USDA/APHIS/WILDLIFE SERVICES published a request for public comment about upcoming Sodium Nitrite field trials for feral hog control. These will take place in the fall if there is significant support from people like you.
PLEASE COMMENT! Soon. It’s easy. Only a few sentences are necessary. As of 9 AM July 14th, there were nine comments. Eight in opposition, and one in favor. Only two appear to have read the proposal or are familiar with the threats posed by feral hogs. Comments are accepted through July 29, 2019.
Immediately below is the Notice of Availability for Public Comment. Click on the link, go the the bottom Right corner, click on the “Comment Now” box, and submit your comments in support of field testing and eventual approval of NaNO2 as an effective tool in controlling feral hogs.
Over one hundred of you did in 2017. Time to step up again.
Bird deaths a setback in Texas feral hog poison testing "Field testing of a new feral hog control method experienced a major setback recently after nearly 200 birds were found dead."
One problem I see is the expense of the feed system that was supposed to keep off target animals out. Which as shown has already failed in the first trial. There will be people that instead will apply the bait openly and illegally or even worse make up their own concoction with similar ingredients. Much like is currently done with Blue Malrin and is surely being done already with Warfarin due to the publicity of the last failed hog poison. Actions on private land is almost impossible to know about or enforce. To poison an animal that travels across a property line is no different than throwing the poison onto your neighbors property.
The economic impact to hunters, hunting equipment manufacturers, leases, meat processors, guides and outfitters, feed stores, etc. will out weigh other losses at this point. Many landowners have learned how to turn this naturalized animal into revenue. To legalize a hog poison would effect livelihoods of a lot of people and the off label use that will happen would create a danger to people, pets, and other wildlife.
"and submit your comments in support of field testing and eventual approval of NaNO2 as an effective tool in controlling feral hogs."
Watching politicians I have this part figured out....they make you start out with a false premise in their arguments - this is a prime example. I commented but surely not "in support...". Targeted poisoning has NEVER worked as planned on ANY species. Let's stop with the ignorance already.
"Please. Please. Why is this even necessary? These animals have the right to live without being poisoned. Please stop this. Can’t they be resettled? Why are they called feral swine? Does this mean wild boar?"
Lady Please, Please...do a little research before commenting.
Where exactly would we 'resettle' a few million hogs to...?
I'm for continued 'research'...I just don't want anyone to try and 'Fast Track' a product like was done last time.
The 'delivery system' is going to be the problem (collateral death of other animals) and also the potential issue of what to do with 'carcasses'. It's not a good thing to have a bunch of decaying hog carcasses in/around water sources. The hogs will simply die wherever they die. And you can't just set up bait sites far away from water sources (and be successful). Then there is the inevitable misuse of the product that will surface in several forms.
I remain skeptical it can (in its present form) be used outside of State/Federal owned (and managed) lands with any degree of success. But I am not opposed to continued research into it.
The 'delivery system' is going to be the problem (collateral death of other animals) and also the potential issue of what to do with 'carcasses'.
The delivery system has always been the problem because they can't find a taxon-specific poison. So far, they can't seem to find a bait system that doesn't kill a bunch of other things.
Dead carcasses? Last time, IIRC, they were expecting to have to police up the carcasses and bury them deeply or burn them...that was the remedy to the carcass problem.
Yeah, definitely in opposition to this one. It WILL KILL UNINTENDED TARGETS. There is no question about that. Extensive trapping and hunting can put a dent in it. These landowners that say they have such a problem and then ask for $250 a night to come and shoot their hogs. The sport has been monetized and now people dont actually want them exterminated. Show me someone that lets people come kill hogs for free and change my mind.
I wish there were hogs in the part of Irion county where I hunt, I would love some pork in my freezer.
Thanks for posting. But if your intent was to get support you probably should have read past comments about this subject. The vast majority of people on this forum are against putting poison on their hunting grounds.
I submitted a comment against the use of poisons in any form.
Thanks for posting. But if your intent was to get support you probably should have read past comments about this subject. The vast majority of people on this forum are against putting poison on their hunting grounds.
I submitted a comment against the use of poisons in any form.
I am curious why the opposition to small scale testing/study. I've read nearly all the comments and seems some have conflated 'testing' with 'use'.
I was further confused by some comments stating they were against testing because of certain unknowns and then ending their comment saying the product needed more testing. Huh?
I think there is still confusion between this product (Sodium Nitrite) and previous studies (Warfarin and also a different version of Nitrite). My objection then...was the attempt to Fast Track the product and get it out on the market. With nearly all the testing having been done by a Sister Company to the one producing the product.
I am in favor of continued TESTING in order to see IF they can come up with something effective that can be used under certain conditions.
There are a host of potential problems related to USEAGE that would need to be considered. Therein lies the downfall...if you ask me. But inroads to finding a lethally toxic substance to feral hogs might be found if testing is allowed and encouraged. No one would be required to use it....it would just be a 'tool' to be employed where circumstance makes good sense.
There is little information available at present for the those promoting it to offer the public. We can't really make informed decisions without benefit of testing.
So....I'm all for testing, but want to see complete and HONEST results.
Thanks for posting. But if your intent was to get support you probably should have read past comments about this subject. The vast majority of people on this forum are against putting poison on their hunting grounds.
I submitted a comment against the use of poisons in any form.
I am curious why the opposition to small scale testing/study. I've read nearly all the comments and seems some have conflated 'testing' with 'use'.
I was further confused by some comments stating they were against testing because of certain unknowns and then ending their comment saying the product needed more testing. Huh?
I think there is still confusion between this product (Sodium Nitrite) and previous studies (Warfarin and also a different version of Nitrite). My objection then...was the attempt to Fast Track the product and get it out on the market. With nearly all the testing having been done by a Sister Company to the one producing the product.
I am in favor of continued TESTING in order to see IF they can come up with something effective that can be used under certain conditions.
There are a host of potential problems related to USEAGE that would need to be considered. Therein lies the downfall...if you ask me. But inroads to finding a lethally toxic substance to feral hogs might be found if testing is allowed and encouraged. No one would be required to use it....it would just be a 'tool' to be employed where circumstance makes good sense.
There is little information available at present for the those promoting it to offer the public. We can't really make informed decisions without benefit of testing.
So....I'm all for testing, but want to see complete and HONEST results.
I understand we are talking about testing vs usage. However, there is no way I can be convinced it will be safe. What will happen is it will get approved and we'll find out the ramifications of the decision 5-10 years down the line.
How many commercials to you see on a daily basis for a class action lawsuit against a drug maker or chemical company? All of those products were approved by a government entity and deemed 'safe' for use at some point. In the end we're talking about putting poison into our environment and I just don't trust it.
I believe the study or the way the results are presented will be biased. How many of you that used the link to make a comment of disapproval actually had your comment show up on the public comment list? Maybe mine will eventually show up, but there have been several show up dated later than mine and all are in approval.
You'll never eradicate animals as prolific as feral pigs with poison, without eradicating other species.
I don't understand how anyone could support this.
Did anyone take the time to actually read the Environmental Assessment Draft for the proposed study before making their decision to comment?
'Eradicate' other species (I.E. collateral mortality)....seriously?
I would ask folks to remember the solicitation is for the STUDY/TESTING of the toxicant NOT acceptance of its possible future use.
Read the Draft and you will see that several agencies will be involved in the study and that multiple 'concerns' are recognized and will be monitored.
I am in support of the 'study' if for no other reasons than these:
1. It will provide more and better information than previous studies. It is very limited in scale (One site in Texas, one site in Alabama) targeting specific sounders (about 100 total).
2. The study will do one of two things: Affirm that modifications make the product more plausible OR put a nail in the coffin of Hoggone.
I have serious concerns about the actual USE of the product, but am open minded enough to want to see additional studies conducted.
Thanks for posting. But if your intent was to get support you probably should have read past comments about this subject. The vast majority of people on this forum are against putting poison on their hunting grounds.
I submitted a comment against the use of poisons in any form.
I am curious why the opposition to small scale testing/study. I've read nearly all the comments and seems some have conflated 'testing' with 'use'.
I was further confused by some comments stating they were against testing because of certain unknowns and then ending their comment saying the product needed more testing. Huh?
I think there is still confusion between this product (Sodium Nitrite) and previous studies (Warfarin and also a different version of Nitrite). My objection then...was the attempt to Fast Track the product and get it out on the market. With nearly all the testing having been done by a Sister Company to the one producing the product.
I am in favor of continued TESTING in order to see IF they can come up with something effective that can be used under certain conditions.
There are a host of potential problems related to USEAGE that would need to be considered. Therein lies the downfall...if you ask me. But inroads to finding a lethally toxic substance to feral hogs might be found if testing is allowed and encouraged. No one would be required to use it....it would just be a 'tool' to be employed where circumstance makes good sense.
There is little information available at present for the those promoting it to offer the public. We can't really make informed decisions without benefit of testing.
So....I'm all for testing, but want to see complete and HONEST results.
I understand we are talking about testing vs usage. However, there is no way I can be convinced it will be safe. What will happen is it will get approved and we'll find out the ramifications of the decision 5-10 years down the line.
How many commercials to you see on a daily basis for a class action lawsuit against a drug maker or chemical company? All of those products were approved by a government entity and deemed 'safe' for use at some point. In the end we're talking about putting poison into our environment andI just don't trust it.
We put 'poisons/insecticides/herbicides/etc.....into our environment every day. The vast majority of which are safe when properly used. IF/WHEN a product is discovered to have complications...then it is promptly investigated.
Again, I don't see it ever being used on a wide scale and would NOT use it myself (if available to the public) but I can see no harm in further 'testing' which is the subject of the solicitation.
there is no way I can be convinced it will be safe.
^^^^
This is the reason it would terrify me to ever have a 'jury trial' (where I was the defendant).
When folks already have their minds made up....before looking at the evidence or considering new evidence.
I'm only recommending we make 'informed' decisions and feel strongly that at present....there just isn't enough information for anyone to come to conclusions.
I have very real reservations myself....but I'm in favor of continuing studies to support or refute those concerns.
You just can't trust the government with stuff like this.
DDT was safe, according to the government, wasn't it?
I have seen and personally delt with, in my life more times than I can remember, the narrative being set in conflict with the truth to justify the means.
If it is supported by enough wealth it will pass! And we will pay for it down the road.
The last test should have been the nail in the coffin but it wasn't. That should tell you something!
You'll never eradicate animals as prolific as feral pigs with poison, without eradicating other species.
I don't understand how anyone could support this.
Did anyone take the time to actually read the Environmental Assessment Draft for the proposed study before making their decision to comment?
'Eradicate' other species (I.E. collateral mortality)....seriously?
I would ask folks to remember the solicitation is for the STUDY/TESTING of the toxicant NOT acceptance of its possible future use.
Read the Draft and you will see that several agencies will be involved in the study and that multiple 'concerns' are recognized and will be monitored.
I am in support of the 'study' if for no other reasons than these:
1. It will provide more and better information than previous studies. It is very limited in scale (One site in Texas, one site in Alabama) targeting specific sounders (about 100 total).
2. The study will do one of two things: Affirm that modifications make the product more plausible OR put a nail in the coffin of Hoggone.
I have serious concerns about the actual USE of the product, but am open minded enough to want to see additional studies conducted.
If you support the testing then let them start on your land or lease.
Hoggone 2.0 is a registered trademark and they are pushing it on a global scale. You never know who could really be behind it or how much money is actually behind it. All you know is it is poison and it failed initial testing comically.
If you continue to allow testing it will pass regardless of the outcome.
You'll never eradicate animals as prolific as feral pigs with poison, without eradicating other species.
I don't understand how anyone could support this.
Did anyone take the time to actually read the Environmental Assessment Draft for the proposed study before making their decision to comment?
'Eradicate' other species (I.E. collateral mortality)....seriously?
I would ask folks to remember the solicitation is for the STUDY/TESTING of the toxicant NOT acceptance of its possible future use.
Read the Draft and you will see that several agencies will be involved in the study and that multiple 'concerns' are recognized and will be monitored.
I am in support of the 'study' if for no other reasons than these:
1. It will provide more and better information than previous studies. It is very limited in scale (One site in Texas, one site in Alabama) targeting specific sounders (about 100 total).
2. The study will do one of two things: Affirm that modifications make the product more plausible OR put a nail in the coffin of Hoggone.
I have serious concerns about the actual USE of the product, but am open minded enough to want to see additional studies conducted.
If you support the testing then let them start on your land or lease.
I would have no problem with this. Again, you've not read the study guidelines, means, methods and controls....have you?
