not new news,BUT, Tx. ag comm. miller approved the warfarin based product. The suit (injuction) that was filed by the texas hog hunters assc. has been ruled invalid. this info per LONE STAR OUTDOOR NEWS

Not on LSON's website.

I just scoured their website as well...no mention of it at all that I could find.

The attorneys working on this say this isn't true.

who are the attorneys working on this, I need to contact them...

lead story is on page one, continued page 17

so you say I am making this up?

I could not find it as well, probably BS then removed when it could not be verified.

But here is link with documents
http://salon.glenrose.net/default.asp?view=plink&id=16767

Injunction expires after the hearing on March 30 as agreed to by both parties.

seems like the publication would have the facts, although that's not always the case. Is the biggest reason to stop the use is the money affect that it will have on the people profiting from the hog hunting? If I had crop land that was being destroyed and loss of crops ect, I would be for it. In the late 40's when grass hoppers were decimating wheat my day put out poison that would not be used today, but that was our lively hood. there was no crop insurance for grasshoppers.

I am saying you have no proof. The Source you cited does not back up what you said. PROVIDE A LINK.

its in their publication. period, like I said page one and continued on page 17

this is what I read, I did not make any claim either way. DNS, maybe you should get back on your meds, you seem to be having some problems

I think you're misreading. Nowhere on there does it say what you're claiming.

It does however state that they successfully got a restraining order and that Sid Miller did not follow the requirements of the Texas Administrative Procedure Act, therefore the rule on Kaput was invalid.

Here is a link to the second article I have read in NRA news on the pesticide.

Sorry, posted wrong link - I will look for the right one!

Buddy, you really do need to work on your reading comprehension skills. The article clearly states that Miller's ruling was invalid and why the judge agreed to the injunction. NOWHERE does it state that the injunction was ruled invalid as you claimed.

Fact...

Apparently, he is not owning up to his blunder.

jeez, I just posted what I read, I could care less, just thought it was interesting.

you have been reported for trolling.

ok, every one is right, now does this make you feel better

No, it isn't a matter of feeling better. Just be careful and research a bit more before taking a stance on something. No issues. There are folks that would be well aware of something like this if it were true before you saw it on a website.

where does it say I saw it one web site???

and where did I say I was taking a stand, jeez

EVERYbody chill, careful with the personal attacks, get along or ignore please....

Yes, it is a "Fact"....BUT if detractors would take a little more time to gently explain WHY the OP is in error, we might all be better served.

A topical reading of the article the OP posted could easily be misconstrued to mean the 'injunction' had been ruled invalid. It was an honest mistake guys.

So much of the subject matter has been presented in pieces in more than one thread. So it is easy to forget that the 'Rule' was submitted as an EMERGENCY rule. And certain elements of that procedure is what the Judge is objecting to. The rule was actually reviewed by legal council (once) and deemed to have passed requirements, but now it is being questioned.

https://administrativelaw.uslegal.com/administrative-procedure-acts/texas/



"TITLE 4. AGRICULTURE
PART 1. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

CHAPTER 7. PESTICIDES

SUBCHAPTER D. USE AND APPLICATION

4 TAC §7.30

The Texas Department of Agriculture (Department) adopts on an emergency basis an amendment to Title 4, Part 1, Chapter 7, Subchapter D, Rule §7.30, relating to "Classification of Pesticides." The amendment adds regulations regarding "State-limited-use Pesticides Defined by Active Ingredient and Use," including use and distribution of such products. The Department is adopting the emergency amendments to address the risk of inadvertent human consumption of warfarin-poisoned hogs and the risk of potential secondary poisoning of non-target animals.

Amended §7.30 classifies the active ingredient warfarin, when used as a feral hog toxicant, as a state-limited-use pesticide. The amended rule also restricts the purchase, use and distribution of this state-limited-use pesticide to individuals licensed as a pesticide applicator under Chapter 76 of the Agriculture Code, Chapter 1951 of the Occupations Code, or persons working under the direct supervision of licensed individuals who meet those criteria.

The agricultural community is negatively affected by the agricultural and environmental damage caused by feral hogs. Feral hogs feed on agricultural crops and seeds, including vegetation intended for livestock or wildlife and often damage fences while trying to access food. Feral hogs can cause damage to land by rooting, wallowing, and trampling activities. Hogs can also transmit diseases and parasites to other animals or humans. Predation of livestock and wildlife can also be a serious problem.

In hogs, signs of poisoning are not usually apparent until 1 to 3 days after ingestion. Since hunting and consuming feral hogs is common in Texas, the Department is concerned about the potential for humans to inadvertently consume warfarin-poisoned hogs before the hog shows signs of poisoning. Individuals with certain illnesses and allergies who consume affected animals may be more susceptible to warfarin's effects.

The Department is contemporaneously proposing this emergency amended rule on a permanent basis in a separate submission to the Texas Register.

The amended rule is adopted on an emergency basis pursuant to Chapter 76 of the Texas Agriculture Code, which provides the Department with the authority to adopt rules related to provisions necessary for compliance with pesticide and herbicide regulations and the Texas Government Code, §2001.034, which provides for the adoption of administrative rules on an emergency basis without notice and comment.

The code affected by the emergency adoption is the Texas Agriculture Code, Chapter 76.

§7.30.Classification of Pesticides.

(a) - (c) (No change.)

(d) State-Limited-Use Pesticides Defined by Active Ingredient and Use.

(1) Due to the potential for adverse effects to humans and non-target animals, a pesticide product containing the active ingredient warfarin is classified as a state-limited-use pesticide and subject to the restrictions listed in paragraph (2) of this subsection, as well as all other provisions of law generally applicable to state-limited-use pesticides, when, and only when, used as a feral hog (Sus scrofa) toxicant.

(2) The following are restrictions on use and distribution of State-Limited-Use pesticides:

(A) A person may not purchase a pesticide classified as a state-limited-use pesticide under this subsection unless the person is licensed as a pesticide applicator under either Chapter 76 of the Agriculture Code or Chapter 1951 of the Occupations Code or working under the direct supervision of a person so licensed.

(B) A person may not use a pesticide classified as a state-limited-use under this subsection unless the person is licensed as a pesticide applicator under either Chapter 76 of the Agriculture Code or Chapter 1951 of the Occupations Code or working under the direct supervision of a person so licensed.

(C) A person may not distribute a pesticide classified as state-limited-use under this subsection to a person not authorized by this section to purchase state-limited-use pesticide.

The agency certifies that legal counsel has reviewed the emergency adoption and found it to be within the state agency's legal authority to adopt.

Filed with the Office of the Secretary of State on February 6, 2017.

TRD-201700506

Jessica Escobar

Assistant General Counsel

Texas Department of Agriculture

Effective date: February 6, 2017"


Here is an article that brings it all together a little better than some others that have been submitted:

https://www.pressreader.com/usa/houston-chronicle-sunday/20170226/282471413636560


Just saying....maybe we can all try to educate one another a little better instead of blasting each other for honestly misinterpreting something.

Flint.