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
16988259
label
Predators (6)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
16988259
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Predators (6)
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
16988259
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
e09b7702e365bca6
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 26, folder "Predators (6)" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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
May 21, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DICK CHENEY,
FROM:
JIM CAVANAUGE
SUBJECT:
Amended Executive Order on
Coyotes
Attached is the material I received originally from
Foster Chanock on the Coyote situation. Also attached
is Jim Cannon's decision paper for the President in
which the President selected Option 2.
At your request, I telephoned Senator Hansen three
weeks ago and informed him of the President's decision.
When I asked him if he would prefer to announce it, he
indicated that the White House should announce it. He
later told Bill Kendall that the only announcement he
would have liked to make would be if the President had
decided to rescind the Executive Order completely.
You should call your friend and tell him the President
has decided to amend the Executive Order to allow the use
of sodium cyanide in the M-44 devise.
Once you have done this, we will tell the Press Office
to put out the amended Executive Order.
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
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
(801) 363-4483
(202) 638-6002
Send Reply to:
April 20, 1976
for
PRESIDENT
R.K.SIDDOWAY
Floyd marsh
505 3rd N.
St. Anthony, Idaho 83445
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
EDWIN E. MARSH
Washington D. c.
Mr. Richard Cheney
ASSISTANT SECRETARY
Chief of Staff
VERN F. NEWBOLD
can Joster you and
Salt Lake City, Utah
The White House
VICE PRESIDENTS
FLOYD MYERS MARSH
Washington, D. C. 20500
Williams, California
EDWARD B. SMITH
Dagmar, Montana
DELOYD SATTERTHWAITE
Tuscarore, Nevada
Dear Mr. Cheney:
Rec's Reparently going to this 16
n
HONORARY PRESIDENTS
R.C. RICH
Burley, Idaho
Eighty days have passed since our discussion of coyote
RAY W. WILLOUGHBY
San Angelo, Texas
J. H. BRECKENRIDGE
problems in your office along with Chris Jouflas, Floyd Marsh,
Twin Falls, Idaho
DON CLYDE
and representatives of the Navajo Nation. One month has passed
Heber City, Utah
HAROLD JOSENDAL
Casper, Wyoming
since Mr. Cannon and Mr. Humphrey called upon Senator McClure
GEORGE K. HISLOP
Yakima, Washington
and others to advise that a presidential decision was imminent.
JAMES L. POWELL
Ft. McKavett, Texas
VERN VIVION
Senator McClure's aide, Doug Smith, and I also spent an hour
Rawiins, Wyoming
with Mr. Humphrey March 19. April 29 will represent the first
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
M. P. ESPIL
anniversary of the meeting with President Ford and representatives
Litchfield Park, Arizona
KENNETH LANE
Clements, California
of the International Association of State Game, Fish and
DEAN VISINTAINER
Craig, Colorado
Conservation Commissioners, the National Turkey Federation, the
PHILLIP SOULEN
Welser, Idaho
LOLA K. YODER
American National Cattlemen's Association, the Navajo Nation,
Goshen, Indiana
KEN OTT
and the National Wool Growers Association, along with a delegation
Maize, Kansas
RALPH DREYER
Circle, Montana
of midwestern and western Congressmen and Senators.
DELOYD SATTERTHWAITE
Tuscarora, Nevada
ROBERT NAYLOR
Roswell, New Mexico
RICHARD TURRELL
During the year, word has come from White House personnel
Oneonta, New York
ELWIN C. NEWCOMER
at least three times that effective presidential action was near.
Bryan, Ohio
PAUL MUEGGE
Lamont, Oklahoma
Once, of course, we got the famous toxic collar and a one year
PHIL FARRELL
Madras, Oregon
m-44 experiment (and as you told us, the President and his staff
P.J. COOK
Belle Fourche, South Dakota
MORT MERTZ
got "bagged").
Eldorado, Texas
VERN WILSON
Midway, Utah
J. M. HOGE
Tazwell, Virginia
All involved in the meeting with the President have about
LEE SOLUM
Ephrata, Washington
written off his ability to deal with this issue in more than
WILLIAM McKERROW
Pewaukee, Wisconsin
JOHN P. BURKE
reassuring words.
Casper, Wyoming
However, on the outside chance that the President's staff
is still looking for an opportune moment, I wanted to be sure
you had not overlooked the importance of sheep and cattle to the
state of Texas. Livestock are the cornerstone of the state's
Continued
Mr. Richard Cheney
April 20, 1976
Page 2
economy. The Chairman of the American National Cattlemen's
Association Predator Committee, who met last April 29 with the
President, Jim Barron III, from Spur, and his father, who is
currently serving as President of the Texas Cattle Feeders
Association, are strong and active in the Texas Republican
Party. Though not in our party, Governor Briscoe is a past
President of the American Mohair Council.
This question clearly exemplifies excessive federal
regulation and bureaucratic ineptness. It would help the
President on May 1 if he can show an ability to act decisively
and cause government to respond as he wishes. There are many
in our ranks who feel a responsibility to quickly educate
Mr. Reagan on the history of the predator issue.
Respectfully,
David nh
Laird Noh, Chairman
Predatory Animal Committee
National Wool Growers Assn.
mot im
P.S. Enclosed is recent correspondence from EPA illustrating
the games that are constantly played with our livelihood and
the taxpayers' money thanks to the Presidential Executive Order.
CC: Senator Tower
Jim Barron III
Dr. Bud Turner, President
Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers Assn.
Enc.
LN:kn
2
3
4
5
6
The White House
1
2
Manhington
3
W ND 007 1227P EST APR 20 76
WAG080(1143)C2-015481E111)PD 04/20/768
4
5
ICS IPHRNCZ CSP
1976 APR 20 PM I 48
6
2087345770 TDRN TWIN FALLS ID 65 04-20 0930A MST
7
8
PMS RICHARD CHENEY, CHIEF OF STAFF
9
WHITE HOUSE
10
11
WASHINGTON DC 205
12
APRIL 29 FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF FORD MEETING WITH WOOLGROWERS
13
14
CATTLEMEN POULTRY PRODUCERS FISH AND GAME DIRECTORS NAVAJOS ON
15
COYOTE PROBLEMS STILL NO CLEAR ACTION TEXAS LARGEST PRODUCER OF
16
17
SHEEP CATTLE AND ANGORA GOATS 20 PERCENT OF ALL U.S. SHEEP IN TEXAS
18
EXECUTIVE ORDERS IMPORTANT THERE INDECIVENESS ON THIS ISSUE WILL
19
20
HURT PRESIDENT MAY 1 LIVESTOCK URGING US TO ALERT REAGAN LETTER TO
21
FOLLOW
22
23
FLOYD MARSH, PRESIDENT
NATIONAL VOOLGROVERS ASSOCIATION
FORD j LIBRARY GERALD
FORM
24
25
26 NNNN
04017
EXECUTIVE
B
NR2
I
FE6
A
RA
May 28, 1976
CM28
HE9
FG298
Dear Mr. Administrator:
#11917
FG19
B
The enclosed copy of an Executive Order by the
FG20
President, entitled "Amending Executive Order
No. 11643 of February 8, 1972, Relating to
Environmental Safeguards on Activities for Animal
Damage Control on Federal Lands," is transmitted
for the files of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
C
Sincerely,
Robert D. Linder
D
Chief Executive Clerk
E
The Honorable Russell E. Train
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20024
Inclosure
jmr
Signed: 4/11/76
GERALD LIBRARY ? FORD
RECEIVED
[Case File refiled in
JUN 1 1976
WHCF by Ford Library
DENTRAL EILES
Staff, WHM w 3/28/80
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DECISION
April 8, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES M. CANNO
SUBJECT:
Predator Contre
PURPOSE
You have been requested by Russ Train to amend Executive
Order 11870 to allow limited use of sodium cyanide on
public lands to control coyotes.
BACKGROUND
On September 16, 1975, the Administrator of EPA issued
a decision allowing the use of sodium cyanide capsules
in the M-44 device as a method to control coyote predation.
An original 1972 Executive Order (E.O. 11643) barring
the use of toxicants on public lands was amended by you
(E.O. 11870) to allow experimental use of sodium cyanide.
This Order still is in effect and bars the use of the
M-44 in regular control programs. Mr. Train requests
that E.O. 11870 be amended to make the Executive Order
consistent with the EPA decision (TAB A).
The issue has been hotly contested, with the sheepgrowers
and their congressmen pressuring for complete recision
of the Executive Order (TAB 3 - Senators Hansen and McClure).
If the Executive Order is rescinded, the proponents in
Congress feel that they can get even greater relaxation
of chemical toxicant restrictions. You have met formally
with this group on two occasions and they are aware of
your interest in the issue.
Equally as strong in support of amendment as requested
by Russ Train are those who feel that the public lands
must be protected by Executive action for the benefits
offered to all Americans, not just the few who are
allowed the use of these lands for sheep and cattle
grazing (TAB C - Russ Peterson letter to Cannon). They
argue that the E.O. should be amended to allow the use
of the M-44 device, but not to remove the safeguard that
the Executive Order offers against the relaxation of
prohibitions on other, and more unacceptable, chemical
toxicants.
As presented, the suggested E.O. will allow the use of
sodium cyanide in the M-44 device under the restrictions
imposed by EPA. Eight of these restrictions are listed
in the proposed Executive Order, which means that even if
the restrictions on sodium cyanide registration were relaxed
by EPA, the E.O. would maintain these eight restrictions.
OPTIONS
1.
Take no action, maintaining the ban on toxicants
except for the one-year experimental use of sodium
cyanide permitted in Executive Order 11870.
Approve
Arguments
Pro: This is a stronger environmental stand than
recommended by EPA through its regulatory
process, and would be supported by environmental
groups.
Con: Offers no more help to sheepgrowers than your
decision last summer to allow one-year experi-
mental use of sodium cyanide.
2.
Amend the Executive Order as requested by Mr. Train
to allow the use of sodium cyanide in the M-44
device. (TAB D)
Approve
Arguments
Pro:
Has strong environmental support, and
generally acceptable to other agencies.
Would act as a deterrent against further
pressures to relax Federal restrictions
on chemical toxicants for use on public
lands.
Con:
May not actually help sheepgrowers, since
effectiveness of M-44 is disputed. Will
not appease sheepgrowers who want to use
other toxicants or who want the Executive
Order rescinded. Imposes eight restrictions
on the use of sodium cyanide which the
regulatory process might delete in the future.
3.
Rescind Executive Order 11643, as amended by
Executive Order 11870. (TAB E)
Approve
Arguments
Pro:
Would remove the President from making
continued decisions on toxicant usage by
relying on EPA to administer the laws
passed by Congress and EPA's own regulations.
Con:
Would not immediately help sheepgrowers
since other toxicants are not now registered
by EPA. Would be opposed strongly by
environmental groups.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
James Lynn (Nichols)
-Option No.2, would not oppose No. 3
Robert T. Hartmann
-Option No.2
Jack Marsh
-Option No.2
Philip Buchen (Chapman) Option No. 2
Max Friedersdorf
-Option No.2
Jim Cannon
-Although some members of House and Senate
would like you to completely rescind the
Presidential Executive Order restricting
the use of pesticides, Secretary Butz and
Hyde Murray believe that many farmers and
others in rural areas believe you should
not hand the responsibility for pesticide
control entirely to EPA.
On that basis, I support Option 2.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 28, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
EXECUTIVE ORDER
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11643 OF FEBRUARY 8, 1972,
RELATING TO 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 provisions 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.), and in view of the findings
(40 F.R. 44726-44739, September 29, 1975) of the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency that the use of sodium
cyanide is permissible under conditions prescribed by the
Agency, Executive Order No. 11643 of February 8, 1972, as
amended by Executive Order No. 11870 of July 18, 1975, is
further amended by adding the following subsection to
Section 3:
" (d) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)
of this Section, the head of an agency may authorize
the operational use of sodium cyanide in Federal
programs or on Federal lands, but only in accordance
with regulations and on the terms and subject to all
the restrictions which may now or hereafter be pre-
scribed by the Environmental Protection Agency; provided
that, such use of sodium cyanide is prohibited in
(1) areas where endangered or threatened animal species
might be adversely affected; (2) areas of the National
Park System; (3) areas of the National Wildlife Refuge
System; (4) areas of the National Wilderness Preservation
System; (5) areas within national forests or other
Federal lands specifically set aside for recreational
use; (6) prairie dog towns; (7) National Monument
areas; and (8) any areas where exposure to the public
and family pets is probable.
GERALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 28, 1976
#
#
#
#
THE WHITE HOUSE
WAS- NGTON
DECISION
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FRIM:
JAMES M. CANNON
Jim
SUBJECT:
Predator Costro
PURPOSE
Yoz have been requested by Russ Train to amend Executive
Order 11870 to allow limited use of sodium cyanide on
public lands to control corotes.
BACKGROUND
On September 16, 1975, the Administrator of EPA issued
a decision allowing the use of sodium cyanide capsules
in the M-44 device as a method to control coyote predation.
An original 1972 Executive Order (E.O. 11643) barring
the use of toxicants on public lands was amended by you
(E.C. 11870) to allow experimental use of sodium cyanide.
This Order still is in effect and bars the use of the
M-44 in regular control programs. Mr. Train requests
that E.O. 11870 be amended to make the Executive Order
consistent with the EPA decision (TAB A).
The issue has been hotly contested, with the sheepgrowers
and their congressmen pressuring for complete recision
of the Executive Order (TAB 3 - Senators Hansen and McClure).
If the Executive Order is rescinded, the proponents in
Congress feel that they can get even greater relaxation
of chemical toxicant restrictions. You have met formally
with this group on two occasions and they are aware of
your interest in the issue.
FORD LIBRARY is GERALD
-2-
Equally as strong in support of amendment as requested
by Russ Train are those who feel that the public lands
must be protected by Executive action for the benefits
offered to all Americans, not just the few who are
allowed the use of these lands for sheep and cattle
grazing (TAB C - Russ Peterson Letter to Cannon). They
argue that the E.O. should be amended to allow the use
of the M-44 device, but not to remove the safeguard that
the Executive Order offers against the relaxation of
prohibitions on other, and more unacceptable, chemical
toxicants.
As presented, the suggested E.O. will allow the use of
sodium cyanide in the M-44 device under the restrictions
imposed by EPA. Eight of these restrictions are listed
in the proposed Executive Order, which means that even if
the restrictions on sodium cyanide registration were relaxed
by EPA, the E.O. would maintain these eight restrictions.
OPTIONS
1.
Take no action, maintaining the ban on toxicants
except for the one-year experimental use of sodium
cyanide permitted in Executive Order 11870.
Approve
Arguments
Pro: This is a stronger environmental stand than
recommended by EPA through its regulatory
process, and would be supported by environmental
groups.
Con: Offers no more help to sheepgrowers than your
decision last summer to allow one-year experi-
mental use of sodium cyanide.
2.
Amend the Executive Order as requested by Mr. Train
to allow the use of sodium cyanide in the M-44
device. (TAB D)
Approve
-3-
Arguments
Pro:
Has strong environmertal support, and
generally acceptable =0 other agencies.
Would act as a deterrent against further
pressures to relax Federal restrictions
on chemical toxicants for use on public
lands.
Con:
May not actually help sheepgrowers, since
effectiveness of M-44 is disputed. Will
not appease sheepgrovers who want to use
other toxicants or who want the Executive
Order rescinded. Imposes eight restrictions
on the use of sodium cyanide which the
regulatory process might delete in the future.
3.
Rescind Executive Order 11643, as amended by
Executive Order 11870. (TAB E)
Approve
Arguments
Pro:
Would remove the President from making
continued decisions == toxicant usage by
relying on EPA to administer the laws
passed by Congress and EPA's own regulations.
Con:
Would not immediately help sheepgrowers
since other toxicants are not now registered
by EPA. Would be opposed strongly by
environmental groups.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
James Lynn (Nichols)
-Option No.2, would not oppose No.3
Robert T. Hartmann
-Option No.2
Jack Marsh
-Option No.2
Philip Buchen (Chapman) Option No.2
Max Friedersdorf
-Option No.2
Jim Cannon
-Although some members of House and Senate
would like you to completely rescind the
Presidential Executive Order restricting
the use of pesticides, Secretary Butz and
Hyde Murray believe that many farmers and
others in rural areas believe you should
not hand the responsibility for pesticide
control entirely to EPA.
On that basis, I support Option 2.
A
UNITED
STATES.
AGENCY
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PROTECTION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
September 30, 1975
OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
Dear Mr. President:
On July 11, 1975, I issued a Notice calling a hearing to determine
whether a 1972 EPA Order should be modified to permit sodium cyanide
to be used in the M-44 device to control wild canid predators which
prey on livestock, principally sheep. The 1972 Order cancelled and
suspended all Federal registrations of sodium cyanide, strychnine, and
sodium fluoroacetate (1080) for predator control. It was issued on
March 9, 1972, immediately following Executive Order 11643 of February 8,
1972, which banned the use of chemical toxicants on Federal lands except
in emergencies.
In the July 11 Notice I noted that if the 1972 EPA Order were
modified to permit the use of sodium cyanide, general or operational
use on Federal lands and by Federal agencies still would be prohibited
under the Executive Order except in certain emergencies. I also stated
in the Notice that if the 1972 EPA Order were modified, I would
recommend to you that the 1972 Executive Order be modified accordingly.
In the interim, on July 18, 1975, Executive Order 11643 was
modified by Executive Order 11870 to permit use of sodium cyanide on an
experimental basis for one year in accordance with the applicable law.
Pursuant to Executive Order 11870, an EPA experimental use permit was
issued to the Department of the Interior on September 2, 1975, to allow
experimentation with the sodium cyanide toxic collar device to control
sheep predation by coyotes. The amended Executive Order continues the
prohibition of the prior Executive Order on general or operational use
of sodium cyanide by Federal agencies and on Federal lands.
On Tuesday, September 16, 1975, I issued a Decision and Order
modifying the 1972 EPA Order to permit the registration of sodium
cyanide capsules for use in the M-44 device. I would like to emphasize
that in amending the 1972 EPA Order, registration of sodium cyanide for
use in the M-44 device will be subject to 26 restrictions set forth in the
attached Order. These restrictions were developed out of a concern for
human safety and protection of non-predator species of animals. Risk of
injury to operating personnel and the public generally (especially
children) is a matter of grave concern to me, particularly in view of the
very high and continually increasing levels of recreation use of
virtually all of our public lands. These risks can only be minimized by
use of sodium cyanide under properly controlled conditions. Similarly,
2
controlled use and care in placement of M-44 devices are necessary to
ensure that the highest possible degree of selectivity is attained in
taking target species of predatory animals, thereby reducing the risk
to non-target species, especially endangered and threatened species.
The 26 restrictions are designed to minimize such risks.
As a result of this recent EPA action, I recommend modification of
Executive Order 11870 to permit the use of sodium cyanide in the M-44
device by Federal agencies and on Federal lands, but only on the terms
and subject to the restrictions prescribed by the Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to the September 16, 1975 Devision and Order
(40 F.R. 44725, September 29, 1975) and the applicable provisions of
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, as amended
(7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.).
Respectfully,
Runell 2. Train
Russell E. Train
Administrator
The President
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
2 Enclosures
B
CLIFFORD P. HANSEN
WYOMING
United States Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
November 10, 1975
George Humphreys
Domestic Counsel
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
Dear Mr. Humphreys:
Enclosed is a statement of our position on the
Executive Order in preparation for your decision
paper.
We stand ready to work with you on revising the
length, if our statement is longer in your paper than
the one page you suggested.
Thank you again for taking the time to meet with
us and to give us this opportunity to express our
position.
With kind regards,
Sincerely,
Senator Occurd Clifford P.LGa P. Hansen James James a. A. Ms McClure
CPH:snc
Enclosure
LIBRARY
The maintenance of the Executive Order ban against certain predacides is
not consistent with rational regulation of pesticides. When the EO was
issued, EPA did not have a law adequate to the flexible regulation of
predator toxicents, and a ban may have been justified. Since 1972, two
developments have made recission of the Order desirable:
1. Predator populations have increased dramatically, and so have
losses to predators. Hard data may never be available to settle this
point once and for all. However, Tab A presents data which we find
persuasive, and in any event, concern over increasing predator pop-
ulations now extends well beyond cattle and sheepmen. Poultry losses
are increasing; officials of State fish and game agencies, who are
responsible for the wildlife populations within the States, are becoming
concerned about damage to bird and other game populations; local chapters-
of such environmental groups as the Izaak Walton League are now revising
their positions on predacides, in favor of wider use; certain American
Indian tribes have indicated the adverse impact of the ban on their
activities.
2. Congress has passed amendments to the pesticide law which permit
the use of predacides under appropriate restrictions. Regulations just
now going into effect provide for "restricted use" pesticides and
"certified applicators," by means of which EPA can control the use of
predacides, thus relieving the present pressures for extra-regulatory or
illegal use. EPA can set the criteria for certification, in consultation
with other agencies, including the Departments of Interior and Agriculture,
interested in the management of wild and domestic animals, and the
public lands. Congress has clearly expressed its intention that pesticides,
including predacides, be regulated under FIFRA, and not by Executive
Order.
In view of these developments, and in light of the trend to simplification
of regulation, the present, two-level regulation of predacides is
unjustifiable. The present system does not provide the flexibility and
speed of response needed to meet the legitimate needs of stockmen,
wildlife specialists, and public health officials. The degree of
control which EPA would retain over predacide use under FIFRA is sufficient
to accomplish the broad policy goals of the Administration with respect
to pesticide and animal damage control.
with other agencies, including the Departments of Interior and Agriculture,
interested in the management of wild and domestic animals, and the
public lands. Congress has clearly expressed its intention that pesticides,
including predacides, be regulated under FIFRA, and not by Executive
Order.
In view of these developments, and in light of the trend to simplification
of regulation, the present, two-level regulation of predacides is
unjustifiable. The present system does not provide the flexibility and
speed of response needed to meet the legitimate needs of stockmen,
wildlife specialists, and public health officials. The degree of
control which EPA would retain over predacide use under FIFRA is sufficient
to accomplish the broad policy goals of the Administration with respect
to pesticide and animal damage control.
C
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE. N. #.
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20006
Dear Jim:
By now, the amendment to the Executive Order on predator
control should have nearly finished the clearance process,
again raising the question of whether it is better to
proceed with the amendment or to rescind that order
entirely. The purpose of this note is to reiterate
emphatically my position that it would be unwise in the
extreme to rescind the order at this time.
The main thrust of the original Executive Order was to
reaffirm the national policy that the public lands with
the wildlife and other resources they contain are held
in trust for the public as a whole; and that the use of
poisons --- particularly long lasting, non-selective ones
causing secondary effects -- was a gross abuse of that
trust.
It is true that the Environmental Protection Agency has
legislative authority to control poison use. However,
if the President rescinds the order, his act will be
perceived as a negation of the principle of the public
trust in which public lands are held, and as Presidential
endorsement of a return to the previous abuse of poisons.
This issue has become strongly symbolic to the public.
I would emphasize that with the public lands and poison
issues involved the "public" concerned is not only the
traditional conservationists, but it includes a large
segment of the rest of our citizens.
Sincerely,
Puss
Russell W. Peterson
Chairman
Mr. James A. Cannon
Assistant for Domestic Affairs
White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
D
EXECUTIVE ORDER
AMENDING EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11643 OF FEBRUARY 8,
1972, RELATING TO 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 Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et.
seq.), the provisions 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.), and in view of
the findings (40 F.R. 44726-44739, September 29,
1975) of the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency that the use of sodium cyanide
is permissible under conditions prescribed by
the Agency, Executive Order No. 11643 of February 8,
1972, as amended by Executive Order No. 11870
of July 18, 1975, is further amended by adding
the following subsection to Section 3:
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsection (a) of this Section, the head
of an agency may authorize the operational
use of sodium cyanide in Federal programs
or on Federal lands, but only in accordance
with regulations and on the terms and subject
to all the restrictions which may now or
hereafter be prescribed by the Environmental
Protection Agency; provided that, such use
of sodium cyanide is prohibited in (1) areas
where endangered or threatened animal species
might be adversely affected; (2) areas of
the National Park System; (3) areas of the
National Wildlife Refuge System; (4) areas
of the National Wilderness Preservation System;
(5) areas within national forests or other
Federal lands specifically set aside for
recreational use; (6) prairie dog towns;
(7) National Monument areas; and (8) any
areas where exposure to the public and family
pets is probable. "
THW WHITE HOUSE
1976
EXECUTIVE ORDER
RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS FOR ANIMAL
DAMAGE CONTROL ON FEDERAL LANDS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as
President of the United States, and in view of the
actions taken by Congress in establishing a regulatory
process by which the Environmental Protection Agency
ensures that the use of toxicants is permitted only
under conditions prescribed by that agency, and in
order to provide for the uniform applicability of
the conditions prescribed by that agency, in accord-
ance with applicable law and regulations, Executive
Order No. 11643 of February 8, 1972, as amended,
is hereby rescinded.
THE WHITE HOUSE
1976
TUNNEY (3/2) [Dec.1976]
David Kennuly .A father 581-5576
,
,
-
Home a nephew- -
GAILY Kemenly, 30
Hillard, organ, pm
& shiep muler
Catof Much as coyates
Tabled w7 Arch University
Gary. Exa ale- on P ash
to usund NYOU's ever
order to poison predator?
tost 50% laube lost year.
to coyotes and wild dogs.
FORD it LIBRARY 07/1/19
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 16, 1976
MEMORANDUM TO:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES M. CANNON
SUBJECT:
Recission of Executive Order
on Predator Control
There are continued requests that you completely
rescind your Executive Order of May 28, 1976. This
E. O. allowed the use of sodium cyanide in the M-44
device, but continued the ban on other toxicants that
were contained in previous Orders , Anythonine x
The actual effect of complete recission would be
minimal. Other toxicants are currently controlled by
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) and by EPA's registration process. The act of
recission would be more symbolic than substantive.
Attached for your review is a draft of an Executive Order
that would rescind the existing Orders and amendments
(TAB A).
FORD i LIBRARY 038410
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
DECISION
April 8, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES M. CANNO
SUBJECT:
Predator Contr
PURPOSE
You have been requested by Russ Train to amend Executive
Order 11870 to allow limited use of sodium cyanide on
public lands to control coyotes.
BACKGROUND
On September 16, 1975, the Administrator of EPA issued
a decision allowing the use of sodium cyanide capsules
in the M-44 device as a method to control coyote predation.
An original 1972 Executive Order (E.O. 11643) barring
the use of toxicants on public lands was amended by you
(E.O. 11870) to allow experimental use of sodium cyanide.
This Order still is in effect and bars the use of the
M-44 in regular control programs. Mr. Train requests
that E.O. 11870 be amended to make the Executive Order
consistent with the EPA decision (TAB A).
The issue has been hotly contested, with the sheepgrowers
and their congressmen pressuring for complete recision
of the Executive Order (TAB 3 - Senators Hansen and McClure).
If the Executive Order is rescinded, the proponents in
Congress feel that they can get even greater relaxation
of chemical toxicant restrictions. You have met formally
with this group on two occasions and they are aware of
your interest in the issue.
Equally as strong in support of amendment as requested
by Russ Train are those who feel that the public lands
must be protected by Executive action for the benefits
offered to all Americans, not just the few who are
allowed the use of these lands for sheep and cattle
grazing (TAB C - Russ Peterson letter to Cannon). They
argue that the E.O. should be amended to allow the use
of the M-44 device, but not to remove the safeguard that
the Executive Order offers against the relaxation of
prohibitions on other, and more unacceptable, chemical
toxicants.
As presented, the suggested E.O. will allow the use of
sodium cyanide in the M-44 device under the restrictions
imposed by EPA. Eight of these restrictions are listed
in the proposed Executive Order, which means that even if
the restrictions on sodium cyanide registration were relaxed
by EPA, the E.O. would maintain these eight restrictions.
OPTIONS
1.
Take no action, maintaining the ban on toxicants
except for the one-year experimental use of sodium
cyanide permitted in Executive Order 11870.
Approve
Arguments
Pro: This is a stronger environmental stand than
recommended by EPA through its regulatory
process, and would be supported by environmental
groups.
Con: Offers no more help to sheepgrowers than your
decision last summer to allow one-year experi-
mental use of sodium cyanide.
2.
Amend the Executive Order as requested by Mr. Train
to allow the use of sodium cyanide in the M-44
device. (TAB D)
Approve
-3-
Arguments
Pro:
Has strong environmental support, and
generally acceptable to other agencies.
Would act as a deterrent against further
pressures to relax Federal restrictions
on chemical toxicants for use on public
lands.
Con:
May not actually help sheepgrowers, since
effectiveness of M-44 is disputed. Will
not appease sheepgrowers who want to use
other toxicants or who want the Executive
Order rescinded. Imposes eight restrictions
on the use of sodium cyanide which the
regulatory process might delete in the future.
3.
Rescind Executive Order 11643, as amended by
Executive Order 11870. (TAB E)
Approve
Arguments
Pro:
Would remove the President from making
continued decisions on toxicant usage by
relying on EPA to administer the laws
passed by Congress and EPA's own regulations.
Con:
Would not immediately help sheepgrowers
since other toxicants are not now registered
by EPA. Would be opposed strongly by
environmental groups.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
James Lynn (Nichols)
-Option No.2, would not oppose No.3
Robert T. Hartmann
-Option No.
Jack Marsh
-Option No. 2
Philip Buchen (Chapman) Option No. 2
Max Friedersdorf
-Option No. 2
Jim Cannon
-Although some members of House and Senate
would like you to completely rescind the
Presidential Executive Order restricting
the use of pesticides, Secretary Butz and
Hyde Murray believe that many farmers and
others in rural areas believe you should
not hand the responsibility for pesticide
control entirely to EPA.
On that basis, I support Option 2.
OF THE INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
March
3,
1849
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
December 16, 1976
Memorandum
To:
George Humphreys, Associate Director
The Domestic Council
From:
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks
Subject: Executive Order Banning Toxicant Use in Predator Control
and its Relationship to the Federal Environmental Pesticide
Control Act of 1972 (hereinafter cited as FIFRA, as amended)
The Executive Order (hereinafter referenced as EO, and including EO 11643
of 8 February 1972, EO 11870 of 18 July 1975, and EO 11917 of 28 May 1976)
contains two major restrictions for Federal programs and Federal lands.
It
(1) prohibits the field use of any chemical toxicant to kill
a predatory mammal or bird; and
(2) prohibits the field use of any chemical toxicant with
secondary poisoning effects to kill mammals, birds, or
reptiles.
The prohibitions described above were relaxed to the extent that use of
sodium cyanide in the M-44 is permissible. Policy contained in Section 1
of the EO reiterates the two major restrictions and speaks to a general
public land management program to maintain environmental quality and
protect non-target species from control programs.
Exceptions to the prohibitions are provided for protection of human life
and safety, endangered or threatened species, and substantial irretrievable
damage to nationally significant natural resources, all of which must occur
in an "emergency" which cannot be dealt with by means other than use of
chemical toxicants.
The EO is thus based on the general premise that it is wrong to kill
predators and other species on Federal lands by use of chemical toxicants.
REVOLUTION
AMERICAN
BICENTENNIAL
1776-1976
T
Until the EO, there was no method of preventing abuse and misuse of toxi-
cants. Agency policy in this regard was cursory at best and received
little supervisory control in the field. The Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) could only control registration
and interstate shipment of pesticides, but not their use. The last point
is of particular significance in that the safest of chemical toxicants,
when improperly used, can pose great safety problems to human health and
the environment. Conversely, the most lethal pesticides can be used with
a high degree of safety when proper precautions are taken.
Underlying the protection of predators from chemical toxicants contained
in the EO were other considerations which speak to recognition of the broad
public interest represented by the public lands. Of paramount concern was
the desire to have wildlife values given recognition in policy and manage-
ment decisions equal that given traditional public land uses such as live-
stock, timber, mineral, and forage production. While predators represent
only one segment of the wildlife community, they are nevertheless the most
controversial and therefore the most visible. Their protection doubtlessly
indirectly enhanced consideration of wildlife in general.
Subsequent to the first EO, the Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act
of 1972 was enacted on 21 October 1972. This far-reaching statute provided
for strict control of every element of pesticide use, registration, manu-
facture, distribution, labeling, and disposal.
Because of the complexity of the regulations required to be promulgated
under FIFRA, as amended, and the volume of products to be regulated, the
act was to be implemented over a five-year period. The implementation was
not always timely, but has been now largely completed. Administration of
the act by EPA has steadily improved, and a number of important actions
have been taken to ban or severely restrict the use of pesticides with
high environmental risks.
Without fully citing the specific regulatory provisions promulgated under
FIFRA, as amended, it can be stated that the act provides an excellent
control mechanism for dealing with environmental problems, actual or
potential, arising from pesticide use. Information required for pesticide
registration (40 CFR 162) is thorough to the point of being exhaustive.
Permits required for experimental use (40 CFR 172) are carefully screened
and reviewed. Exemptions for emergency use by Federal or State agencies
(40 CFR 166) are tightly controlled and have well-defined limitations.
Special evaluations are required to determine hazards to fish and wildlife
(40 CFR 162.82). Review of existing pesticide registrations can result
in action being taken against the product, such as the process initiated
2
against registrations of strychnine, 1080, and 1081 compounds. In
addition to the procedural mechanisms described above, EPA widely
distributes public information concerning its proposed actions and
provides for excellent public participation in decisionmaking through
a hearing process that receives considerable attention.
The preceding background review of the EO and FIFRA, as amended, is
essential in addressing the environmental implications of rescinding
the EO. The most fundamental question at issue is the potential net
loss to wildlife resources and environmental quality and integrity if
the EO is rescinded. The most objective answer is that neither wildlife
in particular nor the environment in general will be afforded less pro-
tection in the absence of the EO.
The EO has become a symbol of accomplishment and a bench mark of change.
As such, its rescission will provoke a general outburst of indignation
from the environmental community, perhaps to the point of accomplishing
a change in the 1931 Animal Damage Control Act in the next session of
Congress.
The EO was the first step, and a good one, toward a sane and rational
predator management program. However, coyote killing for the sake of
coyote killing continues, and will continue, to drain an unacceptably
large portion of the resources of the Fish and Wildlife Service until
new direction is provided by statutory mandate. If the EO is rescinded,
the environmental community will immediately channel its attention toward
legislation rather than make a great effort to obtain a new EO. The
President may wish to direct attention to the need to revise the outdated
1931 Animal Damage Control Act when he considers rescinding the Executive
Order.
Lastamine
June
Nathaniel P. Reed
3
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Jim- Crabill at OMB agrees
that this is a fair presentation
Mitchell at OMB thinks
that it would he ridiculous
to rescind-
Lynns riew is unknown-
This has not been formally
staffed out. but Crabill
and I agree that, should
the President so choose, he
could legally sign now
GEORGE
feb
Environ
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
predator
December 17, 1976
MEMORANDUM TO:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES M. CANNON
SUBJECT:
Predator Control
On November 16, John Knebel asked you to 1) transfer
responsibility for animal damage control from Interior
to Agriculture, and 2) to rescind existing Executive
Orders that restrict the use of predacides on public
lands (attached letter - TAB A).
You decided not to direct the transfer but did ask to
review the recission possibility.
Secretary Knebel points out the increasing hardships
in the sheep and lamb industry:
-- 8.5 per cent (950,000 animals) of all sheep
and lambs in 15 western States are currently
being killed by coyote predation as compared
to 2-3 per cent (300,000 animals) - an average
year before FIFRA and the original E. O., and
6 per cent in 1973 and 1974 (750,000 animals) -
the two years immediately following the E. O.
-- $23 million annually in current sheep and lamb
losses
-- 47 million pounds of red meat removed from the
tables of Americans and from the world market
-- The experimental sheep flock at Purdue University
in Indiana recently experienced losses from coyotes
where no previous losses are recorded.
FORD & LIBRARY 07V836
-2-
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Environmental Pesticide
Control Act of 1972 offer control measures now that were
not in effect at the time of the original Executive Order.
However, major activities that would be permitted on
public lands by recission include:
-- Immediate use of strychnine for coyote control
-- Increased use of sodium cyanide for coyote control
-- Immediate use of 1080 for rodent control
-- Future use of predacides that may be registered
by EPA
While many argue that the use of strychnine and sodium
cyanide will not have a significant effect, Agriculture
believes that their use is important and necessary.
ARGUMENTS FOR RECISSION
-- The Western ranchers are being severely hurt
economically by the increase in animal deaths
since the E. O.
-- Proper measures already exist for control of
predacides, thus the E. O. is an added regulatory
burden.
-- Increased coyote populations on the public lands
are spilling over onto private lands where controlled
use of strychnine and sodium cyanide are used. We
should be consistent in control measures.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST RECISSION
-- Public lands should be managed from a greater
perspective than just for ranchers. Other wildlife
and recreational values must be considered.
-- The recission will be viewed as symbolic and not
substantive because the existing laws will not
allow much increase in control measures.
For
Aa.
LICOMMENDATION
=
recommend your signing the Executive Order (attached at
one
TAB B) rescinding E. O. 11643 and the amending orders.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250
November 16, 1976
The President
The White House
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Under the Act of March 2, 1931, the Secretary of Agriculture was author-
ized and directed to conduct investigations, experiments, and tests that
he deemed necessary to determine, demonstrate, and promulgate the best
method to control depredating animals on public and private lands to
protect agricultural crops and for public health reasons.
Subsequently, these responsibilities were transferred to the U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior (USDI) in the Government reorganization of 1939.
Those responsibilities have remained with USDI until today. Although
control measures by USDI had been satisfactory until about 1965, subse-
quent USDI policy changes have not provided the necessary efforts for
relief of losses in agricultural crops, public health problems, and wild-
life in urban environments.
As a result of these USDI policy changes, the livestock industry continues
to take annual losses in the millions of dollars. Economic Research
Service (ERS) studies reveal that predators cause estimated annual sheep
and lamb losses of approximately $23 million to farmers and ranchers.
This is approximately 8.5 percent of all sheep and lambs in 15 Western
States, amounting to more than 950,000 lambs and stock sheep.
This effectively removes at least 47 million pounds of red meat from the
tables of the American people and world market. It effectively restricts
farmers and ranchers in the 15 Western States from expanding production,
utilizing renewable resources at low energy costs, and from becoming
efficient and more competitive.
Serious livestock losses from coyotes are now occurring in Iowa, where
previously they were very low. The experimental sheep flock at Purdue
University, West Lafayette, Indiana, recently experienced losses from
coyotes, where previously none had been lost.
Furthermore, the USDI control program has not made adequate use of its
research program in animal damage control. For example, USDI had used
Executive Order 11643 as reason for not providing control on public lands
and to restrict research on predacides. The present program is thereby
restricted to the use of only one chemical when other products could be
registered for use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenti-
cide Act (FIFRA), as amended. The USDI research program spends approxi-
The President
2
mately $3 million annually on animal damage control. It has yet to
produce a mechanism or substance which will provide a safer and more
effective method of control than those used successfully for the past
20 years.
The present USDI animal damage control program is inadequate to meet
the needs of agricultural, public health, and urban wildlife problems.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) believes that a systematic,
cooperative, agriculture, and livestock protection and wildlife management
program is necessary to maintain high levels of agricultural production.
We recommend that the responsibilities for animal damage control under
the Act of 1932 be returned to the Secretary of Agriculture. Concur-
rently, we recommend that Executive Order 11643, Environmental Safeguards
on Activities for Animal Damage Control on Federal Lands, and Executive
Orders 11870 and 11917, amending Executive Order 11643, be rescinded.
FIFRA provides adequate protection for the use of predacides on Federal
lands.
The USDA program will be operated in a manner consistent with agricul-
tural crop protection needs. The animal damage control program adminis-
tered by USDA will also be ecologically managed to operate in conjunction
with wildlife management activities for depredating species of birds,
rodents, and other animals. Systematic management activities will include
national population surveys, population and habitat manipulation, mechan-
ical and chemical control methods and devices. Research and methods
development work will concentrate on developing new concepts and method-
ologies based on biological, environmental, and economically sound bases.
We feel that the transfer of the animal damage control program to USDA
and the operation of this program, in conjunction with the protection of
agricultural production, is consistent with our responsibilities to pro-
vide crops and protein to 215 million American people and people around
the world.
However, transfer of this program to USDA without recision of the
Executive Orders would be a useless gesture and would not provide
effective means of implementation. The American public cannot afford
to lose this red meat supply to predators. For this reason, USDA
already has prepared a proposed supplemental budget request and work
The President
3
plan which can immediately be implemented upon signing of the Executive
Order transferring to this Department the 691 positions and $9.1 million
in funds now set up in USDI for animal damage control.
Respectfully,
Jahn Secretary A. KNEBEL 9.
ORD
EXECUTIVE ORDER
RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL SAFEGUARDS FOR
ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL ON FEDERAL LANDS
By virtue of the authority vested in me as
President of the United States, and in view of the
actions taken by Congress in establishing a regulatory
process by which the Environmental Protection Agency
ensures that the use of toxicants is permitted only
under conditions prescribed by that agency, and in
order to provide for the uniform applicability of
the conditions prescribed by that agency, in accordance
with applicable law and regulations, Executive Order
No. 11643 of February 8, 1972, as amended, is hereby
rescinded.
THE WHITE HOUSE
, 1976
Environ file
Environ
predator
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
December 20, 1976
MEMORANDUM TO:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES M. CANNON
SUBJECT:
Predator Control
On November 16, John Knebel asked you to 1) transfer
responsibility for animal damage control from Interior
to Agriculture, and 2) to rescind existing Executive
Orders that restrict the use of predacides on public
lands (attached letter - TAB A).
You decided not to direct the transfer but did ask to
review the recission possibility. Attached for your
consideration is an order rescinding the previous E. O.
and amendments (TAB B).
Secretary Knebel points out the increasing hardships
in the sheep and lamb industry:
-- 8.5 per cent (950,000 animals) of all sheep
and lambs in 15 western States are currently
being killed by coyote predation as compared
to 2-3 per cent (300,000 animals) - an average
year before FIFRA and the original E. O. and
6 per cent in 1973 and 1974 (750,000 animals) -
the two years immediately following the E. O.
-- $23 million annually in current sheep and lamb
losses
-- 47 million pounds of red meat removed from the
tables of Americans and from the world market
-- The experimental sheep flock at Purdue University
in Indiana recently experienced losses from coyotes
where no previous losses are recorded.
-2-
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Environmental Pesticide
Control Act of 1972 offer control measures now that were
not in effect at the time of the original Executive Order.
However, major activities that would be permitted on
public lands by recission include:
-- Immediate use of strychnine for coyote control
-- Increased use of sodium cyanide for coyote control
-- Immediate use of 1080 for rodent control
-- Future use of predacides that may be registered
by EPA
The use of strychnine and 1080, even under controlled
conditions, creates a strong possibility of secondary
poisoning. Birds and other animals eating the target
species can also be poisoned, and 1080 persists into
tertiary poisoning and beyond.
Should you rescind the orders, it could be expected that
the control of predacides on public lands would be
reinstituted by the new administration, either by a new
executive order or by departmental regulations.
ARGUMENTS FOR RECISSION
-- The Western ranchers are being severely hurt
economically by the increase in animal deaths
since the E. O.
-- Proper measures already exist for control of
predacides, thus the E. O. is an added regulatory
burden.
-- Increased coyote populations on the public lands
are spilling over onto private lands where controlled
use of strychnine and sodium cyanide are used. We
should be consistent in control measures.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST RECISSION
-- The secondary poisoning effects are such that
non-target animals can be affected as much or
more than coyotes.
-3-
-- Public lands should be managed from a greater
perspective than just for ranchers. Other wild-
life and recreational values must be considered.
-- The recission will be viewed as symbolic and not
substantive because the existing laws will not
allow much increase in control measures.
-- Strong editorial opposition is expected, along
with a major outcry from environmental and
conservation groups.
CC:
Humphreys
UNITED STATES.
AGENCY
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
PROTECTION
Washington, D.C. 20460
December 20, 1976
The Administrator
MEMORANDUM FOR: Mr. James Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
SUBJECT: Executive Order Banning Toxicants
Since conversations with you and Jim Mitchell have confirmed that
the Acting Secretary of Agriculture as well as outside interest groups
are again pressing for revocation of the Executive Order banning the
use of chemical poisons on the public lands, I feel that I should record
my strong opposition to the move. Most of these views I have already
conveyed in our telephone conversation.
The primary argument in favor of revocation appears to be that
revocation of the Executive Order will not reduce in any significant
way the protection of wildlife resources on the public lands on the
grounds that all the protection provided by the Executive Order is pro-
vided by FIFRA. (This is essentially the conclusion stated in Nat Reed's
memorandum to George Humphreys of December 16, 1976.) Along the
same line, it is suggested that revocation will have no legal or program-
matic effect.
It is true that EPA's cancellation of the registration of 1080, 1081,
and strychnine will continue to ban the use of these poisons on the public
lands, as well as elsewhere, irrespective of the Executive Order. One
is forced to wonder, therefore, just why the states Federal land manage-
ment agencies, and the livestock interests are so hell-bent to have the
Executive Order revoked!
It strikes me that one very practical difference that would come
about lies in the enforcement area. In enforcing the provisions of
FIFRA, EPA places heavy reliance on the capabilities of the states.
EPA has never been given any but the most modest resources for pesti-
cide enforcement activities. As a result, we have an average of about
22002
- 2 -
one inspector per state for enforcement work. Obviously, this gives EPA
no practical capability for monitoring or other surveillance activities in
the field. For this reason, as I have said, we are heavily dependent
upon the cooperation of the states. Given the attitudes in a number of
western states on the predator issue, I have little confidence that we would
have the necessary state support. Under present circumstances, the
President by Executive Order has given a strong, clear policy directive
to the Federal agencies responsible for management of the public lands.
Those agencies control grazing and other rights on the public lands and
have management personnel in the field. Once the Executive Order were
revoked, there would be no management commitment on the part of the
Federal land agencies against the use of chemical poisons and, given
their apparent sympathy for their use, I would be less than sanguine
about the extent of enforcement help that EPA could expect. Indeed,
the very fact of an overt Presidential action to revoke the Executive Order
could only be read as declaring that policy governing the use of poisons on
the public lands is no longer a matter of Presidential concern. However
phrased, you can be sure that the signal conveyed by such a Presidential
action would come through "loud and clear" to the land management
agencies.
Thus, contrary to what others appear to argue, I believe that revo-
cation of the Executive Order would have practical programmatic effects --
all of them negative insofar as wildlife protection is concerned.
I have noted the suggestion that repeal of the Executive Order would
have the potentially desirable effect of leading to revision of the outdated
Animal Damage Control Act of 1931. Assuming that such revision is
desirable -- and I have no expertise on the matter -- it would seem to
make sense to keep the Executive Order firmly in place until an acceptable
statutory revision is accomplished.
The original promulgation of the Executive Order was widely perceived
as an act of leadership on the part of the Federal government in the exer-
cise of its stewardship of the public domain. It has always seemed to me
that the Federal government has a duty as trustee for the nation of the
public lands and that it has an obligation to so manage the lands entrusted
to it as to provide an example of excellence to other land managers. For
somewhat similar reasons, it has seemed vital that the Federal government
establish rules governing strip mining on the public lands even in the absence
- 3 -
of any generally-applicable Federal statute. Whatever the legal and
technical effect of revocation of the Executive Order, it will be inter-
preted as a reversal of its earlier leadership in protecting wildlife
from chemical poisons.
If, as the proponents of the action argue, the revocation of the
Executive Order has no legal or programmatic significance, I would
ask, "Then why do it? 11 Of course, as I have indicated, I think revo-
cation would have practical programmatic effects -- all negative for
wildlife and the environment.
Finally, I urge that the President not take in the closing days of
his Administration an action which will be widely interpreted at worst
as giving his approval to the use of poisons against wildlife on the public
lands or at best as washing his hands of the matter -- particularly when
absolutely no offsetting benefits in the public interest have been demon-
strated or even claimed.
Runali Taain Russell E. Train
CC: Secretary Knebel (Agriculture)
Mr. James Mitchell (OMB)
Mr. Nathaniel Reed (Interior)
Dr. Lee Talbot (CEQ)
and
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
SECUTIVE
SE-VIE
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20503
153
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES T. LYNN
JAMES M. CANNON
Issue
Whether the Executive Order prohibiting Federal use of
poisons to control coyotes should be rescinded.
Background
Coyotes kill sheep. (See attached photographs.)
The sheep that are jeopardized are either on
private land (ranches), or
Federal lands, usually pursuant to grazing permits.
1
In 1931, the Federal Government assumed responsibility for
controlling damage done by animals to crops or livestock. 2
This function is not related primarily to Federal lands --
indeed most control measures are taken on private lands after
the owner calls for Federal help. Over the years the
following types of animals have been subject to control:
rodents, foxes, bears, bobcats, wild dogs, skunks and coyotes.
Approximately 183 Federal employees utilize the following
methods to control coyote population, principally on private
lands
trapping
shooting
1 There is little evidence that coyotes living on Federal
lands run onto private land, kill sheep and run back to the
sanctuary of Federal lands.
2 Initially the Department of Agriculture had responsibility;
this function was transferred to the Department of Interior
in 1939 along with the other functions of the Biological
Survey which became the Fish and Wildlife Service.
2
denning (killing the young in the den) and,
poisoning
Until 1972 the chief poison substances were "strychnine"
and sodium monofluoracetate, known as "1080". These poisons
were placed in bait carcasses. Both are relatively stable
through changes in weather -- indeed to the point of remaining
toxic in the carcass of the poisoned coyote.
Also used was a device called a "coyote getter" which
involves a 38 caliber gun which shot a poison capsule into
the coyote's mouth when a trigger was stepped on.
On February 8, 1972, President Nixon issued an Executive Order
which banned the use of
all toxic chemicals to kill predatory animals; and
all toxic chemicals used for killing other non-
predatory animals if the chemicals had a secondary
effect, i.e., the carcass of the poisoned animal
would itself poison another animal if eaten
both with respect to
Federal lands, and
the Federal animal damage control program described
GHMT
above.
The only exceptions concern emergency measures on Federal
lands and the use of sodium cyanide, described below, as
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Federal Insesticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
became law either months after the Executive Order was issued.
That Act requires registration of poisons. It permits EPA to
ban poisons or to limit their use to a particular manner
of application or to certain types of pests. EPA's registration
procedures, unlike the outright ban of the Executive Order,
require the agency to weigh the benefits of the use of the
poison in controlling animal populations against the
environmental costs of doing so.
Currently, neither strychnine or 1080 are registered (the
registrations having been cancelled) for predators such as
covotes; they are registered for use against rodents.
GERALD FORD LIBRANT
3
Sodium cyanide -- a poison without secondary effects --
is registered for use against coyotes provided it is
used in a M-44 device which, unlike the earlier .38 caliber
shell version, is spring-loaded to shoot a pellet into
the coyote's mouth. Sodium cyanide was also used experimentally
in a "toxic collar" pursuant to your change to the Executive
Order in July 1975. The coyotes learned to avoid it.
Currently, approximately 15,000 to 20,000 M-44 devices are
employed by Interior. Interior believes the device is
effective but has no data to prove it. The sheep ranchers
believe the device is ineffective, but neither they nor
Agriculture have any supporting data -- nor indeed does either
have data to show the amount of sheep loss due to coyotes. 3
The Legal Effect of Rescinding the Executive Order
Rescission of the Executive Order would have the following
results
no effect on the use of 1080 because it is not
registered for use against predatory animals and
still could not be used against coyotes,
no effect on the use of strychnine for the same
reason, and
no effect on sodium cyanide because it is registered
and now being used
With the Executive Order ban lifted, 1080 and strychnine
could be used, ostensibily for rodent control, on the public
lands. (It is currently used on private lands.) To the
extent these poisons persist in the dead rodents -- and, under
certain conditions, they do -- coyotes would also die since
their main food is rodents. However, EPA has already begun
proceedings to cancel the registrations of these poisons
as to rodent control.
Instead of the outright ban of the Executive Order, newly
developed chemicals would be accorded the EPA benefit/cost
process.
Interior would be relieved of the duty under the Executive
Order to act against private citizens -- such as grazing
permitees -- who place poisons on public lands. The Department
has not done so.
3 Agriculture has indicated annual sheep losses run to 47
FORD is LIBRAR 07VN39
million pounds. We believe these data are highly suspect.
They were obtained by surveying sheep ranchers as to what
losses they incur from coyotes. Often a sheep rancher would
find sheep missing and would assume that the loss was due
to coyotes.
4
Attitudes
The sheep ranchers
think 1080, and to a lesser extent strychnine, are
the answer
think sodium cyanide and the M-44 device are almost
as big a joke as the toxic collar⁴
blame the industry problems on President Nixon's hated
Executive Order
are not really aware of FIFRA and the cancellation
of registration for 1080 and strychnine use against
coyotes
would be delighted with the rescission of the
Executive Order -- even if there is no change
in the poisons that can be used
consider Train and EPA as separate from your
Administration.
The environmentalists
view the Executive Order as a symbolic landmark
would accordingly deem rescission a giant step
backward -- even though the practical effect is nil
would rally to a public statement by Train which
would indicate that
- he (Train) would not have rescinded the
Order
- there would be no practical effect of the
rescission, emphasizing that 1080 and
strychnine registration would probably be
withdrawn for rodent use as well
- Interior was being relieved of its duty
under the Executive Order to prevent others
from using poison on public lands -- even
acknowledging that Interior has never
excerised this duty.
4 Coyotes learned to avoid sheep with the collar; Interior
believes this is due to the odor, not reading the EPA label.
RALD S 9 17 BALD R. FORD
5
How Can the Problem be Solved?
First, we need information indicating what the problem
actually is. How serious? Where? Are current methods
effective?
That means more research.
And if existing techniques are not effective, that means even
more research.
At the same time, increased effort on other non-poison
methods of control (which you have already increased once)
would be well received by the sheep ranchers and would be
accepted by some environmentalists.5
Further research would appeal to the environmentalists. For
that reason -- and others -- it is not viewed by the sheep
ranchers as an answer.
Organizationally, there is an argument for moving both the
research and control operations to Agriculture. The interest
to be protected is primarily agricultural, while Interior's
interest is to protect living animals. This possibility
requires further study.
What are the Options for Styling a Rescission of the
Executive Order?
1. Simply rescind the Executive Order -- and have
no statement of explanation
- the sheep ranchers will applaud -- at
least initially -- until they find out
that FIFRA stands in their way -- but
even then may blame Train and EPA and
not you
- the environmentalists will object
vigorously.
2. Rescind the Executive Order and urge legislation
to reverse the EPA decisions under FIFRA to allow
some temporary, emergency use of 1080 and strychnine
5 Interestingly, environmentalists seem to divide into two
camps on this issue; one group recognizes that coyote
populations need to be controlled by killing them -- but
do not want to use methods that endanger humans or wildlife;
the second group does not believe that coyote population
should be interfered with at all.
6
- the sheep ranchers will be elated -- even
though the legislation will go nowhere
- the environmentalists will be livid.
3. Rescind the Executive Order -- with a statement
indicating that it is no longer necessary because
of enactment of FIFRA, which, instead of an
outright ban, provides for a more logical benefit/
cost procedure
- while this educates the sheep ranchers
that FIFRA is a problem, it also points
out that FIFRA is better with respect
to newly developed poisons than the outright
ban of the Executive Order
- the environmentalists will object, as
mentioned under 1 above.
Recommendations
Secretary Knebel argues that the existing Executive Order
serve no purpose and rescission will open the way for
Congressional consideration of relief. At a minimum it
will take you out of the poison review business and leave that
job to EPA. He points out that such action will be extremely
well received by the industry even though FIFRA would continue
to constitute an obstacle.
Administrator Train argues that it is not appropriate for
you to infuriate the environmentalists on your way out
of office, especially since there is no practical effect of
the rescission. Train also points out that rescission of
the Executive Order would relieve Interior of its duty to prevent
the use of poisons on public lands.
Jim Lynn and Jim Cannon advise against rescission and recommend
more resources for research and for non-poison control methods.
Transfer of the function from Interior to Agriculture, if
appropriate after further study, should be proposed.
Cannon chron
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
[Jan. 1977]
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES LYNN
JAMES M. CANNON
SUBJECT:
Transfer of the Animal Damage Control
Program from Interior to Agriculture
ISSUE
Secretary Knebel proposes that the responsibility for
administering the predator control program (primarily coyote
killing in sheepraising areas) be transferred from Interior
to Agriculture. (Legislation is required.)
BACKGROUND
A 1931 Act (7 U.S.C. 426) authorized the Secretary of
Agriculture to conduct a program to control wildlife which
is "injurious to agriculture, horticulture, forestry,
animal husbandry, wild game animals, and birds, and for the
protection of stock and other domestic animals." This
program, which includes coyote control, was transferred to
the Interior Department by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of
1939 in order to create what became the Fish and Wildlife
Service of the Interior Department.
The Fish and Wildlife Service administers the program, providing
technical and operational assistance to anyone requesting aid
in controlling predatory wildlife. It also does research.
In addition, it conducts direct operations to control mice
in farm silos, blackbirds which are a threat to health or a
nuisance and migratory bird depreadations on crops. 1 It
will do other tasks upon request, such as helping people
capture owls trapped in attics or eliminating moles undermining
driveways or streets.
1 The migratory bird portion of the animal damage control
program (estimated at $4 million in 1978) is not proposed
for transfer.
2
Approximately 183 Federal employees utilize the following
methods to control coyote populations, principally on
private lands
trapping
shooting
denning (killing the young in the den) and,
poisoning. 2
Total cost of the coyote program is projected at $6.8 million
in 1978.
ATTITUDES
Farmers and ranchers feel that the animal damage program would
be more avidly pursued by the Agriculture Department since
that Department is concerned with agricultural production and
the welfare of the farmer, while the Interior Department is
more likely to be concerned with minimizing environmental
hazards from the program and with preserving wildlife resources.
Environmentalists would prefer to see the program remain at
Interior because the Fish and Wildlife Service can be expected
to be more sensitive to human safety and other wildlife in
selecting control techniques.
2 Until 1972 the chief poison substances were "strychnine"
and sodium monofluoracetate, known as "1080". These poisons
were placed in bait carcasses. Both are relatively stable
through changes in weather -- indeed to the point of re-
maining toxic in the carcass of the poisoned coyote.
Also used was a device called a "coyote getter" which
involves a .38 caliber gun which shot a poison capsule into
the coyote's mouth when a trigger was stepped on.
All these techniques are now banned for use against coyotes --
both under President Nixon's 1972 Executive order and by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal
Pesticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
The only poisoning technique currently permitted and in use
is the M-44 device, a spring-loaded gun which shoots a sodium
cyanide pellet into the coyote's mouth when it tugs at a bait.
(See earlier memorandum of December 21, 1976, at Tab A for
greater detail on poisoning regulation.)
3
OPTIONS
Option 1:
Propose legislation to transfer the portion (69%) of
the animal damage control program concerned
primarily with farm predators to the Agriculture
Department, leaving migratory bird control in Interior
which has other responsibilities regarding migratory
birds (draft legislation is attached at Tab B.)
Option 2:
Take no action on this issue and leave the program
in the Interior Department.
ADVANTAGES OF THE TRANSFER
Puts program which is of benefit chiefly to
agricultural interests -- both crops and livestock --
in the Agriculture Department which protects
these interests in administering other farm programs.
The Agriculture Department already conducts research
on predator control and conducts insect and
animal control programs.
GERALO FORD VERARY
Would divest Interior of program which it does
not wish to retain and which is contrary to its
conservationist policies and image.
Program would likely receive resources more nearly
commensurate with benefits.
Makes Agriculture Department subject to environmentalist
pressures on this program, possibly resulting in
research into alternative techniques of predator
control other than shooting or poisons.
Provides the industry with more affective advocate --
Agriculture Department -- in EPA proceedings under
FIFRA.
DISADVANTAGES OF THE TRANSFER
Agriculture Department's clientele may insist that
the economic interests of growers should be protected
at the expense of environmental concerns. This may
result in renewed pressure to abolish the executive
orders controlling toxicant use on the public lands,
even though no additional poisoning techniques would
be permitted. (See Tab A)
4
If program expands, using present control techniques,
the chances for accidental harm increase, with the
possible death of humans and non-target wildlife.
May expand Federal role in predator control, halting
current Interior policy of returning control of
resident wildlife damage to States, which legally
own most wildlife, including coyotes.
No conclusive evidence exists proving that coyotes
are a major agricultural problem.
In addition to its research and operational
program to control depredations of migratory birds,
including blackbirds, the Fish and Wildlife Service
will also be required under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act of 1956 to monitor the effects of
the Agriculture Department's activities on other
wildlife -- especially endangered species. This
could result in pressure for additional funds for
research.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Secretary Knebel recommends the transfer. He is also
examining the possibility of reprogramming additional
Agriculture research funds for coyote control.
Secretary Kleppe does not object to the transfer.
As a matter of substance, although a close call, Jim Lynn
believes that the animal damage function is better located
in the Agriculture Department. However, particularly inasmuch
as the proposal is so late that it cannot be reflected in the
budget documents, the proposal will be viewed simply as a
political gesture.
Since you cannot effect the transfer by Executive Order,
James Cannon believes that you will receive little or no
credit for merely sending up legislation -- and you will be
severely criticized by the environmentalist groups.
DECISION
Option
Propose legislation to transfer the portion (69%) of
the animal damage control program concerned primarily
with farm predators to the Agriculture Department, leaving
migratory bird control in Interior.
Option 2:
Take no action on this issue.
Do you. wish
to send the legislation to the Congress
yourself?
the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to
send the legislation to the Congress?
LIBRARY
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STATE
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20503
DEC 21 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES T. LYNN
JAMES M. CANNON
Issue
Whether the Executive Order prohibiting Federal use of
poisons to control coyotes should be rescinded.
Background
Coyotes kill sheep. (See attached photographs.)
The sheep that are jeopardized are either on
O
private land (ranches), or
o Federal lands, usually pursuant to grazing permits. 1
In 1931, the Federal Government assumed responsibility for 2
controlling damage done by animals to crops or livestock.
This function is not related primarily to Federal lands --
indeed most control measures are taken on private lands after
the owner calls for Federal help. Over the years the
following types of animals have been subject to control:
rodents, foxes, bears, bobcats, wild dogs, skunks and coyotes.
Approximately 183 Federal employees utilize the following
methods to control coyote population, principally on private
lands
O. trapping
shooting
1 There is little evidence that coyotes living on Federal
lands run onto private land, kill sheep and run back to the
sanctuary of Federal lands.
2 Initially the Department of Agriculture had responsibility;
this function was transferred to the Department of Interior
in 1939 along with the other functions of the Biological
Survey which became the Fish and Wildlife Service.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
STATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
DEC 2 1 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES T. LYNN
JAMES M. CANNON
Issue
Whether the Executive Order prohibiting Federal use of
poisons to control coyotes should be rescinded.
Background
Coyotes kill sheep. (See attached photographs.)
The sheep that are jeopardized are either on
O private land (ranches), or
O Federal lands, usually pursuant to grazing permits.
1
In 1931, the Federal Government assumed responsibility for 2
controlling damage done by animals to crops or livestock.
This function is not related primarily to Federal lands --
indeed most control measures are taken on private lands after
the owner calls for Federal help. Over the years the
following types of animals have been subject to control:
rodents, foxes, bears, bobcats, wild dogs, skunks and coyotes.
Approximately 183 Federal employees utilize the following
methods to control coyote population, principally on private
lands
o trapping
o shooting
1 There is little evidence that coyotes living on Federal
lands run onto private land, kill sheep and run back to the
sanctuary of Federal lands.
2 Initially the Department of Agriculture had responsibility;
this function was transferred to the Department of Interior
in 1939 along with the other functions of the Biological
Survey which became the Fish and Wildlife Service.
2
denning (killing the young in the den) and,
poisoning
Until 1972 the chief poison substances were "strychnine"
and sodium monofluoracetate, known as "1080". These poisons
were placed in bait carcasses. Both are relatively stable
through changes in weather -- indeed to the point of remaining
toxic in the carcass of the poisoned coyote.
Also used was a device called a "covote getter" which
involves a .38 caliber gun which shot a poison capsule into
the coyote's mouth when a trigger was stepped on.
On February 8, 1972, President Nixon issued an Executive Order
which banned the use of
all toxic chemicals to kill predatory animals; and
all toxic chemicals used for killing other non-
predatory animals if the chemicals had a secondary
effect, i.e., the carcass of the poisoned animal
would itself poison another animal if eaten
both with respect to
Federal lands, and
the Federal animal damage control program described
above.
The only exceptions concern emergency measures on Federal
lands and the use of sodium cyanide, described below, as
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
became law eight months after the Executive Order was issued.
That Act requires registration of poisons. It permits EPA to
ban poisons or to limit their use to a particular manner
of application or to certain types of pests. EPA's registration
procedures, unlike the outright ban of the Executive Order,
require the agency to weigh the benefits of the use of the
poison in controlling animal populations against the
environmental costs of doing SO.
Currently, neither strychnine or 1080 is registered (the
registrations having been cancelled) for predators such as
coyotes; they are registered for use against rodents.
3
Sodium cyanide -- a poison without secondary effects --
is registered for use against coyotes provided it is
used in a M-44 device which, unlike the earlier .38 caliber
shell version, is spring-loaded to shoot a pellet into
the coyote's mouth. Sodium cyanide was also used experimentally
in a "toxic collar" pursuant to your change to the Executive
Order in July 1975. The coyotes learned to avoid it.
Currently, approximately 15,000 to 20,000 M-44 devices are
employed by Interior. Interior believes the device is
effective but has no data to prove it. The sheep ranchers
believe the device is ineffective, but neither they nor
Agriculture have any supporting data -- nor indeed does either
have data to show the amount of sheep loss due to coyotes.3
The Legal Effect of Rescinding the Executive Order
Rescission of the Executive Order would have the following
results
no effect on the use of 1080 because it is not
registered for use against predatory animals and
still could not be used against coyotes,
no effect on the use of strychnine for the same
reason, and
no effect on sodium cyanide because it is registered
and now being used
With the Executive Order ban lifted, 1080 and strychnine
could be used, but
for rodent control, on the public
lands. (It is currently used on private lands only.) To the
extent these poisons persist in the dead rodents -- and, under
certain conditions, they do -- coyotes would also die since
their main food is rodents. However, EPA has already begun
proceedings to cancel the registrations of these poisons
as to rodent control.
Instead of the outright ban of the Executive Order, newly
developed chemicals would be accorded the EPA benefit/cost
process.
Interior would be relieved of the duty under the Executive
Order to act against private citizens -- such as grazing
permitees -- who place poisons on public lands. The Department
has not done SO.
3 Agriculture has indicated annual sheep losses run to 47
million pounds. We believe these data are highly suspect.
They were obtained by surveying sheep ranchers as to what
losses they incur from coyotes. Often a sheep rancher would
find sheep missing and would assume that the loss was due
to coyotes.
4
Attitudes
The sheep ranchers
think 1080, and to a lesser extent strychnine, are
the answer
think sodium cyanide and the M-44 device are almost
as big a joke as the toxic collar⁴
blame the industry problems on President Nixon's hated.
Executive Order
are not really aware of FIFRA and the cancellation
of registration for 1080 and strychnine use against
coyotes
would be delighted with the rescission of the
Executive Order -- even if there is no change
in the poisons that can be used
consider Train and EPA as separate from your
Administration.
The environmentalists
view the Executive Order as a symbolic landmark
would accordingly deem rescission a giant step
backward -- even though the practical effect is nil
would rally to a public statement by Train which
would indicate that
- he (Train) would not have rescinded the
Order
- there would be no practical effect of the
rescission, emphasizing that 1080 and
strychnine registration would probably be
withdrawn for rodent use as well
- Interior was being relieved of its duty
under the Executive Order to prevent others
from using poison on public lands -- even
acknowledging that Interior has never
excerised this duty.
4 Coyotes learned to avoid sheep with the collar; Interior
believes this is due to the odor, not reading the EPA label.
5
How Can the Problem be Solved?
First, we need information indicating what the problem
actually is. How serious? Where? Are current methods
effective?
That means more research.
And if existing techniques are not effective, that means even
more research.
At the same time, increased effort on other non-poison
methods of control (which you have already increased once)
would be well received by the sheep ranchers and would be
accepted by some environmentalists.5
Further research would appeal to the environmentalists. For
that reason -- and others -- it is not viewed by the sheep
ranchers as an answer.
Organizationally, there is an argument for moving both the
research and control operations to Agriculture. The interest
to be protected is primarily agricultural, while Interior's
interest is to protect living animals. This possibility
requires further study.
What are the Options for Styling a Rescission of the
Executive Order?
1. Simply rescind the Executive Order -- and have
no statement of explanation
- the sheep ranchers will applaud -- at
least initially -- until they find out
that FIFRA stands in their way -- but
even then may blame Train and EPA and
not you
- the environmentalists will object
vigorously.
2. Rescind the Executive Order and urge legislation
to reverse the EPA decisions under FIFRA to allow
some temporary, emergency use of 1080 and strychnine
5 Interestingly, environmentalists seem to divide into two
camps on this issue; one group recognizes that coyote
populations need to be controlled by killing them -- but
do not want to use methods that endanger humans or wildlife;
the second group does not believe that coyote population
should be interfered with at all.
6
- the sheep ranchers will be elated -- even
though the legislation will go nowhere
- the environmentalists will be livid.
3. Rescind the Executive Order -- with a statement
indicating that it is no longer necessarv because
of enactment of FIFRA, which, instead of an
outright ban, provides for a more logical benefit/
cost procedure
- while this educates the sheep ranchers
that FIFRA is a problem, it also points
out that FIFRA is better with respect
to newly developed poisons than the outright
ban of the Executive Order
- the environmentalists will object, as
mentioned under 1 above.
PORD
Recommendations
LIBRARY
Secretary Knebel argues that the existing Executive Order
serve no purpose and rescission will open the way for
Congressional consideration of relief. At a minimum it
will take you out of the poison review business and leave that
job to EPA. He points out that such action will be extremely
well received by the industry even though FIFRA would continue
to constitute an obstacle.
Administrator Train argues that it is not appropriate for
you to infuriate the environmentalists on your way out
of office, especially since there is no practical effect of
the rescission. Train also points out that rescission of
the Executive Order would relieve Interior of its duty to prevent
the use of poisons on public lands.
Jim Lynn and Jim Cannon advise against rescission and recommend
more resources for research and for non-poison control methods.
Transfer of the function from Interior to Agriculture,
should be proposed.
A BILL
To transfer certain functions from the Secretary of the
Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That,
there are hereby transferred from the Secretary of the
Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture those functions
vested in the Secretary of Agriculture by the Act of -
March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468-1469; 7 U.S.C. 426-426b) which
were transferred to the Secretary of the Interior pursuant
to Section 4 (f) of Reorganization Plan No. II of 1939
(53 Stat. 1433), except to the extent that such functions
relate to research concerning, and the control of, migratory
bird depredations.
Sec. 2 (a) So much of the personnel, property, records,
and unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and
other funds employed, used, held, available, or to be made
available in connection with the functions transferred to
the Secretary of Agriculture by this Act as the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget shall determine shall be
transferred to the Department of Agriculture.
(b) Such further measures and dispositions as the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall deem
to be necessary in order to effectuate the transfers referred
to in subsection (a) of this Section shall be carried out in
such manner as he shall direct and by such agencies as he
shall designate.
-Sec." 3. Section 1 of this Act shall take effect ninety
days from the date of enactment.
ORD
LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 13, 1977
MEMORANDUM TO:
JAMES L. MITCHELL
FROM:
JAMES M. CANNON
SUBJECT:
Transfer of Jain Damage Control
Program From interior to Agriculture
I have reviewed your draft memorandum to the President.
The presentation is fair and balanced, in my opinion.
My recommendation to the President is to take no action
on this issue. Since any transfer would require legisla-
tion, I believe for the President to propose legislation
on this issue at this time would be unproductive and
possibly embarrassing.
file
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 12, 1977
VII
Gerry -
I
Phance
MEMORANDUM TO: JIM CANNON
very
and
FROM:
GEORGE W. HUMPHREYS
much
SUBJECT:
Transfer of Animal Damage
Control Program
In
In my opinion, the President will accomplish nothing
positive by proposing this legislation.
He will, however, needlessly expose himself to
attack from outraged editorialists and public
interest groups. This issue is not so pressing that
he should appear to be favoring a few ranchers without
documented evidence of serious depredation.
Attached is a suggested memo to Mitchell in case you
agree with my recommendation.
If you do not agree, I believe the Mitchell memo is
an accurate presentation of the issue.
min OFFICE #
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
file
OFFICE OF management AND BUDGET
STATE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
January 12, 1977
977 JAN 12 PM 12 30
TO MESSRS:
JAMES LYNN
JAMES CANNON
GEORGE HUMPHREYS
PAUL O'NEILL
FROM: JAMES L. MITCHELL
OM
Attached is a draft memorandum urgently requested by the
White House. Would appreciate any comments this afternoon
as it has been promised to the President this evening.
Thank you.
this you
&
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
ACTION
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES T. LYNN
JAMES M. CANNON
SUBJECT:
Transfer of the Animal Damage Control
Program from Interior to Agriculture
ISSUE
Secretary Knebel proposes that the responsibility for
administering the predator control program (primarily coyote
killing in sheepraising areas) be transferred from Interior
to Agriculture. (Legislation is required.)
Background
A 1931 Act (7 U.S.C. 426) authorized the Secretary of
Agriculture to conduct a program to control wildlife which
is "injurious to agriculture, horticulture, forestry,
animal husbandry, wild game animals, and birds, and for the
protection of stock and other domestic animals." This
program, which includes coyote control, was transferred to
the Interior Department by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of
1939 in order to create what became the Fish and Wildlife
Service of the Interior Department.
The Fish and Wildlife Service administers the program, providing
technical and operational assistance to anyone requesting aid
in controlling predatory wildlife. It also does research.
In addition, it conducts direct operations to control mice
in farm silos, blackbirds which are a threat to health or a
nuisance and migratory bird depradations on crops. 1 It
will do other tasks upon request, such as helping people
capture owls trapped in attics or eliminating moles undermining
driveways or streets.
1 The migratory bird portion of the animal damage control
program (estimated at $4 million in 1978) is not proposed
for transfer.
2
Approximately 183 Federal employees utilize the following
methods to control coyote populations, principally on
private lands
trapping
shooting
denning (killing the young in the den) and,
poisoning. 2
Total cost of the coyote program is projected at $6.8 million
in 1978.
ATTITUDES
Farmers and ranchers feel that the animal damage program would
be more avidly pursued by the Agriculture Department since
that Department is concerned with agricultural production and
the welfare of the farmer, while the Interior Department is
more likely to be concerned with minimizing environmental
hazards from the program and with preserving wildlife resources.
Environmentalists would prefer to see the program remain at
Interior because the Fish and Wildlife Service can be expected
to be more sensitive to human safety and other wildlife in
selecting control techniques.
2 Until 1972 the chief poison substances were "strychnine"
and sodium monofluoracetate, known as "1080". These poisons
were placed in bait carcasses. Both are relatively stable
through changes in weather -- indeed to the point of re-
maining toxic in the carcass of the poisoned coyote.
Also used was a device called a "coyote getter" which
involves a .38 caliber gun which shot a poison capsule into
the coyote's mouth when a trigger was stepped on.
All these techniques are now banned for use against coyotes --
both under President Nixon's 1972 Executive order and by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal
Pesticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
The only poisoning technique currently permitted and in use
is the M-44 device, a spring-loaded gun which shoots a sodium
cyanide pellet into the coyote's mouth when it tugs at a bait.
(See earlier memorandum of December 21, 1976, at Tab A for
greater detail on poisoning regulation.)
3
OPTIONS
Option 1:
Propose legislation to transfer the portion (69%) of
the animal damage control program concerned
primarily with farm predators to the Agriculture
Department, leaving migratory bird control in Interior
which has other responsibilities regarding migratory
birds (draft legislation is attached at Tab B.)
Option 2:
Take no action on this issue and leave the program
in the Interior Department.
ADVANTAGES OF THE TRANSFER
Puts program which is of benefit chiefly to
agricultural interests -- both crops and livestock --
in the Agriculture Department which protects
these interests in administering other farm programs.
The Agriculture Department already conducts research
on predator control and conducts insect and
animal control programs.
Would divest Interior of program which it does
not wish to retain and which is contrary to its
conservationist policies and image.
Program would likely receive resources more nearly
commensurate with benefits.
Makes Agriculture Department subject to environmentalist
pressures on this program, possibly resulting in
research into alternative techniques of predator
control other than shooting or poisons.
Provides the industry with more affective advocate --
Agriculture Department -- in EPA proceedings under
FIFRA.
DISADVANTAGES OF THE TRANSFER
Agriculture Department's clientele may insist that
the economic interests of growers should be protected
at the expense of environmental concerns. This may
result in renewed pressure to abolish the executive
orders controlling toxicant use on the public lands,
even though no additional poisoning techniques would
be permitted. (See Tab A)
4
If program expands, using present control techniques,
the chances for accidental harm increase, with the
possible death of humans and non-target wildlife.
May expand Federal role in predator control, halting
current Interior policy of returning control of
resident wildlife damage to States, which legally
own most wildlife, including coyotes.
No conclusive evidence exists proving that coyotes
are a major agricultural problem.
In addition to its research and operational
program to control depredations of migratory birds,
including blackbirds, the Fish and Wildlife Service
will also be required under the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act of 1956 to monitor the effects of
the Agriculture Department's activities on other
wildlife -- especially endangered species. This
could result in pressure for additional funds for
research.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Secretary Knebel recommends the transfer. He is also
examining the possibility of reprogramming additional
Agriculture research funds for coyote control.
Secretary Kleppe does not object to the transfer.
Jim Lynn and Jim Cannon recommend the transfer. Both
have previously recommended against rescission of the
Executive orders.
DECISION
Option 1:
Propose legislation to transfer the portion (69%) of
the animal damage control program concerned primarily
with farm predators to the Agriculture Department,
leaving migratory bird control in Interior.
Option 2:
Take no action on this issue.
5
Do you wish
O
to send the legislation to the Congress
yourself?
O
the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to
send the legislation to the Congress?
A.
PRESIDENT
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE
UNITED
OFFICE OF management AND budget
STECUTIVE
STATES
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503
DEC 21 1976
A
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
JAMES T. LYNN
JAMES M. CANNON
Issue
Whether the Executive Order prohibiting Federal use of
poisons to control coyotes should be rescinded.
Background
Coyotes kill sheep. (See attached photographs.)
The sheep that are jeopardized are either on
private land (ranches), or
Federal lands, usually pursuant to grazing permits.
1
In 1931, the Federal Government assumed responsibility for 2
controlling damage done by animals to crops or livestock.
This function is not related primarily to Federal lands --
indeed most control measures are taken on private lands after
the owner calls for Federal help. Over the years the
following types of animals have been subject to control:
rodents, foxes, bears, bobcats, wild dogs, skunks and coyotes.
Approximately 183 Federal employees utilize the following
methods to control coyote population, principally on private
lands
trapping
shooting
1 There is little evidence that coyotes living on Federal
lands run onto private land, kill sheep and run back to the
sanctuary of Federal lands.
2 Initially the Department of Agriculture had responsibility;
this function was transferred to the Department of Interior
in 1939 along with the other functions of the Biological
Survey which became the Fish and Wildlife Service.
2
denning (killing the young in the den) and,
poisoning
Until 1972 the chief poison substances were "strychnine"
and sodium monofluoracetate, known as "1080". These poisons
were placed in bait carcasses. Both are relatively stable
through changes in weather -- indeed to the point of remaining
toxic in the carcass of the poisoned coyote.
Also used was a device called a "coyote getter" which
involves a .38 caliber gun which shot a poison capsule into
the coyote's mouth when a trigger was stepped on.
On February 8, 1972, President Nixon issued an Executive Order
which banned the use of
all toxic chemicals to kill predatory animals; and
all toxic chemicals used for killing other non-
predatory animals if the chemicals had a secondary
effect, i.e., the carcass of the poisoned animal
would itself poison another animal if eaten
both with respect to
Federal lands, and
the Federal animal damage control program described
above.
The only exceptions concern emergency measures on Federal
lands and the use of sodium cyanide, described below, as
approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
became law eight months after the Executive Order was issued.
That Act requires registration of poisons. It permits EPA to
ban poisons or to limit their use to a particular manner
of application or to certain types of pests. EPA's registration
procedures, unlike the outright ban of the Executive Order,
require the agency to weigh the benefits of the use of the
poison in controlling animal populations against the
environmental costs of doing SO.
Currently, neither strychnine or 1080 is registered (the
registrations having been cancelled) for predators such as
covotes; they are registered for use against rodents.
3
Sodium cyanide -- a poison without secondary effects --
is registered for use against coyotes provided it is
used in a M-44 device which, unlike the earlier .38 caliber
shell version, is spring-loaded to shoot a pellet into
the coyote's mouth. Sodium cyanide was also used experimentally
in a "toxic collar" pursuant to your change to the Executive
Order in July 1975. The coyotes learned to avoid it.
Currently, approximately 15,000 to 20,000 M-44 devices are
employed by Interior. Interior believes the device is
effective but has no data to prove it. The sheep ranchers
believe the device is ineffective, but neither they nor
Agriculture have any supporting data -- nor indeed does either
have data to show the amount of sheep loss due to coyotes. 3
The Legal Effect of Rescinding the Executive Order
Rescission of the Executive Order would have the following
results
no effect on the use of 1080 because it is not
registered for use against predatory animals and
still could not be used against coyotes,
no effect on the use of strychnine for the same
reason, and
no effect on sodium cyanide because it is registered
and now being used
With the Executive Order ban lifted, 1080 and strychnine
could be used, but
for rodent control, on the public
lands. (It is currently used on private lands only.) To the
extent these poisons persist in the dead rodents -- and, under
certain conditions, they do -- coyotes would also die since
their main food is rodents. However, EPA has already begun
proceedings to cancel the registrations of these poisons
as to rodent control.
Instead of the outright ban of the Executive Order, newly
developed chemicals would be accorded the EPA benefit/cost
process.
Interior would be relieved of the duty under the Executive
Order to act against private citizens -- such as grazing
permitees -- who place poisons on public lands. The Department
has not done SO.
3 Agriculture has indicated annual sheep losses run to 47
million pounds. We believe these data are highly suspect.
They were obtained by surveying sheep ranchers as to what
losses they incur from coyotes. Often a sheep rancher would
find sheep missing and would assume that the loss was due
to coyotes.
4
Attitudes
The sheep ranchers
think 1080, and to a lesser extent strychnine, are
the answer
think sodium cyanide and the M-44 device are almost
as big a joke as the toxic collar⁴
blame the industry problems on President Nixon's hated
Executive Order
are not really aware of FIFRA and the cancellation
of registration for 1080 and strychnine use against
coyotes
would be delighted with the rescission of the
Executive Order -- even if there is no change
in the poisons that can be used
consider Train and EPA as separate from your
Administration.
The environmentalists
view the Executive Order as a symbolic landmark
would accordingly deem rescission a giant step
backward -- even though the practical effect is nil
would rally to a public statement by Train which
would indicate that
- he (Train) would not have rescinded the
Order
- there would be no practical effect of the
rescission, emphasizing that 1080 and
strychnine registration would probably be
withdrawn for rodent use as well
- Interior was being relieved of its duty
under the Executive Order to prevent others
from using poison on public lands -- even
acknowledging that Interior has never
excerised this duty.
4 Coyotes learned to avoid sheep with the collar; Interior
believes this is due to the odor, not reading the EPA label.
5
How Can the Problem be Solved?
First, we need information indicating what the problem
actually is. How serious? Where? Are current methods
effective?
That means more research.
And if existing techniques are not effective, that means even
more research.
At the same time, increased effort on other non-poison
methods of control (which you have already increased once)
would be well received by the sheep ranchers and would be
accepted by some environmentalists.5
Further research would appeal to the environmentalists. For
that reason -- and others -- it is not viewed by the sheep
ranchers as an answer.
Organizationally, there is an argument for moving both the
research and control operations to Agriculture. The interest
to be protected is primarily agricultural, while Interior's
interest is to protect living animals. This possibility
requires further study.
What are the Options for Styling a Rescission of the
Executive Order?
1. Simply rescind the Executive Order -- and have
no statement of explanation
- the sheep ranchers will applaud -- at
least initially -- until they find out
that FIFRA stands in their way -- but
even then may blame Train and EPA and
not you
- the environmentalists will object
vigorously.
2. Rescind the Executive Order and urge legislation
to reverse the EPA decisions under FIFRA to allow
some temporary, emergency use of 1080 and strychnine
5 Interestingly, environmentalists seem to divide into two
camps on this issue; one group recognizes that coyote
populations need to be controlled by killing them -- but
do not want to use methods that endanger humans or wildlife;
the second group does not believe that coyote population
should be interfered with at all.
6
- the sheep ranchers will be elated -- even
though the legislation will go nowhere
- the environmentalists will be livid.
3. Rescind the Executive Order -- with a statement
indicating that it is no longer necessarv because
of enactment of FIFRA, which, instead of an
outright ban, provides for a more logical benefit/
cost procedure
- while this educates the sheep ranchers
that FIFRA is a problem, it also points
out that FIFRA is better with respect
to newly developed poisons than the outright
ban of the Executive Order
- the environmentalists will object, as
mentioned under 1 above.
Recommendations
Secretary Knebel argues that the existing Executive Order
serve no purpose and rescission will open the way for
Congressional consideration of relief. At a minimum it
will take you out of the poison review business and leave that
job to EPA. He points out that such action will be extremely
well received by the industry even though FIFRA would continue
to constitute an obstacle.
Administrator Train argues that it is not appropriate for
you to infuriate the environmentalists on your way out
of office, especially since there is no practical effect of
the rescission. Train also points out that rescission of
the Executive Order would relieve Interior of its duty to prevent
the use of poisons on public lands.
Jim Lynn and Jim Cannon advise against rescission and recommend
more resources for research and for non-poison control methods.
Transfer of the function from Interior to Agriculture,
should be proposed.
A BILL
To transfer certain functions from the Secretary of the
Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That,
B
there are hereby transferred from the Secretary of the
Interior to the Secretary of Agriculture those functions
vested in the Secretary of Agriculture by the Act of
March 2, 1931 (46 Stat. 1468-1469; 7 U.S.C. 426-426b) which
were transferred to the Secretary of the Interior pursuant
to Section 4 (f) of Reorganization Plan No. II of 1939
(53 Stat. 1433), except to the extent that such functions
relate to research concerning, and the control of, migratory
FORD
bird depredations.
GERALD
LIBRARY
Sec. 2 (a) So much of the personnel, property, records,
and unexpended balances of appropriations, allocations, and
other funds employed, used, held, available, or to be made
available in connection with the functions transferred to
the Secretary of Agriculture by this Act as the Director of
the Office of Management and Budget shall determine shall be
transferred to the Department of Agriculture.
(b) Such further measures and dispositions as the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall deem
to be necessary in order to effectuate the transfers referred
to in subsection (a) of this Section shall be carried out in
such manner as he shall direct and by such agencies as he
shall designate.
Sec. 3. Section 1 of this Act shall take effect ninety
days from the date of enactment.