On live trapping

On live trapping

03 Oct 2007

Got questions about the environment? Ask Umbra.

Dear Umbra,

My wife and I live in a small town in Massachusetts, where I recently volunteered to head up an effort to certify our Unitarian Universalist congregation as a Green Sanctuary, an official recognition of our environmental stewardship.

In discussing potential remedies for a mouse problem with a fellow congregation member, I recounted how I recently trapped four mice in our home and transported them gingerly to fields and parking lots a couple of miles away. To my surprise, she expressed dismay. Live trapping, she advised, puts stress on the animals, upsets any existing pecking order in the locations where I release my captive rodents, and even violates a state law against the transport of wildlife. Better to kill them quickly, she said, than to make them suffer this way.

So what's your take on this issue? Isn't it better to give these mice (field mice, I believe) a fighting chance to reestablish themselves in the wild than to break their backs or necks in those time-honored, spring-loaded Tom-and-Jerry devices?

Didi
Harvard, Mass.

The voluntary approach.

Photo: iStockphoto

Dearest Didi,

Sounds like a question for your minister: Is a second chance at life better than dying of a broken neck? Or is heaven worth whatever means? Do mice get heaven? If so, is it an all-mice heaven, all-beings heaven, or rodent heaven? Since we do not know and may never know the answer to these theological questions, I will move forward with my ecologically based advice and say: I'm with you. A tough transition to a new environment is better than death by mousetrap.

This is not only my personal opinion, but also very likely is the answer best aligned with your Green Sanctuary program. Green Sanctuary has an Integrated Pest Management policy, which states, "This process focuses on the prevention of pest populations, monitoring for pests, and using nontoxic or least-toxic control methods when a pest population is identified." Mouse killing is nontoxic but has the same end as toxic techniques: death! If your minister comes up short on the religious implications of killing vs. relocation, and a random internet advice columnist is not authority enough to stay the anxiety of your fellow congregant, get backup for relocation from the Green Sanctuary people.

An argument might be made that there is mouse overpopulation and we should kill them to fulfill our predatorial duty as population reducers. I think, instead, it is our duty to create clear boundaries for the mice -- that is, keep them out of the church by plugging holes and storing food in mouseproof containers -- and let them fight it out outdoors on their own terms.

Ask Umbra continues below

ADVERTISING POLICY

By the way, your field mouse is probably a deer mouse. "Field mouse" appears to be more of a catchall term for anything small and furry, including moles and voles. The deer mouse genus, Peromyscus, exhibits the widest range of adaptations of any mammal and can live up to five years, don't you know.

Whether you kill or relocate these long-lived, adaptable mice, take care about hantavirus, for which deer mice and some of their rodent relations are carriers. Their poop, urine, and spit harbor the virus, which can transfer to humans when the poop and co. are disturbed. We then inhale aerosolized virus particles and develop hantavirus pulmonary syndrome. Then we have trouble breathing, achy muscles and a fever, and the pulmonary edema, and if we don't get prompt care, perhaps we die.

Fortunately this does not happen often -- from May 1993 through March 2007, 465 cases were reported in the United States -- but still one should be cautious, because 35 percent of those cases ended in death. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has all sorts of information about HPS that mouse relocators and mouse-poop removers should take the time to read. You're not supposed to vacuum the poop and co., rather spray it down with a diluted bleach solution and then wipe it all up, while of course wearing gloves. Especially read the directions if you live in the West or Southwest. Agnostics, atheists, and the devout all agree: It's better to live than to be the first on your block to die of hantavirus.

Mousily,
Umbra

Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Please send Umbra any nagging question pertaining to the environment -- but first check out her FAQs!

The claims made in this column may not reflect the views of this magazine. Neither the magazine nor the author guarantees that any advice contained in this column is wise or safe. Please use this column at your own risk.

Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.

Comments: (28 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Relocating unwanted animals

Mice might survive if relocated, but more mice in the new location will eventually cause more mice in the original location, and you'll constantly be transporting mice. Try an electrocution trap - very quick and humane.

What I really feel strongly about is that people also "relocate" puppies and kittens (i.e. dump them) because they don't want to take the responsibility to kill them or take them to animal control, where they will most likely be euthanized. Recently 5 puppies were "relocated" to a rural area near my home. When I saw them, two of the puppies had already been smashed in the road by cars. The other three were running along the side of the road but disappeared into the field before I could try to catch them. I'm sure they became coyote dinner that night. Humane death is usually preferable to relocation, in my opinion.

by Moondust at 10:27 AM on 03 Oct 2007

reason not to kill

I live in NM and in addition to the real possibility of hanta virus which is spread by mouse droppings, there is also the potential for mice to be carrying bubonic plague. This is spread by fleas. If the mouse dies in your house, when the body temperature drops, all those fleas will jump off and look for a new host- maybe you!
I don't mind relocating rodents even if they have a tough time. You could look at it like a juvenile raptor supplemental feeding program. Yes it may be harsh, but that is life for mice in the wild- relocated or not.

by meadow20 at 10:41 AM on 03 Oct 2007

Electrocution?

"Try an electrocution trap - very quick and humane"

...because we all know how quick and humane execution in an electric chair is.

by Schrmin at 1:01 PM on 03 Oct 2007

We have no right to kill them...

Mice were here long before we were. They didn't ask us to come and build our behemoth structures in their native lands, yet we did it any way. When we don't close all the gaps in our homes, they advance inside, just like they would in any other territory. They're looking for food and warmth.

It's our responsibility to keep them out, not their responsibility to stay out-- therefore, we shouldn't kill them. They are only doing what comes naturally. And if killing little mice comes naturally to you, maybe something's wrong with you.

Just about every wild animal can cause disease. This should be obvious. As for "quick and humane," death is not humane. Humane means to treat something (say, an animal) as you would a human. You'd never catch a human in an electrocution trap. Likewise, "local happy animal-loving farm-raised" meat is not humaen. Death is death. Killing, by definition, cannot be humane.

by askantik at 1:04 PM on 03 Oct 2007

Oh, good

an other city person wanting to dump all their strays out in the country--like we didn't have enough of your stray cats, dogs, racoons, and children running around here.

by rhkennerly at 2:25 PM on 03 Oct 2007

Respect for the interdependent web . . .

As both a UU and a biologist, I agree with Umbra that Didi did the right thing. It should be obvious that there's a huge difference between relocating/dumping surplus pet carnivores like dogs and cats in natural areas, and relocating the odd native mouse or two. Dumped pets will have a tough go of it, and if they survive it may be at the expense of local prey, reducing the food supply for native predators. The mouse is already part of the local ecosystem and will likely either survive for a year or two or become food for an owl or weasel. This is better for the "interdependent web of all existence" than is flushing a mouse carcass down the toilet or burying it in a landfill.

BTW, rhkennerly, the town of Harvard MA is pretty rural (it's not the same place as Cambridge, where Harvard University is located). And, Umbra, most UUs don't believe in heaven. Furthermore, while we love talking to our ministers, we don't expect them to tell us what to believe, theologically speaking -- instead we rely on our own "free and responsible search for truth and meaning." I.e., we're empowered to make rational, science-based decisions.

by rivergal at 2:53 PM on 03 Oct 2007

There's a third option, and it's better

Forced to choose between relocating an animal and killing it, most of us would probably choose the former. But a strictly utilitarian approach would probably require us to take the second option: If you consider which option is likely to cause the least suffering to the least number of beings (the utilitarian approach), you're probably going to decide that it's better to cause momentary suffering (death) to one animal than to cause extended suffering (long period of stress with possibility of disease, injury, or death) to many animals.

Fortunately, we usually don't have to make this difficult choice. This is what the Humane Society of the United States says in its book Wild Neighbors: The Humane Approach to Living with Wildlife (Fulcrum, 1997): "It is the position of The HSUS that the vast majority of wildlife conflict situations can be resolved by simpler, more humane means than by removing an animal from its natural home area or by destroying it."

Most of the HSUS's excellent book is devoted to ways of humanely evicting wild animals from structures and then making sure that they can't get back in. Exclusion (as opposed to translocation) can take time, effort, and money, but the investment pays for itself in long-term results and a clear conscience.

Wild Flora
http://www.wildgardeners.blogspot.com

Wild Flora http://www.wildgardeners.blogspot.com

by Wild Flora at 3:00 PM on 03 Oct 2007

Live tapping

I live in a rural area and it's clear to me we do not need to have any more urbanites relocating here.

I have two cats. They take care of my problems with mice. We have a "Don't ask; Don't tell" policy.

Perhaps the sanctuary should have a cat?

merry

by merrykays at 5:14 PM on 03 Oct 2007

rodents

positively mind boggling when people labor over how to keep removal of rodents pain free. The zapper traps I use are electrocution. Knowing every hour they have produced another huge "bundle of Joy," it's hard to shed a tear for rats and mice. I'm sorry, maybe I'm just not evolved enough but around my family they are the first to go.

I relocate squirrels to the tune of 100 a year. My animal loving neighbor who spreads feed 365 days a year on the ground for whatever animal to eat has helped promote rampant growth of dangerous populations of rats, squirrels, mice and crows. I cannot empathize with most of the responses. Sorry.

by Gene at 11:33 PM on 03 Oct 2007

Let's be a little objective, here

There are way too many of us humans building nice warm structures and throwing out mega-tons of garbage so we have completely thrown the "balance of nature" out of whack, in the case of mice, crows, squirrels, raccoons, etc. who've learned to occupy our artificially created niche. There's no ecological reason not to kill a mouse invading our home; they're certainly not an endangered species. It's also nice to say we should "deny mice food or entrance to our homes" but mice have very flexible skeletons and can fit through a 1/4 inch opening so that strategy won't work. Aside from a personal moral dilemma about killing in general, there's absolutely no reason not to kill a mouse that's, essentially, competing with us for our food and harborage while supporting disease-carrying parasites. I choose to "relocate" rodents but in the full knowledge that I'm probably providing dinner for a local raptor; a least the mouse's nuitrients are recycled back into the environment, that way.

Agonizing over the death of a mouse is as logical as worrying about the demise of the disease-carrying insects the mouse hosts. Do the "holier-than-thou" people bemoaning our use of mouse traps feel the same about killing a flea, tick or mosquito?

by FourLocks at 5:32 AM on 04 Oct 2007

get some cats for the church

There would be less mice if there were more mammals to eat them. Transport the mice for now, but then add some cats to the grounds and let the problem take care of itself naturally and gradually. But oops, then I guess some people would accuse you of cruelty if you let the cats go outside.

by Elsa Mary at 5:54 AM on 04 Oct 2007

Do try a cat.

merrykays is right! A cat is the answer.

We live in a (still semi-) rural hamlet, where the farm houses (farmers have cats!) and other houses with cats are the ones without the autumn rodent problems.

Generally, the cat odor seems to do the trick. (Otherwise put, those rodents not bright enough to smell "cat" had defective genes, anyway.)

Mightn't having a cat be the answer for your congregation? You could avoid all sorts of heated and solveable disputes - and have a furry, friendly greeter to add to your sense of community.

mary

by marykellogg at 6:24 AM on 04 Oct 2007
[ Parent ]

ultrasonic mice repellers

You can buy little electronic devices that emit a sound that will drive rodents away. They sell them at hardware stores. We have used them over the years and work well.

by kkjg at 8:46 AM on 04 Oct 2007

Enviromentalism and Animal Rights

This seems to be quite an issue; with PETA saying you can't be a meat-eating environmentalist, and others saying you can't be an environmentalist without making the hard choice to use eradication of introduced animal species as a tool to fix the huge ecological damage problem that they cause.

Is there really a humane way to solve this problem?

Because of our collective actions free roaming cats are killing over 2 billion small animals (including half a billion birds)a year, feral hogs are completely denuding woodlands of vegetaion, the nest predating cow birds have expanded their range and are wiping out the birds the cats have missed, thousands of 15 foot pythons are upsetting the natural system in the Everglades,pouch rats the size of raccoons have invaded the Florida Keys, exotic fish are destroying the productivity and diversity of our lakes and wetlands, and the list goes on and on and on.

The problem is on the order of hunderds of millions of problematic species living here now. What do we do about it? Sit back and watch the natural system be devoured? Kill Millions of animals that are just trying to live life the only way they know how? Biological warfare? Something else?

Land_Man

by LandMan at 9:12 AM on 04 Oct 2007

that's a lot of species

Correction: I meant hundreds of millions of individual animals that are members of a problematic species in the above post, not hundreds of millions of species. Still a big problem though.

Land_Man

by LandMan at 11:50 AM on 04 Oct 2007

Humane considerations

Lets's consider the various risk factors here.
*Kill the mice (which are actually probably European non-natives).
They die fast and then become foodstock in the chain of life. If you're really good at case skinning (as my partner is), they make wonderful finger puppets - they're really cute with the whiskers still on. Just be careful about fleas. Kids love 'em.

*Transport them out-of-sight and out-of-mind. After all, if you don't know, then you're not responsible.
They possibly transport diseases to infect others.
They compete with other organisms that are already there that occupy the same or overlapping niche/trophic level.
The increased population puts more stress on the resources (i.e. the things they eat) and the organisms that are already there that eat the same stuff, use the same housing, etc.
The little meeces may make a nice snack for a hawk or an owl.
They may be dropped off where the species isn't currently established and establish a new population. I hear rats and European house mice don't occur in Anarctica - yet.

Umbra:
Yoy may win points with the PETA crowd, but this ecologist gives you an F in environmental conservation and comprehension. If you visit Florida, I do hope you don't have an unfortunate encounter with an 18 foot Burmese Python - but it really was cute when it was small!

Steve E. Whidbey Environmental Action Network

by paintbrush at 10:40 PM on 04 Oct 2007

fur trapping, cats, invasive species and livestock

One macro-solution is that we should stop trapping and killing so many predators for the fur trade. The use of cruel traps such as the steel-jaw leghold trap to catch mice predators such as foxes such is still allowed in most states. More foxes and other small predators equals less mice.

If you choose to get some cats for the church, the best way to go about it is to adopt (preferably an adult, since they're the hardest to adopt out) from your local animal shelter and make sure they are spayed, nuetered and micro-chipped.

Invasive species to be the most concerned about: cattle and other livestock (because of the greenhouse gases like methane they emit, the land they erode and damage, the native ungulates they displace, their manure that pollutes our waterways, etc). So I hope all you folks going on about non-native species are vegetarian.

by amc89 at 1:51 PM on 05 Oct 2007

exotic wildlife as pets

To Steve E and Land Man-Many of the exotic wildlife species causing problems in Florida and other states are there because people purchased exotic wildlife as pets and then dediced it was too much trouble to care for them. And it's the animal protection groups that you seem to dislike so much that are at the forefront of campaigning to end the trade in wild animals as pets.

Visit:
Captive Wild Animal Protection Coalition (CWAPC)
www.cwapc.org

Also, a number of invasive wildlife species in America are here because hunters, those most dedicated of "environmentalists," released them for prey many years ago.

by amc89 at 2:40 PM on 05 Oct 2007

trapping mice

I think that letting mice loose is neither more humane, nor more ecologically sound. There are several humane ways to euthanize mice. CO2 (dry ice) asphyxiation is easy on both the animal and the person performing the euthanasia. The best way to keep the mice away is to get a cat.

Ann Rosenthal

by anrosenthal at 10:02 PM on 05 Oct 2007

Umbra and her mice

Killing something that is alive can never be "humane." Except, perhaps, someone who doesn't agree with you politically. Even as simple a thing as a carrot is said to shriek piteously when it is yanked mercilessly from the ground. Just ask Bugs Bunny.

As far as Umbra's mice are concerned, in order to preserve the balance of nature, she should take them to her nearest KFC and toss them into the deep fryer along with the other battered animal parts and thus put them back into "The Circle of Life" where they would help feed the hungry of the world. What you can't see can't hurt you. After all, what's grist for my mill is grist for yours.

Des Emery

by Des Emery at 6:16 PM on 06 Oct 2007

Ecologically-UNsound advice, Umbra

Dear me, you really have slipped up this time.

In most parts of the world, mice in houses are non-native species. Relocating them into the 'wild' could have a number of outcomes:

New invasive population to compete with native mice
Introduction of new diseases to wild rodent population
Mice stressfully starve due to lack of knowledge of new territory or lack of food in new territory etc.

The only winners in the relocation scenario are the egos of the soft-headed individuals who think they're doing the right thing, and who want to pass the buck on killing the critters to preserve their own ecologically-unwise worldviews. The carbon emissions from driving into the countryside to perform the release would outweigh any advantage gained by the preservation of a few individuals of such fast-breeding species, even if they were native and desireable.

In the short term: Kill em humanely WITHOUT POISONS (which kill owls etc. as they go up the food chain) - snap traps work well. Use peanut butter or tomato as bait.

In the long term: Close up holes and don't leave food lying around. If there's nothing to eat they won't come.

Cheers

Whiskerfish

by Whiskerfish at 6:33 AM on 07 Oct 2007

see what they are first

My live trap (occasionally placed in the yard if we've got rodents near the house)has been catching a number of short-tailed shrews. Generally, I let them stick around if they haven't tunnelled into the flower garden too thoroughly. We've never had a problem with actual mice here - probably because shrews can be predators of mice.
That said, I've relocated a few. Generally, any rodent relocated is likely hawk food.

If they're moles, be careful where you relocate them too (nobody wants them nearby). Shrews, on the other hand, are usually less noticeable. Meadow voles, other voles, and peromyscus mice (deer mice and white footed mice, both of which can spread hantavirus) make up a very large share of the diet in winter for most owls.
Of course, there's always a few weird things that can turn up - for example, meadow jumping mice (zapus hudsonius), which look like a skinny gerbil. They're widespread, but not particularly common.

Generally anything trapped inside a house will be peromyscus mice. Meadow voles have been known to enter houses, but usually leave on their own within days. If it's all grey, it's probably a house mouse (Nonnative) - if it's white underneath and brown above with some darker markings, it's more likely a deer or a white-footed mouse.

I think people would be surprised how much of their local rodent populations is native. The fact that local native rodents have such a high reproductive rate makes many less apt to be outcompeted by introduced species (with the exception of those requiring specialized habitat, like pocket gophers, jumping mice, and woodrats).

Of course, if you're trapping rats, the reverse is true. Rats aren't easy to catch, and most aren't native. DO NOT release them elsewhere, as many of them are causing harm to the environment and are introduced species.

by banana republican at 10:03 AM on 07 Oct 2007

Moral mandate to not help spread disease

In the American West, releasing mice to a new location may very well spread deadly diseases like Bubonic Plague and Hanta Virus to new populations where they infect and kill other animals and people. How is that ever a good idea?
Even if you are not in the West, how can it a good idea? Every species has pockets of disease and sickness and as a result, it is almost always bad to plunk individuals down where they can infect others or where they have no immunity to local germs.
As much as some may argue that we have no right to kill, we have no right to assist a sick animal in infecting other animals or people, either.

by pelagicrabbit at 9:35 PM on 07 Oct 2007

The problem with cats....

I love the idea of adding some cats to the mix. Unfortunately, however, unless they were taught as kittens how to kill a mouse it might not work very well. We've had three cats in our house. And more mice than that. (About 2-3 per year that we see.) One cat mostly ignored them. The other two will stalk the mouse but have never killed one. They bat at it, chase it, corner it, and only once or twice even put their mouth around it.

They do at least alert us to their presence so that my husband and I can try to kill the mouse.

Unless you get a cat that is a known mouser, don't bother. It might work better to pick up some farm cats that are experienced, but you might have other problems then (such as being used to being outdoor cats).

by paulukon at 7:08 AM on 08 Oct 2007

meow

I agree with all those below who said to get a cat. It doesn't really get much easier or more natural than that. Realistically, all you are doing by moving the mice to rural areas is exposing them to dangers such as raptors, coyotes, and an increasing number of feral cats and dogs. Go down to the local shelter and adopt a couple cats. If they aren't already, get the cats spayed/neutered. Two birds with one stone, as they say.

by cmalberg at 9:08 AM on 09 Oct 2007

Her friend is right

It is illegal to relocate wild animals in Massachusetts. I'd go with the ultrasonic deterrent.

by sherrieh at 12:09 PM on 10 Oct 2007

They just come back...

Just how it's better to teach a man to fish than give hime food, you need to find the root of the problem, not band-aid the symtom.

Figure out where they are coming in and block it up. Use steel wool or metal, they won't eat through it. Take things away from walls and up off the ground. You see old cabinets and wonder why they had a foot of clearance under them.... that's why.

They hate the smell of peppermint-though you may as well after a while.

if you kill the mice, they'll just come back and you have to kill more. karma.

by slingshot at 2:03 PM on 10 Oct 2007

Where to relocate vermin?

Personally, I like to leave them off in a gated community--the food's better there.

by duhkoz at 8:39 PM on 11 Oct 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

A Better Mousetrap