Not long ago I wrote about some of the potential risks for scientists who do much of their work in the field rather than the lab, and according to the Salt Lake Tribune there's a new danger to be on the look-out for; a predator-control device known as a M-44. In 2003 Dennis Slaugh was riding an atv in Utah when he saw what looked like a survey stake stuck in the ground, but what he didn't know was that the "stake" was really a M-44. When he bent down to brush off the device it fell over, and when he righted it again Slaugh received a blast of the poison sodium cyanide in the face, an event that has debilitated him ever since. As painful as his life is now, Slaugh is lucky to be alive; sodium cyanide often causes those subjected to it to quickly lose consciousness, slip into a coma, and die. Still, the even has raised questions about how safe these devices are, especially since there is no way for such an easily-triggered poison-delivery system to discriminate between a coyote and a household pet or person.
Such an event by itself is tragic, but other people have been injured by these devices and lost pets. As a result there is now a movement to remove M-44's from federal lands altogether (Slaugh was on U.S. Bureau of Land Management land when he was sprayed). H.R. 4775 (you can search for it here) lays out the specifics about the proposed plan to ban M-44's, although most of the item is concerned with the prohibition of another predator-control poison, Compound 1080 (aka sodium fluoroacetate). The main problem with such a proposition, however, is that M-44's are thought to be very important to protecting livestock, the issue often being discussed in terms of the amount of money ranchers will lose if the device is banned. Indeed, the M-44's appear to be extremely effective if the number offered in a report from Boston.com are accurate; about 14,000 wild animals succumbed to the devices in 2006. The figures are not given, however, for the number of pets and people injured (or even killed) as a result of contact with M-44's, and even though signs are supposed to be posted in areas where the devices are being used it seems that such measures are not adequate.
I'm fairly pessimistic about M-44's being banned on federal lands, but I do think that they represent a man-made danger that people should be made more aware of. Ranchers should be able to protect their livestock and eliminate problem animals when it is truly necessary to do so (although there are many non-lethal methods that can be used, and the impact of wild predators is often blown out of proportion) , but it seems that the use of M-44's for predator control is not closely regulated and has resulted in the death and injury of many unintended targets. The issue will surely be controversial (as is any that deals with predator control and livestock), but even if M-44's are not banned I hope the investigation into their effects will result in more responsible use that will not put people and pets in harm's way.
- Log in to post comments
I'm surprised they don't, as a standard precaution, warn geology and biology students doing field work out west about these.
So the US government doesn't condone torture, huh? These devices are barbaric and should be banned. The fact that they're left out there without any kind of warning accompanying them is an outrage.
Why?
Let us consider this alternative: ranchers should be able to accommodate the occasional loss of a few animals to a healthy predator population.
this is really frustrating to read. ranchers are afforded millions in state & federal subsidies that eradicate predators on federal public lands. this includes poisons and traps that are dangerous to the general public and dogs as mentioned. It also includes helicopter gunships that kill scores of predators on federal public lands.
this is to say nothing of compensation programs in place should predators take Livestock. in Wyoming, ranchers receive up to 7 times the value of the stock for a depredation - also, the lack of ranchers' willingness to employ predator friendly ranching techniques on public lands. This indicates that we ought not be overly concerned with an interest that is not concerned with ours - especially when ranchers are using ours at a mere fraction of market value in grazing on public land.
It is also to say nothing of the damage done to pubic watersheds throughout the arid west on federal public lands and loss of biodiversity. Ranching is listed as a significant contributing factor to 22% of listed species in the country - that's nearly as much as mining and logging combined (23%).
Public land ranchers have enjoyed enough sympathy from the public all the way to the bank ~ take Livestock grazing off of federal public lands - the costs are too high ecologically and especially when it is used to justify the use of poisons which threaten by-standers and non-target animals.
I was quite shocked to read about this. I've done fieldwork in SD, WY, TX and NM, and I've been on holiday in UT, AZ and CO. In some cases we were on BLM land. No one ever warned us about these. Any one of us could have fallen foul of one.
Brian and Cal;
I agree with what you both are saying, and I probably should have worded what I meant better. I know the topic is controversial and I guess I was coming at it from the standpoint that the general view that predators should be controlled doesn't seem like it's going to change. If there is a particular animal that has come to rely upon livestock for prey and non-lethal methods do not work on driving it off, I can at least understand the desire to kill that animal, but I agree that the threat of predators (wolves in particular) has often been overblown. Thank you for calling me on that statement.
Just finished a BS in Environmental Science in the Lower Colorado Desert and have never heard of them. I am going to forward this to my adviser so he can let students know. Thanks.
Laelaps, there is no reason to further justify your claims to Brian and Cal. You worded your opinion well in the post and they simply used selective quoting to make it seem as though you said something you actually didn't say. Ahh, incomplete quoting, ain't it great!
If ranchers and a healthy predator population cannot coexist, there are a variety of steps we can take to mitigate the problem. A few one-time hunts ought to be able to reduce the population of ranchers back towards the proper ecological balance.
Humans in general and Americans in particular do not seem particularly interested in reducing their massive ecological footprint. We will consider your position to be pre-established the next time a discussion of a wild animal endangered because of rampant human growth.