Committee hears testimony on rodenticide risks, wildlife exposure and non‑poison alternatives

At a hearing of the Agriculture, Food Resiliency & Forestry Committee, agency staff and outside witnesses reviewed the risks of rodenticides, recent state restrictions and non‑poison alternatives. Steve (agency presenter) summarized rodent biology, use reporting and the state’s post‑2024 rules for restricted products while witnesses urged the committee to back tighter controls.

Why it matters: Witnesses said rodents pose disease and food‑safety threats to people and vehicles and can cause property and agricultural damage, while rodenticides can cause secondary poisoning of predators, pets and children. Katie Nolan, wild animals campaigner at In Defense of Animals, testified that “rodenticides don't only impact rodents” and cited Vermont Fish & Wildlife testing she said found near‑universal detection of rodenticides in tested fisher carcasses and 21 of 29 bobcats testing positive.

Agency overview and data: The presenter identified the two commensal species at issue (house mouse and Norway rat) and stressed their rapid reproduction. He said reporting by certified applicators shows relatively low totals of active ingredient at the statewide level because each bait unit contains a very small concentration; for example, the presenter stated that “the total amount reported used is just a little over a pound” of a sample anticoagulant active ingredient statewide in 2024. He also described product classes—first‑generation anticoagulants, second‑generation anticoagulants and non‑anticoagulants—and noted that, as a result of 2024 legislation, second‑generation anticoagulants in Vermont are classified for state restricted use and may be purchased and applied only by certified applicators and dealers.

Wildlife exposure and limits of current stewardship: The presenter and multiple members pointed to Vermont Fish & Wildlife data and outside scientific reviews showing wildlife exposure occurs most often at urban/suburban‑wildland interfaces. He cautioned that bait stations alone have not eliminated wildlife exposures because poisoned rodents may be eaten by predators, producing secondary poisoning in raptors and carnivores.

Alternatives and trade‑offs: Witnesses and committee members discussed integrated pest management (monitoring devices, detection blocks, exclusion and sanitation), electronic monitors used by some commercial firms, and the labor and cost trade‑offs of trapping or structural exclusion. Katie Nolan highlighted non‑poison approaches and described an Olson Grain Mills case study that reported a 95% reduction in finished‑product losses and an 83% reduction in rodent population using a botanical fertility‑control approach; she said she would provide contact and study details to the committee.

Questions and next steps: Committee members questioned witnesses about comparative effectiveness, specific active ingredients in alternative products, and whether carcass testing cited by witnesses reflected conditions after the 2024 changes and bait‑station requirements; one committee member noted some carcass samples cited by witnesses were collected before the 2024 rule changes. The committee paused for a break and scheduled testimony from the Chamber of Commerce and other stakeholders to follow.

The hearing record shows the committee received technical briefings from agency staff and public testimony advocating both for stewardship and for exploring non‑poison alternatives. The committee did not take a formal vote during the recorded segments; additional testimony and questions are planned before further action.