Effectiveness of a White-Tailed Deer Exclusion Fence Based on Traction Limitations of the Hoof: The Slippery Fence

We hypothesized that an exclusion fence could be devised to capitalize on traction limitations of the hooves of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Hexagonal plots (9.8 m wide) enclosed by a 2.4 m field fence with two openings (4.9 m) were established. Data were collected daily on consumption of corn provided (2.27 kg) and events recorded by infrared monitors (IR) for treatment and control sites. Five-day treatment periods consisted of test panels (4.9 m x 2.4 m) placed in plot openings at 0°, 5° and 10° slopes, and lubricant applied at the 10° slope. Deer consumed all corn provided at control sites. At the 10° slope, daily corn consumption decreased (1.50 kg ± 0.26, p < .01), and IR events were lower (p < .01) at treatment sites (23.6 ± 3.2) compared to controls (50.3 ± 9.6). With the addition of a lubricant, corn consumption decreased further (p < .001) to 0.17 kg ± 0.03, and IR recorded events were lower (p < .001) at treatment sites (6.58 ± 0.89) compared to controls (44.8 ± 3.1). Results of this study indicate that traction limitation of the hoof can be exploited.

A review of existing and potential New World and Australasian vertebrate pesticides with a rationale for linking use patterns to registration requirements

Registration is a necessarily sophisticated evaluation process applied to vertebrate pesticide products. Although conducted to minimize any potential impacts upon public health, the environment and food production, the all-encompassing process of registration can stifle innovation. Vertebrate pesticides are rarely used to control pest animals in food crops. In contrast to agrochemicals, relatively small amounts of vertebrate pesticides are used (50.1%), usually in solid or paste baits, and generally by discrete application methods rather than by broad-scale spray applications. We present a hierarchy or sliding scale of typical data requirements relative to application techniques, to help clarify an evolving science-based approach which focuses on requiring data to address key scientific questions while allowing waivers where additional data have minor value. Such an approach will facilitate the development and delivery of increasingly humane, species-targeted, low residue pesticides in the New World, along with the phasing out of less desirable chemicals that continue to be used due to a lack of alternatives.

STATE REGISTRATION AND LICENSING REGULATIONS: A NEW PROGRAM (OHIO)

We enacted a bill in Ohio this year, Senate Bill 445, that has to do with the application of pesticides. It is a very wide bill as you would normally look at it with most of the meat going to come from the regulations that are presently being written into it. In other words, the framework was developed and accepted by the two houses in our state legislature and empowered the Director of Agriculture to establish the regulations or the so-called teeth to this bill. The governor signed the bill in June and it became effective in September. The committees as of this time are meeting to develop philosophies and regulations that will be promulgated and brought into hearings and sifted through, and eventually, with a target date of December of this year, (1970), brought to the Director of Agriculture's office for acceptance. There is a committee established for rodent and bird control which is very well represented by our industry here in Ohio. John Beck (Rose Exterminator Company) is the chairman of the committee, William B. Jackson (Bowling Green State University) and Robert Yaeger (Cincinnati) are also on the committee. The important feature of this new law, in terms of pest control operators, is the examinations that will be required. We operators and our service people will both be tested and licensed, if sufficient proficiency is demonstrated on the tests. For your information they use a little different terminology in the bill than we in the industry normally use. We think of an applicator in the industry as service people. In the bill an applicator is defined as an operator. Therefore in reading the law the word operator means the man who does the job, the service man. Just the reverse is true in the industry. We think of the operator as the man who owns or manages the company while these people are referred to in the bill as applicators. The Bill calls for the development of schools for the training of our people throughout the state. Those of us who are in bird control should begin to prepare ourselves to meet this request, to be available for the schooling, have our people available for the schooling, and give this program all the co-operation that we can.