Re: Chloroform safety
[Re: Throw Back]
#5117739
07/10/15 04:02 PM
07/10/15 04:02 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 20,966 St. Louis Co, Mo
BigBob
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 20,966
St. Louis Co, Mo
|
That worked, good info. Thanks
Every kid needs a Dog and a Curmudgeon.
Remember Bowe Bergdahl, the traitor.
Beware! Jill Pudlewski, Ron Oates and Keven Begesse are liars and thiefs!
|
|
|
Re: Chloroform safety
[Re: DaveK]
#5118075
07/10/15 07:49 PM
07/10/15 07:49 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 188 California
Throw Back
OP
trapper
|
OP
trapper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 188
California
|
I didn't realize there were chemists on this forum. For a variety of reasons, it is unsuitable and illegal for wildlife control. Refer to old thread. Do you have laws saying that? I Will dig them up, but I found laws that say it is legal in MY state. I did mention that first, know your laws. Further, everyone knows how much you hate the use of it, but I still think there is nothing wrong with information on safety,directly industry related or not.
Last edited by Throw Back; 07/10/15 07:51 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Chloroform safety
[Re: Throw Back]
#5118807
07/11/15 10:04 AM
07/11/15 10:04 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 25 Michigan
DaveK
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 25
Michigan
|
By a physician....
Are YOU allowed to use anesthesia on people or animals? Doctors were not using it to get a skunk out of a window well...or a raccoon out of an attic.
I suspect the reason NWCOA members get such good liability insurance rates is because they subscribe to the code of ethics as to follow the laws. From that standpoint, we have a responsibility to do our best and not be a liability.
Last edited by DaveK; 07/11/15 10:22 AM.
|
|
|
Re: Chloroform safety
[Re: Throw Back]
#5118839
07/11/15 10:42 AM
07/11/15 10:42 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 188 California
Throw Back
OP
trapper
|
OP
trapper
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 188
California
|
Dave, I dont know why you would assume a WCO is not following the rules regarding chloroform. Do you also assume they do not follow the rules regarding transporting a firearm? Which is also a tool with great potential for danger, that is controversially used, and highly regulated
Regarding laws
CA FGC 4004 section "It is unlawful to do the following": (g) Kill any trapped mammal in accordance with this section by intentional drowning, injection with any chemical not sold for the purpose of euthanizing animals, or thoracic compression, commonly known as chest crushing. This subdivision shall not be construed to prohibit the use of lawfully set conibear traps set partially or wholly submerged in water for beaver or muskrat or the use of lawfully set colony traps set in water for muskrat.
As you see, inhalants are not mentioned, however in another section carbon monoxide is barred. Lets assume though that we should treat them like an injection, thats a gray argument but fair. How do we know if chloroform is approved in CALIFORNIA for euthanasia then? California is where it would apply to ME, you still need to know your state laws.
CAL PENAL CODE 597 No person, peace officer, officer of a humane society, or officer of a pound or animal regulation department of a public agency shall kill any newborn dog or cat whose eyes have not yet opened by any other method than by the use of chloroform vapor or by inoculation of barbiturates.
So, it is approved for euthanasia, and in some cases mandatory in California. It is also not said to be illegal for wildlife, nor does it say it musst be used by a vet or doctor. In fact it just says "person". Further, a coyote or fox could be considered a dog, and the argument made that a responsible WCO should have it on hand to legally euthanize pups. Relocation is illegal.
I understand Dave, that many laws on transportation and other things apply, heck, our reference guide is 187 pages, I know how many laws there can be on anything. Your dislike does not make it illegal.
|
|
|
Re: Chloroform safety
[Re: Throw Back]
#5118873
07/11/15 11:26 AM
07/11/15 11:26 AM
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 111 NM
HD_Wildlife
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 111
NM
|
In terms of the law related to kittens and puppies, it looks like they are making an assumption that they are regulating their official personnel who might need to euthanize them in that capacity. In every case where I've met an animal control officer especially in larger suburbs or cities they are mandated to only use euthanasia they are trained to utilize and must have had this training prior to utilizing it. Meaning, if the state allows folks trained to do so in a controlled indoor lab facility situation, this would not ultimately intimate that they expect people are utilizing this method in the field. I don't have a dog in this fight, though when I've asked veterinarians that I very much respect who have a tremendous amount of field experience and have supervised not only ACO's but field biologists and wildlife research about Chloroform just for knowledge sake, the answers I received were very very polarized. Ultimately DaveK isn't using it, Wink and others are, ultimately it is up to each operator to roll their own dice with what they believe or know to be legal and ultimately safe for themselves and their employees. There exists online enough content on this thread alone if you google chloroform right now with any manner of discussion on wildlife these pop up very high in the list of must read documents. In relation to California the only thing I see explicitly related to wildlife euthanasia for the permit is this.... **** California Dept of Fish & Game, Section 465, (G) (1), the law states that animals trapped must be released on site or killed. Below I cut and pasted what the law states. (1) Immediate Dispatch or Release. All furbearing and nongame mammals that are legal to trap must be immediately killed or released. Unless released, trapped animals shall be killed by shooting where local ordinances, landowners, and safety permit. This regulation does not prohibit employees of federal, state, or local government from using chemical euthanasia to dispatch trapped animals. ***** The note about "This regulation does not prohibit employees of federal, state, or local government from using chemical euthanasia to dispatch trapped animals," would suggest that the only one authorized to use any chemical euthanasia would be those official people the way that reads. Other than that, I see nothing related to what you can or can't use and the humane society type regulations for puppies and kittens wouldn't have me feeling comfortable in the field with wildlife in terms of legal ramifications. Some states will jump right on folks using what are deemed veterinary methods if you aren't a veterinarian or a veterinary technician. I've seen people hung out on this for a variety of things, so again I suppose do as you will but as we all know, you either are right or you are wrong often and the gray area can be a place you don't want to be caught should someone decide they have heard what you are doing and don't feel it is legal. No dog in the fight again, obviously enough folks have utilized this for wildlife work that it exists in their businesses as a practice, however we are all clear that not being illegal does not make something legal or ethical unless explicitly stated. **** Now back to the volley..... Honestly some of these issues are just plain fun to watch, especially when I'm not personally invested in this, other than you are part of my industry, you do represent the industry when you end up in the news good or bad, some of these things like Chloroform I'll guarantee you aren't even something wildlife veterinarians or domestic animal veterinarians or state boards know folks are using in terms of our industry. If you want to test this theory give a couple of them in your state a call and let me know how that conversation goes about acquiring chloroform and carrying small amounts with you to knock out or euthanize wildlife, conference me on the third line as I want to hear those!
|
|
|
Re: Chloroform safety
[Re: Throw Back]
#5119036
07/11/15 01:53 PM
07/11/15 01:53 PM
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 111 NM
HD_Wildlife
trapper
|
trapper
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 111
NM
|
I would imagine their statement about "unlawful to - injection with any chemical not sold for the purpose of euthanizing animals" is related to the typical acetone use by some for skunks, but possibly just to say you can't inject because you aren't a vet without a vet permitting you to do so.
But the inhalants are not listed in this section, meaning that though I know of several inhaled options including CO2 that most states would recognize, I don't see where they explicitly say you can use chloroform, but as you say, they likewise aren't stating clearly you can't use it.
In its current form your regs are pretty much open to a warden or an ACO officer investigating a report by someone of illegal use of this chemical to interpret for themselves if what you did was legal or not, though with a good lawyer it looks like the regs don't speak clearly enough that you couldn't work your way out of the issue if called to the carpet for it.
I've been trained 4 times during a 10 year career with the feds. All of those trainings for chemical immobilization and euthanasia by multiple parties all of which know what your average field scenario is, even in absence of drug availability or ability to use it without a vet as we nearly all fall into that category while in the field with an animal needing euthanasia, chloroform has never ever been suggested or even discussed while all others have including CO2 and a couple of others.
Thats about all I'd need to know, along with the veterinarians I've asked about it specifically to know that I wouldn't want to utilize it, luckily I also don't need it with the work I do being nearly 100% bats and birds.
They are leaving you folks open though to suggestion, I see your point as well and also know Dave's point is justified too as there are many many things about using a chemical like this that could get folks in a bind, just depends on who answers the call so to speak when someone phones in or mentions to someone in passing that "my wildlife company used this awesome technique where they knocked down the young skunks (or raccoons) with chloroform..."
Some folks won't even know that option exists, others will never think it would be illegal and others will immediately think that doesn't sound right... Open to suggestion and interpretation isn't a place I like to live, or base my livelihood on, but I get that some folks are going to use it regardless of what is said unless specifically stated as illegal in their state for wildlife control work.
|
|
|
|
|