Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pesticides Rodenticides topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears bill to restrict anticoagulant rodenticides in Vermont
Summary
Legislators and counsel described H.326, a short-form bill that would ban first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, limit some other rodenticides near wildlife areas and create exemption and rulemaking authorities; lawmakers requested additional expert testimony and noted enforcement and cross-border-sale challenges.
Representative Sakowitz, sponsor of H.326, told the House Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry Committee that the short-form bill "would greatly restrict the use of anticoagulant rodenticides in the state." The proposal, as explained by committee counsel Mike Grable, would ban both first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, prohibit Internet sales of those products and allow narrow exemptions for situations where no effective alternatives exist.
Nut graf: The bill aims to reduce human, pet and wildlife poisonings and bioaccumulation of rodenticides in Vermont by narrowing legal uses of widely available products and empowering state agencies to set sensitive-area restrictions and exemptions. Supporters urged the committee to hear technical witnesses on wildlife impacts and alternative pest controls; several lawmakers raised enforcement and cross-border-purchase concerns.
Provisions and intent: Representative Sakowitz said the bill targets consumer and commercial uses of anticoagulant rodenticides because the poisons are "highly toxic" and often cause slow, painful deaths in target animals, and because they can harm children, pets and predators such as hawks and owls when they move up the food chain. Grable, the committee counsel, summarized the draft as follows: "the bill would ban both first and second generation anticoagulant rodenticides in the state, including by commercial applicators." He said the measure also would restrict use of other legal rodenticides such as bromethalin or bromethalon near wildlife refuges, state parks and other ecologically sensitive areas and would likely give the Department of Fish and Wildlife rulemaking authority to define those zones.
Exemptions and enforcement: Both proponents and several committee members noted the bill includes exemption authority for instances when no other effective control exists, and counsel said that is typical for pesticide bans to allow response to pest outbreaks. Lawmakers raised enforcement difficulties with Internet sales and cross-border purchases; Grable said registration systems and spot checks can limit retail sales but that policing remote sales is "probably the hardest thing for them to police right now." Several members urged the committee to seek agency and producer testimony to clarify use cases and how growers (for example, tree-fruit producers) currently protect crops from rodent damage.
Evidence cited and expert requests: Committee members referenced studies and prior testimony indicating detection of rodenticides in wildlife. Representative Lipsky and others cited an agency study they described as showing a substantial proportion of sampled fish tested positive for rodenticides; Representative Zachary said carcass testing showed high detection rates in fishers found dead. Members suggested inviting staff from the Agency of Agriculture, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, University of Vermont extension or orchard specialists, and other experts to explain alternatives, application methods (bait stations, licensed applicators) and the scope of documented wildlife impacts.
Context and related regulatory steps: Counsel noted that last year the committee moved to restrict second-generation anticoagulants to licensed applicators and that the EPA has acted to remove some second-generation products from consumer shelves; H.326 would extend prohibitions further and address first-generation consumer products that remain available in hardware stores. Lawmakers also noted jurisdictional limits: state law gives the Agency of Agriculture authority over pesticide regulation, and delegating regulation to municipalities or other entities is a broader policy question.
Next steps: Committee members agreed to pursue additional testimony and information. Representative Sakowitz asked that the committee "take it up and give it some more attention," and members recommended inviting agency staff and producers to a future hearing to clarify technical details, exemption criteria and enforcement options.
Ending: The committee paused discussion to schedule follow-up testimony and additional review of H.326. No formal vote or committee action was recorded during the session.
