Issue: USDA/WS’ Plan to Provide Urban Rodent Control Services in Massachusetts in Competition w/Private Sector & Contrary to Authorizing Statue

Background: In May 2012, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service, Wildlife Services’ (WS) program issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) entitled “Reducing Large Rodent Damage in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” The document makes clear that WS plans to offer beaver, muskrat, porcupine and woodchuck control services throughout Massachusetts including in urban areas in competition with private pest and nuisance wildlife management businesses. Such activity will undoubtedly have a detrimental impact on many small Massachusetts pest and wildlife management companies, possibly imperiling their ability to stay in business. While WS’ authorizing statute is extremely broad, it expressly precludes the Agency from engaging in urban rodent control.

7 USC § 426C - CONTROL OF NUISANCE MAMMALS AND BIRDS AND THOSE CONSTITUTING RESERVOIRS OF ZOONOTIC DISEASES; EXCEPTION
On and after December 22, 1987, the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized, except for urban rodent control, to conduct activities and to enter into agreements with States, local jurisdictions, individuals, and public and private agencies, organizations, and institutions in the control of nuisance mammals and birds and those mammal and bird species that are reservoirs for zoonotic diseases, and to deposit any money collected under any such agreement into the appropriation accounts that incur the costs to be available immediately and to remain available until expended for Animal Damage Control activities.

Nevertheless, WS readily acknowledges throughout the EA that it will be providing urban rodent control and that private options exist. For instance, on page 37 WS states: “WS’ large rodent damage management activities would primarily be conducted on populations in areas where hunting and trapping access is restricted (e.g., airports, urban areas) or has been ineffective.” Later in the document, on page 79, under the heading “Urban/Suburban Large Rodents,” the EA reads: “WS may provide …. direct operational assistance … are appropriate for use in urban/suburban environments”. Finally, on pages 36-37 WS writes “PAC (Problem Animal Control) agents……could be contacted to reduce large rodent damage for property owners…. Some property owners would prefer to use a PAC agent…because the nuisance wildlife agent is located in closer proximity and thus could provide the service at less expense, or because they prefer to use a private business rather than a government agency. However, some property owners would prefer to contract with a government agency. In particular, large industrial businesses and cities and towns may prefer to use WS because of security and safety issues.”

Position: The New England and National Pest Management Associations and National Wildlife Control Operators Association strongly oppose WS’ plan to perform large urban rodent control activities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. WS’ authorizing law does not permit such activity. WS entrance in the urban rodent control sector is unnecessary, not an inherently government function, competes with the private sector, and threatens the future viability of small Massachusetts pest and wildlife management companies. Moreover, it sets a horrible precedent and gives license to WS to ignore the law.

We urge members of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation to write USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack urging him to cancel WS’ plans to offer and perform urban rodent control services in Massachusetts in violation of the law and also offer an amendment to the pending Farm Bill defining the terms “urban” and “rodent,” so as to set clearer parameters about the work in which WS is not permitted to engage. June 13, 2012


Charles Holt,CWCP
Owner
Advantage Wildlife Removal
www.cincinnatianimalcontrol.com
www.advantage-wr.com