Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Mouse Politics: To Kill or Not to Kill?

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted August 28, 2007.


Mice genomes are about 85 percent similar to humans, but when the pesky creatures invade our home do we treat them as equals or shift into predator mode?
Annalee Newitz

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Annalee Newitz

My Last Column
After 9 long years, it's time to move on. One final thought: don't ever stop ruthlessly criticizing everything that exists.
Jul 2, 2008

Three Myths About the Internet That Refuse to Die
The Internet will not magically bring the world together; nor is it likely to destroy us.
Jun 20, 2008

Using Sci-Fi to Change the World
Science fiction isn't escapist; it can help us envision how to make the world a better place.
Jun 5, 2008

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

My apartment has been invaded by mice, and my biggest worry is not that I will catch some strange disease but that they'll stage a revolution. I'm like some kind of Beatrix Potter Marxist, worried that the distribution of rice in my house is indeed unfair and that there is a kind of injustice in the fact that I won't share my stale caramel popcorn with the mice who want it.

This ridiculous philosophical and pestilential situation started when I heard really loud squeaking from behind my bookcase -- the one full of books on leftist activism and Marxist criticism. I discovered a family of five mice, fighting over a stash of rice that they'd hidden behind the books. They'd also been eating part of a book on cultural studies and left tiny mouse turds between the pages of another, by Greil Marcus, about punk rock. They'd stolen my rice in improbably large amounts, hauling it up from a bag in my cupboard to the top of my bookshelf for storage. I'm sure they figured that it wasn't stolen -- they'd liberated it.

At first, I didn't react to this situation with the brute animalistic feeling of "kill the invader" that evolutionary biology would predict. I've been so well-trained by blogs like I Can Has Cheezburger? and Cute Overload that at first all I could think, upon discovering this gang of mice in my bookshelf, was that they were adorable. One of them kept running up the wall and jumping down to the floor with an awkward splat. Cute!

I also had a hard time adjusting to the idea that these whiskery little guys might be spreading disease. Apparently mice can spread hantavirus, a very rare and deadly virus that attacks the respiratory system. I'm not sure what else they spread, but all the mouse-control Web sites I looked at had these paranoid instructions on how to dispose of mouse poop in double bags and how anything touched by mice should be rigorously disinfected.

Despite this, my first reaction to the mouse party on my bookshelf was to block the mouse hole that I found near my stove, sweep up the rice and poop, and go to bed. Two nights later, having gotten no sleep due to mouse-related shenanigans, I began to feel the interspecies hate. All the squeaking and scratching and pooping and sneaking in through teeny cracks had worked my last nerve. I'd put all my grains and sugar into sealed containers, and now I needed traps. But of course they should be humane traps. I kept worrying about what the most ethical way to deal with the mice would be. What would animal liberation ethicist Peter Singer do?

Actually, I'm pretty sure Singer would say, "Kill them." But I was still feeling the Cute Overload, so I bought these traps that lock the mouse in a tiny cage so you can release them. I'm not sure what I was thinking: that I would reintroduce them into the wilds of Golden Gate Park? That I would establish some sort of bilateral agreement with them to acknowledge their right to collective bargaining, then raise wages and offer health care so they would stop doing squeak-ins all night in my kitchen?

Dear reader, there is really nothing worse than a leftist with anthropomorphizing tendencies. This is exactly why people join PETA instead of unions and protest animal experimentation instead of how humans are treated in jail.

Even my scientific know-how somehow managed to enhance my magical thinking. I kept recalling how similar the human genome is to the mouse genome. Lisa Stubbs of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has written that mouse genomes are, on average, about 85 percent similar to human. Doesn't that make mice my genetic cousins? Shouldn't I learn to share my house with them somehow?

No. On day four of the mouse invasion, I finally went into predator mode. I put out deadly traps that kill mice instantly -- no torturing them in tiny boxes before releasing them into a park to be eaten by local cats. I know it sounds awful, but mice are not people. It's true that they have emotions and share many genetic traits with humans, but unfortunately I can't negotiate with them about living arrangements. I comfort myself by saying that I'm doing the only thing mice can understand: acting like the predator I am.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: mice

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd whose geriatric cat is the only creature in her apartment that can sleep through the nightly mousefest.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
But you're not a predator, are you?
Posted by: kevred on Aug 28, 2007 1:55 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems like a false rationalization to me. Killing the mice isn't a matter of predation--a necessary survival behavior--but convenience, in support of a subjective enjoyment of an artificial environment you've created.

Think about it--you've created a warm, safe environment in which there's plenty of space, no predators, and food. And you're doing so in the middle of a larger natural world. And yet, everyone who does this thinks it should be magically immune from the presence of the denizens of that natural world who would enjoy the same advantages you've created for yourself. It's not, and especially when homes are built with complete disregard for their surroundings, some kind of invasion is inevitable.

I'm not suggesting you have a moral obligation to take care of everything that comes your way. But at least avoid the easy rationalization. And the insult you directed at animal-rights supporters, however humorously worded, is still an insult, seemingly designed to further let yourself off the hook: 'after all, there are people suffering in the world, so how can I spare the time to care about animals?'

You can, because caring, if it's genuine, is one unified action--not something that can be applied selectively so easily.

For anyone who's curious about the humane mouse trap (which I've used successfully for some time now), see:

http://veganstore.com/index.html?stocknumber=266

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes, you're are! Posted by: bornxeyed
Murderer!
Posted by: lamar on Aug 28, 2007 2:01 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, Annalee, why don't you just trap the mice and sell them to the pet store to be fed to the snakes. As long as you're all anti-animal now, at least you could make some blood money your murderous ways.....

Totally kidding. Seriously, good article. I'm all for treating animals humanely, but we do tend to get led around by our heartstrings on these types of issues. I have a simple solution for killing your genetic cousins: kill only the 15% of the mouse that's different.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Murderer! Posted by: WitchyNy
I had a rat colonize my outdoor grill and I killed it with poison
Posted by: chief of okeefe on Aug 28, 2007 4:25 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It ate a huge chunk of the bait and probably lived quite a while. May have even gone back for seconds while getting slowly poisoned. I assume it died because it dissappeared. I am sure it suffered far less than millions of human cancer victims. But even if it didn't, I do not believe that "ethics" extends to animals. It describes how humans will live together on this earth, not how we deal with other living tissue. I know PETA disagrees, but I do not give a damn what they think.

If we are going to obsess over the mice we kill, why not obsess over the viruses and bacteria our bodies have to constantly kill in order to keep us alive each day?? ALL living things survive by killing other living things (or benefiting from the death of other living things), and that includes Bambi and all your other furry heroes.

Until "progressives" dispose of these PETA nutballs from their ranks, they can count on going no where and effecting no changes whatsoever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I've heard he's pro-hunting! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» hunting Posted by: vasumurti
Trespassers
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Aug 29, 2007 2:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As my wife says: If they're not paying rent, then they're fair game.

If you feel guilty, maybe you could do that carbon karma thing where you pay Al Gore to plant a tree every time you kill a mouse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sentient Beings
Posted by: marxalot on Aug 29, 2007 4:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"They'd also been eating part of a book on cultural studies ..."

I would think that alone would have dispatched them.

Seriously, if you must kill creatures for whatever reason, at least do it with a sense of regret, as all beings share in the desire to avoid pain, suffering and death. I would not be so concerned with percentages of genome overlap. Humans share 100% of the human genome and we kill each other the live long day.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I fed my mouse fair trade chocolate and let him/her stay the winter
Posted by: Suzon on Aug 29, 2007 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
then I gradually removed the food that it could get to. Eventually no sign of mouse.

And I lived to tell the tale.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great!
Posted by: talkville on Aug 29, 2007 5:12 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being natural beings, the Part and not the Whole, we humans confront the Whole in many different ways. With it? Against it? Governing it? Controlling it? Stewards? Cities, Farms, or Nomad Camps, ALL of nature will ever be with us. Our words matter and it matters HOW we think about them. Did the mice invade? Or are we the Invaders? Was Iraq an Invasion or was it a "rescue"? Of Mice and Men (and Women). Are we different from other living organisms in Kind or in Degree? Are we different in existence from Rocks and Minerals in Kind or in Degree? Deep questions which we have refused to contend for thousands of years. Are we an end-state or are we developing? Have we "settled-in" to the answers given to questions thousands of years ago or do we still struggle with these? What is traditional?

Mice and spiders and rug mites and un-countable organisms share the world which we are obsessed with determining - sadly in the way of sterilization and 'purity'. Natural processes have their ways, however. And the part will never be the whole. Something we "most complex and advanced of all living organisms" fail to appreciate. Even an amoeba "knows" it! What do we know more?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leftist with Anthropomorphizing Tendencies
Posted by: EKSwitaj on Aug 29, 2007 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, you sure caught me there. The whole reason that I don't torture or eat animals is that I think they're going to get up to hilarious cartoon-style adventures. It has nothing at all to do with them being living creatures that are capable of experiencing pain. And thank you for pointing out that I must choose between protesting animal mistreatment in laboratories and protesting human mistreatment in prisons. I had foolishly assumed that it was possible to do both.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Animal Rights is Social Progress
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 29, 2007 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mankind has rejected the philosophy that one group of humans may advance or even prosper at the suffering and expense of another group of humans. The animal rights movement takes this egalitarian philosophy one step further by insisting that humans need not advance or even prosper at the suffering and expense of other animals.

Kathleen Marquardt, founder of Putting People First, an anti-animal rights group, warns of a future in which the animals are liberated:

"...no hunting, fishing, or trapping. "No livestock farming or ranching. No use of animals in science or education...No beef, pork, lamb, chicken, fish, eggs, or even honey. No leather shoes, fur collars, wool sweaters, down jackets or comforters or even silk."

Yes. Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment. The "staggering" implications of the animal rights position may appear incomprehensible to Marquardt and other defenders of the status quo, just as the abolition of human slavery must have appeared incomprehensible to our forefathers in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Social progress means change. The invention of the automobile, for example, meant an end to horse-drawn carriages, and brought about radical changes in the workforce and in the American way of life.

This is the 21st century. People used to mistakenly think humans were omnivores; they know now that, in reality, we resemble the other primates (frugivores), and possess a set of completely herbivorous teeth. People used to worry if one could be healthy on a vegetarian diet; they know now that it’s healthier to be a vegetarian and that all kinds of delicious meatless alternatives are readily available.

And science and technology now provide us with alternatives to animal research and testing. These include cell cultures; bacterial cultures and protozoan studies; tissue cultures; organ cultures; radioimmunoassay; quantum pharmacology; clinical and epidemiological surveys; gas chromotography and mass spectrometry; mathematical computer or mechanical models; the use of human placenta; and the study of human volunteers.

Ms. Marquardt warns:

"No zoos, aquariums, circuses, rodeos, horse racing, carriage rides, or animal actors in films. No butter, cheese, yogurt... And more: Candles, crayons, gelatin, marshmallows, drywall, home insulation, linoleum, soap, glue, brake fluid...all would be forbidden under an animal rights regime."

Yes. But most of these changes are not likely to occur overnight. America kills over ten billion land animals each year (this figure does not include aquatic life). Animal byproducts can be found in the tire tread on our automobiles and in the freon in our refrigerators. At this early a stage in human history, therefore, it’s impossible for everyone to lead a completely cruelty-free lifestyle.

Yet merely by becoming a vegetarian out of ethical concern for animals, one ceases to contribute to roughly 90 percent of all animal cruelty, abuse and killing in the United States.

"No rat traps could mean the return of the bubonic plague. No pest controls means widespread malaria," writes Marquardt.

As Rosemary Bottcher might observe, Western civilization regards killing as a "useful social tool" to every kind of problem. A society that spends time and energy on new technologies to kill rodents and insects is equally capable of developing nonviolent alternatives.

The concern over what "would be forbidden under an animal rights regime" indicates opponents of animal liberation think in terms of paranoia rather than optimism. Far from seeing the possibility of animal liberation as a threat to the status quo, they should rather welcome the fact that human civilization has progressed to the point where we need not treat animals as objects of exploitation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We ARE the mice! Posted by: WitchyNy
» religion and animals Posted by: vasumurti
» [ot] The World Without Us Posted by: empimp
better mouse trap
Posted by: grn1 on Aug 29, 2007 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get a cat, I saw where some pet adoption agencies are even renting them out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: better mouse trap Posted by: Lizard of Oz
» RE: better mouse trap Posted by: WitchyNy
» What is animal abuse? Posted by: tulugaq
» RE: What is animal abuse? Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: better mouse trap Posted by: Lizard of Oz
» RE: better mouse trap Posted by: WitchyNy
Good Grief-get a cat.
Posted by: WitchyNy on Aug 29, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even a kitten will do. The mice will smell the cat and LEAVE.

And by the way-rats and mice do not normally carry disease in the wild. It is usually a result of human cities garbage. When Witches were burned in Europe- cats were thrown on the fires to burn with them.

With few cats in Europe- the rats and mice bred into huge numbers and fed on the human garbage. Result-the PLAGUE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good Grief-get a cat. Posted by: sunspot
The song of Singer
Posted by: mandiwrite on Aug 29, 2007 8:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, Annalee, I'm not as sure as you that Peter Singer would condone your killing of mice. "The fundamental interest that entitles a being to equal consideration is the capacity for 'suffering and/or enjoyment or happiness'; mice as well as human beings have this interest, but stones and trees do not."
Get a cat; install an owl house on your street lamp; keep food out of reach. The mouse will leave your house...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The song of Singer Posted by: WitchyNy
» RE: The song of Singer Posted by: phatkhat
» RE: myth about PETA Posted by: Janet4784
» RE: myth about PETA Posted by: WitchyNy
I was raised on Disney, too.
Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming on Aug 29, 2007 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My emotional inability to kill almost anything except ticks, mosquitoes, black flies, and Japanese beetles (and I feel guilty about the beetles) leaves me with the same dilemma.

My house, in the woods of outer suburbia, is under construction and I have an old rickety summer cottage, too, so both are pretty porous--the mice have no trouble moving in. I'm finding and sealing more openings at the house all the time, so have much less of a problem there.

Unfortunately, the mice were very destructive in the cottage, since they have seven or so months of the year when it's closed up and they rule. There's no food, but they nest in (i.e. shred and soil) clothes, bedding, rugs, furniture, insulation, cardboard, paper, and--if all else fails--they'll create toilets in empty bureau drawers or cabinets. Yuck. I try to keep everything in plastic bins, though they'll chew through those if they think there's anything there. So far scattering mothballs everywhere has been the best defense (though the place reeks of naptha for half the summer). I have to do a lot of scrubbing each spring, but I have to do that anyway.

I fear that the concept that mice smell cats and leave may be a fallacy--either that or my felines use deoderant. My three cats have a great time with these playthings, and I almost always can scoop up the critter before it's been dispatched. I keep small boxes around for just that purpose. Then I go for a walk and leave them as far away from the house as my energy allows--though they're probably back in before I am.

P.S. Hanta virus, from what I've read and hope is true, usually is spread only in the dust raised when disturbing old dried mouse droppings. I wear a dust mask when taking down dropped ceilings or cleaning out crawl spaces.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I was raised on Disney, too. Posted by: Lizard of Oz
Get a cat
Posted by: tulugaq on Aug 29, 2007 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I tried living with mice when I was in a trailer in northern Saskatchewan - they were so cute! And after a while, they stopped being afraid of me.

But they contaminated my rice and flour...and I lived 40 miles from the nearest grocery.

It's a matter of proportion. If it's not necessary to kill, fine. But if it's your health at risk --that's something else.

I now live with three cats, and very few mice. That is, after all, the natural order of things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

kats and have-a-heart traps
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 29, 2007 3:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Deploying a tiger always works well. They don't bitch or moan, they keep what they kill and they purr and thank you for the fun. Kids like 'em too.

During our brief kat-less month between death and rescuing some kittens from a pit-bull we used a have-a-heart trap. We just set the little buggers free up in the hills outside of town, usually when there were falcons hunting in the area. I'm sure those death-from-above fliers liked the extra snacks.

This comment was provided solely for the purpose of shameless kvelling over our tigers, Mucu and Piru. Nothing new to read here, move along, people...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Two words for you Annalee
Posted by: IggyPopped on Aug 30, 2007 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Two words for you Annalee...

False. Dichotomy. (Exemplified by this: “Dear reader, there is really nothing worse than a leftist with anthropomorphizing tendencies. This is exactly why people join PETA instead of unions and protest animal experimentation instead of how humans are treated in jail.”)

I am so tired of hearing how people who work to end the suffering of other species don’t care about humans.

There are plenty of us who belong to unions and animal rights group, who protest abuse of all beings, not just those of a particular species.

I am left to conclude that this hackneyed declaration is simply what meat-eating (and mouse-killing) progressives tell themselves let themselves of the hook. “I care about AIDS and poverty, so I don’t have to think about how I harm other creatures in my daily life.”

What lazy thinking!

Compassion is not a zero-sum game. And suffering matters, regardless of what kind of body experiences it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Two words for you, IggyPopped Posted by: jacquesclouseau
be nonviolent towards humans AND animals
Posted by: vasumurti on Aug 30, 2007 11:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr. Louis Berman writes:

"Acts of selfishness must be defended, disguised, rationalized and restructured to make them acceptable, even to oneself. In Passions and Constraints, van der Haag points out that before a people can be made to treat an enemy with cruelty, it is common to deny that the enemy is even human--the enemy must first be redefined as subhuman, bestial, scum."

John Robbins writes:

"The way we treat animals is indicative of the way we treat our fellow humans. One Soviet study, published in Ogonyok, found that over 87% of a group of violent criminals has, as children, burned, hanged, or stabbed domestic animals. In our own country, a major study by Dr. Stephen Kellert of Yale University found that children who abuse animals have a much higher likelihood of becoming violent criminals."

A 1997 study by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals found that children convicted of animal abuse are 5 times more likely to commit violence against other humans than are their peers, and 4 times more likely to be involved in acts against property.

The fact that predators exist in the wild does not imply man must imitate them. Cannibalism and rape also occur in nature. Robert Louis Stevenson, in his book In the South Seas, noted that there was no difference between the "civilized" Europeans and the "savages" of the Cannibal Islands:

"We consume the carcasses of creatures with like appetites, passions, and organs as our own. We feed on babes, though not our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear."

Flesh-eaters have less endurance than do vegetarians, while vegetarians have 2 to 3 times more stamina and recover 5 times more quickly from exhaustion. Most kinds of cancer, as well as heart disease, osteoporosis, kidney disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, hemorrhoids, arthritis, gallstones and gallbladder disease are preventable and/or treatable or a vegetarian diet.

The ill effects of alcohol, nicotine, etc. are well known. The FBI reports that 60 to 75 percent of all violent crime is alcohol-related. Is there a similar relationship between diet and aggression?

In a letter to a friend on the subject of vegetarianism, Albert Einstein wrote, "besides agreeing with your aims for aesthetic and moral reasons, it is my view that a vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind."

U Nu, the former Prime Minister of Burma, similarly observed: "World peace, or any other kind of peace, depends greatly on the attitude of the mind. Vegetarianism can bring about the right mental attitude for peace...it holds forth a better way of life, which, if practiced universally, can lead to a better, more just, and more peaceful community of nations."

"Who loves this terrible thing called war?" asked Isadora Duncan. "Probably the meat-eaters, having killed, feel the need to kill...The butcher with his bloody apron incites bloodshed, murder. Why not? From cutting the throat of a young calf to cutting the throats of our brothers and sisters is but a step. While we ourselves are living graves of murdered animals, how can we expect any ideal conditions on the earth?"

"I personally believe," wrote Isaac Bashevis Singer, "that as long as human beings will go on shedding the blood of animals, there will never be any peace. There is only one little step from killing animals to creating gas chambers a' la Hitler and concentration camps a' la Stalin--all such deeds are done in the name of 'social justice.' There will be no justice as long as man will stand with a knife or with a gun and destroy those who are weaker than he is."

According Tolstoy, "A vegetarian diet is the acid test of humanitarianism."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» humans are a vegetarian species Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: humans are a vegetarian species Posted by: jacquesclouseau
Mouse invasions on the rise
Posted by: silverwizard on Aug 31, 2007 3:30 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...at least here in south western New Mexico. I live about 30 miles north of the border. This being my first year here, I am definetly not an expert about this area. However; when I started setting traps for the cute little rodents I was shocked that with a total of 7 traps I caught (killed) 45 mice in 5 days. Would have caught more but my friend's idiot (a lovable idiot) rottwieller (sp?) kept trying to get the cheese and peanut butter mix that I use for bait. Had to remove traps from his paws and, by some fluke, an ear.
Talked to some locals and was told that they had NEVER seen so many mice, ever...one resident, born here 90 years ago, blames it on global warming or maybe with all the rats in Washington they just feel safer coming out into the open. At any rate, there's a LOT of mice this year.
Oops, just heard a triple SNAP! Probably have 1 or 2 mice and a really slow learning dog to deal with...
Later...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Our ethics should extent to animals as much as possible, we just have to mesh it with reality
Posted by: roirraw on Sep 5, 2007 1:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't agree that ethics is "for humans only." In fact, IMHO one of the most remarkable aspects of the rise of morality in human communities is that we *can* incorporate animals into our ethical principles.

The issue is that we can't incorporate animals in the same manner-- we can't communicate with them the same way we can with each other (though some forms of communication *are* feasible), and of course, most animals tend to live in the basic predator-prey that characterizes the amoral battle for survival.

That's why I agree with the original poster, when mice invade your home, especially if they ignore warnings and things like the ultrasonic devices that are meant to discourage them (which they *are* capable of appreciating in their mammalian brains), they're essentially declaring war on you, and you don't have much of a choice but to keep them out. You should do all you can humanely-- remove open food, try nonviolent methods, humane traps. But sometimes they'll just keep coming back anyway, and you have to use things like the snap traps.

I do hope that one day soon, we will have advanced to the point where we can live in our technologically advanced society while minimizing our negative impact on the ecology around us. But our technology and advanced thinking are part of nature, too. Sometimes, we ourselves are forced into the old predator role not because it's something we seek, but because that's a part of nature that we can't always avoid, even with our civilization.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]