Notice of Hearing on the Application to Use Sodium Fluoroacetate ...

-0
UEl iTE3 STATES €ti'/ i?O!iPii#TAL PROTECTIOH -. ih=.\lCy
In the /4atczr <strong>of</strong> ,)
3EFlzRE -YE J,~)iI~ISP~JTC?
Noticc <strong>of</strong> <strong>Hearing</strong> 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) <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> sodium
fl uaroacezare (Cs~pound 1086) for the control <strong>of</strong> pr2dacors . The cr-oceodi na
4
was triggered by appi icacions i ~ regi r stration or erner2eccy sxempcicn dncer
Secs. 3 and 18 <strong>of</strong> the Act, fi led by the iish and 'riildl if. Ser.~ice <strong>of</strong> ih2
U.S. Oepartinent <strong>of</strong> Interior, and ihe States <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> <strong>Hearing</strong>, 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 is jeing concucwd under 3 2 Zules 9f ?mctic2
8
joverning hearin~s under
-
~ n 2 r2cer:i , Inszczicide, F~n~ic: ie 3r,d ?>acen?'c: 22
? ? *
Act (40 CF2 Part io~) and in ?articular Sujparz D ;?,ere<strong>of</strong>. 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 <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> due
diligence, have been discavered by rhe partiss ta tne
canc2llation or susgension proceeding prior TO che issuance
<strong>of</strong> the final order."
Paragraph 164.132(a) <strong>of</strong> tne Subpar: O rules orovides that ihe burden sf
pro<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> existing canceila~ion
or suspension order. The deternination <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> all past and
present uses, including the requested use, and uses which may
reasonably be anticipated to occur in the future as a result
<strong>of</strong> 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
3

- <strong>of</strong> the sus9ensi;n 2nd czncellation order must b$ 5ased on .vid?nc? not
.yai!?h?,l st the tim? <strong>of</strong> the scs~znsion arc! c~nce:i~ci~n xder 3f 7272,

-
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- <strong>of</strong> the Universi~y sf California, the forecoing
par-ci es referred to hersinafter as dyomi ng , et a1 . ; ;he States <strong>of</strong> 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, ~ n d Fam 3ureaus in che S~a~es
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> A~ri cul ture; Oef enders <strong>of</strong> 'ii 1 dl i ie ,
?lacionall IAucukon Soci ery , The Humane Society <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> :he Earth and Environmental
Defense Fund, herei naf tor referred io as Deienders <strong>of</strong> 'Ni 'I dl i i e , et 31 .
or Defenders; National Ni ldli fe Federation, hereinafter NNF; friends <strong>of</strong>
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.
<strong>Hearing</strong>s 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:
8 -
Fi ndi nas <strong>of</strong> Fact
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

;-,hat silch 108525 ~2r3 OR

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 <strong>of</strong> iamb numbers until docking ("is is
alnost always true in range iambing situazicns), producer estimatss
<strong>of</strong> losses to predators prior to docking mustbe viewed i ~ rth i 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
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> :he USDA has
been conducting ~ aI i surveys for inany years, hcwever, and must be
re~arded as expert in the conduct <strong>of</strong> such surveys. Yoreover, the
telephone and personal interview follow-up conducted with a sample
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ~ e s t statzs ~ r ~ and that its
purposs, that is, to obtain data supporting reversal <strong>of</strong> the decision
suspendi ng and cancell i ng regi strati ons <strong>of</strong> 1080 for grgdator control , Z
was we1 1 known. The resulting pub1 i ci ty and the ehocional cl imaie
surrounding the issue <strong>of</strong> prgdator control arz alizged to qave resulftd
-r l
in exaggerated claims <strong>of</strong> predation ioss2s. ine evid?nce, kowev2r,
does not establish thaz the purpose <strong>of</strong> ihe Gee survey was ca ab~ain
reregi s~ration <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ',{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 <strong>of</strong>
-
!z /
J 1
flowing blood, bits <strong>of</strong> wool and evidence <strong>of</strong> a struggle are indices <strong>of</strong>
5/ it is recognized that suffocation is the nornal cause <strong>of</strong> death
resulting from coyotes biting the necks or throats <strong>of</strong> shee? and goats
and that accordingly, blood flow may not be extensive.

?rodatisn >/el 1 4ncwn i3 enchers. In the qeat ra;ori:y <strong>of</strong> ins;znces
here i : d s cesn P O S ji ~ Q ~ 53 veri iy ~rzda~i~n i siies as recorxed
by ranchers, i: has Seen cetomined thac tha cause <strong>of</strong> loss ;qas
accuratzly reported. The assertion is mad2 that a sheep or lamb
dying <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> coyoses because cseth zarks
in the throat, characteristic 3 i 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
repor1 thei r IOSS~S, i ncluding 1 osses ?redatars.
4 I
I,
However, oec714-a ,A 4 A \-
most ranchers do not maintain accurate records oi the cause <strong>of</strong> losses,
their reports <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> time, which, in fact occarrcd In
another period. This would seem to be especially true <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> accurately
attributing losses to the period when the loss occurred.

.-.
sheep and lambs lost to ,/arious causzs. k e indic5~2d th2c his
report ~rovided reiiab12 indications <strong>of</strong> geographical areas and types
<strong>of</strong> operations having the most predation and that the total number
<strong>of</strong> producsrs affzcted was probably quite realistic, b~ause , most,
- 1 I
groducers wer2 alttarz <strong>of</strong> whether coyot~s werz pr2ying on their herds.
Gee, 2t al. stated, however, that numbers <strong>of</strong> sheep and lambs lost to
coyctes and numbers <strong>of</strong> procuc2rs with diffsrent levels ci loss
must be considered mor2 caut'ously becaus2 the besree <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> iamb losses actri bux-: 2
co pr2dation- For exanplz, in ?xczss <strong>of</strong> $5 percznz <strong>of</strong> ' 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the west's sheep ranchers,
.I

spor~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 i r ~ ~ ~ > ~ 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 7.9 percenc during the period 1560-71 to an average <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> lamr crop
have increased from an average oF 10.G perceni dur-ing in2 2erigd
1960-71 to an average <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
goars to predators as a percat <strong>of</strong> losses to all c3oszs hsve also
increased 1972. It does qpeay, however, that ?csses <strong>of</strong> gcats
to predarors decl rnea in Texas in 1981 .
13. Coyotss are by far the principle caus;! <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> dornescic dogs wnich hav? s~rayed frcm nearby
towns or communities .
Issue 2 - Zfficacy
14. The use <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> the difficulty <strong>of</strong> targeting predator attacks to collared animals.
1 Compound 1080 in single-lethal dose baits (SLDs) has not been
% -
utilized for the control <strong>of</strong> predation in the United States. Similar
baits containing strychnine, rzferred to as drop-baits, were
extensively utilized for that purpose prior to 1972. Because <strong>of</strong> the
concurrent use <strong>of</strong> strychnine baits and 1080 large-bait stations, it
.

A
~~;c-lt '.". tg L;--~-

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 <strong>of</strong> denning pairs <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> shoocin;
coyotes. Use <strong>of</strong> this method has increased significantly si nc2 the
-
1972 order suspending the use <strong>of</strong> toxicants far prlda~or concroi.
')Leather, c2rrai n and veger-ati ve cover may render aerial hunxi ng
i neffecti ve or drasti cai l j l ini t i ts es'?ec-,i veness . In sddi 11 on,
aerial hunting <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> steel leg-hold' traps is a traditional and
-
on2 <strong>of</strong> the most 2ffective rriethods <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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

inconclusive. ,& dis;jute ai c3 the detor-nination <strong>of</strong> coyots kii 1s
and lack <strong>of</strong> loss dar2 cast further doubt on the ou;corr,e <strong>of</strong> the
tests. Fioreover, i~i tnesses parti ci pati ng i n ;he t ~ t aclcnowl s edged
that the concentration <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> aversive condit'oning agenrs as a oethod <strong>of</strong>
?redator control has not been establ i shed. Such acenci \,vcu: d,
<strong>of</strong> course, requir? rqistra~ion by i?A.
22. Fi,iS has test?d.the us2 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>fered 1 i ttle 7rcrni se <strong>of</strong> lowering predation.
USDA has reached ess2ntial ly the same conclusion and has terminated
all tests <strong>of</strong> reproductive ichibitors. There is no other evidencz
in the - record as to the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> reproductive inhibitors
in reducing predation. While it i s contznded that termination <strong>of</strong> the
tests was premature, it is obvious that the whole theory <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> i iuesmck. Spponenrs <strong>of</strong> rne rzgi iiraci o~
oi 1083 dispure this zsiumption.
23. Tests <strong>of</strong> chcqical repellanis as a neans <strong>of</strong> reducing coyote pr?daxion
have been discsnxinuei by FWS and USDA as sflowing no pramise <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> deterring or
controlling pradation.
24. Guard dogs have apparently been used to protecx 1 ivestock from
predatsrs in Europe and Asia for hundreds <strong>of</strong> 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 T E diapse ~ from the xire <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> electric fencing in reducing predation. Evidence

. -
indicating er~?ctivzness <strong>of</strong> 2iecxric fmcing chizflj concorned
Ai zhougn aa\~anced
. ,
cnzrcjers have ken de\/el oger lt~h:
cn ni nixi zs :he
likelihood <strong>of</strong> vegecaticn shorring out such fences, it is clear tha;
el ectri c fencing i s nevertheless a high maintenance i tern. ??oreo\/er,
becaus2'<strong>of</strong> t2rrain and soil conditions it may be difficult or impossi b ie
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 <strong>of</strong> di ldi if?. In ;he laic
and final analysis, however, tne major linitations to exx2nsive use <strong>of</strong>
7 4.
fencing to sxclude czyotes are economic. i oizl cssts fzr ~he
construction <strong>of</strong> such fencing have been estimated to range bet~eon
$5 thousand co 510 chausand per mile depending cn :be xyps af
construction and cerrain. ,Azs~rzions chat ,he cosr <strong>of</strong> jucn fencins
could be arnorxiz?d over 3 seriod <strong>of</strong> years by ske iavinss frzm prldati on
losses are unrealistic and fail to consider how such co'nstrtictign
could be financzd in view <strong>of</strong> the thin margin upon which sheep
producers operace. There is evidence that r5nchers are hard-presszd
to maintain che fenc?s they have let alone ccnstruct new ones. It is
concluded that fencing is not an effective and economica11y feasible
a1 ternative method <strong>of</strong> predation control .
27. Penning or corral1 ing sheep and goats at night can be very effective
in reducing predation. It has no effect on predation that occurs
in the daytime and is confi ned to farm flock operations as i t i s
i,:prtic:ica: -:o 12:~ 1z;';e f:scki ,,-ids,- Fczje t:n$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 <strong>of</strong> 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- i t 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 <strong>of</strong> sheep in the Uniced Statzs has dzciin2d over the last
forty years, from a high <strong>of</strong> 56,574,000 in 1942 t3 3 law <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> wool being approximateTy cne pound annually <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the sheep
in the United States are raised in the 17 nost western <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> fifty or more stock sheep. These producers,
however, own nearly 93 percent <strong>of</strong> all stock sheep in the regicn.
Large scale producers with a thousand or more <strong>of</strong> stock sheep constitute
only 6 percent <strong>of</strong> the producers, but acc~unt for 63 percent <strong>of</strong> the
region ' s stock sheep.

-
3C. ix7ei-t tstiiccny from witnesses for "is Jroponencs <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> anixal product: per
acre, but tends to maintain the carrying capacity <strong>of</strong> the land in
tha-c sheep and goax can he1 p csniro! deeds 2nd brush ,' thus avoiding
the use <strong>of</strong> herbicides or expensiv? ~echanical xe~hcds <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ?nerg;/ in recen-r: years has i,~il;lroved the ?r,snornic c:rr;peci;ive-
A
ness <strong>of</strong> 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. W j messes for the proponents <strong>of</strong> lO8O r qi strati an a1 50 tzsti ii2d chat
areas sui tab12 for tre grazing <strong>of</strong> sheep and goats Iwere not being
usilized for that purpose because <strong>of</strong> predation or the f2ar there<strong>of</strong>
that was forcing the abandonment <strong>of</strong> many sheep or goat operations.
These witnesses asserted that young people wer2 no loncjer enwring
the sheep or goat business because <strong>of</strong> predation and that excessive
predation was a factor in lending insticutions being unwilling to
advanc? capita7 for such operations. The result <strong>of</strong> this situation
assert2aly includes alterations in the economy, decreased importance
<strong>of</strong> ?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 <strong>of</strong> rur31 fami l i~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 <strong>of</strong> operators raising sheep
and goats in argas suitable for that purpose.
-
32. !JSDA conducted a survey <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> tne four sIates, a1 though shorrag9 <strong>of</strong> good hired 1abor, lamb
and :vool prices and age <strong>of</strong> 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. I I I ~
number <strong>of</strong> sheep praduczrs declified by 12 percent in 1973, The par
fol lowing restrictions on the uie <strong>of</strong> toxicants, the greatest ,?erc?nta~e
<strong>of</strong> reduction since 1975. This declin? was followed 5y further
declines <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 1 ine with the number <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> toxicants as a means <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
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. ? ~ S S ~ in S 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 <strong>of</strong> 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
~OSS~S.
! -
3y ;qcreaj~d supply. T+e 2ifsc: !s to 3vorszats C C % ~ '
35. Whether an increase in supply <strong>of</strong> shes? and lamb would in fact rzsult
in a decrease in price depends on ~he s2nsicivify <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the
fact that only a minbrity <strong>of</strong> producers suffer gredation loss2s,

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 <strong>of</strong> 15 percenx dnd a rnduction in coyotz predation from
6.5 percent to 1.3 perc~nt would be a rzduction <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Colorado
State University, estimates have been made <strong>of</strong> the impacts on individual
producers <strong>of</strong> reductions in lamb losses to coyotes for prcduc2rs having
50G, 2,000 2nd 2,100 head <strong>of</strong> sheep, These calcuiations indicate
chat ror tne 536 snee+ oper*at:uri hcivlng C! reauction in lam^ iosses

<strong>of</strong> 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, <strong>of</strong>8 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 Safe:;/
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 <strong>of</strong> 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 S n w 3:s rcuzh, such a so-jsibilicy is
33. There is 3videnc~

- _ -.
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
. ,
x e ,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
<strong>of</strong> significant poisoning <strong>of</strong> non-target ~i 1 dl if? rzsui ti ng Prcm the
use <strong>of</strong> 1080 in toxic collars is r2mo~2.
51 . Exposure <strong>of</strong> SiD bai~s containing 1 C.80 t3 con-tarset ~,vi?bl i fe &?ends,
<strong>of</strong> course, on the rate <strong>of</strong> application and upon whether the baits
are covered. In this connection Souch gakota's application ~nvisages
a maximum <strong>of</strong> 10 SLD baits per square mile, ,Wontana's applicaticn
contemplatss 3 ?axinurn <strong>of</strong> 25 bai c; 3er square mile and ',Jycninc's
appl ication apparen~l y ccntmpl at$s that the number <strong>of</strong> bai cs wi 11 be
left to the discretion <strong>of</strong> the czrti fied appl ica~ors. \iidespread
appl ication <strong>of</strong> such baits would, <strong>of</strong> course, i ncr~ase their ~x~osure
to non-target species. While such zxposurs cculd .? reduced if the
baits were covered, covering <strong>of</strong> the baits increases the di ifi C U ty ~
<strong>of</strong> retrieving uneatened baits and <strong>of</strong> monitorins the use <strong>of</strong> such
baits. AST4 Method i-590 (1976) recovxnends that SLD baits be covered.
42. Because the use <strong>of</strong> 1080 SLD baits apprcved herein is upon the assumption
that such use will be limited and for the purpose <strong>of</strong> taking particular
depredating coyotes rather than as a coyote population suppr,ession
technique, the risk <strong>of</strong> non-target exposure under such circumstances
is considered to be minimal.
,

2 3
i I
43. ~ ~ Y S ~ 3f J - I Soor' Cisherits and Nild7if2 golicy, ?rior to he suspension
xas rhax fha mi nizun n~~ker nec2s;ary tz acP,< 2 ~ aff 2 3c~:~i? csyot?
management was 10 be placed. This was general ly incerprzred as
requiring or germicting the placement <strong>of</strong> not mcre than one station per
township. The guide1 inzs issued by the Burgau further sta~zd zhax ~ k e
use <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> baits plac2d declined in the years imiiiediat~ly
pressding the suspension <strong>of</strong> Compound 1080 in 1972, -here is evidenc2
that the number <strong>of</strong> bzi t stations pi;c@d in aar~icuiar 1 ocal 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> hi bernacion.
45. Large baits were to be treatsd at the rate <strong>of</strong> 1 .5 grams <strong>of</strong> 1680 per
1Otf pounds <strong>of</strong> bait. ' by usi l;g a syri nrj?
or meac pump 2nd making injecxions <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> cha a~propria~ amount <strong>of</strong> toxic solu~ion,
and because <strong>of</strong> .the field condi ti ons under lrihi ch -,he ba~ ts wer2
prepar?d, even distribution <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> non-target
species kere ninimal. Searches for target and non-tar3et animals,
however, were normally conducted only at the time <strong>of</strong> disposal <strong>of</strong> the
baits or the remains there<strong>of</strong> and such searches varied widely in scope
and int2nsicy. The characteristic latency period after the ingestion
<strong>of</strong> C~mpound 1080 makas it likely :hat a1 1 birds and animals poiscned
thereby ~ould not die in the imediate vicinity <strong>of</strong> the bait. Because

:A :-
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 1OGO for a csyote feeding on a properly
dos2d meat bait (treated at the ratr <strong>of</strong> 1.6 grms oer 100 pounds <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> only 1 .; ourices <strong>of</strong> bait aaterial ~reated
as indicated above, while a 150-pound man m,~ould cctzin an LCcO by

acmjnis:ta:ioo 15 ,I: 2 :si?,';ll.i bz!~ cr in ,%,a:?r ar.~
tavperatures xay :72~5?
-"
a ;reat eT72C; an ik2 :o~i;ii~
- .
-I--- ., c w cz I G
3 i Tb? 301SCn.
48. Atbough ssveral ~ii ~nesses izsti ii.21 322; nan-~ar~e: izecj 25, i zc: L G 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 <strong>of</strong> particzlar indl~~iduaii is not
generaily a sufficient basis for deterinifiing adverse irnoacts on tne
population <strong>of</strong> a s?ecies as a whoie and that ihere is no orllence
:ha: the population <strong>of</strong> 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, <strong>of</strong>
course be recognized tnac 3s 23 jcne species. 2 . ~ . i?e , Cd:if~rnia
Condor, loss <strong>of</strong> a single individual may be s*l--l , ;;;cip,nt to have an
adverse impact on the population <strong>of</strong> that spec;?s.
49. In tests conducted by the F,4S to evaluate primary hazards <strong>of</strong>
Compound 1080, dogs and magpies were allowed to f~ed on the
carcasses <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> active
ingredient 1080 in beef taliow baits each day for four consecutive
days. After administration <strong>of</strong> the third dose one <strong>of</strong> the eagles
showed symptoms-<strong>of</strong> toxicity, i .e., gross motor irnpsirnent, fluffed
feathers and loss <strong>of</strong> 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: <strong>of</strong> :he meat iodicated thac it conzained frsm
1.8 mg/kg to 3.1 mg/kg 1080. No discernible effects from this
consurnp~ion <strong>of</strong> meat containing 1080 were observed. The meat was
obtained from skeletal or nuicle tissue <strong>of</strong> the coyoies and it is
recognized thar rapcJrs ordinarily feed first an the viscera sf an
animal and that

svith electron captur-2 d2t?ctj~~ 3~6
. .
,T~SS s~?c~TcJIT,~~T:/, h2~2
0r.zi7 ?d

. 7 hi~her
1G60 resiaups :ban :vera found jn any coyote killed by punczilrjng
i. " . - t
~3xi c C C Izr, ~ 90 ;\/i G O ~ 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 <strong>of</strong>
secondary poisoning to non-target wildlife f~en use <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> ;he enz,me aconi ~ ase and deprives ~311 s <strong>of</strong> energy. This enzyme
inhibition resuits in tne blocking <strong>of</strong> the YrcS cycle, einicn sec3ndarib
blocks glucose metaboiizm, a lesser ecery ~rgducin~ process. 3;ockage
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> function and finally ce1lu:ar death. The breakdown in
intracellular processzs eventually rgsultj in the aopearanc? <strong>of</strong>
gross organ or organ system disorders. Death nay result from gr~dual
cardiac failure or ventricular iibri 11 ation, or progressive depression
<strong>of</strong> the central nervous system with either cardiac or respiratory
8/ Defenders emphasize the latency period from the time <strong>of</strong> ingestion
<strong>of</strong> log0 to the onset <strong>of</strong> toxic effects and the tendency <strong>of</strong> 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.

l 4
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 <strong>of</strong> fluoroc~tra~: have
Seen shown LO grow ncm,al?y for seven conchs acd hen to survive an
i ntraperi :onedl 4082-<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ~on<strong>of</strong>luor~acc~ac~ have increas2d :he cclerance <strong>of</strong> scme
speci 2s , e. g . , go1 den 2agl2s , rats, nice 5nd pcssi bl;/ rhes~s -nonA?ys.
gepeatod sub-lethal doses <strong>of</strong> inon<strong>of</strong>luorccitraie 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

18 ,
may be assams.j ha-, sini 1ar Aifficy: r?zs t~culd ze i.tcl;rred , I
-' 7 c
G? 7 1280 SLDs. , sess risks zrs real . I ne deci sicn rersi n, ncit*rever,
1 imi ts ~he use <strong>of</strong> 1280 SLSs to sovernmenr ernpi oyees and i z is
I1-e us2.
considered that this restriction subscantially reauczs ch,e ?ossibilicy
<strong>of</strong> mi suse. A1 though the record establ i shes chai here were riolations
<strong>of</strong> regulations and policies concerning the placement and disposal
<strong>of</strong> 1080 bait stations, it also establishes that regulations and
pol i cies re1 dt; ng- to, i .g . , coveri ng <strong>of</strong> strychni ne crcp-bsi ii and
removal <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>' such 1 arge-bai rs
is not, however, being approved by ;his ieci sion. Becausa

I
3 9
dr? 3n eii?t~ive 72rnad <strong>of</strong> 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~ ~ ~ 5 1 5
-.
sre nat inrencoa for she ;ur?ose <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the
1972 suspension and cancel lati on order i nvol v i 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 <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> predator cantrol for ihe removal <strong>of</strong> jarticular depredaiing
coyotes or foxes.
4. Among the concerns <strong>of</strong> the Administrator when the suspension and
cancellation order was issued was the impact <strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 non-
target 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 e ri 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 <strong>of</strong>
loss, which available a1 ternative means <strong>of</strong> ?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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> non-target species from the use <strong>of</strong> 1080 large-
baits 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 <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong> in these respects is clearly on the applicant. The
hazards <strong>of</strong> 1080 large-baits to endangered or threatened species are
clearly substantial. In view there<strong>of</strong> and in view <strong>of</strong> 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
c,ut>!zign .he berinfits and ~cdi fi caz'3n ~i ;h2 I ,?/L 2rcer ,di:i
resp9cz io tnis i;se <strong>of</strong> Coinpound YO80 is ncc reauired. Accard!ng;y,
the application for registration <strong>of</strong> Compound !C8O in large-bait
stations wi 11 be di sni ssed.
8. Although the use <strong>of</strong> Compound 1080 in smear posts as a means <strong>of</strong> predator
control was not considered in the 7972 suspension and cancellation
order, for all that appears snear ?osts arsalo int2nded for <
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 tt7ere<strong>of</strong> authorized by this decisi~n.
10. Substantial new evidence exists with respect to the use <strong>of</strong> Compound
1080 in ih2 toxic collar and in single lethal dos? (SLD) baits as
means <strong>of</strong> ?redator control and modification <strong>of</strong> :he 1972 order to
permit these uses <strong>of</strong> Compound 1080 for predator concrol i s required.
Because no party has argued that the Adminjstrator's det2rmination
that reconsideration <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> this opinion, no part <strong>of</strong> the
decision is dependent upon the validity <strong>of</strong> the ALJ's ruling thar the decis'cn
- e-,

. . .
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 <strong>of</strong> finality precludes consideration
<strong>of</strong> pre-1972 evidenca conc3rning fundamental issues such as the effectiveness
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> an antidot2 for scdium
cyanide, i s not precedent far io;:sl czraii cn <strong>of</strong> 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; t h l ~ ruling was ?raper, citing the rule
-
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 <strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> an effective antidote is aroncj the criteria
that may tripaer a Rebuttable Presurnotion Aqainst Registration (RPAR) in
accordance w ~ t h 40 CFR-152.11, it is clear that the lack <strong>of</strong> an antidote is
not in and <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ail antidote i; not 2 ;;;ci2? or
control1 ing finding dnd the decision in the M-44 proceeding would aimos~
cartainly have been the

I
ilpon :uhich tk 1972 order m i 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 o f pre-1972 evidence concerning the impact o f 1C80
on ncn-targst wi ldl iie. >!oreover, by focusing on the "newly 2iscovered
evidence" requirement <strong>of</strong> 164.131 (a), which is the requirement t o hold a
hearing , i nsuiii ci ent a tten~i on i 5 given to the 1 anguage <strong>of</strong> 15d. 7 32 (a)
providrng in pertinen: ?arr "The det~rnination <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> a1 l oast and presenz ~ ses , i ncl udi ng the requested --/-
US~, * * -. I' (emphasis suopl id). The cxrnulaiive effect <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the suspension and cancellation
order in 1972, the Agency has previously denied applications for registration
<strong>of</strong> 1080 and it is clear that applications deemed not meritorious may be
deniee i n accordance with 40 CFR 164.131 without a public hearing. This
provides ample authority to preclude the necessity <strong>of</strong> 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
the ro-opening <strong>of</strong> iss~es
1 , 8
csnsi2erza ~3 nav? been ?rcceriy bdetz.miced in
prior proceedi ngs. For 2xamp12, the ,Admi n i 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 <strong>of</strong> 1080 as a method <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> that proceeding. Accordingly, there can be no question, but
that evidence whether pre- or post-1972 is properly for consideration.
It has been contended that the testimony <strong>of</strong> Nr. Harry Loats, a
witness for USDA who sponsored a mathematical model projecting the
I

?ffzctiveness <strong>of</strong> Compound 1080 larg? 5ai: itaxions in retucing przda~or
iosszs <strong>of</strong> s?e$? 2nd ?ifer,ts on non-carset l dl i fe ~cpul a ~ ons i bas?< sn
data from the LS;! <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> rhe model and sugest2d additional questions for cross-
exami nation. Moreover, carefu 1 exami nati on <strong>of</strong> the transc7.i p t 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> r~dilcti~ns
, .
in ?redation ioss?~ 1,4i i 1
flow. Wyoming, the applicant for regi strztion <strong>of</strong> 1080 large-bai is, has
not established thac use <strong>of</strong> such baits reduces coyotz populations over
large areas or thzt reducrions in ?redator losses <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>-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 <strong>of</strong> the 1972 order with respect za 1C60 1zr:e-
baits is noc required 2nd me application for tne registrztion <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> one conciusiur~ iii a n . ths paitj: h;vl-:
the burden <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong> on that issue cannot prevail.

?roved. The lin~xed use <strong>of</strong> 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 - and scsncs can 22 S~TSC
L
' ~:ve i n 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 <strong>of</strong> lC80 in toxic collars and SLD baits as authorized herein are
sufficiently minimal hat broad prohibitions on their use +thin the
range <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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? <strong>of</strong>
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 ( 7 0 1 ~ ,
supra) as a means <strong>of</strong> ?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 <strong>of</strong> toxicants on Federal lands for predator control has
been revoked (47 FR No. 20, at 4223, January 27: 1982), no ~rohibici=n
<strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> toxic collars and SLD baits as authorized herein on Federal
lands is being imposed.

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 <strong>of</strong> iflt2flt to ~ 2 n ~ 2Gr i
suspend and chaz such a notice neczssarily ~ 2 che ~ 5 sczndard <strong>of</strong> r2hvance
7-1
for che conduct <strong>of</strong> he hearing. ine instant hearins is being conduct?d
18
under Section 6 <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> 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

-
granted .
Oated rhis 22nd day <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> predation.
-. 7 Efficacy I
Whetner use <strong>of</strong> lC8O in coxic callars, single-lethal dose ka? ts,
and/or 1 arge-baic i~3ii<strong>of</strong>is is 1 : kei y to rnduce preda-ign :
(a) in open -range grazing <strong>of</strong> 1 ivestocx
(b) in fenced pasiuro grazing <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 1960.
Whether non-lethal chemical methods <strong>of</strong> predator control, e.g., taste
aversion chemicals, reproduction inhibitors, and repel ldnts, are
effective.
whether husbandry practices, e.g., use <strong>of</strong> guard dogs, shed lambing, and
additional herders, are general ly effecti ve in reducing predati on .

'
th respect to a? 1 a? ternati ves to 1983 oi-?sjacid&s, !,qkea L I s~~ctory, 2. .g. , because <strong>of</strong> i cs ccsz or because <strong>of</strong> j inj tltjcns
on its us? 3i!e to characteristics o= t$e control method, ' .
!,li
is .
Nhat are the national, regional, 2nd local effects <strong>of</strong> predation on
the livestock industry and the general economy?
What impact would the avai labi 1 i ty <strong>of</strong> 1380 have on che pr<strong>of</strong>its 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 <strong>of</strong> 1 C8O l arcjebait
stations.
'dhether available data indicate that the risk <strong>of</strong> primary andjor
secondary poi soning was overestimated in 1972.
6. Human Saisty'
'Ahether US? <strong>of</strong> 1380 in toxic collars, SL3 baits, and/or larrje-
bait 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 <strong>of</strong> 1080 poi soni ng .
7. Use Restrictions
Whether prohibition <strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> 1C80 in the range <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 1080 was authorized would limit use <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> rhei r use <strong>of</strong>
1080, and i i so, wnac records.
Yhether other raszrictions waul a reduce risks wi thcut iubstan~;ai ?y
reuuc'ng oe~eii 2s.

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
Fttacnment 8

\1 . Environmental Safety
A. Exposure'
(1) Toxic Collars 131 - 13.1
8. Risks <strong>of</strong> Primary and Seccndary Poisoning
VI. aurnan Safety
(1) Primary - 135 - 136
138 - 123
i I
A. Physical Prdpercies <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> &;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 <strong>of</strong> 61
iwes and lambs per i;000 ewes, ' <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ;ne ewes,
4 to 5 percrnr <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
the Division <strong>of</strong> Wildlife Servic2s for the State <strong>of</strong> Utah during the
period <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> actual numbers <strong>of</strong> sheep lost and not
- 1/ Pursuant to a motion filed by counsel for EPA, which vas not
~nnnc~~j h;/ ?c;, nart.7, n

3ercentases. 3y civicing the to

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
<strong>of</strong> herds grazed. Secause rhe grazing s2ason Oi7 national forests
1 as"L on1 y two to thre~, ronths. <strong>of</strong> 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
w i ~ 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 <strong>of</strong> sheep 2s
<strong>of</strong> January 1 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the Nielsen-Curle data, the committee concluded tkat
nost operators experienced ininor losses in z2ms <strong>of</strong> percenIages (with
80 percent <strong>of</strong> the total falling in the two lowest classes), while only
a small fraction <strong>of</strong> the operators experienced heavy losses.

,-I =, al., zutilorzi a:] 3rr~icle "?r?datsr L C S ~ ~ I:: S 2ne - r 7 ~ ock <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the inventory, while losses co a1 1 causes averaced
-.,
9.27 percent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> a11 ;asses
averaged 36.30 percenx, the highest being Q2.14 3ercent in 1577 ana

- - 1 1--
, crp?::er :>rn rne .v?czc > , 3r~cu:ar csul 2i73ri. I , :zs
a;pdrenti;i not dsed in rnls arza ~ r i c r
- 1
n
1 rs - I Y , ~ , 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
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> totas1 losses, which )was quesiioned, becruse <strong>of</strong> ihe s~aristic.1
dis~ricution <strong>of</strong> predztion losses, i .e., only a small ~r3pcortion <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> the U.S. Department <strong>of</strong> 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

I I
I
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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the tots1 lamb deachs t3 all causes
and a faurrh <strong>of</strong> tne adulr sfieey dea-ths. Lanos were attacked mch
more than adult sheep, overall ios3es to coyot2s being 8 percen1 <strong>of</strong>
the lambs and 2-3 DePcent a? the sheep. Loss ratzs <strong>of</strong> 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!~
Dakota. Predation losses other than to coyo-ces, ccns~i:uzxi 2.3
percent <strong>of</strong> lambs and 0.9 perc2nt <strong>of</strong> sheep.
9. Gee, et a1 , rspcrt2d that lambs lost -co predators consti tuted
11 .4 percent <strong>of</strong> lambs born and 49.3 qercent <strong>of</strong> losses <strong>of</strong> lambs to
a1 1 causes. Adul t sheep lost to ?redaters totaled 3 :4 percent <strong>of</strong>
the January 1 inventory and constituted approximately 33 percent <strong>of</strong>

. .1

m 8
1974, the 1a"L~r based sn Gee, ?'i 31. i:.ie losses at~ributec zo
predation iiere 2.6 perc2nt <strong>of</strong> inventory in 197Q-71 and 2.8 ?ercznc
in 1972-73. These figures are to be compared with the 1.8 percent
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> lambs born
cotaledi 7.3 percent In 1968, 5.1 percent in 1969 and 17.5 percent in
1974. The rnajori ty <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> these figures a?pear in G?e, ec al., the source
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
stock sheep on hand as <strong>of</strong> 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

fron Sou~h CakotB Livestock and Poultry Lossss (1 370) . A tab1 e
compiled from USOA SRS datz showing lcsses <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 5.5 perc~nt in 1961
to a high <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> lambs docked ranged fron a ics,v <strong>of</strong> 7.3
percent in 1961 t3 a hi sh <strong>of</strong> 1 3.0 in 1971 , ere 12.3 percent in
1972, and ranged frsrii a low <strong>of</strong> 70.7 Fercenx in 1373 to 5 iiich <strong>of</strong>
1 '
12.4 7ercent in 1379, declining to 11.3 percent :n 19S1, Losses <strong>of</strong>
7 -7
sheep 70 a1 1 causss fcr th2 pars i ~ 1 thr~u~h
3 1185 sre :oi~er :b,an
for ti12 years 1965 througn 1972. A;~hougn he acknowledged that he
had no data on the percantage <strong>of</strong> lamb 1oss2s attributable to coyotzs,
Mr. Roger Pearson, Secretary <strong>of</strong> the South Gakota ge~art~ent <strong>of</strong>
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
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> larncs
born totaled 11.3 r !nt in 137? <strong>of</strong> which 5.3 percznt <strong>of</strong> iambs born
-. .
were lost ;o ~ 3 ~ 0 ~ 2ns i . i c3rresponds c:os21y with the 1i.d percan1
<strong>of</strong> 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 ~ Goat d OearS Losses and Xarkeiing ?ractices (1 372) ~ n l
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 <strong>of</strong>
lambs born <strong>of</strong> 12.3 percenx in 1976, 3.2 percent in 1977 and 11.9 Fercen:
in 1978. The losses <strong>of</strong> adult sheep as a percent <strong>of</strong> scock sheep ore
year or eider on ?and is <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> STGC~ sheep in 1374..
17, The Wyoming Crop and Livestock Reporting Servics has col izcr2d and
reported data on the perc~nt <strong>of</strong> lambs docked lost to coyotos sincc
1965. This data as compiled by Mr. Littauer s h ~ a s 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 <strong>of</strong> lamos born <strong>of</strong> 11.7 perc?n:
in 1974, <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> stack
sheep on hand as <strong>of</strong> January 1 <strong>of</strong> 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.

;4r, iaryy 3g~rr?~, 3f T ~ ~ I C - ~C'/ST?.r;i2n3 ^.
n ,--= , 21 . l'S IZf ,!;e t
13
4-/GRl , ng
=am ?breau Fe~eriticn, a i ~ x e ~31~7: r ssi3ner ~f ti8 ,>ijczir~
Pepar'xen: <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ?,9 1,300 by the cumula~i~/e
inven~ary during :ha; oeriod <strong>of</strong> :S,CdS. 00, he arrived at an average .
loss rare <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> January 1 <strong>of</strong> each year. This stock sheep inventory is
exclusive <strong>of</strong> 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 C S ~ ~ 53 S 1 am58
as r@por~ed by ~ne :

c3yo12s lere 25.8 perceni <strong>of</strong> tstal losses.
27. Or, Llarwin llielsen, Pr<strong>of</strong>2ssor <strong>of</strong> Economics at U t ~ 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> docked idmbs
to predation <strong>of</strong> 3 percent or more, wni le low loss ranchers e,xoeriencsd
preda~ion lasses <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> low
loss ranchers experiencing no predation losses, that he did not know
whether the ranchers involved had records <strong>of</strong> 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 hdt 16 percent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Shesp Prodacion in Scuchwes~srn ]:an"
atx2mp~2d to veri fy predation 1 ~ S S ~ on S 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 <strong>of</strong> lambs in 1375 was lass chan
half <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the Stace <strong>of</strong>
Utah or <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 8.2 percent in 1966 to a high <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> farm fl ock production, was conducted by psrzonal i nhrvi ~w
and included a sample <strong>of</strong> producers having from lG0 to ,500 brzading 2wes.
Coyotes were r~pcrt2d to have accountsd for 5.6 percent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Agricul t u x and a witness in this proczeding,
pres~n ted data purpo~c2dl y s 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 <strong>of</strong> death2 <strong>of</strong> lmbs minus percentages <strong>of</strong> deaths <strong>of</strong>
sheep as report2d in USCA s statistics showing inveniaries on hand
as <strong>of</strong> January 1 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> lamb deaths increases faster
than the percentage <strong>of</strong> sheep deaths. He concluded that lamb and
sheep deaths from predation acount for a much greater percentage <strong>of</strong>
3/ Although Dr. Terrill stated at the hearing that he represented
the Aiierican Society <strong>of</strong> Animal Science 12 not::c GT ~ t h ibppearance i
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 2 1 ,
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 <strong>of</strong> shee? to predators 3s a percent <strong>of</strong>
losses to a1 1 causes

predaiors anounted to 25 3erceni <strong>of</strong> ail 10sjei incsrrea, ~ ~ h l l prxaaicn
?
, losses had rjion ro 58 percenT 07 losses to all causes in 1973. He
further testified that coyotes were responsible for 21 sercent <strong>of</strong>
ai 1 sheep and lamb losses in 1978. According io Mr. ~Yurfisld', ;he
oredarion ~ G S S 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: <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Mr. Murfield's loss rates, however, requires the

conclusion ma; a1;housn unknc~n csus2s cf sne?? and 7259 ~ P ~ Y S
arn~uric2d to 18 ?ercenc o i all losses in, 1367, ~nkncwn C ~ L I S ~ <strong>of</strong> S
deachs were only 7 ?ercent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> predation loss25, because, int:r alia, the invenxory
as o-i January 1 <strong>of</strong> eSch year i nc1 uded 1 ambsm born si nce October 1
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the gr2~2ding
year thrcugh Segtomber 30 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> sheep and
lamb losszs co a17 causes in Texas as a percent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the
U.S. Departnent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 2,360,000 2nd
1981 lamb crop .<strong>of</strong> 1,250,000, this results in a predztor loss razz
f ~ shesp r <strong>of</strong> a~prnxirnately 3 perc2nt and a predator loss rat? <strong>of</strong>
lambs in 1981 <strong>of</strong> 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 W i 1 dl i fe Seryi ce- <strong>of</strong> U .S. Departmenx <strong>of</strong> Inr2ri or and a ~,di tness for
Yyorning, ec al., made a 1 iczracure raview <strong>of</strong> bat3 zn or2iation in
;he western United Staxs. He concluded thac pr2cisz 33ta on
losses <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> lan~s and 1.5 percent to
2 percent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
coyore icfanagement A1 ternatives" - (USD I, 1978), was identi fied as F'AS ixh 3
and pr<strong>of</strong>fered as an exhibit. i he pr<strong>of</strong>fer was withdraw, however, upon
obje,:ti 275 :ba:: +h2 ;a~th~:-s l.+,>~? ,s': :',ai 1 st;:-3 fo:- :ro?r -c,

eing 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 <strong>of</strong> losses due r,o
predation could rzasonably be sxpl ai ned by: (1 ) coyox? densi :y ;
(2) number <strong>of</strong> sheep (cr soa~s) involved; (3) Jressnce cf ccntr31
efforts; (4) s2ason <strong>of</strong> the year; (3) age <strong>of</strong> przy ~ninals; (6)
a1 ternative fcod sources or grey species ; (7) animal XanaTexenr
protection; and (8) methods <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the opinion that producer estimatss <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> !di 1 dl i f ey 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 ~ ontsd i 3ut that they2 was a 2auci ty <strong>of</strong> rzi jab12
dzta on che extznr <strong>of</strong> predation losses ta sheep prior co 1372 and
maintained that publicity surrounding th? Gee, 2t a l. 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 <strong>of</strong> all dezd aniriai:
and verify the causz <strong>of</strong> deazh. Obt/iously, ~ L I C stsdies ~ 3re labor
intensive, very ?xpensive, depend sn the cccperation <strong>of</strong> the ranckrs
or producers conc2rned and can only cov2r a limited area or number
<strong>of</strong> herds. This, <strong>of</strong> course, means that such studies 3rz sinpiy
indications <strong>of</strong> what is happening and cannot 5e vie1:ied as representative
<strong>of</strong> losses inc~rrei by greaEer numbers <strong>of</strong> 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 i n connection wi €it searches for dead and mlssiny
animals, might in and <strong>of</strong> itself be a factor reducing predation

. ,
belgt,.,
, ,
c,lc,hat it .:~ouid ce ; n the abs2nce <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> five ranches in southern Wycming resulted in
predation being confirmed as causing loss <strong>of</strong> 1.5 percent <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> the inventory in each <strong>of</strong> the three years which is to be
compared with 1974 losses reported by Gee <strong>of</strong> 11.7 ?ercsc <strong>of</strong> tke
lambs born and 3.5 percent losses cf ewes. A study <strong>of</strong> 3 bands <strong>of</strong>
sheep in Idaho r2poced coniimed predation loss <strong>of</strong> lambs ta be
1.3 percsnr <strong>of</strong> 1 ambs born in 1973, 1.7 percent in 1974 and 1 . 2 Jercznc
in 1975. Ewe loss2s as a ;2rc:nt <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the three years. These loss
ratss are to be compared with a predation :ass rat? for Idaho <strong>of</strong>
5.8 percent <strong>of</strong> lambs and 2.0 percent <strong>of</strong> sheep in 1974 reported by
Gee, 2t a7 .
34. A study <strong>of</strong> 10 large sheep operations in Utah resulted in reported
ccnf i rm~d 1 ;.ma ; gases ~ L I pre;;ato?s- <strong>of</strong>-? .7 pe?ccerr*, <strong>of</strong> 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
I ,
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 <strong>of</strong> 72.9 percznt <strong>of</strong> '~ambs born and ewe
losses to predators 3i 5.2 percent <strong>of</strong> the inventory as <strong>of</strong> January 1
in 1974. Another field <strong>of</strong> biological study appearing on
i)r. Grandy's table is that <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> lambs docked and 0.7 percznt <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> 1 ambs born and ewe 1 osses in that year <strong>of</strong> 11 -7 percsnt
<strong>of</strong> the January 1 stock sheep invcnrsry. 3ecausz the ianc los:zs
LJ predators in Nevzda reported by Gee exczedecf 85 percenc ci
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 <strong>of</strong> lambs born and thus included ?re-docking losses. This was
not true <strong>of</strong> the 'Ayoming, Utah and Nevada studizs referred ~o above
and shown in Table 1 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 ~ if? l '
pradator cgntrol. 3e rzf2rred to a study <strong>of</strong> 2 band <strong>of</strong> range sheep
under the control <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ewes and 1 ambs to 7redacors was 3.8 percent. I ni s stody being
<strong>of</strong> less than 4 months duratjon is, <strong>of</strong> course, very skcrx. ~Icr2ovzr,
alrhough the researchers in this study were confident 'hat they had
found possibly 100 percent <strong>of</strong> the losses,

, ,
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 <strong>of</strong> IG8C ?is2
ranged from a low <strong>of</strong> 0.79 percent in 130 to a hign <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> t9e cause <strong>of</strong> loss. Actual percent2ges <strong>of</strong>
loss~s to pr2dators are spproximat2ly one-half <strong>of</strong> 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

I He
2 3
mcst t?? iabi?, 3r. Grandy cons2r~cfsC 3 ~ 2 ~ 1jn~;qins 2
act lanb
- 7
7
Ycss~s - r3 2, I c2uses for the 13 'tq?Si?rI jCaL25 = ~ r
3
-,.--,
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 <strong>of</strong> he Jan~ary 1
inventory plus the lamb crop and 9.3 percant for the period 1972-81.
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 <strong>of</strong> 1C83. i ne resill t cnanses,
. .
however, 1T lamb loss~s ar2 sqaratzd frm she?? losses and lanb
deaths are calculat& as a percmtage <strong>of</strong> :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
<strong>of</strong> the inventory as <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the College <strong>of</strong> Nat~ral Resources
and girector <strong>of</strong> the Ecology Center at Utah State University, a nembor <strong>of</strong>
the Cain Committee in 1971 and a witness for the National Wildlife
Federation, testified that higher sheep loss ratos <strong>of</strong> recent years,
which appear to be real, are merely the culmination <strong>of</strong> 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

educ~i zn i n 1 osses ir;iii~di
3 0
- ,-+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 <strong>of</strong> 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 Pr<strong>of</strong>essor <strong>of</strong> Environmental 3iology ac Kansas
Stace University and a witness for Sefender's <strong>of</strong> 'iii l dl i fz ., eT a1 . ,
testifi2d thaz in 1935-76 he supervised a study which focus2a cn
sheep losses co premiers and olther C ~ U S ~ in S a nine-coun~ area oi
south central Kansas. The producers rak'ng part in the sccciy nad
SO percent <strong>of</strong> the shee? in the nine-cocnty di?3, constizuring 21
percent <strong>of</strong> the sheep in Kansas. Although the primary pLr7ose <strong>of</strong> this
study was to evalua:e the effecti\fenesi <strong>of</strong> various nusbarfary ?rac;ices
in reducing predation, the study reported losses zo all causes were
6.8 percent <strong>of</strong> the sheep and 7.9 percent <strong>of</strong> the lambs on an annual
basis. proportion at^ cjuses <strong>of</strong> lanb deaths prior io cocking included
lambing complications 74.6 percent, dogs 0.7 percent and coyotes
5.1 percent. Proportionate causes <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the stock sheep inventory and
0.9 percent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> int: i amci . U G ~ S KI ; lea
24.9 percent <strong>of</strong> the sheep and 19.4 percent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the dead sheep and lambs were actually
necropsied to determine the cause <strong>of</strong> death. Dr. Xccel, nevertheless,
expressed confidence in the accuracy <strong>of</strong> 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
- 2 /
Kansas has a larger coyote population ihan in>/ sther sta.3 ..&, ltiith
possible exception <strong>of</strong> 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

7
Arizcna, Idaho and 12xas. He %st';'i?d thzc i: was. nor sossibiz
to identi fy the proporticn <strong>of</strong> loss caused by ccyote ?redation.
A similar analysis conducted for sheep losses showed the percent
<strong>of</strong> sheep lost to all causzs increased after the suspension <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> production silrvey,
conducted in the spring <strong>of</strong> 1981 by personal inxrviews ;~ich 323 randomly
selected sheep ?roduc2rs, data on loss2s <strong>of</strong> lancs and sneeg by cause,
including przdators, were also collec~ed. The result <strong>of</strong> this
survey i ndi ca~ea thac predatcrs were r2spons i bi e for apprcxi mate1 y
61 percenz <strong>of</strong> the losses to all causes <strong>of</strong> post-docked lambs, while
coyotes werE responsible for approximately 43 percmt <strong>of</strong> such
losszs. Losses to a11 causes totaled 10.39 percznt <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
estinatcd lamb losses to coyotes report2d by Gee, et a1 . for 1974,
Dr. Schaub concluded that the two surveys may indicate that the
percentage <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> post-docked lambs as reported

2y 322, sz 31 . , i C S S ~ S 50 ~ 3 ~ 3 l~f!-z ~ 2 5
,:./ST 53 ,:erc?n: 3f : zss2s :3 21 :
- 6 i
- 8
causes in 137J. , ni s csmoari son ltvoulc, <strong>of</strong> cours2, I ndicatz cna: ioss?j
to coyotes were decreasing ratcer thzn incressing. According to the
1980 survey, toral losses <strong>of</strong> stock sheep- to all causes consti tu-ced
10.22 percent <strong>of</strong> the January 1 i nven~ory with coyotes being responsibi e
for loss <strong>of</strong> 1.52 percent <strong>of</strong> the inventory or lJ.9 Fercent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the January 1 inventory and that coyotes were res~onsible
for the loss <strong>of</strong> 2.5 percenr <strong>of</strong> that i nventory or :pprcxiiii::el j 24
percent <strong>of</strong> total lossss. This asain would ind'cate losses 24 stock
sheep to cayoxss have declined 3s a perc5ncage <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
percent <strong>of</strong> 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;
<strong>of</strong> sheep and lambs a ~ d 1 percznt to guord dogs. :?s acxri but2d the
reduction in loss razes to the use <strong>of</strong> guard dogs, flnczs and us? <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 9,000 to 10,000 or approximately 5 t o 6
percent. He further testified that ihe highest percentage <strong>of</strong> losses
from docking to shearing was due to disxise and that 30 to 40 perc2nt
<strong>of</strong> losses from shearing to the time the sheep are trailed to sumer
range wer2 due to predation. He stated that ~ost <strong>of</strong> the weak or sick
lambs had been "weeded out" by the time the sheep are on the surraer
range and that 90 percent <strong>of</strong> 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
*
Il
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 - 0 3
Il (D
r+ U (D
1 0
0 V,
m ln
3
c+ 7
PJ
Ct
-.- rD
A
7 cr-
0
CS -
0
0
3
-43
0
C
3
(1
-_1
C>
03
0
i
rU
U b
-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
0
-
U)
"
3-
-1.
U)

in 7 381 . 3ecausz hs did no: have rxcrss <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
the ewes were shed lambed. He further stared that in 1281 extre~ely
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 <strong>of</strong> 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-;. i n 1982 tc the date <strong>of</strong> 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_

7 -
07 lamo i 3552s bec:.resn sirtn and docking and ~zites zo a:-,zmpz XI
diagncse causes <strong>of</strong> death or keep recgrds oxer cnan ;r?datsr losses.
51. ?4r. Michael Devl in, a sheep and cattle r2ncher 7rom Terry, flonxana,
a member <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 14.5 percsnt j~
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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the whi12-facsd lambs muid be k?t
z L =r re91 acbrnen ts . He acknowl edsed , hckever , -hat the

is frc~
-1
coyotas.
-
I nz TCI,T~:C~ZG losses :3 czyo~es
are gnl/ ,nos?
the carcass and verified th3 czus? <strong>of</strong> death. Secause the bodizs <strong>of</strong>
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? 5 x 2 Senacor and a wi tness for ',~iycrni ng , 3 t a: . ,
testified that in 1975 he so:d his entir? flock <strong>of</strong> sheep zft3r
, losing 96 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> lambs to coyoces ([,ere i O percznt ; n 1373.
Smith acknowledged that he maintained no records ~f caus2s <strong>of</strong>
losses <strong>of</strong> 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 2 2 ~ r 1 i 22
that herders kept records <strong>of</strong>. predac~r losses on sumer ranges, he
,

a cGyoce wculd be either m t ~ n by the 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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
thac in 1975 they sald most <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the herd and in 1981 they 10s: 635 lambs
or 10 percent <strong>of</strong> the herd. Herd figures are based on the numbers <strong>of</strong>
lambs docked. He asserted that 477 or 68 percent <strong>of</strong> the 700 lainbs
lost in 1977 were lost to predators. He testified that the 477
I
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 <strong>of</strong> each year because <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> pr2da:icn. 41 ~hough he
apparently had daxs on his lamb crop and on toral lzsses, he
subrnittsd no figures on the perc~nt <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> his sheep in 1972,

d2ur;ht~r had a szall fl3ck :1Z ewes) <strong>of</strong> ~iir.hr.-d jh.25 and that jhe
was forced to sell in 1976 b~caus2 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ?mbs
to coyotzs. He asserted that a thcusand head <strong>of</strong> 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 s st 164 or 16 Fercenx 3: hi i lambs ts czyo~~s.
fiowever, in ccmparing figures <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the aoard <strong>of</strong> the National Woolgrowrs Associatlcrn
and a witness for Wyoming, et a1 . , testified tnat recurring kills
<strong>of</strong> 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
-

0
'.-
01
I-!
Q
I-'
-0
fu
I-)
a
x
-I-'
TI
OJ
t'
L
aJ
m
V)
rtf
w
_TI
'3
Z
'r-
I)
w
QJ
9-
'i-
0)
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
.r f
4' rd
cr7 0 1
. - - w
f J - 2
0-
0 vl
c-l- ClJ
t fl
OI v,
I-' 0
0 r-
h
C -0
U L:
rd
tn
C
.r- I-,
-I-' f
L r y W
m v 3
r- a) -U
.r- L C
E n- o
- r- U
tn ti-
0 >,
0) U
5- A 3
w w -tJ
3 m [I,
L
h
T-
-t-J
U
(I)
I-
L
0
U
vr
nJ
4-1
LI
- 0)
-'
I-,
-r-
L
c= -I* 43 0
(IJ
-v
.r
" W 5
(V -c -n
v, -7 w
m + ' ~
w v a
In OJ
.- 'C 0
T3 ' t'
w
" m
m w
W L v l
r- 0 V)
.a 4 o
a U -
-r rn
L Cc 't-
TJ
nl u
4- (I)
nj -c
I-' V1 rn
- 3
L C W
X
3 (3
w L 3 m
rd .r- w
L
m v
m a w
w 3 m
(U
w
rd t' tn
v,
>
c- IT1
E W v ,
? 2 0
a, 0
o m -
V) -
-r-- (u
I7 ' X
5- !J
- LII:
(I) 3
f 0
1.7 0
'i- 1n
0 E--
J -)
rr3
2z
v
Lz
c
. - - E w
a) m 0)
5. 'C SJ
W rd
r >. 43
a
cv
-V
W
0
3 . o U - a
L -c,
Z ( d 5
V r
t w t '
L W - U
> 'a
V) a) 4'
.r - L
-C 01
a -
in vr
c v l m
o o a
P--
m a a
w C
z In ro
3
4 0 ul
v r c w
c o o
r V) 7
rd 'r-
c n O +
a a o
c,
I w ' i -
L T 3 0
f L
a J o m
w L
- L O
w v
c w a)
.- w I-
o a) >
E a) 2
Q L 5
w a r
-U
0
s,
O
t'
c , L
OJ

sj:;ply missin2 at ch? 2;:~
, ,
for th? catis2 <strong>of</strong> cnat loss.
- . , , ,.
37 z;:? y2zr 3 s ~ ;?I CZU;~ 6Gt 3i~-z~t
61. ,Yr. John J. Yines, a jfisep and carzie rancner from Giilztze, 'tiyoning,
Presidenz <strong>of</strong> 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: <strong>of</strong> ~ h ? sheep kusicess
or reduced tneir herds becausz <strong>of</strong> pr.tdaror problenls. je indicazed ?ha<
he numbers <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> I ~ C
coyoIes 3 ~ ye?r 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
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> sheep and lambs to coyotzs during the
years 1% to and ~nciuu~ny i975, tkac ne lost 6u lamos LO coyoces
in 1976, 50 <strong>of</strong> which were before docking, that three coyotes were
killed and that to his knowledge. he had no other [coyat?! kills
during the balance <strong>of</strong> 1976.

52. +lr. Bartcn +i,artza, 3iy3ctcr cf Fish and Nil,,? if?
, for t~?
. , t,.-' "'
<strong>of</strong> New, Plex'i co 2nd 2 ';r; Tries: for 'Xycmi ng , 2t 21 . ., "7 r 7 2cl 8 ;:hat 5assd
on contacz w i ~ n members <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> 1080. He submitted
the results <strong>of</strong> a survey <strong>of</strong> sheap producers in the Pueblo hich
indicated that auring the ;eriod July 1 cnr~ugh Octaber 30, 1577
to pregators, chiefly coyotes, l ambs
and 124 rams. AIt5ough he s~aced
7 0
there wer? a~proximazely io,COO
heads <strong>of</strong> shes? on the r2servation at the tine <strong>of</strong> 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,
-27; ~~~~;~
i: appears

' 7
1dh.j ch j 5 :C'J r,h? ~3.ff2cc :?~i-, 3. ; SS~C?,~; 2; 32- :?:.S : ,I ~ 5 2 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 <strong>of</strong> 15 western staizs,
only New Mexico and North Dako~a sho:liing no ita

<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> losses ts
coyotes. He siated that czlf losses :o coyotes on :he lorger 05
his ranches (Tongue River) averaged 3 oercenc <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the herd respec~ively. Ho cows
were lost to predators in either <strong>of</strong> these years. Mr. Barron
attributed the decline to aerial hunting by the F#S, the use <strong>of</strong> M-44's,
guard dogs and ground hunting <strong>of</strong> coyotes for their pelts.
66. Mr. Dan Tracy (finding 48) submitted a table showing predator losses
<strong>of</strong> calves <strong>of</strong> one each in the years 1973 and 1975, and two in 1974.
He had no losses <strong>of</strong> 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:
reason evory year since tha: Tim, %with tne 2xcep~ian
-.
a -
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 <strong>of</strong> goats to pradatars. ,As
we have seen (finding 38), USaA Forgs~ Serv?c~ data ccmbir,es producsr
reporrs <strong>of</strong> losses <strong>of</strong> sheep and goats co predawrs 2nd ?cijonous ?lanu.
Losszs co preda~ors 3s a perzsric <strong>of</strong> animals SrlzZa iiirins the ~ e r j ~ a
af 1020 use, ranged frzm 3 ~ C W <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> animals grazed does not include lambs and kids (a ewe and
lamb or a nanny and kid being countd as one), while ~ O S S ~ io S
predation does include lambs and kids, actual ?redation losses are
approximately one-half <strong>of</strong> the above percsntages.
69. The article by Dr. Shelton (finding 6) reflec~ed thac goat lossss to
predators averaged 4.90 percent <strong>of</strong> inventory (sdul cs and kids) duri ng

. ~!
pastur2s and zdjaining areas. Thinkjng ?ha; the nur,ber <strong>of</strong> ::oyo:?s
had been reduced to t h 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
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> penn'ng ihe goats at night or confining :hem to
sinall pastures for protxtjon from csyoces. Out <strong>of</strong> a herd <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 213 kids or approxi-
-
mately 89 percenr <strong>of</strong> the crop. ihe remains <strong>of</strong> approximately one-
half <strong>of</strong> tnese were found, others being missing or sinply obliterated.
As an example, he indicated that a ho<strong>of</strong> or an ear would be found.
Intensive control measure;, including use <strong>of</strong> the toxic collar
(findings 75 - 79, infra), were instituted and lasses <strong>of</strong> adult
goats declined to 45 out <strong>of</strong> 1500 head (approximately 3 percent) in
1980 to 32 out <strong>of</strong> 1830 (1.8 percent) in 1981 . Losses <strong>of</strong> kids to
predators were 17 in 1980 and 27 in 1981, 15 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> IC80, attached to he necks
<strong>of</strong> sheep or goats by straps. Use <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> such an attack the cgllar woui~ be aunctured and ihe csyots
~ould rocsi ve a lst3a1, sral dose <strong>of</strong> 1C80. A? though ?unc:ure 3f
;he collar in this fashion resul~s in rsnoval zf che <strong>of</strong>Fznding
coyote, the coyocs's a:tack usually also results in the death <strong>of</strong>
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
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the
collars. Eleven tests wern U ~ S U C C ~ ~ Sccause S ~ U ~ predation st~pped
for unknown reasons or coyotes did not attack collared animals. O f
52 attacks by coyotes on collared sheep during the period June
through October 1978, 36 cr 69 percent <strong>of</strong> collars were punctured
8/ In addition to sodium fluoroacetate, field tests <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> the tests, it is not possible to aitri bute the decline or
cessation <strong>of</strong> predation solely to the co'l lars. It i; clear,
however, that such a reducticn or cessaiion fnl :owing evidence
<strong>of</strong> coyote a~~acks an coil ar2d animal s dnereby csl 1 ars -/ere punctur?d,
consti tutes convincin~, if circznstani~al , evidence <strong>of</strong> col lar
eife~tiveness;. ,411 ~ ~ s T37 s collars to dace have been in Penc&
pasares.
75. Extensive tesis <strong>of</strong> 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. A t 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 <strong>of</strong> :he rests (Texas Test ?lo. 1 ) , col lars
were placed on 20 small kids. Collared kids were killed and collars
punctured on the nights <strong>of</strong> 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

. . ?
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 <strong>of</strong> the tssc sit2 during the same
period, the reduction in predation could not be 2txributed solely tc
use <strong>of</strong> xhe coilar.
7 - 10. During the period <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> attack ii characteriitic <strong>of</strong> C G liilii, ~
dog kills were ruled ou~ because 3f cl2ar coyo~2 Cracks in the
vicinity 3f scme <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> this site during the period late August 1979 through May <strong>of</strong> 1980.
This test was considered successful and especially noteworthy
I

n
0
--I
--1
P,
7
CD
a
cL)
0
a'
r+
LA
z
r;.
CD
a-
A.
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
CJ-
m
ln
a,
3
(n
S
0
7
rt
-2
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 <strong>of</strong> 1980. A1 though 19 coyoces were taken
by other means wiAhin a five-mile radius <strong>of</strong> this sic?, chis zest
was considered successful, six coyotes beinS probably taksn by the
collar, and the cnronologiczl record <strong>of</strong> collar punctures by t lyotzs,
,
providing convincing, I r circurns~antial evidence, <strong>of</strong> the e?-f:cri veness
<strong>of</strong> the collar.
80. Tests <strong>of</strong> the toxic co1 lar i n 1979 at zcocher rancn in Tzxas , wni cn
had apparently suffePed heavy losses <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> lambs kecqeen
docking and marksting in 1978. ioss2s

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 <strong>of</strong> the collar in 1973. 'iihile circunstant~a?
evidence was considered to support this conclusion, other forns <strong>of</strong>
predator control employed concurrently precluded unequivocal adoption
there<strong>of</strong>.
41. T2~ij <strong>of</strong> i1Ao ocher sixs in Idzho in :he summer <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the collar at ,Xcntana Tisc Yo. 1 were
conxi nued from 1578. Predation itspoed iron i ~ t e izptembet 1 j73
throu~h Apri 1 <strong>of</strong> 1971 after two c3l jars were ?unct;rec by ccyotes
in September <strong>of</strong> 1978. A1 though cal lars were rei nzroduced in 13 t2
Hay <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> a collar was attribu~ed to wire. 3ifficuity <strong>of</strong>
targe~ing aztacks to collared sheep was attributed to the presence
at a distance <strong>of</strong> about one-half mile <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ?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 <strong>of</strong> the t2st sit2 in Octcber <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> sheep ~,ii:hout punc~uring sc;me <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong>
1080 in the toxic collar for the control <strong>of</strong> coyotes. ~nitialiy for
a period <strong>of</strong> cne year, the EUP has been ex~ended and the tests aro
presently scheduled to end in Deczmber <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 116 uncollared animals were attacked

.
or killed in targec ?astures. ~ 7 . 4 2 coyores and one dag were found,
" , vnich were corsiaered ..
t3 53~3 SEZ~ ,ii : 1 ?d ,?uncrjr*q~
I:axic
0 1 a s . '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~ive-
ness <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong>
- 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 <strong>of</strong> an
inadequaxe number <strong>of</strong> collars, problems with managing sneep so as co
direct coyote attacks to collared animals and failure <strong>of</strong> cayotes to
puncture the col lars at least five <strong>of</strong> six tescs were unsuccesif~l .

- . .
,q:pine, ie;(as, ipj,entor <strong>of</strong> :he taxi: coi lar aod 2 ?wirness for Tb?
Taxi -Ccli.r Comeany, emphasized ihe sel2c;lvi ty 5f the ~ 3i 1 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 <strong>of</strong> the collar was recognition <strong>of</strong> the
circumstances where i t bwou1,d work. :+e had conducted t2s ts <strong>of</strong> the
? ?
col lar under the FWS experiment21 Qse peni t sn 13 ji tes in i exas
in 1978, nine <strong>of</strong> wnich were i~c~~ssful. Ye acknowledged tbt hh eiid
bjased the results in favor <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ;he
difficulty <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the toxic coll ar is the necesii ty <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ?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 <strong>of</strong> 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

a. dcs?, l.tka1 to c~ni 3es, <strong>of</strong> tsxi cant. Ai fhcush Mcntafia (Ss;jari.~ent
<strong>of</strong> Livestock) , South Dakota (Deparment <strong>of</strong> Agricul txr~) and Wyoming
(Department <strong>of</strong> Agriculture) have applied for the registratior, <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> sini 1 ar bai ti, referred co as irop bai zs, conzsi ni ns
strychnine were ~sed prior to I972 far ~ k ccntrsl e <strong>of</strong> pr~datars,
chiefly cc~yot?s.
89. Dr. James 'ii. Glosser; Stat? Ve~2rinarian, ACministrst;r <strong>of</strong> the
Animal Health Division <strong>of</strong> the Montana 3eparmen~ <strong>of</strong> Liveszock and
a witness for Xycrning, et al., rs?or+zi on the us2 27 1283 in SL3s
co suppress the pccula~i5n <strong>of</strong> sway dogs and ca;: on Guzm in 1967
and thus contrgl an outbreak <strong>of</strong> rabies. ,At the ci:ne <strong>of</strong> the first
confirmed cases <strong>of</strong> rabies (:4arch 1967), the population <strong>of</strong> stray
dogs and cats on the isiand was estimated to range fr,m 20,000 to
60,000. A program <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> stray ani?ais,
shooting <strong>of</strong> stray dogs and cats, and che use <strong>of</strong> snares and traps
was begun in June 1967. These methods resul t2d in the removal <strong>of</strong>
approximately 12,000 animals. Additional cases <strong>of</strong> rabies were
confirmed in August <strong>of</strong> 1967 and it .was detemined that more drastic
means <strong>of</strong> reducing the population <strong>of</strong> stray dcgs and cats were required.

u I
, S trychn: ne (;as cans i i ord bux re:sc'-,&
8 . .
c3 3?: 127 T ~ S
-
2nd ar::~~s and rr? pi sk -
Secaus2 <strong>of</strong> jcs "-\ '-.,; '
I I I ~ ~ "UA I 1c1 ~ J J
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 <strong>of</strong> 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. c i ICSO.
Baits were placed at nisht and on paper plats8 ac l2asc 2013 feet
aparx in order to minimize ihe possjbi l ixy <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> most intmsive us?
October thrcugh Cecemcer 1967. Although only approxjnately one-
third <strong>of</strong> the aninals considered t3 have been ~oisoned by 1C80 during
this period were found, Dr. Glosier estimated the number <strong>of</strong> cats and
dogs destroyed by 1080 during the October - December 1967 period at
rougnly 6,000. O f 16,239 baits placed during the 15-month SLD program,
14,053 or 86.1 percent were taken. A total <strong>of</strong> 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

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, <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ?redator Control Programs, Mini stry <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 i s
used as bait and the minimum bait size is 125 grams. While prepara-
tion <strong>of</strong> the baits is apparently restricted to government or authorized
personnel , distribution <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> "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 <strong>of</strong> the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> these methods <strong>of</strong> 1080
del i very.

. --
- ,-c-
drop-Sai rls were pi ac2d by AGC ?~rscnnel <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 1080
large-bait stations declined from 15,349 in IS60 r,3 ,11,3T3 in 1970.
The 'concurrent use <strong>of</strong> 1 C80 1 arge-bai t stati ens compl i cates the
matter <strong>of</strong> det~nining he effectiveness af drop-~aits
95. Dr. Samuel L. Beasom, Associate Pr<strong>of</strong>~ssor in tne '2epart~en; <strong>of</strong>
!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 <strong>of</strong> Agriculture, perfamed a study
in 1971 and 1972 to deternine 2ffec;s <strong>of</strong> przcia ti on on whi te--tai i ed
deer popuia~jons.
7 3
. ine sxdy *as pe~fcrrn?d by acpiic2~ion or ~nt~ns've
control techniques to remove predators frgm a 5,400 acr2 zrza <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong>
each year and terminated on June 30 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the two years and approximately 3,500
meat-bai ts were used in 1971 and 4,530 i n 1972. A total <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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

cyanid? pns and chf hi ring by the ?ravine? <strong>of</strong> 2i;hx pr2da;or c~nxr~1 ,
r 8
;?2c;alis; in 1372-73. (-2 a;s?rxzi 32' zcs: 123C ma:-bai: , I jrl~ 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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

521 ectivi zy cf silch h i ',< to cayoxas under /aricuc ael i very cgnc!; c; 23s.
Or. GI ,ss,r ('i ?

--. .
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 <strong>of</strong> 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) <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>ten 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 <strong>of</strong> lures which c?n be
used to attracc an animal to a zrap, jnare or an SL3. He sta;?d chat
the selectivity <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> specific coyote ~redaticn ~roblems on Color?do r3nches .
where he considered that placement <strong>of</strong> SLDs containing 1080 in
conjunction with appropriate lures would nave an excellent probability
<strong>of</strong> providing either immediate relied or removing the <strong>of</strong>fending coyotes
within three days. Although Dr. soddicker did not advocate any
specific 1 ini t on the number <strong>of</strong> SLDs per square mile, townsni p or
otnei- area, it is ODV~OUS thac Re coniernp lacks u;e <strong>of</strong> SLWs wi th 1080
will be extremely 1 imi ted ("minor use" in his words) and only after

study <strong>of</strong> the ;arz-icular circ;msz3nc2s 2nd d2te~ina;icn 3y a
?rq.i;oc dl ,-S: 3fla ! '_,'?2, S J C ~ iSf " 5 233?138r; f Z2. ,I 7, . Sz~3; CAZT 2$;j~"?f'~?

? 92.. Large +ai tssta~i
. ,
ons 21-2 su5stanri 2 I ?or:icns <strong>of</strong> horsz, cor,lr or
shee? meat inro which has been inj2cxd 2n zcqueous soi~cion <strong>of</strong>
1080. Injection was by means <strong>of</strong> a syringe or meax su~p a< a
concentration <strong>of</strong> 1.6 grams <strong>of</strong> 1080 per hundrgd pounds <strong>of</strong> meax.
FWS, formerly Bur~au <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> appl-oxinately four inches (whil.

, 7 1
,,di n j - 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? <strong>of</strong> 87 Jercsn;. 2ates c i
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
I
1
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
that the dec? inirrg number <strong>of</strong> 1080 s~ations was causally reiat2i to
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 <strong>of</strong> the belief that ~idesgread use <strong>of</strong> 1080 large-bait itations
was for the purpose <strong>of</strong> suppressing rcgional coyote populations on the
assumption tnat there was a relationship between coyote densities and
predation, Dr. Uagner concluded that the eifec~iveness <strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong>

sheep 10~82~ over areas 9? this sizz. Sheeq iosszs 'Here cansidered
ante (findings 41 -42). In an effort to deremihe i i cayat2 ~opularions
had been efiectzd by the use <strong>of</strong> 1080, during the Cain Cornittee
deliberations, he developed-an index from the man-years <strong>of</strong> effort and
the number <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> coyotes taka per man-year <strong>of</strong> effort r~ou?d Se high and that
corraspondi ngl y , i f coyote numbers

in cnz iac.:?r thr2o pars ,\ere 13, 2 , and 21 Fsrcznc, r2saec=iL/e;y
<strong>of</strong> thos? caughc in !Wl, 9rior :he 382 <strong>of</strong> 1080. The nunkrs <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> this index
is, <strong>of</strong> tours?, dependent ypon 3 consxant level <strong>of</strong> tr2~iine ei7or-L.
Gr. 'iagner pi nEd o u ~ 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> "sc~nt-post 1 ines" in
18 states. A scent-line consists <strong>of</strong> 50 scent stations spaced at
0.3 mile intervals totaling approximately 15 miles in length. A
scent station consists <strong>of</strong> a three-foot circle <strong>of</strong> bare, smoothed or
sifted earth in the center <strong>of</strong> which is placed a capsule <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> tracks by :oyot?s and otke-7 7ariiia i r

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
<strong>of</strong> environmen~al safety 2nd cost efficiency, for the r2ducsion <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
coyotes and red foxes. He acknowledged that, lr/hile the need for a
bait station in a particular area was based on the presence <strong>of</strong>
coyotes, there was no attempt to determine coyoce numbers or a
particular level <strong>of</strong> coyote population in an area ;he baits were
intended to achieve. He also acknowledged that the number <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> :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) <strong>of</strong> us'ng 1C80 5air
stations in Utah and Oklahcma, it ,was apparent that che stations
provided substantial benefits in reduction <strong>of</strong> livestock losses,
. particularly in the Oklahoma Panhandle. He point~d out that lexts
-
4as the leading sheep groduc2r i n 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> January are /<strong>of</strong> 1 i C tl 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 <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> coyotes from these areas into the,prime she

i
and goac country 2 fns nsr-n ana -.as; :hacl-r,usc ze ~~zrciga 2

1 .
?rocjrarn for the 2yonlng 2e$ar~zen, ~f Xgric~izure 2nd a ?q::nass fcr
Xyoming, 2c dl., cestifiea as to he us? <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the State on or about October 15, 1975.
Rancher certification <strong>of</strong> predati unn 1 osszs as lwei 1 as l anaaw~er cansent
to placment <strong>of</strong> Sai" were rgquird. A total <strong>of</strong> 1051 ~aits der?
placed on 399 ranches in che 1.575-76 kiting grogram. 3ecauss <strong>of</strong>
heavy Pzeding oy predators, baits were r3piaced cn approx'natziy 43
~ercent <strong>of</strong> the ranches. Baits Ner? again ?iacod begjnning cn
dovember 3, 1375, a total <strong>of</strong> 1,005 baits being placzd cn 373 ranches.
11,'. Mr. Crosby consider24 ihe program a suc'zess, ci~ing ~ h 'F,*iS 2 pub1 ication
" Indices <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the order susgending and cancelling regis-
trations <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Section 24
<strong>of</strong> FIFRA and 40 CFR 152. Use <strong>of</strong> 1080 for predator control in Nycrning
was hal2d in 1977 as part <strong>of</strong> a settlenent <strong>of</strong> an enforcement procgeding
instituted by EPA.

-'l -
1
snowed ;he ',4ysmivg i ndex i,r coy?;es ir IL. L j n 1275 and 4: -1 .
30
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, I O S ~ ~ <strong>of</strong> S 84,5GO 3r 8.5 percenr <strong>of</strong> lambs born
in 1974, 72,000 or 7.8 9ercent <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> lambs barn in 1979. While he acknowiedged chat there wer?
fluctuations in losses <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> bait
5:at:sns.
114. ;!r, Harry Laati, a Harhematician, Presidenx and Chief Scient; ST <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> analytic evaluations <strong>of</strong> animal population dynamic;
(modeling) based upon actual bait consumption <strong>of</strong> 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) <strong>of</strong> 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
]ear ;erj;c 3 is\iels i-annig :% i ,
, .
zver a czn-
;licala 2i.o per r-njz s?
-.
fieid gar?er?d sai z consdxpclon daca for 2acJ 3 2 . I ne r2sul :s
indicatsd tndc popuiaxian reduction <strong>of</strong> 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 ~ ~ :3 ~ shee~ 2 s ~ c a d h i ~ 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 ~ 2 cbe s ~ actual use <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> the rncael
depended on the validity <strong>of</strong> inputs and that inputs such as efisct
<strong>of</strong> 1080 on population dynamics <strong>of</strong> tar~et and non-target species,
animal specific data inputs, trapper ff eid sxperienc~, locations
and densities <strong>of</strong> target and non-target species, attractiveness <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> ,;;niS. nt also
acknowledged that dispersal or mi gration <strong>of</strong> 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 n e
Yational Animal gamage Conirol Association, Inc. (YAGC) and a
witness for the Association, cestiiied that -he us2 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> approximately 3,10Q baits jn i962-63 to a law <strong>of</strong>
approxima~eiy 4,600 in 1963. He indicated tnar :he deccreasei
number <strong>of</strong> baits placed was rela~ed to the lower nunber <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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-h-
western North Dakota near the confluence <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> 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 - -_- , ; , :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 <strong>of</strong> (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 <strong>of</strong> ':/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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the opi nion that these
figures, which include only ADC confirned losses, supported the
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> 1080 in reducing predation. He attributed che decline
in predation after 1977 to a harsh winter and an increased harvest <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> North Dakota ranchers using
guard dogs for predator control.
, s

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 <strong>of</strong> coyores ,
, -
such as tracks and droppings, :ewer damage c3muIainis and a rzdticed
catch <strong>of</strong> coyctes by trappers. Mr. Anderson ii rst beczme inv~lved
in the placznent <strong>of</strong> 1380 bait sbtions in 1362 in an area satith 3f
che Edwards ?lateau in Texas and which he referred to 3s the "coyotz
factory <strong>of</strong> the Uniztd Staces. " He also ?lacad and supervised zh2
pi acenenc <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> prsdator control on Angora goat mortality in
northern Zavala County, Texas in the South Texas Plains. Surviva- ,
bility and productivity <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
. .
coyotes. The two pastures were separated by seven kilometers.

,Vai-mai i m 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 <strong>of</strong> th2 unknown losses were actri bur?<
to 7redators because <strong>of</strong> the prosence <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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. <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Compound lC8O in large-bai t
stations is the contention that- heavy and sustained exploi taizion <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong>
1080 a7 so contmd that there is no demonstrat2d relaiionshi p beween
coyote ?apulations and livestock predation. The coyot~ tak~n ;er-
nan-years-<strong>of</strong>-2fi3rt index develcped by 3r. 'dagner and his csnclusisn
chdt 332 <strong>of</strong> 7C80 apoo3rad co suoprss coyote ~oouiar'cns in s?e
early period <strong>of</strong> its use in ine Scares <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Texas, which was litsraily coyote fr2e during
the period 1930-70, is frequently cited. Coyotes were reportedly
removed from the area by the use <strong>of</strong> stzel traqs, strychnine, and
hunting, aided by fences constructed for livestock control. It is
not clear, however, whether this was an area <strong>of</strong> 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 ?;la-i <strong>of</strong>iai
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 <strong>of</strong>
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 t y and uti 1 i zation <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> all adult coyote iosszs and 54
percent G? juvenile deazhs jn the Curlew Ya112y. About 25 percznc
<strong>of</strong> adui 1 deaths and 12 ?er-c?nx <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>fset during fall and winter by reduced loss2s to other
causes and by reduced migration and are further <strong>of</strong>fset 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 <strong>of</strong>
~~u,;,zIT expi01 iai10fl, mere were t10 stacihilcai IY signlr icane --

9.
significant differences in hunting caused deaxhs <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
coyot? concrsl on arlss adjacent :o rhe sxdy areas srd :?a:
dzfi ni ng any cgyote or di 7 dl i f 2 popul aci on Has szmewnat arbi vary.
i23. Testimony that coyotes wers primarily scavengers, re!zctanx ra
risk injury by attacks on animals <strong>of</strong> any size, ,das given by iioce
Ryaen, an author and a ;vi tness for Fri 2cds <strong>of</strong> Anina: 5 , Ific. $,rno had
spent over rwc years clos21y observing packs <strong>of</strong> coyot2s in Wonczna
and 'dyming . It appe?rs, ho~ever, thac Ms. Ryden' s observations
were made primarily in the winter months in areas <strong>of</strong> 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? <strong>of</strong>
suffici~nt size to defend themselves 3gai nsc c~yot2s. 2er observafions
*Merg made on packs <strong>of</strong> 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 < ? ~ r i < ~ 4 y j igcer.;j!,es . *
s~abiiize 3t a iower level, wi-ch the likely cansequence <strong>of</strong> a lcwer
rate <strong>of</strong> 1 ivestock predation.
124, Dr. Franz Camenzind, a 3io'iogist and 3 i~i~ness for Friends <strong>of</strong>
Animal s , T'nc. , Inno has conductxi stens r2~2zrci; 3n CZ:IOC~~
?opuiaticns ssentially frw <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> social unizs or packs <strong>of</strong> from four to six adul~s bav-,ng
clearly xfi ned nierarcnies o r 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
<strong>of</strong> poisons could reduce the number <strong>of</strong> coyotes.
125. Mr. Eugene Allen, Administrator <strong>of</strong> the Wildlife Division <strong>of</strong> the
btontana Department <strong>of</strong> Fish, Wildlife and Parks and a witness For the
State, testified as to the results <strong>of</strong> a study <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> cay<strong>of</strong>e r,overnegTs
cancluded ?hat coyoizs cc~uld generally be clcssified in13 one <strong>of</strong>
four soci a1 benavior 110d2s : den breeders, den su2er nuxer?ries,
nonads and d' saers~rs . ;en bresctrs lrrere ;~cu 1 t pzten-5 3f a : : 7 ~27.
Den supernumeraries aere aaul ts and prooabl y pips frm /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 e f the ~
study area. Den coyotes ccnstit~ted ~poroxinatelj LO 3ercant <strong>of</strong> tne
I
nnnvl ,,,,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 <strong>of</strong> the study was that an effective
coyotg control progran must have the capability cf addr2ssing site-
specific 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 <strong>of</strong> such shyness was pure speculation. He acknowledged,

. e
coyotss for one r?aszn or anoc5er and thar ;r sne ~~s~hoa <strong>of</strong> 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 ~ Defenders, r
-+/as <strong>of</strong> opinion thzt ccyotss did learn to
avoid or develop 3n aversion fo bairs. Vr. ?obert ?ur~eo, an
AGC agent f ~ the r Sobth Dakota Qeparaent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> any such
shyness, because after consumjng the bait no learning sxperiefice
by a coyote was possi bl?. it does appear, hcwever , tha: 'he
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> a particular baiting system resu? ts in development 07 cgyote
popularionz with a high proportion <strong>of</strong> coyozes n c ~ 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 <strong>of</strong> dmning, shooting, trapping
and snaring in reducing predation was remarkably consistent whether
from proponents or cpponents <strong>of</strong> the use af 7080. All seemed to
:cr:z SL3;t ncnc :"
- i +. ,-A< -0-
",.S.E (*:e?? 2j5fsc:' :;73?.+ :
. , , ,,, , .

egarded as a jclution ts the ?ro~lem si gredarion. For ?xampie,
Hr. Randal 1 (finding 126) described che process <strong>of</strong> denning, that is,
locating the den where coyote pups are bein! reared, 2s requiring
tracking <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> tne ?AS ere :aksn
by denning. Or. IdaCe testified that removal <strong>of</strong> denning pairs <strong>of</strong>
coyotes or their young may, and frequently does, ;Top 1 ives;sc!<
-.
?rodation in 1 scal i z d 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 i s probably the most effective way <strong>of</strong>
- 131
shooting coyot2s. Use <strong>of</strong> this method has significantly increaszd
since the 1972 order sus7ending the use oi toxicants for predacor
control . A tab1 e ref;ects t h ~ in t 1975, 40.2 percent (28.6 Fercenc
by helicopter and 11.6 percent by fixed-wing aircraft) <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> such opera5'on has riszn frcn
590.00 zo as high as 5375.00 during tne last eianc to ren yezrs*
Aerial hunting is, <strong>of</strong> 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?, <strong>of</strong> cours?, hunt~d from the ground. ADC personnel shct
6.3 pwcent <strong>of</strong> coyotzs taken in 1975 from the grcund. A nethod oS
luring coyotes within gun-shot range is by use <strong>of</strong> a call, which
mimics an animal in distress, thus bringing a coyote in search <strong>of</strong> 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? <strong>of</strong> s:20; le3-nolli Irzcis is a xrz61 ;:~na7 and
- 7 47,-
err2czivz rechod <strong>of</strong> pr3ca;or conzrol. In IY/O, 37 Gercenx <strong>of</strong>
-
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!iated
by a coyote or other animal tugging on an attached scent or lure,
expels a charge <strong>of</strong> 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 t h the ?I-44 and heating and cool ing <strong>of</strong>

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 <strong>of</strong> tests, eighz coyotes <strong>of</strong> 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 i ve 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!,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 Pr<strong>of</strong>essor <strong>of</strong>
Psychoiogy at North Dakota Scate University and a witness for
Defenders, cited he results <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 12 bait stations using two types <strong>of</strong> baits: one <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> shee?, ,,vn;cn hzc 'Ied <strong>of</strong> natural iauias, *ere in;ected
bait and the solution i njxtzd i nto
82.4 grams <strong>of</strong> LiCL per liter <strong>of</strong> dattr. Dr. Gus tavson i ndi cat2d that
he would recamend using a slightly lower dose <strong>of</strong> LiCi at pressnt.
The study conducted through Xay 15, 1975, suggested a reduction in
-7
predation lossas <strong>of</strong> sheep 07 -from 43 cerc5nt Co 50 percen1. .r,e
report on chis s:ody indicasss tha~ :he range <strong>of</strong> oredaaiion r9duction
was from 30 percent tc 60 percent. This was based an a ccnparlion
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the inabii i :y c3
incorpcra~e acequaie cantrois, ihe jtud~ djd not canclusively
os~ablish :he efficacy <strong>of</strong> aversive canditisning io deierring
predation. Yoreaver, a dispute arose between the reszarchers and
the rancner regarding the determination <strong>of</strong> coyote kills and rh?
result5 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ground sheep
meat wrapped and tied in sheep hide laced wich LiCL a t the rate <strong>of</strong> 6
and 4 grams per 100 grams <strong>of</strong> bait. Ten flocks having a total mean
size <strong>of</strong> 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 i n nccsers gf
coyotss taken for their pelts, possible bias or 2rror in cet?matizn
oi coyocs kills, and activities 3n the ranches could not Be sva111 da -+=,A
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 <strong>of</strong> the study referred to Sy yy. Ccnnojly
(finding 135). Hi s criticism, however, was based on a 1 i teral reading
<strong>of</strong> the protocol oi the study.as "zhe test situation 5eing repeated
daily unxil each coyote had killed and f?d on thrze or more jack-
rabbits and one or more chickens." 3r. Gustavscn contznded that the
number <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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, ?r<strong>of</strong>es;or <strong>of</strong> ?s;/choI osy a-
California State Col:ege, San Sernzrdino and a witnsss for Defsnderr.
In 1976, the firsx year <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 450 grams <strong>of</strong> iiCL or 225 ;rms <strong>of</strong> sodium chiorid?
h i
in 1 i t s
o r
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 c i t5,e study,
followed by 2 marked re4ucrion during the rernai ni ng 11

sheep kill; shan cgyot2s 5n sne <strong>of</strong> the herds.
139. Aizhougn Dr. Ellin; ccnc2d2b ;ha; :he prcper csncmtr?cion <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> LiCL was nectssary to develop an aversio~ in :oyo:2s
to ;beep. He ackncw1~Q;cd that che cacczpc <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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, Pr<strong>of</strong>essor <strong>of</strong> Psychology
and Psychiatry at the University <strong>of</strong> California, 10s Angeles and a
witness for 3efenders. Dr. Garcia has conducted extensive research

in aversive cond:xic~ing and :ne neurq;(;~y <strong>of</strong> 'sarning. ~e
cor1s i cer-2~ :nax c2st2 a\ie!-s1 ve :=nai :: sj-,' r , ~ +ids 3 , i 331 2 2rada-fi -, r
1 '
ccnxrol alc2rnaciv?, ass2rting tnat gr3cacion !qas 2asicaIly a
feeding probl~,'f~ and that bo?h laboratzry and field ;cudies
denonstrated the promi se <strong>of</strong> taste aversion condi tioni ng in
control 1 i ng predztory behavior, He 'esti f ied that tne dosage <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the US? <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> the coyote breeding szason. Difficul ties wi th coyote acceptance
<strong>of</strong> 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 z e concentration recommended by Dr. Garcia corresponds with that
usec by Crs. ~uszzvsor 2nd t: ! i ~ s :=z::,
:n ~~21.2

achi2ve mark2d reducxions ii roproaucti./e succ2ss and it was
c~ncluded that better delivory sysTems <strong>of</strong> juch baits were needed.
Xoreover, because stilbes~rol exerts its ;rimary eifecr on the
female coyot3 during a relatively short period <strong>of</strong> cine, deveio?ment
<strong>of</strong> other anti fzrti 1 i ~y agents was r~ccmenaed. ,Nr. Conno1 1 y
(finding 133) t2stified thar becausz <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 ~ s t on s ;he conzroi <strong>of</strong> CG:JGC~S
by use <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> reproductive i nhi bi tors i n reduci ng
predation.
142. Mr. Connolly testified that the use <strong>of</strong> repellants as a ceans <strong>of</strong>
det3rri ng coyot2 actacks on 1 ivestock have not keen develo~ed to
the point <strong>of</strong> practical field application. Dr. Gates (finding 141)
stated that evaluation <strong>of</strong> all chemical; claimed to have repellant
properties as to coyotes, e.g., plictran, crude extract <strong>of</strong> bitter
sneezeweed, extract <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the substanc2 wort <strong>of</strong>f,
Mr. Rev1 i n declined to use it again because he was cmcerned about
possible contamination <strong>of</strong> 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 ~ hundrds r <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Great Pyrenees dcgs and a witness
for Defenders, these dogs share numerous traits: cney remain alo<strong>of</strong>
- e
frcm strangers, ar? not overly responsive to human a~~xcion, prefzr
the company <strong>of</strong> sheep to that <strong>of</strong> 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

(I,
CU
(I,
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.
ri-
x
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
U-
rn
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
U-
m
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
n-
Cu
a
u3
-5
(D
tn
LA
2.
<
tD
. -
-U c 03 I n (-1
'0 IU -1.
L n . 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, r t
rd ro c:
rD (I, n
- (/I 3-
U)
D
-..A
IU
(I,
-
- 1.

1
135
zonths cf 2 ~ 2nd 2 has r~~73ccd :r rcfdnd2d :he ;drc,~as~: ~rjcs cn
115. Ms. de ?a Crl.iz char;s $332 ezch f5r h2r dags and sstj~z-~d ~ k zfinua: e
-
cast for food, veterinary care, aegreciaxicn, ?tc. at 5250. :he
considers rhe average useful 1ii2 <strong>of</strong> a Grzac 2yrenees to be fran six
co eight years fol lowing a two-year training period.
146. Dr. Narion J. Levy, ?roiessor <strong>of</strong> 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 ~ and ~ i < 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> training and ~arcly a queszion <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the National
Noolgrower., Or, Levy cautioned against exaggerated claims as to the
effectiveness <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> age and that until the dog learned the rouzines and duties
expected by its owner, it required supervision and a great deal <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> 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

-
saven <strong>of</strong> the 12 tests, z~recti~/enesi gf cogs in ~,vo <strong>of</strong> ;h? tls~s
was questionabie and in xnree <strong>of</strong> me issts dogs had liczl2 apparlnt
influence on the number <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> aT jeast a year may be required in order fcr 3 icg
to be er'iecti!;e. He 3s;erted that a rzservoir <strong>of</strong> trzined dggi
not availah?$ 2nd that guard ccgs zould not be vsewed as 5 n ~ i d l j
depl oyable fom <strong>of</strong> predator con~rol . He further testifix! that
guard dogs were not free <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> 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 g i 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 <strong>of</strong>
the survey i nd.jcat2d a 93 p2rcenr reduction in predation, This
reduction was csrzpu~ed bas2d on the ranchers ' menory <strong>of</strong> :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 <strong>of</strong> 10 to 1200 acrss guarding flocks <strong>of</strong>
10 to 1300 animals, with the typical Greac Pyrenees guarding an
average flock <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> '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 <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> 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 th regard 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 ;hat heri2rsi
salaries range from $530 to 5750 a month, but that rhe coca1 COST <strong>of</strong>
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 non-
le~hal method <strong>of</strong> predator control . The designation l.lew Z2al and refers
to a type <strong>of</strong> charger whereby fence wires can be energized by use <strong>of</strong>
a 12-vol t battery developed in that country. The charger is <strong>of</strong> high

c~paci ty 32r~t :zi n? ge >:a; 12
1 . m fi, n -
-.bc 32s af 3.392 :r: i ,., !:31 ZS. I bji raaiices che ?ossiki 1 i :y <strong>of</strong> in? ~nergized dir.5 2eing gro~:nc& J;,
conTacE ,~i th vegetation rhus render1 ~g the fence i nefiec:i-/e. ,dhi ; e
placment <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> the fence t~st~d by 3r. Sat25 cons.istpd 0-f 12 31 t2r~ativel;;
ener~ized and grounded *ires ".
;3 a neighr <strong>of</strong> 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

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 <strong>of</strong> 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 o i the fence was raised to I68 cn, the conTigurztion 1ss2nxial ly
bein? as -in :he fmce xstsd by 2r. Gates. Ail <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
losses before and after installation <strong>of</strong> the fences. According to
these ranchers, losses to coyotes over a combined total <strong>of</strong> 271 months

3 3ni 27 IZK~VS s2zj~n5
-,,- - - -
:~:2i

1 1
. .
grounded, with 3 bzr3ed and : ;r:o >!

lasz 40 years, frcm a h?gh <strong>of</strong> S6,67J,CCC in ;?A2 :a a lsw <strong>of</strong> 12,220,200
- i 6/
in 1979, i!icreasing s;ignziy ca 12,941,300 in :'?El. The number <strong>of</strong>
shesp increased to 13,176,G00 as <strong>of</strong> January 1, 1982. P5r capita
consumption <strong>of</strong> lamb and mutton is approxirnatziy 1.5 7cuncis annually
(carcass basis) <strong>of</strong> chich 3 ~ercent i s i~ported. ?or c.?i ta ccnsunp~icn
<strong>of</strong> wool is appr0xirria~z:y one jound 3nnual1y 50 gerc~nt :f ~hich is
import~d. Approximat21y 30 percznt <strong>of</strong> the sneq in he Unised Staces
are raised in the 17 nost western <strong>of</strong> 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
7- 1 " CI
more stock snee?. 1nes3 ?r:duczri, nowever, Jwn :early YJ gercznz
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> mohair in 1979
worth an estimated $47.4 mil l ion <strong>of</strong> which approximately $30 mill ion
16,' These figures are from tables included with the testimony <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> 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 o i
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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> weeds and brush, thus avoiding the use <strong>of</strong> herbicides
or expensive mechanical methods <strong>of</strong> 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."

<strong>of</strong> enfrgy in reien; jedrz nas ~ajroved
<strong>of</strong> steep and gozc ,Teais reiaciv? ;o ocher inea;s 3nd <strong>of</strong> ,vooi znd
mohair relative to iynthetici.
- 7
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 <strong>of</strong>
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 it-
ai ternaxi ng the grazing <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> kids or lancs
raised from a flock. He ,das <strong>of</strong> the ooinlon thac Increased procuctian
and lower grices Far lamb and wool aould increase cansumprion <strong>of</strong>
these ic2ms.
167. Dr. Menzies nowd that among the lirnitzcions on tne efficiency and
productivity <strong>of</strong> raising sheep and goats were inf.ccious diseases,
parasites, nutritional liseas22, poisonous plants, ava;ldbi?ity <strong>of</strong>
labor, marketing problems, small size <strong>of</strong> the industry and predation.
He asserted that predation 1 owers the efficiency <strong>of</strong> producti on costing
both the producers suffering losses and indirectly che consumer. He
indicated that an <strong>of</strong>ten overlooked effect is the inefficient use <strong>of</strong>
land resources that result when high predation losses prevent the use
<strong>of</strong> land resources by sheep and goats.

1 ,2. - Yr. KensLr,~ (lin

sheep shoilced a. ne? rr-xrn <strong>of</strong> 51 3.32, t4t-11 c;: r2 ~ s s s r : t~c3bi ~ ~ :5n?d
t2i: ?roduc2rz cou7d not Ic~g colzrat? zn aaciclcna; loss <strong>of</strong> 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 r ay
1 i vestcck cerazi cns . Fe ass2rtzd ti?a"ihese : osses reach 1 ?v$i s

-..- L. ; ,uc Li on i Z C ~12s ~
, .
21 csrazi ons i n the aconczy , :zcr?zs2n- ;nloor:acc?
cieaend on and jupporr the agrical~arr? sector, and forced c5an;es
i n 1 i vi ng condi ti ons <strong>of</strong> rural f ami 1 i es . Under crass -exarni nati an,
Dr. 8owns acknowledged that he had not conducted any surveys <strong>of</strong>
ranchers abandoni ng sheep and goat ocerari ons or decl i n i ng co mzor
the business becausz c~f predation. He did indicztz rhat he had
talked to individual producers that have abandoned ~ h sheep 2 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 <strong>of</strong> these individua:~.
173. In 1977, the USDA published 3 r29or-c 'Factors In the Oecline o f the
'Nestern Shee? Industry." In gathering data for the reFort, a si;rvey
<strong>of</strong> a sample <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> -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 <strong>of</strong> former producers in Wycming were suffering
operatfonal losses, i.e., not even meeting cash costs, when They
di sconti nued production. The number <strong>of</strong> sheep ~roducers decl i ned by
I

12 sercspx in 1973, :ne year ' ~ i
? l cwing r~s;r-icc;~,:s sn :no .; -
1
;ax'czn:s, :he sr%a,:sc ;ercenz3se <strong>of</strong> rzd~c~jen i;nc?
z-?
,,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 <strong>of</strong> 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 -, <strong>of</strong> 1 ine ,r/i 5h ehe nuxber <strong>of</strong> ~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 <strong>of</strong> the four st~ii~, a1;hougn sncn~ce
<strong>of</strong> oood hirzd labor, lam^ and ~f\tcal pricos and age <strong>of</strong> the owner Irterz
other significant re3mns. Pr?daxion was generally ,?or? <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> percent
to 8 percent <strong>of</strong> lambs and 1.5 percsnt to 2.5 percent <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> estimated loss3s was
used. Economic losses to producers from coyote predation on sheep
and calves in 1980 were estimated ta be in the range <strong>of</strong> $75 to $150
mi 11 ion. Dr. Terri 11 concluded that annual average 'producer 1 osses
million. He used a multiplier <strong>of</strong> three in projecting the impact <strong>of</strong>
these losses on the economy. Gee, et a1 . esximated total 197a !GZZ~Z

'JJ
- c.>
v7 'r
+ ' 3 E
rd ro
c u m
4 -'
m
n
7-
V1
L
n,
V
3
V
0
L
rl.
n.
QJ
w
5=
cn
wl
a
X
0 J
I-
4'
Kl
51
? J
-a
CV
4'
rd
-
3
V
1-
rd
U
-
v3
C\I
tl,
C
.r-
73
C
.r-
v-
-
v
v--
w
'r-
't-
L
3
x
L
r_
, . I-
r m a ,
t n t l lr:
3 mI C'
0- w
LZ
0 (I!-
,--- V' C
4 0 rd

1
shoulc
. .
oe <strong>of</strong>?s?r oy expenses for shezring, ie~erinary f?es 2nd iapz ,yes,
etc. iha~ waul@ oineraije have been inc2rred 5ux for predaiion 1 0 ~ ~ 2 ~
<strong>of</strong> 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, <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> supplmental feed for confined anjinal s ; (4)
labor for gathering sheep scattered by predacar attacks and ireating
injured animals; (5) direct costs <strong>of</strong> control ?:for-s; (6) reduced
attention to other phases <strong>of</strong> fan and ranch operations and (7)
inability or unwillingness o f ranchers to produce she? and oats in
areas we1 1 suited hereto. He acknowledged that to the extent
restrictions were placed on the use <strong>of</strong> 1033, in the event it was
reregistered, at least some <strong>of</strong> these indirect costs would necessarily
be incurred.
174. Dr. Thomas M. Power, Pr<strong>of</strong>essor <strong>of</strong> Economics, Chainan <strong>of</strong> the Economics
Department at the Uniiiersi ty <strong>of</strong> Montana, and a witness for Defenders,
disputed the vieur ta:ial: greater or more effective predator control

'+/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 <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> pricz to the quanti cy sola which is
termed "~ri ce il exi bi 1 i ty or price el asti ci ty <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>S2rsd for sals, whi :e
"elasticity <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> -.I7 translated to a minimum demand ~lasticity <strong>of</strong> 5.58,
meaning that a one percent decrease in price l~ould result in ;n
increase <strong>of</strong> almost 6 percent in quantity purchased. He asserted
this had never been observed and was unrealistid.
- -
-
J

- - . ..
7-- - .. I v 2. ;r. ?wer ssl cilazed a ;an :.\/el pri zs ; ..I; 21 , - 7%; )f ,- j .5i zrLj
irice '?astici:y <strong>of</strong> denand fcr ldnb <strong>of</strong> - 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 <strong>of</strong> -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 N O U ! ~ degress pric~s
more than enough to <strong>of</strong>fset 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 <strong>of</strong> the literature and tha; both jraducsrs and consumers
would benefit by a reduction in predation losses and an increased
supply <strong>of</strong> lamb. In cdlculating increases in revenue resulting from
assumed decreases in predation losses attributable to luse <strong>of</strong> 1080
and increases in the number <strong>of</strong> lambs markekd, Dr- Schaub used a price
flexibility value or coefficient <strong>of</strong> -.42 (farm level, yearly basis)
taken from a USOA publication (Usman & Gee) not in evidence. He

adhered to the !,j31~
L;
that - ,qas L412 arpropridi F T ~ 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 ~ hconfidencz e i nxarva! dsS0ci axed wi :!-I ni s cceiii ci enr
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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, et al., wno derived an average loss to
coyotes <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> Dr. Power
which is to the effect that the price <strong>of</strong> 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 N C L ~ ~ incr?as?
S
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 <strong>of</strong> apprcxina~ely 77 perr2nt,
which is unl i keiy even under tile must octimi s tic asscmpticns 2s La
che eff~ctiveness <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> reductions in iamb losses TO coyozes
for western Colorado produc2rs <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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
C r ?-.
~co,
i 29
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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 'i rst Col e~an 'la~i onal 3anu <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> coyotes. He explained that there kere certain
areas <strong>of</strong> Coleman County, which were heavily infested with coyotes and
that if land jn one <strong>of</strong> -those areas changed hands, his bank would decl ine
a loan on sheep and goats in one <strong>of</strong> those areas. He asserted that a
number <strong>of</strong> ranchers in the County had gone out <strong>of</strong> business because <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ,~zn;/
fac2i by that proole!. :e further cmtenced thar only ;qith the
reinsta~ement <strong>of</strong> Compound 1080 could coyotes be contr~~lied and ncney
returned to the pockets <strong>of</strong> the producers. $.nother side <strong>of</strong> che
econorni cs <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> n29aed
income from the sale <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> $14,637
comprised <strong>of</strong> $10,657, for loss <strong>of</strong> goats and mohair, $1,470 for travel to
'pastures to pen goats and $2,520 for ranch expenditures in the control
<strong>of</strong> predators. Indirect costs included $5,400 loss <strong>of</strong> adult goats co
parasites and complications, $3,600 loss on goats sold because <strong>of</strong>

. .
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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 313 collars were used, <strong>of</strong> 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? <strong>of</strong> the
aval uation <strong>of</strong> 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/ a ssas, i r.
was pointad out that the col lars were nost 1 ikely to be found by tne
livestock owner, who would be aware <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> collars used was 151 small and 94 lar~e
col 1 a;, the. 31 3 f i gure being the resul t <strong>of</strong> 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 ~ ni l 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
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
<strong>of</strong> 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
distribution <strong>of</strong> Compound 1080 over rne average dyed ar2a <strong>of</strong> 138 ss.
. .
it. wouid resuit in conczntration <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ingestion was oral.
d
i1

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 <strong>of</strong>
potential exposure is the carcasses <strong>of</strong> csyotes poisaned by ?uncsuring
toxic collars. Gniy turkey vulxures appear to 3ave scsvenged my <strong>of</strong>
.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!

C;iumbja 2nd ,;us:r-j: la. iar~e ;c?n~i iies 2 i jimil ?r s:rjchni ne cai rj, '
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

, r,no,rz z-Q?~ 53 352 '32; ~5 7 y zz3;ii?shi3 csnr2.l n i v gm-?rc;:j--a'_-l~
1,3 g cf 1CSO cr sli~nsly less :mn the 1.5 crms 39r 130 ~ O U ~ SUSC~C S
in a ? arge s cati cn. 'Aycni ng ' s appl i caci ;n apparenciy i qtsn~s chat th?
amount <strong>of</strong> 1280 in eacn bait as well as the maximum applicaricn raz2
be left to the judgmen?: <strong>of</strong> the applicators. 9r. :iiliiam suck, Pr<strong>of</strong>essor
<strong>of</strong> Vezerinary Toxicology and Director <strong>of</strong> the Animal Poison Cantroi
Center, Gniversity <strong>of</strong> Illinois, lirbana and Dr. '/a1 I?. B2?sl9y, 20ct~r
<strong>of</strong> Vetari nary Xedicine and Research ,Asscci ate in Toxicoic~y a: the
University <strong>of</strong> I1 1 inois , w i 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 <strong>of</strong> SLDs could
result in the poiscning <strong>of</strong> large numbers <strong>of</strong> thesz and other snail
non-target carnivores. Dr. Buck acknowledged, however, rhat a requi rz-
menc 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the dosage that would
be letxal to 50 percent <strong>of</strong> animals t2sted.

136
and ;ha. for a scls2n eagle is 1,25 tg 5.C0 -x/t,. J.
(7;
-1 .
5 -P4, 2--
1 tu I Su i;s
1.5 g <strong>of</strong> 1080 per 160 pounds <strong>of</strong> bait, thac a i50-pound man wauid
obtain an LD5g by the consumption <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> such bait macerial. An LDlgO
for a coy0t2 has been estimated 3t 0.16 ~~g/kg. ic is zcparsnt tha;
- values fcr nan and the 23912 as neil as scter s?ecifs ar?
the LDcO
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 <strong>of</strong> 3ninals cha~ a staciszjczl
coniidence interval can oe zstablished. Inasmuch as the fcod
consurnprion <strong>of</strong> an eagle is approximatoi y h o pounds a day, L i i
clear that an eagle could obtain a potentially lethal dose in feeding
on 3 bait station. This is, <strong>of</strong> course, also true <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the poison. LDjO
values are more likely to have been establ i ined in laboratori?~ at
or near normal room temperatures.

-.
;usper.sizn <strong>of</strong> ;oe ragi i;ra;i3n 2; ;oi~pcu,~; ICaC) rr-g~r:::; ibr;e-
bai t s~az-ians )was thaC :he ni n ihum number Fecessary co achieve
- 8
effective cayote managenent ras f3 be glac~d. ~ n i i Lvas jenerally
interyreted as requiring or penizting the pliicemerlt <strong>of</strong> not more
than one stazion per township. %i:h the approval <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the N S and a witness
. for the AFBF. The theory <strong>of</strong> not nore than one large-bait station
per township was, <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> 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, b u 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? <strong>of</strong> ~he sgowpack ~t
higher el~vations and the press <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 1080 for each 100 pounds <strong>of</strong> meat. Mr. Randal1
described the difficulties in cbtaining proper distribution <strong>of</strong> 1080
in large meat-baits. He testified that even after 1080 was distributed

in vials <strong>of</strong> 0.3 g and 1.6 g, i r: :vas iv~ossible
7 ,- ,l - r
ts a'stribu:2 12; ,~;Lv -3s
;f a srs,.;: ? %/enjj zkra~~n e2c:? ?sun:', <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 h o ~ 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 <strong>of</strong> bone, hide, etc. in each ?crticn in det~rniniag :he
?roper quanzity <strong>of</strong> 1080 solu-cion to apply. He statsd hat gradua~ec
containers hoil'd have Deen <strong>of</strong> assistanc2 in ~ixins che proper quantify,
bux xhat such con,;-j.iners Were no; avai iabi?.
:!
133. 'iith che zxce9t:on <strong>of</strong> Er. Randal 1, tesciinony from 3 ; 1 ~ifnes~~s tine
par-cicipated in or who wera fami 1 iar wizh t h I080 ~ baiting program
was to the effect th{lC deaths <strong>of</strong> non-target species from the baits
were minimal . Beca~se <strong>of</strong> tne charac12r-i s ti c i at.2ncy period fcr toxic
effect after the ingestion <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> disposal <strong>of</strong> remains <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> 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 ~ R C
that thera was cacit understanding among field personnel ulth rihorn
he was familiar that the actual magnitude <strong>of</strong> non-target deaths not
be rz~orted.
nppr 190. Aanda! 1 resti fi ed chat he i3rX10nl y fll;!Id dezd iad~ers ,,&-, 1 ca0
baiis or ;he remains <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> seven dead badgers at
,
bait stations in Texas to improper dosage caused by use <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> the golden eagle samples *#ere posi zive I or strychnine.
19i. In the fall <strong>of</strong> 1969, the 3ivisian <strong>of</strong> Wild1 i?? Servic,?~ ;nsci:used 2
policy <strong>of</strong> including a iracerize in I090 solutions 2nd r-trycnnine arc?
-
baits. I issue samples <strong>of</strong> a bird or aniinal killed by either <strong>of</strong> ;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 <strong>of</strong> 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

eldtion ra prcxlmiiy <strong>of</strong> 5~jis and orher evidence rather Than o:
tracer. There is, <strong>of</strong> 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
<strong>of</strong> ~igniii~cani adver52 impacts on the ?opulations <strong>of</strong> non-targes s?eci?s
from the us2 sf 1080. ?e assartzd that the loss <strong>of</strong> 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

32gl2 r3c3verea ? n 3bcu'l six ia:/s ;ylizh no apparPnP side 2i53~:~
cnac si~iiar syT;ccrns t(et-2 ,13c ~~s2rved :n ~9s scher ??

1
n+ximun oi 1C TG 7033 sr 2paraxi,~ateig 5:n L3, I L\J -,- dosas fsr a :?n '

-
iil rjssues <strong>of</strong> coyo%ss which died ifi2r S U ~ C S ~ xxic ~ ~ Z S C S ? : ~ ~ S . I;
l,vas ~2~2mined chat ;he average iC5C :,-nczntrz;;'zn iz xusc;e c':

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 t rax, ,rni ch i nnibi ts acti vi :I/
-,
<strong>of</strong> me 2nz;/ne aconi tase and depr'ves cei 1s <strong>of</strong> enerzy. 1 nis znzyne
inhibition results in the blocking <strong>of</strong> the l(r?bs cycle, ;uhich secanbariiy
blocks glucose inetabolisin, a 1,esser energy producing process. 3lockage
<strong>of</strong> cnese orocesszs caus2s che energy supply to be r:ducxi co the ?oint
where cs1lu;ar pemeabiiity barriers are destroyed, resulting in loss
<strong>of</strong> function and iinaiiy c~llular deach. 3ecaus2 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> central nervous system disorders. Dr. Savarie
(finding 192) cautioned that these were assumed modes <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> rnon<strong>of</strong>luoroacetate. Dr. hlorman Zirmerman ,

1
Senior IOX~ cciog- ST =1)r 722 '4ichl;gsn Szazz : ;::ic S~;cs:ancz Czn-,rc
Csmi s;ion and ?I vj cnfsi for 12ei?ncers, cickncv4j ea;za, ::?z: 5 i 23~7:
07 the aacz zob2 <strong>of</strong> action by whicn Cor~cuna 7380 zx2rrad j; ~ 2 x 1 ~
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 ~ e l to inai n tai n noma i
functions for ac hasi one hour. He added fluoroci trax -,a che
!~r<strong>of</strong>using ~ediurn up to 3 final concenfratj5n <strong>of</strong> 0.1 mM. SurZng che
n
course <strong>of</strong> che experiment kidneys \,vere i nszantly frozen afkr LO
ninut2s <strong>of</strong> 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? <strong>of</strong> energy, to 43 percent <strong>of</strong> normal, that kidney function
was reduced to 7/10 <strong>of</strong> normal and that serious kidney damage had
occurred. The purpose <strong>of</strong> his experiment was to determine how kidneys
produce arranonia rather than to test the 5ffects <strong>of</strong> fluorocitrate on
kidneys. Although Or. Bogusky considered that the concentration <strong>of</strong>
fluarocitrate used was low, it was approximately seven times the one
-,. -
- -
-
- 7
; 5

tsxic ;all ar. 2rr. 3ogbsk;i i~juned :ha: :;2 :gfiverzion 2:
fluoroacetece i nto fl uorcci i rat rioul d be on a one-:o-one >;sj i .
He defended this conclusion as reasonable asserting That x e amount
<strong>of</strong> 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 fluoro-
citrate 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 <strong>of</strong> 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

.i
1 L9
co~c2ntra:i~ns <strong>of</strong> ff;e;.sc;'trat? ;n zrinkci:~ :~atzr as :cw as six
??n f3r SZVZZ jay5 S ~ C W O 73r3~:9;c~i~2:
~
izrzse x 13s ~ 2, s TI; j 5
ait2r 21 days. Rats given sub-lethal dos2s <strong>of</strong> fluorocirrac? in
dr-inking water )lave been shown to srow normally for seven months
and then to survix on an intraperitoneai dose <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> ~on<strong>of</strong>luoro-
ac2tat2 have increased che talerance <strong>of</strong> scme sgecies, l.g., 9old,. 1 Aaq eagles, rats, mica and possibly rbesus nonkeys. Repea tzd sub-iethal
dosss <strong>of</strong> ~on<strong>of</strong>?uoroacetate in dogs, guinea pigs, rabbi^; ana ~ alard l
ducks, hcwever, accumulatod to lethal levels. 3r. 3ogusky ?oinc?d
out ~hae the reason more data ~wasn' t avai 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 rnon<strong>of</strong>l uoroacetate i s a xhi t2 , ordor? ess , powdery, f 1 uoro-
organic 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
due to rhe scrongth <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
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 <strong>of</strong> Pediatricr at tne Universixy <strong>of</strong> Colorado, Ui reczor <strong>of</strong>
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 t h ~ zany t 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> adjusting or removing a collar
4

.*. .
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 e i that in che caurse <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> eat
in a piastic %rapper i n the cmrse <strong>of</strong> inveszisa-;i!~g a ccmolai~t
concerning zne poisoning <strong>of</strong> same dogs. :l!r. 3ahIsn &as hospicaiizec,
treatzd and rel~assd. Subsequent xszs r2vealed that ~ h e xeac
contained 7080. A? chougn 'lr. BanJen did not touch other ckan che
wrapper in which

- ,-
apparent 3dvers2 2 7 ~ 3 ~ : 3r. ~ . ,?"nack was unabl 2 c3 ci t? ar,y 1 nscancss
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>
rnisuse <strong>of</strong> toxicants and inaicatsd chat it was aeprooriat~ 23
consider "comonly rxagnizod prac~icz" and tha~ she iik2lihool <strong>of</strong>
- 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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 1969 cf 51
I
8 r
bait stacions , some <strong>of</strong> !+mi ch were on Federal Gover'nmenr prcperzy , \,vni cr;
had noc been approved by eicher the Forest Service or the 3ureau <strong>of</strong>
Land Nanagernent or for location by DWS. ile ~tatyzd That the82 baits
were placed because <strong>of</strong> pressure from sheepmen and an overzealous
suqervisor in the area. An Gctaber 1969 DWS memorandum, <strong>of</strong> which
26/ It is not2d that one <strong>of</strong> the decisions relied upon for the
proposition that comonly recognized practics may affect the adequacy
<strong>of</strong> 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).

1
133
. ,
r . Randall .as cre <strong>of</strong> 2 rzc:2;.n;j, fr;kica:sd :nit iasz.1 ;r,
quantity 9f i8C ilS2.' rrc

.?
1 SL
&~ar;~ent oG 1,g~icy;:dr~ 3::d it i: 8inliiai;/ :nz: given 5 , 515.30 ~
cast o? cne co;lars ixc.y r3fic::er~ ,/~uIG SUTZ!~ZS~ cs; iars fz~t :;:e Zurpss
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> gasoline. in sum, whill it is
clear that the extrsne toxicity <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> oats wnich kad ;eon scaked in an iinknown a~ount <strong>of</strong> jodium
fl uoroacetat~. She xas trcarod ,di ~ f e-~hyl
t 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 <strong>of</strong> hospizalization ,das in supportive
care, i .g., rnaintenznce <strong>of</strong> bodily functions. Ee tescf fiea tnat if
the treatments were effective, she would have revived more quickly.
Dr. 8ogusky was <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong>1080 in the toxic collar contemplates that conti-01 <strong>of</strong> 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~ L U I I ~ uc I JUIU ~ LU ICLILLIICI~.
8

-.ccn~roi
, ';?izncers nave shown a :: ,J <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> lGSO poisoning, szatad rSa1 pati2nz; oitan
complain <strong>of</strong> 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 ~ osoni i 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 ~ cardiovascular e
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 <strong>of</strong> pain in the hospital record <strong>of</strong> 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

and cold-weazner xonths. Se indjcato? :gat Torn s3uid be ~s?d
depending on predation and the nunber <strong>of</strong> sheep. Given ;he corrsn; ios
<strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> 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

TO CONTROL STOCK-KILLING COYOTES
SHEEP OR GOATS IN THIS AREA ARE WEARING
- -. 7 35;
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 . 2 1 1 j )
3
> I
EN LAS OVEJAS 0 CABRAS .QGE )--
- J
EST~ EN UN COLLAR T~XICO
,-
ESTAN ATADAS
NO TOQUE LOS ANIMALES, LOS
MUERTOS. NO SUELTEA l!.w.4S
OVEJAS
0 CABRAS,,

0 -5
i-i .n
5 5 5.
0 x < fi <
J --'- CDO 3 m
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
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
- I
-0 3 ol l-i
D. -5
n 0
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. -*

lo~ical pojrt <strong>of</strong> access ;;all 32
9. tihere c21 iars a;-E in US?, ? ~ C R
cons;.ic~cuslj/ pcsred :v.i :h a ~ i i n; pal (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 ~ repair r or disposed <strong>of</strong> properly.
12. Disposal <strong>of</strong> ?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.
-
hand1 i ng and qiacmenz 3f iri~s,
(a) Training i n ia7~
(j) iraining in disoosa! <strong>of</strong> 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: c i 1223 ;o; ;onips :n
numans and Icnssi7 c 2n!zial s ,
1,is;ruc~i ons on ~ ~ ~ ksepi 3 r ng d .
(c) L
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 S t 3 ~
AOC perrannel tha~ a cgyct? kill or kill s iave cccurrod. 521 ?c:ion
<strong>of</strong> bai~ jitzs ~ c 313cz'i:snt d ;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 <strong>of</strong> 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 <strong>of</strong> such sttcigns ar ?do
baits shall be located on one s2ccion (540 acres) <strong>of</strong> 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
not less than 3" x 10" in sizo. Signs wi 7 1 be inspectzd ~e241;~ 2nd
ncj si si:
will be rmoved ahen baits are removed or- deter;nined have been
cansurried.
2 . ;1CC perscnne: ;ha1 1 ~SSD lrlri ct.5 rzcsrcs <strong>of</strong> :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.
. ,
tar;e~ 2:
- -
,dell
14. 2egorts CT 17man inj~ries 3nd <strong>of</strong> ai: anigals zs~n,
as non-sarges, ~i : 1 5e ?a62 2y XCC :ersaccel lo ,?$ ar :ne
~pprcpr-i az2 S i310 r2zui azsry agemy.