How Rhode Island's New Legislation Balances Wildlife Safety and Pest Control Needs

Reducing Toxicity in Rhode Island: How Legislation Shifts Pest Control and Wildlife Conservation

In this episode, we explore Rhode Island's recent legislation to restrict dangerous anticoagulant rodenticides—making it the second state in the US to implement such restrictions. Maxwell McFarland, Advocacy Director at the Audubon Society of Rhode Island, shares insights into the legislative process, ecological impacts, and practical alternatives for pest management that protect wildlife and human communities.

Key Topics:

• The significance and impact of Rhode Island’s new pesticide control law
• Historical context: how past bans (DDT, neonictinoids) shaped current regulation
• Challenges and strategies in passing environmental legislation
• The ecological damage caused by anticoagulant rodenticides
• Practical, wildlife-safe alternatives: habitat management, trash containment, and rodent birth control
• The importance of balancing public health, pest control needs, and ecological integrity
• The role of open spaces and habitat preservation in natural pest management
• Community involvement and phased implementation for effective policy adoption
• Broader ecological concerns: insect mass decline and ecosystem health
• Perspectives on urban planning and wildlife conservation—preserving habitat amid development

Timestamps:
00:00 - Introduction: Rhode Island’s new pesticide legislation
00:28 - Why restricting anticoagulant rodenticides matters
01:11 - Historical background: from DDT to neonictinoids
01:40 - The environmental and wildlife impact of rodent poisons
02:24 - The legislative process behind the bill’s success
03:25 - The role of wildlife clinics and evidence of poisoning effects
04:46 - Natural pest control: owl and raptor impacts
05:06 - Practical solutions: substitutes and habitat management
05:40 - Legislative exemptions and pragmatic compromises
06:30 - California’s model and balance between regulation and use
07:21 - Challenges in changing pest control practices
08:05 - The limitations of current alternatives and the push for sustainable solutions
09:05 - Innovations: GIS technology and rodent population tracking
10:27 - Rodent contraceptives as a long-term control method
11:01 - The phased approach: experimentation and community involvement
11:34 - Opportunities for local experimentation and avoiding heavy-handed regulation
12:05 - The importance of community-led pest management strategies
12:47 - Ecosystem health and biodiversity’s role in pest control
13:47 - The ecological role of rats and the limits of extermination
14:16 - Impact of habitat preservation on ecosystem health
14:48 - Supporting wildlife habitats through open spaces
15:46 - The significance of the estuary habitat project in Newport
16:23 - Community discussions around Hazard Road and habitat preservation
16:47 - The balance between development and wildlife conservation
17:17 - The role of advocacy and community input in urban planning
17:44 - Final thoughts: prioritizing wildlife in city development and legislation
18:14 - Closing remarks: the future intersection of climate, ecosystem, and public health

Resources & Links:

• Audubon Society of Rhode Island
• Rhode Island Legislation on Pesticides
• Related historical bans: Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT)
• California’s Wildlife Protection Laws

Transcript

Bill Bartholomew 0:00

Welcome into Bartholomew Town. A press release came across my desk a couple of weeks ago from the Audubon Society of Rhode Island. This is part of a lot of press releases that you get at the end of the legislative session. You try to sift through what passed and who's celebrating what. This is something that really piqued my interest. Rhode Island legislators pass an act relating to health and safety, pesticide control. And now Rhode Island is the second state in the nation to restrict dangerous anticoagulant rodenticides. That's going to protect our communities, pets, wildlife, and birds of prey, so says the Audubon Society of Rhode Island. And we're joined today here on the podcast by uh the Audubon's advocacy director, Maxwell McFarland. Maxwell, thanks for the time. Hi, Bill. Great to be with you. I heard some rebuttal to this uh this piece of legislation uh being passed, or just actually just before it was passed from one of the pest control companies on the radio. Uh they were saying that this was just uh not realistic, it was onerous. I heard that and thought, yeah, but any step that you can take to even on a micro level improve outcomes for wildlife matters. Why is this so important from the Audubon standpoint?

SPEAKER_01 1:10

Yeah, thanks, Bill. Um certainly there were some detractors, and it was a matter of uh battling opinion pieces in the Providence Journal as we were closing in on getting this legislation passed. But Audubon Society in Rhode Island has been working on, you know, responsible pesticide regulation as far back as we go as an organization. Um so I'm sure folks will remember, you know, kind of the problems that DDT proposed. Um Audubon worked here in Rhode Island back in the 60s to have that banned more recently with a uh nicotine-based class of pesticides and you know nictinoids. Audubon was essential in helping to regulate those back in the early 2020s. And now we find ourselves here with anticoagulants. And we understand, and we can get into the details of this certainly, but we understand that this is the status quo for rodent management. But what we're seeing is an outsized and detrimental impact to our wildlife, our natural resources, and our um, you know, animal and human communities with these poisons. So uh the legislation was important in getting passed.

Bill Bartholomew 2:24

Yeah, that legislation uh signed by Governor McKee on June 18th, again, making cattle uh along with California, which has tighter restrictions, by the way, Rhode Island now the second state in the country with such regulations on the books. This was a charge led inside uh the the uh House by State Representative Rebecca Kislak and Senator Melissa Murray across the way in the State House. And McKee uh, of course, signed this into law, so he plays a role in this. So from an advocacy standpoint, we'll get into the details of what this means in the broader context of toxicity, uh, which is a massive, massive discussion we should be having in the context of the Audubon's work, probably all of our work, but from a practical standpoint, how was this tough legislation to pass? What how did that this is one of those things that you could, like you said, it sparked some dueling opinion pieces, people on WPRO and on a uh professional forward-facing basis, and even on background just calling in um with really split on this issue. What were the challenges legislatively here?

SPEAKER_01 3:25

Yeah, Bill, so before I joined Audubon back in February of this year, Audubon had been working to get this passed in some form or fashion since 2024. Uh, so we're very thankful to our primary sponsors for this bill. Uh, Senator Murray had been introducing that bill alongside um our wishes back in 2024, where it was just uh limiting the application of these retenticides to uh pest management professionals. And obviously, as we've moved forward and we've had more coalition partners join the effort in getting this passed, we understand, again, uh the outsize danger that these things, uh, these poisons present. So we have been working with a number of wildlife clinics here in Rhode Island that unfortunately each time we go up to the state house to testify on this bill, had new pictures of uh owls, hawks, and eagles bleeding from the inside. So that that is the um you know mechanism for these poisons. They cause internal bleeding, they stop clotting ability in these uh rats and mice. And what we're seeing is that uh when these uh rodents are poisoned, you know, they're slowing them down, making them easier prey for these raptors, which should be our natural pest control. Uh so you have a species like the Great Horned Owl can eat anywhere from 3,000 to 4,000 uh of these rats and mice a year. And we understand, you know, from a scientific perspective that this does play a large part in managing these populations. So it's, you know, I think it's tough because people want to see dead rats. You know, it was uh a topic of debate um in the mayoral run for um City of Cranson back in 2024. Right. So, you know, people feel very strongly about this one way or another. And what we propose, and you know, being able to get this through this year, I think we are able to make it clear uh that we do have proposed solutions. This is not just, you know, a remove this staple in in pest management and then, you know, stand back and watch things unfold. We have a lot of substitutes um that are wildlife safe um to implement.

Bill Bartholomew 5:32

Yeah, no, no question about it. I want to get to into that on a specific level in just a moment. But I also think one reason why this legislation was successful is because there's carve outs. And when we look at legislation on a statewide basis and a municipal basis in Rhode Island, the legislative victories have come from compromise and uh they have to exist in some sort of pragmatic, practical, real-world lane. So, with that being said, there are exemptions here, for example, state and municipal um employees that are using these rodenticides in the case of specific public health activities like protecting drinking water or vectors for mosquito-borne illness. We all know that scenario in the fall when the first triple E case happens or West Nile virus, we all know that. So there's still some available use for these toxins in sort of a triage or extreme situation. That's critical as well to making this happen because there has to be a balance in practical legislating.

SPEAKER_01 6:30

Absolutely. And our the language of our bill, our law, I should say, does follow uh California's exemptions closely. Uh, we have seen, you know, they took uh a study of seven of the largest um departments of health across their cities after they instituted their first initial moratorium back in 2020. Um it saw, you know, once these poisons were removed, there were no significant increases. Um, and continuing forward with their poison-free wildlife act in 2024, again, uh making those stronger restrictions. And you're right, Bill, uh, there is a need for balance. And we understand that there are some cases. Um, you know, uh there is a line in the law that says, you know, when there are non uh there are no other non-chemical alternatives that work, things like that, there's always going to be some outstanding issues.

Bill Bartholomew 7:21

Right. Cranston residents will be happy to hear that because, as you said, a massive problem. It goes back for decades and it pops up every now and then. So there's a political reality to legislating when it comes around issues of um environmental, ecological toxicity, climate change, that I think this built-there's another lesson to be learned here about how to get stuff done and move the ball forward. So kudos on that. Let's talk about some of those alternative pesticides. Because when I heard this radio interview with one of the pest control companies, uh or spokesperson owner of that company on with I believe it was Matt Allen on WPRO, they said, look, the the alternatives they're just they just don't work as well. Uh your reaction to that.

SPEAKER_01 8:05

Yeah, and I will be um forthcoming. You know, at Audubon, we're not trying to totally negate the fact that these poisons can kill individual rats. There's a reason that these have been used for 50 plus years and again have become kind of the staple in rodent management. What we're offering is proven effective alternatives that are truly sustainable in the long run. Uh, you know, we understand that hundreds of injured and dead birds are coming in uh due to these poisons. And really with this law, Bill, we're trying to introduce a paradigm shift. So not an easy undertaking, but something at Audubon we're very excited to do. Um, and that, of course, is reimagining how we approach pest management. So instead of, you know, reactively uh putting these poison blocks down, hoping a rat or mouse stumbles upon them and it takes them out, we're looking at where are their food sources? How are they able to reproduce so well? Um, you know, where are folks finding them in, you know, rather in their parks, in their restaurants, in their homes, what be it. And, you know, implementing um, you know, statewide better trash containerization. We've seen a lot of success with that in New York, um in Massachusetts as well, kind of those big, you know, hunks of metal that uh have those heavy lids. Um so you know, preventing rats from being able to enter those that give them a free meal. Um, we've also you know um talked about better um landscaping. And again, there's a whole bunch of language in the law that talks about taking a real technical approach to this. You know, in New York City, uh Flaco's law, which was proposed by the New York City Council, they are using GIS encoding um software to identify where, you know, kind of the abundance of rats are. Uh so through methods like that, taking a scientific-based approach, um, you know, improving some of these other measures that are kind of uh a low-risk, high reward um implementation are what we're offering. And then, of course, uh, you know, I was there for the vote on the House floor, and this kind of uh got some laughter, but it it's it's a real opportunity is uh rat birth control or uh rodent contraceptives. So putting these down and again attacking the origin of their ability to reproduce rather than reactively trying to take one out at a time, uh, you know, taking those populations down to a sustainable amount.

Bill Bartholomew 10:40

Yes, a couple of things there. First of all, you mentioned uh the um New York, and there's there's a lot to learn from New York with uh, frankly, Mayor Adams at the time, Mayor Adams' implementation of those trash cans. And like they just put new trash cans in Barrington. I've already heard complaints from people saying they're so big, they're so problematic. Yeah, but when you take that into the harmonious uh kind of ecosystem, if you will, of keeping rats out and getting your rubbish out at the same time, it it actually makes a lot more sense. But look, I think you you touch on something so fundamental. Um and and it's it it paired into the even the way this this is being implemented, which is there's gonna be a pilot program on a municipal level that's gonna begin no later than July 1st before the law goes into effect in the the entire statewide prohibition. I think it's gonna be 29. Yes, 2029, is that correct? Yep. January 1st, 2029. So there's opportunities for experimentation, you know, and that and and to try to figure out different ways. This is not the heavy hand of the state saying you can't have any rodenticides anymore, you got to use government-issue trash cans, and the only way you can handle uh pest control going forward is just rely on the the red tail hawk in your neighborhood. It's it's not that at all. Right. It's not that at all. And some of the reaction would make you think it's that.

SPEAKER_01 12:05

Right. And, you know, that's going to be my role at Audubon alongside others, is to help get out in the community and use our coalition partners, use the folks that are instituting these, you know, integrated pest management approaches to minimize costs, again, introduce these on a plain language level where cities can participate if they'd like. Uh, we're not, you know, um subscribing them to an expensive, you know, program where we're testing all these experimental methods. It's it's simple, you know, instruments and habit changes uh that will you know help reduce these populations of rats and mice in the long run.

Bill Bartholomew 12:47

Right. There's another piece to this as well, which is ecosystem. And I heard an interview that I think it was just yesterday, where uh science is deeply concerned. I didn't know this stat to the extent that it's that it's bearing out, but in not only the decrease in insect population, but the decrease in insect mass. In other words, insects are actually smaller, they're physically declining in in body weight and body mass, I should say. And what that says about the broader changes in our in our ecosystem right now. So I don't like rats. I lived in New York City. Uh you know, you got a couple of mice in your apartment, even here in Providence, you know, that's one day, that's one thing, you figure it out. There's different, you know, you get some mint or figure it out, whatever. You start talking rats. I'm not living there anymore. I'm not one to I'm not looking to live in proximity proximity with rats. At the same time, they do play a role, and you know, broad extermination of any species uh is not good, generally speaking. Is that fair to say?

SPEAKER_01 13:46

It's fair to say, and Bill, I would say it's not feasible either. Uh, I know people won't like to hear that, but there's a reason rats have been as prolific as they are and can be found pretty much anywhere in the world. Um of course, you know, we believe that putting these poisons down is it's a side effect of, you know, the broader human wildlife relations that we see. Um and again, you know, habits that are not going to change overnight, but we hope, you know, with this extended timeline and the phased-in restrictions, we can work um, again, with the natural and non-natural methods available to us um to reach that balance, as you said.

Bill Bartholomew 14:29

How much does open space and the protection of wildlife ecosystems such as the Audubonts and the other properties, how much does that play into habitat, which then in turn turns into natural pest control? Um really, I mean, that's that's kind of what is natural pest control development.

SPEAKER_01 14:47

Absolutely, absolutely. And, you know, we centered this at the State House around uh around our raptors because you know, we had photos available that, you know, strike an emotion within folks. It's evocative. And beyond that, we do have a lot of mammals that act as natural predators as well. Uh, foxes, possums that are, you know, being introduced in some places as you know an alternative to these kind of uh natural pest control approaches. But having the ability to have large open spaces where these populations can thrive and they're not fragmented and um you know, subject to car collisions or building collisions, um, or again, you know, some of these other poisons which are uh more focused in our city centers and populated areas, having open space for them to uh, you know, proliferate and have those safe nesting and um breeding grounds is is hugely important.

Bill Bartholomew 15:46

If you want pest control in Rhode Island, get more open space. There's the message right there. Let's preserve it. Um, Maxwell, thanks so much for your time. Well, you know, one last question here. It's one of my favorite spots in the world is on Hazard Road in Newport, where the Audubon Society maintains an estuary and just an unbelievable habitat. It's literally the amazing. Um, and there have been so many occasions when I've lived in Newport or now I I'm often in Newport a couple times a week. It's like a great place to just go and be. And I've I've I love um I love that place. I love the the birds that live there that come back, I hope come back every year. Now there's a proposal to take Hazard Road and turn it into a park, um, to turn it into a trail and actually get rid of of the of the road there. I'm not sure if this is something that is gonna give people more or less access to that area. But do you have any or does the Audubon have any take on that that is in the midst of this conversation? Because I know there are community-level meetings happening with Hazard Road right now.

SPEAKER_01 16:47

Yeah. And I think, you know, as this is relatively new to me, we do have a strong stance in developing areas where we know that there are successful and or vulnerable um avian populations. So um, you know, a recent example is on Gould Island. A lot of Audubon members and supporters are um, you know, very passionate about that subject as well. And that would um, you know, potentially end in um some of these islands, again, the these areas that host these populations to be developed for recreational use or otherwise. And, you know, to the extent that that is occurring, you know, we're limited in that. We we do oppose that. But in areas where there's some compromise, we ask to be included as you know, oversight and consultants um to hopefully strike again that word balance um between the needs for development but also the protection for our wildlife.

Bill Bartholomew 17:44

Yeah, I think wildlife being center of this conversation is most important here. We don't often do that when we think about city planning. So uh I hope the the conversation is oriented there on the grassroots level. It's something to keep an eye on, and I appreciate you weighing in on it because uh I think a lot of people are just it's frankly, it just seems like an exploratory scenario and expertise is needed here. Um Maxwell McFarland, thanks so much for your time and congratulations to the Audubon Society and everybody that worked on this bill to um limit these rodenticides, which is just part of a broader toxicity conversation. You're gonna hear a lot more about that here on Bartholomew Town as we continue to kind of find that intersection between climate and um ecosystem and public health. It's all ahead here on the podcast. Thanks, Maxwell. Thanks, Bill.