Prohibits the sale of certain high-risk rodenticides to buyers who are not licensed applicators or registered agricultural operations, requiring point-of-sale verification and setting civil penalties for violations.
limiting consumer access to certain high-risk rodenticides.
HB1676 would prohibit retail sale of certain high-risk second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) to anyone not licensed or registered with the state, while continuing to allow their use by licensed pesticide applicators. Most support comes from those who argue these poisons move up the food chain and are killing raptors, foxes, fishers and pets, and that restricting sales to trained, licensed users will reduce that harm. Most opposition, notably, does not come from defenders of unrestricted rodenticide use — it comes from those who argue the bill doesn't go far enough, contending it would hand the pest-control industry a profitable monopoly on SGARs while professional application still causes the same wildlife poisoning; a smaller group of agricultural/industry submitters instead argues existing state pesticide regulation is already sufficient.
The dominant support argument is that SGARs kill rodents that are then eaten by raptors, foxes, fishers, and other predators, causing widespread secondary poisoning and population decline; restricting consumer access is described as necessary to protect these species.
“This is becoming the DDT of our generation -- wildlife are being killed by the indiscriminate use of these toxins.”
— Rosemary Conroy, Francestown · #626280 — read full submission →
“The poison has a long life from rodent to weasel to fisher or coyote or owl or hawk or eagle. All of these animals die because we allow these rodenticides to be used”
— Christine Schadler, Webster · #617015 — read full submission →
Some submitters emphasize that ordinary consumers lack the training to safely use or store these toxic chemicals, and support restricting sale to licensed, trained applicators for that reason.
A number of submitters note that cats and dogs are also harmed or killed after eating poisoned rodents, and cite this as an additional reason to restrict consumer access.
The dominant opposition argument holds that restricting only consumer/retail sales while leaving licensed pest-control companies free to use SGARs would shift use to profit-driven commercial bait-station contracts, potentially increasing wildlife poisoning rather than reducing it; many submitters want all use of these poisons banned or curtailed, not just consumer access.
“We oppose HB 1676 because it would hand the industry a monopoly and expand its market by shifting rodenticide use from homeowners to pest control operators.”
— Jacqueline Calhoun, Plymouth · #627563 — read full submission →
“Banning the sale of SGARs is not enough. This bill would give the pest control industry exclusive use of SGARs (and other rodenticides), leading to more wildlife poisoning, not less.”
— Brianne Hinchliffe, Jaffrey · #620073 — read full submission →
“The pest control industry profits from fear-based "rodent control" through long-term contracts that keep outdoor bait stations endlessly refilled.”
— Stephanie Rinehart-Joseph, Nashua · #619779 — read full submission →
A small number of submitters, including an agricultural trade group and a licensed applicator, argue that pesticide sale and use are already appropriately regulated by the NH Pesticide Control Board and Division of Pesticide Control, and that this bill is unnecessary or misdirected.
“the sale and use of pesticides should be regulated through the exiting authority granted by the Legislature to the expertise of the NH Department of Agriculture's Division of Pesticide Control and the Pesticide Control Board.”
— Robert Johnson, II, Concord · #628063 — read full submission →
“the regulation of pesticides in New Hampshire should be done by the Pesticide Control Board and the NH Division of Pesticide Control. I ask that you determine this Bill ITL.”
— Chuck Souther, Concord · #618731 — read full submission →
Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 22, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.
It's time for New Hampshire to work towards the use of more humane alternatives to control rodent populations. And those who apply these should be trained, and licensed or registered. It's also time to minimize the poisons used in our environment, and harming wildlife. Rodents like squirrels, and the animals that prey on them are an important part of a healthy forest ecosystem and part of our state's natural heritage. Thank you.
SGARS should be banned from pest control use!
Dear Madam Chair and Members of the House Environment and Agriculture Committee: Farm Bureau opposes HB 1676. Again we stress that due to the complexity of pesticides and their use, the sale and use of pesticides should be regulated through the exiting authority granted by the Legislature to the expertise of the NH Department of Agriculture's Division of Pesticide Control and the Pesticide Control Board. See RSA 430:31 below. We thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rob Johnson, Policy Director/Administrator Pesticide Control Board 430:31 Board Responsibility and Authority. – The board shall: I. Establish policies and goals relative to the sale and use of pesticides. II. Hold hearings concerned with rulemaking where required by RSA 541-A:11. The board may, in its discretion, hold hearings, issue notices of hearings, and take testimony in situations where a person may be aggrieved by a decision of the division concerning the issuance of permits and certificates of registration, administrative penalties levied pursuant to RSA 430:42, VII and RSA 430:45, III, and the issuance of orders pursuant to RSA 430:42, II and V. II-a. Receive and address requests from any member of the public for a hearing before the board. III. Receive and allocate federal grants and other funds or gifts for the purpose of carrying out any of the functions of this subdivision. IV. Adopt rules under RSA 541-A with concurrence from the division of pesticide control after public hearing relative to: (a) The time, the place, and the conditions under which pesticides may be used in different areas of the state if the board finds that such pesticides may be injurious to persons, animals, or crops, other than the pest or vegetation which it is intended to destroy, and may provide that pesticides shall be used only under permit of the board. (b) The conditions and designation of the vicinities for aircraft application of pesticides. (c) An annual permit authorizing the repeated commercial applications of pesticides under a contract calling for applications of pesticides by several crews either at the same or different times, subject to the initial approval by the division of the methods and materials used. An example of this is the application of pesticides to a high tension electric line right of way. (d) Development and administration of a state plan for certification of pesticide applicators pursuant to section 4(a)(2) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. (e) Restrictions or prohibitions pertaining to the sale or use, or both, by commercial applicators or any other person of pesticides which the board finds to be injurious or reasonably likely to be injurious to man or other living things other than those the pesticides are intended to control. (f) The types of commercial establishments where particular pesticides may be sold. (g) Conditions and procedures under which a public hearing shall be held prior to consideration of a request for a special permit for the aerial application of pesticides in residential neighborhoods. (h) Establishing standards for the packages, containers, and wrappers of pesticides registered for local needs. Such rules shall be consistent with the regulations promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section 25(c)(3) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. (i) The collection, examination, and reporting of samples of pesticides. (j) The safe handling, transportation, and disposal of pesticides and their containers. (k) Labeling requirements of all pesticides required to be registered under the provisions of this subdivision; provided that such rules shall not impose any requirements for federally registered labels in addition to or different from those required pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. (l) Determining which pesticides with restricted uses or state restricted uses be distributed only by licensed pesticide dealers. (m) Procedures for the appeal process provided under RSA 430:44. (n) Criteria for eligibility for, and the limits on the use of, certificates of registration for commercial applicators, private applicators, and commercial applicators for hire. (o) Means to determine competency and ability of applicators to use pesticides in accordance with standards of the board. (p) Amounts of financial responsibility required of pesticide applicators, recordkeeping requirements and any other conditions that the board may require relative to criteria for licensing or issuance of permits, or renewal of said documents. (q) Development and administration of a state plan concerning the regulation of pesticide products for special local needs, pursuant to section 24(c) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended. (r) Information required in support of requests to register pesticides. (s) Requirements necessary for the state plan to receive authorization from the United States Environmental Protection Agency to issue experimental use permits. (t) Limit or prohibit the use of any pesticide for which an experimental use permit has been issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to section 5(a) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended, and which the board finds may cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment. (u) The coloration, or discoloration of pesticides to protect the public health. (v) In order to avoid confusion endangering the public health, resulting from diverse requirements, particularly as to the labeling and coloring of economic poisons, to avoid increased costs to the people of this state due to the necessity of complying with such diverse requirements in the manufacture and sale of such poisons, and to secure uniformity between the requirements of the several states and the federal government relating to such poisons, after due public hearing, to adopt by rule such regulations applicable to and in conformity with the primary standards established by this subdivision, as have been or may be prescribed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency with respect to pesticides. (w) The rules required by RSA 430:33; RSA 430:34; RSA 430:35; RSA 430:39 and RSA 430:41. (x) Development and administration of state management plans to protect groundwater from pesticide contamination, for pesticides that are classified as general use, restricted-use, or both under the federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act section 3(d)(1)(C)(ii) subject to restrictions under United States Environmental Protection Agency approved management plans funded through the fund established in RSA 430:34, V. (y) The issuance of any order by the division pursuant to RSA 430:42, II concerning a violation of any provision of this subdivision or violation of any permit or certificate of registration issued under this subdivision. V. Advise the commissioner of agriculture, markets, and food with respect to the administration and enforcement of this chapter. VI. File a report annually with the senate president and speaker of the house of representatives, for distribution to all state legislators, regarding the policies and goals of the board and the enforcement of this subdivision.
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.
Given the ecologically disruptive potential of these materials and the expertise needed to mitigate that potential, access and deployment restrictions are prudent and warranted.
Before our family moved to New England just over a year ago, 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 peregrine falcons 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. California banned a commonly used rodenticide in early 2024. The legislators didn't waste time talking about "restriction" but knew that would be pointless in the face of widespread use by pest control companies. We oppose HB 1676 because it would hand the industry a monopoly and expand its market by shifting rodenticide use from homeowners to pest control operators. What these pest control companies call “responsible use” has led us exactly here — indiscriminate outdoor baiting, killing wildlife and poisoning our food chain! You have the opportunity to make a real change for the better. Please keep our beautiful wildlife here in New Hampshire safe from this deadly SGAR and OPPOSE HB 1676. We thank you for safeguarding wildlife and the public.
Please oppose this dangerous legislation which would lead to more wildlife poisonings. Thank you
I fully support this bill! Too many people purchase items that kill rodents without thinking about the fact that they also kill things that eat those rodents. Eagles, Hawks, Cats and Dogs!
Poor people need to have good and sufficient food.
I support HB1676 because limiting consumer access to high-risk rodenticides reduces accidental poisonings and protects wildlife, pets, and families. This is a practical harm-reduction measure that promotes safer pest-control practices.
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 oppose Bill HB 1676 that would allow pest control companies to use rodenticides. I support a rodenticide-free NH!
Please ITL HB 1676 These chemicals should not be introduced into the environment by anyone. Please protect our land, water, air - our ecosystems on which our lives belong.
I oppose 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. They should be banned for both personal and commercial use.
It is highly likely that making SGARs “restricted use,” as HB 1676 proposes, would lead to more wildlife poisoning, not less. Fear-based “rodent control” is highly profitable: long-term contracts mean endlessly refilled outdoor bait stations and steady revenue for pest control companies and poison manufacturers. I oppose HB 1676 because it would hand the industry a monopoly and expand its market by shifting rodenticide use from homeowners to pest control operators. What pest control companies call “responsible use” has led us exactly here — widespread, ongoing outdoor baiting, poisoning the food chain.
I have been a naturalist, writer and wildlife artist for 20 years. I moved to NH 35 years ago to attend graduate school and stayed here because I loved how wild and beautiful this state is. I am so distressed by what rodenticides are doing to our predator populations. And it is not just here, but across the world! This is becoming the DDT of our generation -- wildlife are being killed by the indiscriminate use of these toxins. We have a responsibility to do the right thing and stop this in its tracks before it is too late. When I moved here 3 decades ago, ospreys and bald eagles were rare in the state and eventually recovered because we had stopped using DDT. Nature is resilient but we can't keep messing around with poisons and expect anything but similar bad outcomes. Please save our state's wildlife and prevent the sale of these awful chemicals. There are better ways to deal with these problems.
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.
Anticoagulant rodenticides pose an unacceptable risk to domestic animals, pets, and most importantly, our local predators. Local predators are the most effective, most important control mechanism for rodent infestation. Please promote a healthy ecosystem - keep anticoagulant rodenticides out of NH.
Please support!
Second generation anticoagulant rodenticides are destroying natures natural ability to take care of the rodent population. Not only is it immensely cruel to our wildlife and harmful to our ecosystems, it is extremely irresponsible to support the destruction of the very attributes that make New Hampshire so magnificent. Please let our wildlife and ecosystems flourish the way nature intended by opposing HB 1676.
Please defeat HB 1676 to ban the pest control industry from having exclusive use of SGARs so more unintended animals don’t have to die a slow and painful death. Thank you.
These chemicals pose a real threat to wildlife and should be used only when necessary. Restrictions are needed.
It shows a hearing on HB1742 but it is not in the draw down menu so I am voting against 1742 here.
I am writing to express my strong opposition to HB 1676. This bill would give the pest control industry exclusive use of SGARs (second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides) and other lethal chemicals for rodent poisoning. While federal law bans the retail sale of SGARs, these poisons remain legal and are already used by local pest control companies for example JP Pest, Mosquito Joe, Cornerstone Pest Control, and Fox Pest Control. How is it that there are experts that serve NH like Best Way Wildlife Control, Banner Pest Control, North Shore Wildlife, Heart Wildlife Removal, New England Wildlife Control that provide effective, humane, poison-free methods for pest control? Please consider, these poisons pose serious threats not only to rodents but also to pets, wildlife, and even children through accidental exposure. Once introduced, a poison becomes an artificial, potentially lethal part of the food chain and can irreversibly harm delicate ecosystems. Speaking specifically about “wild” predators common to farming communities like Hollis which include owls, foxes, hawks, eagles and more.. These 'predators' keep the ecosystems in balance, but rodent poison kills thousands of these animals in New Hampshire each year. By opposing this bill, you will help protect our communities, like Hollis, as well as the environment while encouraging safer and more humane methods of rodent control. I urge you to oppose this legislation. Imagine a healthy, functioning food web in which every participant remains poison free. Thank you for your attention and commitment to public and environmental safety.
Opposition to HB 1676 – limiting consumer access to certain high-risk rodenticides Members of the Environment and Agriculture Committee, I am writing to urge you to oppose House Bill HB 1676, which would prohibit the sale of certain rodenticides to persons not licensed or registered with the department of agriculture, markets, and food. This bill would give the pest control industry exclusive use of SGARs (and other rodenticides), leading to more wildlife poisoning, not less. Making these poisons “restricted use,” as HB 1676 proposes, could potentially lead to more wildlife poisoning, not less. Pest control companies cause the most harm and they will continue doing so with the help of this bill. The pest control industry’s increasing reliance on rodent control contracts has driven the widespread use of rodenticides. Fear-based “rodent control” is highly profitable and long-term contracts mean endlessly refilled outdoor bait stations and steady revenue for pest control companies and poison manufacturers like Bell Labs. I oppose HB 1676 because it would hand the industry a monopoly and expand its market by shifting rodenticide use from homeowners to pest control operators. What pest control companies call “responsible use” has led us exactly here—widespread, ongoing outdoor baiting, poisoning the food chain, versus responsible and thoughtful planning and management. I respectfully ask you to vote in opposition to HB 1676. Thank you for your time, your service, and your commitment to the health and safety of New Hampshire’s people, pets, and wildlife. Respectfully, Bill Nesbitt 76 North Rd Shelburne, NH 03581
Rodent poison doesn’t just kill mice— it also kills the animals who eat them. Owls, foxes, bobcats, and other predators routinely ingest poisoned rodents, leading to internal bleeding and slow, agonizing deaths. These animals would naturally control mice if not poisoned.