HB1018

These 2nd-generation rodenticides are quickly becoming the DDT of our generation. Remember DDT? Rachel Carson wrote about what that pesticide was doing to our birds. She called it “Silent Spring.” And here we are again! Now its the increase of this new class of rodenticides that is spreading worldwide — and scientists and nature lovers like me are sounding the alarm. The evidence is pretty striking — our predators are being poisoned. And just like the disappearing eagles and ospreys and songbirds caused by DDT, there are consequences to their elimination from the food chain. Fewer natural predators, for example, means more mice spreading more tick-born diseases. And I don’t think that is a coincidence that rabbits are becoming much more common in towns across the souther tier of NH. Ironic, isn't it? The animals who help keep rats and mice in check are being decimated — which is leading to more squirrels, more rats, and more garden-eating critters like rabbits and woodchucks to explode in number. And it’s not just wild creatures who are harmed by these poisons — our beloved cats and dogs are also in danger. We have shown ourselves to be smarter than this and we can do it again. We stopped using pesticides like DDT and we can stop using these rodenticides. Our wildlife deserve our protection. I’ve heard a new acronym recently FAFO — which means eff around and find out. Well we are effing around with poisons that have the potential to change our state forever. Do we really want to find out what that looks like?

Dear Honorable Members of the House Environment & Agriculture Committee: I am a resident of Westmoreland writing in support of HB1018 prohibiting the use of certain second generation anticoagulant rodenticides. I respectfully ask that you consider that any legislation that honestly addresses the underlying causes of the crisis created by second generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) must take into account the Pesticide Industry’s significant part in perpetuating this ecological crisis, and therefore, a consumer ban only will not solve this problem. The futility of relying on anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) for controlling rodent populations has been pointed out very effectively and compellingly by many others offering testimony, and it's clear that it’s not a sustainable solution. But the pest control industry has built a lucrative business model based on long term use of ARs. The rodent control measures that have been undertaken in Boston and other cities have shown the effectiveness of public education, coordinated efforts by municipal officials, and integrated solutions to pest management, and these methods need to be implemented at a wider level. Public awareness of the unacceptable consequences of the widescale use of SGARs is growing, and the evidence of the harm they cause is irrefutable. In my own community, a neighbor of mine recently found a blinded barred owl on the ground that had been poisoned by rodenticides. It was brought it to a local rehabilitator, but it was too far gone to be treated with vitamin K and died. Several weeks ago, another neighbor of mine filmed a fox that had been hanging around on her property and was exhibiting signs of rodenticide poisoning. I saw the video she took of the fox collapsing and dying in her yard. These kinds of sad accounts of wildlife slowly hemorrhaging to death, becoming sickened from the effects of sublethal poisoning, and poisoning their own young by feeding them poisoned prey have become all too common. As the alarming scale of poisoning of non-target species that are victims of primary and secondary rodenticide poisoning has surged, these kinds of slow and painful deaths mostly take place in silence, out of sight of the public eye. Nevertheless, veterinarians and wildlife rehabilitators treat thousands of raptors, foxes, raccoons, coyotes, bobcats and other species for SGAR poisoning each year. Most animals are unable to be saved, treatment is costly, and those animals that can be rehabilitated are often poisoned again after release. The far reaching effects on non-target species from SGARs has been well documented. Chronic repeated exposure to these persistent poisons in mesopredators such as foxes, coyotes and bobcats results in increased vulnerability to mange and other diseases. Survival of animals is decreased due to sublethal effects, which decrease hunting efficiency and increase susceptibility to other causes of death such as vehicle strikes. Although SGARs are highly toxic, they are also slow acting and bioaccumulate, so as a mouse or rat becomes sicker and weaker, usually over a period of several days, it becomes easy prey for hawks, owls, foxes and other wildlife, which in turn become poisoned themselves. Since birds of prey and mesocarnivores that prey on rodents have larger home ranges, animals within a larger area are impacted. Although SGARs are were banned for retail purchase by the EPA in 2015, the lethal chain effect in the wildlife food web is mainly being caused by systematic use of these chemicals by pesticide companies through monthly maintenance contracts, not by online consumer purchase. Any discussion of the problem of SGARs has to go along with a discussion of the bait box and the long term maintenance contract business model. The ubiquitous bait box systems are "conveniently" located and typically restocked by pesticide companies on a monthly basis. The boxes are not required by law to have labels showing their contents if they are outdoors. The bait in these refillable boxes kills wildlife in a number of ways. Since rodents can come and go to the boxes, feeding on the highly toxic but slow acting poisoned bait many times over a period of days, they then become easy prey for raptors and mammals. Secondary poisoning commonly occurs when predators and scavengers ingest poisoned prey or feed them to their young. In addition, bait that is removed from the boxes by mice and other small mammals is often found and ingested by other animals, causing primary poisoning of non-target animals. The bait boxes also serve as cover, so mice and chipmunks have been seen escaping from predators by running into bait boxes. In turn, birds of prey and other predators learn that the bait boxes are sources of food, hawks and owls have been observed waiting for rodents to emerge from bait boxes. Since the prevailing practice is to place bait box stations in the environment outside of buildings where they attract rodents, this out of sight out of mind approach has created an ecological crisis. Ironically, since the EPA mandated the consumer retail ban on SGARs in 2015, bait boxes have become such a common feature everywhere that one can hardly go anyplace and not find them. And although pest control companies often say they practice IPM, and that SGARS are a tool in their toolbox, in truth they are almost always the first line choice for rodent control by pest control companies. Whether deliberately or not, professional pest control applicators often misrepresent the facts to customers, but customers tend to trust the accuracy of the information given to them and assume that it's trustworthy. Pest control manufacturing and marketing publications can be instructive to understanding the business model that has led up to this situation. They also can give some insight about how commonplace misrepresentation of the facts can be. For example, here’s something I found under "Commonly asked questions" in a leading trade publication that presents itself as the industry’s "go-to" source for news and product information: Question: If a cat or dog consumes two or three mice that died as a result of any of the popular rodenticides being currently used (second-generation anticoagulants or non-anticoagulants), what is the likelihood of the pet dying of secondary poisoning? Answer: Almost nil. The dead mice already have assimilated the poisoned baits and, from a practical perspective, there are no secondary poisoning characteristics associated with the anticoagulants. Secondary ingestions of undigested baits that still remain within the mouse’s stomach can occur, but there is not nearly enough bait in these few pellets to kill or even render a cat or dog sick. Although not all pesticide companies would make this kind of blatantly false claim, it is still far too common for customers to be told that rodenticides don’t harm wildlife, and that if the bait is in a child/pet proof box, it is safe. Pest control companies need to have more accountability and be up front with customers, and that they need to educate employees and customers about the products they are using, and be proactive about implementing IPM plans and services that don’t require the use of anticoagulant rodenticides. It should be noted that special consideration should be given to farm operations, feed and grain supply stores and food warehouses, and old buildings where rodent problems may be more difficult to solve with sealing, exclusion and sanitation methods alone. In these kinds of situations where rodent populations prove difficult to manage with other means, if special consideration and temporary exemptions are allowed, they should be temporary and be closely monitored. In contrast to the standard practice of long term, ongoing use of SGARs which has been adopted and promoted by the pesticide industry in this country, I want to point out the recommendations of the "Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use" in Ireland for managing rodents, which gives the following recommendations: "Rodents must be controlled because of risks to human and animal heath, contamination and spoiling of food and feed, structural damage, quality assurance compliance, etc." However, “Rodenticides must only be used as a temporary solution and only after other procedures have been fully considered and implemented...Anticoagulant bait should provide control within 35 days. Should activity continue beyond this time, the likely cause should be determined and a new approach should be taken.” https://www.pcs.agriculture.gov.ie/media/pesticides/content/biocides/EffectiveControlRodentPestsFarms300916.pdf Please consider how these insidious poisons are devastating wildlife and putting people and pets at risk in New Hampshire and vote in favor of HB1018. Thank you, Martha Rullman, MS, Environmental Studies 230 Butterfield Hill Rd. Westmoreland

Dear Honorable Members of the House Environment & Agriculture Committee: I am a resident of Westmoreland writing in support of HB1018 prohibiting the use of certain second generation anticoagulant rodenticides. By now it should be clear that all across the State residents are becoming educated about the harm done to non-target wildlife by Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides (SGARs), and as they become aware of the extent of the problem voters are demanding that action be taken to severely restrict the use of these poisons. The truth is that SGARs need to be banned outright at the State level, except for closely restricted use during specific public health emergency situations. HB1018 accomplishes this goal and it is of the utmost importance to New Hampshire wildlife that these bills be passed and signed into Law. Lobbyists and spokespersons for the pest control industry are claiming that they can’t do their job without them. This is not true. There are safer alternatives which in the long run are more effective because they don’t kill off the rodent’s natural predators which we depend on to support our rodent control efforts. Lobbyists and spokespersons for the pest control industry are also claiming that they strive to practice Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and that SGARs are only one tool in their Toolkit, but an indispensable one used only as a last resort. These are industry talking points. The truth is that their business model is perpetual, monthly maintenance service contracts where bait boxes are placed around the perimeter of thousands of New Hampshire homes, apartments and businesses with the intention of these service contracts continuing indefinitely. All that the “licensed professionals” need to do is visit the bait stations periodically to replenish the bait, and their “service” contract has become a lucrative, monthly revenue stream. There is no incentive to eliminate the rodent problem. There is every incentive to perpetuate the problem so the need for their services never goes away. SGARs are the ideal product for this predatory business model. It is important to understand that these SGAR loaded bait stations can never eliminate rats and mice, and over time they will actually make the problem worse. Rodents breed quickly and as long as food and shelter are present have the ability to reestablish their population in a matter of weeks. Rodent predators on the other hand breed slowly, and cannot successfully reproduce in the presence of these poisons. Numerous examples have been documented where hawk, owl, fox and eagle parents have killed their own offspring by feeding them poisoned rodents. Over time, once the predators have been killed off, the natural rodent control function these animals perform so effectively is lost. The end result is a rodent problem that will never go away. Another industry talking point is the disinformation campaign to blame homeowners for the illicit and irresponsible use of SGARs. Unfortunately this strategy worked this year in Connecticut where the will of the people was thwarted by successful lobbying efforts to change the wording of the law to restrict SGAR use by all but “licensed professionals.” It’s true that, although banned by the EPA for retail sale, these SGAR products are nevertheless readily available for purchase online. Banning the shipment of these products into the State will certainly help but it will not fix the problem. The problem is the business model of the so called “licensed professionals” – the economics of the SGAR bait box and the long term monthly service contract. Once you begin to do a little research, it quickly becomes apparent that this is a national and even a global problem with terribly far reaching consequences for wildlife from the most rural New Hampshire communities to the sprawling palm oil plantations of Indonesia and everywhere in between. The companies that produce these poisons, and the pest control industry that uses them, are the real problem and they wield tremendous power and influence. That influence is present right here, right now in the New Hampshire State legislature. But we are very encouraged by the work of our Representative Catherine Harvey and the House Environment & Agriculture Committee, and optimistic that the groundswell of public opinion can prevail. New Hampshire residents, regardless of their political opinions, value wildlife and want this bills passed! We can make a difference here in our State! A similar Bill was defeated once before. The time has come to PASS HB1018. We need to BAN these SGAR products Statewide, not just limit their to use to the so called licensed “professionals” who will benefit by a monopoly on their use and have NO INTENTION of limiting the use of SGARs. John Schuster 230 Butterfield Hill Rd. Westmoreland

When people use a rodenticide, an anticoagulant mixed with other chemicals, the poison causes internal hemorrhaging, and the death is slow and painful, with squirrels and other rodents dying over many days. Secondary poisoning can occur throughout the ecosystem affecting wildlife including hawks, foxes, bald eagles, and even cats and dogs. This is cruel and unnecessary. There are other alternatives to control rodent populations. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

While I do not support the use of rodenticide in general, I support this bill. When the health of the general public is at stake and all other methods have been shown to be inadequate, trained professionals need to have the ability to reduce the rodent species when necessary and only as much as and when needed.

Rodenticides poison any predator animal that eats a poisoned rodent -- thus removing those predators from the environment that naturally keep down the number of rodents. Rodenticides are poisons that we do NOT need to contribute to the environment.

I support HB1018 to prohibit the use of dangerous second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs). SGARs kill unintended wildlife. These poisons were originally formulated to kill rodents like rats and mice, squirrels, chipmunks, and other small mammals, but rodents are the main food source of most raptors. If a mother owl feeds a rodenticide-poisoned mouse to her baby owlet, it will kill the baby in an excruciating manner. SGARs are anti-coagulants; the babies and whatever raptor consumes the rodents, will bleed out from the inside, a slow, painful death. SGARs are powerful poisons that stay in tissues and organs of rodents for months, making it easy for predators that naturally eat rodents – such as owls, eagles, and hawks -- to get a lethal dose of toxins. Rodents frequently eat more than a single dose. Since the rodent doesn't die instantly, this allows the rodent to continue consuming the toxins. Birds of prey don't have a chance against this super lethal build-up in the rodent's tissues. SGARs are a risk to all. SGARs not only kill a variety of animals, but they also weaken and sicken them too, making them vulnerable to other causes of death. The evidence that SGARs poses an unreasonable risk to wildlife is piling up. Tragically, unintentional secondary poisonings from SGARs are increasing at an alarming rate and victims include wildlife, pets, and children. There are better solutions available using integrated pest management. SGARs are not the most effective or sustainable solution. A combination of prevention, exclusion, and humane trapping is safer, more effective long-term, and protects ecosystems. 

I support the bill based on veterinarians' advice about cruel injuries to helpful predators.

I support limiting pesticides which kill many unintended animals every year. Please support this legislation to prevent more unintended deaths. Thank you.

Please support this bill. SGARs are dangerous for many animals. Wildlife rehabs have reported that they help more and more animals poisoned by SGARs if not directly, indirectly by consuming small animals that have ingested the poison. Pets scan also get very sick or die. The animals that ingest these poisons suffer. Please support this bill.

I support this bill because these rodent poisons are indiscriminate killers. Not only do they kill the rats and mice they are intended for, but they also kill raptors that eat these rodents for food. They kill other animals that eat them, and they kill people's pets who get into them. There are various traps that can be used for rodents, as well as dogs bred for the purpose of killing them. These are much safer options for all.

I strongly support HB1018 because second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides pose serious risks to wildlife, pets, and ecosystems. Safer alternatives exist, and restricting these high-toxicity products is a responsible step to protect New Hampshire’s environment

Please vote to help the multitude of innocent and unknowing creatures from an agonizing and unnecessary death brought on by the carelessness of man. There are better alternatives.

We don't need "more" xhemicals, we need better methods.

As a retired veterinarian technician I have seen the pain and death rodenticides will cause in non target animals. We must ban the use of them permanently to protect our wildlife and our domestic animals. We need to go back to the basic mouse and rat traps which are effective in controlling vermin and much safer for other animals. Thank you for your time; please pass this bill.

I never ever use rodenticides because they kill animals/predators that eat the dead rodents. It’s a horrible death, as was shown to the world by the death of the beloved owl in New York a few years ago. I fully support this bill HB 1018.

My neighbor's cat ingested some rodenticides put out by another neighbor of mine, and died in a most tragic and painful way. No doubt wildlife have been killed by the same rodenticides because we have bobcats, owls, eagles, squirrels, etc. roaming in the same area, with predators eating the rodents carrying the rodenticides. I have been using live traps to control rodents for many years, and shown many of the neighbors to do the same with great success. There is absolutely no need for rodenticides or glue traps to be used!! People get fooled into use such poison, which ultimately seeps into the soil and gets into our drinking water and the lake, not to mention killing animals without discrimination. Their regrets are often too late. It is time to stop this!

I support this bill because second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides are inhumane pest control poisons, which harm not only the intended animals, but their predators, poisoning the entire ecosystem.

Second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) were created because earlier poisons stopped working as rodents developed resistance. These toxins cause the mouse or rat to slowly bleed internally over several days. The animal often becomes weak, disoriented, thirsty, and unable to escape danger while suffering a prolonged and cruel death. These more toxic poisons remain in the rodent's body, turning them into a toxic meal. When an owl, hawk, fox, or other predator catches what should be natural prey, they unknowingly consume the poison as well. These predators then experience the same slow internal bleeding, weakness, starvation, and vulnerability. There are many reports of wildlife rehabilitators seeing these animals. We can only imagine how many suffer and die without us ever knowing. Poisons are destroying nature's way of controlling rodents. We cannot keep turning our forests and fields into chemical killing grounds. Wildlife and ecosystems deserve better. We all deserve better.

I support this bill. It would prohibit the use of certain rodenticides to control small rodents like mice. But then these dead mice are eaten by other animals and birds and die a horrible death. Let these wild animals control the small rodent populations outdoors.

When we moved into our home in Derry, we’re were dismayed to find that it had been infested with mice. Mouse droppings under the kitchen counters, on top of the dishwasher, behind the stove, and all throughout our lower level in the drop ceiling. Do such a level of infestation, we did the only thing we thought was right: we called a pest control company. They came out, sealed up holes outside, and put in 5 “bait stations.” I told them I was concerned about poison, as I knew that it was a painful death for the mouse and could potentially affect wildlife if the mice got out of the house. I was completely brushed off. When we got a cat, I revisited this question with the company. Again, I was told that the poison is such low levels, and that indoor cats don’t “eat mice, they just catch them” that this would be zero concern for our pet. They also added outdoor bait stations. Well, within a month of having the outdoor station, we had a dead chipmunk laying out in the driveway. We saw another one just a few weeks later. The bait stations are heavily visited, and I KNoW that this is very bad for the wildlife population, even though the company continues to insist that poison is the only way. I’d argue it’s just the cheapest/easiest way. With poison, it’s on the owner to clean up the mess, the stench of death, and deal with the guilt. If professional pest control companies can’t come up with anything more creative than just adding more and more poison stations, then they aren’t a very good company, in my opinion. I’m looking forward to removing all our bait stations and putting out old fashioned traps instead. Please, ban poisons that hurt our wildlife, and make pest control companies work harder to ensure a healthy home environment!

I am an avid nature photographer. I moved with my family to New Hampshire a little over a year ago, making a cross-country trip of 3,200 miles to settle in Plymouth. We love the pristine lakes, magnificent deer, grandiose moose (my gosh, they are big!) and other beautiful wildlife species. It is delightful to witness wildlife, God's creatures, undisturbed and thriving in their native habitats. We certainly don't want that to ever change! Before moving to New England, I was a wildlife rehabilitator in San Jose, California. At the Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley, we rescued, rehabbed and released animals back into the wild. Those who were too sick or injured to survive in the wild, we cared for in our center. I witnessed too many foxes, owls and even eagles who had been poisoned by eating rodents who were killed by pesticides. They were brought to WCSV already dying. Did you know the #1 Worst Way to Die is by Poisoning? It's a slow, painful, agonizing death. My former state, California, banned a widely used rodenticide in early 2024. There's no reason why New Hampshire can't do that too. Make it this year! You have the opportunity to make a change for the better. Please keep our beautiful wildlife safe from this deadly toxin, SGAR, and SUPPORT HB 1018. We sincerely thank you!

SGARs are doing harm to our shared ecology and natural world we depend on and treasure here in NH. Although that harm may now be to smaller mammals and raptors, the harm will come around to us if un-checked. This bill is a reasonable measure to curb that harm.

I am a science writer who has spent my career writing about animals and the environment, and in this I have personally witnessed the damage rodenticides do to pets and wildlife--and potentially to children. Please restrict these dangerous toxins. They are deadly and unnecessary. Though there are certainly exceptions, many folks who rely on rodenticides are simply slobs who won't clean up their own garbage. Why should innocent wildlife pay the price for their laziness?