Notice of Hearing on the Application to Use Sodium Fluoroacetate ...

1977 and :.52 ;erz2nt in 1972. Analysis cS varianco indicaf~d caaz
the reducticn in losses to predaars was sign'ficent. 3ecsuse flock
sizes for each ranch over he four-year periad ar2 given in terns a?
means, while the rsported perentages lost to coyotes werz averaged,
it is not possible to detsrmine acziial 1oss2s frsm bass siicmicr2d.
The jtudy concluded, however, char the evaluation did not zllow for
the speci ficacion a? prggrzrn ~1arAa1~s responsi ble for r-he rxuczxn
in losses and that factars such as a possible incrnas2 i n nccsers gf
coyotss taken for their pelts, possible bias or 2rror in cet?matizn
oi coyocs kills, and activities 3n the ranches could not Be sva111 da -+=,A
LUU *
It *Has also nor-xi :hat, facrors such as r3?eilancy r2';ker 5hzn
avers i ve condi ti cni ng may have been i nvol ved.
137, Dr. Gustavson wai critical <strong>of</strong> the study referred to Sy yy. Ccnnojly
(finding 135). Hi s criticism, however, was based on a 1 i teral reading
<strong>of</strong> the protocol oi the study.as "zhe test situation 5eing repeated
daily unxil each coyote had killed and f?d on thrze or more jack-
rabbits and one or more chickens." 3r. Gustavscn contznded that the
number <strong>of</strong> animals to be killed was established by the ~rotocol, that
there was no dependent variable and that it was inpossible for the
two numbers to differ significantly. Because there is no indica~ion
the number <strong>of</strong> chickens available to the tredtiient group was 1 imi ted,
this criticism is not valid.
--
. -