CLOSING REMARKS—SEVENTH VERTEBRATE PEST CONFERENCE

On behalf of the Council of the Vertebrate Pest Conference, I thank you all for your very apparent interest in the papers and your cooperation in making the Conference a success. The sophistication of vertebrate pest-control methods has come a long way since our first Conference, in 1962. Our outgoing Chairman, Mr. Charles C. Siebe, has acknowledged the fine contributions to this Conference made by so many, including personnel from the County Agricultural Commissioner Offices in California. And we now acknowledge Charlie\u27s fine leadership for the past two years in this organization, known as the Vertebrate Pest Conference

Georgia : A Song of a Sunny Southern State

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-vp/1501/thumbnail.jp

Georgia : A Song of a Sunny Southern State

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-vp/1500/thumbnail.jp

You\u27d Never Know That Old Home-Town Of Mine

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-vp/2807/thumbnail.jp

CONTROL METHODS FOR SNAKES

Of the various types of wildlife that home owners find undesirable, snakes are probably the leading offenders. Because of much false teaching, many persons have a great dread of even non-venomous snakes; hence control often is practiced when not needed. Nevertheless, very few people are willing to accept the presence of snakes in their gardens or their yards, especially if there is a concern for children playing in the area. For this reason snake control is often desirable about homes and suburban housing areas. Other situations where controls might be justified are recreation areas, farms, bird sanctuaries, duck nesting marshes, and fish hatcheries.The first step in control is to find out what kind of a snake is creating the trouble and to learn something of its habits. Secondly, it is important to estimate the cost of the method to be used and to decide whether or not the expense and effort are justified. There is no single method of eliminating snakes from a given area, and since each person\u27s predicament is different, it is practical to suggest here several ways of eliminating snakes. The following control methods are divided into seven categories. The first five groups are over-all general means of control, the sixth category is devoted to repellents, and the last group deals with miscellaneous methods, any one of which might apply to a particular set of circumstances

ACQUIRED STRYCHNINE TOLERANCE BY POCKET GOPHERS

Four adult female Botta\u27s pocket gophers (Thomomys bottae) that had survived many normally potentially lethal doses of strychnine alkaloid in another experiment (Lee 1986) were examined further. These individuals freely consumed 0.5% strychnine bait, and 3 of them also 1% strychnine bait, for long periods without dying, whether or not nontoxic alternate bait was present. After 1 gopher (#5) was taken off its 1% strychnine wheat diet for 44 days, it lost its physiological tolerance to strychnine and died the first day when again exposed to a free choice of nontoxic and 1% strychnine wheat. It consumed only 7 mg/kg of strychnine before dying, whereas another gopher (#42) was able to survive on a mean daily consumption of 275.8 mg/kg of strychnine in a no-choice situation over a period of 28 days. This is almost 40 times the lethal dose of the other animal

The pharmacokinetics of nebulized nanocrystal budesonide suspension in healthy volunteers.

Nanocrystal budesonide (nanobudesonide) is a suspension for nebulization in patients with steroid-responsive pulmonary diseases such as asthma. The pharmacokinetics and safety of the product were compared to those of Pulmicort Respules. Sixteen healthy volunteers were administered nanobudesonide 0.5 and 1.0 mg, Pulmicort Respules 0.5 mg, and placebo in a four-way, randomized crossover design. All nebulized formulations were well tolerated, with no evidence of bronchospasm. Nebulization times were significantly shorter for nanobudesonide compared to Pulmicort Respules. Because of a low oral bioavailability, plasma concentration of budesonide is a good marker of lung-delivered dose. The pharmacokinetics of nanobudesonide 0.5 and 1.0 mg were approximately dose proportional with respect to Cmax, AUC(0-t), and AUC(0-infinity). Nanobudesonide 0.5 mg and Pulmicort Respules 0.5 mg exhibited similar AUCs, suggesting a similar extent of pulmonary absorption. A higher Cmax was noted with nanobudesonide 0.5 mg, and the tmax was significantly different, suggesting a more rapid rate of drug delivery of nanobudesonide 0.5 mg than Pulmicort Respules. In conclusion, nebulized nanobudesonide 0.5 mg was safe in healthy volunteers, with a similar extent of absorption as Pulmicort Respules