N.J.'s owls need protection from secondhand rat poison

Imagine spotting a great horned owl perched quietly in a tree. You grab your camera and capture a few photographs before the owl disappears. Throughout the day, you show off your photographs to friends and colleagues. But the very next morning, your neighbor finds an injured, dying owl beside the road. There are no broken bones or obvious wounds. Laboratory testing later identifies the cause of death: anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning. Anticoagulants interfere with normal blood clotting, which can lead to uncontrolled internal bleeding. The owl hadn't eaten poison directly. It had simply done what owls have done for millions of years: It hunted rodents. One or more of the rodents it ate had consumed the poison, which then moved up the food chain. In the owl, the poison caused internal bleeding, weakness and, ultimately, death. This is not an argument against controlling rodents. Rats and mice contaminate food, damage homes, spread disease and can devastate native wildlife when introduced to islands. New Jersey needs effective rodent management. However, we should ask whether the most persistent poisons ought to remain a routine first response, especially when they can also harm the predators that provide natural rodent control. A hidden threat to wildlife The greatest concern involves second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, or SGARs. These powerful tools were developed after rodents evolved resistance to earlier anticoagulant compounds such as warfarin. SGARs are potent, persistent and often lethal after a single feeding. Those qualities make them effective. They also allow residues to remain in an animal's tissues while it becomes slow, disoriented and especially vulnerable to predators such as the great horned owl. The resulting wildlife exposure is not speculative. In a scientific study involving birds of prey, including owls, hawks and eagles, admitted to a Massachusetts wildlife clinic between 2012 and 2016, SGAR residues were detected in 96% of the birds tested. Anticoagulant exposure can cause fatal internal bleeding, but it also may contribute to general weakness and a reduced ability to recover from injury. These less visible effects are much harder to measure in free-ranging owls, hawks, foxes, bobcats and other predators. Together, they pose real threats to ecosystem health. Integrated pest management offers a better model The sensible alternative is not to prohibit every rodenticide in every circumstance. It is to use integrated pest management. This approach emphasizes preventing infestations where possible, monitoring activity, removing food sources, sealing entry points and using traps or other nonchemical methods before escalating to poisons. When chemical control is genuinely necessary, the product and application should be selected to minimize risks to people, pets and wildlife. This is not merely theoretical. At New Jersey Audubon's nature centers, where bird seed and public facilities make rodent management necessary, we use a digital system that combines networked sensors with nontoxic mechanical traps. The system alerts pest-management professionals when activity is detected or a trap is triggered. Continuous monitoring and rapid, targeted response allow us to manage rodents without routinely relying on anticoagulant poisons. Other states are moving in this direction. California restricts second-generation anticoagulants while preserving defined exemptions for agriculture, public health, invasive-species control and critical infrastructure. Rhode Island has adopted a phased approach that limits routine uses, promotes municipal integrated pest management and retains exemptions for legitimate needs. These laws are not perfect templates for New Jersey, but they demonstrate that wildlife protection and practical rodent control are not mutually exclusive. Four principles for New Jersey New Jersey should build its own balanced framework around four principles: Reserve second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides for trained professionals rather than routine consumer use. Require permitted uses to occur within an integrated pest management plan emphasizing prevention, sanitation, exclusion, monitoring and trapping. Preserve carefully defined exemptions for public-health emergencies, food production and storage, medical facilities, agriculture, critical infrastructure and invasive-species management. Support municipal and county pilot programs that test poison-free and lower-risk approaches under real-world conditions. Such a policy would be consistent with the direction of federal scientists. In 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency completed a biological evaluation of 11 rodenticide active ingredients and issued a strategy intended to reduce exposure of threatened and endangered species while retaining necessary rodent-control tools. The goal should not be symbolic legislation or an indiscriminate ban. It should be a practical policy that reduces unnecessary poisoning while allowing homeowners, municipalities, farmers and businesses to address genuine infestations. New Jersey can control rodents and protect owls, hawks, foxes and other wildlife at the same time. We simply need to stop treating the most persistent poisons as the default response. Alex Ireland is president and CEO of New Jersey Audubon and holds a doctorate in environmental sciences.