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.

U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments

Under the 1994 amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were required to produce stock assessment reports for all marine mammal stocks in waters within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. This document contains the stock assessment reports for the U.S. Pacific marine mammal stocks under NMFS jurisdiction. Marine mammal species which are under the management jurisdiction of the USFWS are not included in this report. A separate report containing background, guidelines for preparation, and .a summary of all stock assessment reports is available from the NMFS Office of Protected Resources. This report was prepared by staff of the Southwest Fisheries Science Center, NMFS and the Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS. The information presented here was compiled primarily from published sources, but additional unpublished information was included where it contributed to the assessments. The authors wish to thanks the members of the Pacific Scientific Review Group for their valuable contributions and constructive criticism: Hannah Bernard, Robin Brown, Mark Fraker, Doyle Hanan, John Heyning, Steve Jeffries, Katherine Ralls, Michael Scott, and Terry Wright. Their comments greatly improved the quality of these reports, We also thanks the Marine Mammal Commission, The Humane Society of the United States, The Marine Mammal Center, The Center for Marine Conservation, and Friends of the Sea Otter for their careful reviews and thoughtful comments. Special thanks to Paul Wade of the Office of Protected Resources for his exhaustive review and comments, which greatly enhanced the consistency and technical quality of the reports. Any ommissions or errors are the sole responsibility of the authors. This is a working document and individual stock assessment reports will be updated as new information becomes available and as changes to marine mammal stocks and fisheries occur; therefore, each stock assessment report is intended to be a stand alone document. The authors solicit any new information or comments which would improve future stock assessment reports. This is Southwest Fisheries Science Center Technical Memorandum NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC- 219, July 1995. 111