Anticoagulant Rodenticide Mitigation Informal Public Comment / Taller público informal del DPR sobre la mitigación - 9/24/25

Comment From: Email Comments

11/09/25 @ 12:59 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Daniel Armstrong

11/08/25 @ 11:12 PM

I volunteer for several raptor related community science programs. I am cocerned about the negative impacts of rodenticides on raptor populations, local wildlife and the ecosystem as a whole.

All anticoagulant rodenticides should be banned and sh...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Denise Peck

11/08/25 @ 10:37 PM

I am a California resident and serve as an active volunteer community scientist for raptor research organizations in the San Francisco Bay area and I am very concerned about the impact of rodenticides on wildlife and the ecosystem.

I am in support o...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kiely Smith

11/08/25 @ 10:19 PM

November 8, 2025
Dear Dir. Karen Morrison and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation,
Project Coyote appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Department of Pesticide Regulation's proposed anticoagulant rodenticide (AR) mitigation meas...↓ures. We have been deeply engaged in California's efforts to protect wildlife from these deadly poisons, and we recognize the complexity of balancing public health needs with wildlife protection. We thank DPR for its work developing and implementing what are currently the strongest anticoagulant rodenticide rules in the nation.
Project Coyote and our nearly 6,000 California members are concerned that the proposed regulations represent a significant weakening of the legislative intent behind AB 1788 (2020), AB 1322 (2023), and AB 2552 (2024)—collectively known as the Poison Free Wildlife Act—by expanding locations where anticoagulant rodenticides can be used and allowing for unnecessarily long durations of use.
If adopted as proposed, the expansion of allowed use sites, permission for up to 105 days of annual AR applications, weak agricultural exemptions, and lack of meaningful IPM implementation requirements could result in persistently high (or even increasing) exposure of wildlife to ARs.
Business Exemptions vs. Residential Prohibitions
Current law prohibits residential AR use because of the attraction of rodents to continually present food in homes, children and pets can face exposure risks, and residential users often lack the expertise to deploy poisons safely. These factors make it necessary for residents to instead employ more effective, longer-term strategies (e.g., exclusion and sanitation) or use legally approved non-anticoagulant rodenticides only.
Yet the proposed regulations would allow the use of ARs at other locations where food is continually present: allowances of these poisons in grocery stores, restaurants, and food processing facilities. DPR has not demonstrated in the proposed regulations the scientific or public health rationale for this distinction. As a result, DPR appears to simply be prioritizing the convenience of businesses over public and environmental safety. If residents are required to manage rodents through behavior and structural remedies, not the rampant use of ARs, then well-resourced commercial operations with safety inspection and maintenance budgets should also be required to do so.
The Regulations Require Integrated and Sustainable Pest Management Planning But Not Proven Implementation
Proposed § 6471.5(b)(4) states that applicators "must follow relevant components of the General Rodent Management Plan when making decisions to apply anticoagulant rodenticides." This language is profoundly weak—it requires consideration of elements in Integrated and Sustainable Pest Management plans, but not a guarantee that they have been fully implemented. For example, an applicator could review their plan, decide that exclusion and sanitation are too expensive or not "relevant" to a specific situation, and proceed to the use of ARs instead.
We recommend that DPR change the language of § 6471.5(b)(4) to stipulate that pest control businesses and applicators must fully implement all relevant components of their General Rodent Management Plan before AR use is permitted, and demonstrate the timing of the implementation. This requirement could be fulfilled through written documentation that a site inspection has been conducted; feasible exclusion measures have been implemented including sealing entry points; sanitation improvements have eliminated accessible food and water; mechanical trapping has been deployed for at least 14 days; and non-chemical methods have proven insufficient to reduce rodent populations below management thresholds. An exception could be provided for genuine public health emergencies declared under § 6471(d)(3).
The Least Number of AR Applications Should be Required
As noted above, we object to the allowance in the proposed regulations of a cumulative 105 days annually of AR application, representing three 35 day applications. In its public presentation on the proposed regulations, DPR itself stated, "Studies have shown a 70% reduction in rodent populations in 35 days." We ask that DPR clarify the scientific basis for allowing three annual applications and recommend that § 6471(c) be revised to remove the 105-day allowance.
Responses to DPR's Specific Questions
Does the rulemaking capture the intent? Only in part. As discussed above, by allowing the use of ARs at additional sites where food sources are continually present, the expansion of use sites, 105-day annual application allowance, and lack of clear Integrated and Sustainable Pest Management implementation requirements contradict the intent of the Poison Free Wildlife Act to vastly reduce the presence and risks of ARs throughout the environment.
Refinements to exempted sites? Yes—do not include grocery stores, restaurants, and most commercial food facilities from the list of allowed uses around man-made structures in §6471(a). Allowed uses should be reserved for genuine public health priorities: hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, and biologics storage. Agricultural exemptions should be tied to requirements for County Agricultural Commissioner permits and use of Integrated and Sustainable Pest Management practices, as well as a prohibition of ARs near sensitive habitats.
Training topics? The proposed topics are appropriate but incomplete. Add: (1) how to actually implement the Integrated and Sustainable Pest Management hierarchy with case studies, (2) wildlife mortality recognition and mandatory reporting requirements, (3) legal requirements and penalties under CESA and Fish & Game Code, and (4) environmental justice considerations. Expand the non-target effects module with California-specific data showing 72% wildlife exposure.
Central recordkeeping location? Inadequate for enforcement. Records should be available on-site or electronically accessible within 24 hours so inspectors can verify compliance during site visits. Require standardized formats and add annual aggregate reporting to DPR to track whether regulations reduce use and wildlife exposure. Increase the record retention requirement to five years, which will allow DPR (and potentially the public) to more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of the training and subsequent applicator practices over time.
12-month implementation delay? Reduce to 6 months to more effectively rein in wildlife deaths and the presence of dangerous poisons in the environment. Six months is adequate for DPR to approve curriculum and for the workforce to complete training, especially with online options.
Training implementation? Use a hybrid approach: DPR develops standardized core curriculum, then approves independent third-party providers to deliver it. This ensures quality while maximizing accessibility. The training must count toward Continuing Education credits for DPR and Structural Pest Control Board licensure to remove compliance barriers and signal that sustainable rodent management is core professional competency.
To date, California has led the nation in demonstrating that effective rodent management and wildlife protection are compatible. We urge DPR to maintain this bold position by strengthening the proposed regulations so that they reflect the original intent of the Poison Free Wildlife Act and state legislature, before moving forward with formal rulemaking. Thank you for your time and attention.
Respectfully submitted,
Kiely Smith
State Advocacy Manager, Project Coyote
ksmith@projectcoyote.org
(650) 862-3994

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Devin O'Dea

11/08/25 @ 9:56 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Mary Kenney

11/08/25 @ 8:28 PM

There's no way that rodenticide regulations should be made less restrictive. That is the absolute opposite direction we should be heading.

The current law has a provision for research to study non-target wildlife poisoning over the next two years an...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Rebecca Dmytryk

11/08/25 @ 6:34 PM

11-8-2025
Jennifer "JT" Teerlink, PhD
Deputy Director, Registration and Evaluation
California Department of Pesticide Regulation
RE: Draft Proposed Anticoagulant Rodenticide Regulations
Deputy Director Teerlink,
For more than a decade, my company, Hu...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: John Callaway

11/08/25 @ 5:25 PM

I am writing to strongly oppose the proposed changes which will weaken anticoagulant rodenticide regulations in CA. I am a long-term restoration ecologist, who has worked mostly with plants, but I also am deeply interested in creating habitat and imp...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Theresa Calpotura

11/08/25 @ 5:24 PM

I believe that the 'mitigations' proposed by the DPR will be a huge set-back for wildlife and other animals. I strongly oppose the following suggested changes: 1. Removal of all permitting requirements for users 2. Exempting grocery stores 3. Exempti...↓

No attachments

Comment From: John Davis

11/08/25 @ 5:18 PM

The current law has a provision for research to study non-target wildlife poisoning over the next two years and produce vetted research that supports less restrictive mitigations. Until the research period has ended and supporting research produced, ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Marlene Mills

11/08/25 @ 5:13 PM

We must stop using anticoagulant rodenticides. The number of other animals that die because they eat rodents containing the anticoagulant rodenticides is very high and entirely unneeded. These are innocent animals that are being killed and we shoul...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Rebecca Dmytryk

11/08/25 @ 5:00 PM

Jennifer "JT" Teerlink, PhD
Deputy Director, Registration and Evaluation
California Department of Pesticide Regulation
1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Draft Proposed Anticoagulant Rodenticide Regulations - Public Comment
Deputy Director Teer...↓link,
I submit these comments as the CEO and founder of Wildlife Emergency Services, with over forty years of hands-on experience rescuing wild animals throughout California. I have personally collected and submitted dozens of specimens for toxicological testing - some showing illness, others found dead without apparent injury. Nearly all tested positive for anticoagulant rodenticide contamination. These results reveal a pervasive and ongoing toxic burden that current monitoring practices may be failing to capture.
The sampling protocol used by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and reported to Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) appears to exclude many opportunistic specimens - animals found dead from unknown causes that could reveal chronic or sublethal poisoning.

For example, a few months ago I requested toxicology testing of a coyote carcass from an area known for heavy use of restricted anticoagulant rodenticides. Rather than welcome the opportunity to collect valuable data, CDFW's Wildlife Investigations Laboratory (WIL) initially refused to process the sample even when I offered to pay for the analysis in full. The resistance was not scientific; it was institutional, and raises serious questions about who controls what gets tested and reported.
It should come as no surprise, given the long-standing and deeply entangled relationship between DPR and CDFW - one in which DPR funding and oversight appear to shape what is tested, how results are reported, what content is approved for dissemination and ultimately what the public is allowed to know. DPR's own contracts and billing records show that CDFW's toxicology staff have been partly paid with DPR funds. Invoices and emails suggest DPR reimbursed CDFW for staff time and overhead related to rodenticide investigations. In other words, the agency that regulates poisons is also paying the scientists whose data it relies on to defend their continued use. And because DPR's budget comes largely from a tax on pesticide sales, both its funding and its science are tied to the very poisons it oversees.
It is, quite literally, the fox guarding the henhouse.
How can the public trust any proposed safeguards when the science behind them is produced within the same system that profits from the poisons it defends?
This conflict of interest has real consequences. The proposed mitigation measures may be based on incomplete and misleading data that underrepresent the true impact anticoagulant rodenticides are having across California's ecosystems. And on the ground, we see no evidence of improvement.

From firsthand experience, we continue to see wildlife poisoned by rodenticides - cases that reveal ongoing misuse and even the persistence of products that have been banned for years. Until DPR can show that existing restrictions are enforced and that exposure is truly declining, it cannot credibly justify expanding use or making these poisons easier to obtain.
We respectfully ask that the Department withdraw all provisions that expand use sites, and we ask that use of rodenticides be prohibited in wildlife habitat and near wildlife corridors. We ask that documentation of preventive measures be required before any poison use. Restricted-use controls must be restored, and permitting loopholes closed. Additionally, oversight must be transparent. DPR must publish all data, agreements, and analyses supporting any findings, including evidence of reduced exposure.
No rulemaking can be considered legitimate when it relies on data generated within a conflicted system - where the agency's revenue is tied to the sale of the poisons under review, and the very evaluators of the impact of those poisons are paid by the agency itself. Therefore, there must be an independent statewide wildlife monitoring program that is free from DPR's financial influence and DPR must create and maintain a clear fiscal and administrative firewall between pesticide-derived revenue and wildlife oversight to ensure objectivity and restore public trust.
Most importantly, the moratorium must remain until a significant and sustained decline in wildlife exposure is demonstrated.
Respectfully,

Rebecca Dmytryk
CEO & Founder, Wildlife Emergency Services
Moss Landing, California

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Tony Tucci

11/08/25 @ 4:02 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife (CLAW) is a non-profit environmental organization concerned with the wellbeing of
wildlife and wildlife habitat for the City of Los Angeles and beyond. A citizenry of more than 5,000 individu...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Shannon McKinney

11/08/25 @ 12:24 PM

Attached please find a letter from California State Senators Blakespear and Stern, and California State Assemblymembers Connolly, Lee, Papan, and Schultz regarding DPR's September 2025 draft proposed regulations on anticoagulant rodenticides.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Travis Smith

11/08/25 @ 11:14 AM

I am a birder and advocate for evidence based solutions and wildlife protections and harm reduction.

The current law has a carve out for research to study non-target wildlife poisoning over the next two years and produce evidence/vetted research tha...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lydia Bruno

11/08/25 @ 10:37 AM

I'm a birder and advocate for measures to protect our wildlife. I'm thankful that California has gone much further to restrict anticoagulant rodenticides than any other state in the country.

The current exemption for research allows you to fully st...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Dillon Gabbert

11/08/25 @ 5:34 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Lynda Heideman

11/08/25 @ 12:43 AM

RE: Anticoagulant Rodenticide Mitigation Informal Public Comment

Anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) are indiscriminate, bioaccumulative poisons. They don't just kill rats: they also poison owls, hawks, bobcats, foxes, coyotes, domestic pets, and other...↓ animals that naturally control rodent populations. In California, those poisons have been documented in coyotes, foxes, owls, hawks, and other raptors and carnivores, causing internal bleeding and long-term illness or death. ARs are a cause of suffering that no animal deserves, not even the rats.

After extensive study and deliberation, California passed three critical laws between 2020 and 2023 to protect wildlife from ARs:
> AB 1788 delivered the first statewide restrictions on second-generation ARs.
> AB 2552 (Poison-Free Wildlife Act) strengthened protections and mandated safer practices.
> AB 1322 closed loopholes and updated labeling and enforcement.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) proposal weakens those laws by reopening pathways for routine, widespread poison use, without emergency justification.

Instead of strengthening wildlife protections, CDPR recommends a major rollback. The CDPR proposal would allow ARs to be used for more than 100 days each year, allowing continued contamination of predators, pets, and ecosystems. That goes against California's commitment to protect wildlife, pets, and even children from those dangerous poisons.

I oppose removing all permitting requirements for users as well as exempting grocery stores and restaurants. Those proposals could add more than 100,000 new locations to those that can use AR baits, with a much lower barrier to entry for pesticide professionals.

California law requires the CDPR to show a meaningful reduction in the levels of ARs persisting in the bodies of non-target wildlife before the department can lift any of the law's use restrictions. One of the more recent studies is a paper published in "The Journal of Wildlife Management" in October 2024, which found that 98.1% of urban (including suburban) coyotes in Southern California were exposed to at least one AR (https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.22696). The CDPR has shared no new studies, yet their proposal would allow a drastic increase in usage. That is a clear violation of the California law's language instructing CDPR to reduce threats to non-target wildlife before loosening AR restrictions.

In summary:
> Rollbacks of AB 1788, AB 2552, and/or AB 1322 are not acceptable.
> No ARs should be allowed, except during a declared public health or environmental emergency (per current law).
> California must invest in ecological rodent control--not more poisons--to protect raptors and other predators.

Californians have already demanded poison-free alternatives to anticoagulant rodenticides. CDPR must honor the law and its obligation to protect wildlife.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for your consideration.

No attachments

Comment From: Karen Zamel

11/07/25 @ 11:08 PM

Please do not allow any further use of these horrible chemicals. We should be eliminating use completely rather than rolling back restrictions as these poisons are incredibly harmful to our ecosystem- animals, plants, people, runoff to the bay. Plea...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Amy Veloz

11/07/25 @ 7:58 PM

Something has to be done about all these horrible rodenticides that are being poured into our environment. Everywhere I go, I see these boxes of poison. I see them at the supermarket, in front of businesses and hospitals. We have predators who eat...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jasmin Ramirez -Strain

11/07/25 @ 6:40 PM

To whom it may concern,

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed regulations regarding the continued use of Anticoagulant Rodenticides (ARs) for specific sites and uses in California. I am submitting this comment on behalf ...↓of the University of California (UC), Systemwide Pesticide Oversight Committee, which consists of UC Staff, academics, and internal stakeholders responsible for implementing and overseeing an Integrated Pest Management Policy across all UC properties.

Overall, we support certain aspects of the proposed regulatory framework for the continued use of these chemicals. Specifically, we support the use of refined language for specific "sites" that will incorporate the description of restaurants and grocery stores in the regulatory code. And the maintained exempted uses to address public health concerns as outlined in the currently allowed uses (FAC 12978.7).

Regarding the training requirements of Sustainable Rodent Management, we recommend developing the required training by partnering with the expertise available within the UC System. This should include collaboration with the UC Statewide IPM program, which houses extension specialists and subject matter experts in the field of rodent research and educational development for pest management professionals and pesticide applicators. Additionally, the training should count towards continuing education units for both DPR and SPCB license and certificate holders. This will incentivize participation and ultimately lead to a more qualified workforce in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) for controlling rodent populations.

We suggest extending the proposed 12-month delay between the effective date and the training to 18 or 24 months. This extension will ensure a comprehensive and well-informed educational curriculum is developed, meeting all the principles of IPM and SPM as outlined in the relevant sections of the FAC, as well as aligning with current academic and industry practices.

We believe that with the careful implementation of proposed regulations DPR will be closer to a balanced approach that effectively manages rodent populations while minimizing risks to wildlife. We appreciate the opportunity to share our insights and look forward to supporting the continued development of effective, safe pest management practices in California.

Sincerely,

Jasmin Ramirez Strain
University of California
Center of Excellence Integrated Pest Management Lead

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Matt Sutton

11/07/25 @ 6:04 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Abby Taylor-Silva

11/07/25 @ 5:46 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Renee Pinel

11/07/25 @ 5:45 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Roger Isom

11/07/25 @ 5:43 PM

Please see the attached comments from a coalition of several agricultural organizations.

Sincerely,

Roger A. Isom

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Daniel Scali

11/07/25 @ 4:42 PM

Dear Officials,

As a concerned citizen and passionate birder, I'm really grateful that California has gone much further to restrict anticoagulant rodenticides than any other state in the country. I don't think all of the legal exemptions are a long-...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Anthony Tansimore

11/07/25 @ 4:22 PM

I am writing about the agency's proposed rulemaking with regard to anticoagulant rodenticide mitigation.

No anticoagulant rodenticides should be allowed, except in a declared public health or environmental emergency. No rollback of AB 1788, AB 2552,...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Roberta Firoved

11/07/25 @ 4:09 PM

Submitted on behalf the California Rice Commission for the Anticoagulant Rodenticide Mitigation Informal Public Comment

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Jonathan Evans

11/07/25 @ 3:37 PM

Please find the attached comments and references submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and Raptors Are The Solution.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Robert Schromm

11/07/25 @ 3:11 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Matt Slattengren

11/07/25 @ 2:05 PM

Thank you for providing the opportunity to submit comments on DPR's proposed anticoagulant rodenticide regulations. The Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture has spent years protecting public infrastructure, including county owned roads, air...↓ports, dams and levees from ground squirrels with diphacinone until the site restrictions imposed by AB 2552 curtailed most of this work. Diphacinone may now only be used to protect the drinking water supply, leaving the remaining public infrastructure to deteriorate.
We have tried alternatives, such as gas cartridges and live trapping, but they are labor intensive, cost prohibitive, and potentially hazardous to staff.
After attending the workshop on September 24th, 2025, we suggest the following changes to the proposed regulations:
• There needs to be a public safety exemption to allow first generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) to be used around airport runways. Airport runways are critical infrastructure where ground squirrel damage could endanger lives. There are federal regulations that airports cannot effectively follow without the use of FGARs, such as Code of Federal Regulations 139.337.
• The term "water infrastructure" should be used instead of "water supply." Our county counsel sees "water supply" as meaning drinking water, when there is real need to protect dams and levees as well.
• An exemption should be added for "Public Infrastructure." This should also capture most "Water Infrastructure" as well. If we cannot protect our public infrastructure like roads, dams, and levees, we will need to repair them all constantly so as not to create other public hazards. This is a wasteful use of public funds easily avoided with proper and safe applications of FGARs. We have evaluated other methods and none that we reviewed are economically or logistically feasible.
o California Government Code, section 11813 states, in part:
"The Legislature finds and declares the following:
(a) Waste and inefficiency in state government undermine the confidence of Californians in government and reduces the state government's ability to adequately address vital public needs."
Current prohibitions on the use of FGAR's contribute to this undesired outcome. Exemptions allowing for their use to protect public infrastructure would ameliorate this problem.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Contra Costa County Department of Agriculture / Weights & Measures

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Fabiola Delgado

11/07/25 @ 12:46 PM

Please see attached 3,443 comments from Center for Biological Diversity supporters urging you to outright ban the use of anticoagulant rodenticides in California.

No attachments

Comment From: Jonathan Evans

11/07/25 @ 12:44 PM

Dear Director Morrison,

On behalf of the 22 undersigned groups and our hundreds of thousands of members and supporters in California, we are writing to urge the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to enact regulations to suspend and cance...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Dan Fox

11/07/25 @ 12:26 PM

As an urban wildlife biologist and president of Animal Pest Management Services, Inc. With over 45 years in field research and servicing over 1,000 Homeowners Associations. We urgently need to bring back Diphacinone and Bromadiolone. For control of r...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Amy Wolfberg

11/07/25 @ 11:55 AM

I am re-submitting my prior comment as I want to let the CA DRP know that I am a lifelong California resident. My original comment is below.

Thank you.

All anticoagulant rodenticides should be absolutely banned and should not have exemptions for t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Amy Wolfberg

11/07/25 @ 11:49 AM

It's long past time that ALL anticoagulant rodenticides should be absolutely banned and should not have exemptions for them expanded. They are extremely deadly to wildlife with cascading consequences throughout the food chain and environment. The exi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ellen Gierson

11/07/25 @ 11:46 AM

All anticoagulant rodenticides should be banned and should not have exemptions for them expanded. Even with existing restrictions, anticoagulant rodenticides continue to kill and harm non-target animals — including mountain lions, bobcats, owls, and ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Richard Poche Scimetrics Limited Corp.

11/07/25 @ 10:22 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Jeff Jensen

11/07/25 @ 8:32 AM

November 7, 2025
California Department of Pesticide Regulation
Director Karen Morrison
1001 I Street
Sacramento, California 95814

Subject: Opposition to Anticoagulant Rodenticide Mitigation

Dear Director Morrison:

Please accept the following comm...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jake Plevelich

11/07/25 @ 8:03 AM

November 8, 2025
Dr. Karen Morrison, Director
California Department of Pesticide Regulation
1001 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95812

Re: Public Comment on Proposed Amendments to Anticoagulant Rodenticide Mitigation Measures

Dear Director Morriso...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Nelson Molina

11/07/25 @ 7:37 AM

California does not need to rely on cruel, outdated poisons. Integrated Pest Management strategies — sealing buildings, removing food and water sources, and employing non-toxic controls such as contraceptives, snap traps, and electric traps — are hum...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Wendy Herzenberg

11/07/25 @ 5:46 AM

I want to add my voice to the restriction and regulations against rodenticides in our communities. I am concerned about it's effects on wildlife and the environment.

No attachments

Comment From: Katherine Calvert

11/06/25 @ 11:44 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Hisako Reyda

11/06/25 @ 10:24 PM

Please do not roll back AB 1788, AB 2552, or AB 1322! These anticoagulant rodenticides are the WRONG way to control rodent populations. We need to protect raptors and owls, not kill them with these poisons.

Thank you!
Hisako

No attachments

Comment From: Frank Reyda

11/06/25 @ 10:18 PM

Don't allow anticoagulant rodenticides in California! We have many kinds of owls and raptors that live in our town and that we see in the backyard. We also see gray foxes and coyotes. They will almost certainly be endangered by this foolish idea t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Henry Koertzen

11/06/25 @ 8:39 PM

I'm a California resident in support of a total ban on anticoagulant rodenticides and in strong opposition to any changes to the regulations that would give exemptions for the use of rodenticides that would roll back protections gained by state legis...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kara Henderson

11/06/25 @ 6:22 PM

I am a certified California Naturalist and San Francisco resident and greatly oppose the proposed mitigations for anticoagulant rodenticides. Last year I spent a day at the Ojai Raptor Center, which has been doing raptor rehabilitation, education, an...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Eric Schroeder

11/06/25 @ 5:13 PM

Exempting grocery stores and restaurants from the ban will result in thousands of new bait locations and greatly reduce the effectiveness of the ban. This is a clear violation of California law's language instructing CDPR to reduce threats to non-tar...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lesley Stansfield

11/06/25 @ 4:48 PM

I strongly oppose the following suggested changes: 1. Removal of all permitting requirements for users 2. Exempting grocery stores 3. Exempting restaurants. I estimate these proposals would add well over 100,000 new locations to those which can use A...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

11/06/25 @ 3:15 PM

Removing permitting and increasing use cases for rodenticide use can only hurt California's natural resources and still-threatened species.

No attachments

Comment From: Divya Manian

11/06/25 @ 2:57 PM

> Are any refinements to exempted sites needed?
Please do not loosen restrictions on rodenticide use!!! Rodenticides are harmful not just to rats but also to the predators that eat them AND to the soil & water where these predators and rats end up in...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Christine Okon

11/06/25 @ 2:29 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Isabella Quinonez

11/06/25 @ 1:51 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Virginia Rogers

11/06/25 @ 1:23 PM

I am a California resident in support of a total ban on anticoagulant rodenticides and in strong opposition to any changes to the regulations that would give exemptions for the use of rodenticides that would roll back protections gained by state legi...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Judith Smith

11/06/25 @ 11:50 AM

I am adding to my previous comment to include my opposition to:
1. Removal of all permitting requirements for users
2. Exempting grocery stores
3. Exempting restaurants.

These exemptions would add well over 100,000 new locations to those which ca...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Christopher Lish

11/06/25 @ 11:11 AM

Thursday, November 6, 2025

California Department of Pesticide Regulation
1001 I Street (P.O. Box 4015)
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject: Ban anticoagulant rodenticides before they hurt more wildlife -- Anticoagulant Rodenticide Mitigation Informal Publ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Martha Carrington

11/06/25 @ 9:36 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Melissa Schmidt

11/06/25 @ 8:31 AM

I am asking you require pesticides in California no longer contain anticoagulant rodenticide. Threatened and endangered birds of prey eat them and suffer, often dieing. I believe my cat ate a mouse and became paralyzed. We had to put her down.

No attachments

Comment From: Nancy Weller

11/06/25 @ 7:27 AM

DPR: The modification/rollback of regulation of rodenticides as required in AB1788, AB2552 and AB1322 is going to have terrible consequences for the natural predatory food chain of California's wildlife. Allowing 100 days or more of anticoagulant r...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Noreen Weeden

11/06/25 @ 3:57 AM

As a California resident and environmentalist I ask you to ban anticoagulant rodenticides except in extraordinary/extreme situations (islands or human health facilities like hospitals).

Allowing use for more than 100 days per year, as proposed, undu...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cyn Coulouthros

11/06/25 @ 2:43 AM

I had a dog who was poisoned by rat poison, and it was a TERRIBLE thing to witness.
I strongly oppose expanding exemptions for anticoagulant rodenticides. These poisons continue to kill non-target wildlife — including mountain lions, bobcats, owls,...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Dr Tracy Ferea

11/05/25 @ 9:09 PM

Please do not expand exemptions on anticoagulant rodenticides, they all should be banned. With the current exemptions our wildlife and domestic animals continue to be killed and harmed with painful internal bleeding. I have had rodents suffering fro...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Martin Tripp

11/05/25 @ 6:51 PM

I am a California resident in support of a **total** ban on anticoagulant rodenticides and in strong opposition to **any** changes to the regulations that would give exemptions for the use of rodenticides that would roll back protections gained by st...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Carla Din

11/05/25 @ 6:02 PM

I am a lifelong California resident who supports a total ban on anticoagulant rodenticides. Not only do they cause horrific pain and suffering to rodents, they pose a significant risk to non-target wildlife and pets. These poisons harm the ecosystem,...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lora Figgat

11/05/25 @ 4:03 PM

Hello –

I am a San Jose, California resident and am very concerned about anticoagulant rodenticides. Their used should be totally banned and the exemptions should not be increased. I have seen first-hand the harm and suffering they bring to uninten...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Al Maz

11/05/25 @ 3:02 PM

No attachments

Comment From: VERONIKA FUKSON

11/05/25 @ 3:01 PM

We need to think about the bird population which is sadly decreasing every day. We need to do everything within our means
to remove poisons from the environment and I oppose all government regulations which relax their use, including
rodenticide.

No attachments

Comment From: Monir Brown

11/05/25 @ 2:41 PM

Having seen the effects of anticoagulants on rodents, it is a needlessly cruel and painful death. Growing its use would be irresponsible, when there are more humane ways of killing or eliminating pests.

No attachments

Comment From: Joyce Cohen

11/05/25 @ 1:56 PM

I am a a California resident in support of a total ban on anticoagulant rodenticides and in strong opposition to any changes to the regulations that would give exemptions for the use of rodenticides that would roll back protections gained by state le...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Marlene Deel

11/05/25 @ 1:34 PM

I, a California resident, support a total ban on anticoagulant rodenticides and strongly oppose any changes to the regulations that would grant exemptions for the use of rodenticides, thereby rolling back protections gained through state legislation ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Margaret Thow

11/05/25 @ 1:01 PM

Please do nothing to make the use of these anticoagulant rodenticides easier or more frequent. I have found dead owls and dead raptors in my own yard. Such poisoning is cumulative in our bird populations as they find and eat rodents. Their presenc...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Kimberley Hagen

11/05/25 @ 12:56 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Baerbel Steffestun

11/05/25 @ 12:35 PM

No attachments

Comment From: George Marschall

11/05/25 @ 12:30 PM

Dear Department of Pesticide Regulation,

As a California resident, I am writing in strong opposition to any proposed changes that would weaken our state's current restrictions on anticoagulant rodenticides. I fully support a total ban on these poiso...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Barbara Greer

11/05/25 @ 12:28 PM

I am against all use of anticoagulant rodenticide.
Protect all California wildlife !

No attachments

Comment From: J B

11/05/25 @ 12:26 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Trish Odenthal

11/05/25 @ 12:10 PM

Please ban the use of anticoagulant rodenticides because they are killing our owls, hawks, and other raptors. I have installed ¼" wire cloth over openings and also a tazer trap under my house that shocks the rat entering the taser box, if they do fin...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Sarah Adelman

11/05/25 @ 11:53 AM

THESE ARE POISONS THAT WOULD HARM OUR WILDLIFE and undo years of progress!

No attachments

Comment From: Bara Sapir

11/05/25 @ 11:23 AM

Subject: Protect California Wildlife — Keep Anticoagulant Rodenticide Restrictions in Place

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing to urge you to oppose any expansion or exemptions for anticoagulant rodenticides in California. These poisons are devas...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Carol Garberson

11/05/25 @ 10:50 AM

We strongly object to the use of anticoagulant rodenticides around residential areas businesses, stores, restaurants or anywhere else. They kill a lot of owls, hawks, cats and more - anything that eats the poisoned rodents.

No exceptions except in ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Pam Boyle

11/05/25 @ 10:24 AM

All anticoagulant rodenticides should be banned and should not have expanded exemptions. Even with existing restrictions, anticoagulant rodenticides continue to kill and harm non-target animals — including mountain lions, bobcats, owls, and endangere...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Beth Cataldo

11/05/25 @ 10:08 AM

I am against anticoagulant rodenticides. They should be banned and should not have exemptions for them expanded. Even with existing restrictions, anticoagulant rodenticides continue to kill and harm non-target animals — including mountain lions, bobc...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Galen Hazelhofer

11/05/25 @ 9:56 AM

All anticoagulant rodenticides should be banned and should not have exemptions for them expanded. Even with existing restrictions, anticoagulant rodenticides continue to kill and harm non-target animals, going far into the environment to include moun...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Patricia Aguilera

11/05/25 @ 9:36 AM

Please do not allow the use of anticoagulant rodenticides. They should be banned and should not have exemptions for them expanded. Even with existing restrictions, anticoagulant rodenticides continue to kill and harm non-target animals — including m...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jason Lachick

11/05/25 @ 9:35 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Brian Glenn

11/05/25 @ 8:41 AM

The Orange County Flood Control District manages approximately 3500 acres of flood control facilities where rodent control is deemed critical for maintaining structural integrity of slopes and levees. These channels, basins, and dams were built to pr...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Barbara Kaimowitz

11/05/25 @ 8:03 AM

Poisoning rats also kills birds and other wildlife. Numerous other methods are available. Ban rodenticides.

No attachments

Comment From: Cary Sparks

11/05/25 @ 7:29 AM

No attachments

Comment From: LUCY KENYON

11/05/25 @ 7:27 AM

I am a California resident and I'm in support of a total ban on anticoagulant rodenticides and in strong opposition to any changes to the regulations that would give exemptions for the use of rodenticides that would roll back protections gained by st...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Elizabeth Azinheira

11/05/25 @ 7:12 AM

I am a California resident and support of a total ban on anticoagulant rodenticides.

I strongly oppose any changes to the regulations that would give exemptions for the use of rodenticides.

No attachments

Comment From: Valerie Repnau

11/05/25 @ 2:57 AM

No attachments

Comment From: Paul Wellin

11/04/25 @ 10:20 PM

California does not need to rely on cruel, outdated poisons. Expanding their use, especially in areas like restaurants and grocery stores where these poisons are currently prohibited, would undo years of progress and undermine California's landmark w...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

11/04/25 @ 10:19 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Christine Cardosi

11/04/25 @ 10:04 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Scott Bowers

11/04/25 @ 8:45 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Peggy Lopipero-Langmo

11/04/25 @ 8:33 PM

Dear Policymakers, I am a California resident in support of a total ban on anticoagulant rodenticides and in strong opposition to any changes to the regulations that would give exemptions for the use of rodenticides that would roll back protections g...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Peter Guerrero

11/04/25 @ 7:52 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Elizabeth Karolczak

11/04/25 @ 7:37 PM

I am a longtime California resident and I strongly support a total ban on anticoagulant rodenticides. I am also in extremely strong opposition to any changes to the regulations that would give exemptions for the use of rodenticides that would roll b...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Judith Smith

11/04/25 @ 7:30 PM

I'm a California resident in SUPPORT of a TOTAL BAN on anticoagulant rodenticides and in STRONG OPPOSITION to any changes to the regulations that would give exemptions for the use of rodenticides that would roll back protections gained by state legis...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lizabeth Coe

11/04/25 @ 6:38 PM

Californians have already demanded poison-free solutions. DPR must honor the law. Repealing prohibition of rodenticides, except during a declared public health or environmental emergency is in defiance of all current science and a threat to both huma...↓

No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]