Urban resident attitudes toward rodents,rodent control products,and environmental effects

Rodent control in urban areas can result in the inadvertent mortality of non-target species (e.g., bobcats). However, there is little detailed information from urban residents about rodent control practices. We evaluated urban rodent control behaviors in two areas of California (southwestern Bakersfield and in proximity to Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (SAMO)) where biologists have observed non-target mortality among carnivores resulting from exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides. Using a mail survey instrument, we asked residents about rodent control practices including products used and application, attitudes toward rodents, and concern about non-target mortality. Forty-one percent of Bakersfield (response rate = 20%) and 59% of SAMO (response rate = 31%) respondents reported rodent or other animal control on their property. Snap traps and anticoagulants were the most commonly used physical and chemical control products, respectively. Many respondents were unsure whether (12% Bakersfield; 17% SAMO) or which (39% Bakersfield; 46% SAMO) chemical products were used on their property. When told of possible non-target effects, a majority of respondents were either very or somewhat concerned. Attitudes toward rodents were relatively negative across all respondents. Respondents who applied control products themselves (as opposed to a third party) were most supportive of ensuring availability of rodent control products. Our results suggest that residents do not readily connect their personal or household activities with larger environmental effects, and highlight potential focal areas for policy evaluation related to wildlife management, such as providing explicit information about potential environmental effects of rodent control products.