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.