Op/Ed

Letter to the editor: Rodenticides threaten wildlife

I am a conservation biologist with a specific interest in wildlife. Last April I wrote and submitted a paper to the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board summarizing the results from numerous studies across the US and Canada indicating that anticoagulant rodenticide threatens fisher populations. Among all the states studied, Vermont had the highest rate of exposure with 100% of animals sampled testing positive for multiple AR compounds. Based on this clear existential threat to fisher populations, I presented a petition in December to the FWB asking them to establish a moratorium on fisher trapping in Vermont, the one cause of fisher population decline that can be easily removed.

Fishers are reclusive, territorial, forest dwellers. Generally solitary, and wary of humans, they eat whatever food is available to them including, small- to medium-sized mammals, birds, fruits, nuts, berries, reptiles, and amphibians. They are one of the few animals that prey on porcupines.

Fishers were common in Vermont until the early 20th century when their numbers declined sharply due to over-trapping and loss of habitat. This resulted in an explosion of the porcupine population and associated damage to trees and forests. In the 1960s, fishers were reintroduced into Vermont from Maine to control porcupines and the fisher population gradually recovered. Eventually recreational trapping was resumed.

Fishers are once again in danger. Populations are declining due to a complex combination of threats, including habitat loss and fragmentation, trapping, and the uncontrolled use of rodenticides. Because they are extremely sensitive to human-caused environmental disturbances, biologists now recognize fishers as important indicators of ecosystem function and health in the forests they inhabit. Therefore, declining populations should be seen as a cause for alarm.

Anticoagulant rodenticides are commonly used to kill rodents. They prevent blood from clotting and causing fatal internal hemorrhaging. Any wound, however minor, can be fatal. ARs poison wildlife in two ways: primary poisoning when a targeted animal eats bait and dies several days later, or secondary poisoning when a predator or scavenger eats prey that has eaten poisoned bait. ARs also impact fertility, suppress immune systems, and are transferred to offspring through mother’s milk. Moreover, AR toxins accumulate in fisher bodies. Because fishers usually live far away from the sources of the toxins that eventually kill them, they access ARs by consuming other animals who have been poisoned. It should be obvious that these toxins could threaten predator populations.

The Environmental Protection Agency attempts to regulate AR usage, but these toxins are ubiquitous. Commercial rodenticide is dispensed in refillable bait stations/containers. The black plastic boxes full of AR poison are found outside of grocery stores, feed stores, farm buildings, and other commercial buildings. Unlawful use is a serious problem because ARs are readily available online — even those compounds that are illegal in Vermont. Until these toxins are banned by Federal law, they will continue to poison wild animals.

The size of the fisher population in Vermont is unknown but the overall numbers are declining and 100% of fishers sampled in recent studies were exposed to multiple AR toxins. We know that ARs are lethal. A moratorium on trapping would add needed protections for this vulnerable species. Because impacts from climate change, habitat loss, and AR poisoning are currently impossible to control, suspending recreational trapping is a no-brainer.

In spite of the many peer-reviewed studies and ongoing research, years of data from trappers demonstrating a decline in fisher numbers, and the fact that all of the fishers sampled from Vermont were exposed to life-threatening poisons, the Fish and Wildlife Board chose to deny my petition and will continue to allow trappers to kill fishers in Vermont as recreation and to profit from their pelts.

It is disappointing to realize that the agency, whose mission is to conserve fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the people of Vermont, would jeopardize the survival of a species like the fisher simply to protect a recreational and commercial pastime that defies current science and is practiced by only a minority of Vermonters.

Jennifer Lovett, MS

Starksboro

Share this story:

More News
Education Op/Ed

Editorial: School funding priorities

As Vermonters begin to understand the debate around reforming Vermont’s educational system … (read more)

Op/Ed

Community Forum: Let’s turn heartbreak into action

Middlebury College’s Feb Class of 2024.5 gathered for their graduation ceremony on Feb. 1, … (read more)

Education Op/Ed

Community Forum: Be brave, Little State, defend public education

Governor Phil Scott has provided his shock and aw-shucks proposal for rescuing taxpayers a … (read more)

Share this story: