With West Marin's few sheep ranchers last year losing dozens of sheep and lambs to coyote, the Marin agricultural commissioner has convened a group of ranchers, UC researchers, and animal-rights activists to discuss how to control the predators.

Many ranchers have faced financial disaster owing to coyote on sheep-killing sprees. Environmentalists, meanwhile, have raised questions about the ecological impact of such anti-predator measures as the livestock-protection collar (LPC), which is filled with the poison compound 1080.

Marin Agricultural Commissioner Stacey Carlsen said he convened the diverse group, which has met monthly since July, so everyone can "read the same data and see what works" and "to find mutually agreeable alternatives."

Carlsen conceded that important differences remain, but said the forum is "still better than just volleying back and forth. We can sit at the table and work out differences...

"This is impossible with loose allegations," he continued. "Everyone has to share their facts. The book is open. We're trying to focus on real issues, look at research, and quantify and qualify the practical merits of every approach."

Stephanie Larson, Farm Advisor for the UC Cooperative Extension, said "the process has been educational if nothing else. There have been widespread misconceptions over the number of restrictions placed on use of the LPC."

Animal rights and environmental advocates claim that lethal methods, such as M44 cyanide capsules, snares, and the 1080 collar are too readily employed. Alternative non-lethal strategies include electric fencing, guard animals (such as dogs and llama), noises and lights that simulate human presence, and nightly sheltering of livestock.

Ranchers now must try non-lethal methods before they can obtain poison collars from the county. "The question," said Suzanne Roy, program director for In Defense of Animals, "is how hard they've tried."

Plenty hard, contended Joe Pozzi, rancher and chairman of the Northbay Wool Growers Association's Animal Damage Control Committee.

Pozzi was the first rancher in the county to use the 1080 collar after losing 19 sheep early this year. He noted that the collars have been available only a short time, and are "just one of many tools. It's the last thing we use."

He added that it's too early to tell whether the collar will significantly reduce predation.

Nevertheless, he welcomes the option. A clever coyote can learn to avoid or ignore many deterrents, and Pozzi called non-lethal methods such as night-sheltering impractical.

"If you're talking about 700 grazing animals over 500 acres, they're not easily penned," the rancher said. "And even if you did, you'd run into numerous health problems. As a last resort the collar works well. It's well used and we wouldn't want to remove any of the restrictions."

One non-lethal method that has sparked interest is lithium chloride, a chemical compound that works by simply tasting bad. Coyote who ingest the substance find it unpalatable, often to the point of becoming violently ill. In theory, the predators become conditioned to associate the unpleasant dining experience with sheep.

Whether it works is open to debate, since the compound can't be placed on live sheep, only on baited meat. Stephanie Larson explained, "it's possible that [coyote] only learn to avoid pieces of bait."

Camilla Fox of the Animal Protection Institute of America said taste aversion has been successfully used in Canada for 30 years. Environmentalists have also claimed that studies conducted by the state and the UC system are little more than in-house research for the agriculture industry.

Environmental groups have also raised questions about the costs of controlling predators. Fox voiced concern that Animal Damage Control, the federal program for which Commissioner Carlsen is county administrator, provides disproportionate funding for lethal control methods.

"Public funds are being allocated to private industry for poisons, traps, and snares," Fox said. "No alternative methods are being subsidized."

She also questioned the economic efficiency of Animal Damage Control both locally and nationwide.

Fox noted that nationally $1.8 million of the ADC's $3.6 million budget has been spent on livestock protection, while reported livestock losses were valued at a mere $600,000 to $700,000.

In Marin, where 101 sheep and lambs were reported lost last year, Fox argued that the ranchers could have been fully compensated for about $11,000. However, $23,000 was spent to kill 32 coyote.

For that money, Fox said, ranchers could be compensated and provided with one guard dog each.

Commissioner Carlsen called such reasoning a case of "comparing apples and oranges...

"At a national level, much of what ADC does has nothing to do with livestock," he said. "There are research programs, urban programs, public health issues, and programs to protect endangered species from predation. Locally, you have to consider the expense of maintaining the infrastructure to deal with years when losses are much greater. And of course you have to ask, what would the losses have been like without the program?"

Carlsen acknowledged that no non-lethal controls are subsidized, but asserted that the local budget, "which essentially pays for one part-time employee," indirectly supports alternatives since the employee (a trapper) constantly gives advice on such matters as guard dogs and fencing.

In spite of the claims of policy bias, Carlsen said he "couldn't be happier to put a cost-benefit model on the table."

A true accounting, he said, "would have to take into account such factors as the value of ranches as open space...

"With predation a leading cause of failed ranching, what happens to land if it can't be defended and profitably worked? It gets developed, and what kind of environmental drawback is that?"

Camilla Fox expressed skepticism over whether an economic analysis, if undertaken, would support current ADC policies. She cited an Alaska study which found predator control methods in that state to be inefficient and ineffective.

Obviously, consensus on coyote control is a long shot. Although participants generally agreed that the meetings are a good step, they acknowledged that the points of view may be fundamentally incompatible.

They all nonetheless expressed a willingness to go through the process. "We'll come with our studies, and they'll come with theirs," said In Defense of Animals' Suzanne Roy.

Rancher Pozzi summed up what most parties seem to be hoping for. "I'd like people to give us more respect and trust. It's a sensitive situation and I hope people can understand each other."