THE ROLE OF INDUSTRY IN DEVELOPING NEW MATERIALS FOR VERTEBRATE PEST CONTROL

In the first paper presented to you today by Dr. Spencer, an expert in the Animal Biology field and an official authority at the same time, you heard about the requirements imposed on a chemical in order to pass the different official hurdles before it ever will be accepted as a proven tool in wildlife management. Many characteristics have to be known and highly sophisticated tests have to be run. In many instances the governmental agency maintains its own screening, testing or analytical programs according to standard procedures. It would be impossible, however, for economic and time reasons to work out all the data necessary for themselves. They, therefore, depend largely on the information furnished by the individual industry which naturally has to be established as conscientiously as possible. This, among other things, Dr. Spencer has made very clear; and this is also what makes quite a few headaches for the individual industry, but I am certainly not speaking only for myself in saying that Industry fully realizes this important role in developing materials for vertebrate control and the responsibilities lying in this. This type of work - better to say cooperative work with the official institutions - is, however, only one part and for the most of it, the smallest part of work which Industry pays to the development of compounds for pest control. It actually refers only to those very few compounds which are known to be effective. But how to get to know about their properties in the first place? How does Industry make the selection from the many thousands of compounds synthesized each year? This, by far, creates the biggest problems, at least from the scientific and technical standpoint. Let us rest here for a short while and think about the possible ways of screening and selecting effective compounds. Basically there are two different ways. One is the empirical way of screening as big a number of compounds as possible under the supposition that with the number of incidences the chances for a "hit" increase, too. You can also call this type of approach the statistical or the analytical one, the mass screening of new, mostly unknown candidate materials. This type of testing can only be performed by a producer of many new materials,that means by big industries. It requires a tremendous investment in personnel, time and equipment and is based on highly simplified but indicative test methods, the results of which would have to be reliable and representative for practical purposes. The other extreme is the intellectual way of theorizing effective chemical configurations. Defenders of this method claim to now or later be able to predict biological effectiveness on the basis of the chemical structure or certain groups in it. Certain pre-experience should be necessary, that means knowledge of the importance of certain molecular requirements, then the detection of new and effective complete molecules is a matter of coordination to be performed by smart people or computers. You can also call this method the synthetical or coordinative method.

Double-Observer Line Transect Methods: Levels of Independence

Double-observer line transect methods are becoming increasingly widespread, especially for the estimation of marine mammal abundance from aerial and shipboard surveys when detection of animals on the line is uncertain. The resulting data supplement conventional distance sampling data with two-sample mark–recapture data. Like conventional mark–recapture data, these have inherent problems for estimating abundance in the presence of heterogeneity. Unlike conventional mark–recapture methods, line transect methods use knowledge of the distribution of a covariate, which affects detection probability (namely, distance from the transect line) in inference. This knowledge can be used to diagnose unmodeled heterogeneity in the mark–recapture component of the data. By modeling the covariance in detection probabilities with distance, we show how the estimation problem can be formulated in terms of different levels of independence. At one extreme, full independence is assumed, as in the Petersen estimator (which does not use distance data); at the other extreme, independence only occurs in the limit as detection probability tends to one. Between the two extremes, there is a range of models, including those currently in common use, which have intermediate levels of independence. We show how this framework can be used to provide more reliable analysis of double-observer line transect data. We test the methods by simulation, and by analysis of a dataset for which true abundance is known. We illustrate the approach through analysis of minke whale sightings data from the North Sea and adjacent waters.

A Field-Test of Rhodamine B as a Biomarker in Raccoons

Rhodamine B is a dye that when ingested results in fluorescent bands in growing hair and whiskers of many mammals. Previous research at Wildlife Services’ (WS) National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) found that rhodamine B is a successful biomarker in raccoon whiskers and that raccoons do not have a taste aversion to the dye when it comprises ≤ 3% of a bait. Our study assessed the ease of bait distribution, whisker collection, and evaluation of the biomarker for potential use in the Oral Rabies Vaccination (ORV) program administered by the WS National Rabies Management Program (NRMP). In collaboration with WS operations personnel from Ohio and Michigan, 750 fishmeal polymer baits each containing 150 mg of rhodamine B were hand distributed at NASA’s Plum Brook Station, Sandusky, Ohio in the summer of 2008. Four weeks after baits were distributed whiskers from 162 raccoons were collected. Wildlife Services biologists and technicians evaluated the whiskers for fluorescence using a handheld UV magnifying lamp. Biologists then sent the whiskers to the NWRC, Ft. Collins, Colorado for confirmation of fluorescence under a UV microscope. Results suggest a high level of agreement between the two methods of evaluation. Surveys completed by biologists confirmed that the ease of use, less invasive sampling techniques and promptness of results obtained through the use of rhodamine B are advantageous to the tetracycline biomarker presently used by the ORV program. All participants recommended further evaluation of rhodamine B for its inclusion in future efforts requiring biomarker evaluation.