Association. For the first time in history, these diverse groups have 

 been able to find a common philosophical bond. Always in the past 

 there was a problem between the philosophies of the organizations--some 

 would sign and some wouldn't. They all signed. The memberships of 

 these organizations, of course, represent millions of rural Americans. 

 Early in 1980 Senator John Tower of Texas introduced legislation in the 

 Senate which would restore the use of toxicants to the program and 

 require joint administration of the animal damage control effort between 

 Interior and Agriculture. Shortly thereafter, Congressman dela Garza 

 of Texas introduced legislation very similar to the Tower legislation. In 

 April Congressman dela Garza held hearings on his bill and it is my 

 understanding that the markup will begin on this legislation soon. 

 Senator Allen Simpson from Wyoming scheduled oversight hearings on 

 the Animal Damage Control Program that they were conduced April. In 

 both of these hearings, the House hearing and the Senate hearing, the 

 livestock men annunciated the same thing. The present program is not 

 working and in order to protect their investments, a combination of 

 control methods, including toxicants, must be included in the program. 

 Moreover, at the oversight hearing rural interests insisted upon a 

 transfer of the program to the USDA, away from the preservation bias 

 of Interior and over production bias of agriculture. 



Now let's look at some of the statements in connection with the 

 oversight hearing--and these are not critical statements but they are an 

 example of why we base our perspective the way that we do. One 

 environmental group proclaimed that one of the major objections to toxic 

 compounds such as 1080 is that other animals inadvertently ingest the 

 chemical in feeding on carcass of poison-killed predators, or secondary 

 poisoning. However, scientists questioned on this topic at that same 

 hearing related that research to date indicates that with proper 

 application, secondary poisoning is negligible. And one study cited 

 from California pointed out that the danger of a species being run over 

 by an automobile is significantly greater than secondary poisoning. 



Another environmental group testified that the toxicant causes a 

 painful and lingering death and constitutes a danger to humans. An 

 eminent toxicologist at the hearing, from California, testified that the 

 chemical reaction of 1080 is, in effect, euthanasia. And other cited 

 incidences, where two humans accidentially ingested 1080 and upon 

 recovery of consciousness, remembered only an itching sensation. 

 Aspirin was cited as a much greater danger to humans than 1080 in 

 predator control. Another environmental group stressed the need for 

 more herders, but data from another source revealed that 85 percent of 

 the sheep are already being herded. The most recurring theme was 

 public attitude. How does the general populace react to predator 

 control? Several groups cited a study sponsored by the Fish and 

 Wildlife Service. The questions were appropriately leading and the 

 responses appropriately negative towards predator control unless, of 

 course, we single out the offending animal and take him, and I wish we 

 could. 



But the point is that public opinion votes and politics determine 

 the future of the program. Obviously, it isn't the scientific data. The 



