Why proposed rat poison reforms won’t protect birds

Why proposed rat poison reforms still won’t protect our birds

The federal regulator for pesticides has finally released its long-awaited review into the use and regulation of rodent poisons in Australia – but the proposed changes will harm, not help, Australia’s native wildlife. BirdLife Australia’s Dr Holly Parsons and Dr Christina Zdenek explain.

Australia’s native wildlife is being poisoned – quietly, prolifically and largely unnoticed.

This harm isn’t happening somewhere else. It’s in our cities, towns, farms and backyards. This is happening because of routine pest control and the contamination has been ongoing for decades.

Just before Christmas (16 Dec 2025), the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) released the outcome of its long-running (since 2022) review into anticoagulant rodenticides (rat poisons). Drawing on more than 1,500 scientific studies, they conclude that their current regulations are failing to prevent unacceptable harm to wildlife.  

Without stronger action, wildlife like owls, frogmouths, quolls and many other native animals (even our household pets) will continue to be poisoned. There are solutions that control invasive rodents whilst posing little threat to wildlife, in line with other nations around the world – the APVMA just needs to accept and promote them. Instead of promoting these safer alternatives for public use, the APVMA has proposed regulatory changes that will fail to prevent harm to birds and other wildlife.  

How proposed changes fail to protect wildlife and pets from poison 

While the removal of powder and liquid forms of rat bait is a positive change, allowing the more popular block and pellet forms to remain on the shelf fails to protect wildlife. Packet sizes would be smaller, but without a maximum number of packets one can buy. The proposal of adding bittering agents and dyes to the baits will not put off rats, which means the predominant pathway of poison spreading to wildlife and pets remains. A dog or an owl that eats a dying and delirious poisoned rodent wandering around for up to 2 weeks  won’t be safe. Neither will the frogs that eat cockroaches that eat the bait, nor anything that then eats those poisoned frogs, like our 2025 bird of the year, the Tawny Frogmouth.  

The rest of the changes proposed by the regulator involve labelling (i.e. the fine print), putting the onus entirely onto consumers to diligently read and follow directions. Some instructions include unrealistic steps like searching for dead rats and slugs, collecting them and disposing of them safely. None of these changes will stop these poisons harming wildlife. 

What about rat and mouse ‘plagues’? 

Restricting the public sale of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) does not prevent effective control of invasive rodents, including during population surges or plague conditions. Safer and effective alternatives are already available and form the basis of Integrated Pest Management (IPM). 

IPM combines prevention, monitoring and targeted control, using the lowest-risk methods first and escalating only where necessary. It also supports healthier ecosystems, including predatory birds such as owls and raptors, which contribute to long-term, natural suppression of rodent populations. 

In homes, urban areas and on farms, rodents can be managed without routine reliance on long-lasting anticoagulant poisons that pose high risks to wildlife and pets. Alternatives include physical control methods (such as snap traps and electric traps), first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, and non-anticoagulant rodenticides used in a targeted and monitored way.

First-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (e.g. coumatetralyl, warfarin and diphacinone) are shorter-acting and less persistent than SGARs and are already available to consumers and professionals. Non-anticoagulant rodenticides, including cholecalciferol and salt-based products, are also available for urban and agricultural use, including by licensed pest controllers. 

These methods are most effective when combined with preventative measures such as securing food and waste, reducing access to shelter, and regularly monitoring traps or bait stations. Even during plague events, these approaches reduce reliance on long-lasting anticoagulant poisons and minimise harm to non-target wildlife. 

There may be tightly controlled situations, including some emergency or conservation contexts, where short-term SGAR use by trained professionals is considered necessary. However, routine and widespread public use of long-lasting SGARs is causing unacceptable wildlife mortality at a national scale. 

Flawed logic 

The logic of the proposed changes is majorly flawed: it assumes that long-lasting rat poison chemicals can be made safe through packaging, placement, and compliance. They can’t. These changes do not address the most dangerous, widespread poisoning pathway: secondary poisoning – when predators and scavengers eat poisoned and dying prey.

In many other parts of the world, regulators have already taken strong steps to restrict or prohibit the retail sale of highly toxic second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. For example, the U.S. EPA has removed these products from general consumer markets, and jurisdictions such as British Columbia in Canada have banned their sale and use by the public. Many European countries also tightly restrict SGAR availability, often limiting use to trained professionals. In contrast, Australia remains an outlier in permitting widespread public access to these poisons, with resulting harm to threatened wildlife.

BirdLife Australia’s call for action 

BirdLife Australia is advocating for solutions that protect owls and other native species in the real world, not just wishful thinking on paper. We are calling for the immediate removal of SGARs from public sale, alongside much stronger controls on any commercial use. Where SGARs are considered necessary, their use should be restricted to licensed, trained professionals operating under strict regulatory controls (e.g. a permit system), stewardship program requirements and accountability frameworks. This includes banning SGAR use outside buildings and ensuring permitted uses are targeted, justified and monitored for non-target impacts.

Australia’s wildlife needs less SGAR poisons in the environment, not more paperwork – and the APVMA’s proposed changes won’t achieve this.

To take action and/or learn more about protecting wildlife from rodent poisons, visit BirdLife Australia’s website to sign our petition and write a submission letter to the APVMA before March 2026.