Rodent Control and Public Health: A Description of Local Rodent Control Programs.

From the 1900 San Francisco bubonic plague epidemic to the 2012 Yosem­ ite National Park hantavirus outbreak, rodents have been a feature of the environ­ ment and can compromise the public’s health (Bonnefoy, Kampen, & Sweeney, 2008). In addition to potentially carrying parasites and pathogens, Norway rats, roof rats, and house mice have been destroying infrastructure, infesting houses and businesses, and damag­ ing property for centuries. To this end, the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) performed a profile of nine rodent control programs across the nation within large lo­ cal municipalities (Sidebar 1). The goal of the project was to understand the current capaci­ ty of local rodent control programs across the U.S. and identify best practices, challenges, and technical assistance needs (Sidebar 2). A majority of the surveyed programs were located in a comprehensive vec­ tor control program in the environmental health division of the local health depart­ ment. In New Orleans, however, the Mos­ quito, Termite, and Rodent Control Board within the city’s department of homeland security assumed the operations of the pro­ gram from the health department as they felt the duties were more aligned with those of the board. A majority of the programs were supported by local funds. Only two programs, Los Angeles County and Shelby County, Tennessee, are funded by service fees. In Shelby County, the program is fully funded through a state-legislated vector control fee. Overall, funding for a major­ ity of the programs has either decreased or remained the same within the past five years. Of the five programs who noted a decrease in funds, these reductions resulted in significant staffing and activity cuts. For example, in Los Angeles County the pro­ gram previously addressed rodent com­ plaints from owner-occupied properties for free, but now has a pay-for-service fee. All of the programs use integrated pest management (IPM) concepts in their rodent control efforts (Centers for Disease Con­ trol and Prevention [CDC], 2006). Largely complaint based, five programs conducted a variety of proactive activities. Generally, the number of complaints reported within the past year ranged from 10 to 2,000 per month depending on the jurisdiction. Some pro­ grams provided services beyond investigat­ ing complaints, with activities ranging from selective baiting of manholes to conducting thousands of inspections. In New York City, the Rodent Reservoir Analysis project iden­ tified and studied “rat reservoirs” in local neighborhoods. Inspectors set out bait for the rats, closed up burrows, and worked with