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.

THE ROLE OF PEST CONTROL OPERATORS IN VERTEBRATE PEST CONTROL

The National Pest Control Association, which I represent, accepts for membership those persons or firms which are actively engaged in the performance of structural pest control services for hire to the public at large and which are in sympathy with the purposes of the Association. The pest control operator in this context might be called a commercial pest control operator to distinguish him from those doing similar work but who are employed by governmental agencies or within large commercial organizations. Pest control is a growing industry with a gross annual income of 300-350 million dollars. It is estimated to contain more than 5,000 firms employing about 25,000 productive workers. Many of these servicemen, possibly 15,000, are doing vertebrate pest control every day as they combat commensal rodents. A much smaller number, usually specialists or persons normally doing super¬visory work, are also engaged in the control of pest birds and a variety of miscellaneous vertebrates. With approximately 15,000 servicemen making at least 10 contacts a day with the public, it is readily apparent that whatever opportunity the general public has to judge the success or failure of vertebrate pest control practice is largely influenced by the work of the pest control industry.

BIRD CONTROL METHODS AND DEVICES--COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL PEST CONTROL ASSOCIATION

It may be useful to review some of the considerations that go into recommendations concerning bird management. Later I will make some comments concerning specific methods and devices being used in or promoted for bird control work regardless of whether or not they are new. Members of the National Pest Control Association provide a variety of services, such as fumigation, termite control and general pest control which includes rodent control. There are eight such categories listed in our roster, but only one member in five provides every service listed. Bird control is a rather recent development and is the newest category of service to be listed in the NPCA roster where it appeared for the first time in 1959. As of September 1, 1966, 45% of our members' offices indicated that they were prepared to offer bird control service. Less than 40% did so in 1964. Why is it that more of our members do not declare themselves as ready to do bird control work? I believe the most common answer you would find is that bird control is not yet sufficiently established that they can provide a service comparable in quality to that which is provided against termites or cockroaches or rats. Our members simply do not want to jeopardize their reputation on methods that are not certain or are too complex. Others recognize the emotional reaction evidenced by much of the population concerning control of birds and do not want to become involved in work that might offend some of their clientele. Still others simply do not agree that birds are their responsibility.

Assessing Needs for Computer Pest Management Software in Nebraska Agriculture

A mail survey was conducted to assess current computer hardware use and perceived needs of potential users for software related to crop pest management in Nebraska. Surveys were sent to University of Nebraska-Lincoln agricultural extension agents, agribusiness personnel (including independent crop consultants), and crop producers identified by extension agents as computer users. There were no differences between the groups in several aspects of computer hardware use (percentage computer use, percentage IBM-compatible computer, amount of RAM memory, percentage with hard drive, hard drive size, or monitor graphics capability). Responses were similar among the three groups in several areas that are important to crop pest management (pest identification, pest biology, treatment decision making, control options, and pesticide selection), and a majority of each group expressed the need for additional sources of such information about insects, diseases, and weeds. However, agents mentioned vertebrate pest management information as a need more often than the other two groups. Also, majorities of each group expressed an interest in using computer software, if available, to obtain information in these areas. Appropriate software to address these needs should find an audience among all three groups.

HAWAIIAN SUGAR CANE RAT CONTROL METHODS AND PROBLEMS

The problem of rats in our Hawaiian sugar cane fields has been with us for a long time. Early records tell of heavy damage at various times on all the islands where sugar cane is grown. Many methods were tried to control these rats. Trapping was once used as a control measure, a bounty was used for a time, gangs of dogs were trained to catch the rats as the cane was harvested. Many kinds of baits and poisons were used. All of these methods were of some value as long as labor was cheap. Our present day problem started when the labor costs started up and the sugar industry shifted to long cropping. Until World War II cane was an annual crop. After the war it was shifted to a two year crop, three years in some places. Depending on variety, location, and soil we raise 90 to 130 tons of sugar cane per acre, which produces 7 to 15 tons of sugar per acre for a two year crop. This sugar brings about $135 dollars per ton. This tonnage of cane is a thick tangle of vegetation. The cane grows erect for almost a year, as it continues to grow it bends over at the base. This allows the stalk to rest on the ground or on other stalks of cane as it continues to grow. These stalks form a tangled mat of stalks and dead leaves that may be two feet thick at the time of harvest. At the same time the leafy growing portion of the stalk will be sticking up out of the mat of cane ten feet in the air. Some of these individual stalks may be 30 feet long and still growing at the time of harvest. All this makes it very hard to get through a cane field as it is one long, prolonged stumble over and through the cane. It is in this mat of cane that our three species of rats live. Two species are familiar to most people in the pest control field. Rattus norvegicus and Rattus rattus. In the latter species we include both the black rat and the alexandrine rats, their habits seem to be the same in Hawaii. Our third rat is the Polynesian rat, Rattus exlans, locally called the Hawaiian rat. This is a small rat, the average length head to tip of tail is nine inches and the average body weight is 65 grams. It has dark brownish fur like the alexandrine rats, and a grey belly. It is found in Indonesia, on most of the islands of Oceania and in New Zealand. All three rats live in our cane fields and the brushy and forested portions of our islands. The norway and alexandrine rats are found in and around the villages and farms, the Polynesian rat is only found in the fields and waste areas. The actual amount of damage done by rats is small, but destruction they cause is large. The rats gnaw through the rind of the cane stalk and eat the soft juicy and sweet tissues inside. They will hollow out one to several nodes per stalk attacked. The effect to the cane stalk is like ringing a tree. After this attack the stalk above the chewed portion usually dies, and sometimes the lower portion too. If the rat does not eat through the stalk the cane stalk could go on living and producing sugar at a reduced rate. Generally an injured stalk does not last long. Disease and souring organisms get in the injury and kill the stalk. And if this isn't enough, some insects are attracted to the injured stalk and will sometimes bore in and kill it. An injured stalk of cane doesn't have much of a chance. A rat may only gnaw out six inches of a 30 foot stalk and the whole stalk will die. If the rat only destroyed what he ate we could ignore them but they cause the death of too much cane. This dead, dying, and souring cane cause several direct and indirect tosses. First we lose the sugar that the cane would have produced. We harvest all of our cane mechanically so we haul the dead and souring cane to the mill where we have to grind it with our good cane and the bad cane reduces the purity of the sugar juices we squeeze from the cane. Rats reduce our income and run up our overhead.

ANIMAL POPULATION ECOLOGY AND CONTROL FUNDAMENTALS

Expensive, extensive and apparently lethal control measures have been applied against many species of pest vertebrates and invertebrates for decades. In spite of this, few pests have been annihilated, and in many cases the stated goals have become progressively more modest, so that now we speak of saving foliage or a crop, rather than extermination. It is of interest to examine the reasons why animals are so difficult to exterminate, because this matter, of course, has implications for the type of control policy we pursue in the future. Also, it has implications for the problem of evaluating comparatively various resource management strategies. There are many biological mechanisms which could, in principle, enhance the performance of an animal population after control measures have been applied against it. These are of four main types: genetic, physiological, populationa1, and environmental. We are all familiar with the fact that in applying a control measure, we are, from the pest's point of view, applying intense selection pressure in favor of those individuals that may be preadapted to withstand the type of control being used. The well-known book by Brown (1958) documents, for invertebrates, a tremendous number of such cases. Presumably, vertebrates can show the same responses. Not quite so familiar is the evidence that sub-lethal doses of a lethal chemical may have a physiologically stimulating effect on population performance of the few individuals that happen to survive (Kuenen, 1958). With further research, we may find that this phenomenon occurs throughout the animal kingdom. Still less widely recognized is the fact that pest control elicits a populational homeostatic mechanism, as well as genetic and physiological homeostatic mechanisms. Many ecologists, such as Odum and Allee (1950, Slobodkin (1955), Klomp (1962) and the present author (1961, 1963) have pointed out that the curve for generation survival, or the curve for trend index as a function of last generations density is of great importance in population dynamics.

Preface to Lesser Known Large dsDNA Viruses. Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology 328

Several large dsDNA-containing viruses such as poxviruses (smallpox) and herpes viruses are well known among the scientific community, as well as the general populace, because they cause human diseases. The large dsDNA insect-infecting baculoviruses are also well known in the scientific community because they are used both as biological control agents and as protein expression systems. However, there are other large dsDNA-containing viruses, including the giant 1.2-Mb mimivirus, which are less well known even though all of them play important roles in everyday life. Seven of these virus families are reviewed in this book.

Review of issues concerning the use of reproductive inhibitors, with particular emphasis on resolving human-wildlife conflicts in North America

This manuscript provides an overview of past wildlife contraception efforts and discusses the current state of research. Two fertility control agents, an avian reproductive inhibitor containing the active ingredient nicarbazin and an immunocontraceptive vaccine, have received regulatory approval with the Environmental Protection Agency and are commercially available in the USA. OvoControl G Contraceptive Bait for Canada Geese and Ovo Control for pigeons are delivered as oral baits. An injectable immunocontraceptive vaccine (GonaCon Immunocontraceptive Vaccine) was registered with the Environmental Protection Agency for use in female white-tailed deer in September 2009. An injectable product (GonaCon Immunocontraceptive Vaccine) is registered for use in female white-tailed deer. Both products are labeled for use in urban/suburban areas where these species are overabundant. Several other compounds are currently being tested for use in wildlife in the USA, Europe, Australia and New Zealand that could have promise in the future. The development and use of reproductive inhibitors for resolving human–wildlife conflicts will depend on a number of factors, including meeting the requirements of regulatory agencies for use in the environment and on the biological and economical feasibility of their use. Use will also be dependent on health and safety issues and on public acceptance of the techniques.

THE CONTROL OF VERTEBRATE PROBLEM ANIMALS IN THE PROVINCE OF THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE, REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

The policy of the Cape Provincial Department of Nature Conservation is based on the concept of "wise management" of wildlife resources. Where crop damage is real, control measures are essential. These, however, must be adapted to the species concerned and applied only where the damage is taking place. Blanket measures which also kill many useful species must be avoided. For this reason, the control of problem animals should be vested in the agency concerned with wildlife conservation.

FOREST ANIMAL DAMAGE CONTROL

As a nation we have gained world recognition for our ability to utilize our resources. In forestry our greatest accomplishments have been in the mechanization of harvest methods and in improvements in forest products. The renewal of this resource has been our greatest neglect. Though the end of the 19th Century marked the beginning of the conservation movement, it was not until a half century later that the force of economics through the demands of a growing population made forest re-establishment more than just a desire. Conservation in itself is a Utopian concept which requires other motivating forces to make it a reality. In the post-war years, and as late as the early 195O's, stocked land in the Pacific Northwest could be purchased for less than the cost of planting; the economic incentive was lacking. Only with sustained yield management and increased land values was there a balance in favor of true values. With greater effort placed on forest regeneration there was an increased need for methods of reducing losses to wildlife. The history of forest wildlife damage research, therefore, parallels that of forest land management; after rather austere beginnings, development became predominantly a response to economics. It was not until 1950 that the full time of one scientist was assigned to this important activity. The development of control methods for forest animal damage is a relatively new area of research. All animal life is dependent upon plants for its existence; forest wildlife is no exception. The removal of seed and foliage of undesirable plants often benefits the land managers; only when the losses or injuries are in conflict with man's interest is there damage involved. Unfortunately, the feeding activities of wildlife and the interests of the land managers are often in conflict. Few realize the breadth, scope, and subtilities associated with forest wildlife damage problems. There are not only numerous species of animals involved, but also a myriad of conditions, each combination possessing unique facets. It is a foregone conclusion that an understanding of the conditions is essential to facilitate a solution to any given problem. Though there are numerous methods of reducing animal damage, all of which have application under some situations, in this discussion emphasis will be placed on the role of chemicals and on western problems. Because of the broadness and complexity of the problem, generalizing is necessary and only brief coverage will be possible. However, an attempt will be made to discuss the use and limitations of various control methods.

HIGHLIGHTS OF BIRD CONTROL RESEARCH IN ENGLAND, FRANCE, HOLLAND, AND GERMANY

The purpose of this paper is to present a brief review of the research being conducted in England, France, Germany, and The Netherlands on problems caused by nuisance and depredating birds. Much of the information presented has been obtained through correspondence with collaborators. In the fall of 1962, I discussed depredating bird and bird-airport problems with research workers in these countries, and also attended the meeting of the International Union of Applied Ornithology held in Frankfurt/Main. In November 1963, I attended an international symposium about the bird-airport problem, held in Nice, France. This paper will draw attention to the current research which I think will interest American investigators, but will not report every aspect of the foreign investigations. Details appear in the publications that are listed.

SELLING BIRD CONTROL

The remarks that I have prepared deal with direct contacts selling pest and bird control programs. I am going to limit my remarks to what I feel are the more important aspects of selling Bird Control. I think it is safe to say that one of the most difficult aspects of selling for most sales personnel is prospecting, that is, finding accounts to call on. Our sales personnel have to more or less come up with their own leads. They have to find out who to contact once they get there. I have found that the best prospect most of us have for selling Bird Control accounts are our present pest control accounts. Generally speaking, we try to main¬tain contact with our applicators in the field, who are in these accounts every day, asking them if there are any of their accounts that are having bird control problems. Another method of finding potential accounts, is driving around looking. It is more difficult to drive around and look for rat and/or roach problems, but generally speaking if a building or some type of business has a bird problem, it is fairly easy to locate. Another thing we can do is call on specific accounts. There are generally cer¬tain accounts that just by the manufacturing process do attract birds, for example: food plants, mills, beet plants, grain elevators, food processors, and so on. Other type operations which lend themselves to bird problems are industrial plants because of the super-structure (physical plant) that they have. Sub-stations and power plants are very attractive to birds. Some other situations that should be checked for bird problems are lumber yards and contractors' storage buildings. After deciding on a contact we get into what I call my basic four. There are four basic things that I try to impress upon our personnel to keep in mind when they go in to make a contact. The first one is the interview or actually making the contact so that you get an opportunity to have the interview, either calling for an appointment or making a "cold" call. The second one is closing for the survey. The third one is making the survey and preparing a proposal. The fourth and last one is the proposal presentation and closing of the sale. An additional item which would make a basic five is after you make the sale don't forget to follow up on the sale.

OPENING REMARKS - THIRD VERTEBRATE PEST CONFERENCE

To open this Third Vertebrate Pest Conference is a real privilege. It is a pleasure to welcome all of you in attendance, and I know there are others who would like to be meeting with us, but, for one reason or another cannot be. However, we can serve them by taking back the results of discussion and by making available the printed transactions of what is said here. It has been the interest and demand for the proceedings of the two previous conferen- ces which, along with personal contacts many of you have with the sponsoring committee, have gauged the need for continuing these meetings. The National Pest Control Association officers who printed the 1962 proceedings still are supplying copies of that conference. Two reprintings of the 1964 conference have been necessary and repeat orders from several universities indicate that those proceedings have become textbooks for special classes. When Dr. Howard mentioned in opening the first Conference in 1962 that publication of those papers would make a valuable handbook of animal control, he was prophetic, indeed. We are pleased that this has happened, but not surprised, since to many of us in this specialized field, the conferences have provided a unique opportunity to meet colleagues with similar interests, to exchange information on control techniques and to be informed by research workers of problem solving investigations as well as to hear of promising basic research. The development of research is a two-way street and we think these conferences also identify areas of inadequate knowledge, thereby stimulating needed research. We have represented here a number of types of specialists—animal ecologists, public health and transmissible disease experts, control methods specialists, public agency administration and enforcement staffs, agricultural extension people, manufacturing and sale industry representatives, commercial pest control operators, and others—and in addition to improving communications among these professional groups an equally important purpose of these conferences is to improve understanding between them and the general public. Within the term general public are many individuals and also organizations dedicated to appreciation and protection of certain animal forms or animal life in general. Proper concepts of vertebrate pest control do not conflict with such views. It is worth repeating for the record the definition of "vertebrate pest" which has been stated at our previous conferences. "A vertebrate pest is any native or introduced, wild or feral, non-human spe- cies of vertebrate animal that is currently troublesome locally or over a wide area to one or more persons either by being a general nuisance, a health hazard or by destroying food or natural resources. In other words, vertebrate pest status is not an inherent quality or fixed classification but is a circumstantial relationship to man's interests." I believe progress has been made in reducing the misunderstanding and emotion with which vertebrate pest control was formerly treated whenever a necessity for control was stated. If this is true, I likewise believe it is deserved, because control methods and programs have progressed. Control no longer refers only to population reductions by lethal means. We have learned something of alternate control approaches and the necessity for studying the total environment; where reduction of pest animal numbers is the required solution to a problem situation we have a wider choice of more selective, safe and efficient materials. Although increased attention has been given to control methods, research when we take a close look at the severity of animal damage to so many facets of our economy, particularly to agricultural production and public health, we realize it still is pitifully small and slow. The tremendous acceleration of the world's food and health requirements seems to demand expediting vertebrate pest control to effectively neutralize the enormous impact of animal damage to vital resources. The efforts we are making here at problem delineation, idea communication and exchange of methodology could well serve as both nucleus and rough model for a broader application elsewhere. I know we all hope this Third Conference will advance these general objectives, and I think there is no doubt of its value in increasing our own scope of information.

AVITROL 1973

The Federal Registration for Avitrol to be used in standing field corn restricts use to application under supervision of Governmental agencies trained in bird control. The majority of current Avitrol labels state, "For use by or under supervision of government agencies or pest control operators. Not for sale to the public." This slight difference has already caused much discussion and the matter isn't resolved yet. There are different interpretations of this statement. Also for crops the material is only registered for field corn. There is a need for the material to be registered for sweet corn and sunflowers, although I do not believe the latter were grown as widely in Ohio in 1973 as in the past few years.

NIGHT FLIGHT ACROSS A BLUE SKY: PROGNOSTICS

The purpose of this presentation is to gain new perspectives on pest control and related phenomena. Some will call it “blue sky.” I would claim it informal futuristics. Systems men call such efforts feedforward; others grandify it with “prognostics.” Some say prognostics is one of the leading challenges of the day. We must anticipate future developments and imagine or invent new alternatives as a background for rational choice. The activity can influence today’s decisions, modify our concepts of risks and probable payoffs, and can help those of us who ask: “What am I really doing; what should I be doing?”