UMITED STATES ENirbRSMR4ENIAL PROTEGTIQM AGENCY 

WAS!-!iNC;TON. D.Z. 2i3460 

SUBJECT: Sodium fluoroacetate RED- EEB science Chapter 

TO : Dave Farrar 

Science ~nalysis and 

Environmental Fate 

FROM : Anthony F. Maciorowski, Chief 

Ecological Effects Division 

Environmental Fate and Effects 

Attached is the EEB Science Chapter for the Sodium fluoroacetate 

(Compound 1080) RED. The EEB has sufficient data and/or information 

to complete a comprehensive risk assessment for both terrestrial 

and aquatic organisms from the use of Compound 1080 in the 

Livestock Protection Collar (LPC). 

The following is a summary of EEB1s assessment: 

* Residue data indicate that the greatest exposure and potential 

for hazard comes from scavenging the neck area of the dead 

collared livestock and that secondary hazard from scavenging 

the carcass of the dead coyote and/or consuming vomit is, 

highly unlikely to pose any unacceptable risk. 

* Results of feeding tests, simulated studies and actual field 

studies indicate that feeding behavior for many scavengers, 

decomposition of livestock carcasses, and the emetic nature of 

1080 are all factors that greatly reduce the likelihood of 

exposure to non-target organisms below the Agency's level of 

concern. In addition, environmental hazard statements, special 

use restrictions, and endangered species protection 

statements, that are required to be placed on the label, 

greatly reduce primary hazard to non-target organisms 

including endangered species. 

* Based upon results of field studies, monitoring reports, low 

volume usage, environmental fate data, which suggests that 

1080 is not likely to get into aquatic habitats, and residue 

analysis, that shows that the total amount of 1080 likely to 

be released into the environment is quite low, the EEB 

, . 

Text Searchable Document

-- 

I ' DP BARCODE: D205845 REREG CASE # 3073 

CASE: 819149 DATA PACKAGE RECORD DATE: 07/25/94 

SUBMISSION: S470471 BEAN SHEET Page 1 of 1 

* * * CASE/SUBMISSION INFORMATION * * * 

. , CASE TYPE: REREGISTRATION ACTIOfJ: 623 INITIATE RED CHAPTER 

CHEMICALS: 075003 Sodium fluoroacetate 190.00 % 

ID#: 075'003 

COMPANY : 

PRODUCT MANAGER: 51 VIRGINIA DIETRICH 703-308-8157 ROOM: CS1 3H3 

PM TEAM REVIEWER: LEONARD RYAN 703-308-8067 ROOM: CS1 3M1 

RECEIVED DATE: 07/25/94 DUE OUT DATE: 01/21/95 

* * * DATA PACKAGE INFORMATION * * * 

DP BARCODE: 205845 EXPEDITE: N DATE SENT: 07/25/94 DATE RET. : / / 

CHEMICAL: 075003 Sodium fluoroacetate 

DP TYPE: 102 Phase V Review I 

i 

CSF: N LABEL: N 

ASSIGNED TO DATE IN DATE OUT ADMIN DUE DATE : ~22./2-3-/93 

DIV : EFED /6% / / NEGOT DATE: / - L--- 

I BRAN: EEB o/ y'"'/4:?~/ / / PROJ DATE : , j'- / '\ 

I SECT: I0 I 

I REVR : 

/ / 

CONTR : 

/ / / / 

/ / / / 

I * * * DATA REVIEW INSTRUCTIONS * * * 

Please review and prepare RED chapter for Sodium 

Fluoroacetate, Case# 3073, AI# 75003. 

I Attachments: 

Checklist for deliverables 

LUIS reports/Labels 

I Post phase 4 correspondence issues 

Product Chemistry data on Technical (EFGWB) 

* * * DATA PACKAGE EVALUATION * * * 

No evaluation is written for this data package 

* * * ADDITIONAL DATA PACKAGES FOR THIS SUBMISSION * * * 

DP BC BRANCH/SECTION DATE OUT DUE BACK INS CSF LABEL 1 acme @@Bs=- - * 

I 

~ 

I / 

! 

~ 
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS BRANCH 

REREGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY DOCUMENT FOR SODIUM FLUOROACETATE 

SCIENCE CHAPTER 

I. TOXICITY DATA , . 

'A. Topical Summaries 

1. Avian Species 

In order to establish the toxicity of sodium fluoroacetate to birds, the following tests are required using 

the technical grade material: one avian single-dose oral 

LD50 study on one species (preferably the mallard duck 

(Anas plat~rhvncos) or the bobwhite quail (Colinus 

virainianus) ; two subacute dietary studies (LC50) on one 

species of waterfowl (preferably the mallard duck) and 

one species of upland game bird (preferably the bobwhite 

quail or the ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus). 

a. Acute Oral 

The acute oral LD50 value for the technical grade of 

sodium fluoroacetate (1080) for avian species has been 

reported in the literature, Hudson et al., (1984) 

reported the acute oral LD50 values for the ring-necked 

pheasant, mallard duck and chukar (Alectoris graeca) to 

be 6.4 (95% C.I. = 3.85-10,8), 9.1 (95% C.I. = 5.6-14.6) 

and 3.51 (95% C.I. 2.58-4.78) mg/kg, respectively. Ward 

and Spencer (1947) determined the acute lethal doses for 

numerous avian species and reported LD50 values as low as 

3.0, 5.0, and 15 mg/kg for the widgeon (Mareca 

americana), golden eagle (Aauila chrvsaetos), and black 

vulture -(Cartharista urubu) , respectively. Atzert (1971) 

reported the LD50 for the black-billed magpie (Pica pica) 

to be 1 mg/kg. In addition, the USDA conducted a series 

of acute oral LDSq tests on the magpie to get toxicity 

data for a species that is likely to scavenge the 

carcasses of coyotes and/or livestock (Burns and 

Connolly, 1992) . Results of these studies showed that the 

acute oral LD50 for the magpie ranged from 1.78-2.3 

mg/kg, depending on temperature and season. 

These results indicate that 1080 can be classified as 

being very highly toxic to avian species on an acute oral 

basis. The guideline requirements for this test have been 

satisfied. Table 1 is a data summary for the acute 

toxicity of 1080 to avian species. 
1 

TABLE 1: AVIAN ACUTE ORAL TOXICITY DATA 

b. Dietary 

Campbell et al. (1994) reported that the avian dietary 

LCs0 values of 1080 for the mallard duck and bobwhite 

quail were 231 (95% C.I.=150-338) and 486 (95% C.I.=339- 

696) ppm, respectively (MRID #s 43210602; 43210601). 

Based on these data, 1080 can be ,classified as being 

highly toxic to avian species on a dietary basis. The 

guideline requirements for a dietary study have been - 

satisfied. Table 2 is a data summary for the dietary 

toxicity of 1080 to avian species. 

Conclusions Reference 

Acceptable Hudson et al., 

(1984) 

Acceptable Hudson et al., 

(1984) 

Acceptable Hudson et al., 

(1984) 

Acceptable Ward and 

Spencer, 1947 

Acceptable Ward and 

Spencer, 1947 

Acceptable Ward and 

Spencer, 1947 

Acceptable ~tzert, 1971 

Species 

Mallard duck 

Chukar 

Ring-necked 

Pheasant 

Widgeon 

Golden eagle 

Black vulture 

Magpie 

LD," mg/kg 

9.1 

3 . 5 

6.4 

3.0 

5.0 

15.0 

1.0 

E DIETARY TOXICITY DATA I 

I TABLE 2: AVIAN SUBACUT I . Conclusion I Reference 

I Acceptable Campbell et 

al., 1994 

Acceptable Campbell et 

al., 1994 

MRID#43210602 

Species 

Bobwhite quail 

Mallard duck 

LC,, (PP~) 

486 

231 
as acute and subacute testing, intended use pattern, and 

pertinent environmental fate characteristics. Because 

I the proposed use pattern is specifically designed to take 

a wild mammal (e., coyote), wild mammal toxicity 

testing is required. 

Ward and Spencer (1947) determined the acute lethal doses 

of 1080 for numerous mammalian species and reported LD50 

values as low as 0.1 mg/kg for both the cotton rat 

(Sicmodon his~idus) and coyote (Canis latrans). They also 

reported that the LD5, for the deer mouse (,Peromvcus m.) 

was 4.0 mg/kg. Beasom (1982) reported that the LD5O 

values forthe opossum (Didel~his virainiana) and raccoon 

(Procvon lotor) were 41.6 and 1.1 mg/kg, respectively. 

Atzert (1971) reported that the LD50 of 1080 to the 

striped skunk (Me~hitus me~hitus) and opossum is 1 and 60 

mg/kg, respectively. These data indicate that 1080 can be 

classified as being very highly toxic to mammals on an 

acute oral basis. The guideline requirement for the wild 

mammal toxicity test has been satisfied. Table 3 is a 

data summary for the acute toxicity of 1080 to mammals. 

TABLE 3: MAMMALIAN ACUTE TOXICITY DATA 

Species I ~onclusions I Reference I I I I 

Coyote 0.1 Acceptable Ward and 

Spencer, 1947 

Cotton- rat 0.1 Acceptable Ward and 

Spencer, 1947 

Deer mouse 4.0 Acceptable Ward and 

Spencer, 1947 

opossum 41.6 Supplemental Beasom, 1982 

i I I 

Skunk I 1.0 ( Acceptable I Atzert, 1971 n 

3. Toxicity to Aquatic Animals 

i. ~reshwater Fish 

In order to establish the toxicity of a pesticide to 

freshwater fish, the minimum data required on the 

technical grade of the active ingredient are two 

freshwater fish toxicity studies. One study should use 

a coldwater species (preferably the rainbow trout), and 

the otHer should use a warmwater species (preferably the 

bluegill sunfish) . 
Collins (1993) reported that the 96-hour LC5 values of 

technical grade 1080 to the rainbow trout [~ncrhvnchus 

mvkiss) and bluegill sunfish (Le~omis macrochirus) were 

54 mg a.i./l and > 970 mg a.i./l, respectively. Based on 

' these data, 1080 can be classified as being slightly 

toxic to coldwater fish species and practically non-toxic 

to warm water fish species. The guideline .requirements 

for freshwater fish toxicity tests have been satisfied 

(MRID #s 42961601; and 42961602). Table 4 is a data 

summary for the toxicity of 1080 to freshwater fish. 

TABLE 4: FRESHWATER FISH ACUTE TOXICITY DATA 

ii. Freshwater invertebrates 

- 

r 

The minimum testing required to assess the toxicity of a 

pesticide to freshwater invertebrates is a freshwater 

aquatic invertebrate toxicity test, preferably using the 

first instar Daphnia magna or early instar amphipods, 

stoneflies, mayflies, or midges (Chironomids B.). 

Collins (1993) conducted an acute static toxicity test on 

/ daphnids and determined that the 48-hour EC50 of 1080 was 

350 mg a.i./l (MRID # 42961603). Based on these data, 

1080 can be classified as being practically non-toxic to 

freshwatl?r invertebrates. The guideline remirement for . the freshwater toxicity test has been satisfied. Table 

5 is a data summary for the toxicity of 1080 to 

freshwater invertebrates. 

Species 

Rainbow trout 

Bluegill 

sunfish 

TABLE 5: FRESHWATER INVERTEBRATE TOXICITY DATA 

96-hour LC 

(mg a.i./B 

54 

970 

iii. Estuarine and Marine Animals 

Acute toxicity testing with estuarine and marine 

1 

Conclusions 

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Species 

Daphnia magna 

Reference 

Collins, 1993 

MRID# 42961601 

Collins, 1993 

MRID# 42961602 

48-hour EC50 

(mg a.i./l) 

350 

Conclusions 

Acceptable 

Reference ' 

Collins, 1993 

MRID# 42961603 
organisms is required when an end-use product is intended 

for direct application to the marine/estuarine 

environment or is expected to reach this environment in 

significant concentrations. Because the terrestrial nonfood use of 1080 will not result in exposure to the 

estuarine environment, the data requirement is not 

required. 

4. Toxicity to Plants, 

Terrestrial plant testing (seed germination, seedling 

emergence and vegetative vigor) is required for 

herbicides which have terrestrial non-food or aquatic 

non-food (except residential) use patterns and which have 

endangered or\threatened plant species associated with 

the site of application. Because 1080 is not a 

herbicide, the data requirement is not required. 

I 

11. FIELD STUDY DATA 

From 1978 to 1980, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

conducted field research in various states to assess the 

primary and secondary hazards from the use of the 1080 

LPC (Connolly, 1980). ,It was found that the primary 

scavenger of collared goats that were killed by coyotes 

in Texas were turkey (Cartfiarista aura) and black 

vultures while red-tailed hawks, caracaras and ravens 

infrequently scavenged kills. No scavenging by mammals 

was observed. In Montana and Idaho, magpies were the most 

 conspicuous scavengers of coyote killed sheep with 

infrequent scavenging by ravens. With regard to primary 

poisoning the follawing summary was reported: 

In summary, coyote-killed col'lared livestock were known 

to have been scavenged by turkey vultures, black 

vultures, magpies, ravens, red-tailed hawks, caracaras, 

a skunk and a coyot& during the present studies. No 

'scavenger was known or believed to have been poisoned. 

Scavengers ignored the collars and fed instead upon the - 

viscera and muscle that has been exposed by the killer 

coyote . Field observations of secondary poisoning, studies, 

conducted in Texas and Montana showed that turkey 

vultures were the only scavengers of dead coyotes 

eventhough numerous other scavengers such as golden 

eagles, ravens , magpies, skunks and other potential 

scavengers were abundant in the area. 

From 1981 to 1983, the New Mexico Department of 

Agriculture conducted an experimental field program 

evaluating the efficacy and safety of the toxic collar. 

A total of 330 collars ware used over approximately 1,000 

days. Twelve collared lambs were attacked but only 5 

\ 

- t A- - - *-. "I(--7 a L ~>r=-~sa*II"*~*~~~~-~~-~ X-I---IIF-ii -.l 1- *- 
\ \\ 

collars were actually punctured by predators. A total of 

18 collars were accidentally punctured while 21 collars 

were lost. A total of three predators (2 coyotes and 1 

bobcat, (Lvnx rudus) were found dead. The only nontarget believed to have been poisoned during the study 

was a skunk. The results of this study suggest that non- , 

target exposure to 1080 from either feeding on the coyote 

carcass or the neck area of the collared livestock was 

low and did not result in any significant adverse 

ecological effects (Littauer, 1983). 

As part of the registration requirements, the Registrant 

(USDA/APHIS) had to submit data/information on any nontarget hazards resulting from the use of the 30 ml 

Livestock Protection Collar (LPC) that was collected as 

a result of its use in Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, 

South Dakota and Texas (USDA/APHIS, 1991). The major 

findings from the actual use of the collar during 1988, 

1989 and 90 as well as a report on the field and 

laboratory research conducted from 1978 to 1980 are as 

follows: 

- the contents of a small portion (13%) of the collars 

placed on livestock were actually released into the 

environment. The total amount of 1080 involved in the 

release (assuming that each collar was completely 

emptied) was 88.2 grams. This is an average of 29.4 

grams/year over the four state area where the ,collars 

were used (none used in South Dakota). 

- there were no 'reports of deaths of non-target animals 

associated with the use of the LPC collars during this 

period; 

- only limited scavenging occurred on coyote carcasses by 

2 species of vulture and a caracara. 

- livestock carcasses were scavenged by vultures, 

magpies, ravens, red-tailed hawks, caracaras, skunks and 

coyotes but none of these -non-target species were 

poisoned as a result. 

- scavenger species tended to feed mainly on viscera and 

muscle of hind quarters. 

- of the 13% (294) of the collars, that had there 

contents released,during the time period, only 5% (108) 

were punctured by ,coyotes. 
11. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT- ESTIMATED ENVIRONMENTAL CONCENTRATIONS 

1080 residues on the necks of collared livestock 

Knowlton and Ebbert (1991) conducted a physiologic marker 

study, using radio-labeled 1080, to determine the amount of 

1080 likely to be consumed by the coyote and the amount of 

1080 likely to occur on the necks of collared goats (ga~ra 

spp.) when the pouches on the 30 ml livestock protection 

cbllar were punctured. They found that the average amount of 

dispensed fluid from the 30 ml collar was 19.2 (11.9-27.8) 

mls, while the average amount of fluid ingested by the coyote 

was 1.0 (0.1-2.9) mls. The average amount ~f fluid 

contaminating the neck of the goat was 75 mg (range 39-118 mg) 

whereas the average amount of fluid not identified was 113 mg 

(range 0-234 mg.). It was also determined that, once 

punctured, the pouches containingthe 1080 discharged over 85% 

of their contents, within a very short period of time, and 

that relatively little of the 1080 is actually ingested by the 

coyote (i.e., 6 of the 15 coyotes ingested less than 5mg in 

the process of killing the goat. 

Savarie et al. 1990, also conducted a study designed to 

determine the amount of 1080 contamination likely to occur on 

the necks of collared lambs (gvis SWW.) that are killed by 

coyotes. They found that 12 1080-contaminated sheepskins 

contained an average of 96 mg la80 with the range from 23 to 

200 mg. 

A comparison of the data between these two studies suggest 

that the amount of 1080 exposure on the neck of the collared 

livestock i's similar regardless of the species of livestock. 

For instance the average amount of 1080 released from the 

collar in the goat study was 130 mg compared to 135 mg for the 

sheep study while the amount of lost or unaccounted for fluid 

from the collar was 5.6 mg for the goat study D. 6.1 mg in 

the sheep study (USDA/APHIS, 1991b). 

1080 residues in covote tissue 

Connolly (1980) reported on the amount of 1080 residues found 

in muscle tissues from captive coyotes that received known 

oral doses of 1080. At a known oral dose of 5.0 mg the 

residue in muscle was determined to be 0.10 ppm while the 10 

mg dose resulted in muscle residues of 0.19 ppm. Based on this 

relationship, a coyote -that ingests an average of 1 ml (10 mg) 

will have muscle tissue residues of 0.19 ppm 1080. The highest 

1080 residue level found in muscle tissue was 0.93 ppm. 

Compound 1080 residues in coyotes*' that have killed sheep 

wearing the 30 ml collar have also been determined (Burns et. 

al. 1984). They reported that the average 1080 residues for 

muscle tissue, stomach contents and vomitus, were 0.15, 0.5 

and 0.35 ppm, respectively. The highest residue found occurred 
in the stomach contents and was 2.3 ppm. 

Knowlton and Ebbert (1991) analyzed muscle tissue from 10 

coyotes that were killed as a result of puncturing the 

collars. Residues were detected in the muscle of all the 

coyotes. The mean amount of 108'0 in the muscle tissue was 

0.089 ppm (range of 0.05 - 0.280 ppm) while the mean f SE of 

1080 lost from the 12 collars'was 92 56 mg (range from 3-183 

mg) 

fIAZARD ASSESSMENT 

Aauatic Hazard Assessment 

Compound 1080 has been classified as being practically, 

non-toxic to warmwater fish ~ species and aquatic 

invertebrates, onZy slightly toxic to coldwater fish 

species,(MRID# 42961603; 42961601; 42961602). The use of 

the collar is such that the likelihood of 1080 getting 

into any body of water is extremely low and has never 

been reported. Therefore, because of its low toxicity to 

aquatic organisms and because exposure is low, the EEB 

concludes that use of the collar does not exceed the 

Agency's unacceptable risk criteria. 

Terrestrial ~azard~~ssessment 

Non-target exposure from the use of the Livestock 

Protection Collars (LPCs) comes from four potential 

sources (1) contaminated sheep or goat carcasses with 

either broken (punctured) or unbroken collars (primary 

hazard) (2) toxicant that has been spilled on the 

ground/vegetation as a result of the collar being 

punctured (primary hazard) (3) the carcasses of the 

poisoned coyote that has not been found (secondary 

hazard) and (4) the vomitus of poisoned coyotes (primary 

hazard). Primary hazard has been defined as that effect 

which results from direct ingestion of the toxicant, 

while secondary poisoning can only result from scavenging 

the remainsi of an animal that-has directly ingested the 

toxicant (Connolly, 1980). 

i. Primary Hazards 3 

Contaminated neck areas < 

The residue data clearly demonstrate that the greatest 

environmental exposure comes from 1080 contamination on 

the neck of the collared livestock. In the Knowlton and 

Ebbert study, the average amount of fluid contaminating 

the neck oi the goat was 7.5 (3.9-11.8) mls. This amounts 

to approximately 75 mg of 1080 toxicant which clearly 

exceeds toxicity values for numerous birds and mammals 
that could scavenge the carcass and indicates that 

primary hazard to .these scavengers is quite high. 

However, results of field studies suggest that mortality 

to scavengers, that feed on these carcasses, is minor. 

For example, it has been observed that vultures, magpies, 

ravens (Corvus corax), red-tailed hawks (Buteo 

iamaicensis), caracaras (Polvborus cheriwav), coyotes and 

skunks all scavenged the carcasses of coyote killed 

collared livestock yet none of these non-target species 

were poisoned as a result (USDA/APHIS, 1991; Connolly, 

1980; Littauer, 1983). 

There are several factors that may account for this . 

apparent discrepancy. First of all, because of the 

typical behavior of scavenging birds to feed at the 

wounds or openings in the carcass or where the skin has 

been torn away from the carcass (as opposed to feeding on - the contaminated neck area), the likelihood of primary 

hazard to avian species such as the bald eagle 

(Haliaeetus leucoce~halus) maybe greatly reduced (USFWS, 

1984 ; USFWS, 1985). For example, Connolly (1980), in 

order to simulate the primary hazard to non-target 

animals, conducted a series of tests exposing magpies and 

domestic dogs (Canis familiarus) to dead collared 

livestock. Although the dogs and magpies fed heavily on 

the carcass, neither the dogs nor magpies were poisoned. 

Connolly further observed that both the magpies and dogs 

tended to feed on the exposed parts (i.e. where the 

coyote had fed on the animal) of the dead livestock 

rather than on the neck area (where the highest 

contamination is likely to occur) and concluded that 

.."the intrinsic feeding behavior of scavengers confers 

a degree of protection against accidental poisoning by 

livestock collars. 

Secondly, toxicity data sugqest that, in general, birds, 

especially raptors, that are likely to scavenge dead 

carcasses, are less susceptible to 1080 poisoning than 

most mammals, especially canids (Haegele et ale, 1984; 

Ward and .Spencer, 1947 and Atzert, 1971). In addition, 

emesis has been clinically observed as being a early 

symptom of 1080 poisoning (Ward and Spencer, 1947) and 

may cause certain raptors to discontinue feeding before 

lethal amounts sf 1080 are absorbed (Dana, 1971). This 

characteristic would greatly reduce exposure to raptors 

scavenging on livestock carcasses and, in addition, 

probably make them less likely to continue feeding on 

them. 

Another factor that can greatly influence the extent of 

primary hazard is the fact that livestock carcasses 

decompose rapidly under field conditions which may render 

them ,unpalatable to many avian and mammalian species 

(Burns et al. and Connolly). 
S~illed/lost toxicant 

Based on the data presented by Knowlton and Ebbert 

(1991), the average amount of fluid not identified (lost) 

was 11.3 (0-23.4) mls or approximately 113 mg of 1080 

(nearly 33% of the total amount in the 30 ml collar). It 

is believed that most of the unidentified fluid is 

spilled on the ground. The amount of fluid lost from the 

collar is not considered to be a primary hazard because 

1080 exhibits a high degree of adsorption to vegetative 

material and is not likely to .be carried from the site 

where it was deposited (Hilton et al. 1969). In addition, 

because fluoroacetate is rapidly broken down by soil 

bacteria and other organisms it is doubtful that spillage 

will pose any significant route of exposure to nontargets (David and Gardiner 1966). As such, the EEB 

believes 'that there is no real hazard to non-target 

organisms from the 1080 that spills on the ground as a 

result of the collar being accidentally punctured or 

deliberately punctured by the attacking coyote. , 

ii. Secondary HazardsContaminated covote tissue 

Table 7 shows the approximate amounts of muscle tissue, 

stomach contents and vomitus, from coyotes killed with 

the 30 ml LPC, that scavengers would have to consume to 

obtain an LD50 of 1080 (Burns et al., 1984). These data 

suggest that secondary hazard to non-targets that may 

feed on a contaminated coyote is unlikely (Burns et al., 

(1984) , Connolly, (1980) and Knowlton and Ebbert, (1991) . TABLE 7: Approximate amounts of tissue from coyotes 

killed with the 30 ml LPC that scavengers would have to 

consume to obtain an LD50 of 1080. 

Amounts that contain one 

LD50 dose 
Muscle Tissue 

Calculations show that most species would have to consume 

considerable amounts of contaminated muscle tissue, relative 

to their body weight, to obtain lethal dosages of 1080. For 

example, the black vulture, golden eagle and magpie would have 

to consume 100X, 33X, and 6.6X their body weights, 

respectively, to obtain an equivalent LDS0 from just eating 

muscle tissue. Even the most sensitive species tested (i.e., 

the coyote) would have to eat approximately 67% of its body - 

weight to get an LDS0 from scavenging on the muscle tissue from 

a coyote killed by the 30 ml toxic collar. 

9.08 

Stomach Contents - 

6.36 

Examination of Table 7 also shows that, because of the higher 

concentrations of 1080 present in the stomach contents, 

scavengers, which feed primarily on the viscera, may be at . 

greater risk than those that feed primarily on muscle tissue. 

For example, the black vulture, golden eagle and magpie would 

have to consume 30X, 10X and 2x their body weight, 

respectively, to obtain an equivalent LDS0 doses from eating 

the stomach contents. These data indicate that, under natural 

conditions, it is highly unlikely that,scavengers could either 

find and/or consume sufficient quantities of contaminated 

coyotes to be secondarily poisoned from these carcasses. 

21.2. 

Vomitus 

3-. 18 

Clinical observations suggest the 1080 exerts an emetic 

action; especially to canids which have digested more than an 

LD50 (Ward and Spencer, 1947 and TAMUS, 1983) . Observations of 

coyote behavior made during the TAMUS study not only demonstrated this but also found that some coyotes would cache the 

vomitus (which may further reduce this source of exposure). 

, Connolly (1980) reported that residue levels in vomitus from 

four poisoned coyotes ranged from below detectable limits (0'. 1 

ppm) to 0.72 ppm. In addition, the average amount of 1080 in i vomitus, from five coyotes that attacked sheep wearing the 40 

ml collar, has been reported to be 0.35 ppm (USDA/APHIS, 

Unpublished Report, 1986) . Although these levels may be toxic 

to certain species that are very sensitive to 1080, the EEB 

believes that it is unlikely that sufficiently large amounts 

of vomitus would ever be available and/or found by non-targets 

under field conditions to exceed the Agency's risk criteria. 

For example the coyote and skunk would have to consume 280.5% 

and 280% of their body weights, respectively, to obtain LD50 

equivalents from eating vomitus. These calculations suggest 

that the coyote may be at risk from consuming vomitus, 

however, even if non-targets coyotes were to feed on the 

3.18 1.0 

I' 

Skunk 
vomitus, it is doubtful, because the total amount of exposure 

associated with the vomitus is extremely low, that adverse 

effects would exceed the Agency's risk criteria. 

Burns et al. (1986) also conducted a study to determine 

secondary effects to coyotes killed wi$h single drop baits 

(SDBs) treated at 5 mg/bait. They found that the average 1080 

residues in coyotes killed by the SDBs were 0.29, 0.30 and 

0.31 ppm for muscle tissue, small intestines and the atomach, 

respectively. They concludedthat these values were similar to , those found in the 30 ml LPC study conducted by Connolly 

(1980). They also conducted a series of feeding tests to 

determine if there was any potential for secondary hazard to 

non-target animals that fed on coyotes poisoned by the SDBs. 

All of the removed tissue, except the gastrointestinal tract, 

was fed to 3 dogs (Canis familiaris), 3 coyotes, 4 striped 

skunks and 15 magpies for periods ranging from 14 to 35 days. 

The total amount of contaminated tissue \consumed, and 

expressed as percent of body weight averaged 67% for dogs, 

152% for coyotes, 117% for skunks and 371% for the magpies. 

Still, none of the test species exhibited any signs of 1080 

poisoning or had any aetectable 1080 residues in there tissue. 

Again, these data indicate that even if non-target species 

were to feed on the carcass of a coyote killed by the collar, 

it is highly unlikely that they could ingest sufficient 

quantities of the contaminated tissue to cause any secondary 

hazard. 

Finally, As part of the registration requirements, the US. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, was required to conduct research on 

the potential secondary hazards to non-target organisms from 

the use of the 30 ml LPC. In order to simulate secondary 

poisoning, coyotes were administered doses of 4mg, 100 mg and 

400 mg of 1086. Upon death, all the coyotes were skinned, 

eviscerated ,and all muscle tiSsue was removed from the 

skeleton. All the tissue, except the gastrointestinal tract, 

was ground-up and then fed (100 to 200 g) to stripped skunks, 

raccoons and opossums. Results of this study indicated that 

only those coyotes receiving more than 200 mg of 1080 would 

present any secondary hazard, and then only to those species 

that have a relatively low tolerance to the chemical (TAM'S, 

1983). The dosages that caused effects greatly exceed those 

found to be administered to the coyote by the LPC and indicate 

that mortality to non-target from the operational use of the 

collar is unlikely. 

iii. Total Collar Use 

In addition to knowing residue levels, that are likely to 

occur in dead coyotes and/or on the necks of livestock, it is 

also important to put into perspective, from a hazard 

standpoint, just how many collars 'are likely to be used under 

typical coyote control operations. It appears, based on the 
results of several field studies, conducted in various states, 

that the total number of collars used and total amoulit of 1080 

actually jost to the environment are both quite low. For 

example, in the study conducted in New Mexico, only 23 of 330 

(7 %) collars were ever punctured and of the 23 only 5 (22%) 

were punctured by coyotes (Littauer, 1991). 

During the three year study conducted in Wyoming, Montana, 

Texas and New Mexico only 294 out of 2257 collars (13%) were 

actually punctured and had their contents released to the 

environment: The total amount of 1080 involved 'in this release 

(assuming that each collar was completely emptied) was 88.2 

grams. This is an average of 29.4 grams/year over the four 

state area where the collars were used. What is even more 

significant is that only 108 collars, out of the total 294 

(36.7%) collars that were punctured, were punctured by 

coyotes. The total amount of 1080 released from collars 

punctured by- coyote attacks (assuming that each collar was 

emptied) was 32.4 grams or an average of only 10.8 grams/year 

over the four state area. Additionally, data show that nearly 

as many collars (80 collars or 4%) were punctured from 

vegetation and other unknown causes as were punctured from 

coyote attacks. This source of 1080 exposure does not pose any 

primary or secondary hazards because neither the collared 

livestock nor attacking coyote become a source of exposure to 

scavenging by non-target organisms. I 

All of these data suggest that there is very little secondary 

hazard to non-target organisms that feed on coyotes killed by 

the LPC and/or their vomitus. Because such consumption is 

unlikely to occur under natural conditions, may explain why 

there have been so few field observations of mortality to nontarget species that feed on coyotes that have been killed by 

the LPC. 

Endanaered Species 

On March 21, 1985, the EEB requested formal Section 7 

Consultation relative to the United States Department-of 

Interior's Application to register Compound 1080 Livestock 

Protection Collar. On June 14, 1985, the USFWS-OES responded 

and concluded that the use of the 1080 collar, as proposed, \ 

with all. the use directions and restrictions, posed no , jeopardy to the bald eagle, San Joaquin kit fox, black-footed 

ferret (Mustela niariwes) , and gray wolf (Canis lupus) but 

was likely to jeopardize the continues existence of the 

grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilus), Rocky Mountain wolf 

(Canis lupus irremotus) and California condor (Gvmnoavs 

californianus) (USFWS, 1985) . At this time the USFWS-OES provided specific state and county 

recommendations for avoiding adverse effects to the nonjeopardy species as well as reasonable and prudent 

alternatives for precluding jeopardy to the three species in 
jeopardy from the use pattern. Based on this information,, the 

EEB developed specific endangered species label precautions 

and use restrictions for the 30 ml 1080 toxic collar. These 

use restrictions have been included in a Technical Bulletin 

that accompanies the labeling. 

In 1987, as a result of informal consultation with field 

operations personnel from the USFWS, the EEB became aware that 

additional precautions, specifically addressing the use of the 

LPC in Texas, were required to protect both the ocelot (Felis 

pardalis) and j aguarundi (Felis vasouarundi cacomitei) (USFWS, 

1986). These additional use precautions were reviewed by the 

Agency and subsequently included into the Technical Bulletin. 

VII. SUMMARY 

The major routes of exposure to nontarget wildlife, from the - use of the Compound 1080 LPC, comes from four potential 

sources; .(I) contaminated sheep or goat carcasses with either 

broken ,(punctured) or unbroken collars (primary hazard) (2) 

toxicant that has been spilled on the ground/vegetation as a 

result of the collar being punctured (primary hazard) (3) the 

carcasses of the poisoned coyote that has not been found 

(secondary hazard) and (4) the vomitus of poisoned coyotes 

(primary hazard) . Residue data indicate that the greatest exposure and potential 

for hazard comes from scavenging the neck area of the dead 

collared livestock and that secondary hazard from scavenging 

the carcass bf the dead coyote and/or consuming vomit is 

highly unlikely to pose any'unacceptable risk. 

Results of feeding tests, simulated studies and actual field 

studies indicate that feeding behavior for many scavengers, 

decomposition of livestock carcasses, and the emetic nature of 

1080 are all factors that greatly reduce the likelihood of 

exposure to non-target organisms below the Agency's level of 

concern. In addition, environmental hazard statements, special 

use restrictions, and endangered species protection , 

statements, that are required to be placed on the label, 

greatly reduce primary hazard to non-target organisms 

including endangered species. - 

Based upon results of ,field studies, monitoring reports, low 

volume usage, environmental fate data which suggests that 1080 

is not likely to get into aquatic habitats, and tissue residue 

analysis, that shows that the total amount of 1080 likely to 

be released into the environment is quite low, the EEB 

believes that the use of the Compound 1080 LPC will not exceed 

the Agency's unakceptable risk criteria for either non-target 

aquatic or terrestrial species. 
I 

VIII . LABELING 

IX. 

The current label precautions, restrictions, and directions 

regulating the use of the Compound 1080 Livestock Protection 

Collar are some of the most comprehensive and stringent for 

any registered pesticide. In addition to the standard 

environmental hazard statements and use restrictions, the 

label also contains 19 special use restrictions that regulate 

the use, and disposal of the collars as well as a Technical 

Bulletin that provides specific information regarding 

endangered species (Appendix I). The EEB believes that current 

labeling is adequate to protect non-target fish and wildlife 

resources. 

RISK MITIGATION MEASURES 

The EEB believes that Technical Bulletin Use Restriction No. 

8 should be mopified to further reduce risk to non-targets. 

Specifically, 7fhe EEB believes that allowing use of the collar /- 

in areas where annual precipitation is less than 20 inches and 

the vegetation of the pasture is sparse makes very little 

difference in finding carcasses if topographical features are 

not considered. The EEB believes that very few, if any, 

ranching operations in the west could bear the additional 

expense or take the time to routinely ground search (every 7 

days according to use restrictions) for dead animals that 

could be spread over a, 15.6 sq. mile (10,000 acres) area. 

Instead the EEB recommends 'that fenced pastures should be 

limited to no more than 5,000 acres in size. Even with the use 

restriction, there will be some areas where an effective 

search for dead collared animals and/or the carcasses od dead 

coyotes would be greatly hindered by vegetative and 

topographical features. The current size limitation amounts to , an open range use. 
I Literature Cited 

Atzert, S. P. 1971). A review of sodium fluoroacetate (Compound 

1080): its properties, toxicology and use in predator and rodent 

control. Spec. Sci, Rep. - Wildlf. No. 146, U.s> Fish and Wildl. 

Serv., Washington, D.C. -34pp. , 

Beasom, S. L. , (1982) . Report on-Ef f icacy of the 1080 toxic collars 

as a predator damage control method (July 1, 1982 -September 30, 

1982). Texas A 61 M University, College Station, Texas, 

Burns, R. J. , G. Connolly, D.L. Meeker, I. Okuno, and P. 3. 

Savarie. 1984. Efficacy and hazards of Compound 1080 in toxic 

collars. A submission to the Environmental Protection Agency in 

support of Registration of the sodium fluoroacetate Compound (1080) 

Livestock Protection Collar. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Denver, Colorado. November 15, 1984. 32pp. 

Burns R. J., .Connolly, G. E. and Okuno, I. (1986). Secondary 

toxicity of coyotes killed by 1080 single-dose baits. Denver 

Wildlife Research Center, USDA/APHIS. Proc. 12th Vertebrate Pest 

Conf, San Diego, California. p324-329. 

Burns, R.J. and G.E. Connolly 1992. Toxicity of Compound 1080 to 

Magpies'and the Relationship of Dose Rates to Residues Recovered. . 

USDA, Denver Wildlife Research Center. Proc. 15th Vertebrate Pest 

Conf., Newport Beachli Ca. p403 (6) . Campbell, S. M., J.B. Beavers and J. Grimes 1994. Sodium 

fluoroacetate: A dietary LCs0 study with the Northern bobwhite 

(Unpublished Report. QA-297. Denver Wildlife Research Center, 

Denver, Colorado). 27pp. (MRID # 43210601) 

Campbell, S. M., J.B. Beavers and J. Grimes 1994. Sodium 

fluoroacetate: A dietary LC5, study with the Mallard (Unpublished 

Report. QA-298. Denver Wildllfe Research Center, Denver, Colorado). 

26pp. (MRID # 43210602) 

Collins, M.K.. 1993. Sodium fluoroacetate- Acute toxicity to 

bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) under static renewal 

conditions. SLI Report No. 93-7-4847. Performed by Springborn 

Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, MA. Submitted by U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Denver, 

Colorado. (MRID# 42961601) 

coliins, M. K. 1993. Sodium f luoroacetate- Acute toxicity to rainbow 

trout (Oncorhnchus mykiss) under static conditions. SLI Report No. 

93-8-4885. Performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, 

MA. Submitted by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, Denver, Colorado. (MRID# 42961602) 

Collins, M.K. 1993. Sodium fluoroacetate- Acute toxicity to 

Daphnids (Da~hnia maana) under static conditions. SLI Report No. I 

L 

, 
93-78-4844. Performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, 

MA. Submitted by U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service, Denver, Colorado. (MRID# 42961603) 

Connolly, G. E. 1980. Use of Compound 1080 in livestock protection , 

collars to kill depredating coyotes; 'A report on the field and 

laboratory research. November 1978-March 1980, U. S. Department 

of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife 

Research Center, Denver, Colorado. 

Dana, R. H. 1971. Vertebrate pest control in California. 

Unpublished mimeo. rep. California Dept. of Agriculture. 14pp. 

David, W. A., and B.O. Gardiner. 1966. Persistence of 

fluoroacetate and fluoroacetamide in soil. Nature. 209: 1367- 

1368, 

Hegdal, P. L.,, T.A. Gatz, K. A. Fagerstone, J. I?. Glahn and G. H. 

Matschke. (1979). Hazards to wildlife associated with 1080 baiting 

for California ground squirrels. 

Hilton, H. W., Q.H. Yuen, and N.S. Nomura. 1969. Absorption of 

monofluoroacetate-2C ion and its translocation in sugarcane. 3. 

Agric. Food Chem. 17:131-134. 

Hudson, R. KO, R. K. Tucker, and M. A. Haegele, 1984. Handbook of 

toxicity of pesticides to wildlife, 2nd edition. U.S. Dept. of 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 153, 

Washington, D.C. 90pp. 

, Knowlton, F.F., and S.M. Ebbert. 1991. Develop physiologic markers 

to identify coyotes that kill sheep or goats. (Unpublished report 

to the EPA - QA-090) USDA/APHIS, Denver Wildlife Research Center, 

Denver, Colorado. 27pp. 

Savarie, P. J., Burns, R.J. and Zemlicka, D.E. (1990). Sodium 

fluoroacetate (Compound 1080) contamination on the necks of lambs 

with Livestock Protection Collars (LPCs) that are killed by 

coyotes. Unpublished report by Denver Wildlife Research Center, 

USDA/APHIS/S&T (QA-65). 227 pp. (MRID# 41514901). 

TAMUS (Texas A&M University System). 1983. Efficacy of the 1080 

toxic collar as a predator damage control method. Final report to 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Cooperative Research Project 

No. 14-16-0009-81-934, September 1, 1980- June 30, 1983. 

Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas Agricultural 

Experiment Station. Data report submitted to the Environmental 

Protection Agency to support modification of .the Texas A&M 

University System, College Station, TX. 134 pp. 

USDA/APHIS, 1986. Unpublished Report entitled: Residues of sodium 

fluoroacetate (1080) in coyotes and on the necks of sheep due to 

the use of large (60ml) compound 1080 livestock protection collars. 
\ - 

- F 

Denver Wildlife Research Center, Denver, Colorado. A data report to 

support the registration of the 60 ml collar. Laboratory and Pen 

Studies. September 1985- January 1986. 10 pp. 

USDA/APHIS, 1991. Correspondence from P. Joseph, summarizing the 

infbrmation on the use of the Compound 1080 Livestock Protection 

Collar during FY-1988, 1989, and 1990 in five western states. 

c 

USDA/APHIS, 1991b. Correspondence from P. Joseph, validating 

results of report entitled "Sodium fluoroacetate (compound 1080) 

contamination.on 'the necks of lambs with Livestock Protection 

Collars that are killed by coyotes. (MRID # 41514901) 

USFWS, 1984~ Formal Section 7 Biological Opinion regarding 1 year 

extension of experimental use permit for the 1080 toxic collar in 

Idaho, Montana and Texas. (6704-EUP-14). (FWS/OES EPA-84-3) 5pp. 

USFWS, 1985. Formal Section 7 Biological Opinion on the 1080 

livestock protection collar. Region 6 (6-RO-85-001) 18pp. 

USFWS, 1986. Letter from Allan J. Mueller, Acting Field Supervisor 

Division of Ecological Services, Houston, Texas to Roger Mulder, 

Regulatory Division, Texas Department of Agriculture, regarding 

endangered species use restrictions for Texas. 

Ward, J. C. and D.A. Spencer. 1947. Notes on the pharmacology of 

sodium fluoroacetate-compound 1080. Journal of the American 

Pharmaceutical Association. 36(2): 59-62. 

\ 

C 

. 

I 
Technical Bulletin . . .. ... . . '. . ;. . . ..-..... , ......... .,. .... .a ..-. ..; ... .,: .,....... ... .,. .. ;- . ..-'.. .-;., : 1 .:....... . :; -,: ....... :@i: . . . .- . for 'the ' 

.- . , . . .. i . '.j. ...? -. . sodid ~liicit-&.c=tatk '(d , . . . . - -. .... 

Livestock Protection Collar 

-. ... - .. .... , . %. 

. 

EPA ... Registration Numbe . . . ., . . . 

. . ... .............. : -... . . . . 
- Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collar ....... ..., \ .....? :\.a*,.' ". ,.: . * ...... .:.. ....'.. ":. .... ...-. . . . ........ .re ...... .s.,.. -...a .: ...... -:,. .... . z.. . ....... .@-.. . . . 

iP . . . . 1.' .. . . 

. . ........... . . . z .: . . . . ..... ... :.. ...I... ... ... . . . . . . 

........ .... ..... .... . . -.. 

. . ... ... ......... . . . . 

. . ..,. : . :.. DON~T ., -..in : -. . , .............. _. ... . . ._. -. . . . . : .. . . : .. . . . . 

-- waste time by placing collared animals where coyotes 

wonlt attack them 

, 6 -- use collars if your livestock can be protected more 

easily or economically by other measures 

-- use so few collared animals that coyotes won't find 

them 

--. use more than 20 collars in any-100-acre or smaller 

. . . pasture, .or more than -50 ,.colKars p.er section. (640. 

acres) of pasture (see'page 18) 

a -- use collars on unfenced, open range (see page 14) 

-- use collars where their use is prohibited to protect 

endangered wildlife (see page 16-17) 

-- use collars without required authorizations from the t 

(i Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Office 

(see pages 16-17) 

-- use contaminated animals for food or feed (see page 

18) 

-- use leaking or damaged collars 

-- remove toxicant from collars 

, 

... , -, -c I 

.-r . . 

.-, . 3, + ,,. ... 

,. 0. 

.... 

. . 

3 ,c.7/91) . , 

. . 
- Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collar 

The Livestock Protection Collar (LP Collar), invented by Roy 

M.cBri.de of Alpine, Texas, exploits. the coyote's .habit Qf 

k'illing sheep and goats by bites to the throat (photo 1). . 

As described.'in McBridefs U-S, Patent No'. 3,842,806 (issued 

in. 1974).;. coyotes.'that .attack collared livestock--usually. .... 

bite through the collars and .reiceive 'oral* doses of the 

contents. When used with a toxicant such as sodium 

fluoroacetate (Compound Y080), LP Collars kill the attacking 

coyotes. Collars may be used only by specifically certified 

LP Collar applicators or persons under their direct supervision (see Section 11. 2). This Technical Bulletin is part 

of the EPA-approved labeling and contains detailed 

instructions for safe and effective use of LP Collars. 

. Coyotesf attacking and feeding behaviors do not seem to be 

affected.by ,the presence of LP Collars. Attacking coyotes 

. usually kill and feed :-up~n. :col;lared animals. just. as they . . 

would'if no collar were present. ~fter' a lethal dose of 

sodium fluoroacetate (compound 1080) has been ingested, 

R symptoms of intoxication typically do not appear for 2 or 

more hours. Death occurs from 2 to 7 hours (average 4 hour 

20 minutes) after the collar is punctured. 

When LP collars are used properly, coyotes may puncture them 

in 75 percent or more of their attacks, A 100 percent 

t 'puncture rate is unlikely to be'achieved because coyotes 

sometimes attack body sites other than the throat (photo 2). 

Effective use of LP Collars requires not only that collars 

be positioned correctly, but also that coyote attacks be 

directed or targeted to collared livestock. Targeting may 

be difficult or impossible under\ some conditions, If 

coyotes are killing less than once per week, the collar 

technique may be impractical. Collars are recommended for 

ranches with high rates of coyote predation and management 

conditions that permit effective targeting of predations to 

collared livestock. ...... a,. ... ~x~erienced persons usually can evaluate local conditi'ccs ' ...... quickly to decide whether or not LP collars will be . . . . effective. In addition to the basic problem of targeting,, .... other factors to consider in deciding whether or not to use . . 

collars include availability and effectiveness of othat"'. 

control methods; costs of collars; labor requirements to" ...... 
. The LP Col1ar.i~ a rubber bladder that contains a solution. 

of Compound'1080, with neck straps forattachment.to a sheep 

or goat. The type of collar used most up to 1985 has two 

.velcroR neck straps (0.75-.inches wide and 22-24. inches long 

on new collars). ~hree-strap models also are available and . . are.intended for use 6n goats; Each collar has two toxicant 

...... reser~obqs. that :contain 15.0. .mg . (0.; 15. grams), of sodium . 

/ fluoroacetate (active ingredient),. ~ach collar contains a 

total of 300 mg (0.3 grams) of sodium fluoroacetate (active 

ingredient) . 

6 LP Collars of two sizes have been developed (photo 3), but 

the large collar has not yet been approved for field use. 

The small collar is intended for lamb,s and kids weighing 

from 25 $0 50 pounds. LP collars are not recommended for 

small animals (under 25 lbs).. A small collar, properly in 

place on a lamb, is shown in photo 4. 

. . ... . . . . ... . . ' D . MANAGMENT OF LP COLMS '*ON ' SHEEP AND ' GOATS 

.t 1. Things to do before putting LP collars on livestock: 

a. Be sure you have enough LP collars (see 

Section E). 

b. Inspect all LP collars for leaks and inspect 

straps to be sure they are securely attached. Do 

not use leaking or torn collars (photo 7) or 

collars on which the straps are coming loose 

(photo 8). Loose straps may be reattached by 

sewing. 

c. Check the fence around the pasture where collared 

animals are to be placed and repair as necessary 

to keep animals within the pasture. 

d, Establish locations for warning signs (Appendix 

B), and be sure you have enough signs (see use 

restriction 10). ,,,..I 

a '. . a' *' ' .. , * 

e. Inform neighbors of your intent to use LP ColLars ":": . , 

and advise them of the potential hazards tq-, *, .a,.. 

free-roaming dogs. .a . . ..... 48.4 

a 

,.a. 

..a,. 2 

. . 
. . 

~om~ound . - 1080 ~Lestock Protection Collar . . .... . . . . . . . ..... ....... . .. ..i*. ...; L .. . : .. ,-:*< 1.; .;a. ........... .!..' ,...y2f.<:;- ...... ;.!,,.*- ... :. ..,..-,.. : ..... 

..-4... .. -... ..:. -8.- ... .... ... . . ....... 3 :., i. ' 

. .. . .- .... . enough that the .applicator can insert .2 fingers ... : . . -, 

... . . .... "bekween 'the ptrap aria the ariiniai. . Collars stay . 

in place well on animals with wool or mohair, but 

may be difficult to keep in position on newly . . . . ..... shorn' or ~ldc~necked animals, parti'cularly goats ' 

- (photo 11). Head and neck conformation varies . among., animals and it may be impossible to .keep . . . . .... . . -. collars in place on same individuals. They - 

should be taken out-of the collared flock. _.. : . . . . - .. - ..... ..... . . . , . .-. . . .- .-.. ...... .....- . i. ...... .. :. -.- . . d. A* suitable hiithod of pt&anentlk. identifying 

individual animals in a target flock is required 

to keep track of LP collared livestock. One such 

method is the use of numbered ear tags. Tags 

4 that can be read from a distance of 50 feet or. 

more are most useful (photo 15). If you are 

using ear tags, attach them before the animal is 

collared. 

.. e. When the LP collar is in place, release the . , , animal into a. corral or other confined area and 

... . .- .observe it carefqlly, Listen .for labored '.- . . breathing that may indicate the collar is. too ' 

tight. When first released, collared sheep and 

3 goats often shake their heads, rub or-make other 

attempts to rid themselves of the collars. This 

behavior will stop within a few hours if collars 

are not too tight. After you are satisfied that 

the collars are properly attached, move collared 

animals to the desired location. 

I@ f. Place warning signs at logical points of access 

(see Section 11. 10 and Appendix B). 

g. After handling LP Collars, wash your hands with 

soap and water. 

3. Monitoring LP collared livestock 

a. Once LP collared animals are in the desired 

location, the pasture should be checked every 7 

days or more often if frequent predation is 

expected. During each check try to 1ocate.eqqh :-la. 

animal and observe collars to be sure the~'~Rs'in ' 

position. If the collar has slipped out of .. ,, . 

a a position, catch the animal and reposition ws ..... a,, 

collar. Inspect each animal's neck for ye2lossr ,,... 

dye, which could indicate a punctured or lea-g 

collar. If dye is seen, catch the animal aha' .111.1 

, , '. 
. . 

- .- Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collar ... . . . .- ...... ... i 

... ::,,', :e .....I 4.. ..+ ... ; .......'.'.I.. ... . ..:;.,. .. ..; <...:-; .... ,-., ......... ;., . *.... ............... ;. .J. ......:..... .. . . . . ... 

. . ... have .been..cariied. or d~agged away by qoyo,tes. . ... ... , ." :~onie were ' Pound as far .as half. a mile away f rem . . 

kill sites, but about half of the missing collars / 

... were neyer recovered. Coyotes, spmetimes,cache . (hid'e *or bury) 'them. ' Whenever a collar is 

missing, make a reasonable effort to find it. 

.... See Section IT. 11. . . ... 

f. '1f'you see an animal that you think may have been ... i .... .... ,paisoned,: report it. pr.omptLy .to.'the .,a.ppropriate. ... regulatory agency': Any suspected poisoning of 

threatened or endangered species must be reported 

immediatelv. See Section 11. 6. 

6 4. Handling LP collars and contaminated,animal remains, 

vegetation, clothing, water and soil. 

a. The toxic solution in\the LP Collar contains a 

yellow dye, tartrazine, which is used as a marker 

for the presence of 10.80 on punctured, damaged or . broken collars; on clothing, animal remains, 

... . vegetation, .' so.il., .or other. mate.rials ; and in . 

water. Always use waterproof gloves when 

handling collars or any materials known to be 

contaminated by 1080. 

b. Inspect carcasses of LP collared animalsto 

1 determine the cause of death. When the carcasses 

are fresh (within-24, hours after death), coyote 

kills usually are obvious (photo 17)- Remove 

punctured collars carefully and examine the 

punctures. Holes made by coyote teeth usually 

can be 'distinguished from accidental punctures. 

When collars are punctured by cactus thorns, the 

thorns sometimes remain in the holes (photo 18). 

c. If the LP collar was punctured, remove it 

carefully to minimize leakage and place in a 

leakproof plastic bag or other container for 

transport to your disposal site. If necessary, 

doublebag to prevent leakage. Examine the 

carcass for contamination as indicated by yellow 

dye. Cut away the contaminated parts for .. disposal along with the punctured collar. 'g9e' 

Section 11. 12-13. . Dispose of the remainder-of 

the carcass using your normal practice. Cnt.or 1 

dig up contaminated forage and soil and plbc~ 

them in a leakproof container for transport. to 

the disposal site. 
Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collar .. .... . . ... . I .; .-...... ." ',, I..,. .-.. .' *. .-,* 0.:. : ..... 3 ..\ ... .:.; ...,,I ... ..,: .... .;.\: ........ ; ...... .;. .; :.:. ......... I' .. .I. .. . - -.. 

. . . . Incineration may:.be used instead qf burial for .'. . . disposal . in .the f Zeld (pref ekably. on pkoperty ' . - ' 

owned or managed by the applicator) at least 5 

mile from.human habitation and-water supplies. . . . Place .collars and wastes (listed above) in an 

incinerator or refuse hole, saturate with diesel 

. . fuel, and ignitp. Attend. the burp until the 

contaminated material is completely tonsumed. 

... . - ..... . ,AlternativeJy, contact .your- State Pesticioe or .. . 

.... ,. . ~mrironhental control ~~ency .'& .the Hazard Waste . 

representative at,the nearest EPA Regional Office 

for guidance in disposing of wastes at approved 

hazardous waste disposal facilities. 

6 b. When snow or frozen ground make on site disposal 

impractical, up to one cubic foot of wastes may 

be stored in a leakproof container, in a dry, 

locked place for up to 90 days. 

a_. . E. DIRECTING .COYOTE PREDATION TO LP COLLARED LIVESTOCK 

-. .. ... ....... ...

1. General comments 

The orocess of directing coyote predation - - to LP collared 

of targeting ---- 

-- livestock is called - -- - - targeting. Knowledge 

is in its infancy and should improve as more people gain 

experience with LP Collars. Three different approaches 

or tarqeting straxegies are described here. Ranchers and 

predation control specialists are encourac led to apply 

these methods as necessary to achieve the Desc resulLs 

in their own circumstances. 

2. Targeting Strategies 

Place LP coilars on vulnerable livestock. 

Collaring all sheep or goats on a ranch would 

solve the targeting problem. This strategy has 

not been tested due to the cost of collars and 

the large number that would be required in large 

flocks (over 100 animals). Nevertheless, in 

small flocks (50 or fewer animals) it may be 

practical to collar all the. lambs or kids, In 

flocks with 50 to 100 lambs or kids, it may.& 

worthwhile to collar the smallest 20 to 50 . individuals. Do not use more than 20 coll?.rs in 

any pasture under 100 acres, or more than'50. 

collars per square mile of fenced pasture., 
Compound 1080 Livestock Protection collar ... . . .... ....... . . ... x$ e...:. q2. .. ............. ..I.. .'. ...................... 'I :.:.. :'. ............... i,:., ... ..:; . ... -.. . - .... .... .I . . 

Placina.collars where red at ion is t~o~infreauerit. . . . . C 

In' one.:such .case'i coliakeii :sgeep were' exposed for . - 

four weeks during which no predation occurred. he 

users then lost. interest and r.emoved the callars. ... 'There. wks .no further.'pr&dation on 'this ranch for 

several months. Collars cannot be used effectively 

where there is little or no predation. . . . 

c.. . Usins taraet flocks that are too small. In a. . Man.tana .-$rial;. 'Six, -LP-collared: lambs were. .placed. in ...... 

a 640 'acre pastuee.' coyotes passed through.tkie . 

pasture without finding the collared animals and 

then killed sheep from a large flock in an adjacent 

pasture. The larger the flock, the more likely it 

2s to attract coyotes, The optimum size for target 

flocks has not been determined, but pastures of 100 

acres or more should probably contain at least 50 

head. 

d. ; usins taraet f 1.ocks. that. are. not suff icientlv . . isolated.from uncollared livestock. On one small ... . . ... . . farm,: .a. group. ~k. ewes, and. LP.: .collared lambs .was: . . . . 

e~posed~while other sheep.onethe place were penned 

each night, Instead of killing in the collared 

e flock, coyotes switched to a neighbor's unprotected 

flock half a mile away. With small farm flocks, 

a,djacent land owners may have to work together to 

achieve effective targeting. .- 

e, Usina small collars on larae shee~ or soats. When 

small LP collars are used on large sheep or goats, 

0 the throat region is inadequately covered (photo 

10). Coyotes frequently kill these animals without 

puncturing the LP collars. .. 

. f. Attachina collars im~ro~erlv or insecurelv. When LP 

collars are attached improperly, or they slip out of 

position (photo 13), coyotes will kill these animals 

but are unlikely to puncture the collars. LP 

collars in proper position are shown in photos 4, 5, 

6, 11 and 16. 

g. Placins collars on sick or cull animals. Placing 

collars on sick or cull animals in an effort to 

avoid sacrificing more valuable livestock may be 

false economy, as coyotes may_not attack ill cr 

lethargic animals. Collars should be used only &n 

animals of the size and kind that coyotes have'been 

killing locally. 

11 (7'1~1) 
-. - 

Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collar .. -. .. ... .... ....... . ...... . . . . . .... ...... . ....... -. ;; .. : . -. ..: ............ . . ,. -. %b <'.. :-:a;. .?.-...-:. . . -. ......... .,.* ,...- ,--:. -.:: .:-..: . . ... . . ...'...'- : :..: 

-1 . " 

'. .' '87 . 

.. -. .... .... .a - . . a.............. .. ... :(dl Instructions on .record keeping.. 

. . . ... ....... . . -. .... . . - ... ,... ." . . .' . . . 

4. ~egistrants or thei; agents shall' keep recbrds df all , .. ..: . . ... . . collars sold or transferred at their address of record. 

.Records shall- include the name, addreb~, Ltate where I;P . 

Collar certification was issued, certification number of 

-each recipient, and dates,and numbers of collars sold or 

transferred. . . .. . 

. . . - 

.:.. -5. ~ach. .applichtor:..s.hlJ. keep .r@cor.ds. deaiing with the use 

'OX. LP COI.I*S arra the.rGsdlts of such. ibe; R;?&M= .-: 

.-......... . . _. 

shall be maintained in accordance with appropriate State 

or Federal regulations but for not less than two years 

following disposal or loss of collars. Such records 

C shall include, but need not be limited to: 

(a) The number of LP collars attached on livestock. 

(b) The pasture(s) where LP collared livestock were . placed. , .($) The dates of each attachment, inspection, and . . removal. . 

. . .. ... (dl.. The nflmbe-r and .locations of livestbck, found with. . _-. .. - - ruptured or punctured LP. .collars ..ande the appargnt 

cause of the damage. 

(e) The number, dates, and approximate location of LP 

collars lost. 4 

(f) The species, locations, and dates of all suspected 

poisonings of humans, domestic animals or - non-target wild animals resulting from LP collar 

use. 

6. Any suspected poisoning of threatened or endangered 

species must be reported immediately (within three days) 

to the Environmental Protection ~gency), as will each 

suspected poisoning of humans, domestic-animals or 

non-target wild animals. 

7. Only the registrant or collar manufacturer is authorized 

to fill LP collars with 1080 solution. Certified 

applicators are not authorized to fill LP collars. 

Compound 1080 solution may not be removed from collars 

and used for any other purpose. 

. 0 C I. - Fa. I 

a 

- + C 

'~obert A. Forrest (PM-14), Registration Division (H-75?5- 

C) , EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. 

13 (7/ 91) 

......... ,. ' .*.-:- r.:.: ......... :.-.. ............ ;..$ .... .r ....-. ,+ ...... ..i-. ,-.._ t.., -- - - - .. . -'I 
g-y - 

v' 

Compound 1080 Livestock protection Collar ... ... . . . '. . . . . ..-.. .r.: ... . ........... .,.. r .:, ....... ,... ... '.:.....' ... r.:.. ..,.....-.:. a:;. .a.m.... 

. r .. . .,' .:. -. .a. .-.:. . . .. . . If. more than nine (9) LP colsars are unaccounted for '-: - duling,'.any"60 day perfed, re-eve. a,ll collars from. . . :' .. '.. .: ..: .. - animals and terminate their use. Do not resume use .... ........... until adequate steps have been.taken.to prevent further., .... ... -- excessive Xoss df collars. ' .' ' ' 

12. . . ~amaged,' punctured, or leaking LP collars shall be 

rehoved from the field-for repair or pro@er.disposal.; 

Damaged collars shall be placed individual1y:in 

leakproof -.cont.ai.r?ers :whsle .awai.ting repa.jr, .or pr~per&. .a.s... .... ....... ..... ... -, disposal. ~uthorized. colltar repairs are limited' to . 

minor repairs of straps and fastenings- Leaking or . punctured collars must be properly disposed. 

.@ 13. Dispose of 1080 wastes (punctured, leaking, or otherwise 

unrepairable LP collars; contaminated leather clothing, 

animal remains, wool, hair, vegetation, water, and soil) 

under three feet of soil,' at a safe\location, preferably 

on property owned or managed by the applicator and at 

- ... . least 1/2 'mile. from 'human habitations and water . . . supplies. No more than 10 collars may'be buried -in any 

:.. one hole., If buried .in a.trench,. each group of 10, .. . . . . . . . . .. ' collars musf be .at least. i.0 feet . apart .' ' 

.Y Incineration may be used instead of burial for disposal 

in the field (preferably on property owned or ,managed by 

the applicator) at least mile from human habitation 

and water supplies. Place collars and wastes (listed 

- above) in an incinerator or refuse hole, saturate with 

diesel fuel, and ignite- Attend the burn until the 

contaminated material is completely consumed. 

fk Alternatively, contact your State Pesticide or 

Environmental Control Agency or the Hazardous Waste 

representative at the nearest EPX Regional'Office.for 

guidance in disposing of wastes at approved hazardous 

waste disposal facilities. 

When snow or frozen ground make on-site disposal 

impractical, up to one cubic foot of wastes may be , ,, 

stored in a leak-proof container, in a dry, locked p!.ace ' 

for 90 days. , . 

8 

Metal Container: Triple rinse contaminated and . 

uncontaminated containers with water. Puncture and 

dispose of contaminated container and rinsate as a~ove. ,, 

t Plastic Container: Triple rinse with water. Thel~. 

puncture and dispose of container and rinsate as abovre. 
1- U- Y A 

Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collar . . . . ... ..... - .. . . . . . - ........ . ... : ...... -. " :..; . ": .. :.' hi... ". ....... A*. ...:-is-, ... :...a .,I,:.. '.: ....... .". :.-.. ';.'<,?'::.'.; "". ..._... ..... ... 

Michigan. .... Keweenaw. (Isle Royal) and .Twin Cities, .......... .:.. :.' ..entire. Up Peninsula .: .... : ~innesota ....a. . * 

. . *. . . . . 

.3 612-725-3576 

. . . . win :cities -. :. .,. - Hin'rlesota '. . itk kin) .Becker, ~eltramk, .- - 

Carlton, Cass, Clearwater, Minnesota .. Cook, Crow Wing, Hubbard, 612-725-3576 . .' ....... .... ltasoa,' Kittson, 

. . Koochiching; Lake, Lake of ... . . ... .... ... .the..Woods, 'Mahno~en; . . . ............. . . .... ... . ' ... .... .,_.*_., . . ... - .~arshali; ' ~krinin~tori," pihe', . . . . . 

Roseau, and St. Louis 

Montana Beaverhead, Carbon, - Helena, Montana 

Flathead, Gallatin, '~laci=r, 406-449-5225 8 Lake, Lewis and Clark, 

Lincoln, Madison, Missoula, 

Park, Pondera, Powell, 

Sanders, Stillwater, Sweet 

Grass, and Teton ..... ....... .. - , .- - . . -. I . . 

... . 'washington . ' end Oreille, Oenogan . ~'oise, ' Idaho . . ' ... 

... ... . . .(. . {~ati'onal' and ore st '-' " '20'8-334-1806 

Land), Skagit, and Whatcorn 

Wisconsin Douglas, Florence, Lincoln, Twin Cities, - 

Oneida, and Price Minnesota 

612-725-3576 

Wyoming Fremont, Park, and Teton and Helena, Montana 

Yellowstone National Parks 406-449-5225 

- (1 

- - -. 

". 

.... 

\ . .