In terms of the law related to kittens and puppies, it looks like they are making an assumption that they are regulating their official personnel who might need to euthanize them in
that capacity.
In every case where I've met an animal control officer especially in larger suburbs or cities they are mandated to only use euthanasia they are trained to utilize and must have had this
training prior to utilizing it.
Meaning, if the state allows folks trained to do so in a controlled indoor lab facility situation, this would not ultimately intimate that they expect people are utilizing this method in the field.
I don't have a dog in this fight, though when I've asked veterinarians that I very much respect who have a tremendous amount of field experience and have supervised not only ACO's but
field biologists and wildlife research about Chloroform just for knowledge sake, the answers I received were very very polarized.
Ultimately DaveK isn't using it, Wink and others are, ultimately it is up to each operator to roll their own dice with what they believe or know to be legal and ultimately safe for themselves and
their employees.
There exists online enough content on this thread alone if you google chloroform right now with any manner of discussion on wildlife these pop up very high in the list of must read documents.
In relation to California the only thing I see explicitly related to wildlife euthanasia for the permit is this....
****
California Dept of Fish & Game, Section 465, (G) (1), the law states that animals trapped must be released on site or killed. Below I cut and pasted what the law states.
(1) Immediate Dispatch or Release. All furbearing and nongame mammals that are legal to trap must be immediately killed or released. Unless released, trapped animals shall be killed by shooting where local ordinances, landowners, and safety permit. This regulation does not prohibit employees of federal, state, or local government from using chemical euthanasia to dispatch trapped animals.
*****
The note about "This regulation does not prohibit employees of federal, state, or local government from using chemical euthanasia to dispatch trapped animals," would suggest that the only one authorized to use
any chemical euthanasia would be those official people the way that reads.
Other than that, I see nothing related to what you can or can't use and the humane society type regulations for puppies and kittens wouldn't have me feeling comfortable in the field with wildlife in terms of legal ramifications.
Some states will jump right on folks using what are deemed veterinary methods if you aren't a veterinarian or a veterinary technician. I've seen people hung out on this for a variety of things, so again I suppose do as you will
but as we all know, you either are right or you are wrong often and the gray area can be a place you don't want to be caught should someone decide they have heard what you are doing and don't feel it is legal.
No dog in the fight again, obviously enough folks have utilized this for wildlife work that it exists in their businesses as a practice, however we are all clear that not being illegal does not make something legal or ethical unless explicitly stated.
****
Now back to the volley..... Honestly some of these issues are just plain fun to watch, especially when I'm not personally invested in this, other than you are part of my industry, you do represent the industry when you end up in the news good or bad, some of these things like Chloroform I'll guarantee you aren't even something wildlife veterinarians or domestic animal veterinarians or state boards know folks are using in terms of our industry. If you want to test this theory give a couple of them in your state a call and let me know how that conversation goes about acquiring chloroform and carrying small amounts with you to knock out or euthanize wildlife, conference me on the third line as I want to hear those!
