Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains materials relating to attempts to control coyote attacks on herds of sheep.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
16988258
label
Predators (5)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16988258
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Predators (5)
description
This file contains materials relating to attempts to control coyote attacks on herds of sheep.
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Environmental protection
Predatory animal control
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
16988258
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1977-01-31
month
1
year
1977
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-04-01
month
4
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
452aa269a9e5d9ee
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 26, folder "Predators (5)" of the James M.
Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 26 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 5, 1975
MEETING TO DISCUSS PREDATOR CONTROL
Monday, September 8, 1975
5:30 p.m.
(30 minutes)
The Cabinet
From:
James
OmL
I.
PURPOSE
To discuss further the problems of predator
control.
II.
BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS & PRESS PLAN
A.
Background: The sheep and livestodk growers
continue to feel that they are suffering un-
manageable losses from coyote predation. The
reaction to your July 18 Executive Order amend-
ment was generally negative -- the experimental
work on the M-44 pellet device has been
virtually completed and the toxic collars are
unacceptable to sheepherders.
Currently on appeal by the Justice Department
is a Wyoming Federal court decision revoking
the EPA suspension. This decision is expected
to be reversed possibly by late fall.
Administrator Train is due to render a decision
on the re-registration of sodium cyanide use in
the M-44 device on September 15. The Counsel's
Office advises it would be inappropriate to
prejudge or appear to influence this decision.
Attached at Tab A is a more detailed memorandum
on the background and status.
-2-
B. Participants: See list attached at Tab B.
Russ Train is disqualified from this discussion
because he is in the process of rulemaking.
C. Press Plan: To be announced.
III.
TALKING POINTS
1. I am aware of the continuing problem and am
prepared to discuss it further.
2. I know that the fall lambing season creates
some urgency.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 5, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES M. CANNON
SUBJECT:
Predator Control - Meeting for September 8
The most effective poisons for coyote control (sodium
cyanide, strychnine, 1080) are banned from use by two
actions:
1. Executive Order 11643 of 1972 applying to
Federal lands. On July 18, 1975, you
amended this Executive Order to allow for
expanded experimentation with sodium cyanide.
(The basic delivery methods to be used are
the M-44 pellet and the toxic collar.)
2. EPA suspension of registration on all lands
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
On June 12, 1975, a Wyoming Federal court
revoked the EPA suspension on a technicality
(failure to file an environmental impact state-
ment by EPA). The decision is under appeal and
it is widely expected that the EPA suspensions
will be reinstated, possibly by early fall.
After your Executive Order of July 18, EPA
Administrator Train issued a one-year experi-
mental use permit for toxic collars, and opened
hearings by an administrative judge in order to
determine if the use of the M-44 device could be
re-registered. The Administrator's decision is
due September 15.
FORD i LIBRARY 076839
- 2 -
The allowance for additional research on
sodium cyanide in your Executive Order amend-
ment resulted in field tests on the toxic
collar which started in North Dakota on
August 11 with additional field tests in
Montana and Texas starting September 8. Pen
testing is going on now in Utah and Colorado
to study coyote attack pattern, collar design,
and bait setting alternatives.
Research and testing on the M-44 device (a
spring-fired cyanide pellet) has been going
on for years and is virtually completed. Although
additional testing is now going on, it is basically
duplicative of the earlier work.
The sheep industry case for using 1080 seems
to have a great deal of merit, but discussion
on this problem of re-registration should probably
be explored after the September 15 EPA decision.
PARTICIPANTS FOR PREDATOR CONTROL MEETING (Sept. 8)
Senators attending:
Paul J. Fannin
E. J. (Jake) Garn
Clifford P. Hansen
Paul Laxalt
James A. McClure
Congressmen attending:
Glenn English
James P. Johnson
W. R. Poage
Robert Kroeger
Keith G. Sebelius
William C. Wampler
Sam Steiger
Honorable Earl Butz, Secretary of Agriculture
Honorable Kent Frizzell, Acting Secretary of Interior
Mr. Steven 11. Jellinek
Staff Director, Council on Environmental Quality
Congressional Liaison:
Pat O'Donnell
Domestic Council:
James M. Cannon
George W. Humphreys
GERALD Associt ? FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 12, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DICK
CHENEY
FROM:
Coyotes JIM CANNON Jun
SUBJECT:
Under the law, as I understand it, we cannot discuss
the poison problem with Russ Train until after he has
made his ruling on Monday, September 15.
We will begin talking with Russ Train right after that.
FORD is GERALD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 1, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
FROM:
DICK CHENEY
Jim, attached is a packet of material which was given to the President
in Vail by a man out there who has a sheep raising operation.
He talked to us about the problem of coyotes and indicated that the
industry was convinced we didn't know what we were doing when we
made the modification recently to permit testing of additional means
to control the coyote population.
They are convinced that somehow we were conned by the bureaucracy
into believing that we were really doing something when we weren't.
Would you please have someone on your own immediate staff review
these materials in light of recent history and the actions we took and
get back to me with a report as to whether or not there's any validity
to his charges. It's conceiveable, if he's right, that we might want to
do something else in this area and I need to get back to the President
with a response.
Attachments
919
Counter
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 12, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DICK CHENEY
FROM:
JAMES M. CANNON
SUBJECT:
Predator Control
We have reviewed the material you sent over on coyote
predator control submitted by Mr. Chris Jouflas. You
may recall that Mr. Jouflas was one of a group of sheep
ranchers and Congressmen who met in early August with
the President on this matter.
As you know, the President met again with the western
Congressmen on September 8. There was general agree-
ment that the Executive Order amendment did not solve
the sheep ranchers' problem, but there was equal agree-
ment that major further Executive action at this time
might court suits that could result in undue delays on
all experimental work and possibly adverse decisions
that could tie the Administration's hands completely.
The Congressmen suggested that they would approach
Mr. Train with the industry case for use of 1080 and
provide him with the support required to effect a
change of EPA registration policies. The President
directed the Domestic Council to determine, if possible,
to what extent any relaxation of controls could occur
without the reasonable possibility of counter-productive
court cases brought by the organized opposition.
I have attached a summary status report for your
information. We are all taking care to avoid any action
that could be perceived as trying to influence Mr. Train's
decision on September 15.
Attachment
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 9, 1975
SUMMARY STATUS REPORT
ON PREDATOR CONTROL
The most effective poisons for coyote control (sodium
cyanide, strychnine, 1080) are banned from use by two
actions:
1. Executive Order 11643 of 1972 applying to Federal
lands. On July 18, 1975, the President amended
this Executive Order to allow for expanded ex-
perimentation with sodium cyanide. (The basic
delivery methods to be used are the M-44 pellet
and the toxic collar.)
2. EPA suspension of registration on all lands
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
On June 12, 1975, a Wyoming Federal court
revoked the EPA suspension on a technicality
(failure to file an environmental impact state-
ment by EPA). The decision is under appeal and
it is widely expected that the EPA suspensions
will be reinstated, possibly by early fall.
After the Executive Order of July 18, EPA
Administrator Train issued a one-year experimental
use permit for toxic collars, and opened hearings
by an administrative judge in order to determine
if the use of the M-44 device could be re-registered.
The Administrator's decision is due September 15,
1975.
The allowance for additional research on sodium
cyanide in the Executive Order amendment resulted
in field tests on the toxic collar which started in
North Dakota on August 11 with additional field tests
in Montana and Texas starting September 8. Pen testing
is going on now in Utah and Colorado to study coyote
attack pattern, collar design, and bait setting alter-
natives.
- 2 -
Research and testing on the M-44 device (a spring-
fired cyanide pellet) has been going on for years
and is virtually completed. Although additional
testing is now going on, it is basically duplicative
of the earlier work.
The sheep industry case for using 1080 seems to
have a great deal of merit, but discussion on
this problem of re-registration should probably
be explored after the September 15 EPA decision.
[oct. 1975]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHARLES LEPPERT, JR.
FROM:
JIM CANNON
SUBJECT:
Don H. Clausen (R-Cal.)
As requested, attached is a draft response to
Rep. Clausen regarding the California Wool Growers
Association in connection with the predatory animal
control program.
Attachment
clienty
who diopted this
letter ? George Humphreys
DRAFT
Dear Mr. Clausen:
This is in further response to your September 9
letter with the materials from the Woolgrowers in
California. The President has given the issue of
the sheep industry and predator control a great
deal of personal attention. As you know, his
decision earlier this summer was to amend the
Executive Order.
However, in California the original Executive
Order itself did not much affect the use the poisons
other than sodium cyanide (which is now allowed under
the Order and which has been re-registered by the EPA).
The California State authorities inform us that the
use of 1080 and strychnine for predator control
has been limited to a few areas, and that all use
of 1080 for predators in California was stopped,
primarily because of the hazards it posed, a year
before the Executive Order.
The Order, of course, only deals with public
lands and Federal programs, and as your constituents
have indicated, 90 percent of the sheep in California
are grazed on private lands. Regardless of the
-2-
status of the Executive Order, before the woolgrowers
in California could use poisons other than those
presently allowed, they would need to have EPA
registration.
Accordingly, we would recommend that the most
expeditious way for your constituents to seek the
relief they have requested is for them to make
application to the Environmental Protection Agency
for registration of whatever poisons they desire.
The determination on amendment to the Executive
Order would then be made in view of the EPA action.
We hope that this will be of assistance to
your constituents.
Sincerely,
Charles Leppert, Jr.
Special Assistant
for Legislative Affairs
Honorable Don H. Clausen
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
CC: Roland Elliot
Jim Cannon
7500373
DRAFT/Humphreys/10-20
Dear Mr. Clausen:
This is in further response to your September 9
letter with the materials from the Woolgrowers in
California. The President has given the issue of the
sheep industry and predator control a great deal of
personal attention. As you know, his decision earlier
this summer was to amend the Executive Order.
However, in California the original Executive
Order itself did not much effect the use of poisons
other than sodium cyanide (which is now allowed under
the Order and which has been re-registered by the EPA).
The California State authorities inform us that the use
of 1080 and strychnine for predator control has been
limited to a few areas, and that all use of 1080 for
predators in California was stopped, primarily because
of the hazards it posed, a year before the Executive
Order.
The Order, of course, only deals with public lands
and Federal programs, and as your constituents have
indicated, 90 percent of the sheep in California are
- 2 -
grazed on private lands. Regardless of the status of
the Executive Order, before the woolgrowers in California
could use poisons other than those presently allowed,
they would need to have EPA registration.
Accordingly, we would recommend that the most
expeditious way for your constituents to seek the relief
they have requested is for them to make application to
the Environmental Protection Agency for registration
of whatever poisons they desire. The determination on
amendment to the Executive Order would then be made in
view of the EPA action.
We hope that this will be of assistance to your
constituents.
Sincerely,
Charles Leppert, Jr.
Special Assistant
for Legislative Affairs
Honorable Don H. Clausen
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
CC: Roland Elliot
Jim Cannon
373
October 20, 1975
TO: JIM CANNON
As requested by Mr. Leppert in
his September 18 memo to you,
attached is a draft response
to Congressman Clausen's letter
of September 8.
George Humphreys
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 18, 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM CANNON
THRU:
MAX L. FRIEDERSDORF m.f.
VERN LOEN R
FROM:
CHARLES LEPPERT, JR. CLg.
SUBJECT:
Don H. Clausen (R-Cal.)
I am enclosing letter and enclosures I have received from Don Clausen
regarding the situation being faced by the California Wool Growers
Association in connection with the predatory animal control program.
I would like to get back to Rep. Clausen within the next ten days and I
would appreciate if you could supply me with a substantive response.
Many thanks.
Enclosures
2006 IL LAMINO AVENUE, JUITE 0
GH-17
September 18, 1975
Dear Don:
Thank you so much for your September 9th
letter in which you enclosed a packet of
material you received from the California
Wool Growers Association. I have forwarded
your letter and enclosures on to the Domestic
Council for review. I will try to get back to
you on this matter within a week or ten days.
Insofar as the letter to the President from
the California Wool Growers Association is
concerned, it has been forwarded to the
President. As you are aware, the President
is always pleased to hear from the private
sector and I am certain that he will give the
Association's views very careful consideration.
Sincerely,
Charles Leppert, Jr.
Special Assistant
for Legislative Affairs
Honorable Don H. Clausen
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
bcc: Roland Elliott w/ ltr to P. from California Wool Growers
Assn - for further attention
bcc: Jim Cannon (see memo dated 9/18/75)
CL:nb
FORD i LIBRARY 078830
9/25
DON H. CLAUSEN
COMMITTEE:
REPPESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
PUBLIC WORKS
20 DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
"THE REDWOOD EMPIRE DISTRICT"
SUBCOMMITTEES:
WATER RESOURCES
WASHINGTON OFFICE:
Congress of the United States
TRANSPORTATION
2433 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
INVESTIGATION AND REVIEW
PHONE: 225-3311
house of Representatibes
AREA CODE 202
COMMITTEE:
Washington, D.C. 20515
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
DISTRICT OFFICE:
SUBCOMMITTEES:
ROOM 329
September 9, 1975
WATER AND POWER RESOURCES
777 SONOMA AVENUE
NATIONAL PARKS AND RECREATION
SANTA ROSA, CALIFORNIA 95404
PUBLIC LANDS
PHONE: 525-4315
TERRITORIAL AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
Mr. Charles Leppert, Jr.
Special Assistant for Legislative
Affairs
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Charlie:
To follow up our conversation while I was in California during
the Congressional recess, I am enclosing a packet of material
I have received from the California Wool Growers Association
along with a personal letter they have asked me to bring to the
President's attention.
I would appreciate very much any follow up you could provide in
this matter with your special expertise.
In addition, Charlie, I am enclosing a letter from Charles Lawrence
which clearly shows the devastating economic difficulty being faced
by sheepmen in Northern California because of predators.
With kindest regards,
DON H. CLAUSEN
Representative in Congress
DHC:gm
FORD & LIBRARY 07V870
CALIFORNIA WOOL GROWERS ASSOCIATION
The Honorable Gerald R. Ford
President of the United States
White House
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. President:
The officers of the California Wool Growers Association and the President
of the National Wool Growers Association greatly regretted not having the
opportunity to meet with you when you were in Sacramento, California on
September 5, 1975. We had hoped to discuss with you the very serious
predatory animal control problem confronting not only California, but all
sheep producing states within the United States.
The California predatory animal control program is cooperatively funded
by the Federal, State and County Governments. For over forty years this
cooperative program has existed on public and private lands. During this
period of time there were no serious or detrimental effects on the environ-
ment. President Nixon's Executive Order No. 11643 of February 8, 1972,
and the subsequent EPA Pesticide Regulation No. 72-2, dated March 9, 1972,
immediately removed those chemical toxicants which were and still are
desperately needed for the survival of the sheep industry in California and
in the Nation.
Subsequently, many California producers have reported losses due to predatory
animals in the range of 30 to 50 percent of their herds annually. Needless to
say, many sheep producers have been forced out of business. These statistics
were presented to you during the meeting in your office at the White House on
the afternoon of April 29, 1975.
Mr. President, we greatly appreciate your concern for our predatory animal
damage control problem as expressed by your Executive Order No. 11870 on
July 18, 1975. At certain times and in certain areas chemical toxicants on
private and public lands are vital to an effective animal damage control program
Your recent Executive Order does not specifically allow for the use of chemical
toxicants on private lands. Presently there are over 700, 000 head, or approxi-
mately 90 percent of the sheep in California produced annually on private lands.
Other major sheep producing states which utilize private lands include the follow
95 percent in Texas; 55 percent in Montana; and nearly 100 percent in Kansas,
Nebraska and Oklahoma,
FORD
Tim Indart, Pros.
John Arambel, V. Pres.
Joe Russ, IV, V. Pros.
Clovis, Ca.
Ferndale, Co.
SERALD
Wm. H. Bonde, Sec.-Treas.
Los Banos, Ca.
Sacramento, Ca.
September 18, 1973
Dear Done
Thank you 30 much in your September 9th
latter in which your enclosed at prices of
material you received from the California
West Growers Association I 320ml forwarded
THE leiture and doelarars on a the Domeside
Council 1nc reviews 1 will by R get back to
your this malter whis & week or be days.
Insular as the letter $ the President from
the Cultornix Weel Growers Association is
concerned, 11 has brea forwarded B the
President. Anyon are sware, the President
is always pleased to here from the private
nacher and 3 are certaix Faxis be will give the
Association # views may careful consideration.
Sincerely,
Order Leggart, Jra
Special Assistant
Inc Legislative Affairs
Henorable Das It Chasen
U. $ Hease of Representatives
Tashington, D.C. 20515
beer Roland Elliott w/ Itr to P. from California Wool Growers
Assic for further attention
bcc: Jim Camon (see memo dated 9/18/75)
CLmb
BERALD ,EORO
CALIFORNIA WOUL GROWERS ASSOCIATION
August 22, 1975
The Honorable Don Clausen
House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Don:
This letter is in regard to our telephone conversation of last Saturday evening,
the 16th of August, concerning the serious predatory animal control problem
confronting the sheep industry in California and the Nation and the most recent
Presidential Executive Order No. 11870 (See enclosure).
During negotiations with the White House on modification of the original Nixon
Executive Order No. 11643, it was our feeling that the following named
individuals failed to adequately carry out the President's intentions on modifyi
the the Nixon Order. We know they are still in a position where they can circ
vent an adequate input of information to the President and his immediate staff.
These individuals are: Mr. Nathaniel Reed, Assistant Secretary of Interior;
Dr. Lee Talbott, Council on Environmental Quality; and Mr. Russell Train,
Administrator of EPA.
As you know, there are two issues involved in an adequate predatory animal
control program for California and other "private lands" states. The first
issue is the certification by EPA for the use of chemical toxicants for the use
of animal damage control programs. The second is the recent Executive Orde
No. 11870 of July 18, 1975, which did not address the problem of the use of
chemical toxicants on private lands.
In California 90 percent (approximately 700, 000 head) of all sheep are run on
private lands. In the Second Congressional District almost 100 percent of the
sheep are run on private lands. Other states in which sheep are run on privat
lands would include: 95 percent in Texas; 55 percent in Montana; and almost
100 percent in Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma,
Tim Indart, Pres.
John Arambel, V. Pres.
Joe Russ, IV, V. Pres.
Wm. H. Bonde, Sec.-Tre
Clovis, Ca.
Los Banos, Co.
Ferndale, Co.
Sacramento, Co.
3382 EL CAMINO AVENUE, SUITE 6
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95821
The Honorable Don Clausen
Page 2
August 22, 1975
Enclosed you will find a copy of our letter addressed to President Ford
explaining our position, as well as a copy of the Executive Order No. 11870,
the original Nixon Order No. 11643, and the EPA Pesticide Regulation 72-2
for your files,
We are enclosing the original letter addressed to President Ford which, as
you suggested, could be delivered to the President directly.
Many thanks for your continuing help and service to the sheep industry.
Sincerely,
FLOYD MYERS MARSH, President
JOE RUSS IV, Vice President
National Wool Growers Association
California Wool Growers Associati
FMM:JR:mch
Enclosures
30611
presidential documents
Title 3-The President
Executive Order 11870
July 18, 1975
Environmental Safeguards on Activities for Animal Damage Control
on Federal Lands
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United
States, and in furtherance of the purposes and policies of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the provi-
sions of Section 1 of the Act of March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468, 7 U.S.C.
426 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, 16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), Executive Order No. 11643 of February 8, 1972, is
amended to read as follows:
"SECTION 1. It is the policy of the Federal Government, consistent
with the authorities cited above, to:
(1) Manage the public lands to protect all animal resources thereon
in the manner most consistent with the public trust in which such lands
are held.
2 Conduct all mainmal or bird damage control programs in a
manner which contributes to the maintenance of environmental quality,
and to the conservation and protection of the Nation's wildlife resources,
including predatory animals.
(3 Restrict the use on public lands and in Federal predator control
programs of any chemical toxicant for the purpose of killing predatory
animals or birds which would have secondary poisoning effects.
(1 Restrict the use of chemical toxicants for the purpose of killing
predatory or other mammals or birds in Federal programs and on Fed-
oral lands in a manner which will balance the need for a responsible
animal damage control program consistent with the other policies set
forth in this Order: and
(5) assure that where chemical toxicants or devices are used pursuant
to Section 3(b), only those combinations of toxicants and techniques
will be used which best serve human health and safety and which mini-
mize the use of tovicants and best protect nontarget wildlife species and
those individual predatory animals and birds which do not cause damage,
consistent with the polic ics of this Order."
"SEC. : Di finitions. As used in this Order the term:
18, "Tederal lands" means all real property owned by or leased to the
Federal Government, excluding (1) lands administered by the Secretary
of the Interior pursuant to his trust responsibilities for Indian affairs, and
FORD is LIORARY GERALD
(2) real property located in metropolitan areas.
FEDERAL REGISTER VOL. 40. NO. 141-1015DAY, JULY 2%, 1975
30612
THE PRESIDENT
(b) "Agencies" means the departments, agencies and establishments
of the Executive branch of the Federal Government.
(c) "Chemical toxicant" means any chemical substance which, when
ingested, inhaled, or absorbed, or when applied to or injected into the
body, in relatively small amounts, by its chemical action may cause
significant bodily malfunction, injury, illness, or death, to animals or
to man.
(d) "Predatory mammal or bird" means any mammal or bird which
habitually preys upon other animals, birds, reptiles or fish.
(e) "Secondary poisoning effect" means the result attributable to a
chemical toxicant which, after being ingested, inhaled, or absorbed, or
when applied to or injected into, a mammal, bird, reptile or fish, is
retained in its tissue, or otherwise retained in such a manner and quantity
that the tissue itself or retaining part if thereafter ingested by man, mam-
mal, bird, reptile or fish, produces the effects set forth in paragraph (c)
of this Section.
(f) "Field use" means use on lands not in, or immediately adjacent
to occupied buildings."
"SEC. 3. Restrictions on Use of Toxicants. (a) Heads of agencies shall
take such action as is necessary to prevent on any Federal lands under
their jurisdiction, or in any Federal program of mammal or bird damage
control under their jurisdiction:
(1) the field use of any chemical toxicant for the purpose of killing a
predatory mammal or bird; or
(2) the field use of any chemical toxicant which causes any secondary
poisoning effect for the purpose of killing mammals, birds, or reptiles.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this Section,
the head of any agency may authorize the emergency use on Federal
lands under his jurisdiction of a chemical toxicant for the purpose of
killing predatory mammals or birds, or of a chemical toxicant which
causes a secondary poisoning effect for the purpose of killing other
mammals, birds, or reptiles, but only if in each specific case he makes
a written finding, following consultation with the Secretaries of the In-
terior, Agriculture, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Ad-
ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, that an emergency
exists that cannot be dealt with by means which do not involve use of
chemical toxicants, and that such use is essential:
(1) to the protection of the health or safety of human life;
(2) to the preservation of one or more wildlife species threatened with
extinction, or likely within the foresceable future to become so threatened;
or
(3) to the prevention of substantial irretrievable damage to nationally
significant natural resources.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this Section,
Ruise
the head of an agency may authorize the use, on an experimental basis,
GERALD FORD LIBRANT
of sodium cvanide In control coyote and other predatory mammal or
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 40, NO. 141-TUGDAY, JULY 22, 1975
THE PRESIDENT
30613
bird damage to livestock on Federal lands or in Federal programs, pro-
vided that such use is in accordance with all applicable laws and regula-
tions, including those relating to the use of chemical toxicants, and con-
tinues for no more than one year."
"SEC. 4. Rules for Implementation of Order. Heads of agencies shall
issue such rules or regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to
carry out the provisions and policy of this Order."
Geral R. Ford
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 18, 1975.
[FR Doc.75-19171 Filed 7-21-75;9:56 am]
FORD & LIBRARY 07V830
FEDERAL REGISTER VOI
M
NA
Presidential Documents
Title 3-The President
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11643
Environmental Safeguards on Activities for Animal Damage
Control on Federal Lands
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United
States and in furtherance of the purposes and policies of the-National
Envir Inmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the
Endoncered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (16 U.S.C. 668aa), it
follows:
Policy. It is the policy of the Federal Government to
de
use on Federal lands of chemical toxicants for the
khiing predatory mainmals or birds; (2) restrict the use
Lands of chemical toxicants which cause any secondary poison-
for the purpose of killing other mammals, birds, or repuiles;
the use of both such types of toxicants in any Federal
of
manumal or bird damage control that may be authorized
such manumal or bird damage control programs shall be
.1 manner which contributes to the maintenance of environ-
mality, and to the conservation and protection, to the greatest
presible, of the Nation's wildlife resources, including predatory
Definitions. As used in this order the term:
Intal lands" means all real property owned by (i) leased (1)
Government, excluding (1) lands administered by the
the Interior pursuant to his trust responsibilities for Indian
2) real property located in metropolitan areas.
Agencies" means the departments, agencies, and establishments
executive branch of the Federal Government.
Chemical toxicant" means any chemical substance which, when
inhaled, or absorbed, or when applied to or injected into the
in
relatively small amounts, by its chemical action mas came
bodily malfunction, injury, illness, or death, to anim K or
"Prodatory mammal or bird" means any mammal or bird whi is
preys upon other animals or birds.
"Secondary poisoning effect" means the result attributable to it
toxicant which, after being ingested, inhaled, OF aboulad,
when applied to or injected into, a mammal, bird, or reptile, is
tissue, or otherwise retained in such a manner and quantity
itself or retaining part if thereafter injested in man.
BERALD FORD LIBRARY
ILDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 37, NO. 27-WEDNESDAY, FEDRUARY 9. 1972
2876
THE PRESIDENT
manimal, bird, or reptile, produces the effects sct forth in paragraph
(c) of this section.
i. Firld use" means use on lands not in, or immediately adjacent
10, occupied buildings.
Sec. 3. Restrictions on Use of Chemical Toxicants.
(a) Heads of agencies shall take such action as is necessary to pre-
vent on any Federal lands under their jurisdiction, or in any Federal pro-
gram of mammal or bird damage control under their jurisdiction:
(1) the field use of any chemical toxicant for the purpose of killing
a predatory mammal or bird; or
(2) the field use of any chemical toxicant which causes any sec-
ondry poisoning effect for the purpose of killing mammals, birds, or
reptiles.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this SCC-
tion, the head of any agency may authorize the emergency use on Fed-
eral Lands under his jurisdiction of a chemical toxicant for the purpose
of killing predatory mammals or birds, or of a chemical toxicant which
causes a secondary poisoning effect for the purpose of killing other mam-
male, birds, or reptiles, but only if in each specific case he makes a written
finding, following consultation with the Secretaries of the Interior, Agri-
culture, and Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency, that any emergency exists that
cannot lic dealt with by means which do not involve use of chemical
toxicants, and that such use is essential:
1: to the protection of the health or safety of human life;
21 to the preservation of one or more wildlife species threatened
with extinction, or likely within the foreseeable future to become so
threatened; or
(1; :0 the prevention of substantial irretrievable damage to nationally
significant natural resources.
Sec. 4. Rules for Implementation of Order. Heads of agencies shall
issue such rules or regulations as may be necessary and appropriate to
carry out the provisions and policy of this order.
Ridul Hifm
THE WHITE HOUSE,
February 8, 1972.
[FR Doc.72-2032 Filed 2-8-72; 12:29 pin]
For the text of the President's Environmental Meuage to the Congress dated
Vehr VIIV it, 1972, in which reference is made to E.O. 11643, above, are Weekly Comp.
of P.O Doe, Vol. 8, No. 7, issue of February 14, 1972.
FORD is 07V830 LIBRARY
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 37, NO. 27-WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PESTICIDES OFFICE
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20250
March 9, 1972
PR Notice 72-2
Pesticides Regulation Division
NOTICE TO MANUFACTURERS, FORMULATORS, DISTRIBUTORS
AND REGISTRANTS OF ECONOMIC POISONS
Attention: Person Responsible for Federal Registration of
Economic Poisons
Suspension of Registration for Certain Products
Containing Sodium Fluoroacetate (1080),
Strychnine and Sodium Cyanide
I.
Last spring, this Agency made a public commitment to review
the status of registrations for strychnine, cyanide, and sodium
fluoroacetate (1080), for use in prairie and rangeland areas for
the purpose of predator and rodent control. This commitment grew
out of grave concern surfaced by the reported deaths of some 20
1/
eagles killed by the misuse of thallium sulfate.
This same concern caused the Secretary of the Interior to
initiate a thorough review of the government's federal predator
control program. An advisory committee was appointed under the
chairmanship of Dr. Stanley Cain, Director, Institute for
Environmental Quality and Professor of Botany and Conservation
1/ This concern predates last summer. In 1963 the Secretary of
Interior appointed an Advisory Board on Wildlife and Game Manage-
ment chaired by Dr. Leopold of the University of California.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 2 -
at the University of Michigan. The report of that advisory
committee was released earlier this month.
Aside from this Agency's review and the Cain findings, a
detailed petition has been submitted to this Agency by several
distinguished conservation groups urging that the registrations of
these compounds be cancelled and suspended immediately. That
petition invoked the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act, 7 U.S.C. § 135, Section 2z(2) (c) which requires
that an economic poison contain "directions for use which are
necessary and if complied with, adequate to prevent injury to
living man and other vertebrate animals and Section 4c
which allows the Administrator to initiate cancellation proceed-
ings by ordering immediate suspension "when he finds that such
action is necessary to prevent an imminent hazard to the public.
Based on this Agency's review of the registrations of sodium
cyanide, strychnine, and 1080 in light of available evidence, I am
persuaded that their registrations for predator uses should be
suspended and cancelled.
2/ Sponsors of the petition were: The Natural Resources Defense
Council, Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, The Humane
Society of the United States, National Audubon Society, Inc.,
New York Zoological Society, the Sierra Club, and the National
Parks and Conservation Association.
FORD is LIBRARY 07VU30
- 3 -
II.
The Cain group has dealt at length with the effects of the
use of strychnine, cyanide, and 1080 for predator control. The
report points out the extreme toxicity of these compounds, their
non-selectivity, and their potential impact on the environment
which "is increased by secondary hazard, accumulation in the
animal, and combined characteristics of chemical stability and
solubility in water." This report reconfirms the findings of
the Leopold Report (see 1/, supra) that the predator control
program took a heavy environmental toll.
Cyanide, strychnine, and 1080 are among the most toxic
chemicals known to man. They act quickly, spreading through an
entire animal crippling the central nervous system. These poisons
are toxic not only to their targets but other animals and wildlife,
All of these poisons have a similar pattern of use as unattended
baits and are spread over vast areas of open prairie.
In the case of strychnine use against badgers, coyotes, and
foxes, a tablet containing the poison 1s placed inside a one-inch
ball or cube of bait material such as meat, lard or tallow. These
baits are left along animal trails or near non-game carcasses.
While instructions caution the user to cover the baits over with
chips or brush to avoid ingestion by non-target animals, the Cain
DERALD FORD LIBRANT
- 4 -
3/
Report has suggested the inadequacy of such directions.
The pattern for cyanide use differs little in pertinent
respects. An explosive gun, a "coyote-getter," charged with
cyanide is baited and driven into the ground. The gun is left
unattended along the trail or range and is triggered when an
animal pulls at the bait. In the case of 1080, carcasses of
dead animals are laced with the substance and strewn to attract
the predator.
Indiscriminate baiting over wide unpoliced areas poses two
obvious and recognized threats to non-target animals that share
the ranges as a natural habitat. The unsupervised bait is
itself a potential killer of non-target range species. The threat,
however, is compounded by the extremely high toxicity of these
poisons, which can transform the predator carcass into a potential
lethal killer of prairie animal life.
While the effects of prairie baiting are, for the most part,
not documented, the Cain group has suggested the present evidence
may well understate the true damage. It is appropriate to take
3/ According to the Cain Committee, if toxicantswere consistently
applied under field conditions with meticulous case, it is possible
undesirable side-effects might be avoided. Draft at 131. However,
the Committee concludes, "It appears that the necessary high stand-
ards are not likely to be attained." (Draft at 115) The Committee
found no reliably precise data is available showing the degree of
predator control achieved or the possible loss that might ensue
without any program.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
- 5 -
administrative notice of the fact that isolated accidents
involving wildlife are not apt to be reported. Isolated, even
1f routine and numerous, instances of secondary animal poison-
ing would not have the visibility of a wildlife "kill," nor is there
apt to be an observer present as in the case of human mishap. The
administrative process need not be blind to these realities. This
Agency's Pesticides Registration Division has, moreover, reports
of cases of alleged secondary and accidental poisoning, and
recently range-use of 1080 has been suspected of killing birds,
including some of our rare species.
Measured against these obvious threats to wildlife are only
111-defined and speculative benefits. The Cain Committee has
noted the absence of any meaningful information on the efficacy
of poison baiting, especially in relation to the economic loss
caused by predators to the sheep industry. At least one state,
Nevada, has estimated that the cost of predator control was ten
times the value of livestock and poultry lost to predators.
This absence of any meaningful data of benefits derived from
the use of these highly dangerous poisons which pose a marked
potential threat to the environment renders these registrations
suspect. It 18 now settled that the burden of proof rests on the
poison. The report, moreover, specifically cites the greater
selectivity of ground shooting, denning, and trapping, and the
Department of the Interior is embarking on a study to determine
other methods of control. llere, where it is known that alternative
FORD i LIBRARI DERALD
- 6 -
methods of control exist, the registrations must be seriously
questioned.
III.
In deciding whether or not these considerations justify
suspension, it must be recognized that the concept of suspension
is one that must evolve, and existing verbal tests are not readily
translated into a decisive cue for action. The Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, and the judicial and administrative
constructions of it to date set forth only word formulas that
establish a general attitude on suspension questions. Each
situation must be scrutinized not only for what is involved, but
also for what is not involved.
Turning to the verbal tests by which we must measure the
use of these poisons, FIFRA provides that the Administrator of
EPA "may, when he finds that such action is necessary to prevent
an imminent hazard to the public, by order, suspend the registra-
tion of an economic poison immediately." "Public" is not to be
viewed restrictively, and includes fish and wildlife, as has
recently and forcefully been noted in an opinion of a federal
court. See EDF v. Ruckelshaus, 439 F.2d 584, at 597. Nor does
"imminent" mean that we are on the "brink" and that the harm
GERALD R. FORD
- 7 -
will occur tomorrow or has been documented. It is sufficient
that reasonable, men can conclude that action taken today will
with reasonable certainty lead to a loss in the future and that
loss will be irremediable and uncorrectable by subsequent action,
and that the apparent benefits from using a chemical, pending the
completè statutory review process, are outweighed by the possible
5/
harm of use during the period. Or, as the matter was put in the
Agency's DDT policy statement of March 18, 1971, the type, extent,
probability and duration of such injury will be measured in light
of the positive benefits accruing from use of the economic poison,
for example, in human or animal disease control or food production.
Bearing these principles in mind, I am persuaded that a
definite hazard exists. While the mere toxicity of poisons does
not, under FIFRA, render them a hazard, their degree of toxicity
4/ "An 'imminent hazard' may be declared at any point in a
chain of events which may ultimately. result in harm to the
public. It is not necessary that the final anticipated injury
actually have occurred prior to the determination that an
'imminent hazard' exists." Reasons Underlying the Registra-
tion Decisions Concerning Products Containing DDT, 2,4,5-T,
Aldrin and Dieldrin, at 6.
5/ The cancellation proceeding involving the possibility of both
a scienti!!c advisory committee and public hearing consumes at
least one year. In actual fact, these proceedings have generally
taken considerably more than a year.
LISEASE GERALD ? FORD
- 8
and pattern of use may well do SO. The unattended and unsuper-
vised use of poisons over large areas of land, by definition,
poses a hazard to non-target species. The fact that label
instructions. contain directions for placing the baits at times
and in areas least likely to be populated by non-target spacies
and for policing them, affords slight, if any comfort. This
Agency has on prior occasions taken into account a "commonly
recognized practice" of use (see In Re Hari Kari Lindane, I.F.&R.
(Docket #6), and has noted that the likelihood of directions
being followed may affect their adequacy (see In Re King Paint,
2 ERC 1819 (1970)); In Re Stearns, 2 ERC 1364 (1970).
The hazards from the pattern of use for these chemicals is
not remote or off in the distant future. The prairies and ranges
are populated by numerous animals, some of which are becoming rare.
At Jeopardy are potentially endangered species. Each death to
that population is an irremediable loss and renders such species
closer to extinction.
No apparent circumstances exist to counterbalance this
distinct hazard and suggest that the possibility of irremediable
loss is outweighed by the harm that might occur from their
nonavailability during a period of suspension. The situation
might well be different were the removal of these poisons from the
FORD is LIBRARY
- 91 -
market likely to affect human health or the supply of a staple
foodstuff; or were there no apparent alternatives available, the
balance might be differently struck. This, however, is not true.
I am hereby affixing findings of fact and an order suspending
and cancelling these chemicals for use in predator control.
Welliam D. renkeleham
MAR 9 1972
William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator
FORD & LIBRARY QERALD
AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Hamboldt County
AGRICULTURE CENTER BUILDING
MAILING ADDRE.
5630 S. BROADWAY AT SPRUCE POINT
P. D. Box 42
PHONE 443-0896
EUREKA, CALIFE
ZIP CODE 9550
June 12, 1975
The Honorable Don Clausen, Congressman
2nd District, California
2433 Rayburn House Office Building.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Clausen:
At your request I will expand on our discussion in Eureka on June 5, of sheep vrs.
cattle numbers.
Humboldt County historically started out as a steer county providing beef for mine
sailors and loggers. Beef surplus and poor storage facilities encouraged entry in
sheep production. High wool prices stimulated and expanded the industry. Over the
years, ranchers realized that sheep and cattle could graze together and increase
total production of meat per acre by approximately 20% over grazing by either spec
alone.
Our county sheep numbers peaked at 143,000 head in 1955. We started 1975 with app:
imately 22,000. A survey of former sheepmen taken in April and May of this year
showed; of 35 total, 19 went out of the sheep business because of coyote problems;
because of dogs, bears, eagles and bobcats, and only 5 because of their own choice
for management reasons. The grazing land is still there. And where sheep used to
be you find cattle today. In fact, the loss of 121,000 sheep means we have increa
cattle numbers by 24,100 head to take their place.
This shift in grazing species has brought the following problems.
1. Cattle grazing alone reduce total meat per acre by 20%.
2. Cattle eat less browse allowing brush to grow causing range deterioration
3. On our coastal and low mountain ranges sheep will winter with little or n
supplemental feed. Cattle require a minimum of 1 ton of hay supplement C
equivalent during the same period.
4. Cattle require extensive corrals, chutes and other equipment to properly
handle them.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
5. Calves currently sell for about 28¢ per lb. with lambs at 48¢ per. lb.
Feed requirement indicates 1 COW equals 5 sheep. Therefore one 500 lb.
calf at 28¢=$140.00. Five 100 lb. lambs at 48¢=$240.00.
PARAGRATING MAH IM ADDINITION ANA HAVE EPANAMICS и t INDEPTNENT AF ACTICULTURE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 131 PARVITY AF NUMBRIST CARDERATE
Page two
Nationally there is currently, a large inventory of beef animals. The western
states, long known for sheep and wool production, are continuing to turn to cattle.
It isn't by choice. Sheep have become impossible to raise on millions of western
acres of grazing lands because of predator problems.
I foresee that beef cattle numbers will stay high causing un economic income levels
for beef as sheepmen continue their shift out of sheep and into cattle.
Perhaps this information can supplement all of the other you gained talking to
sheepmen and cattlemen last week. Good luck in your efforts to gain relief from
over protective measures taken in the past allowing, particulary the coyote, to
devastate local and national sheep flocks.
Sincerely,
Chals m lawrend
Charles M. Lawrence
Farm Advisor
CML:bs
FORD is LIBRARY
RBC has SEEM
National Wool Growers Association
600 CRANDALL BUILDING
SUITE 336, SOUTHERN BUILDING
10 WEST STARS AVENUE
.805 - 15th STREET, N. W.
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84101
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005
(801) 363-4483
(202) 638-6002
Send Reply to:
February 11, 1976
Washington, D. C.
PRESIDENT
FLOYD MYERS MARSH
Route 1, Box 126
Williams, California 95987
(916) 473-2328
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
EDWIN E. MARSH
Washington, D.C.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
Mr. Richard B. Cheney,
VERN F. NEWBOLD
Salt Lake City, Utah
Assistant to the President,
VICE PRESIDENTS
DELOYD SATTERTHWAITE
The White House Office,
Tuscarora, Nevada
PHIL FARRELL
Medras, Oregon
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,
P. J. COOK
Belle Fourche, South Dakota
Washington, D. C. 20500.
HONORARY PRESIDENTS
R. C. RICH
Burley, Idaho
RAY W. WILLOUGHBY
Dear Mr. Cheney:
San Angelo, Texas
J. H. BRECKENRIDGE
Twin Falls, Idaho
DON CLYDE
Heber City, Utah
We appreciated very much the opportunity to meet with
HAROLD JOSENDAL
Casper, Wyoming
GEORGE K. HISLOP
you the afternoon of January 30th. All of us who were in
Yakima, Washington
JAMES L. POWELL
attendance feel the meeting was constructive as were other
Ft. McKavett, Texas
VERN VIVION
Rawlins, Wyoming
meetings that day with the Secretary of Agriculture and
R. K. SIDDOWAY
St. Anthony, Idaho
Secretary of the Interior.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
M. P. ESPIL
Litchfield Park, Arizona
TIM INDART
We do hope that as a result of these meetings we
Clovis, California
DEAN VISINTAINER
Craig, Colorado
will get some relief on our predator and labor problems.
PHILLIP SOULEN
Weiser, Idaho
RALPH W. LIVENGOOD
Terre Haute, Indiana
KEN OTT
Our thanks and very best regards.
Maize, Kansas
RALPH DREYER
Circle, Montena
ELIAS GOICOECHEA
Elko, Nevada
Sincerely,
ANTHONY E. TREAT
Roswell, New Mexico
PIERSON ROOT
Albion, New York
ELWIN C. NEWCOMER
Bryan, Ohio
EMIL GRIESER
Hobart, Oklahoma
HENRY KREBS
Fleyd Mgers Mersh Floyd Myers Marsh,
lone, Oregon
P. COOK
Belle Fourche, South Dakota
ARMER EARWOOD
President.
Sonora, Texas
VERN WILSON
Midway, Utah
J. M. HOGE
Tazwell, Virginia
EEM:h
LEE SOLUM
Ephrata, Washington
WILLIAM McKERROW
Pewaukee, Wisconsin
DON MEIKE
Kaycee, Wyoming
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 14, 1.976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DICK CHENEY
FROM:
FOSTER CHANOCK F FC
SUBJECT:
Coyotes
Stu and Jim recommend that you call Senator Hansen to inform him
of the decision and express the hope that the action will not go un-
noticed. After you place your call, Kendall will contact the other
interested Senators. This should be completed by 3:00 PM so
Margaret Earl can post the decision here in a routine fashion.
Approve:
Disapprove:
Note: Kathie to notify Kendall and Chanock when action completed.