Advocacy in Action

In response to the growing concern over rodenticide-abundance in the ecosystem the BC Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy  announced a new Rodenticide Action Plan in July, 2021, which included temporary restrictions on the sale and use of some rodenticides and a scientific review of the root causes of secondary poisoning. Despite pointed feedback regarding the scope and efficacy of the proposed changes, the Ministry made these restrictions permanent in October, 2022.

Citizen advocates in BC are pleased that the Ministry has acknowledged the unreasonable adverse effects SGARs have on wildlife but have expressed great concern that the new restrictions fail to reduce significant risks of exposure. The changes only reduce the use of products containing the active ingredients brodifacoum, bromadiolone, and/or difethialone: just 3 of 27 active [toxic] ingredients found in rodenticides currently registered in Canada. Additionally, overly-broad and unnecessary exemptions and complexities further frustratecompliance issues and enforcement impossibilities.

While it serves as an important symbolic step forward, the Rodenticide Action Plan falls short of satisfying the Ministry’s legal obligations to protect the environment from unreasonable adverse effects caused by rodenticide products. Nothing short of a complete and permanent ban on the use of rodenticides by the government will stop the tragic deaths of raptors and protect the wildlife and environment from the long-term effects of these poison.

Numerous owl and companion animal deaths believed to be related to rodenticide exposure have been reported since restrictions were introduced in 2021 demonstrating that broad exemptions allow continued use, enforcement challenges, and unmitigated risks.

We are actively monitoring the implementation and enforcement of BC's updated policies and are prepared to hold decision-makers accountable for further progress as opportunities arise. In the meantime, we are dedicated to supporting local advocates demanding change in their communities and promoting humane, chemical-free solutions.

Keeping Them Accountable

Ongoing Barriers to Transparency

As undue influence by the pesticide and pest control industry have been cited as significant barriers to effective and timely change, independent review of reports and their accompanying processes is crucial. 

In 2019, the death of numerous owls in British Columbia raised concerns about the legal, regulatory, and enforcement mechanisms governing rodenticide use. In response, Defend Them All and its partners submitted a Freedom of Information request to obtain avian necropsy reports from BC’s Animal Health Centre (the “Animal Health Lab”) from January 2017 – November 2020.

What We Found

Our analysis of these reports raised concerns about how rodenticide poisoning is diagnosed:

• Even when rodenticides were detected, reports often listed trauma, hemorrhage, or emaciation as the cause of death without mentioning toxicants.

• Many birds exhibiting classic signs of rodenticide poisoning were never tested for these chemicals.

• Several studies have described similar flaws in data collection and analysis in the United States, suggesting that the impact of rodenticides on protected species across North America has been severely underestimated (see Wiens et. al., 2019)

Vital Wildlife Health Data Withheld in Ontario

Building on our analysis in British Columbia, we have requested necropsy reports gathered through Ontario’s public wildlife health surveillance program by the Canadian Wildlife Health Cooperative, housed within the University of Guelph. The University has refused to disclose these records, citing exemptions under Ontario's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), including:

• Section 65(8.1)(a): That these reports qualify as "research" and are therefore excluded from the Act, arguing that details such as observations, findings, tests performed, results, and official diagnoses are part of ongoing academic research and not subject to public disclosure.

• Section 17(1)(b): That the records contain confidential third-party information supplied in confidence, the release of which could cause harm to the university or its affiliates.

We maintain that these records are not research materials but factual documentation of necropsy results collected through a public program for wildlife health surveillance. Public access to this data is crucial to evaluating the effects of rodenticides on wildlife and ensuring that decision-making processes are based on transparent and complete evidence.

We are eagerly awaiting the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s (IPC) decision and are confident that the public interest in these records will be recognized, with a ruling favoring disclosure.