Prices Collars Traps Snares Capture Parts Home   Highlights of Published Research   click here to return to publicity page Connolly, Guy E. 1980. Use of compound 1080 in livestock neck collars to kill depredating coyotes. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife Research Center. 125 pp. “The outstanding advantage of the McBride collar is its selectivity for the individual coyote that is causing damage. Disadvantages of the method include the amount of livestock management needed to use this technique and the necessity for ‘sacrificial lambs.’” Connolly, Guy E. 1993. Livestock Protection Collars in the United States, 1988-1993. Proceedings of the 11th Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop, April. “The LP Collar offers the ultimate in selectivity. Therefore, in the next 5 to 10 years I hope to see the collar become established as an integral part of private and government predator management programs.” Connolly, Guy, and Richard J. Burns. 1990. Efficacy of compound 1080 livestock protection collars for killing coyotes that attack sheep. Proc. 14th Vertebr. Pest Conf. Published at University of California Davis. 14: 269-276. “Our pen tests yielded an overall puncture rate of 63%, yet 91% (21/23) of the coyotes that participated in attacks on lambs with collars containing 5 to 10 mg FAC/ml were killed. The reason for this seeming inconsistency is that some coyotes killed more than 1 lamb before they punctured a collar. Twenty coyotes died in their first (n = 17) or second (n = 3) attack, but one old animal with worn teeth did not die until its fifth test. All 5 collars were bitten but the first 4 were not punctured. Pen tests with other toxicants likewise documented that coyotes would attack collared sheep repeatedly until they punctured a collar and were killed (Burns et al. 1984). We conclude that Compound 1080 LP Collars will take most coyotes that habitually prey upon sheep where collars are in use.” Temple, Wayne A., and Ralph Edwards. 1985. Toxic Ducks – 1080 residues in game birds, an exercise in applied toxicology. Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 27(1): 20-21. “During the duckhunting season, the New Zealand National Poisons Information Center suddenly received a spate of inquiries from anxious duckhunters who had heard a radio broadcast from the Police advising that several ducks had been accidentally poisoned as a result of field operations with compound 1080. . . . Assuming: A duck has been killed by three lethal doses. . . .A 70 kg man would require, in one single feeding (70 x 5) / 14.3 = 25.4 kg of duckmeat to receive a lethal dose. . . . However, consideration must be given to other factors. On a weight/weight basis, the toxin is confined predominantly to internal organs . . . . a dressed carcass is therefore more likely to be much less than for a whole bird. Gargantuan appetites would be required to consume a dose that would cause morbidity, let alone mortality . . . . Unlike scavengers in the wild, man prefers to cook his meat. The structural integrity of the SMFA molecule is unstable at temperatures about 130 C, and decomposition takes place at 200 C. . . . Thus the concomitant consumption of toxic duckmeat and alcohol may lessen the effects of the SMFA. (Besides, it is common knowledge that duckhunting and alcohol consumption correlate with a high degree of significance!)” Stahl, P., J.M. Vandel, V. Herrenschmidt, P. Migot. 2001. The effect of removing lynx in reducing attacks on sheep in the French Jura Mountains. Biological Conservation 101: 15-22. “The modern approach to resolve predator-livestock conflicts entails the selective removal of certain individuals in high conflict areas, rather than efforts to reduce overall numbers. . . .based on the hypothesis that within a given population some individuals cause most of the problems and that these individuals can be eliminated. . . . In general, lynx are not scavengers. . . . Livestock protection collars do not protect sheep from death but are an efficient and selective method of killing their predators (Savarie and Sterner, 1979; Connolly and Burns, 1990, review in Andelt, 1996). Sheep were equipped with these collars in two neighboring pastures during summer and autumn 1990. Two of the equipped sheep were killed, one in each pasture. The wounds and bite marks were characteristic of lynx. . . .the reappearance within a few years of lynx regularly attacking sheep on the same sites clearly indicates a “site effect,” i.e. an interaction with the specific characteristics of the site (e.g. location of sheep pens in forested areas, availability of wild prey, etc.)” Shrivner, Jerry H. 1983. The 1080 toxic collar: economics of field use in Texas. Proceedings of the Eastern Damage Control Conference. Ed. Dan Decker. 27-30 September 1983. Sheriton Conference Center, Ithaca, NY. “However, in these studies, no nontarget animals were found which were suspected of having died from 1080 poisoning. While the potential for primary and secondary poisoning from collar use does exist, the results of field use of the toxic collar as well as established lethal dose values indicate that the potential risks to populations of non-target wildlife are minimal. In many instances, other wildlife species and populations may benefit from control exerted on coyote populations.” Burns, R. J., and G. E. Connolly. 1995. Toxicity of Compound 1080 Livestock Protection Collars to Sheep. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 28: 141-144. “Under conditions of exaggerated hazard, sheep can be poisoned by ingesting LPC solution, but adverse effects from normal LPC use are rare.” Leopold, A. Starker, et al. 1964. Predator and rodent control in the United States. North American Wildlife Conference, Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, DC 29:27-49. [This is the famous “Leopold Report” that is often cited by environmentalists as “damning” the use of compound 1080.] “In the open areas of the western United States, by far the most efficient control method for coyotes is the 1080 bait station. The station normally consists of a dead animal, such as a sheep, in which compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) is injected. According to PARC ground rules, these stations are to be placed no more frequently than one to a township; their presence is to be clearly announced with posters; and thirdly, they are to be established late in the autumn and picked up early in spring so that they are only effective in the winter months. They operate on the concept that coyotes travel widely in their foraging, and any point within a township (36 square miles) will probably be passed sooner or later by resident coyotes. On the other hand, other carnivores and scavengers are very much less mobile, and the only ones that may be exposed to such a station are those living in its immediate vicinity. Most of the summer carnivores and scavengers migrate or hibernate in winter. When properly applied, according to regulations, 1080 stations of this sort do an effective and humane job of controlling coyotes and have very little damaging effect on other wildlife. . . .if regulations for the placement and treatment of 1080 stations are strictly followed, we agree with PARC that it is perhaps the most efficient and one of the least damaging methods of coyote control in open lands of the western United States. But there is need for much stricter adherence [by the responsible government employees! not ranchers!] to the operational rules specified in the Manual” (page 35). Ramey, C. A., E.W. Schafer, Jr., K.A. Fagerstone, and S.D. Borrecco. 1992. Back to the future for APHIS’s vertebrate pesticides. Vertebrate Pest Conference Proceedings, Newport Beach, California, 3-5 March, No. 15:17-21. “In the past three years, DWRC and its cooperators have submitted 188 studies in support of the reregistration of products containing strychnine, sodium cyanide, zinc phosphide, compound 1080, sodium nitrate, carbon, DRC-1339, and PA-14.” click here to return to publicity page

Prices

Collars

Traps

Snares

Capture

Parts

Home