Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pesticide Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated testimony as committee weighs restricting rodenticide sales to licensed applicators
Summary
The committee heard hours of testimony for and against HB1676, which would limit sales of first‑ and second‑generation anticoagulant rodenticides to licensed or registered applicators. Wildlife and conservation groups urged the restriction to reduce secondary poisoning; industry and farm groups urged rulemaking or opposed statutory limits. The Department of Agriculture recommended using the pesticide control board’s rulemaking authority.
House Bill 1676, which would restrict sales of specified anticoagulant rodenticides to licensed or registered applicators, drew extensive and sometimes sharply divergent testimony at the Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing.
Lede: Representative Barber, one of the bill sponsors, told the panel the measure is intended to reduce secondary poisoning of raptors, carnivores and pets by limiting consumer access to highly persistent anticoagulant rodenticides and ensuring that products are handled by trained applicators.
Why it matters: Proponents — including New Hampshire Fish and Game, New Hampshire Audubon and wildlife rehabilitators — said evidence shows widespread bioaccumulation and direct mortality among raptors and other species and that restricting sales would concentrate use in trained hands. Dan Berron of the Fish and Game wildlife division said preliminary regional testing found exposure in a high percentage of sampled carnivores and raptors and that reducing landscape exposure is a priority for wildlife health.
Opposition and process questions: Opponents ranged from grassroots groups that favor an outright ban to industry groups and farm organizations who said statutory sales restrictions are either insufficient or the wrong tool. Kayn Greyber of Rodenticide Free New Hampshire argued the bill could entrench industry reliance on anticoagulants and urged stronger labeling, alternatives and a full ban. Angela Brennan, representing the Household and Commercial Products Association, said the bill would limit consumer access to affordable products and urged collaboration.
Regulatory alternative: David Rouso of the Department of Agriculture and the Division of Pesticide Control told the committee the department supports restricting second‑generation anticoagulants but recommended that specifics be set through rulemaking by the Pesticide Control Board (RSA 430), which has enforcement, recordkeeping and penalty mechanisms in place; the board is actively considering restricting second‑generation products, Rouso said.
Industry perspective: Adam Karach of the New England Pest Management Association and local pest control owners supported the legislation as a pragmatic way to keep high‑risk products in trained hands and to create a model other states could replicate, noting federal action from the EPA has been slower than hoped.
Outcome and next steps: The committee closed the public hearing after a lengthy record of pro, con and technical testimony. No final committee vote on HB1676 was recorded in the transcript excerpt; Department and board stakeholders indicated the Pesticide Control Board remains a likely forum for detailed regulatory restrictions should the committee prefer rulemaking.
Representative Barber emphasized the bill’s goal of regional harmonization: ‘‘By making this bill a statute, it makes it possible for it to be replicated by our neighboring states,’’ he said. Those considering next steps will weigh wildlife health evidence, industry and farm needs, and the procedural tradeoffs between statute and administrative rulemaking.
