Poisoning of wildlife with anticoagulant rodenticides in New York.

Wildlife Pathology Unit, New York State Department of Environment Conservation, Delmar 12054, USA.
Journal of wildlife diseases (Impact Factor: 1.31). 05/1999; 35(2):187-93. DOI: 10.7589/0090-3558-35.2.187
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT From 1971 through 1997, we documented 51 cases (55 individual animals) of poisoning of non-target wildlife in New York (plus two cases in adjoining states) (USA) with anticoagulant rodenticides--all but two of these cases occurred in the last 8 yrs. Brodifacoum was implicated in 80% of the incidents. Diphacinone was identified in four cases, bromadiolone in three cases (once in combination with brodifacoum), and chlorophacinone and coumatetralyl were detected once each in the company of brodifacoum. Warfarin accounted for the three cases documented prior to 1989, and one case involving a bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in 1995. Secondary intoxication of raptors, principally great horned owls (Bubo virginianus) and red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), comprised one-half of the cases. Gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), raccoons (Procyon lotor) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) were the most frequently poisoned mammals. All of the deer originated from a rather unique situation on a barrier island off southern Long Island (New York). Restrictions on the use of brodifacoum appear warranted.

  • Source
    New Zealand Journal of Ecology 01/2013; 37(1):1-11. · 1.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Organizers of the California Burrowing Owl Symposium (November 2003) invited speakers to prepare summaries on the regional status of Burrowing Owls throughout most of California. Our task was to collate current information on population and trends of Burrowing Owls in the greater San Francisco Bay Area (SFBA). We briefly review what was known historically and what has been published about the distribution and trends in abundance of Burrowing Owls, most of which was based on the information provided in the Petition for Listing the California Population of the Western Burrowing Owl as an Endangered or Threatened Species under the California Endangered Species Act (Center for Biological Diversity [CBD] et al. 2003; hereafter the Petition). We updated this information with our informal investigation of abundance, distribution, and population trends of Burrowing Owls within the SFBA.
    California Burrowing Owl Symposium, Sacramento, CA; 11/2003
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We investigated the diet of Barred Owls (Strix varia) inhabiting urban environments in the Lower Fraser Valley of southwestern British Columbia, Canada. Our objective was to use the diet information to gain insight into the pathways of exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) previously documented in this owl species. In particular, we examined whether such exposure is driven by the consumption of rodents commonly targeted during AR application, Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), black rats (Rattus rattus) and house mice (Mus musculus), or if the secondary exposure is via consumption of native non-target rodents feeding at outdoor bait-stations. We identified 688 prey items from eight urban nest/roost sites. Rats (54.5%) were by far the most common prey, followed by field voles (Microtus townsendii; 19.3%), and deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus; 5.2%). The consumption of rats was positively correlated with the degree of urban development within Barred Owl home ranges (rp = 0.70, r2 = 0.48, P < 0.05, one-tailed). Barred Owls consumed predominantly younger rats, as the average rat weight was 103 ± 51.7 grams (n = 164). Surprisingly, no house mice were found in the prey remains, supporting the assumption that house mice seldom venture outdoors and therefore are not a likely vector of ARs to owls. If we assume more intensive AR usage in urban environments, then the higher consumption of rats in urban areas implicates rats as the likely pathway for secondary AR exposure to Barred Owls in urban landscapes.
    Journal of Raptor Research 03/2015; 49(1):66-74. DOI:10.3356/jrr-14-00012.1 · 0.59 Impact Factor


1 Download
Available from