Subcommittee declines to advance HB 1351 banning adhesive rodent traps, urges education and IPM outreach

A subcommittee of the Environment and Agriculture committee voted to not recommend advancing HB 1351, a proposal to prohibit the sale and use of adhesive-based (glue) rodent traps, and instead asked the department responsible for pest management to expand educational outreach.

The panel’s discussion, which centered on safety, enforcement and alternatives, concluded with a motion to not recommend the bill that passed on a voice vote. The committee also asked the department to include information about proper glue-trap use (restricted to enclosed spaces) and about nonlethal rodent contraception in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) materials.

The subcommittee opened by recalling that testimony at an earlier hearing established the problem of non-target animals being trapped but also raised concerns that the bill’s proposed ban would be difficult to implement and could have unintended market effects. Speaker 1, who led the session, summarized the earlier interim-study process and the options under consideration.

Members discussed three thrusts: labeling or point-of-sale warnings; continuing to allow limited use of glue traps in enclosed settings such as food-service or agricultural buildings; and promoting nonlethal alternatives, including a rodent-contraceptive bait sold commercially. A committee member read suggested point-of-sale language that would warn that “blue traps are known to entrap and kill unintended wildlife and pets” and that “use of this product may incur legal liabilities.”

Several members said mandatory labeling has previously driven manufacturers to stop selling products in the state and cautioned that labels alone can be ineffective without enforcement. “Requiring any labeling on any product will essentially prohibit that product from the state,” one member said, citing past experience with mandatory labeling efforts.

Committee members also described nonlethal contraception as an emerging tool. One participant noted a product from a company called SenesTech that is marketed as a nonlethal, fertility-control bait and said it is already sold online and beginning to appear at hardware and farm stores. Supporters of pursuing education said contraception could be a complementary tool in a broader mitigation strategy that emphasizes sanitation and exclusion.

Opponents and cautious members raised ecological and practicality concerns. Some said contraception could reduce food available to raptors and other predators, and others noted that contraception’s effectiveness depends on rodents consistently consuming the bait and is not an immediate population-reduction method. The Audubon Society and a Fish and Game representative were cited as opposed to glue traps because of bycatch and secondary-poisoning risks.

Given those competing considerations, the subcommittee moved to not recommend HB 1351 for further legislation. The motion was made by Speaker 6 and seconded by Representative Howard; the voice vote carried. The approved recommendation to the full committee was twofold: do not advance the ban at this time, and ask the department to include information about contraception and proper glue-trap use in IPM training and public materials.

The session closed after the vote. The department and specific operational details (including exact materials or deadlines for outreach) were not specified in the subcommittee action.