Strychnine
Printed from: Pest Control Forum
Topic URL: http://www.pestcontrolportal.com/snitz/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=293
Printed on: 13 Mar 2006
Topic:
Topic author: Matt the Rat
Subject: Strychnine Did anyone hear 'Yesterday in Parliament' today? BBC Radio 4 (just in case you want to use the listen again service).
Replies:
Posted on: 03 Feb 2006 12:57:07
Message:
Big debate about moles and methods of control. No mention of BPCA, or NPTA though..............
Perhaps Richard and Barrie could let us all know if anyone from our organisations was present in the lobby yesterday, and if not why.
Keep on Killing
Reply author: Bob Newey
Replied on: 04 Feb 2006 04:21:54
Message:
What's the Listen Again service? Is it possible to access this through the internet as I'd like to hear it if its possible?
Reply author: blatta
Replied on: 04 Feb 2006 12:44:08
Message:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/3081534.stm
Click on the 'Yesterday in Parliament' link
Reply author: nigel
Replied on: 04 Feb 2006 19:23:11
Message:
If like me you can not be bothered with setting up a set of speakers, you can read the debate here;
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld/ldtoday/01.htm
Reply author: Northerner
Replied on: 06 Feb 2006 12:03:26
Message:
Isn't this just typical of the organisations we throw money at, though? Classic example is BASC, who up their membership fees enormously, and then sit on their thumbs.
Anyone get the Mail on Sunday this week? Fabulously ridiculous and ill-informed piece by Roy Hattersley on the proposed badger cull. This is a man who definitely goes around with his head firmly wedged up his ****.
God help us.
Reply author: Matt the Rat
Replied on: 08 Feb 2006 16:04:15
Message:
Bounce for BPCA/NPTA to respond.........
Keep on Killing
Reply author: NickA
Replied on: 08 Feb 2006 16:21:16
Message:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Straight over their heads.
Prevention for protection
Reply author: andyb
Replied on: 08 Feb 2006 16:51:34
Message:
From what I hear the BPCA and The NPTA are fighting thier corner very well at the moment. I think that they need our support not our criticism.
ANDY B
Reply author: blatta
Replied on: 08 Feb 2006 17:08:50
Message:
Firstly, I would like to say that I have never used strychnine, have never seen it used and have only carried out mole trapping at a friends house. So I hope that this will excuse me from any errors in the following:
The BPCA have completed all the relevant forms etc and sent them to the appropriate groups. The BPCA have had to explain why
1. we in the UK need strychnine when no other European country uses it.
2. what grounds does the UK have for needing it (H&S;, damage to stock etc).
3. why other methods available are not sufficient in certain circumstances.
The BPCA have sent out requests for specific examples of cases where moles have caused damage etc. etc. The information has been colated (not many people replied!) and sent off. It is currently a matter of waiting for the response before the BPCA can go to the next stage.
The problem is going to be trying to convince 'Europe' that the UK has reasons, different those of mainland Europe, for keeping it.
Lewis
(my apologies for the lack of detail)
Reply author: NickA
Replied on: 08 Feb 2006 17:59:33
Message:
Andy, not criticising but Parliament is in London, thats where they need to lobby, and to be seen.
Prevention for protection
Reply author: blatta
Replied on: 08 Feb 2006 18:19:23
Message:
A while ago the BPCA requested specific examples from PCO's where moles had caused damage, caused H&S; problems etc.
Specific examples are much better than theory, or 'a friend of a friend' stories.
The response from BPCA members was extremely poor.
It is unlikely that strychnine will be given any sort of reprieve; it will be even less likely unless an extremely good case can be put forward. There may be another chance to put forward examples so if anyone has any information that can be used then please contact Richard Strand at the BPCA.
Reply author: Helen
Replied on: 09 Feb 2006 11:10:25
Message:
did i hear the right honourable gentleman correctly when he said that the sonic devices he has been using have worked!
Helen
Luxan(UK)Ltd
Reply author: NickA
Replied on: 09 Feb 2006 16:15:04
Message:
Did he also say it was black cylindrical and inserted into .......
Prevention for protection
Reply author: Helen
Replied on: 10 Feb 2006 09:44:43
Message:
Nick i hope your not being suggestive!
Helen
Luxan(UK)Ltd
Reply author: Matt the Rat
Replied on: 11 Feb 2006 11:18:37
Message:
Thanks Blatta. You've told us what the BPCA have asked everyone else to do, perhaps Richard Strand could now tell us what they have actually done. Your response doesnt answer my question anyway: did either BPCA or NPTA have anyone in the lobby of the palace of Westminster while the debate was taking place or not?
Keep on Killing
Reply author: andyb
Replied on: 11 Feb 2006 21:56:37
Message:
You must understand it isn't the "Pesticide" Strychnine that is being assessed it is the "Chemical" Different ball game all together. The problem with it as a pesticide is that very few people use it, the amount of effort and time it takes to get a licence to use the stuff out ways the actual results. How many people "actually" use Strychnine and how many are just using it as a way to have a snipe at the leading bodies in the Pest Control Industry. The BPCA are trying to make a case for retaining it for use. What efforts are being made by the individuals to save it? How many times have any of you applied for tickets in the last 12 months? Sour Grapes me thinks in some parts!!!
ANDY B
Reply author: NickA
Replied on: 11 Feb 2006 22:23:34
Message:
Sour Grapes don't think so, we are members of our organisations and we expect them to protect OUR interests.
But hasn't the cut off date for complaints passed.
Wasn't Strychnine registered under The Plant Protection Products Directive.
But are our organisations being effective in lobbying Parliament?
Methinks some people avoid the question or have changed sides!
Prevention for protection
Reply author: andyb
Replied on: 11 Feb 2006 22:59:35
Message:
I use it when I need to. I lobbied my MP, I had a go. The general opinion that I got back was that the BPCA was fighting tooth and nail, but the RSPCA had the ministers ears with regards to, I quote "this nasty form of pest control" A whisper from behind a hand is that there may be licenses granted after the 1st of Sept for exceptional circumstances, is this just a way to fob us of until the deed is done, remember the Hunting enquiry outcomes? that also gave a little light at the end of the tunnel at the time, then bang "Banned"
ANDY B
Reply author: blatta
Replied on: 11 Feb 2006 23:34:45
Message:
Matt, I do not know if anyone from the BPCA, NPTA or other interested parties were lobbying. I can try and find out for you though if you would like?
The BPCA have tried to put forward a case to keep strychnine. Members of associations cannot just expect to hand over some cash and then sit back and wait for everything to be done for them. The BPCA asked for information from its members to help build an effective case to put forward. It appears that very few of its members were willing / able to provide data.
Nick, do you know what your association (I think you are a member of the NPTA) has done? I am sure you will have asked them. 
Do you know how they have approached this? Have the NPTA been asking their members for info. too?
Lewis
Reply author: nigel
Replied on: 12 Feb 2006 08:08:15
Message:
You would think the way the industry is trying to defend the use of strychnine, that this is something new that has been sprung on us, when in fact it has its roots going way back to 1991;
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/consleg/pdf/1991/en_1991L0414_do_001.pdf
Since then new directives have been introduced as in 1998;
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/biocides/pdf/dir_98_8_biocides.pdf
So the industry should have been aware of what was coming instead it waited till the eleventh hour to say something.
All that is being asked is that all products now used to protect plants and control pests are evaluated, the same as all rodenticides and insecticides have to be. If the manufacturers or suppliers can put together the same evaluations and prove that this product is safe to use, poses no threat to wildlife or the environment then it would get clearance for use. Sadly they did not, why? Possibly because of cost in doing so or maybe they can not prove it is the safest option available for controlling moles.
All debates that I have heard of seem to revolve around nothing more than cost or economic reasoning, not safety or does this product comply with legislative requirements such as COSHH.
If the industry really wanted to save this product it should of looked in to providing the scientific evidence that was required to keep this product on the market and submitted it when it was required, they had a long enough warning to do so.
We will just have to wait and see what happens in September.
Reply author: NickA
Replied on: 12 Feb 2006 10:02:51
Message:
NPTA has basically done the same as BPCA asked members for help.Lewis handing over Cash is what the Associations want, after all one says it represents the UK pest Control Industry.
As Nigel says this has been coming for years, but the Industry appears to bury its head in the sand.Look at the money and resources that were and are thrown at Methyl Bromide Fumigators very small percentage of industry.
We need to have a lobbyist in Parliament not hundreds of miles away, they need to be meeting and greeting.Same for the media, we are missing our opportunity to make our views known.
I've done the earhole bending of my local MP, though he is an anti airguns and hunting man.
But it needs to be orchestrated, not petitions but hundreds of thousands of letters.
Yes OUR Associations need our help, but unless they lead, were do we go.
Prevention for protection
Reply author: ABPest
Replied on: 12 Feb 2006 11:22:51
Message:
Correct me if I am wrong!
Before we commence pest control we should carry out a risk assessment of the process. We should also carry out a COSHH assessment of the pesticide to be used. These assessments should lead to substitution of dangerous substances by more safe materials and practises. Or the safest way to control the pests. To protect the PCO, the wildlife and other non target species. Trapping satifies these requirements , surely !!?
Adrian.
Reply author: Jonathan Peck
Replied on: 12 Feb 2006 14:08:20
Message:
Nick
Any successful Parliamentary campaign costs thousands of pounds and requires many hours of time from several people. Believe me, I know because I was president of BPCA at the time of both the FEPA and COPR legislation in 1985 and the "Hospitals can damage your help" campaign over Crown immunity in 1986 and personally headed the BPCA team that ran the campaigns.
For two years, I spent some three/four days a week on the campaigns, as did some of the team, such as Dennis Papworth. Both campaigns were of major importance to the industry and made easier because the first was put on the agenda by MAFF when they introduced the legislation and the second was on the agenda because we were a part of a consortium of about 5 organisations including CIEH, the nursing associations and the General and Municipal Workers Union.
It would cost BPCA/NPTA thousands of pounds to get strychnine even on a ministry agenda, let alone win the argument. Is it in the interests of the majority of BPCA/NPTA members to spend so much on a minority interest, when there are other more important things to campaign on.
There is a suggestion that the cost of any such campaign should be borne by the suppliers of strychnine, which is what usually happens. Trouble is that the income from strychnine for mole control is tiny and none of the normal manufacturers and distributors in the industry are the suppliers of strychnine.
Nigel is not quite correct in saying that the strychnine story goes back to 1991. MAFF advised BPCA in 1985 that they were withdrawing strychnine licences for domestic property and golf courses. They were going to allow its use to remain in agriculture and on race courses. We had to accept that domestic properties were going to lose its use but got them to allow its continued use on golf courses. The way we did it was not to spend thousands on a Parliamentary campaign but to explain to the MAFF civil servant in charge why it should be kept for golfers.
Best wishes
Jonathan Peck
Killgerm Group
Reply author: Matt the Rat
Replied on: 12 Feb 2006 14:54:03
Message:
Methyl Bromide is only used by a minority of companies, yet how much time and money has been spent on saving it?
It was the same with Cymag, a product used by many small companies: because the big boys dont need it, little is done to save it.
I no longer use Styrchnine because I work for one of the large companies, but when I was on my own it made up a large part of my work.
If BPCA really represents the industry, it should put as much effort into saving these products as it does into Methyl Bromide. My belief is that BPCA represents its membership, and not the industry.
Looks like we are about to loose another tool in our diminishing armoury.
Keep on Killing
Reply author: NickA
Replied on: 12 Feb 2006 16:54:29
Message:
Adrian totally agree, thats why glue boards are our last choice rather than our first choice if we used COSHH and risk assessments?
We all drive vehicles does far more harm than the small amount of chemicals we use.
Jonathan well aware that it costs a lot, thats why the anti this and that brigade win. Because they spend the money on lobbying and talking to the media.
Until we do similar what is next to go?We know rodenticides are being looked at, trapping by Europe.
Unless the Industry and our Associations start looking to the future, the future could be grim.
I've heard the arguements about strychnine being cruel-funny all I hear is a certain trainers words being repeated.
Prevention for protection
Reply author: nigel
Replied on: 12 Feb 2006 20:11:29
Message:
Strychnine works by sending muscles in to spasm the normal method of death is then suffication. If you stuck a mole in a plastic bag alive and sealed it up and let it sufficate, you would be done for cruelty under the wildlife and countryside act for causing unneccessary suffering. Do it with strychnine, you get paid for it!!!!
Glad to read Matt the penny is finally dropping concerning your opinion of who the BPCA represents, it certainly is not me or thousands of others like me.
Yet Jonathan, here we are 21 years later and you can still get strychnine being used in domestic gardens despite the fact it is now illegal to do so.
Reply author: Dusty
Replied on: 13 Feb 2006 10:05:57
Message:
Strychnine is still used in Australia on wild dogs. Strychnine soaked rags sre wrapped around soft jawed traps.
It is an extremely painful and highly traumatic death that takes from between two and 24 hours for asphyxiation to take place (for wild dogs).
Just my opinion, but to me it has to be one of the cruelest ways of killing an animal, and should be banned totally and completely
Don't feed them, get Rid of them
Reply author: Matt the Rat
Replied on: 13 Feb 2006 22:49:57
Message:
When we have a product which is as effective as Styrchnine, I will fully support its withdrawl from the market. Until that happens (I hope someone from Bell is reading this) we, the industry, should do all we can to protect the limited tools available to us.
Nigel, you seem to think I am a fan of the BPCA? Me thinks not. Especially when you consider the lack of input into this debate.
Keep on Killing
Reply author: NickA
Replied on: 14 Feb 2006 12:27:46
Message:
We should protect what we have,a mole is considerably smaller than a dingo.Agree it might not be the best way, but what is more important, peoples lifes, property, livestock, living. Strychnine has been around a long time and is a proven tool.
JD we can not use leg hold traps are your methods barbaric or just a way of control at moment.
If we are not careful nothing will be allowed to be killed because it is cruel even insects or botulism.
The Anti's spend the money until we do the same,we are going to lose more products.
But that comes back to investing into our industry.
Prevention for protection
Reply author: Northerner
Replied on: 14 Feb 2006 22:53:57
Message:
Mole controllers, like rabbit catchers, do not always have the luxury of time, and often work for less money than regular PCOs. Any tool/ chemical which allows a bit of speed is a godsend. Be honest, how many of you guys use phostoxin to gas rabbits these days? It's crap, if you ask me. Cymag was excellent, and less harmful (potentially) to the operator. So we lose it. That really makes sense. Let's face it, anything good we have in the armoury is ultimately doomed, and we are left with second rate twaddle. Come the revolution....
Reply author: andyb
Replied on: 14 Feb 2006 23:27:25
Message:
Well said Northern!
ANDY B
Reply author: Northerner
Replied on: 15 Feb 2006 10:12:37
Message:
And another one bites the dust...I see the European Biocides Directive have put the kybosh on cholecalciferol as of September, with no product to be sold after June this year. What next?
Reply author: blatta
Replied on: 15 Feb 2006 13:03:32
Message:
Pyrethrum!
Methyl Bromide (unless for plant protection)
Reply author: Dusty
Replied on: 27 Feb 2006 10:16:26
Message:
Nick, it is barbaric, but as far as trapping is concerned, possibly the only reliable method.
Dingos are not easily trapped in cages as they are exteremely wary on entering unfamiliar enclosed areas.
Shooting is still the preferred method of control.
My personal thoughts are that they are native animals, seldom cause a problem for stock owners unless conditions are really bad, and should be left alone unless out of control, not destroyed on suspicion of being a nuisance.
Don't feed them, get Rid of them
Pest Control Forum : http://www.pestcontrolportal.com/snitz/
© Pest Control Portal. Always read the Label. Use Pesticides Safely.