DEVELOPMENTAL STATUS OF N-(3-CHLORO-4-METHYLPHENYL) ACETAMIDE AS A CANDIDATE BLACKBIRD/STARLING ROOST TOXICANT

Large winter roosts of blackbirds (Icteridae) and starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) often cause conflicts, both real and imagined, between the birds and local human popula- tions. These conflicts may range from objections to the noise and odor engendered by thousands or millions of birds, to fear of epidemic human and livestock diseases, and the possibility of economic losses from crop depredations. Many people believe the most direct way to combat these conflicts is to reduce local roosting populations by kill- ing the birds. In response to this perceived need for a roost toxicant, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) developed PA-14, a surfactant which can be aerially applied to problem roosts for population reduction (Lefebvre and Seubert 1970). Successful use of this material, however, requires concurrent rainfall and low temperatures, conditions which may not occur sufficiently often to permit roost treatment at desired times or places. Because of this difficulty, and continued pressures from management person- nel and the agricultural community, the Service has continued its search for a safe, ef- fective roost toxicant usable without severe weather restrictions. One of the current candidate materials is N-(3-chloro-4-methylphenyl)acetamide (CAT, DRC-2698), a derivative of StarlicideR (DRC-1339). This compound was initially developed by S.A. Peoples of the University of California-Davis (Peoples et al. 1976). California researchers are still investigating the avicidal potential of CAT, mainly on baits and in wick perches, while FWS interest has centered thus far on its possible utility as an aerially applied roost treatment. This report is a summary of our investigations to date.

THE EFFECTS OF ORNITROL ON WILD POPULATIONS OF RED-WINGED BLACKBIRDS AND GRACKLES

For the past three years the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, in coop¬eration with the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station, has conducted field evaluations on the effects of reproductive suppressants on wild populations of red-winged blackbirds. These studies have been performed in conjunction with the North East 49 (a Federally sponsored regional project which presently has nine states in the North East and Ohio cooperating to develop means to combat bird damage to agricultural crops) regional project on control of bird depredations. Field evaluations in 1968 and 1969 centered around the effects of TEM (tri-ethylene melamine) on the reproductive rates of red-winged blackbirds. At the close of the 1969 season further field testing of the chemical was discontinued because of the material's apparent lack of effectiveness as a reproductive inhibitor. In 1970 the field evaluations were conducted to determine the effects of Orni-trol (20, 25-diazocholesterol dihydrochloride, supplied by G. D. Searle and Company, Chicago, Illinois) on the reproductive rates of red-winged blackbirds. A small colony of common grackles was also studied during this same investigation.

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.

SIDE EFFECTS OF PERSISTENT TOXICANTS

As you can see from the general tenor of the printed program for this seminar, I am in the unenviable position of trying to discourage you from certain types of chemical control; but my assigned topic "Side Effects of Persistent Toxicants," implies that mission. However, my remarks may be somewhat anticlimax at this time, because it is now generally conceded that we need to reevaluate certain chemicals in control work and to restrict or severely curtail use of those that per¬sist for long periods in the environment. So let me detail my reasons for a somewhat negative attitude toward the use of the persistent hydrocarbons from my experience with the effects of these materials on birds. But first a few words of caution about control work in general, which so often disrupts natural processes and leads to new and unforseen difficulties. As an example, I think of the irruption of mice in the Klamath valley in northern California and southern Oregon in the late '50's. Intensive predator control, particularly of coyotes, but also of hawks and owls, was followed by a severe outbreak of mice in the spring of 1958. To combat the plague of mice, poisoned bait (1080 and zinc phosphide) was widely distributed in an area used by 500,000 waterfowl each spring. More than 3,000 geese were poisoned, so driv¬ing parties were organized to keep the geese off the treated fields. Here it seems conceivable that the whole chain of costly events--cost of the original and probably unnecessary predator control, economic loss to crops from the mouse outbreak, another poisoning campaign to combat the mice, loss of valuable waterfowl resources, and man-hours involved in flushing geese from the fields--might have been averted by a policy of not interfering with the original predator-prey relationship. This points to a dilemma we always face. (We create deplorable situations by clumsy interference with natural processes, then seek artificial cures to correct our mistakes.) For example, we spend millions of dollars in seeking cures for cancer, but do little or nothing about restricting the use of known or suspected carcinogens such as nicotine and DDT.