What is your attitude on glue traps?

[Ciddy]

I prefer the disposable traps that instantly kill. The mouse goes all the way inside the trap, the trap clicks something in place, and the mouse is instantly killed/sealed inside. It's over in a second, no suffering involved, and you toss the trap in the garbage. Done.

I don't like to put anything through unnecessary suffering, even if it is just a mouse. I also think anyone who does enjoy that sort of thing is pretty fucked up.

[Lathais]

I have used them, but it was not to get rodents or animals, it was to get scorpions in my warehouse at work. It also caught all manner of beetles, ants and what not. Never had a live animal on them until a bird flew in the warehouse and saw the beetles as a free meal. He struggles for a little while I was trying to figure out what to do, then the one feather that was stuck to if came off and he flew away. After that, i read about a trick to catch more scorpions which prevented most other things from getting in it. I placed a damp burlap sack lightly over the top of them, since scorpions are attracted to the moisture and dark place, I caught a lot more and a lot less of other things.

I do agree using them for rodents and other live animals is cruel though. Unless you are sure none will get caught it it you should not use them and even then, use/place with care.

[Lord Havik]

How is it childish and inefficient? Empathy needn't prevent getting the job done, it is a very human thing to have, especially for animals that share a lot in common with us. It is that some people are just not heartless assholes. There's no logic in torturing an animal slowly to death, Mr Spock.

It is illogical to have that sort of empathy and then kill the animal. If you have such empathy, let it live in your house. Surely, you are not that greatly inconvenienced by the creature's existence that you MUST kill it.

But you don't, you say you are empathetic and then kill the animal anyway. Which is much more of an "asshole" move.

As for "humane traps" there are none. All traps which are designed to kill are inhumane in some way and to use any of them yourself makes you a hypocrite.
(To use the "humane" catch and release ones makes you stupid and potentially hazardous to others depending on where you choose to release pests.)
Glue traps cause the animal to suffocate or starve depending on how they entered the trap.
Poisons often have a delayed effect to prevent the pests from associating the bait with instant death. One could assume arsenic from rat poison causes great discomfort in the hours leading up to death.
Snap traps, which appear to kill instantly, often sever the brain from the body without damaging the brain itself. This has much the same effect as a guillotine, but without complete decapitation. The blunt force of the trap snaps the brain stem, causing paralysis without completely severing the flesh or blood vessels. The result is a disembodied brain which "lives" for around 5-10 minutes until it chokes on its own blood and bile, suffocation occurs and all neural activity ceases in what I could only assume is utter hell.

Nothing humane works and nothing that works is humane. Thus the idea of humanely eradicating pests is an utter contradiction.

In this case of pest control, "humane" and practical cannot coexist. And to try to force coexistence between two mutually exclusive goals is an exercise in futility.

Oh, and be more selective about what you empathize with. Empathy is worthless when it is blindly applied to anything and everything simply because that thing is alive.
Life is far from precious, it is arguably the cheapest and most abundant natural resource this planet has (after hydrogen and carbon). Especially worthless is the life a non-native, pest species such as the common Norwegian Brown Rat (the most common rat in Western Cities) which in its short lifespan produces hundreds of copies of itself and causes tens of millions of dollars in property damage annually.

[Fargus]

It is illogical to have that sort of empathy and then kill the animal. If you have such empathy, let it live in your house. Surely, you are not that greatly inconvenienced by the creature's existence that you MUST kill it.

How is it illogical, Mr Spock? Killing sometimes is a necessity, but that doesn't necessarily mean empathy does not exist. Empathy doesn't have to mean "live and let live", it comes down to how much empathy you have. I have enough not to be some kind of callous git who would drag out the agony of another animal. Suffering is something any reasonable person should avoid when they are trapping and killing animals. It would be more illogical to make the animal suffer and drag out its pain because it doesn't achieve anything.

But you don't, you say you are empathetic and then kill the animal anyway. Which is much more of an "asshole" move.

You're being so disingenuous here. Putting a suffering animal out of its misery or devising a relatively quick and painless way to kill it because you feel empathy for it is not an asshole move. An asshole move as an example would be to simply leave the animal to suffer, or deliberately prolonging it. Sounds like you're advocating this (are you?), since in your viewpoint there doesn't seem to be any room for empathy or mercy. Being empathetic and killing something as a necessity are not mutually exclusive. Another good example of this is putting down a terminally ill pet.

All traps which are designed to kill are inhumane in some way and to use any of them yourself makes you a hypocrite.

They are either inherently inhumane or they are not. Even something as "humane" as a cage trap can still be inhumane in the wrong hands. Snap trap and electrocution traps are designed to kill the animal in quick time, and that is the intent of the person using them. It is unpleasant and often traumatic to come across a half living, wounded animal and most people would want to avoid this either because they have enough empathy to give a shit or they are too squeamish (or both). As for your hypocritical card, that would only be possible if I am deliberately drawing out the animal's agony either on the basis of sadism or indifference (or advocating it).

Glue traps cause the animal to suffocate or starve depending on how they entered the trap.

That is assuming the trapper doesn't bother to monitor the trap and/or kill the animal on it once found, which is completely irresponsible and unnecessarily cruel. If that is the design and intent of the trap, to slowly starve an animal to death, then they should be prohibited. Ignoring the obvious lack of ethics there, it would also be impractical keeping it alive as it may escape the trap.

Snap traps, which appear to kill instantly, often sever the brain from the body without damaging the brain itself. This has much the same effect as a guillotine, but without complete decapitation. The blunt force of the trap snaps the brain stem, causing paralysis without completely severing the flesh or blood vessels. The result is a disembodied brain which "lives" for around 5-10 minutes until it chokes on its own blood and bile, suffocation occurs and all neural activity ceases in what I could only assume is utter hell.

You don't seem to understand how an animal dies if its neck is snapped clean in one of these. I'll give you a hint - when it happens, the animal is insensible to pain. It is pretty much dead. No need to over analyse here, once the neck is broken cleanly, the animal is not going to feel a thing.

Nothing humane works and nothing that works is humane. Thus the idea of humanely eradicating pests is an utter contradiction.

In this case of pest control, "humane" and practical cannot coexist. And to try to force coexistence between two mutually exclusive goals is an exercise in futility.

Tell that to the pest control companies who use cage traps to catch and release animals like possums and raccoons. Or to the people who successfully use live traps but humanely euthanise the animal in it (or release it). Or to the hunters who use firearms with the intent of killing animals like coyotes or foxes with one shot to the heart or brain. Etc. There are also guidelines for humane pest control procedures in such instances, especially somewhere like the UK where it's legally mandatory. A bullet to the head is humane, certainly better than poison bait or leaving it in a leghold trap. Perhaps you'd like to explain why the culling of animals needs to be unnecessarily cruel?

Oh, and be more selective about what you empathize with. Empathy is worthless when it is blindly applied to anything and everything simply because that thing is alive.

Rather than pretending to be edgy and tough, understand why people feel empathy. It's not simply because the animal is alive. It's an appreciation and understanding that the animal is capable of feeling pain and/or suffering. Thus, there is a moral responsibility on the part of that person that the animal needn't suffer in an unnecessarily prolonged manner. That is why empathy and a coup de grace aren't mutually exclusive, or why efficiently killing animals in a quick manner are not mutually exclusive to feeling sorry for them.

Pest animals didn't ask to be pests, they can't help being what they are. Regardless if it's a fox, a rabbit, a feral cat, a mouse or a rat - an effort should be made to minimise suffering, even if that means using a trap that would kill it. There is no point or need to drag out its pain, those who delight in this or find this appropriate lack empathy and are most likely assholes or are compensating for something. It is all too human to have empathy for such things, and that is a good thing as it prevents people from doing things like torturing the animal to death (which is much more illogical than feeling sorry for it). If I came across a mortally wounded animal in a trap I set, I would kill it humanely rather than let/make it suffer. That is empathy, or at least the kind of empathy I am alluding to. Saying that this is not compatible or practical just makes you look like a short sighted, callous individual who is simply lacking of ethics.

[Kerplank]

But of course, that sort of empathy is illogical when applied to pests (which you are intentionally trying to kill or oust from their home) and you are only hurting yourself by indulging in such childish and inefficient moral hangups.

Right bro, because casually inflicting torture on animals because you think you're a 'man' for doing so isn't childish and inefficient? Hey, I intentionally kill rabbits in the countryside because they're a pest and to make a fine rabbit stew. But if I saw some fuckhead setting a trap for it, wounding the rabbit and he doesn't finish it off, I would feel sorry for the rabbit and call out the guy. How the fuck is that illogical?

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

If you're having to explain the difference between causing something to die a torturous death and causing it to die a quick, relatively painless death, you're wasting your time.

[Kerplank]

2+ year necro? Nice going @Kerplank

I changed my mind and deleted the post. So technically you're the necro now.

Anyway, if you wanted to know, it came about after I remembered this thread when I saw that guy talking about cute animals in another thread.

[Fargus]

I remain unconvinced that glue traps are ever necessary in domestic premises, even as a last resort. I’m not against the humane killing (strongly preferable), or humane as practicable killing of rodents, and pest species. I fully appreciate that living in a building infested with mice and rats is highly likely to be unbearable, or likely to become-so as the problem is only likely to get worse over time. Every rodent infestation begins with access for rodents, but only continues and grows because there’s ready-access to food, water and places to hide and breed. Without these, infestations cannot begin, flourish and persist. It is almost impossible to eliminate an infestation while these factors remain. That’s like trying to empty a bath with the waste plugged and the taps (faucets) running – futile, never-ending and inevitably doomed to failure.

Rodent infested premises are a result of rodent-friendly sloppy building practices and inadequate standards of rodent-hostile cleanliness. Therefore, the first step to ridding a premises permanently of an infestation is making the premises inhospitable to rodents and inaccessible with respect to ingress but without preventing egress, then they can only leave and cannot remain or return, which renders such abhorrent measures as glue traps completely irrelevant.

Control measures then merely accelerate the then inexorable process of becoming vermin-free and eradicating those persistent few individuals that will inevitably ultimately remain as long as they can. A persistent infestation is indicative of a premises that remains attractive and hospitable to rodents. Ultimately, rodent-proofing is both essential and cost effective, because once achieved, its passive deterrent effects will last for many decades, but of course, these principles need to be included in any future modifications to behaviour or the fabric of the building.

I suspect that very few, if any infestation instances really necessitate glue traps, for example, there are highly-effective multi-catch traps for rats and mice, which reduce manpower and greatly increase cost-effectiveness in terms of operator-hours per kill. Certain species can be problematic, Norway rats are known to be particularly neophobic. However, once all alternative sources of food are removed, baits in traps will become increasingly attractive over time. Furthermore, glue traps often seem to be both offered and used as a first resort, and this must be made completely unacceptable.

[lockedout]

If I find someone using them, I will make sure they understand not to use them again.

I can be very persuasive if needed.

When I was younger I worked with my friends dads exterminator company. We used glue traps and hide boxes with poison. Sometimes you have to use glue traps there is really no choice.

[DrStiglit]

I remain unconvinced that glue traps are ever necessary in domestic premises, even as a last resort. I’m not against the humane killing (strongly preferable), or humane as practicable killing of rodents, and pest species. I fully appreciate that living in a building infested with mice and rats is highly likely to be unbearable, or likely to become-so as the problem is only likely to get worse over time. Every rodent infestation begins with access for rodents, but only continues and grows because there’s ready-access to food, water and places to hide and breed. Without these, infestations cannot begin, flourish and persist. It is almost impossible to eliminate an infestation while these factors remain. That’s like trying to empty a bath with the waste plugged and the taps (faucets) running – futile, never-ending and inevitably doomed to failure.

Rodent infested premises are a result of rodent-friendly sloppy building practices and inadequate standards of rodent-hostile cleanliness. Therefore, the first step to ridding a premises permanently of an infestation is making the premises inhospitable to rodents and inaccessible with respect to ingress but without preventing egress, then they can only leave and cannot remain or return, which renders such abhorrent measures as glue traps completely irrelevant.

Control measures then merely accelerate the then inexorable process of becoming vermin-free and eradicating those persistent few individuals that will inevitably ultimately remain as long as they can. A persistent infestation is indicative of a premises that remains attractive and hospitable to rodents. Ultimately, rodent-proofing is both essential and cost effective, because once achieved, its passive deterrent effects will last for many decades, but of course, these principles need to be included in any future modifications to behaviour or the fabric of the building.

I suspect that very few, if any infestation instances really necessitate glue traps, for example, there are highly-effective multi-catch traps for rats and mice, which reduce manpower and greatly increase cost-effectiveness in terms of operator-hours per kill. Certain species can be problematic, Norway rats are known to be particularly neophobic. However, once all alternative sources of food are removed, baits in traps will become increasingly attractive over time. Furthermore, glue traps often seem to be both offered and used as a first resort, and this must be made completely unacceptable.

I prefer them because I do not want to kill the mice. I had one that was too small to trigger the no kill trap. Put out a glue trap and used vegetable oil to free it. Released it in the park. Something probably ate it.

[Blueobelisk]

>When you have post #6 in a thread from 2.25 years ago and it tells you your opinion before you care to think of one.

[Fargus]

I prefer them because I do not want to kill the mice. I had one that was too small to trigger the no kill trap. Put out a glue trap and used vegetable oil to free it. Released it in the park. Something probably ate it.

If you want to release them, use a cage trap or the multitude of live traps that are available for this very reason. Glue traps are just a mess and stresses both human and the mouse even more.

You can also use something like this:

[Jester Joe]

Necromancy is frowned upon in most cultures, and forums also.


Closing this, please check the date of the last post before posting in a thread when using the search tool!