EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL TECHNIQUES USING AVICIDE 3, CHLORO-P-TOLUIDINE

Bird depredations in Virginia have been estimated by the Extension Service, State Department of Agriculture, and the Division of Wildlife Services to be approxi¬mately $5,000,000 annually. As part of a continuing program to reduce this damage, these agencies have tested certain experimental techniques using the avicide, 3, chloro-p-toluidine, chosen for its relative selectivity, low secondary hazard, and slow action. The situations in which the avicide was tested were feedlots, decoy crops, roost reduction, and pigeon control.

SAMPLING OF CORN TO ASSESS BIRD DAMAGE: A Preliminary Review of a Comprehensive Study

"How large a sample is needed to survey the bird damage to corn in a county in Ohio or New Jersey or South Dakota?" Like those in the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the U.S.D.A. who have been faced with a question of this sort we found only meager information on which to base an answer, whether the problem related to a county in Ohio or to one in New Jersey, or elsewhere. Many sampling methods and rates of sampling did yield reliable estimates but the judgment was often intuitive or based on the reasonableness of the resulting data. Later, when planning the next study or survey, little additional information was available on whether 40 samples of 5 ears each or 5 samples of 200 ears should be examined, i.e., examination of a large number of small samples or a small number of large samples. What information is needed to make a reliable decision? Those of us involved with the Agricultural Experiment Station regional project concerned with the problems of bird damage to crops, known as NE-49, thought we might supply an ans¬wer if we had a corn field in which all the damage was measured. If all the damage were known, we could then sample this field in various ways and see how the estimates from these samplings compared to the actual damage and pin-point the best and most accurate sampling procedure. Eventually the investigators in four states became involved in this work1 and instead of one field we were able to broaden the geographical base by examining all the corn ears in 2 half-acre sections of fields in each state, 8 sections in all. When the corn had matured well past the dough stage, damage on each corn ear was assessed, without removing the ear from the stalk, by visually estimating the percent of the kernel surface which had been destroyed and rating it in one of 5 damage categories. Measurements (by row-centimeters) of the rows of kernels pecked by birds also were made on selected ears representing all categories and all parts of each field section. These measurements provided conversion factors that, when fed into a computer, were applied to the more than 72,000 visually assessed ears. The machine now had in its memory and could supply on demand a map showing each ear, its location and the intensity of the damage.

Book Review of Laud Humphreys: Prophet of Homosexuality and Sociology by John F. Galliher, Wayne H. Brekhus, and David P. Keys

As an undergraduate sociology major, the only thing I learned about Oklahoman Laud Humphreys's classic, Tearoom Trade (1970) was how it violated standards of informed consent in social science research. As Galliher, Brekhus, and Keys recount in their biography, Laud Humphreys: Prophet of Homosexuality and Sociology, sociology graduate student Laud Humphreys needed to supplement his (quite likely, participant) observational research of men who had sex in public bathrooms (i.e., tearooms) in St. Louis in the mid-1960s with a formal questionnaire. Knowing that these men would never agree if they knew they were selected because of their participation in highly stigmatized and criminal behavior, Humphreys recorded their license plates, got their home addresses, and interviewed them as part of a "community health survey." Herein lies the deception and the major source of the controversy. What I didn't fully appreciate when I was a student, however, and what the authors so deftly illuminate is the importance of this work not only for debates around ethical issues of social science research, but more importantly, perhaps, for the study of sexuality, deviance, and urban life.