New Hampshire committee hears push to curb powerful rodenticides while preserving professional access
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers and witnesses debated two bills to reduce wildlife and pet poisonings from second‑generation anticoagulant rodenticides. Conservation groups urged a ban; industry and agriculture officials urged restricting consumer access and leaving trained applicators able to use products for severe infestations or public‑health needs.
Lawmakers on the Environment and Agriculture Committee heard hours of testimony on HB 1018 and a companion bill, HB 1676, aimed at reducing the use of certain high‑risk rodenticides while preserving tools for licensed professionals.
Representative Catherine Harvey, sponsor of HB 1018, told the committee the poisons cause extended suffering for target animals and persistent secondary poisoning of predators. "It's a very painful and slow death," she said, and cited necropsy results and rehabilitation caseloads to press for restrictions on products that contain several specified active ingredients.
New Hampshire Fish and Game reported widespread exposure in wildlife. Dan Bergeron, chief of Fish and Game's wildlife division, said tests of fox and fisher found rodenticide residues in 34 of 35 animals sampled and noted a multi‑year study of fisher declines that is examining rodenticide exposure among possible causes. Bergeron told the panel the department supports measures that reduce landscape‑scale exposure while allowing narrowly tailored exceptions for public‑health uses.
Conservation groups and rehabbers offered concrete counts of injured raptors and other wildlife brought for treatment; New Hampshire Audubon referenced dozens of local cases and cautioned that reported incidents likely understate the scale of exposure.
Industry representatives and the pest‑management trade urged a narrower approach. Adam Caracci, state policy affairs representative for the New England Pest Management Association, said licensed applicators use integrated pest management (IPM) practices and are trained and regulated by the Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food. He warned that an outright ban could impede responses to severe infestations in multifamily housing, food processing facilities and other settings where alternate tools and repeated trap visits may be impractical. "Removing access for trained professionals does not eliminate the need for rodent control," he said.
Department of Agriculture officials and the Pesticide Control Board described enforcement activity and said the board can restrict certain products under existing regulatory authority. David Russo of the division of pesticide control said zinc phosphide is already state‑restricted; Commissioner Sean Jasper said restricting outdoor consumer access while preserving licensed use, or leaving detailed implementation to the board, were options the department could support.
Several public commenters — homeowners, grassroots organizers and wildlife rehabilitators — urged stricter limits. Speakers described house‑scale misuse (bucket purchases and open baiting) and urged measures to keep the most toxic anticoagulant products out of general circulation.
The committee’s HB 1676 would limit retail sale of a list of high‑risk rodenticides to licensed or registered applicators and dealers, including certified pest professionals and registered agricultural operators. Industry witnesses signaled support for that approach and suggested narrowly tailored carve‑outs for non‑anticoagulant acute rodenticides so homeowners retain some options. Conservation witnesses said dealer‑only sales and license checks address improper consumer use while keeping applicators accountable.
What happens next: the committee did not vote on either bill in the hearing. Sponsors and agency staff indicated they expect follow‑up language and potential amendments to clarify exceptions and enforcement mechanisms, including whether specific active ingredients should stay on the restricted list or be handled by Pesticide Control Board rulemaking.
