Poisons Used to Kill Rodents Have Safer Alternatives

Poisons Used to Kill Rodents Have Safer Alternatives

Page 1

Clinical assistant professor Maureen Murray of the Tufts Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine in central Massachusetts was doing a good job of keeping her emotions under wraps as she clicked through photos of her recent necropsies. But I was watching her eyes as well as her computer screen, and they revealed anguish. Like her colleagues here and at similar clinics around the country, Murray is a wildlife advocate as well as a scientist.

Each image was, in her word and my perception, “sadder” than the last. There was the great horned owl with a hematoma running the length of its left wing; the red-tailed hawk’s body cavity glistening with unclotted blood; sundry raptors with pools of blood under dissected skin; the redtail with a hematoma that had ballooned its left eye to 10 times normal size; and, “saddest of all,” the redtail with an egg. The well-developed blood vessels in her oviducts had ruptured, and she had slowly bled to death from the inside.

All these birds were victims of “second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides” used by exterminators, farmers, and homeowners. They’re found in such brand names as d-Con, Hot Shot, Generation, Talon, and Havoc, and they sell briskly because of our consuming hatred of rats and mice. The most pestiferous species are alien to the New World and therefore displace native wildlife; they contaminate our food and spread disease. We also hate them for their beady eyes, their naked tails, and their vile depictions in literature, from Aesop to E.B. White. So the general attitude among the public is “if a little poison’s good, a lot’s better.” But even a little second-generation rodenticide kills nontarget wildlife.

Both first- and second-generation rodenticides prevent blood from clotting by inhibiting vitamin K, though the second-generation products build to higher concentrations in rodents and are therefore more lethal to anything that eats them. The second generation was developed by Imperial Chemical Industries of London at the request of the World Health Organization, because rats appeared to be developing tolerance to warfarin, a first-generation rodenticide.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contaminants specialist Michael Fry makes this point about the widespread use of second-generation rodenticides by people oblivious to the dangers: “One good reason for using first-generation poisons is that if you do have a problem, like developing tolerance, you want a backup. If you go in with your strongest thing first, there’s no backup.”

For a rodent to get a lethal dose from a first-generation rodenticide it has to eat it more than once, but that’s not a problem. Leave first-generation baits out for a week and they’re just as efficient as the second generation. What makes second-generation rodenticides so non-selective is that they kill slowly, so rodents keep eating them long after they’ve ingested a lethal dose. By the time they expire, or are about to, they contain many times the lethal dose and are therefore deadly to predators, scavengers, and pets.

Because they are weapons of mass destruction, second-generation rodenticides are the preferred tool wildlife managers use to restore native ecosystems to rat-infested islands. But the EPA has declared them too dangerous for public use and ordered them off the general market. They’re still widely available, however, because stores have huge stocks and because a recent court decision has allowed three of the largest manufacturers to defy the order.

 

Many of Murray’s patients don’t have enough red-blood cells to deliver oxygen to their tissues, so they are logy. Their heads droop, the linings of their mouths are pale; some bleed from their eyes, nose, lungs, or other organs. In 2011 she found rodenticides in 86 percent of the raptor livers she examined, and all but one contained brodifacoum, especially deadly to birds. She rehabilitates some patients by injecting them with vitamin K, but the birds still retain rodenticides and are likely to accumulate more after they are released.

There’s no safe place or safe delivery system for second-generation rodenticides. After a rodent partakes, it stumbles around for three to four days, displaying itself as an especially tempting meal not just for raptors but for mammalian predators, including red foxes, gray foxes, endangered San Joaquin kit foxes, swift foxes, coyotes, wolves, raccoons, black bears, skunks, badgers, mountain lions, bobcats, fishers, dogs, and house cats—all of which suffer lethal and sublethal secondary poisoning from eating rodents. Deer, nontarget rodents, waterfowl, waterbirds, shorebirds, songbirds, and children suffer lethal and sublethal poisoning from eating bait directly.

A four-year survey (1999 to 2003) by the Environmental Protection Agency found that at least 25,549 children under age six ingested enough rodenticide to suffer poisoning symptoms. Currently about 15,000 calls per year come in to the Centers for Disease Control from parents whose children have eaten rodenticides. Even if you place bait where children can’t get it, rodents are apt to distribute it around your house and property.

In California, the only state other than New York that has looked carefully, rodenticides showed up in 79 percent of fishers (one fisher even transferred poisons to her kit via her milk), 78 percent of mountain lions, 84 percent of San Joaquin kit foxes, and, in San Diego County, 92 percent of raptors.

Magazine Category

Author Profile

Ted Williams

Ted Williams is freelance writer.

Type: Author | From: Audubon Magazine

Comments

Not abbreviated

Whole piece right here. Click the numbers.

This article really opened my

This article really opened my eyes to the dangers of second-generation mouse poisons. I appreciate the suggestions for safer and non-toxic methods of rodent control, and the suggestion of passing the article to store managers. However, I believe that the average manager would not read the entire article. Have you considered writing a more concise article that could be widely distributed in pamphlet form to store managers and citizens who might never read Audubon magazine? (Could be available on the website for people to print out.)
Former D-Con user

You know the best, safest,

You know the best, safest, most reliable method of rodent control that has been used for milleniums? Cats.

Well researched, compelling article,

This is the most informative article I've read on the dangers of rodent poisons in our environment. It needs to be on the front page of USA Today.

What about bromethalin?

Hi Ted,

Very informative article. Do you know where bromethalin falls on the spectrum of being a danger to birds/pets/kids?

Thanks,

Don

bromethalin

Hi Don:
It's second generation. Don't use it. Not that I'm in favor of using first generation.

First Generation rodenticides and glue traps

Hi Ted, Thank you for writing this piece. I've been involved in wildlife rehab for years, and have seen the destruction caused by ALL rodenticides...both first generation rodenticides (diphacinone, warfarin, chlorophacinone) and second generation rodenticides. This recent article discusses the risks to raptors, and the concern that more people will be using diphacinone under the assumption that it is a "safer" alternative, when it clearly is not. http://eponline.com/articles/2011/03/11/raptors-at-higher-risk-of-poison...

The hard truth is that there are no safe chemical alternatives on the US market today. In 2009 this lawsuit was filed by Defenders of Wildlife and Audubon of Kansas against the EPA for approving diphacinone and chlorophacinone. http://www.defenders.org/press-release/pesticides-deadly-prairie-dogs-al...

Glue traps are not only inhumane and don't discriminate, when used properly they encourage the spread of the very diseases (leptospirosis and hantavirus) that are of concern to the general public. When rodents are caught in glue traps, they will struggle and fight to break free. What happens in that struggle is that the rodents will often urinate and defecate in the process. This is how hantavirus and leptospirosis can spread.

IPM (Integrated Pest Management) is a science based approach to controlling pests. Using prevention along with mechanical, biological and cultural controls, rodent infestations can be prevented without using any types of poisons. Marin County has been able to control rodents on all county land, parks and open space since 2009. It is possible to control rodents without poisons. Marin County's Rat Management Plan can be found here. http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/PK/Main/IPM/Data%20Files/Pest_Specific_P...

Poisons and Glue Traps

Thanks Maggie:
I agree that it’s preferable to use no poisons. But if one insists, at least use the first-generation poisons you mention that have been cleared by the EPA. I can’t agree that glue traps should be avoided because of urination, defecation, and cruelty. First, mice and rats urinate and defecate all over the place when they’re NOT in glue traps. In my camp, for example, they’ll even defecate in the ice-cube trays if we forget to turn them over. At least in the glue traps, they urinate and defecate for the last time. They also defecate and urinate in snap traps and in electrocuting traps. I am having trouble grasping why everyone thinks glue traps have to be inhumane. If you use them only indoors, tend them regularly and dispatch the critters, they are no more inhumane that snap traps which often catch rodents by the legs.

Thank you for your reply and

Thank you for your reply and for giving me the opportunity to respond. Frankly, I am puzzled why you don't find glue traps inhumane and cruel? The rodents (who do feel pain and fear) struggle and fight for hours. It is impossible for people to watch all glue traps set 24 hours a day, 7 days a week My experience in working in wildlife rehab centers demonstrated over and over again how cruel these traps are. Many members of the public would bring in a glue trap with a rodent stuck screaming and writhing in pain. Often the animal is still alive with its skin pulled off, or the animal has attempted to gnaw off a limb. Often these people were in tears; they were totally unaware of the cruelty they were inflicting on another form of life. For years I operated a humane wildlife exclusion business. I can tell you that people do not, and can not monitor all glue traps 7/24. That is reality. And, people do place them outside. The Humane Society of the US has taken a stand as well on glue traps. http://www.humanesociety.org/animals/resources/facts/glue_boards.html

I'm sorry but the fact that the EPA has cleared the first generation rodenticides does not make them safe nor should they ever be recommended. Up until the EPA's formal decision yesterday on the second generation products, the EPA approved and felt these products were safe too! It took the EPA many years to address the issue of rodenticides. Just because a product is approved, that does not mean it is safe. Below are more articles documenting that that dicphacinone and chlorophacione are just as lethal as the second generation products.

Dangers of Dicphacinone and Chlorophacinone
http://www.habitatharmony.org/get-educated/outreach/133-burrowing-owls-e...

http://www.fwspubs.org/doi/abs/10.3996/052012-JFWM-042

"Prevention and Not Poison" is the way to avoid having a rodent issue in the first place. That should be the first line of defense. When there is an issue with rodents, exclusion and the use of snap traps is the most effective and humane solution. 95% of the time, snap traps kill instantly. With glue traps, the animal struggles for hours in agony, death is never instantaneous.

First Generation vs Second

I am puzzled as to why you and two other respondents believe that rats and mice have to “struggle for hours” in glue traps. Just check glue traps regularly or don’t use them. Not sure why this is so complicated. Re. first generation poisons, I certainly agree that the EPA’s stamp of approval doesn’t mean anything is safe. But there are degrees of danger. Whoever told you that first-generation poisons are “just as lethal as second generation products” is grossly deluded. They’re not even close! They are relatively short-lived; they don’t keep magnifying in the food chain like the second generation. What’s more, there is zero chance of getting first-generation poisons of the store shelves. To borrow the wise words of Glenn Phillips, whom I quoted in the piece: “If you want to tilt at windmills, you can try. If you want to actually make things better for birds, you have to do what you can to reduce rodenticides, even if you can’t eliminate them.” Finally, thanks for the links to pieces about Rozol and Kaput. Rozol, as formerly applied for prairie dogs, was a truly nasty poison. No one knows this better than I. Please see my article about it at: http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/features0911/incite.html. Since my piece came out EPA has implemented much stricter regs for Rozol; and the regs for chlorophacione in household rodent poisons are even stricter. That does not mean that I favor it or Kaput for prairie dogs. Both should be banned. The prairie-dog ecosystem is entirely different than the indoor, non-native, urban and suburban mouse/rat infestation. Prairie dogs are a keystone species preyed upon by all manner of wildlife, including endangered black-footed ferrets which have surely suffered (and my still suffer) secondary poisoning from Rozol.

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
4 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.