Senate hearing on rodenticide limits erupts into hours of competing testimony; sponsors adopt amendments and lay bill over

The Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Feb. 19 heard more than four hours of testimony on Senate Bill 62, a measure that would reclassify some high‑risk rodenticides as restricted‑use pesticides and direct rulemaking to require integrated pest management (IPM) and enhanced stewardship for certain products.

Sponsors — Senators Kerry Cutter and Sen. Kipp — framed the bill as a public‑health and environmental safeguard, pointing to studies showing widespread detection of anticoagulant rodenticides in predatory wildlife and thousands of human exposure reports to poison centers. Cutter said the intent is to keep the most toxic products out of casual consumer use while preserving professional and agricultural access where necessary.

Supporters included conservation organizations, wildlife rehabilitators and veterinarians who described secondary poisoning of raptors, coyotes and pets. Dr. Laurel Sarrias, a wildlife biologist, told the committee that anticoagulant residues have been detected broadly in predatory birds and mammals and that “the harm caused by these products is severe and widespread.” Multiple rehabilitation groups and wildlife centers described animals arriving at clinics with delayed hemorrhaging and neurological signs consistent with rodenticide exposure.

Industry and many local stakeholders urged caution. Representatives of the pest‑control industry (Colorado Pest Control Association, National Pest Management Association), small operators and manufacturers warned the amended rules would impose high costs on small firms, rural customers and congregate settings. Agriculture and livestock groups said some rodenticides are essential to protect stored inputs, prevent equipment damage and avoid disease spread on farms and feed facilities. Producers and county officials raised concerns about enforcement in rural areas and potential unfunded mandates.

Hospitals, schools and housing providers also testified against the amended framework. Representatives said the bill’s documentation and monitoring requirements could delay preventive pest management and complicate infection‑control and food‑safety obligations in healthcare and institutional settings.

Negotiated amendments and industry input

During the hearing sponsors offered substantial changes that the proponents had negotiated with some industry participants. Amendment L001 shifted the bill from an outright consumer prohibition toward a professional stewardship and rule‑making framework and included a narrow carve‑out for some single‑use bromethalin packaging. The sponsors said the amendment reduced the fiscal note to zero. A second amendment (L010) clarified additional technical points.

Both L001 and L010 passed the committee on 4–3 party‑line votes (aye: Senators Henriksen, Kipp, Danielson and the chair; no: Senators Catlin, Helton B., Helton R.). Transcript poll entries reflect the roll calls recorded by committee staff.

Layover for further stakeholder work

After more than a dozen panels of pro and con testimony, the sponsors asked to postpone final action to give additional time for outreach and to clarify the amended text. The chair agreed and laid SB62 over for further action; there was no final vote on the bill itself during this session.

What’s next

SB62 will return to the committee after sponsors and stakeholders complete the requested follow‑up work and any further drafting. If reintroduced in that form, the committee will consider any new amendments, the department’s rules, and potential carve‑outs for public‑health exceptions at that time.

Quotes

"The harm caused by these products is severe and widespread," wildlife biologist Laurel Sarrias testified, describing detection in predatory birds and mammals. "These products are inherently dangerous and must be used with care and clear justification."

"This bill removes practical rodent‑control tools from everyday residents who often need to act immediately," argued Christopher Fenarelli of a household products association, warning of consequences for renters, small restaurants and low‑income households.

Ending

Sponsors told the committee they aim to preserve access for legitimate agricultural and institutional uses while tightening consumer protections and non‑target exposures. For now, committee members laid the bill over so sponsors can return with clarified language and further stakeholder agreement.