Posted on by asbexecassistant

Richardson’s Ground Squirrel Update

**Updates** ASBPC meets with SARM on April 22, 2025

Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities (SARM)

SARM has been actively advocating for the reinstatement of strychnine for gopher control through multiple channels, including meeting with Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) in Ottawa multiple times before strychnine was deregistered in 2023. They found PMRA to be unresponsive and unwilling to consider their arguments. SARM’s overall strategy has included multiple approaches including direct lobbying, exploring legal mechanisms like the Saskatchewan First Act, seeking research to counter PMRA’s arguments, and building collaborative support from provincial and municipal organizations.

In February SARM issued a news release calling for strychnine reintroduction through the Saskatchewan First Act. In March SARM met with Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe and brought up the potential for reinstating strychnine for Richardson’s Ground Squirrel control. This has been brought up in subsequent meeting with the Saskatchewan Minister of Agriculture but so far there hasn’t been any known movement.

In the US, Strychnine is not permitted for use on ground squirrels anywhere but Nevada. In Nevada, the application occurs only in high-value hay land in the State’s north and must be made by State-sanctioned personnel. Other states it is only permitted for use on pocket gophers. (see p 111 of the attached document US EPA November 2023)

Rural Municipalities of Alberta (RMA)

In 2020 the RMA passed resolution ER1-20S supporting the ASB advocacy for 2% strychnine to be reinstated on a permanent bases for Richardson’s Ground Squirrel control. This resolution expired in 2023.

Agriculture and Irrigation (AGI)

The Committee brought up the concerns around the increasing population of Richardson’s Ground Squirrels and the feedback from farmers that the PMRA approved products are not practical in terms of timing of application or number of applications. The minister talked about his participation with the other provincial agriculture ministers in a working group that resulted from this advocacy. The working group noted that “…in the U.S., regulators are legally obligated to examine what available alternative pest control methods could be used as substitutes for a pesticide being considered for cancellation. Furthermore, regulators need to study the economic impact to pesticide users and consumers that would occur if these alternative pest control methods were used.” Report to agriculture ministers from the FPT Working Group on Pesticides Management 

Further in the report, under the Cancelation and amendments section it states “While PMRA cannot legally take into account socio-economic costs and benefits in determining the acceptability of risks, the working group felt that the value of a pesticide should be considered in other aspects of PMRA’s work.” The burden of the socio-economic assessment and data collection is placed on the registration holder, provincial governments and private industry/farmers, and currently has little influence on PRMA’s decisions.

The report goes on to state that in the US the socio-economic information is obtained to support the analysis comes from “… a combination of in-house experts (that is, agricultural scientists, chemists, economists, information management specialists, microbiologists, policy analysts, statisticians, and toxicologists) as well as external sources including state regulators, land-grant universities, grower surveys and commercially available data and analytics.”

It was recognized by the working group that “While PMRA may have access to some data sources comparable to those used by the US EPA, the working group recognized that the scope and scale of information available from all sources in Canada is much less.”

In Canada “Little consideration is given to the availability in the marketplace, or the relative cost, among other factors. The working group therefore felt that an up-to-date pesticide value assessment, including benefits and social and economic impacts and regional considerations, should be considered when determining the suitability of alternatives when cancelling product registrations or uses.“

ASB Provincial Committee and Results Driven Agriculture Research (RDAR)

In March the ASBPC met with RDAR and brought up the current situation and asked if there were any projects looking into Richardson’s Ground Squirrel control. It was acknowledged that there have been studies done on Ground Squirrel behavior and biology, but little has been done from the perspective of pest management in crop and livestock systems. Basic information like where in the province they are a problematic, management practices that increase or decrease their populations, economic thresholds for control, and other data points that would give farmers and insurers the tools and data needed for an adequate wholistic response.

The Committee learned that currently hawk poles have caught the attention of RDAR and their use as part of a Integrated Pest Management strategy is something that they would support as a project that would determine Return on Investment (ROI) for farmers and some recommendations on how to best use the tool. Later it was noted that Lakeland Collage was struggling with Richardson’s Ground Squirrels in their Student Lead Farm and may be a candidate for a project.

The Committee has reached out to Lakeland Collage and the pest specialist in Saskatchewan James Tansy who presented at the Provincial ASB Conference this year to see if there was some interest in pulling together a project focused on the needs of farmers. The Committee wants to ensure that the feedback from farmers through the ASBs is considered.

Ideally, applied research studies that work towards:

  • Quantifying the ROI,
  • Develop regionally specific management recommendations,
  • Quantify environment and management factors impacting populations, and
  • Assess if there is a way to obtain economic thresholds that could provide the data needed for better insurance options.

Strychnine was first registered in Alberta in the 1920s, and in nearly 100 years of continued pest pressure on crop and pasture land, there is very little to offer farmers in terms of best management practices on their farms or insurance options to cover forage and crop losses.

Research already available

Several Canadian researchers have made significant contributions to the study of Richardson’s ground squirrels. Notable among them are:

  • Gail R. Michener (University of Lethbridge, Alberta): A leading authority on the behavioral and physiological ecology of Richardson’s ground squirrels, Michener has published extensively on their biology and ecology (2,3).
  • Josef K. Schmutz (University of Saskatchewan, Nature Saskatchewan): Known for research on the ecological role of ground squirrels, particularly their importance as prey for birds of prey and other wildlife (2).

Other researchers and teams have also contributed to studies on habitat associations, management, and population ecology, as reflected in recent large-scale surveys and ecological assessments conducted in southern Saskatchewan (1). These works collectively inform both conservation and pest management strategies for this species in Canada.

Citations:

  1. https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/10.1139/cjz-2021-0059
  2. https://www.albertapcf.org/rsu_docs/prairie_notes_2.pdf
  3. https://www.ulethbridge.ca/unews/article/understanding-ground-squirrel
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7754195/
  5. https://www.canadianfieldnaturalist.ca/index.php/cfn/article/download/1324/1317/5255
  6. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/gardeners-are-going-nuts-about-rare-naked-ground-squirrels-found-in-saskatoon-1.6899285
  7. https://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex3471/$file/684-2.pdf?OpenElement

Links

Discover more from Agricultural Service Boards

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.