was instead at the behest of this committee, the Leopold Committee. 

 Then in 1971, the Cane Committee was appointed by the Secretary of 

 Interior to conduct another review of the Animal Damage Control 

 Program. The Cane Committee did not agree with the Leopold 

 Committee and stated that the use of chemicals is likely to be inhumane 

 and nonselective, and it recommended that landowners be trained in the 

 use of the trap. 



Now we have supposedly eminent groups voicing exact opposite 

 philosophies. As you might understand, the woolgrowers were 

 beginning to get a little bit confused. We didn't know whether to use 

 the trap, 1080, either, both or neither. Since the publication of the 

 Cane Report, additional documentation has largely discredited it as a 

 scientific document. 



Nevertheless, environmental groups and politicians cited the Cane 

 Report as a basis for cancellation of predicides in 1972. A petition by 

 environmental groups was a political instrument employed. Woolgrowers 

 were upset at this development as you would expect, but pressure 

 exerted by our industry led to expanded aerial hunting to compensate 

 for the loss of chemicals. 



In 1974, after USDI administrators discovered that mechanical 

 problems were not adequate to solve all the damage problems, they 

 requested and were granted emergency use of the M44 sodium cyanide 

 device by the EPA. Then in 1975, the Council on Environmental 

 Quality proclaimed the sodium cyanide toxic collar as the ideal method 

 for the use in protection of sheep from coyotes and this led to a crash 

 program to insure that the sodium cyanide collar would ultimately 

 provide a solution to coyote predation on sheep. This effort resulted 

 in consistent and uniform failures during repeated application of this 

 chemical collar combination. Sodium cyanide was found to be ineffective 

 in the collar and other chemicals were found to be more useful. 

 Compound 1080 was determined as the most effective, selective and safe 

 chemical currently known for use in the collar. An experimental use 

 permit for 1080 was issued to USDI by the EPA in 1977. The livestock 

 interests maintained their pressure in 1978, and a new advisory 

 committee was set up to assist in a comprehensive review of the Animal 

 Damage Control Program. Joe Helle sat on that committee. This led to 

 an extensive report and eventually an Environmental Impact Statement. 



But finally, several alternative approaches to the Animal Damage 

 Control Program related to predators, and in respondence to the EIS, 

 Woolgrowers were encouraged to support and comment on the various 

 alternatives. 



That's also an important point. The Secretary of Interior delayed 

 his decision on the program until November 1979, when he issued his 

 revised policy. The Secretary did not choose any of the alternatives in 

 the EIS nor any of the options, but instead came up with alternative 

 suggestions and ideas, some of which were not even contained in the 

 EIS document. 



