Chloroform safety

This thread is not meant to stir up old arguments. Know your laws and be safe.

I found this online and thought I would share, just some documents on working with chloroform. I know some here oppose its use, but for those who use it, this material may be helpful.

http://web.utk.edu/~ehss/training/Chloroform.pdf

Link doesn't work.

Try this- Chloroform

That worked, good info. Thanks

Thanks LA.

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.

There are a variety of laws, not just one. First off, look at one that all should be familiar: FiFRA. Check out the definition of pesticide and your use. If you get past that one, check out applying the DOT hazmat laws to your operation and how you transport it. There are a bunch more that I described in the other chloroform thread...check it out.

The use is a very very bad idea....and there is no need.

Really going to the dot laws again? Any reputable company is goi,g to ship it to the wco in an approved container, and they'd readily inform you how to do it correctly.

My state actually prefers it for the euthanasia of kittens and puppies, and does not prohibit it for wildlife.

This is the one thing that DaveK and I disagree about completely. I have a problem with reading or listening to anyone who doesn't

use something because he doesn't like it and then expects everyone else to do the same. I compare it to me giving instructions about

mole trapping. I wouldn't know what I was talking about. I know it's legal in Wisconsin and I'm pretty sure it's legal in Michigan as

well. The thing that screws it up is all the baloney on TV. If someone actually snuck up behind you with a rag soaked with chloroform

you would have enough time to turn around and coldcock him before it took effect. If everything that you read about it were actually

true, not only would I be already dead but I'd have been dead for twenty years.

Throwback did a great job constructing the post so he wouldn't have to debate someone. All he did was share an article for whomever chose to read it and he still gets attacked.
Thanks for the info, I won't shoot the messenger. I will use the info as the law allows and how I see fit

When, I mentioned the DOT rules, I assume the supplier is shipping it properly to you. What I assume is not happening is that a WCO that uses it on the job is not following the rules while transporting it on the highway.

WINK - I understand that a rag soaked with it will not stun a human quickly. We agree on that. Apparently, we don't agree that a chemical used as a pesticide (but not labeled as one) can be used in a manner to mitigate a pest.

The original intent of it was to keep a person unconscious during an operation. Seems like we are using it like it was intended.

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.

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.

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!

One of the reasons that chloroform was no longer used, according to one of my elderly doctor customers, is because it was easily

ignited and did cause some hospital fires. Our product today is completely non-flamable so it is ten times safer. I'm not real

worried about it being extensively used by ADC guys. As expensive as it is, I think the vast majority will opt for something else.

Chloroform is a chlorinated solvent....so was never flammable.

HD if I have time today i will try and dig up the section on co2, monoxide, suffocation and inhalants.

You guys get me all wrong. I wish it could be used. But, unfortunately, it can not due to a variety of laws. I don't know if a single state where it would be legal. You need a manufacturer to sell it as a pesticide.

I see what you are saying HD, about the chemical euthanasia for officers however,

the following reg is in our general trapping manual
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.

which, to me, implies that an average person could use chemicals is the are sold for the purpose of euthanizing animals, and my state recognizes the use of chloroform for the use of euthanasia.

Using the same philosophy, I suppose taking it on a ride in a hot air balloon and dropping 500 feet would be legal too. Just saying....

Regulations can restrict based upon the chemical or the use. Thus, you would need to see if your states euthanasia for officers makes it legal for the general public....or do those laws only apply to officers?

That law said no person or officer.

Person being me, but the average person doesn't have access to it, so it would prohibit them from euthanizing kittens, but if an individual does have it, it doesn't prohibit use.

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.

Using the chemical for immobilization seems to bring in FIFRA....where euthanasia probably brings in different State laws. My objection was the use mainly under uses that would be regulated under FIFRA.

Ok...you guys take it from here. I've made my points.

Getting back to Throw Back's topic, Chloroform Safety, I would just like to know from all of you readers out there: Have you or

anyone you know had any safety problems with the use of chloroform? ( I'm guessing this is a dumb question because so few people use

it but it needed to be asked anyway )

Don't use often, but never had a problem when I did use it.