I read Bob Noonan's book "Odorless Skunk Removal" and was trying to order chloroform. I called the company listed in the book and got no answer. On Amazon I found trichloroethylene sold as a solvent. Is this the right stuff? Are there other methods to help keep a skunk from firing off? Thanks

TCE is not it!

No need for chloroform for odorless skunk removal.

Only worth paying all the fees if you buy a gallon and who needs a gallon unless you work with a lot of skunks? I'll vouch for it working and Bobs methods are sound but it's a big expense if you're not dealing in volume or have a few other operators to spread the cost.

The best place I've found for chloroform is Rocky Mountain Reagents. I use quite a bit of chloroform, it makes skunk work very quick. I had 8 skunks in a window well and it took the customer longer to write the check then it did for me to remove all the skunks. Works great on the skunks the customer has caught in there own traps set out in the middle of the yard. Also, works very well on raccoons in chimneys.

What does the stuff run.

I will have pints at the NTA in MI.

If you are repackaging chloroform, make sure it meets consumer commodity package requirements. It's a regulated hazardous material for shipping.

I think a gallon shipped cost about 128.00. It does speed up skunk work but using an ounce or two at a time it lasts.

I've had a couple times it would have been real handy inside a building. Jim I might have to look you up.

At least stop by and say hi. We will be set up in the arts building.

Are you able to ship?

Can't ship at this time. Too many hoops to jump through. Would cost as much or more than the chloroform. Sorry.

yeah....it is regulated on highway too. So packing a bunch in a car to drive to a meeting may be in issue.

Wow Dave, that stuff must be almost as dangerous as gasoline. ( Oh no, that's right, gasoline can explode; chloroform can't. )

Paul:

Actually, it has completely different hazards. Both chemicals are regulated "hazardous materials" by DOT. However, Chloroform is also regulated as an "extremely hazardous substance" under SARA. One chemical is flammable...the other toxic.

There are DOT exemptions to carry gasoline on a pickup as a "material of trade". You will need to determine if you are carrying Chloroform properly as a material of trade....and meet the requirements.

https://hazmatonline.phmsa.dot.gov/services/publication_documents/MOTS05.pdf

Sounds like you're the right guy to ask this question to: How many people have been killed or hospitalized from chloroform in the past 25 years?

It is irrelevant. Do we get to pick and choose what laws we wish to follow? From what I can tell, this only applies to the President...but hey...maybe is is becoming more widespread.

How about for the home viewer someone provide a run down on regs, use and such for our industry.

Have seen plenty of slaps but never a knock out punch from either side on this material and it's use.

EPA, CDC, cancer? Other issues, delivery quantity and safety in the field when administering, etc.....

Would like the full breadth of this topic not just quips and snips.

Any takers?

No....I don't use it...so not worth the effort.

My understanding is the regs. only apply to more than 55 gals. as far as hauling. Shipping by mail or UPS is a different matter.

If that were the case, you could pack 10 gallons in a glass container and pack it in a suitcase and check the bag on a passenger aircraft. Think about it.......

Yet I can't get a 12 ounce bottle of WATER through airport security.

Well...that is another issue. You could put it in a checked bag...last I knew.

Anyway....there are many things to consider if you are using chloroform. Each aspect of its use is regulated to some degree. Transportation, use (hazcom training), storage, spills.

If you purchase it by the drum, and put it into smaller containers for your trucks, then the new containers must be of proper construction...and be labeled property. It can be done....but you need to be educated on the requirements.

Also, if you have a drum at your business (aka home office), and there is a fire, there could be problems. While it is not flammable...when the container fails...you will have contamination...and risk to firemen. Cleanups of chlorinated solvents are expensive....because they don't break down quickly....when in soil/water. Also, your homeowners insurance certainly has a clause that they don't cover contamination from chemicals that are out of ordinary home use (5 gallons gasoline).

Then, there is the liability from customers. "What! You sprayed a reproductive hazard in my home!" And employees...if not trained on the hazards.

Simply carrying a pint if it in your trucks, may not be the wisest move without being educated.

Dave K is a friend of mine so I will take it easy on him. He said it all when I asked him how many people have been killed or

hospitalized by using chloroform in the last 25 years? His answer was "It's irrelevant". I think that means he couldn't find anybody.

I don't want him to get the wrong impression. I don't make chloroform, sell it, or make one nickel on it in any form. I don't care if

nobody else in the whole wide world uses it. I've been raked over the coals time and time again about chloroform. If there was a

shred of evidence against it, do you think for a minute the my lovely bride, who actually runs this company, would let her offspring

or even worse, her beloved grandkids, use the stuff? I rest my case, Your Honor.

Paul...

A great WCT article. Interview the regulators about proper handling chloroform in wildlife business. Just do it already...

Or...interview the big chemical manufacturer. Call their toxicology and regulatory affairs department. It could be part of their community outreach program....it would be easy to get on track.

Sorry Dave, it's been done and my bride ( who okay's all my articles ) would never let me do that again. People who can barely spell

the word chloroform were using it to get back at people on the magazine. I'm sure Eric is not looking for controversy either. We had

one guy that hated everyone on the WCT staff so much, that he actually called my supplier and every regulator he could find. He had

to end up with something from WWII that claimed the Nazis might have used it against the Jews. By the way, what is your vendetta

against chloroform? Since it's not to save lives or prevent injury, I'm a little perplexed.

I don't have an issue with the proper use. Filling up a jug to roll around in a pickup...is not proper. Distributing it at swap meets is not proper. Take the time to become educated.

The use of it brings new laws or risks into play, that can impact your business. It's like using a conibear, when comstocks are available. There are alternatives that can reduce the risks.

Please tell me the alternatives to chloroform. This stuff is getting really expensive. I'm all ears.

Ignorant question, but going to post it anyway as I googled and saw some threads that suggest both.

Using it for;

1) Anesthesia

2) Euthanasia

Not asking for the how/why or anything related to dispatch talk, just which number for guys that have been carrying this thread.

#1 or #2

How is it used....what situations?

It can be purchased from Grainger.com also. Get an account set up before trying to buy controlled items though.

I can't use it here in NJ as with anything that really is useful. or better put, have to jump through loops to be able to. But would like to.

I have talked to Bob Noonan a lot on the use of this in skunk work. I personally would like to use it as a dazing method. This year we have what seems to be a lot of those year old skunks, you know the ones that's got attitude and will spray ya just because they want to. Point in case, in the last 7 days or so we have taken maybe 12 to 14 skunks, not a lot, But, at least half of those skunks was yearling and a pain in the butt types. With the weather being hot, even the older ones are a bit edgy, but those yearlings just plain are a pain. By using his method of dazing described in his book it would make my life a lot easier to get a tarp of the trap.

Yesterday I got a skunk job at a good sized company. I was of course bragging about what a fantastic skunk catcher I was and they

probably thought I was full of BS like you guys do. So I got lucky and ran a little one down by their dumpster, chloroformed it, and

then got it used to being handled. I then went around and showed it to everybody. The office was the most fun. The big guys were

running for cover and the little secretaries were running at us taking pictures. I really love this job!

yeah Paul that's why I want to use it calm the yearlings down.

Can't get good at skunk whispering by cheating with chloroform. It's like saying your a great hunter...when all the trips are guided.

run, Bob Noonan wrote one called Odorless skunk removal. He talks about using chloroform to put skunks to sleep. Good read.

run, Bob Noonan has an excellent book out on odorless skunk trapping. He mentions my name; that's why it's excellent.

Dave; Okay my hunt was guided but there wasn't a guide within two miles when I connected. Do the heads still count?

P.S. I only use chloroformed skunks for customers. For you I wouldn't waste it.

Well it looks like a lot of pros and one con I'm going to have to look Jim up and get a square bottle that won't role around in my pickup.

When Brooker says he's looking up Jim to get a square bottle I was surprised that he knew Mr. Beam personally. ( I also figured he already had a lot of those square, empty, bottles in the back of his truck )

Paul most of the time your not very funny but ocasionally you could be the last comic standing. I think I'm gonna go make myself a little toddy and go to bed.

I don't know if this thread has run its course, but here goes. I heard about chloroform when i interviewed paul Winkelmann years ago for WCT. I called Wedor corp. (414-329-9041, and yes, the number still works) and ordered some. A quart was almost as much as a gallon so I got a gallon, and split the price and gallon with my brother dave, who also does some skunk work. If I remember we paid about $130 for the gallon, hazardous material delivery fee included.

Before I tried it I had injected my share of skunks in cages, covered cages and moved them, etc. I was amazed at how easy the chloroform made handling them, esp. those pain in the butt agitated young of the year who spray apparently for the heck of it. Chloroform makes most of them so calm they seem to lose interest in spraying (although not completely - still have to move slow). The stuff got them buzzed out and slowed down enough to inject them easily, and eventually i started putting them in a pipe to finish them off, as described in my book. I remember getting two agitated juveniles in a 10x10x30 cage set for coon, they were running all over the place, wouldn't let me near them, no way I could get a needle in them as they wouldn't hold still, and when i got within 10 feet with a cloth cover all I saw was raised tails and flared pink bungholes pointed at me, with them looking at me over their shoulders and twitching and jumping like they were gonna go off any second. You know exactly what I mean. It was one of the first time I used chloroform, and after i sprayed them each about a dozen times they were pretty sluggish and I was able to inject them easily. Have loved chloroform ever since.

The method is fast. I once had 5 skunks trapped on one job. I sprayed the first skunk and got him drunk, covered him with a blanket, then sprayed and covered the second skunk. I ran the first one into my pipe and overdosed him, then cleaned up and reset that trap. Removed and injected by hand the passed out first skunk, ran the second skunk into the now empty pipe, overdosed him, and moved onto the third one. And so forth. I did all 5 in about an hour, and was able to leave all 5 traps reset on the job, and left with 5 dead skunks all bagged up. Good money!

It doesn't always go this smooth, sometimes you get one that's resistant and takes some time, but only about 1 in 50.

At $130 a gallon, and a gallon being 128 oz., and it taking an ounce or two to daze a skunk enough to handle it - that's $2 a skunk maybe. Well worth it. I store the stuff in 16 oz glass urine bottles with metal caps (it eats plastic) and it keeps forever, doesn't freeze either.

How safe is it? Before I wrote about it I spent hours on the phone with two industry chemists who assured me that a couple of ounces were harmless. The very few deaths were industrial accidents involving spillage of hundereds of gallons. One chemist actually laughed at me when i asked him if it was safe. he told me gasoline was far more dangerous. Chloroform won't burn and was actually used as a coolant in fire extinguishers.It has been implicated in cancer in lab animals that were exposed to large quantities. Also, it was once used as an asthetic on humans for operations, but was discontinued because it sometimes caused organ damage if exposure lasted an hour or more. It's a matter of both amount and duration of exposure. The liquid turns quickly to a gas that is heavier thjan air and sinks to the ground, so spraying 2 oz. on a skunk at the level of your feet is harmless. Esp, since it also dissipates and thins out sideways along the ground, and the slightest air movement also dissipates it.

Every year I get 2-3 calls about live skunks in houses. Pretty neat to find them hiding behind sheetrock leaning against a wall, or behind the extrol water pump, or behind furniture in a basement, and spray them until they're seriously buzzed, then slip a needle into the rib cage and put them away. Nice to get paid $100 for a 1-hour job and be considered a hero too.

Chloroform is not a registered substance and there are no laws regulating its use in almost all states - at least right now, may be if HSUS hears about how effective and humane it is.

Another use - I do some live trapping of chipmunks, red squirrels, and gray squirrels. I put the trap with the animal in it in a plastic bag, pour half an oz of chloroform on a piece of folded up paper towel, drop it in the bag on top of the cage, and close the bag, squeezing the air out and twisting the neck shut a few times so air can't get in. The animal is peacefully dead in 15-20 minutes.

Yes, you can remove skunks odorlessly without chloroform. I've done hundreds that way. Not any more!

Thanks Paul for introducing me to the stuff. - Bob

Thanks Bob. And thanks for all the advice from everyone on this thread. I ended up ordering a liter from Rocky Mt. Reagents. We don't have a lot of skunks here , but I do have an appt. next week to price a job with skunks in a barn. Also , I know that eventually I will find one in a trap set for a coon or groundhog. I am currently gathering all the items to use Bob's method. I just started doing commercial ADC work this year after retiring from my regular job , and am having a great time doing new stuff that I haven't faced before in 50 years of fur trapping.

Bob:

It is regulated in all states in a variety of ways. 49 CFR aka Transportation of hazardous materials is one example.

From the standpoint if safety, it is regulated under hazcom. 29 CFR.1910

Dave

Disposing of waste chloroform is considered a hazardous waste. It is considered hazardous if it exhibits the characteristic (D022
Chloroform if over 6.0 mg/Liter). Test rags contaminated with it before disposing in trash...just so you have a record that the waste stream is in fact non-haz.

Chloroform is listed as an extremely hazardous substance by EPCRA (Emergency planning and community right to know act).
http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/docs/er/355table01.pdf

If over 10 pounds is spilled, there are reporting requirements...which could be an issue for some. There is planning requirements if you store over 10,000 pounds (which obviously would not impact ADC operators).

Again, this is Federal laws....applies to every state.

for Paul;
just wondering if in your travels you had met Mr. Daniels (Jack for short) or if his No7 bottles would work?

Hey Dave, as long as you're reading up on chloroform, how about doing a bunch of us a favor and find out WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY USED FOR!

I'm pretty sure it's a cleaning product but for cleaning what exactly? It's strong enough to take the paint off of a car. So how is

it used in industry?

P.S. You could spill a 100 pounds of it and as fast as it evaporates, it would be completely gone before the EPA arrived. And if

anybody has waste chloroform, please send it to me.

Good informative thread.

Paul:

I know how it is used to spray on a skunk's nose to make them dizzy.

I definitely see the benefits. Despite the benefits, I have personally chosen not to utilize it in my business. First, since I have employees, there are many more considerations because of the additional training. Also, I don't want the extra regulatory burden. The thought of spraying in/around a customer's home sounds like a liability to me.

If you want to use it....go for it. Just don't figure that you can transport it like a bottle of Jack. Train employees on the DOT regs, hazcom, spills, haz waste.....that apply! Maybe you already do that - Great!

My reason for posting was to educate. I am sorry if it come off snippy....I was trying to balance comical responses with a serious discussion. I should have taken the time to better explain...but this reminds me of my old job working for Auto/Chemical companies in EHS.

The best advice for those considering the use - contact the manufacturer. Chemical companies have a regulatory department and can provide free info to help meet the regulations. Relying on a message board for advice...silly.

Evaporation rate does not impact the reportability of the spills....

I am not saying it make sense....just communicating the laws. Spills to the air....rather than ground and water are still spills. Don't like them? Change them...

I appreciate your post Dave, but unlike most of the other guys on here, I already knew most of your feelings about chloroform. I have

never encouraged anyone to use chloroform; that's entirely up to the individual. I will, however, defend my use of chloroform because

of so many, many reasons. First and foremost is liability. That is the main consideration. I have used it in clients homes on many

occasions and to be perfectly honest, instead of lawsuits, I got applause. I can find no lawsuits for the use of chloroform, but

then, I'm not a lawyer. This whole post is kind of academic. We are not using an illegal substance, we have no investment in it, and

to be perfectly honest, we kinda hope that none of our competitors ever use it!

Call an environmental consultant and see if you are using it right. If you are...great. If not, at least you can learn how. If you do nothing with all the info I provided, it proves you are just being stubborn. Can't bury head in the sand....

Dave, if that last post was for me, I would suggest that you have all the environmental consultants call me. I have been using it for

at least twenty years and I would certainly be happy to show them how to use it. Especially in light of the fact that the majority of

them won't even know what you are talking about.

Paul:

I was talking about your training programs...PPE...transportation on highway...etc. The same regulatory requirements you need for some pesticides...

Here are some DOT related fines from 2013. You will see fines related to improper packaging...lack of training...improper labeling...etc.
http://phmsa.dot.gov/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj...nt%20Notice.pdf

Here is a good one just to demonstrate that chloroform is regulated by DOT:
SIGMA-ALDRICH LABORCHEMIKALIEN
GMBH, Seelze, Germany
(Shipper)

Offered toxic liquid, organic, n.o.s. (containing ethylene chlorohydrin and chloroform), 6.1, inhalation hazard, hazard zone B, when it did not package the material in a packaging meeting the requirements for transporting a toxic by inhalation, hazard zone B material; offered this material by aircraft, when it was forbidden for transportation aboard an aircraft; offered this material without properly describing it on the shipping paper and without properly marking and labeling the packaging.

[173.22(a)(2), 173.226(c), 173.227(a), 171.11(d)(9), 172.101(a), ICAO Technical Instructions — Table 3-1 and Special Provision A4, 172.203(m), 172.213(a), 172.400(a)(1), 172.402(c)]

Case No. 04-067-FSB-EA
$15,915

Boy, I'm sure glad I'm not one of those darn Germans. Vait von minute; Vinkelmann, I chust might be von!

Responding with jokes throughout this thread...shows the weakness in your argument. But hey...at least you read the thread.

Is there a video of this ? I'd like to see how some of you do this.

I guess that's probably not a bad idea. It might even erase some of the misconceptions. Finding time to do it properly in this, our

busiest season, would be the hard part.

Dave, I forget. What exactly is my argument that I'm so weak on again?

Not scientifically proven yet but I believe that using chloroform regularly helps to maintain your sense of humor.

If you stop using it, however, you will have a very good chance of becoming cynical and grumpy.

Wasn't it once used for dry cleaning? Does squirting it onto a skunk constitute a spill under the EPA guidlines? After all some hits the ground and some is released as a gas.

Yes...it was once used for dry cleaning. That does not change what I describe. Dry cleaning chemicals can be regulated bu DOT. In fact, matches in a great enough quantity are regulated.

You would need to spill over 10 pounds to be reported. If you are spraying 10 pounds...you are probably taking nap too.

Here is yet another summary paper by EPA that reviews the laws.
http://www.epa.gov/region4/foiapgs/readingroom/hercules_inc/chloroform_substance_profile_3v.pdf

Best of luck guys...

Would someone please explain the process of spraying a skunk that you can't get withing 10 feet of without inciting dangerous paranoia on the skunk's part?

Read Bob Noonan's thread on page 3. The trappers Post a couple of months back had a very good article on how it is done. Or, Bob's book tells all.

Newhouse 114 - Hopefully you'll get very, very few like that. Most I can cautiously approach to within 3-4 feet, then hit them with a direct stream of chloroform. A few are pacing as i drive up and get more agitated as i approach unti they're displaying and pounding their feet at 10 feet. The sprayer I use (Tough Guy trigger sprayer from Grainger Industrial Supply, www.grainger.com) will reach out 8-10 feet at most, but it's mostly a cloud of droplets then. Still works, just need more of it. A few really agitated ones I had to move in on really, really slowly, one step at a time, took 15-20 minutes or more to get in range, but I got them. The danger sign is them flaring their tail and pounding their feet and lunging towards you. Just wait until they stop doing that and resume their pacing, then cautiously move one more step closer. Wait a few seconds and if no displaying take another step. Stop the second they start displaying again, move in another step when they go back to just pacing. For me at least, it's unusual to have to do this, maybe 1 in 50. Of course if that flared pink rectum is aimed at you, don't try anything!

I had one really agitated skunk spray as soon as I hit him from 8-10 feet, and had a couple I had to spray repeatedly and took almost an hour to numb down. But those are the exceptions. I have yet to have one that was completely unapproachable, eventually.

Chloroform isn't perfect, but 95% is good enough for me. Nothing is guaranteed perfect with skunks!

Bob I thought I would ask this in a post rather than call ya for a quick answer as you know that never happens, quick phone call that is LOL

Do you think on those bad skunks that using the water spray methods that rob uses would work to get close then hit it with the happy gas LOL

Had a customer call me today with a skunk under his grill which had a cover on it. The juvenile skunk was laying up under the grill as it was covered. A couple squirts of chloroform and I was off with the skunk and $75.00.

What is the shelf life if properly stored until needed?

Hope it was not a vinyl grill cover as it is not compatible and overspray may mar it up.

Found this thread interesting and as I prefer direct contact rather than looking up statutes and code I put in some phone calls.

In Ohio it would be an illegal method of take for a WCO (there was an exception stated for the properly permitted to use chemical immobilization but I am assuming that permit would require the use of chemicals/drugs used for that purpose to be labeled for there use.)

In Wisconsin I contacted Bret Owsley from the DNR who put me into contact with Linsey Long who informed me it would also be an illegal method of take in Wisconsin as well as being a issue with off label use. Ms. Long put me into contact with Dr. Yvone Bellay with Dept of AG control substances board as Chloroform is a controlled substance in Wisconsin as well as the off label use.

Awaiting calls back from DNR in Illinois, Michigan, New Hampshire, Maine, New York and some other more northern states and then will start contacting DNR in southern and western states and will be able to put out list in newsletter just where it is legal to use for the take of wildlife. I will say the regulators I have spoken to were very definite in their answers with no "grey area" and seemed concerned with the off label use.

I will work to get results from DNR in all 50 states and post them in newsletter.

Well Charles, if you find any states where it is legal, I'm sure you can some find some law to ban it. That puts NWCOA, PETA,

and HSUS on the same team, doesn't it? I really don't want to get this post erased, so I will try to be as nice as possible. I know

of absolutely no one who has ever gotten pinched for using any substance and apparently you want to change that. I find it kind of

amazing that instead of working to help ADC guys do their job much easier and more professionally, NWCOA has taken the opposite view

and wants it banned. Dave K has told me that it is my responsibility as a writer to instruct people in its proper use. How much

more is it NWCOA'S responsibility to not try to take away what is clearly a fantastic aid to our business? I have been very nice to

all things NWCOA since the new board was elected. I could even see the day when I would again be supportive of NWCOA and recommend

it. Thanks to you and Dixon, I am no longer misled. You have a problem with me that not very many on this forum seems to have. On

the bright side, you have done something that I was unable to do; keep my mouth shut forever on the use of chloroform. No one will

ever talk about it again for fear of being harassed by NWCOA!

Thank you Charles. It is in everyone's best interest to know the current laws and to follow them. That is good for the industry over the long term.

Besides....you can't ban something that is already not allowed.

X2 on what Paul said. Everyone is trying to regulate everyone
Out of business. It starts with small things and leads to bigger things.
On top of that Charles I'm sure you have alerted them of chloro In wi
And now they will probably put up a stink about it.

Mr. Winkelmann,
I certainly enjoy your posts and have learned quite a lot from them. Thanks for all you have done and everything you tried to do. Keep on keeping on. And keep posting. Please.
Morgan Bennett

Thanks Dave.

Paul,

Getting correct information to our members is a function of NWCOA. If I wanted to get someone "pinched" instead of approaching these officials and putting together an article I would of quietly turned someone in or provided links to Ohio enforcement as requested. The simple fact is if it is a "pinch-able offense" there should of never been an article on the subject and neither should it be defended and promoted on this, an open forum, where ANYONE can read forum WITHOUT having an account. Do not turn this on me or NWCOA as YOU made this an open subject and I really don't understand this sudden hostel attitude after all it is "safer than gasoline" and no big deal and worthy of jokes on your part, now all of a sudden it is a big issue??? Maybe it was always a big issue and something that should of been quietly passed among operators by word of mouth (if one so choose to operate) instead of being put in print and online. And as far as taking away anything from a member or an operator if it saves them fines or the loss of permit or possible legal action from a client I would say I was doing my duty as GO.

And as we all know fly bait also works well on coons but that does not make its use right or within the law. Wasn't there an operator who faced legal action and fines after following your article? If I am thinking of the right person he was even filmed doing it. You are the elder-statesman for our industry on this site Paul and you are promoting and down playing risk/liabilities of this product and its use to other operators who look up to you or new operators looking to this site as a learning tool so don't get mad at me (and NWCOA by default)for following due diligence. If there are states where its use is legal for wildlife control I will share that in article and I fully support anyone who wants to spend the $ to get this product labeled for wildlife euthanasia/stunning/chemical capture or any other use in our industry and I would vote to support its use but I will not promote its use until that time.

And it is not about regulating someone out of business. The regulations already exist. Those that don't follow them....may be the ones trying to put the law abiding ones out. If it is that great of a product...and some choose not to follow the law....they have the advantage.

Anyway....the work can be done without chloroform....and everyone can have the skill to do it.

NE wildlife,

How can I be accused of alerting Wisconsin officials about chloroform? I sure in the heck have never used it or wrote an article or book or taken to an open forum about its use, so it is public knowledge... correct? Put the blame where the blame lays not at my feet. Alerting them of its use suggests the illegal action of using it...just because it works doesn't make it right...somethings do not have to be made public and I see the posting of the positives of chloroform without a counterpoint as ironic, just as I would see posting/writing about its use if its use is illegal.

I'm not getting involved with the core of this post; however, I do want to make a comment concerning the individual that has been posted/referred to.

I contacted the individual that was named in the deleted post to get more information on the issues that had been posted. He responded in writing that the information in the deleted post was incorrect and that not only has he never used it as described, he has never been charged with using it and that there is no current case against him. Rather, his comments were that most likely another individual misreported the incident in question which was how his name got linked to it.

I'm posting this only to prevent further misunderstanding of the actions of this individual that keeps being referenced and to prevent any possible legal issues from occurring, for or against him, by referencing his involvement with the described actions.

And that children, is how we loose our tools. Sometimes forgiveness is easier to obtain than permission. But too late now.

Been gone since the 1970's...

What you need is a Bayer to manufacture it....ie label it as a pesticide in small quantities. Maybe a strong organization could do it....or in absence of that...a large group of people to show he need.

Not to stir things up too much, or be argumentative, but here is another perspective.

Taking a furbearer or game animal "by hand" is not listed as a legal means of take (in Ohio). So grabbing that juvenile squirrel or raccoon kit in the attic is technically illegal (in Ohio). Using a Tomahawk snare pole would also not be a legal means of take in Ohio (using a snare without a self relaxing lock or breakaway). Throwing a bucket over an animal is not listed as a legal means of take. Using a chimney brush system to give a raccoon a ride to a waiting cage is not listed, as you are not using a trap. Throwing a hoop net, etc., etc.

Stating that a method is not a legal means of take is not as simple as it sounds!!!

However, once an animal is in a trap, take has already happened (try to tell a warden you didn't take a fish hanging from your hook). Now it becomes a matter of reducing that animal to possession (using the fish example, you can release a bass when season is closed, or put it in your cooler and risk a ticket!!!). This is where technically, you are in the process of euthanizing, or killing if you prefer, the animal. I think it would be a simple matter to argue in a court of law that the animal was not "taken" with whatever substance you choose to utilize, it is simply reduced to possession utilizing the method in question. On the other hand, if you utilize chloroform or an injectable solution when the animal is not in a cage or trap, it could just as easily be argued that was in fact the method of take, and can be added to all the other "illegal" methods of take listed above.

My point being, the technicalities of the issue can be absolutely endless. Particularly when you are trying to cover all 50 states and a couple of foreign countries.

I think it would be best to simply advise all operators to be familiar with their local, state and federal regulations as they apply to whatever actions they choose to take. Telling them about how the DOT, ATF, TSA, and the rest of the alphabet soup will put the hammer on them will go nowhere in influencing how individuals operate their own businesses.

Each operator must make their own decisions based on the circumstances at hand and the situations they are presented with, INCLUDING the regulations that apply.

This is just another angle to consider.

Respectfully,

Dirk E Shearer,
The Wildlife Control Company, Inc.

Dirk, please do not try to cloud an issue that is run entirely by emotion by using intelligence. If NWCOA used intelligence, they

would not have lost upwards of $150,000 in dues by upsetting state associations. ( Of course, those were the people that they really

didn't see eye to eye with anyway )

All:

It is not necessarely trapping laws that outlaw the use.

If you look at the federal definition of pesticide in FIFRA, it appears that chloroform use meets the definition.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/

Since it is not being sold as a pesticide....there is no label that permits the use as one. Wink...you may struggle with this point. So...try this thought. If sprinkling table salt on a birds tail mitigated it.....then the salt would be consideredva pesticide.

You cant use chloroform to control critters.....just as you cant use mothballs to control mice. It is regulated by FIFRA. States can have their own laws....but they can not be less stringent than federal.

Dave

What about CO2? Is it labeled for use as a dispatch tool? If so, do you have to buy special CO2, labeled properly?

The overall result of this post may be that if you don't know what is considered legal or not a good idea would not be to discuss it in open forum.

CO2 - http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/co2_tred.pdf

And http://www.glte.org/sites/default/files/Minimal_Risk_Pesticides.pdf

Dirk,

Playing the Devils advocate is a role I have always relished but unfortunately it puts one on the side of the devil . To be clear I don't care what one dribbles, jabs, sprays or squirts. As you said, to each their own, but the use of this product is being made public in ways besides dealing with an animal in a trap (even then I can see an issue) but rather spraying skunks in a yard/parking lot, coons in chimneys and or attics etc. If one wanted to discuss these "methods" and some other aspects of our industry... would you agree they would be a better "hallway" topic?

The common retort seems to be it is easy...If I would make the fly bait mix and APPLY it in a bowl in an attic it would easily take care of that coon, if I wanted to mix corn and Everclear for geese it could easily work, if I wanted to pour gasoline down a yellow jacket nest it would also easily work and the list goes on...I just can not seem to grasp the difference as they are all using a product for an unapproved use. And we are not talking what one does on their own property here but rather what one is CHARGING a customer for. That is a major distinction. And then making it public through posts, Facebook and YouTube videos and other outlets I am not saying that has been done but there are enough dispatch videos out there from operators that "chloroform" would be tame in comparison.

What about worst case scenarios? I think we all look at those when using a body grip for example. What about this product? How about a vehicle collision that compromises container, a leaking spray bottle (that never happens)or container in cab of truck? The use of this product in attic with compromised duct work resulting in this product being carried throughout home? I even read where the use in attic made one dizzy (but they were fine once they came down ladder out of attic) what if they didn't come down out of attic in time? I am sure I will hear "that won't happen if you use it right". Just what is that "right" use? We both know if we read the label it won't cover the proper use in an attic to remove a raccoon . Even with labeled products a common issue has always been "if an ounce is good two ounces must be great" and we know that isn't the case but it is a common issue.

Dirk, nothing but love brother and I agree their are a lot of grey areas but I would rather take my chances hand grabbing a juvenile coon and having my day in court compared to facing Dept of AG, DNR and who ever else wanted to get involved and trying to justify my use of "chloroform" in a customers attic.

Paul,

Let me be blunt. I was not directed by NWCOA board to seek out these answers but rather my own need and the requests from a couple operators to know. I will also share results of poll with other publications and on this site as well as .info and Facebook sites... don't operators deserve both point and counter points to this products use? What's so bad about letting an operator know that this products use could be illegal to use in manors discussed in his state? If this is such a "hush hush" issue it should of never made public.

Just because someone disagrees with your point of view on an issue is not a reason to start the bashing of NWCOA...That lacks reason. I know it was rough when you wrote your chloroform article. When questions were asked/others had issue with its use/possible legal issues were brought up you had the choice of recognizing the possible consequences of writing such an article and working to defuse the situation or doubling down. You made the choice.

The same responses you use with Dave on this site when he questioned its use is the same as you used on .info when your fellow members questioned it then. Quips and jokes and irrational rationalizing have there place but not in honest debate.

I don't question your motivation Paul you had the best of intentions when writing that article I am sure. I believe you wanted to help operators, share a tip to make the job easier. I don't believe you had any idea of the uproar that would result when you wrote it. But it did and continues to be questioned by others who were not involved in original article but here on this site. Maybe it would be better received back in hallway discussions compared to public. If you had to do it over would you still submit that article?

Letting operators know of possible legal issues with use is not a negative now that it is being promoted publicly again. You see it as a plus, others see the negative, some have no opinion... but its out of the closet lets get both sides out and let operators decide.

Charles,

If I ever catch you wasting Everclear on geese I will personally kick your butt . You are welcome to waste a bit on me the next time we get together (but not too much, that stuff is stout).

I agree that any method, tool, or technique can be misused. In fact, the Bible and the Koran have been misused so much its hard to believe anyone considers them holy!

I guess I am trying to get at the fact, that unless you know all of the particulars of a specific situation, it is hard to determine if a method, tool, or technique was appropriate in that specific circumstance.

On the other hand there are methods, tools, and techniques that are specifically banned. Just like the fly bait you used as an example.

I would argue that you could use chloroform on an animal already captured, provided you are in compliance with all the other transportation, labeling, eg. regulations (I am only familiar with Ohio). Other states I would have no idea.

I applaud your efforts in trying to determine what regulations apply and how they are implemented. I also think the survey you plan to do can glean positive information for all of us. As you know, the questions asked in a survey can influence the outcome just as easily as the answers can. When composing your survey, I would be careful to specifically ask questions of the regulators as they apply to animals already in a "take" situation, or in a trap. I would also put the question to them about an animal that is not yet in "possession", or free roaming. You could expand on that using examples of an animal not in a trap, but perhaps confined to a window well, sealed in a basement, trapped in a dumpster or otherwise restricted in its ability to escape. That may make a world of difference in the answers you get and what regulations apply!!!

By the way, I have not ever used chloroform, so am not arguing my own case here. It is just an issue, after reading several posts, I chose to weigh in on.

OHIO:
(F) Toxicants or chemical control

(1) It shall be lawful to use a toxicant or chemical substance as a means of control for nuisance wild animals. It shall be unlawful to use a toxicant or chemical substance for the taking or control of a nuisance wild animal contrary to or in violation of instructions on the label or manufacturer recommendations.

(2) It shall be unlawful for a licensed commercial wild animal control operator as defined in section 1531.40 of the Revised Code to use a toxicant or chemical substance for the taking or control of a nuisance wild animal without first possessing the appropriate license under Chapter 921. of the Revised Code.


Dirk - I didn't notice that the regs specify methods of euthanasia. Anyone know of any specifications? Nonetheless, I'd think that it would be good to get a letter of interpretation on the words "control" in this reg. Your right....there seems to be wiggle room here. The trouble with Chloroform though....is that the way that it is being used would pull in the pesticide regulations....so if the definition of pesticide fits....then the usage is out....unless you can find a labeled pesticide that is approved for the use. I haven't found it...yet.

It's been fun debating. Best of luck.

DaveK,

You are right, the devil is in the details!!!!!

That is why we can't make blanket statements as to how this would play out in each state or jurisdiction within the states.

Here in Ohio it was common to have different interpretations from each District about some of the regulations. Having OWCOA, OSTA, and individual WCO's more involved has helped the Division of Wildlife in getting much better in standardizing these interpretations. I must also credit the leadership at the DOW, in that they are willing to listen to our issues and are not adverse to taking action when appropriate. This all helps make sure everyone is playing not only by the same rules, but in some cases on the same ball field.

I still have to encourage any operator to take the time to find out what their local, state, and federal regulations may be before making the decision to engage in any activity that may be questionable.

It would be nice to just state "use common sense" but we all know it is not as common as we think and it certainly does not always coincide with regulatory requirements.

Sincerely,

Dirk,

Guess I am more of a label is the law type guy. To take it out of the realm of WCO or PCO work if I worked in a gas station I would not use gasoline as a parts cleaner even though it works well. Now at my own home I may use it instead of buying parts cleaner.

One of the major issues for me is that this product is being applied and money is changing hands at that point I think there is a different standard compared to what one does on their own. Once you accept payment one loses their amateur status.

Applying or using a product for its unintended use always has the possibility to end badly, not saying it will or won't, just that the possibility exists and no matter how safe it may seem if there have been health risks or any other issue with the product their sure is some trial lawyer out there who would take the case.

I read something where a construction crew was using a bucket to urinate in inside the home (under construction) and apparently there was a little splatter or misses the lady sued and got some wicked judgement over a little (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) what would the outcome be it it was a product that was being used for a unintended use? The lawyer would have a blast with that.

Have a few voice mails to return on this subject and happy to say all have been supportive and want the info.

Deb said to say "Hey" and to tell Di she was missed in NOLA and we should get together next time we come up to the racecourse or Hollywood Casino in Columbus and don't worry I will have a little something better than Everclear next time we meet up.

Take care man.

Will do, and look forward to seeing you and Deb again.

I know I am, at heart, a laissez faire capitalist, through and through. I want to believe, if it ain't specifically illegal, then it is legal. By the same token, I realize that this belief is not based 100% in reality, and there is no true free society any more (if there ever was one). But don't get me started down that road or I'll get kicked off T-man for too much politicking. Anyways, I watch my P's and Q's, respect the laws and regulations, and keep and eye on the grey areas we work in.

I know Di would love to get together too. She had an absolute blast in New Orleans!!! Let me know if you two make a trip up to Hollywood.

I've been gone on vacation for a week and I don't know what to say. I think it is a mistake to call regulators to see if ah forget about it. I think it is a mistake to publicly share information, tips and tricks etc. I'm not sure you should even do it in the hallways.
Putting all the regs etc. aside it sounded like a very humane way to deal with the skunk. Just for my own education Charles and Dave, I don't know the legal definition of a pesticide does that mean you can't use it to euthanize or kill but maybe it would be acceptable to squirt a small quantity maybe an ounce on a skunk to help the it deal with its predicament and not stink up a customers house. Until u can shoot it in the head cervically dislocate or some other method acceptable to ava,peta hsus etc. or would it still be considered a spill or pesticide.
One last thing if I have ever joked or wrote about something I shouldn't have done or your lieing eyes thought I did something I didn't really do it, so there isn any need to call f&w, dept. of ag. hsus.
If you can forgive me for my past trespasses I have learned my lesson. I will become a lurker looking and listening not talking or writing.
I will promise you this if I overhear something that is not cruel to man or beast I won't call your regulator to get you regulated.
Regs tell you what you can't do not what you can do. How big would the book be if it were opposite.

There is nothing wrong with calling a regulator about clarifying an existing law or seeing if a law applies to a situation. A regulator does not have to power to make up new laws.

In automotive industry, we would call regulators all the time to get clarification on environmental or safety laws. The goal was to make sure that we were following them correctly.

You should always operate according the the laws. If you are making a mistake...fix it!

Yes....chloroform can probably be a humane tool...as it has been used on people in the past. But, can it be used legally?

Our reg. in Kentucky gives leeway to the conditions a nwco finds themselves in. I can use inhalants for euthanasia including co, co2,isofluorane and halothane but it doesn't exclude others.
There could be other rules from transportation, agriculture or others you might be able to call and you may be able to call fish and wildlife to get them to ban it. I would appreciate leaving us alone.
The two mentioned iso and halothane resemble chloroform in odor and chemical makeup and appear to have same transportation restrictions.
I like Dirk have never used it. My enterest is that we have limited tools for problem animals including skunks. This seems like a minimal danger in small quantities like Paul and Bob have referenced.
The comparisons I have seen referenced here are like comparing an apple to an orange. Gallons, truckloads and long term exposure compared to a pint in a squirt bottle for the benefit of the nwco,the skunk and the customer.
Problems are local, this thread makes me question whether we need a Barack type national association or a state needs to concentrate on themselves. Whether its a pro or a con it seems like money and influence always come in from out of state hsus etc.

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.