A proposed ban on second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides used as a controversial rodent control method did not move forward during this year’s legislative session in Connecticut, but animal and environmental activists are not giving up.
Activists had championed a bill to ban the use of the particular rodenticide due to rising reports of other animals, from eagles to foxes, ingesting the poison and dying.
The SGARs, as they are commonly known, are highly deadly and easily ingested by raptors and mammals like foxes, opossums, squirrels, dogs and cats.
SGARs take between two and 10 days to stop the body’s vitamin K production and for the effects of the poison set in, during which animals become disoriented and confused with dulled senses and a lethargic or “drunk,” behavior. Their blood thins and even a small cut can become deadly.
During this time, other animals are ingesting poisoned rats and mice and being poisoned themselves.
There’s rat poison that kills eagles, hawks, pets, in a ‘horrific way.’ CT to try to limit or ban it
Once an animal ingests the SGAR, whether it be the intended target or not, the animal is slowly bleeding to death internally, said Christine Cummings, who works at Killingworth-based raptor rehabilitation center A Place Called Hope.
“Owls, eagles, and hawks are not only dying from internal bleeding after consuming poisoned rodents, they are being sickened, making them vulnerable to other causes of death such as vehicular collisions,” said Nicole Rivard, editor-in-chief of Darien-based Friends of Animals.
The death of a bald eagle from a suspected rodenticide poisoning last April renewed cries from advocates and conservationists to ban the commonly used rat and mice killer. A bill was introduced this year to implement the ban. It made it out of committee but did not go to the Connecticut General Assembly for a vote.
State Rep. Joe Gresko, D-Stratford, House Chair of the Environment Committee, said that due to budget limitations the rodenticide proposal was attached to another bill. After getting opposition from multiple directions — including farmers, agricultural advocates and those concerned with an increase of rats in urban areas — Gresko made the decision to withdraw the amendment.
State Sen. Christine Cohen, D, said lawmakers who sponsored the bill “had set out to establish a ban and unfortunately we’ve had a real uphill battle — an unexpected uphill battle.”
“There are other states that have done this and we’ve already made this a restricted use pesticide,” she said. But banning it outright has proved a challenge.
SGARs faced an outright ban in the Connecticut General Assembly last year, but when the bill moved out of committee the language instead proposed to move SGARs into a “restricted use” category — still allowing certified applicators in the pest control field to use them.
“That would mean that the 300-plus people who are licensed to use these poisons would be able to continue using them throughout the state,” said Rivard.
Gresko agreed that limiting use would not solve the problem of other animals being killed.
“The use by licensed professionals is still having the end cause of killing unintended victims,” said Gresko.
“The problem still would have persisted, in my mind,” he said. “So we decided not to take the compromise and to go with the ban again for next year.”
Rivard, who has worked to promote the bill, said in a statement to supporters that a decision was made in early May “ to let the legislation die, rather than be compromised” this session.
Gresko and Cohen said they were first inspired to push for this ban after hearing about what Cummings was experiencing while she tended to raptors who ingested rodents who had consumed SGARs.
Cummings said that in 2015, she and her colleagues started to notice an uptick in poisoning that they found harder to treat.
“We were not as successful at treating or reversing what was happening to these birds with an anticoagulant.”
Second-generation anticoagulants use more potent ingredients and were just too deadly, she said. The birds were having fatal heart attacks, their hearts were filling up with blood or they were having seizures until they died.
“They come in actively dying,” she said of the animals she tried to treat after they had ingested SGARs. “The damage is too far gone, their bodies are too far gone and we can’t reverse it.
“All of our predatory wildlife is suffering,” she said.
Cummings said that the spike in dying birds of prey was starling and heartbreaking, so she decided to take action.
“I see what everybody else can unsee, the consequences from using these second generation anticoagulants,” she said.
She thought: “Here I am cradling the aftermath, these birds are dying in my arms, maybe I’m supposed to do something.”
In 2020, she started having dead birds of prey tested to see if they had been poisoned. Since then, she and her team have sent out 79 birds for testing and 68 have tested positive for SGARs.
Rivard said that during a debate on the ban this session it became clear that there was opposition that would thwart an outright ban. The opposition was hard to hear, she said, but now she and other advocates “feel we have a better roadmap to avoid pitfalls this year.”
That map, she said, starts with a “thinking outside the black bait box,” campaign aimed at communities represented by “legislators who we feel like stood up and kind of torpedoed the bill.”
Now, she said, activists are going to launch educational campaigns in communities represented by lawmakers who spoke out at the debate in support of SGARs or against banning them.
“They have blood on their hands, because we feel if you don’t support banning SGAR then you do support animal cruelty,” she said. “These animals are being brought in convulsing and dying … and that is animal cruelty.
“We’ve seen where there is more work to be done. We need these residents to turn around and convince their legislators that we need to support this next year,” she said.
Rivard said that advocates do not feel discouraged by this year’s failure but are hopeful for the future.
“Even though it’s disappointing, it’s better not to pass something that doesn’t result in real meaningful action to protect Connecticut’s wildlife,” she said.
“We feel uplifted because we once again have commitment from the senate and house leadership to make this a priority next year,” she said. “While it was disappointing I do feel like it’s going to be an unstoppable effort in 2025.”
Cohen and Gresko both said they will continue the fight, with concerns only growing about the impact on animals, the environment and even humans.
New rat and mice birth control can be used as alternatives to SGARs. The rat and mice birth controls can help limit populations with all-natural methods instead of toxic ingredients that can poison unintentional targets.
Gresko said Bushnell Park has already had some success using the sterilization food — food that rats eat that then prevents them from reproducing. Rivard said a pilot program for birth control is expected to launch soon in Fairfield and she is excited to see parts of the state explore new avenues.
“You can protect wildlife from poisons without compromising public health,” Rivard said.
Rivard said that she and other advocates have been working to promote a bill banning SGARs for years now but do not feel defeated.
“Each year it’s gotten further and further,” she said. “You have to feel proud that you’re moving the needle to ban SGARs at least we’re doing something, because a few years ago nothing was being done and now we’re getting there. It will definitely happen.
“We’re not going to stop until it’s on the governor’s desk and it’s signed.”
Cohen echoed her sentiment of pushing forward to make the ban a reality.
“We’re not giving up, she said. “We’ve done a good job of raising awareness on this issue and each time we’re getting a little bit closer to getting this ban into place.”
Most Popular
Comments / 0