Paul as I work in KY I want to know if it is legal. The end justifies the means attitude is just fine for some, others may want more clarification when performing a service for a customer. I am sorry if I don't agree that if a chemical is not specifically disallowed then it must be legal. There is no personal attack here on my part nor have I said not to use this product but I see nothing wrong with finding out if an operator chooses to use a product if they face risk for its use. Even something as simple as sealing a gap on vinyl siding with a product that is not specifically labeled for vinyl could cause an issue for an operator...shouldn't they know that?

What we have here is a disagreement. And because some don't agree we get some hostility. Even had NWCOA brought into it when that was not even an issue and Paul I am not calling anyone and seeking to ban anything and NWCOA has never to my knowledge tried to ban anything as stated in another post. If anything it is inclusive as we have operators from many different back grounds bringing techniques from capture to exclusion and adding them to the knowledge base for this industry. Just because those methods don't hale from the traditional source don't make them without value and I can assure you none have created any turmoil within this industry. Another post hinted that NWCOA should have openly endorsed this method... you know that can't be done as well as I do...but what was/is the hope? That enough operators use this product in a form of civil disobedience with the hope that regulators will just have no choice but to make it an approved product? Worked with Prohibition but I can't see the upwelling of support from the populous on this issue .

You know as well as anyone that ignorance of the law is not an excuse. So would it be better to have an operator running around openly using this product believing that its use is a method approved by their state when it may not be? If there is the possibility that an operator could face legal or civil consequences from it use/misuse an operator should have that knowledge if this method is being openly discussed/promoted to those who perform wildlife control and then let the individual operator make an informed decision on to use or not to use it in their business based on regulation in their state.

The time of just keeping quiet about it so we can keep on using it argument is long passed ( and I had nothing to do with that ) as the topic is now out there on the web and in print for all to see and some regulators or those in conflict with the wildlife control industry could even make it a issue of why the wildlife control industry can't be trusted to self regulate or lacks professionalism by putting customers at risk. And they would not care how miniscule that risk is because they will not see a "grey area" and they are going to be the label is the law type...No doubt about that is there?

Charles,I think fish and wildlife is in the same position as NWCOA they get advice from a lawyer and there is liability to telling somebody to do something. Call the police and tell them there is a deer hit and suffering beside the road and you want to shoot it in the head with a .22 pistol to put it out of its misery but you want them to tell you to do it. They won't tell you to do that. If you force them to answer they may even take the safe way out and tell you not to do it. Do it and if you used good judgement and didn't endanger the public there isn't a problem. Do it and you did endanger the public you've got a problem.
Another analogy I went to fish and widlife because I had been told you could not hunt deer with an air rifle by an officer. I made a suggestion that they should change that reg as air rifles were capable and could be used with less risk in urban environments. Their brochure says any centerfire can be used and u can't use a rim fire. They got a big book out to the actual reg. 1. air rifle was considered a rifle in their definition, and the only restriction was a rimfire can not be used for taking deer. No mention of centerfire in the reg. thus since an air rifle is not a rimfire you can use it. A high ranking official looked me in the eye said "We tell you what you can't use not what you can" and slammed the book shut" then made me a copy of the reg
If you can use an inhalant for euthanasia I don't think you need to press them to list which ones. You may have access to a better one or one may come available in the future.
Charles, if you plan on using chloroform if I can get them to specifically say chloroform as your friend I will press them. If not I would just leave it alone and not use it.
I misunderstood your previous posts on this subject I thought you were saying it was dangerous and should not be allowed to be used was unprofessional etc. It is like a lot of things it can be abused but it sounds to me like it can be used properly. My limited research seems like it is used in propellants, cleaners etc that we use everyday and seaweed even makes it naturally.

The pesticide laws apply to the use of chloroform on wildlife. It is that simple. As far as I can tell, a product is not made for the use on wildlife. There is no FDA label...or pesticide label available.

Isoflorane and halothane have labeled products for use. Pharmaceutical companies may invent other products - which is probably why some laws are written open ended. Of course, this is FDA regulated.

It is very clear.