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.