Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal


This Comment examines the failure of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) to adequately protect this country’s unique wildlife from highly toxic rodenticides like brodifacoum, and particularly the EPA’s broad exemption for the FWS’s use of brodifacoum in island conservation. Part II explains the problem of non-native mice at the Farallon National Wildlife Refuge and the FWS’s proposed plan to eradicate the mice. Additionally, this Part describes the federal legal framework that governs pesticide application and use within the United States.

Part III evaluates the EPA’s narrow scope in determining to reregister brodifacoum, focusing on the EPA’s decision to allow the FWS unregulated use of this highly toxic pesticide for island eradications. Additionally, Part III examines the FWS’s ability to manage and carry out island eradications. Part IV discusses viable alternatives and improvements to the FWS’s management of island eradications that are available for implementation in the proposed eradication on the Farallon Islands. Finally, this Comment concludes that the faultless birds should not bear the burden of a solution to a problem created by humankind. The FWS should utilize the suggested alternatives and mitigation measures to reduce the risk of non-target poisoning of the birds of the Farallon Islands.