Environment Committee
JOINT FAVORABLE REPORT
Bill No.: SB-239
AN ACT PROHIBITING THE USE OF CERTAIN RODENTICIDES FOR THE
Title: PROTECTION OF HAWKS, RAPTORS AND OTHER WILDLIFE.
Vote Date: 3/18/2022
Vote Action: Joint Favorable Substitute
PH Date: 3/7/2022
File No.:
Disclaimer: The following JOINT FAVORABLE Report is prepared for the benefit of the
members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and
explanation and does not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber
thereof for any purpose.
SPONSORS OF BILL:
Rep. David Michel, 146th Dist. Rep. Josh Elliott, 88th Dist.
Rep. Michael A. Winkler, 56th Dist. Rep. Kerry S. Wood, 29th Dist.
Rep. Lucy Dathan, 142nd Dist. Rep. Brandon Chafee, 33rd Dist.
Rep Brian T. Smith, 48th Dist. Rep. Mary M. Mushinsky, 85th Dist.
REASONS FOR BILL:
To prohibit the use of certain rodenticides in locations such as state parks and forests for the
protection of hawks, raptors and other wildlife that feed upon such rodents.
JOINT FAVORABLE SUBSTITUTE LCO 3648
Clarified language to only apply to certain state properties and eliminated exemptions for
research.
RESPONSE FROM ADMINISTRATION/AGENCY:
William Erickson, Biologist, Environmental Risk Branch 2, Douglas Urban, Senior
Biologist, Environmental Risk Branch 3, Environmental Protection Agency
Brodifacoum and difethialone stand out as the two rodenticides posing the greatest potential
overall risk to birds and nontarget mammals. They pose the greatest risks to avian predators
and scavengers that feed on target or nontarget animals poisoned with bait.
NATURE AND SOURCES OF SUPPORT:
Jo Anne Basile, Executive Director, CT Votes for Animals
Support a ban on lethal second -generation products and limit the use of first -generation
rodenticides on state property and public land including wildlife habitats. There are safe
alternatives for rodent control. Massachusetts and New Jersey already have laws protecting
these birds and mammals.
Lori Brown, Executive Director, Connecticut League of Conservation Voters
Wildlife rehabilitators and biologists are seeing Connecticut Birds of Prey dying from
rodenticide poisoning at alarming rates by consuming rats and mice that have consumed
these rodenticides. We encourage the committee to support this legislation.
Keith Cagle, President, Friends of Connecticut Sportsmen
We support the comments of the experts at the Connecticut Audubon Society. We support
the intent of this legislation to protect raptors and other wildlife from the secondary effects of
certain rodenticides.
Patrick M. Comins, Executive Director, The Connecticut Audubon Society
We strongly support the intent of this legislation to protect raptors and other wildlife from the
secondary effects of certain rodenticides. However, we feel that this bill as proposed would
have little positive effect. Minimal amounts of rodenticide are utilized on state property
Certain rodenticides are more harmful to the food web than others. Care must be taken to
choose the correct solution for the correct location and circumstance.
Andrea Dobras, Board Chair, CT Votes for Animals
This bill is a first step to address the problem of using rodenticide poisoning but stronger
measures are needed to protect our wildlife, people and pets who can become unintentional
victims for lethal rodenticide poisoning.
Ann Gadwah, Advocacy and Outreach Organizer, Sierra Club Connecticut
SB 239 will allow Connecticut's wildlife the opportunity to thrive and allow predators ot
successfully control rodent populations in wildlife habitats the way nature intended, without
any detrimental effects on the ecosystem. If raptors and other thrive, their populations will
increase and rodent populations will decrease naturally through predation.
Annie Hornish, Connecticut Senior State Director, The Humane Society of the US
The Humane Society supports (with Amendment) of SB 239, which would ban Second
Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides and limit use of First Generation Anticoagulant
Rodenticides on state property. As the spread of these toxins throughout the food chain does
not discriminate based on property lines.
Robert LaFrance, Director of Policy, Audubon Connecticut
We support the intent of this proposal which is to reduce rodenticide exposure to non-
targeted species like hawks and raptors and we believe that whenever possible the use of
"safer alternatives" should be selected but it is important to note that certain threated species
like piping plovers may need protection from predation by rodents. In some instances,
second generation anticoagulant rodenticides may be necessary to reduce or eradicate
rodent populations that exist in or near the habitats or certain threatened or endangered
species.
Dara Reid, Director, Wildlife in Crisis
These anticoagulant neurotoxins (FGARs and SGARs) poison the entire food chain,
devastating non-target wildlife and should be banned on both state and private land.
Page 2 of 3 SB-239
As the largest wildlife rehabilitation center in the state, we see the effects they have on
wildlife almost every day.
Dennis Riordan, President, Menunkatuck Audubon Society
We support the ban on the use of certain rodenticides on state owned properties and land
which include our wildlife habitats.
Laura Simon, President, Connecticut Wildlife Rehabilitators Association
We support SB 239 because we are seeing a rapid increase in the number of cases of wild
animals succumbing to secondary poisoning by rodenticides.
,
NATURE AND SOURCES OF OPPOSITION:
JON GAETA, DIRECTOR, STATE AFFAIRS, RISE
We oppose SB 239 because rodenticides have been a critical tool for controlling rodent
populations to protect the citizens of Connecticut from the spread of disease and illness. We
believe that when rodenticides are applied according to their label instructions, they serve an
important role in protecting the citizens of Connecticut from both disease and property
damage.
Heather Millette, Millette Pest Control
We oppose SB 239 because the essential nature of the work we do protecting food, health
and property requires us to have the proper tools for each situation. The professional pest
management industry has the training to use these products carefully. SGARs are the most
effective tool to protect the integrity of the farm to table pipeline in Connecticut.
Emilio Polce, Ecochoice Termite and Pest Control
I ask you not to ban the use of SGARs for the structural pest control industry, allow our
licensed professionals to continue to protect public health, food and property with the proper
tools needed.
Lance Trovato, Verdant Pest Control
Please exempt structural pest control from SB 239. Banning SGARs will have ripple effects
through other industries as well from hospitality to food supply to health care facilities. When
professionals use SGARs, they are used with meticulous consideration and strategy. When
human health is in jeopardy, and hospital rooms, restaurant kitchens, and the places we call
home are overrun by an infestation, it is imperative that we have all the tools we can to
protect human health.
Reported by: Judith Ganswindt Date: March 31, 2022
Page 3 of 3 SB-239