Feral Swine Eradication Status

Feral Swine Eradication Status September 2016 Twelve counties covering almost 19 million acres have been cleared and we are on track to complete feral swine eradication from most areas of the state, where access has been provided, by the end of CY 2017. NM WS currently has 4 full time temporary employees working to remove feral swine primarily in mountainous areas of south central NM. The USFS granted approval to begin using an integrated approach with multiple tools for feral swine removal in the White Mountain Wilderness in late FY 15 and work began in October 2015. Thirteen feral swine were taken within WMWA in FY 16. Over 225 feral swine were taken by NM Wildlife Services staff in 2017, and approximately 1,258 feral swine have been taken since eradication began in January 2013. Over 1,900 feral swine have been taken since federal FY 2004. Over 66% of the total feral swine removed were taken with aid of the helicopter and approximately 60% of the feral swine taken since eradication began were taken with aid of “Judas” swine. The current focus is primarily in the Lincoln National Forest (including the White Mountain Wilderness), the Mescalero Apache Reservation, and adjacent areas in south central NM. Since the project began, 239 feral swine have been taken on the Mescalero Apache Reservation, not including those taken by Mescalero Apache staff. During the summer of 2016 WS staff began using Environmental DNA (eDNA) water sampling in the Lesser Prairie Chicken area in eastern Chaves County, and the Lincoln National Forest, to test for feral swine presence or absence. This involves collection of water samples from dirt tanks, reservoirs, stock tanks, streams and other water sources. A buffer solution is added and the samples are shipped to our National Wildlife Research for analysis. The analysis can detect single feral swine presence at the site up to 13 days prior to the sample date, and multiple feral swine presence up to approximately 60 days prior to the sample date. Using these results to target specific areas, 8 feral swine were removed from Lesser Prairie Chicken habitat this year. A single positive sample was detected in the White Mountain Wilderness (Indian Creek), and although feral swine presence was confirmed by trail camera, this feral pig has not been found. Lincoln National Forest (Sacramento Ranger District) staff have volunteered to collect eDNA samples to assist us in this surveillance effort. Each targeted area will be sampled every 2-3 months for verification that there are no feral remaining feral swine. Estimated Numbers of Feral Swine Remaining in the Following Areas Curry County: 0 known. No reported sightings this FY. Roosevelt County: Very few if any remaining at present but pigs are moving back and forth into TX. Presently working on a ranch in SE Roosevelt County. This FY, 117 feral hogs have been taken, 87 by Helicopter, 29 by trapping and 1 by shooting. De Baca County: 0 known. No reported sightings in this FY. Guadalupe County: 0 known, 1 reported hit by a vehicle north of Santa Rosa. Chaves County: Very few in the LPC area. Pecos River: no reported sightings/photos since June 2016. Eddy County: 2-3 known near the El Paso Gas Plant (Pecos River). Periodically, lone boars (1-2) are taken along the Delaware River coming in from Texas. Otero County: WS staff are presently working north of Timberon to Benson Ridge east from Sunspot Highway to Weed. A large amount of rooting was found near Wills Canyon/Hubble Canyon area, however only 2-3 have been documented on camera. Aerial flights have been conducted with minimal results because of the dense forest canopy. Restrictions on flights due to T&E concerns (Mexican spotted owl) and big game hunting seasons have limited WS aerial work in these areas. A small sounder 6-10 feral hogs NW of Pinon was recently located on private land adjacent to LNF. Corral Traps have been set in this area where we hope to radio collar another Judas. A helicopter hunt is planned for this area. Our last remaining Judas dropped her ear tag in Bluewater Canyon in June. She had been very productive the past year and a half. We removed 60 + feral pigs from her alone. Quay County: 0 reported sightings. San Miguel County: Only 2 feral swine were taken in San Miguel Co. this FY. No additional sign or reports from this area. Union County: Seven feral swine were removed with the aid of a Judas this year. Lea County: No reports of feral hogs during FY 16 Harding/Mora County: In early September 2016 a feral hog track was found on the Canadian River within the boundaries of the Kiowa Grasslands. An aerial flight was conducted in mid-September and no feral swine were found. We will continue to monitor this area. Hidalgo County: Unknown numbers in areas where access has been denied. Middle Rio Grande Valley: No credible reports at this time. Lincoln County (Excluding WMW): 3 feral hogs in the last 2 months were caught on camera north of the Capitan Mountains. There was a confirmed sighting on the south side of the Capitan Mountains (Latham Allotment). This area will be worked in between the big game hunts this fall. One feral hog was caught on camera in the Loma Grande area. A total of 24 cameras are set in the WMW and adjacent allotments, 31 cameras are set throughout the LNF on 14 allotments. Drainages and canyons surveyed include: Argentina Canyon, Argentina Spring, Nogal Creek, Nogal Canyon, Kraut Canyon, George Canyon, Littleton Canyon, Whitehorse Hill, Indian Canyon, Tortillita Canyon, Pennsylvania Canyon, Crest Trail, Skull Canyon, Turkey Springs, Big Bonito Canyon, Gaylord Canyon, Water Canyon, and Norman Canyon. Feral swine sign (wallows & tracks) has been found in Argentina Canyon, Big Bonito Canyon, Indian Canyon, Crest Trail, Pennsylvania Canyon, and Skull Canyon. There is an abundance of food sources including pinon nuts, acorns, forbs and grasses as well as water sources within wilderness. The western and southern parts of the wilderness will be surveyed soon. Mescalero Apache Reservation: As of September 2016, we were aware of 5-10 feral swine on the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation in the Rock House Spring and Spur Well area. A Judas Boar was tagged and collared in Jan 2016. He has been located many times in the past few months, but has been alone each time. He has had a home range of 225-240 square miles. There are several reports of swine along the 244 highway that runs from HWY 70 to Cloudcroft. These have been investigated but no definite sign has been found. We are in the process of setting out monitoring cameras in these areas. Feral swine rooting was observed from the helicopter at 9000 ft. elevation on the SW side of Sierra Blanca in an extremely remote and rugged area on the wilderness boundary. A new Feral Swine Specialist (Aaron Fierro) was hired in Aug and he is presently setting cameras and becoming familiar with the Reservation. Lesser Prairie Chicken Area: During FY 16, 126 feral swine were removed from the Lesser Prairie Chicken Area (Roosevelt County-101, Eastern Chaves County-25). Monitoring will continue through FY17. BLM Biologists informed WS that LPC counts are up from last year. Numbers have increased in each of the last three years from 161 in 2014, 355 in 2015, and 1,249 in 2016. The primary reason for a high success was likely the increase in rainfall but they also believe feral swine and coyotes removed in these areas have helped increase the population. Adjacent areas in Texas: During FY16, the Texas WS program took 222 feral swine within the buffer zone in Texas and New Mexico. An additional 347 were taken just east of the buffer area, and another 210 were taken along the Pecos River south of the buffer area in Texas. Work will continue in these areas in FY 17. AR-15 Testing In June 2015, WS staff began field testing use of an AR-15 from the Helicopter for feral swine under an established research protocol. The AR-15 is used primarily in mountainous, ponderosa pine habitat where shotgun use is generally ineffective. Sixteen flights have been conducted using the AR-15 and 155 feral swine were taken with an average of 4.7 shots. Distances to target ranges from 60-150 yards, depending on terrain and visibility, averaging 98 yards. Distance above ground level has ranged from 85 -130 feet, averaging 109 feet. Outreach During FY 16, English and Spanish public service announcements for radio developed with the help of NMDA and Cooperative Extension were distributed to outlets across eastern NM. The PSA’s request that people report any feral swine sightings to WS. Feral Swine Take by NM WS FY 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 131 14 15 16 TOTAL # Taken 21 32 62 77 62 80 219 143 620 195 214 229 1,954 1Feral Swine Eradication Funding Received

EPA Issues Sulfoxaflor Registration for Some Uses

EPA Issues Sulfoxaflor Registration for Some Uses Following the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to vacate the registration of sulfoxaflor, EPA has reevaluated the data supporting the use of sulfoxaflor and is approving a registration that meets all requirements of the court. Sulfoxaflor will now have fewer uses and additional requirements that will protect bees. EPA will consider the other uses at a later date as data become available to support those uses. EPA made this decision after careful consideration of public comments and supporting science. EPA is registering sulfoxaflor for use only on crops that are not attractive to pollinators or for crop- production scenarios that minimize or eliminate potential exposure to bees. The registration is very protective of pollinators and includes fewer crops than were allowed under sulfoxaflor’s previous registration. For those crops that are included and that are bee attractive, sulfoxaflor will be allowed only post bloom, when bees are not expected to be present, and will not be allowed on any crops grown for seed, including turf. These restrictions practically eliminate exposure to bees in the field, which reduces the risk below EPA’s level of concern such that no additional data requirements to protect bees are triggered. EPA is also prohibiting application if wind speeds exceed 10 mph and requiring a 12-foot on-field buffer on the down-wind edge to protect bees from spray drift if there is blooming vegetation bordering the treated field. EPA is prohibiting tank mixing of sulfoxaflor with pesticides that have shown evidence of synergistic activity with sulfoxaflor. The product label directs applicators to more information and a list of these pesticides. Sulfoxaflor is a sulfoximine, a new insecticide class that is an alternative to organophosphates, which are considered to be much harsher on non-target organisms and the environment. Sulfoxaflor will control a number of difficult insect pests and is proven to work against challenging pests that carbamate, neonicotinoid, organophosphate, and pyrethroid insecticides fail to control. Learn more about the Decision to Register the Insecticide Sulfoxaflor with Limited Uses and Pollinator Protective Requirements.

October 2016 CLIMAS SW Climate Podcast

October 2016 CLIMAS SW Climate Podcast SW Monsoon: Monsoon Recap & Leftovers Edition In October 2016 episode of the CLIMAS SW Climate Podcast, Mike Crimmins and Zack Guido recap the Southwestern monsoon, with an eye towards how various regions of the Southwest fared in terms of storm events and seasonal totals. They also discuss the different events that contribute to seasonal totals during the official monsoon (June 15 - Sept 30), as well as what some of the best case and worst case monsoon totals might look like in a thought experiment regarding monsoon extremes. They close out with a brief discussion of La Niña (or the lack thereof), and a look towards what fall and winter might have in store given the current (uncertain) conditions. Note: During the first 8 minutes of the podcast there is a minor problem with Zack's audio. Share Tweet Southwestern Monsoon Information (CLIMAS) • Monsoon information • Short term and seasonal outlooks • Monsoon tracker • Outreach materials and feature articles and publications Other Monsoon Resources • National Weather Service - Monsoon Tracker • Climate Science Applications Program • Arizona WRF Discussion • MadWeather Blog • John Fleck at Inkstain JOIN MAILING LIST Copyright © 2016 Climate Assessment for the Southwest, All rights reserved. CLIMAS: Climate Assessment for the Southwest University of Arizona: Institute of the Environment ENR2, 5th Floor - 1064 E. Lowell Street Tucson, AZ 85721-0137 You are receiving this email because you opted in on the CLIMAS website or decided to join the Southwest Climate Outlook mailing list. unsubscribe from this list

Need Mesquite near a well traveled road

This next spring I want to put out a demonstration Plot with Sendero Herbicide. I need to be able to divide it into thee plots with a buffer in between. What we want to demonstrate is the difference timing makes. One plot will go on to early, one at the correct timing and one to late. If you have a good place let me know. We also want to put up signs so you will know what is what. Call the Extension Office or email me at whoughto@nmsu.edu or call 887-6595.

Renewed Registration Issued for Products Containing Sulfoxaflor (Isoclast® Active)

Gentlemen On Friday the EPA renewed the Full Section 3 label for Closer in many crops. For pecans, the use pattern is identical to what we had in the past. So once we receive the NMDA blessing all will be well. Too late for this year but our growers will have this tool again next year. Regards Greg Renewed Registration Issued for Products Containing Sulfoxaflor (Isoclast® Active) On October 14, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) re-established the registration for products containing sulfoxaflor (Isoclast® Active): Transform® WG, Closer® SC and Sequoia® insecticides. Dow AgroSciences is pleased to have registrations for these important brands re-established. This registration limits the crops available under previous product labeling, has a downwind buffer zone included and restricts tank-mixing with products containing certain active ingredients. This re-established registration will allow for post-bloom usage on potatoes, pome fruit, stone fruit, grapes and tree nuts. Season-long uses will be permitted on lettuce and wheat. Dow AgroSciences is working diligently to provide EPA the information it needs to authorize previously labeled uses in other important crops and have buffer zones and tank-mix restrictions removed in the future. Previously issued FIFRA Section 18 Specific Emergency Exemptions remain in place for cotton and sorghum until they expire. Section 18 labeled products may continue to be utilized and sold according to those labels and should not be returned to Dow AgroSciences. Sincerely, Jesse Richardson Field Scientist 760-963-0329 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1. What crops and uses will be listed on the re-established Section 3 Federal label for Transform® WG insecticide, Closer® SC insecticide and Sequoia® insecticide? a. Post-bloom uses will be allowed on potatoes, pome fruit, stone fruit, grapes and tree nuts. b. Season-long uses will be permitted on lettuce and wheat. c. Cotton, strawberries, citrus, soybeans, cucurbits and other crops will not be on the renewed Section 3 Federal label. d. Please consult the label for specific use instructions on labeled crops. e. Dow AgroSciences will continue to work diligently with the EPA to restore all previously labeled crops and uses. 2. What should distributors and dealers do with their existing inventory of Section 18 labeled Transform? a. There is nothing a distributor or dealer needs to do with their inventory of Section 18 labeled Transform. b. Section 18 labeled Transform may be utilized and sold according to the existing Section 18 Emergency Exemptions until they expire. c. Furthermore, it is anticipated that these Section 18s will be granted again in cotton and sorghum in 2017. d. In addition, states may continue to apply for other Section 18 exemptions, and approval is at the discretion of EPA. Section 18 labeled Transform could also be utilized for those uses as well. 3. How will Section 18 Emergency Exemptions apply to Transform with the renewed Section 3 Federal label? a. Section 18 uses are authorized for Transform® WG insecticide possessing either the re-established Section 3 Federal label or the Section 18 package label. 4. Does this re-established Section 3 Federal label require buffer zones? a. Yes. In the Environmental Hazards section of the label, it is specified that a 12-foot in-field, downwind buffer from blooming vegetation during application must be maintained. 5. Does this renewed Section 3 Federal label prohibit tank mixes of other products with Transform, Closer or Sequoia? a. The only tank mixes prohibited are those with products containing the active ingredients spinosad, spinetoram, gamma-cyhalothrin, methoxyfenozide, chlorpyrifos, halauxifen-methyl, penflufen and mandestrobin. b. The list of prohibited tank-mix partners can also be accessed at the following URL: http:///isoclasttankmix.com 6. Must these buffer zones and tank-mix restrictions be adhered to when utilizing Transform on crops labeled via Section 18 Emergency Exemptions? a. Tank-mix restrictions apply to all uses of Transform /Closer. Buffer restrictions are placed on uses in individual crops and Section 18 labels will determine whether they apply to those crops. 7. What is the impact to current and future Section 24(c) Special Local Need registrations? a. Section 24(c) labels may not be granted for uses that were previously canceled. 8. What is the timeline for registration of products containing sulfoxaflor in California? a. Dow AgroSciences will submit labels for registration in California. California Department of Pesticide Regulation will review the label according to normal processes. Closer SC, Sequoia and Transform WG are not registered for sale or use in all states. Contact your state pesticide regulatory agency to determine if a product is registered for sale or use in your state. Always read and follow label directions. Transform has Section 18 Specific Emergency Exemptions for use on cotton in Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi and Tennessee. Transform has Section 18 Specific Emergency Exemptions for use on sorghum in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

The BLM Carlsbad Field Office is developing an outreach program

The BLM Carlsbad Field Office is developing an outreach program to address the dangers of litter on the public landscape including impacts to animals both domestic and wild. To do a great job, they'll need high quality photographs of animals interacting with trash (e.g., cows eating a pump jack drive belt or plastic bag, fish/turtles swimming among pollution or trash, ducks with 6-pack necklaces, javelina playing kick-the-can, etc.) Please feel free to submit any pictures you may have to offer to me or directly to Terry at tgregsto@blm.gov. Please include photo credits where applicable. Thanks in advance and please forward this request to someone that may have pictures!

5 packer concerns about show steers & how 4-H families can help Jun 15, 2016 by Amanda Radke in BEEF Daily

Summer is here, kids are out of school, and if they participate in 4-H, FFA or junior breed association activities, chances are they’ve been busy this month washing, leading and working on their show calves in preparation for upcoming shows. I love the life lessons that kids learn from showing cattle; however, with the intense competition also comes those parents and kids who might be willing to step over the line of integrity in order to win. This is not only wrong, but it’s unacceptable when it comes time to slaughter these market beef animals. At the end of the day, we are teaching kids to raise a safe, nutritious beef product, and that should always be at the forefront of parents’ mind and be kept at a higher priority than winning and losing.Of course, sometimes mistakes can be made, too, so it’s not always an ulterior motive that creates problems with show animals. It’s important for everyone — from the novice beginner showman to the experienced, highly-motivated veteran — to be aware of packer issues and work to negate them. Heidi Carroll, South Dakota State University Extension livestock stewardship associate, recently shared information presented in a webinar by Paula Alexander, Tyson project manager for sustainable food production and food safety quality assurance, about the specific challenges packers face when handling show animals at the plant. Alexander said show animals pose five general packer challenges including: 1. Residue sampling increases “Product may be held if positive for further testing and additional tracking in plant, which could result in the loss of product if it tests positive,” says Carroll. 2. Scheduling of employees Carroll writes, “USDA/FSIS requests that all show animals are harvested first in the day or ‘A Shift’ because of increased sampling needs.” 3. Carcass data collection Alexander explained in her webinar that show animals require more people to do tag transfer and carcass data collection, which may slow down the line. 4. Mobility of the animals I doubt this refers to show steers that just complete a state fair and headed to the packing plant, but perhaps Alexander is referring to the club calves that are born crippled or the ones that didn’t make the cut because of their structure and mobility. Like all beef animals, not just show animals, “They must be able to walk to the restrainer/knock box on their own or they will be condemned,” says Carroll. 5. Bruises or injection site lesions Any time an animal requires a shot, it can leave an injection site if Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) protocols aren’t followed. These injection site lesions require, “trimming off the damaged muscle, which means the plant loses money and increases employee’s trimming time on carcasses,” says Carroll. Carroll explains, “Alexander outlined the United States National Residue Program of the chemicals that are tested and the process each plant is required to go through to ensure all meat is safe. Packing plants have plans to minimize the risk of presence in the meat of chemical hazards, such as drug and medication residues. “As part of this plan, packers typically require affidavits and/or treatment records for cattle and hogs they buy from state youth projects or market animal shows. Packers typically require these documents be provided prior to arrival or with the incoming truck of animals. Several examples of these documents and the required phrases were provided in her presentation slides for viewers to see.” So what can the parents and 4-H members do to responsibly show cattle and ensure a high-quality beef product? The answer is pretty much common sense, but it’s worth reiterating. Carroll writes that 4-H families should, “Guarantee industry best practices through BQA programs where both parents and youth complete the training. Adhere to drug label withdrawal times carefully. Communicate with the buyer or plant if withdrawal time on any animals is missed. Understand we are all responsible for producing safe food. Be proactive and assist youth to implement best management practices that result in safe food products.” Alexander also said in the webinar, “When Tyson receives animals from a fair and there is an issue with an animal from that group, it taints the view for that fair, not just that one individual. So everybody needs to work together and understand what’s happening in that organization and not just their animals.” Read more of Carroll’s summation of the webinar here. Also, check out the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Animal Care Resources for additional information on how 4-H youth can learn to responsibly manage their beef animals. The opinions of Amanda Radke are not necessarily those of beefmagazine.com or Penton Agriculture.