producers from coyote predation on sheep 

and calves in 1980 were estimated ta be in the range of $75 to $150 

mi 11 ion. Dr. Terri 11 concluded that annual average 'producer 1 osses 

million. He used a multiplier of three in projecting the impact of 

these losses on the economy. Gee, et a1 . esximated total 197a !GZZ~Z 
4 -' 

m 

n 

7- 

V1 

L 

n, 

V 

3 

V 

0 

L rl. 

n. 

QJ 

w 

5= 

cn 

wl 

a 

X 

0 J 

I4' 

Kl 

51 

? J 

-a 

CV 

4' 

rd - 

3 

V 

1- 

rd 

U 

- 

v3 

C\I 

tl, 

C 

.r73 

C 

.r- 

- vv 

v-- 

w 

'r- 

'tL 

3 

x 

L 

r_ 

v7 'r 

+'3E 

rd ro cum 

'JJ 

- c.> 

, . I- rma, 

tntl lr: 

3 mI C' 

0- w LZ 

0 (I!- 

,--- V' C 4 0 rd 
1 . . shoulc oe of?s?r oy expenses for shezring, ie~erinary f?es 2nd iapz ,yes, 

etc. iha~ waul@ oineraije have been inc2rred 5ux for predaiion 10~~2~ 

of particular animals. Fixed casts for property taxes, pasture 

1 eases, or ranije permits do not ordi nari ly vary wi th death losses. 

#orilover, absenx extremely heavy losses labor costs in managing 

flocks would remain a~prsximarsly :he same. Czsts for shearing, 

vetgrinary fees and supplies, erc. wouh, of course, je lower for 3 

lesser number af animals, but are not ordinarily siynificant. 

173. in addition to direct 1osse.s caused by ki 11 ing livestock, predation 

also resu:ts in indirect costs or lossss. Dr. 3owns iist2d thesz 

2s (1 ) r~duczd animal 7roduction caus2d by malestaticn; (2) :zduced 

production and doazh losses causzd by ~fforts fs ~vade ;oss2s (exariioils 

oarasite infes~aticn and smothered aninals resulting from clos? 

conii nernent) ; (3) cosi of supplmental feed for confined anjinal s ; (4) 

labor for gathering sheep scattered by predacar attacks and ireating 

injured animals; (5) direct costs of control ?:for-s; (6) reduced 

attention to other phases of fan and ranch operations and (7) 

inability or unwillingness of ranchers to produce she? and oats in 

areas we1 1 suited hereto. He acknowledged that to the extent 

restrictions were placed on the use of 1033, in the event it was 

reregistered, at least some of these indirect costs would necessarily 

be incurred. 

174. Dr. Thomas M. Power, Professor of Economics, Chainan of the Economics 

Department at the Uniiiersi ty of Montana, and a witness for Defenders, 

disputed the vieur ta:ial: greater or more effective predator control 
J 

'+/oul d nec5s sari :;J 5er;er'i -, sheep ?rcrduceri as a ,vP,o? 2. +?, :oj fl:sd 

- \ i ou: that avai 1 abi 2 daca (Gee, 2' a i . here LC zhe ?.ff?cr '52: 43 

percenr of comercia1 ~roduc~rs in che weszern iJnif2d Sta~ss haa 

no lamb 10552s to predators, that 67 percznt incurred no sheq 

losses to predators and that only 23 percent had predator losses 

of lambs greater than 10 percent. ile explained that zn increasz in 

sup01 y might %el 1 decrzase pri css suffi ci ently thaz gross revmce 

to the indus~ry l~ould be reduced and that in such an ovent, 

producers sufyeri ng 1 "Ltl2 or no predatior; would rec2iva icwer ?ri c3s 

and no correspondi ng benef i is. ?reducers wi th high przdacion racts 

would gain at ;he expens2 of produc2rs with low predation. 'Ahether 

an increas2 in _supply ~ould, in fact, res~i t in a dscrzasz in ;ric~s 

depends on the imsizf vity of pricz to the quanti cy sola which is 

termed "~ri ce il exi bi 1 i ty or price el asti ci ty of denand. " "P7.i ?-- \r

flexibility" is che percent~ge change in ?ric2 wnich will resul i. 

from a one perc~nt change in the quanti ty ofS2rsd for sals, whi :e 

"elasticity of demand" is the percznmse change jn quantity purchased 

that results from a one percent change in price. Dr. Power stated 

that crudely one could be regarded as the reciprocal 37 the ocher 

He testified that the price flexi bi 1 i ty coefficient util i zed by 

USDI of -.I7 translated to a minimum demand ~lasticity of 5.58, 

meaning that a one percent decrease in price l~ould result in ;n 

increase of almost 6 percent in quantity purchased. He asserted 

this had never been observed and was unrealistid. - - - 
- 7-- .. - - . .. I v 2. ;r. ?wer ssl cilazed a ;an :.\/el pri zs ; ..I; 21 , - 7%; )f ,- j .5i zrLj 

irice '?astici:y of denand fcr ldnb of -3.1 wn;-- I L~I 7;lesns zha: 2 ,?Re 

percent increase in iuppl) ~culd ~esul; in a grercer i,+an d ace 

perc-nt decrzase in the aric.. This decrease in pricz :vou?d incrnase 

demand by less thdn one percent. ?e ci tod other studies 

showing price flexi bi 1 i ty within the range af his calcuiations, 

noted that hi8 calculatjoni (based on 7970 ;s l38C d2~3) 3ssdmed 

mat the denana for iamb was cansran:, ~ker~as the oata suggested 

demand :vas dec l ni ng and znersfor? asserzed ha: his is~imated 

pric~ elasticity of -0.61 was an overt.siima~a. ie concluded inaf 

the demand fur lamb was loss elastic than his ?s~imate Gr inelassic 

and thac i ncreasel eWeccive predator cgntrol NOU!~ degress pric~s 

more than enough to offset increased revenue frsn :A? jaie af an:aa:s 

i' 

176. Cr. John Schaub (iinding W) testified that xhe ;r:ce relarionshi? 

for lanb &as elastic, i .2., that an increase in quanrity mrkeced 

would result in a less than equivalsnt or corresponding dectease 

in price. He asserted that this conclusion was supocrted by a 

preponderance of the literature and tha; both jraducsrs and consumers 

would benefit by a reduction in predation losses and an increased 

supply of lamb. In cdlculating increases in revenue resulting from 

assumed decreases in predation losses attributable to luse of 1080 

and increases in the number of lambs markekd, Dr- Schaub used a price 

flexibility value or coefficient of -.42 (farm level, yearly basis) 

taken from a USOA publication (Usman & Gee) not in evidence. He 
adhered L; to the !,j31~ that - ,qas L412 arpropridi FT~C~ i:?xi bi! i ty 

. vaiue even ;:7cugii sucn $ialues for 2ther ccmon zea; itzrns ssch 2s 

+ beef, ;art and chicken ?rere a', 1 greater than one, inaiclting ~~nat 

the demand was inelastic. %e defended chis result upon the ground 

that lamb as now so expensive, it was more of a luxury or special iy 

- LIl 

item. He acknowledged that pricz flexibilitics change over time 

and tnac the data in tne ci red USDA pub1 icati cn was cnli czrrenc 

through 1975. de ?ointed out, hcwever, tht 20. ?ower had not 

reported ~he confidencz i nxarva! dsS0ci axed wi :!-I ni s cceiii ci enr 

of elasticity and thar Or. Power's single estjmate did not indicare 

that sufficienx tests had been conduc~ed that jc could be consj2ered 

a reliable est'mato. 

-,-- 177. Using an estirnatsd average current lcsi of iambs tz coyotes c; 3.2 

percenc, Sr. Schaub caicula~ed that a one 7ercen: zedcc-ion in losses 

to coyotes ta 5.3 percenT would increase lamb production by 53,300 

head and gross revenue to producers by $1.3 mi 11 ion. This calculation 

is based on the -.42 price flexibility value reisrred to in the 

preceding finding. He defended the 6.3 percent es:i,~ated loss figore 

as rea:onable based on Gee, e t a l . , wno derived an average loss to 

coyotes of 6.4 percent, even though he acknowledged that precise data 

on lamb losses to coyotes were not available. He also ackncwiedged 

that data on the extent to which use of I080 would decrease coyote 

predation were not available, but defended his assumptions as reasonable. 

Ilj This is contrary to a study cited in the testimony of Dr. Power 

which is to the effect that the price of specialty items could be expected 

to be more responsive to changes in supply. 
that reduciflg coyoc2 gr?d?z~on ~QSS?S xo 4.3 serc2nc NCL~~S incr?as? 

lamb production by 107,lCO head and gross revenue f3 ike? prgducers 

by $2. I mi i 7 ion. 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 ?ercsnt IHGU?~ increiss 

iamb ?roduczfon by 267,750 heau and Sross iqcome zo ?reducers 5y 

$6.5 million. Dr. Schaub indicared Enat accsmpanylng ,d~cre2s2d 

losses to coyotes would be moaest decr~asss in prices wnich wobld 

benefit consumers. A rzduct'on in coyots predation from 6.5 perZen, 

to 1.3 Fercenr would be 3 reduction of apprcxina~ely 77 perr2nt, 

which is unl i keiy even under tile must octimi stic asscmpticns 2s La 

che eff~ctiveness of 1080. Or. Jchaub asser~S, however, xna? zayotzs 

>I 

prey not only on lambs, but Jn caives, godts, swine 2nd 7cui try 2nd 

thae these estimates should be regarded as a lower bound of potenrial 

gain from rlduced predation. Such reductions in coyot~ pr2darion 

xould hardly be costless and thesz cost: should be deductzd in 

considering overall benefits. 

178. Dr. Schaub used sheep production budgets prepared by the Cooperative 

Extension Service, Colorado State University, in 2stinzting inpacts 

of the use of 1080 on individual producers. He indicated hat ic 

was unlikely that fan flock operators would benefit to any appreciable 
-. . * 

range lambi ncj wou: d 70s; 1 i kely b2 :he pri nci ?a1 bener;ci ar; 2s 

Utilizing Csoperative Extension Service oudgets, Dr. 5chaub calculztsd 

estimated economic impacA6 of reductions in iamb losses TO coyozes 

for western Colorado produc2rs of from 0.7 percent to 3.0 percgnt for 

a producer having 500 sheep 2nd shed iamoing, =rcm 3.3 7erceni ts 2.4 

jercsnt for 2,WO sweep ,di:h shed lacbing 2nd ircm 1.5 zerceni rs 12 

percenc for a producer naving 2,400 sheep and ranas larnbino. fccnonic 

irnoac~s werc also escinat~d for an Eastern Colorado probuc~r naving 

2,GOO sheep, shed lambing and an ssxizatzd reduction in coyots loss2s 

of from 0.5 percent to 2.7 percznx. In doing 59, he made csrtain 

assumptions, i .2. , thac adai tional iambs wouid be nsrkec2d for 

slaugn~er, that feed, travel, and hir2d ldbor costs wuld incr?as? 

at ths average 2we rate contained in the ori~inai buagec and rhac 

range and family labor costs wculd be constant. Gross inccme for the 

producer with 2,400 head utilizing range lambing wculd increase from 

$1 ,845 to $1 5,454 depending on the magni cude of the r2duction in 1 osjes 

to coyotes. ?roductisn COSTS could increase from $707 to $5,925 

resulting in returns from predator control and to management increasing 

from 91,139 to $9,529, Comparable increased returns for the producgr 

with 2,400 head of sheep utilizing shed lambing were $1,217 to $5,300, 

while production costs could increase from 5539 to $2,310, resulting 

in returns from predator control and to management increasing from 
i 29 

C r ?-. 

I ~co, ic 52,gGC. F.7 354 ,:per,:+$?, ;?:ji ::::c? C~U?-J 

i^ increase from 531 7 ;o 51,250, prcducricn cosrr caul d ir:r??ie , ran 

5107 to 5429 and r-eturns frm predatar csn~rai and :c aanagsmenz 

could i ncreasa from $210 co 5331 . The astsrn Col orzdo producsr :uas 

assumed to operace on privaiz land and to have lower predaiion rates. 

For this operaior, gross income could increase from $822 to i4,2&5, 

production casts could increase from $533 ts 52,756 and rsturns frse 

predacor control and to nanaFemenr coxld jacrease irom 5288 ~3 

41,189. None of these estimates include increases in c9s;s for 

predator control. Dr. Schaub :2s:ified thar tnese eszlmates were 

for losses consicered to be average or re?resen~ative, and that lik? 

all averages, ih~y could severely underestirnatz rhe financial 

impact on individual praducers suffering high 7redar:cn and thus oe 

rnisieaaing. 

179. #r . Bi 11 D .. Sneed, President of 'i rst Col e~an 'la~i onal 3anu of Sal ewan , 

Texas, a rancher actively engaged in raising sheep, soars and caitle 

and a witness for Yyoming, et a1 . , tzstified that his bank had denied 

requests for loans on sheep and goats (apparently using them as 

col lateral ) because of coyotes. He explained that there kere certain 

areas of Coleman County, which were heavily infested with coyotes and 

that if land jn one of -those areas changed hands, his bank would decl ine 

a loan on sheep and goats in one of those areas. He asserted that a 

number of ranchers in the County had gone out of business because of 

losses to coyotes. He acknowledged that there were ocher reasons for 
data indicating that in 1,276, tiler? ;wer9 77 ,,ZOO 2eies in Colerzan 

County and chat by down 

that there werz 204 sheep prcducers in the County in 1977, bur only 

165 in 1981. He contended that the sheo? industry was vi xo the 

County and,that many areas were more suited to sheep ?robuction or a 

conbinati on of shee? and cattl a production rather than just c3ttl e. 

ik said that on a ;articular 575-acre iease, he Idas unable to rtin 

sheep due to ?redation by coyo~s 2nd that he (was only one of ,~zn;/ 

fac2i by that proole!. :e further cmtenced thar only ;qith the 

reinsta~ement of Compound 1080 could coyotes be contr~~lied and ncney 

returned to the pockets of the producers. $.nother side of che 

econorni cs of prsdatgr control was presen~ixl by Yr . Robert C~r~entzr, 

a Drews2y, Oregcn czttle rancher and a witness for C~Tanders. 

Mr. Carpenter has not suffered any livestock losses to predators 

and was highly i ndi gnan t at FWS ADC conx~ol ooeraxi ons , because he 

considered these operations deprived his sons and others of n29aed 

income from the sale of coyote pelts. 

180. Mr. Charles Howard (finding 71) estimacsd that his total income from 

goats in 1979 was approximately $28,0CO, while his predation losses 

to goats totaled $35,619. This included direct costs of $14,637 

comprised of $10,657, for loss of goats and mohair, $1,470 for travel to 

'pastures to pen goats and $2,520 for ranch expenditures in the control 

of predators. Indirect costs included $5,400 loss of adult goats co 

parasites and complications, $3,600 loss on goats sold because of 
. . croductian ass~r~edlj Sue ~2 penni?~, $;3,413 In 1~~32s ~f tics acd 

-. xohai r 2nd S823 in veserinary f2es and 'rugs. I nfse figur2s jc: rzcz 

and i ndirec-c coscs) tocslea 541 ,979 from which was subtractsd S6,jEO 

for expected normal iasszs of adult goats, kids and nonair. 

issue 5 

181. Mr. Cannolly (finding 133) testiiisd :haz intact, ~nbr3kan cgllars ci: 

8. not pose an ?nv?rcnnenial hazard and wer? not a sijnificanc hazarc :o 

collarad 1 ivestock. In the FWS field cests lwich ;he toxic ccilar a 

- 22,' 

total of 313 collars were used, of which 25 :~erl rzccverzd aft2r 

having been punc:ur.d by coyot?s, four zore collars wera probabl; 

punctured and not recover2d and 14 were lost. In addi~ion, 11 

coi 1 ars ;rerp, acci den~a11 y punctured. ,A1 :nough :,he repor? of the 

aval uation of these r,zsts by /4r. Connol ly ackno:v?ed~b rha', the 

hazard posed by 10s;: col lars Idas difficul "Lo oOb.ject.i5~e1j/ assas, i r. 

was pointad out that the col lars were nost 1 ikely to be found by tne 

livestock owner, who would be aware of the potential hazard rather 

than a third person unfamiliar therewith. It was further pointzd out 

that the principal danger to the finder would be from opening the 

collar and taking the lC8O orally, which he would do only if he failed 

221 The actual number of collars used was 151 small and 94 lar~e 

col 1 a;, the. 31 3 f i gure being the resul t of counting separa~el y col 1 arr 

used on more than one test. Small collars contained approximately 300 

mg toxic solutian while large collars cantain twice that amount. 
. . that a chi la 7;;;Snr :var,i?r jqr-3 a ?aszure, fino a ?urc:ur?d 3r iz:;ti 29 

collar, get :he toxic soiuxion on his hands and then int3 his nzuth. 

\hi 1e his possibi 1 ity cannot be ruled cut, it is highly ~nl i kely. 

Mr. Connolly recosnized that lost collars would eventaally deteriorate, 

a1 lowing the :oxicant co enter the soi 1 where ir would be detoxjfied 

by bactsrial actisn . The time required for detoxification ,vou! d vary 

with he amount of toxi cant, soi 1 type, temperat~rz, zsc. , jut studies 

1 hP summarized in Aczert, wer? to che effect degradation :f Conpo~ind iudO 

in soil required from 0 to 11 rreeks. In sen tests with eigh~ c3l lared 

lambs using dye rather than Compound 1080 in The ca?:ars, scread of 

the dye afxr the co?lars Nere punc~ured by ccyot2s varied be~~een 

12 sq. it. to 300 jq. fr,. d'th the aversge being i38 jc. f:. Sc;.=,.-. -L "A 

of the dye depended an whether :he lamb 'r/as dcwn or inoving a: :he 

I 

time xhe cgllar was puncturad, Ix was estimatsd tha: an 2v2n 

i1 

distribution of Compound 1080 over rne average dyed ar2a of 138 ss. 

.. . it. wouid resuit in conczntration of 2.2 ag per sq. ft. ;ne proszecc 

that such a low conc2n~ration would causz serious envi ronnencai damage 

was considered remote and no such damage was obszrved in iieid tssti. 

In initial tzsts with the collars in Idaho, some of the collars lsaked 

and six collared lambs died. Although Mr. Connoily initially thought 

the lambs had absorbed the toxicant through the skin, he subs2quentiy 

concluded that the 1080 solution dripped into their mouths and that 

the mode of ingestion was oral. 

d 
cr,crns. Jo 2v:zerrce cf silcn ?ur;czl;ras :vas coszr1/2c, sn sn'nal s ~j;h 

puncUr2d collars 3r cn che ground 2ven r9oUGh zhe :oxiz joiusi~n 

con~ainsd Rhodamine 3 dye 2: a safocy indicaur. Anorher rzutz of 

potential exposure is the carcasses of csyotes poisaned by ?uncsuring 

toxic collars. Gniy turkey vulxures appear to 3ave scsvenged my of 

.he coyotes found during fWS cesxs :vi ~h the :oi 1 ar. T8~rk2y 'iul tutes , 

bl ack \tui tures , nagpi es , rzvens , red- ta i 1 ed hdwks , car3caras, 3 

skunk and a coyota Nere known to have scavenges c~~lar~d 1ives:ock 

killed by coyotes. Scavengers feeding on collared li~esiack killed by 

cayoles cancencrased on viscera and muscle tfssue racner Than ~he 

eel 1 ars . 1Yr. Connol 1 y t2st-i fi sd chat he 'lad oever obrer.ie~ scaveng! ng 

on cne neck arc3s 07 col7ar2d ii\iest3c!<. ?ho-cos in the record of 

collared livestock heavily scavenged show neck ar2as largely intact. 

A1 thcugh it is ?ossible rhat there were non-izrze~ kill; fesa::frc 

from usa Of the collars, none ;Yas observed. Xr. Connolly si3~ecl chat 

if there had been any substant~al number of non-targer kills, they 

would have Seen located by the intensive searcnks on che Charles %ward 

- Ranch, Meridian, rexss. 3ased on these field observations, it was 

concluded that ther9 was no reason to expect significant poi saning of 

non-target wildlife r~sulting from the use of 1680 jn toxic collars. 

Non-target deaths of animals suspected sf being poisoned by lQ80 have 

not been observed to date in tests with the collars by Texas A&M 

University. 

183. As ~na~cated (iinoing 88), SLUs containing id80 have not been extens~veiy 

tested in the United States. They have been and are being used in Sritish 
C;iumbja 2nd ,;us:r-j: la. iar~e ;c?n~i iies 2i jimil ?r s:rjchni ne cai rj, ' I 

7 -77 %ere zjed jy AiC ~rzar.r,ei fjr the csnirg; cay0t.s ;rior :2 ,Y,- 

(finding 94). X!:houcjr! SL3s used 'n Sri i<~ii ioidrnbia Ere avered ~3 

minimize the possi bii ity of targets consuming nore than one bait acd 

to minimize exposure io nun-targei species, th2 aoplications for 

the use of 1C80 in SLDs by Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming a~oarenzly 

do not envisage tha~ bai:i ltqill be c3vered. 4. ?anaal1 (find? ng 125) 

test! fied tnat he was never inforxe'l hat strychnine droo hi: :s j houi i 

b,e covered. lje furthzr tasti f i 2d thzt i t 'would have seen very 

difficult to do because in inany areas i here bajts were placed :her? 

weren't enougn cow chips and rocks were frozen :o the ground. Ye 

asserted that no one covered itrychni ne bai 5s ; nc?A ynstandi ng 3 

memorandum, datod Decmber 15, 1970, that i: was 3urzau 701 ~cy :he

Sai zr be covered. Se Idas of the opinion :hat 'her2 was no way to 

keep track of such bait: or that such a progrzm ;;uld be prcperly 

184. The exposure af 3L3s :a non-target species &?ends, of ccurse, on the 

rate oi application. ?lantana's application Tor re~isirarion of 

Comoound 1080 envisages 3.5 ng of 1 G80 in a IS-sram bait ,xi th a 

maximum piacemenc of 25 per square mile. South Dakota's application 

is also for 3.6 mg of 1080 in each ba?t with no iilore tnan t'tro hairs 

to be placed at any one draw station and no more than five such / 

stations to be located in one square mile. Assuming maxiinurn usage, 
, r,no,rz z-Q?~ 53 352 '32; ~5 7y zz3;ii?shi3 csnr2.l niv gm-?rc;:j--a'_-l~ 

1,3 g cf 1CSO cr sli~nsly less :mn the 1.5 crms 39r 130 ~OU~SS USC~C 

in a ? arge s cati cn. 'Aycni ng ' s appl i caci ;n apparenciy i qtsn~s chat th? 

amount of 1280 in eacn bait as well as the maximum applicaricn raz2 

be left to the judgmen?: of the applicators. 9r. :iiliiam suck, Professor 

of Vezerinary Toxicology and Director of the Animal Poison Cantroi 

Center, Gniversity of Illinois, lirbana and Dr. '/a1 I?. B2?sl9y, 20ct~r 

of Vetari nary Xedicine and Research ,Asscci ate in Toxicoic~y a: the 

University of I1 1 inois , wi tness3s for Deflndzrs , kstified :?a: Secause 

SLDs wer2 designed for more widespread use, chey were mcr2 iikoly co 

be more availabls to domestic dogs and cats and use of SLDs could 

result in the poiscning of large numbers of thesz and other snail 

non-target carnivores. Dr. Buck acknowledged, however, rhat a requi rzmenc tnat baits be placed no nearzr than a ~i 3 e or mo from 2 home or 

occupied dwei 1 ins would 1 esszn the nazara co nese animals. 

185. The contzntion that Compcund 1C8C is a sel~ctivs poisan is bas& in 

?rinci?al par: on differing levei s of s2nsi tivi ty 10 rho, joison. 

Carniiores .rp_ in general Tore sensitive to 1030 than a;her s jet! es, 

while canines are considerzd :o be 2speciaIiy susceptible theraf3. 

- 23/ 

For example, the LD50 of 1080 for a coyotg has keen determined tc 

be 0.10 mg/kg, whils that for a man is estimated at 0.7 to 2.1 mg/kg 

23/ An LD50 value is a statistical estimate of the dosage that would 

be letxal to 50 percent of animals t2sted. 
136 

-1 . (7; 5 -P4, 2-- and ;ha. for a scls2n eagle is 1,25 tg 5.C0 -x/t,. J. 

1 tu I Su i;s 

1.5 g of 1080 per 160 pounds of bait, thac a i50-pound man wauid 

obtain an LD5g by the consumption of from 47.6 oz -LO 142.3 oz and 

that a gol'den eagle (average weight 7 pounds) wouid recsive an LDS0 

by consuming from 4.0 oz co i5.9 oz of such bait macerial. An LDlgO 

for a coy0t2 has been estimated 3t 0.16 ~~g/kg. ic is zcparsnt tha; 

the LDcO - values fcr nan and the 23912 as neil as scter s?ecifs ar? 

- not precise and have a cgnsiderable ranee. 12szs so 2stablish :hese 

values have obviously not been csnducted on humans 3nd Tne xsts 3r1 

many other species including coyots and eac12s have not wen 

conducted on a sufficient number of 3ninals cha~ a staciszjczl 

coniidence interval can oe zstablished. Inasmuch as the fcod 

consurnprion of an eagle is approximatoi y ho pounds a day, L i i 

clear that an eagle could obtain a potentially lethal dose in feeding 

on 3 bait station. This is, of course, also true of cther ncn-carget 

sgecies. There is evidence that the $350 valu? can vary depending 

on whether the god? gf administration is by a tallow bait or water. 

Moreover, Drs. Buck and Seasley (finding 184) referred to a study 

indicating that a median lethal dose of 1080 ac 22°C was 21 mg/kg, 

while at 8OC, the equivalent dose was 4.5 mg/kg, indicating that 

temperature had a great effect on the toxicity of the poison. LDjO 

values are more likely to have been establ i ined in laboratori?~ at 

or near normal room temperatures. 
-. ;usper.sizn of ;oe ragi i;ra;i3n 2; ;oi~pcu,~; ICaC) rr-g~r:::; ibr;ebai t s~az-ians )was thaC :he ni n ihum number Fecessary co achieve 

- 8 effective cayote managenent ras f3 be glac~d. ~nii Lvas jenerally 

interyreted as requiring or penizting the pliicemerlt of not more 

than one stazion per township. %i:h the approval of the Siate 

Supervisor, up to tuo stations per cownship could be ?laced wner. 

cerrain required adai~ionai pl3cementi in orcer i3 achieve needed 

controi. Guidelines issued by tne 3urzau further stazed tnac :he 

use of 1020 large 3ai ts was a technique r5served for ar5as here 

other con~rol methods had not been eifecti~e in r~duclng cayoie 

populatjon to a desired level and where such use would have a 

,. - minimum efiecz on oon-carget wildlife and domestic animal:. LT a 

selectsd size did net meet mess r?quirerneni;, 1580 ,das not :s be 

used. Hr. Randa 1 1 (if ndi no i 25) , nowever, :escizi2d iha: l n jr?ccl ce 

the number of bait staiions pldced each year djd not vary signifiianrly 

and thai the stations were placed in nore or less rhe same loc~xions 

each year. The tesiimony that bajii ~ers placed in aoproxinateiy 

the same locations each year was confined by Mr. Gene Chaoel, a 

Montana cattle rancher, a former ADC employee of the NS and a witness 

. for the AFBF. The theory of not nore than one large-bait station 

per township was, of course, that coyotes being more rnobilo and 

having larger home ranges would be more apt to come in contact with 

and feed on the station while smaller, less mobile animals with 

6 2 2 r i e A I I L, ~lr. idoaa I 

asserted that thrre..~lras no place where only coyotes lived. He 
that gany AOC fi21d ~ersannei cc~uldn'c isen~ify tracks 07 various 

species, and they had no data on locations cf endangerzd species 

and ocher non-target animals. The rssulc was that ~aics wer? 

placed away from ~ater and on elevated loc3tions ,&her? the sncw 

- - would most likaly be blown or; and di~hour regard tc ,ion-t;r;ers. 

187. Bureau guidelines also called for bai? sxations to be ;iac?d as 13x3 

as practicabiz in the fall in kegping wich ;af?ty "i one5t-eaciflg 

mammal s and bi rds , ?f7?cziveness i n csn~roi 1 i ng damage, 3nd condi ti ons 

of weather and travel. 3aits were to be removed as 2:rly in zne 

;?ring as weather and travel conditions pemi cted, a7ssr al lcwing a 

suitable, bu~ ninimum ~ime for .xpis~;.:?, In the~ry his $1 irnicatxi 

or mi~inized exposara to bears and oCQer iibernaiing aniflais. 

1 

Hr, Randal 1 related that in many instanc;:~ becaus? of ~he sgowpack ~t 

higher el~vations and the press of other duties, bai t stations could - 

not be rmoved until early sumer or iacer, which was long aizr 

hibernat'ng animals would be out. 

1%. ,As indicated previously (finding 1 ;)2j, large-baits -were co 02 treated 

at the rate 1.6 grams of 1080 for each 100 pounds of meat. Mr. Randal1 

described the difficulties in cbtaining proper distribution of 1080 

in large meat-baits. He testified that even after 1080 was distributed 
7 ,- ,l -r in vials of 0.3 g and 1.6 g, i r: :vas iv~ossible ts a'stribu:2 12; ,~;Lv -3s > 

;f a srs,.;: ?%/enjj zkra~~n e2c:? ?sun:', of m't. "= , - C~SCY:';H! :he ?r,,irnsn: 

~ssd, ; IC!ort3n meat pliii;D for rhe ?tir?os2 ~f 5~3ar ~lir! ncj hans , as 

a medieval method of application, and asserted thac ckbe o?ungars 

frpquently leaked and that the pumps did not work properly if usd in 

below freezing or zero weather. 2e stated that 1080 had an affinity 

for protsin and would not penecr3te membranes. IF the need?? hit a 

membrsne, it a~torna~ically created a ho~ spot, i.?., an ar2a cf mre 

conc?ntra-c2d so1ut;on. He indicat~d that even aStsr :4GC fieid 

persor?nel were furnishzd scales, it was still nec2siary t3 estinat? 

the amcunt of bone, hide, etc. in each ?crticn in det~rniniag :he 

?roper quanzity of 1080 solu-cion to apply. He statsd hat gradua~ec 

containers hoil'd have Deen of assistanc2 in ~ixins che proper quantify, 

bux xhat such con,;-j.iners Were no; avai iabi?. 

:! 133. 'iith che zxce9t:on of Er. Randal 1, tesciinony from 3; 1 ~ifnes~~s tine 

par-cicipated in or who wera fami 1 iar wizh th~ I080 baiting program 

was to the effect th{lC deaths of non-target species from the baits 

were minimal . Beca~se of tne charac12r-i s ti c i at.2ncy period fcr toxic 

effect after the ingestion of Compound 1080, it is probable that xny 

animals and birds feeding on the stations and receiving a lethal dose 

would not die in the imediate vicinity. The svidencz is that searcks 

for birds and animals thought to have been poisoned by ~he stations 

were chiefly conducted at the time of disposal of remains of the baits 

and that these searches varied widely in scope and intensiry. Sy that 
;i rds 2nc dnjra! 5. :ocu:c 3u:22u poi icy :ai l2d fcr :5e reporr' " 3 

of coyotes as 3,ueli as ncn-tjrger ;?eci?s fcl;nd in juch searckes, 

#r. Randall i'ndicated tnar. this uas for 7ublic rela~ionj purgoses ~RC 

that thera was cacit understanding among field personnel ulth rihorn 

he was familiar that the actual magnitude of non-target deaths not 

be rz~orted. 

nppr 1 ca0 190. Aanda! 1 resti fi ed chat he i3rX10nl y fll;!Id dezd iad~ers ,,&-, 

baiis or ;he remains of such s~acions. de explainel ihai saocers 

~ould dig a hole underneatn :he station ina atzempt to orag che zea: 

into ;he hole for their winisr iaod suooi y. Ye iia7.d rba: in cne 

ioring as Jany as four dead badgers hould be found in one hole. In 

conrras;, Yr. Johnsan (finding :CS) s;ared ;hat he lad ooservea i 

badger living under 3 bait stacion hhich ap?eared to be in ;cod heaicn 

and i4r. Anderson (ii nd-ng 116) festifid :ha1 badgers frzquently 

burrowed beneath bait statlcns, spending their vi nters there and us? ng 

the starion as 3 food source without apparenr ill effects. He stated 

thax he had observed this oersonaily on approximaiely one-half dozen 

occasions and ;hat i r had wen mentioned 10 him by others as we1 I . ke 

attributed an incident involving the finding of seven dead badgers at , 

bait stations in Texas to improper dosage caused by use of insufficient 

water in treating the horse meat bait. The LD50 for a badger is from 

1.0 to 1.5 mg/kg , which indicates that a badger (average weight 19 

pounds) would obtain an LCjO dose by consuming from 8.0 ozs to 13.0 ozs 
1080 residues were found in a sample iram a ccndor, 13 golden eagles 

and one bald eagle received at the Cenver Wjidlif? 2esearch Csnter. 

L Tests on one of the golden eagle samples *#ere posi zive I or strychnine. 

19i. In the fall of 1969, the 3ivisian of Wild1 i?? Servic,?~ ;nsci:used 2 

policy of including a iracerize in I090 solutions 2nd r-trycnnine arc? 

- baits. I issue samples of a bird or aniinal killed by either of ;he52 

poi sons waul d fl uoresce under ui travi si et 1 i ght. Accordi rig 53 

Mr. 8andal 1 , he same tracsri ce *das pl acsd in strychnine and 1 C8G 

baics and WE! 7urpose of i-,ce !prosram was not ;,o nonil-or ,,diial if? 

killed cy :he baits, but to be in a 2osiiion zo deie~a against cls<rnr 

C I rom dog owners and cthers ~hos2 animals were pisoned. 'ihiie s:ill 

an employee of the EYS, ,Yr. Randall coilecteu carcass3s OF birds 2nd 

animals which he cgnsidered had been poisoned by strycknine drop-bairs 

or 1080 and subjecred them to ultraviolet ligh~ in the bas2meni of 

his home. A table in evidencs reflects that he autopsied 46 mammals 

(8 dogs, 12 coyotes, 17 badgers, 2 bobcats, 2 pine martens, 1 mink, 

1 skunk and 3 weasels) of which 20 showed evidence of strychnine tracer 

and 19 showed evidence of 1080 tracer. Of 36 birds autopsied (I0 

golden eagles, 2 great-horned owls, 2 red-tailed hawks, 11 magpies, 

3 prairie falcons, 5 unidentified hawks, 1 sharp-skinned' hawk, 1 
reldtion ra prcxlmiiy of 5~jis and orher evidence rather Than o: 

tracer. There is, of course, co doubt that 1080 bai: stacions and r 

strychnine drop-baits killed - birds and animals in addiiion lo 

coyorss. Dr. Yagner (finding 10) res;i iied that thers. vas no derce 

of ~igniii~cani adver52 impacts on the ?opulations of non-targes s?eci?s 

from the us2 sf 1080. ?e assartzd that the loss of scme individuals 

was not 2 sufiicient basis for detsryining acvsrse impacts on the 

populaiion si a species. He indjcated, however, ihzr therz aas nc 

evidencs cs Show an eiiect or lack :he~~oi cn endangered or threace~ed 

species. 

192. In tests csnducted by <he FWS :s evaluate primary hazards of 

Compound ? 090, dogs and magpies were a1 lowed to f2ed an the carcasses 

of coyote-killed sheep or goats with punctured collars. ?lo ill 

effects wer. observed. In tests to determine the primary toxici~y ~f 

1080 to raptors, two golden eagles and a rough-legsed hawk aere each 

orally administered 2 mg active ingredient lC8O in a beef ~a1 low bai;, 

approximately 9 grams in weight, each day for four consecutive days. 

Over the four-day test period, each bird consumed 12 mg of 1080, which 

is equivalent to 3.2 and 3.1 mg/kg for each of the two golden eagles 

and 9.5 mg/kg for the rough-legged hawk. After administration of the 

third dose, the eagle receiving 3.1 mg/kg showed symptoms of toxicity 

(gross motor impai rment, Fluf'.Fed feathers and loss of appeti t~) . 

Dr. Peter J. Savarie, Re.;ear.cil Plrarmacologi st at the Denver Ui1 dl ife 

. , 

Research Center and an expert witness for the FWS, testified that this 
32gl2 r3c3verea ? n 3bcu'l six ia:/s ;ylizh no apparPnP side 2i53~:~ 

cnac si~iiar syT;ccrns t(et-2 ,13c ~~s2rved :n ~9scher ??<:a and rl:z 

.7. * na:vic. inese rzsuics arc baseo solely sn ocservazicn 07 -,be 6iras. 

3r. Savzri? ackzowledged :hat it would be desirable to conduc~ xorz 

tssts with a greatzr number of animals in order to fu: ly asssss 

primary hazards to non-target species irsm :he use of 1083. 

1'33. in ~ests to deternine seco~dar;, 7ojsoning hazards to rapczrs, ;he 

L ?do golden 2agi.s ~eztioned in the primry hazard tests r?! lrrac 

to pre\~iousiy and a different rougi1-;2qgzd hawk ner? f?d grzuna ii;eat 

obrained frcm five coyoies ~ach adninirzared an oral dose of 5 .g,'kg 

ac~ive ingredient 1080. Coyo-ce ineat was the sole saurcs 07 f3od =ar 

- * the82 bird; over che ten-day period of the %ST, no food beins crr?r?d 

on the fifth day. Analysis of the meat indicazld zhac i; concainea 

from 1.8 rngjkg to 3.1 rng/kg 1080. Uneaten neat was retri2ved and 

weighed to deternine consumpxion. 11 :ras der.ril:ned shai Jne e?;? e 

axe 2,530 g of near equivalent to 6.55 mg 1080 or an average of 9.73 

mg per feeding and that the other eagle consumed 3,005 g of neaz 

equivalent to 7.44 mg of 1080 or an averace of 6.33 per f2eding. The 

hawk was detemined to have consumed the equivalent of 3.55 mg of 1C80 

or an average of 0.39 mg per feeding. No discernible effects from 

this consumption of meat containing 1080 were found. Similar tests 

with red-tailed hawks resulted in a finding of no roxic ~ffxts on 

the hawks and in fact, the hawks gained weight. Dr. Savarie pointed 

out that 5 rng/kg 1080 adninistered to the coyotes was approximately 

..I clrnes ;~-ie eszirnateci LDr OO of 3. I 6 ~sig/kg ana a SLD of 5 m3 

1080 would contzin about three SLD~OO doses for a ten kg coyote. 

He estimated that a coyote punct!jrin2 a tzxic ~2: wouii reczive a 
n+ximun oi 1C TG 7033 sr 2paraxi,~ateig 5:n L3, I L\J -,- dosas fsr a :?n '<; 

a SLD cgntaining 5 rng 1030 or by 2 xxic csiiar ~woul? not pres~nx a 

- 24/ 

hazard to rapt3rs. 

194. Dr. Savarie (finding 192) testified that one 07 the diificulries io 

determining the priinary and sec3ndary hazards to non-tzrg2r. specles 

fvcn the us2 of 1080 has been the lack of reliabl? x~hods 3f aersur'ng 

-, low levels cf 1680 residues ' n xi ssues of animals susoectzd OT seing 

poisoned. Problems aith che use 3: c~lorirnezr;~ and Gas chrcnatsgrzpnic 

(flame i oni zation det~cior) iesi methods include the rzld t? vei y 1 arge 

sample sizes (50 to 100 g) raqui red for leternination of iC80 1 eve1 s 

ds low as 3.5 porn. 3r. Savarie indicatad thas :he develocmen; and 

reii net: l: 07 more sensi ti \te methods, 2.3. gai cnrcmzt.zgr~~h;/ xi th 

el ecirctrj cd;; :ure detecii on and sass spectrcnetry , have arlabl sd the 

1 

detection of less than 0.1 pprn ci IOSO in one gram saeples. Se asserrel 

analytical methods c~rrently ~vailab12 would faciliLb. +3&2 JOT-? acc!~rac? 

sssesiments of tne hzards cf 1C80. Although i)r. Srvarie st212d that 

current nethods could detect fluorc;citrat?, he ackncwledsed that 

fluorocicrat2 ~culd not be derect2d in a t2st for 1080 res'dues. 

195. In other afforts to deternine possible secondary poisoning hazards from 

the carcasses of coyotes poisoned by 1080, MS analyzed 1080 residues 

241 Coyote meat fed the raptors consisted of skeletal or muscle tissue. 1 -+ 2- - 

Uc^F-^:--l LL-L --^A .-*-: 7 7 , .z =,J -- -2 -,-- -. r;t ""' __ , --_j, t.-;- -.a,C' ! -r -37: .u. ,8aL.. 1, 8--4 Us, + ,J./<I A a ,. ia c 

vi scera night we1 1 contain higher 1080 or f 1 uoroci trate residues. 
iil rjssues of coyo%ss which died ifi2r SU~CS~~~ZS xxic CS?:~~S. I; 

l,vas ~2~2mined chat ;he average iC5C :,-nczntrz;;'zn iz xusc;e c':<ue 

of these coyotes was 0.31 ppm. Average 1020 concentra~ion in vorni~us 

25/ 

of poisoned coyotes was 0.14 ppm. Ten magpies- l~er-3 confined with 

skinned carcasses of coyotes that died after puncturing toxic collars 

wi:h no orher food availabie. A1 though four iirds died and 3ne of the 

four containea 1080 residues, i -, I,\ras concluded that thess birds 

j~arved ~o deaih. The other six birds apoaren-ly snowed no symotoms 

- 3 of 1330 poisoning. ine conclusion ;he birds cila of s~arvazion 'das 

based in part on the fact the sljnned c~yot2 CZTC~S~~S Orj?d (ip in 

the heat and ir was concl uded chat ~he nagpies could nor sat ! T. 

3 Ronald 3ogusky, IH.~., Ph.O., an Assistant Professor in ihe Vepnr313gy 

Division of the School of Medicine at :he University of Cdl iiornia 3s 

3avis, and a ~i tness for Cefenders, point24 3u-c chat the -net;bol ic 

&I 

effecii of fluoracitrace nirnjc diaoetzs aelh ! tiis, rnich is 3 quasi - 

starvation state and asserted that Hr. Coocol 1 y had riot proved hi s 

- contention that the birds died of starvation. In further tests, a 

coyot2 Idas given a fiassive overdose of 1,280 (300 ma ar the conrents 

of a toxic collar) , an LDIO~ being aoproximately 1.8 ng. This c3yote 

was dissected soon after death and the soft tissues fed to one group 

of magpies for seven days and another group of magpies for tl,vo days. 

Even though the coyote tissue contained iubstantialiy higher IOSO 

residues than were found in any coyote killed by puncturing a toxic 

collar, no evidence of evidence of intoxiiication was observed. it 

wan ~uncluaea ilia, iili poren~ia i ru, seciodary ,ui biin ;og 91- II~I~-L~~-~EC 

- 25/ 4n LD50 for a magpie is in the range of 0.6 mg/k to 1.3 mg/k. 
died aftsr T~edjng on kangarso razz po?son?d by 1G80 r~szd as a 

rodenticide in Califzrnia and chat c~~yotzs died aft2r fseding zn 

ground squirrels poisoned by oats creacsd with 1080 in Montana. 

196. The citric acid or Krebs cycle is the final riechanism for converticg 

fodd into onergy in plants and animals. Sodium fIuoroac?tate, kvheq - 

ingested, is rne-canal i zed i nto fl uoroci trax, ,rni ch i nnibi ts acti vi :I/ 

-, of me 2nz;/ne aconi tase and depr'ves cei 1s of enerzy. 1 nis znzyne 

inhibition results in the blocking of the l(r?bs cycle, ;uhich secanbariiy 

blocks glucose inetabolisin, a 1,esser energy producing process. 3lockage 

of cnese orocesszs caus2s che energy supply to be r:ducxi co the ?oint 

where cs1lu;ar pemeabiiity barriers are destroyed, resulting in loss 

of function and iinaiiy c~llular deach. 3ecaus2 of chis cell destroyin? 

-, capabii izy, fluorcacet,at2 is ref5rred to as a czl lular poi son. I ne 

breakdown in intrac~llular proczssss ?ventually results in the 

appearance of gross organ or organ systzm disorders. Death may result 

from gradual cardi EC fai lure or ventricular fi bri 1 lati on, or progr~ssive 

depression of the central nervous system wich eizher card'ac or 

r~spiratory failure as the terminal event or respiratory arrest 

following severe convulsions. Death in carnivorous species is thought 

to be the result of central nervous system disorders. Dr. Savarie 

(finding 192) cautioned that these were assumed modes of action based 

on tests with rats and had not been proved as to most species. He 

asserted that there could be other unidentified metabolites which 

contributed to the toxicity of rnonofluoroacetate. Dr. hlorman Zirmerman , 
- Senior IOX~ cciog- ST =1)r 722 '4ichl;gsn Szazz : ;::ic S~;cs:ancz Czn-,rc 1 

- 7 Csmi s;ion and ?I vj cnfsi for 12ei?ncers, cickncv4j ea;za, ::?z: 5 i 23~7: ; 5 

07 the aacz zob2 of action by whicn Cor~cuna 7380 zx2rrad j;; ~2x1~ 

2ffects were noL knohn. k!e assert2d, how~ver, chat its ,~ecfjanj jn 

was generally accsp~ed in the scim~ific csrrnuni ty 2nd I',ha"L i", );as 

known that 1080 could. le~hnl ly disrupt basic chemical metabol ism in 

a1 1 animal s i ncl u0-i ng man. 

137. Dr. Eagusky (f:nding 195) surgiia! 1y removed kidneys frcm ~arrnal TZTi 

and perfuszd then [wich an oxygenatsd buff2r solution conu.inin5 

serum albumin in an incgbator control led for t2.'i;per?cur~,, ?h and 

oxygen. Under thesil candi ti ons , kidneys l~ere i~l e to inai n tai n noma i 

functions for ac hasi one hour. He added fluoroci trax -,a che 

!~rofusing ~ediurn up to 3 final concenfratj5n of 0.1 mM. SurZng che 

n course of che experiment kidneys \,vere i nszantly frozen afkr LO 

ninut2s of perfusion prior co adding fluoroci~rate and at zirned 

intervals therzaf~er. Frozen kidneys were axtr2cted and anal yzd 

for tissue metabolitzs. He concluded that fluor3cizracs caused a 

significant fa1 1 in kidney cissue adenosine tripnosphate (AT?), a 

major sourc? of energy, to 43 percent of normal, that kidney function 

was reduced to 7/10 of normal and that serious kidney damage had 

occurred. The purpose of his experiment was to determine how kidneys 

produce arranonia rather than to test the 5ffects of fluorocitrate on 

kidneys. Although Or. Bogusky considered that the concentration of 

fluarocitrate used was low, it was approximately seven times the one 

-,. - - - 
tsxic ;all ar. 2rr. 3ogbsk;i i~juned :ha: :;2 :gfiverzion 2: 

fluoroacetece i nto fl uorcci irat rioul d be on a one-:o-one >;sj i . 

He defended this conclusion as reasonable asserting That xe amount 

of fluoroacatate not converted notild be trivial even tiloti~n he had no 

specific data to support that concl usion. Dr. Zimmerman ( findi ng 

196) iestified thai dl 1 fluorcacrtaze uoul d nct be ccnverted r3 

iluaroci trate and tnat the quantity canverted :vou;d >12ry .vi~h ;he 

tissue and the specizs. Dr. Savzrie icated tnat based dccn 

nerahol i sii~ studies a small percentage oi fl uoroacetata doul d be 

converred to fl uoroci trate. Dr. 3ogusky cansi dered thai dama~e to 

kidneys demonstrz~ed by his experiments iould be the same if 

i? uoroci trate ar fl uoroacstai? uere xken cral iy . He acknowl edged 

that he had not perzomed those experjments and thdi other 5odiiy 

functi ons coul d impact i ngesisd F1 uorcci tr3te beiore i I reached 

the kidney. He also acknowledged that the cancen~rations sf fluorocitrate us2d in his exper'ments on kidneys 3s single organs .~ou'id 

hzve been lethal to rats. Alrhotigh Dr. ao~usky is clearly an 

experr on kidneys and their functions, he is not an expert on 

Compound 1080 or the amount of fluoroacetate converted to fluoracitrate 

when ingested. 

198. Dr. Zirmerman cited a study (Cater, et a1 ., 1961) with rati treated 

with f 1 uoroci :rate, whi ch demonstrated marked kidney damage. He 

referred ta another test (Sull ivan, 1979) where rats intraduced to 
1 L9 

co~c2ntra:i~ns of ff;e;.sc;'trat? ;n zrinkci:~ :~atzr as :cw as six .i 

??n f3r SZVZZ jay5 S~CWO~ 73r3~:9;c~i~2: izrzse x 13s ~2s , TI; j 5 

ait2r 21 days. Rats given sub-lethal dos2s of fluorocirrac? in 

dr-inking water )lave been shown to srow normally for seven months 

and then to survix on an intraperitoneai dose of LO rng/kg wnich dcuid 

normal iy have been fatal (Peterr, 1971 ) . Thi s i ndi cac3s tha~ a 

c2rtsin tolersncs for fluor~ci traze mzy be deveiopea. S~uai 2s ii 

by Atzert also shcw that regeated s1~b-121ha; dss2s of ~onofluoroac2tat2 have increased che talerance of scme sgecies, l.g., 9old,. 1 Aaq 

eagles, rats, mica and possibly rbesus nonkeys. Repea tzd sub-iethal 

dosss of ~onof?uoroacetate in dogs, guinea pigs, rabbi^; ana ~al lard 

ducks, hcwever, accumulatod to lethal levels. 3r. 3ogusky ?oinc?d 

out ~hae the reason more data ~wasn' tavai lab1 3 on rlhether fl~oroacs~~:~ 

accumula~es was because i; ,das so tox'c 2nd chat animals in :he ,di:d 

would not normally rzcsive xpeated jub-lethal doses. 

Issue 6 

139. Sodi urn rnonofl uoroacetate i s a xhi t2 , ordor? ess , powdery, f 1 uoroorganic salt similar in apgearanc? to flour, pcwderad sugar 3r 

baking powder. It is essentially tasteless, having only a mild 

salty, sour or vinegar taste to individuals. It is highly soluaole 

in water, but relatively insoluable in organic solvents such as 

kerosene, alcohol, acetone, or in animal and vegetable fats and oi 1 s. 

Sodium fluoroacetate is absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract, 

through open wounds and the pulminary epithelium, the lining covering 
air ??ssag?s in the lungs. 1: i j 5o.c re2ci.i~ 3bszr5als' 2 ~nrgugh 4 

due to rhe scrongth of tho c~rbon-flaorjce kona. cata 

(finding 181 ) , however, indicat? that iluoroacecate broaksdown in 

the soil, being deccm~osed by ertain soil bacteria. Sodium 

fluoroacetate poisoning is characlzrized by a lazncy period of 

from one-half hour co clrlo $cur3 aft2r insestf on, ~hich is rel~ted 

co tne me~akol i c prqczss2s gescri bed akove ( f i ndi ng 156) . Death i s 

usual 1 y ldi thi n 24 hours aiwr ingestion. Dr. Barry ?umack, Associ a 2 

i'rcfesscr of Pediatricr at tne Universixy of Colorado, Ui reczor of 

the Rocky ILlountain Poison Control Center, Denver and a ~~virlness for 

Jefenders, :2s~ifisd that he did noE c~nsider sodium f;uoroacetats 

ro be an acc!irnulative poison in the chr~nologic sense. fie indicatob 

that the laz~ncy geriod in a numan may be as long 3s =ive hours. 

2GO. Reported deaths attributable to 1020 have been in connection (~i th i 2 

use as a rodenticide rather than us2 as a prsdacide. Dr. Rumack 

(finding 199) contended that this was irrelevant because ICSO was 

hishly toxic however used. H2 testified that 7080 poisonings wer? 

difficuit to diacjnos2 and th~t zany goisonings were likzly to go 

unreported. Evidence in the record is to the effect that individuals 

handling or exposed to 1080 in connection with precaration of bait 

stations or taxic collars did not suffer any ill effxts provided 

proper precautions such as wearing protective clothing were taken. 

For example, Mr. Charles Howard (finding 71 ) ruptured the reservoir 

frcm a toxic collar in the process of adjusting or removing a collar 
.*. . fr?m a goac, sp; i !I ng ;he j~luCj,:n ,;n :?j 5 iafirjs. ,-e " trashed his 

with air;. Nr. 2andal l ast ti if ei that in che caurse of injec:i,~g 

meat baits with 7C80 solution, the solution 4r?qu2nzIy s?i173d cn 

his pants and shoes. He suffered na ill effects. 

201. Mr. Glenn Oahien, a Gunnison County, Colorado, Deputll Sheriff 

became ill and began hal1ucina:ing aft2r handling a 9ieco of eat 

in a piastic %rapper in the cmrse of inveszisa-;i!~g a ccmolai~t 

concerning zne poisoning of same dogs. :l!r. 3ahIsn &as hospicaiizec, 

treatzd and rel~assd. Subsequent xszs r2vealed that ~he xeac 

contained 7080. A? chougn 'lr. BanJen did not touch other ckan che 

wrapper in which <he meat I~vas contained, ie did not wash his hands 

for some tin2 aft~r hand1 i ng the lfvrapper can tai n S ng the me3:. 

Another 1,vi tness, apparently zuff2t-i ng an advers? re~ct? onto 

I I 

Cs~pound 1080, was Ir . 3ri an % tchel 1 who j~Tfe~2C1 i 3ca-i i zsd numcness 

after oeing bitten in the rhurrb by his dog which was poisoned by 

carelessly placed 1080 baits intended far the control of rats. 

Mr. Mitcheil was treatgd as an outpatient at the Logan County 

Hospital (Colorado) and sent home. Ms. Car~y Hopki ns, the owner of 

the dogs involved in the incident investigated by [Ir. Dahlen, wss 

hospital ized suffering from what Dr. Rumack described as clzsiic 

symptoms of 1080 poisoning. Classic synptorns of 1080 poisoning 

include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and hy7eractivity. 

Ms. Hopkins a?parently became ill after washing blankets upon which 

: ner aogs hao ror;~l cea. ~i i;locign dr. humic~ ~2sci r~ea enat survi vars of 
- ,- apparent 3dvers2 27~3~:~. 3r. ,?"nack was unabl 2 c3 ci t? ar,y 1 nscancss 

of patienzs recovering from 1380 poisoning who suffered pemanen-c 

damage. 

202. Relatsd to'both environmental and human safety is the matter cf 

-. possible rnisusz o? Ccmpound 1080. ine 1972 order citd 'nstanc2's of 

rnisuse of toxicants and inaicatsd chat it was aeprooriat~ 23 

consider "comonly rxagnizod prac~icz" and tha~ she iik2lihool of 

- 25/ 

label dir=lctions bei-ng fgllowed may efTect their aiequacy. i i. 

wi 11 be rzcal led thar Hr. Randal? testified that i E das no; possible 

I I to nonitor or control the apolicatfon of strychnine ~ro~-baits. 72 

indi ca~zd tha: i? t,-.= 5aits werg coverea, they coui d nor subs?cuen:ly 

be found. He also rfisrred ro the glac2rnent in the fa1 1 of 1969 cf 51 

I 8 r bait stacions , some of !+mi ch were on Federal Gover'nmenr prcperzy , \,vni cr; 

had noc been approved by eicher the Forest Service or the 3ureau of 

Land Nanagernent or for location by DWS. ile ~tatyzd That the82 baits 

were placed because of pressure from sheepmen and an overzealous 

suqervisor in the area. An Gctaber 1969 DWS memorandum, of which 

26/ It is not2d that one of the decisions relied upon for the 

proposition that comonly recognized practics may affect the adequacy 

of labelling directions (In Re Stearns, 2 ERC 1364 (1970) was set aside 

on appeal , sub nom Stearns Electric Paste Company v. EPA, 4 E4C 1164, 

461 F. 2d 293 (7th Cir., 1972). 
133 

. , r. Randall .as cre of 2 rzc:2;.n;j, fr;kica:sd :nit iasz.1 ;r, 1 

quantity 9f i8C ilS2.' rrc <he iunter ;f 3d;:i ~id~ed, 3di~i .ver? 

bei rg ov2r:rea:od, rhers iias pacr rxard keepi og or :has ad;us;;e;er;ii 

were not being made for breaka~e and spillage. 

203. Although Nyoming guidelines for the use of 1080 baic scztions dcring 

the 1975-77 bajting progrm called far a,n average of one station per 

township, maps of placemenis in the record indicate cnac acre ihan 

one sta~ion was ?laced in several towns hi?^ in ir least C~rn~Seil 

County. kr. Cros5y explained thdz Tore ihzn sne xii was ?ermii;bi, 

if ther~ kers barrisrs juch as a highway or 1 ncuntain range that 

would separ2ce csyoze populations. In any 2venT, it is ;lear thax 

baits were not placed in every tohnship and considering the ia~al 

number oi cawnsilips, the averasp 07 ar.e per iownshio was nos excseded. 

:4r. Croshy also referred to unauthorized novjng ai hi;: and t3 iae 

fact chat in certain insiaccas ranchers were allcwec to sescrcy rhe 

remains ai bait stations where because gi deaiher and sther factors 

authorizsd personnel wew not available to do so. 3uring tne Xer nexico 

tests with the toxic collar under an EUP, an employee 3: one rancner 

was suspected of removing the toxic solution from three callars and 

of storing the solution in an unlahelled contaicer. The collars and 

the solution were confiscated and the particular rancher was not 

allowed to participate further in the program. Although similar 

incidents cannot be ruled out, the collzrs in chis instance were 

furnished free of charge to participating ranchers by the New ;Yexico 
.? 

1 SL 

&~ar;~ent oG 1,g~icy;:dr~ 3::d it i: 8inliiai;/ :nz: given 5,~ 515.30 8 

cast o? cne co;lars ixc.y r3fic::er~ ,/~uIG SUTZ!~ZS~ cs; iars fz~t :;:e Zurpss 

of cotai ni ng i 680. Xr. i4cSride 1 i kenzd such a pr3~~i c2 co 2uy'ng 

- 27/ 

2 pickup in orcer to obtain 2 tank of gasoline. in sum, whill it is 

clear that the extrsne toxicity of Compound 1086 requi res car-eiul 

monitoring if it is to be used in any fom, the violations ~f Qiz 

resrrictions shown by this rzcord ar= not a safficient jasis :o deny 

i ts regi strati on for the uses aurfiori z2d kroi n . 

204. Efforts to deveiop an zntidote for sodium fluorgac2cate poisoning have 

been unsuccessful to date and troatiient Ss symptomatic, neaning that 

tnerg is no specific Yreatzent. A three-year old girl (She? ley i400dward) 

Idas ,hos?i tai i zed i n a comatose condi xion 3f t2r Sei ng found wi th a 

mouthf~li of oats wnich kad ;eon scaked in an iinknown a~ount of jodium 

fl uoroacetat~. She xas trcarod ,di ~ft e-~hyl a1 coho1 , sodium ace~ate 2nd 

ac~tamide. She revived after 50 hours and appeared compiet2ly norm1 

after 72 hours. Dr. Rurnack, however, insistsd that che treatments had 

nothing to do with her ~PCOVE!~~, the child having r~ceived a sub-iethai 

dose and that the significance of hospizalization ,das in supportive 

care, i .g., rnaintenznce of bodily functions. Ee tescf fiea tnat if 

the treatments were effective, she would have revived more quickly. 

Dr. 8ogusky was of the opinion that she had received a sub-lethal 

dose, but nevertheless stat2d that she would have died without the 

treatments. 

27/ It is noted, however, that South Dakota's application for the 

use of1080 in the toxic collar contemplates that conti-01 of retrieved 

collars will remain with ADC personnel and it is not clear that it is :-L--A-A --I 1--- LA --1.4 +* ,,.-,..-LA*,- IIIi.eliueu LII~ LUII~I~ uc JUIU LU ICLILLIICI~. 
-.- ccn~roi , ';?izncers nave shown a :: ,J of 3 dog ~yl nc 3-:~2r >eing 

admi ni scered scdi urn f7 uoroacs~a~z. 0f cznc2rn her? i s ,he 3ss?rri on 

that an animal administered 1080 is in agony. This would seen co 

depend on whether the animal is cmscious. While this question cannot 

be answercd with cert3inty from evidmc: in the record, Dr. gurnack, 

describing th? smptcms of lGSO poisoning, szatad rSa1 pati2nz; oitan 

complain of a tart, sour tasc2 in heir xou~ns. He ass2rt2d cnat :Re 

unpleasan-c :=st2 ivas soon iol lowed by nausea zndisr vcmi~i ng , ;; ngl ; ng 

sensations in che nose, spreading to the ams and legs and facia; 

numbness. S ti 11 1 axr, in morg serious ~oi soni ngs , the pazi znt suff~r-s 

soasinodic muscle ccnt~actions followed 3y generalized seizurs. 

Dr. 2urnack explained chac the most serious 1080 sympxomz prjrnari 1 y 

involve the c~ncral nervous systm and t~e cardiovascular systsm and 

that aft27 the numbness, tingling, lccntractions and seiz~res refzrrld 

to above, pazients may also suffer from agitacicn foliowed by de?rsssed 

consciousness and eventilally ccma and delth. It i: the hyi;2r3cti1licy, 

muscle contractions and seizures that give the vi2vter the impression 

thar an animal dying from 1080 is in asony. In this ccnnection, the 

only apparent mention of pain in the hospital record of Shelley Voodward 

(finding 204) is ,dhen she began to recover after 53 hours. in any 

event, animals caught in traps and snares and wounded, but not killed, 

after being shot, are also likely to be in agony. 
,, . . ,. - ,- 226. ,2,: :hcc;gn !,(ycmi ni; has app; izd =;r c~;? rcci Y s;.ra<: on ST, mucnpszfi~ ;:,?' 

in a snear posz fomulazicn, <he only ~itnzss t3 ttsciiy resarding 

such use was Hr. Roberz 3urgee (fi nding 125) . The a~pl icati on 

envisages a formul~aryiun of 3.50 percent sodi lim rr,oncfl uoroaceta~s, 

95.50 percent Rhodamine 3 dye and 4.0 percent >water. 3lr. 3ur5ee ' 

Cescri bed a smear ?ast 2s a 4 x 4 post into ~,vhich holes werg dri? led 

or whicn was scored with an axe in order to hold scenr nat2ridl acd 

which was placd in the c2nter of an approxinat~ly 2:-squar2 fcot 

~nclosure. He explained that five barbed t,vires Idere uszd for enclosing 

the post if the post was used on sheep range and four if the 8;ost *as 

on cattle range. The52 wir3s %er2 for the pur?ose o7 keeqing iivesmck 

away from the oost 3rd ~ould not prevent 2nrr-y by jogs, ima;l ~a,mals 

ar,d birds. The fonulazion used was mo ouncgs of 1380 3 3 221 :on of 

scsnt naterial. Mr. 3urgee r2ferr~d to the sca~ qaterial us& as Y-W 

without filrther explanaiion. ;-le indicatzd that there was lanolin in 

the formulation, that it readily stuck zo ~he posz and :hat on2 ~allon 

would be sufficient to treac a; 12ast three posxs. Smear 7~~x8 would 

be placed near driw stations (debd 1 ivestock) , tho intenz king that 

coyotes would be attracted to the post by the scent material and in 

\ 

the course of licking it would receive a lethal dose of 1080. lu';,oniingls 

application is silent as to the scent or attractant to be used and the 

adhesive to enable the formulation to stick to the post. 
and cold-weazner xonths. Se indjcato? :gat Torn s3uid be ~s?d 

depending on predation and the nunber of sheep. Given ;he corrsn; ios 

of horses, which he referred to as "tankers" and )/nich he used ai ICE0 

bait5 prior to 1972, and the fact that the rancher usually i~rnished rhe 

posts and ri re, #r. 3urgee iestified chat iiiiear posts were chedper than 

bait starions. dlzhough his experience :vi rb smear pcs:s Has li.ni ted to 

three cons:rr;cted for experimental pur7oses in the ai n~er of 7 G56-57, 

Nr. Burgee tesiified chat chey ere eifxtive, asser:~ ng :he: rte had 

wailed and idenrified by green aye coyores that were tillsd 5y :ne 

smear pos-s. %e stated :ha: ne had ?ot found any non-tar;ec 3nina:i 

--. neir smear posts because ihere *as 1 e ir no non-'.zrgec :,ra:Tic 

during cbe win;-?re 

- -. 7 35; 

TO CONTROL STOCK-KILLING COYOTES 

SHEEP OR GOATS IN THIS AREA ARE WEARING 

NECK COLiARS THAT CObITAIN A POISON, COMFOUNO 1080 

(Sodium Fluoroacetaie) 

DO NOT TOUCH COLLARED LIVESTOCK, 

COLLARS, OR DEAD AN1,MALS. 

DO NOT R.EI,EASE I LIVESTOCK 

i 

4 

EL VENENO, COMPUESTO 1080, . J .211j ) - J 3 

> I 

EST~ EN UN COLLAR T~XICO EN LAS OVEJAS 0 CABRAS .QGE )-- 

,- 

ESTAN ATADAS 

NO TOQUE LOS ANIMALES, LOS 

MUERTOS. NO SUELTEA l!.w.4S OVEJAS 

0 CABRAS,, 

0 -5 

i-i .n 

5 5 5. 

in -w 

0 

3 rt U1 

0 0 0 ---r 

-i> n a ID 0-50 

lil 13 -I 

3 -'. c-t h cl- 2. 2. -* 

0 x < fi < 

J --'- CDO 3m 

m - Ln< Cln 

LL --hm act I ad r I ill -0 C-t --'. a o ro ,-t 0-5 cto 

.a m 3 P, a-s i~m cn 

-0 3 ol l-i 

- D. -5 In0 

I - 0 -2- A 2. 

13 2 aas. olo 

3 a-5 '-+mnJ 33 r l I0 (U21C-i er, 

n--I artm . o 

1L 0 d -h 
9. tihere c21 iars a;-E in US?, ?~CR lo~ical pojrt of access ;;all 32 

cons;.ic~cuslj/ pcsred :v.i :h a ~i; i npal (Engl i sh/S;anl sh) ;.iarninq ;:n 

 no^ Iesj cnan 3" x 19" in sizs. Sich sicjns snall be inspecc?~ 

weekly to i nsurs chei r csnxinued presenco and I egi hi 1 i ty , and :ri 11 

be removed when collars ore rmoved. 

10. Each collar in use shall be inspected by the applicator at least 

once a week to insure that it is properly positioned and unbrok3n. 

11. Damaged ar broken coil ars shall be removed from the fie1 d and ei the? 

returned ta the manufacturer f~r repair or disposed of properly. 

12. Disposal of ?unctured or unserviceabla csllars and contamjnated 

animaT remains, vegetation and soil shall be acc~rnu1ished by deep 

burial at a safe location, preferabiy on property owned or managed 

by the appl i cator. 

13. All persons authorized to possess and use 1080 collars snail store 

such collars under lock and key in a dry place away from fooa, Peed, 

domestic animals and corrosive chmicals. Collars q~i71 not be jtcred 

in any structure occupied by humans. 
-. 7 %its jhail be pro?arzd, sold or transf2rrzd and usza cniy by 

Feaer-21 gr Staz3 employees responsibi? i3r 5niiraj ta~age c~nsr31 

(,GCC), 'clno ar2 cer-,i-;'i SCI qp'i i cztgrf. 

(a) Training i n ia7~ hand1 i ng and qiacmenz 3f iri~s, - (j) iraining in disoosa! of bai~r, csn~mina2a :n;~al 

rornai ns , and ancmi nacd 'ie.;ecaci 12n 2nd ;c; I , - 

(c) Ins~ructf ons far sr3c;iczl :r?:cx.n: ci 1223 ;o; ;onips :n 

numans and Icnssi7 c 2n!zial s , 

(c) L 1,is;ruc~i ons on ~~~3rd ksepi ng . 

- 

s. %its shaii con~ain an inzcti\le :ye una",",rzc=iv? ::, iirds 2nd r?:~,: 

id2rrtifiaol~ by humans. 

6. Saics snai 1 je ?lsc?d only aft?? ,~eri;'ica~ion 5:~ F?a?ra'I 3r St3~ 

AOC perrannel tha~ a cgyct? kill or kill s iave cccurrod. 521 ?c:ion 

of bai~ jitzs ~cd 313cz'i:snt ;hall be only by qualifi2d ACC 7~rsonnel 

wno are c~rzi fi ed z?pl i cacsrs . 

7. aai-ts shaii iloc plzced within 300 ieex of ope9 (~ater or near2r 

than one ni1e to occgpied human swellings. 

8. Zaitsinaybe plac~d in conjunction with araw st3tions (~niaal 

czrcass2s). However, not more chan ?do baics snal1 be glacd 2: 

any one draw scation and no Tor? than one of such sttcigns ar ?do 

baits shall be located on one s2ccion (540 acres) of land. 

9. Baits shaii be covered with cow cnips, stones, Srzss or hay 3r 

eirnil?r maioria.1 s . !f baits cannot be covered. iaics wi 11 not be 

p-iated. 
12- Nhen baics ar? '~ixzd, each logical ;a;nt 07 Zccssr jhaii ke 

conspicucus::/ ?os:=!! :gi th 3 5i 1 i npal (Engl i s h/Spzni sn) ~,.rarni ncj si si: 

not less than 3" x 10" in sizo. Signs wi 7 1 be inspectzd ~e241;~ 2nd 

will be rmoved ahen baits are removed or- deter;nined have been 

cansurried. 

2. ;1CC perscnne: ;ha1 1 ~SSD lrlri ct.5 rzcsrcs of :he 'I?liilz?r, 13~3::'377 

ana aats sai ts 'rue72 ~Iacsa, A 3212i 12c nao jhowirlg :ac.tior; cf 

Saix placgd snail also be nainrained. 

.. , - - 14. 2egorts CT 17man inj~ries 3nd of ai: anigals zs~n, tar;e~ 2: ,dell 

as non-sarges, ~i : 1 5e ?a62 2y XCC :ersaccel lo ,?$ ar :ne 

~pprcpr-i az2 S i310 r2zui azsry agemy.