Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Another One For The Glue Trap

That brings my death toll officially up to 12. In fact, most of them are still on my back porch, being preserved in the snow. The lastest undocumented intruder, above, looks healthy and rather clean-cut, does it not?

So my BIL has a new girlfriend who happens to be a *PETA* person.

Over Christmas Eve dinner she declared:


Hah! You had to imagine that cruel, inhumane(!) line coming out of the mouth of an otherwise classy, sweet young woman.

Now until my rodent ordeal started a few months ago, I knew nothing about *glue traps*. Curious, I asked the exterminator dude and he told me that mice, when caught, struggle so much to get out it literally kills them within several hours. (Though, there was that one that was still alive for over a day when I reached up and grabbed the trap!)

So yeah, if I thought about it, I'd imagine that *glue* is not a fun way to die.

Through the course of our conversation, with me, of course, needling her ever so deftly, PETAChick used the term *inhumane* several times. In the bright lights of my cross-examination, she admitted that for years she's trapped murdered many, many mice in her Manhattan apartment.

But in those cases she uses the more humane, traditional snapping mousetraps.

Here's a sample of the inanity:

Glue Traps: Tell Lowe's to Stop Selling Cruelty

Glue traps are among the cruelest pest-control devices on the market today. Animals who get stuck to them suffer for days before they finally die of starvation, dehydration, self-mutilation, and shock. Patches of skin, fur, or feathers are torn from their bodies as they frantically struggle to escape the relentless adhesive.

Many animals resort to chewing off their own limbs in a desperate attempt to free themselves from the traps, and others get their noses, mouths, or beaks stuck in the glue and suffocate. Imagine being stuck in a giant glue trap and having to gnaw off your own leg just to break free.

"Nontarget" animals routinely fall prey to these cruel devices too. PETA fields calls on a daily basis from distraught customers who have discovered that birds, squirrels, and even their animal companions have become hopelessly stuck in glue traps.

PETA has presented Lowe's with images (see video below) of small animals, including birds, who suffered painful injuries and died lingering deaths after being ensnared by the cruel traps. But so far, not this, nor the fact that other companies — including CVS, Rite Aid, Albertsons, and Safeway — have banned glue traps because they are so cruel has persuaded Lowe's to do the right thing and get rid of them once and for all.

Please take a moment to fill out the form (scroll to bottom of linked page), which sends an automated letter to the CEO of Lowe's urging him to stop selling glue traps.

UPDATE: In response to your calls and e-mails, Lowe's has issued a statement claiming that the company will "only carry the products [glue traps] that contain Eugenol, which is an anesthetic." Don't be fooled! Such "modified" glue traps are a shameless attempt to dupe consumers. In order for a glue trap—or any other lethal rodent trap—to be regarded as humane, it must be designed either to kill the captured animal quickly and painlessly or to cause the animal to experience an immediate and permanent loss of consciousness. There is no scientific protocol for using a eugenol derivative as an oral or topical agent for euthanasia or anesthesia of rodents. These "modified" glue traps show no evidence of reducing animal suffering one iota and are as cruel as the standard glue traps. Please continue to push Lowe's to stop carrying all glue traps.

Ironically, having my inventory depleted, I just purchased four more large glue traps at Lowes this afternoon!

Just checking the box, I do see that these traps feature *eugenol*.

And look at what it's marketed for:

For *enhanced stickiness*!!!

C'mon now.

If glue traps were THAT BAD....they'd have been in the torture portfolio at Gitmo.


Paul Mitchell said...

I wonder why the post writer refers to birds and squirrels as "non-target" animals? Does she think you use the traps outside?

Geez, I find that I am hating people more and more.

CaptiousNut said...

That means their *pets* got stuck in the glue traps!

But what good is a pet anyway if it can't keep away the OTHER rodents?

Anonymous said...

unless u watch it die struggling, u wont feel anything. Thats sick. u should try rat poison or something.

ok. just to give u some weird thougt: In india jainism/buddhism folks wear mouth-cover afraid that might kill flys or organisms. They believe killing anything is bad-karma. Something like they generate bad-energy (bad waves/emotions etc) when struggling/dieing. This energy(waves) is subtle, and will only affect your psyche unknowingly.

rule of thumb - dont do anything with even a slight dose of hesitance. The fact the you did this post, already shows the impact.

Dharma(dhamma) says to always follow "natural order", and you wont accrue bad karma (subtle psychological effects).

thats enough weirdness for today.

CaptiousNut said...

I have indeed heard of the Dharma Initiative!

Anonymous said...

try this :


once upon a time humans had so much time free, and nothing to do. Their minds would always go inside. Superstitions(what happned to those nowadays?), beliefs, just mere awareness would constantly keep them fearful/doubtful.

in 2000s, humans are so busy or have so many things that could keep them busy (TV, internet, computer games etc ), there's not much time left for the mind to go inside.

With internet and knowledge-access, humans have a perfect global-mind that can explain anything. Any act/crime can-be/is reasoned.

ok simple test. can you truly get away with a lie (or murder) if nobody knew about it? it sure will manifest as guilt atleast(or other consequence) if not prison. guilt is worse than prison.

bottom line, there are consequences. If A then B. There is no workaround. Unless you understand the "natural order"/dharma - u will have to face the consequences (real or subtle). unless you are a snake u cannot kill/eat a rat(natural occurrence) without consequence.

ok i will help u reason it. you are ok, as you do this purely as a natural thing - to safeguard u/ur'family. Unless u had some sick pleasure/ego in killing(via torture) these rodents.

i am liking these anonymous posts, i can post whatever and act crazy when I want to :) LoL.

Chuck said...

Unfortunately, they are "that bad". Many countries have actually banned them, and there's more than enough information out there (not from PETA) to suggest how absurdly cruel they are. Mice have very thin and delicate skin, even if you get a finger stuck it is a bitch to get off. So they'll injure themselves severely trying to pry their little bodies off, maybe gnaw off a leg to escape.

And if not mercifully killed, they die of starvation.

I don't see how a snap trap, a quick break to the neck and a swift death is worse than that. Several hours is too long, if you're going to trap to kill - you ought to make it as quick and painless as possible. No point torturing them. Glue traps are pretty unhygienic too, mouse pee carries a lot of nasty disease, including Hantavirus, and WILL accumulate on the glue trap.

So in the best interests for you and the mouse, a quick-kill trap is the best way to go IMO. Who wants to confront a terrified, squeaking-in-pain mouse that's half drowned in its own shit and piss that you'll no doubt be inhaling? The SNAP seems like heaven in comparison.

Chuck said...

"you are ok, as you do this purely as a natural thing - to safeguard u/ur'family. Unless u had some sick pleasure/ego in killing(via torture) these rodents."

Torture still is torture. You don't *need* it to safeguard *anything*. If someone decides to torture something, when they don't actually have to for the reasons specified, then I'd say that is bad karma.

Chuck said...

One more thing to add, I don't see a snap trap as inhumane. The purpose is to kill mice instantaneously. Glue trap can't even compare, it's infinitely more horrible a death. Really, no animal should be left on it for a day... it is up to the trapper to be responsible and check the trap at regular intervals and to kill it. Not only to prevent unnecessary suffering, but to make sure the mouse doesn't get away!

After all, it will be alive and it *might* get off, maybe leaving a limb and dragging blood all over the place and dying in your walls.

Anonymous said...

That "PETA chick" is correct. Then again, you don't have to be a PETA member to see that glue traps are indeed awful things. That mouse you found still alive after a day, I hope you ended its misery. Many people will just throw it in the bin so it suffers more.

Terrified, injured, half drowned in glue for a day - damn. That sucks. A traditional mouse trap is far more merciful. And yeah, the guy who invented these torture traps should suffer.

Paul Mitchell said...

I like the glue traps, you can catch more than one with the same trap. Plus you don't have to keep resetting it. That seems much more economical. Time is money.

Anonymous said...

Not really. Some live-catch traps can do pretty much the same, and they are reusable. So are snap traps. Glue traps really aren't, so in the long run, they are more expensive. Plus they bring other practical problems to the table.

They're not necessary and will never really be substitute for snap traps. Plus, they are cruel as heck - even if rats are vermin, nothing deserves to die like that. I think it's barbaric and there are better ways.

Paul Mitchell said...

I disagree. The mechanical traps are a moving piece of flimsy metal and are prone to failure. Also, they do not last very long because the other pests can smell the former kills. Glue traps are far superior for removing pests. Plus, economically, they waste more time. Time is money.

Paul Mitchell said...

I realized my "they" in the waste more time sentence could be confusing. Mechanical traps waste more time than do glue traps.

Anonymous said...

Glue traps also have their failings. Sometimes the glue isn't strong enough, other things get stuck on them and temperature and dust sometimes renders them ineffective. You must have bad luck with snap traps, because they have worked wonderfully well for me and they are still the #1 mousetrap on the market.

Then you have to take practical and moral considerations into account (if you gave a rat's, pardon the pun). I don't think what you're saying about mechanical traps is entirely factual. How exactly is a glue trap "superior" when they can also fail just as well, and is considered extremely unhygienic (the CDC don't even recommend them)? They are a stupid trap, IMO. That little bit of convenience isn't worth the risk of disease, or their inhumanity.

Paul Mitchell said...

The CDC actually issued a report that said GUNSHOTS were an epidemic. Government scientists are morons.

There is no moral issue in how to kill mice and rats. And personally, if the hygiene is an issue, I think that a violent squirt of rat waste and blood, versus the solid kill method would be better.

As far as mechanical traps are concerned, having only a little bit of knowledge in the tensile strength of steel, and the windings of the spring release, you argument is honestly ridiculous. If you have never had one fail, you have never used one.

Paul Mitchell said...

Dang, my brain is trying to shut down this debate. The squirt of blood and waste is from the mechanical trap, which would NOT be better than the solid kill method.

Just as a metric, C-Nut, how many of your glue trap kills have gnawed off their own feet and stuff? And how many have you killed so far and with how many traps?

Anonymous said...

And as far as I'm concerned, if you have the time to buy, set up and dispose of glue traps then you can afford to be a little more humane. Unless you dispatch them quickly on the trap, I do not think the slightest of personal convenience is worth the agony the creature will go through.

I am not against killing myself, but I draw the line at torture here. That is probably my main argument against glue traps... even were it so subjective, there is still the issue of increased risk of disease transmission due to the nature of the traps alone. People are encouraged just to leave them on the trap or "throw them away", even if still alive. I oppose this on moral grounds, as well as practically. Not only inhumane, but pretty silly - who is to say the animal may not escape to cause further trouble.

This is why a trap that is designed to kill quickly is better, as a matter of principle. Take it for what you will, maybe I'm too sensitive or maybe it's just human compassion talking here.

Paul Mitchell said...

Oh, I agree, Gavinmangus, when I am trapping humans, quicker IS better. But, mice and rats, feh, it matters not. It is impossible to be "humane" to vermin.

gavinmangus said...

I disagree. There's always a moral issue when killing animals. How about if someone burns one alive for their amusement? I would say that is immoral. They can suffer and feel pain after all, and we know it. It's just you don't care - though I think suffering should be minimised.

Define 'solid kill'. A SNAP is as solid as anything. A glue trap is far more unhygienic, take into consideration that it will shit and piss profusely and rip itself apart on the thing. A blood sized pinkie stain is tame in comparison.

I don't see how the argument is "ridiculous" seeing that snap traps work well anyway, even if there is the occasional failing. You say they are prone to failure, when you could make the exact same case for glue traps.

Anonymous said...

"It is impossible to be "humane" to vermin."

That depends on your definition. Some people think killing in itself is not humane. But I think that a snap trap is more humane than a glue trap, whether or not being "humane" is impossible. Is is not impossible to minimise the level of cruelty, however.

A quick kill is all I ask, the moral issue I have here comes with the torture bit.

Paul Mitchell said...

Gavinmangus, you are aware that when an animal (or human) dies, it fully releases its bowels and bladder, right? So, your argument about mechanical traps and the waste is moot. Having never experienced a mouse or rat chewing any part of its body on a glue trap, I cannot speak to that. It has never happened for me. I think that C-Nut did have to drown one that was caught on a glue trap, but I might be mistaken. Even IF that is the case, I do not care, we are talking about rats and mice. They are vermin, very unsanitary, and disgusting.

The word "humane" is only applicable to humans. Hence, the actual word, "humane." I do not attach human qualities to any animal that is not human. The word means with 'compassion towards humans.' Yes, there are some folks that attach the word to animals other than humans, but that is the liberal definition, it is not correct. The Humane Society is a good example.

I do realize that there exist some humans that have accepted the fact that cruelty toward animals leads to cruelty toward humans, but that is a recent phenomenon. It is not historical and if as a society, we would begin to place the importance of humans ONLY on humans, things would certainly begin to move back toward a less violent society in general. Attaching human qualities to lesser animals is a slippery slope that I am unwilling to climb. Rats and mice are rats and mice. Beating them to death with a hammer is not beyond my ability. And oddly, since I value human life infinitely more than I value the life of a rat or a mouse, I know that my philosophy is more HUMANE.

Anonymous said...

Not moot at all. Sure, an animal releases its bowel contents when it dies... but on glue traps animals are alive on them for an indefinite period of time where they will produce more waste. A rat that dies in a snap trap might not even have anything left (as they urinate and poop excessively). I don't care if they are vermin, they still feel pain and, IMO, that should be respected when going for the kill. No matter how disgusting you think they are.

You might want to brush up your definition of "humane". It is characterised out of compassion and kindness, and the meaning itself does not exempt animals. No dictionary I have seen specifies "only humans". To be humane is to show compassion in the first place regardless of species. It is not the "wrong meaning" when applied to animals, you just choose to exempt them. So in other words, you are full of shit.

No one is attaching human qualities to them. I am only giving them moral consideration as a human being. I don't disagree with your philosophy, but the value of human life is not even being discussed here. This is about human compassion to other animals - while I also care more about humans than I do animals, I still care about animals. One can care about both, after all.

Animal welfare is a relatively modern idea, but to say there is no moral consideration on "how" to kill an animal is stretching it. We've learned a lot since the 19th century about animal intelligence and their capacity to suffer, perhaps you should realise that animals aren't objects any more... well, scientifically and morally speaking. Unfortunately, there will still be people who think there should be no moral consideration to them, I don't know why though. We can afford to, and why not? Because they are not us? Not intelligent enough?

There is no "putting them equal to humans" gibberish here, that will never make sense and isn't practical. But I don't see the wisdom, the morality or the point to make rats, mice, etc suffer unnecessarily.

Paul Mitchell said...

Gavinmangus, the word is HUMANE. Extrapolate from that what you will. Since you obviously do not care to even look AT the word, I cannot help you at all with your understanding.

Again, I stand by my statements, and if you want to accept the new age definition of things, that is your prerogative. Being wrong should be something that you are used to by now.

Anonymous said...

According to Oxford dictionary:



• adjective 1) having or showing compassion or benevolence. 2) formal (of a branch of learning) intended to civilize.

"Is only applicable to humans" - LOL, err, no. You clearly don't know the meaning of the word. Does pointless cruelty to animals make you a better human? Nah.

Anonymous said...

I'd advise you to get a dictionary. I am looking at the word, but that doesn't tell me its definition. Which is what we're discussing here.

That the word itself has "human" in it doesn't necessarily mean the definition of it purely emphasises humans and nothing more. You are simply twisting the meaning to suit your mantra.

Get with the times, just because the definition is "new age" doesn't mean it's any less valid. The English, hell, human language in general, isn't supposed to be stagnant. It evolves, much like the concept of giving animals moral consideration. The reason is because we have learned so much between then and now to justify such changes.

Paul Mitchell said...

I agree, that is why fascism now means democracy as in Obama's policies are all fascist, but let's call it democracy, instead.

Gavinmangus, I cannot help you anymore, you have accepted being wrong as being right. Maybe your definitions of those words are different than mine.

Anonymous said...

I guess I'm just an old softie, but I find glue traps to be an extremely cruel way to catch & kill critters. Given there are alternatives, any trap where the varmint tries to chew itself free or is trapped there for hours until you happen to wander by to finally kill it (assuming you're not so vicious as to just leave it to die slowly on its own) is at best a poorly thought-out trap and at worst a poor reflection on humanity.

CaptiousNut said...

I must of had my regular, mechanical traps set off 10 times without a kill in my kitchen. Pest guy said that mice are unbelievably clever. In fact, they haven't made a single kill.

Also, this past week, for the first time I've had problems with the glue trap. It must be a rat or some big mouse because every morning around 4am *something* gets caught in the glue trap in my bedroom. Then it makes a ruckus for 20 minutes or so before freeing itself. I see poop in the middle of the glue trap each morning but no rodent.!


Are you a vegetarian?

Paul Mitchell said...

Maybe that ruckus at 4am is Gavinmangus freeing vermin from the traps.

Anonymous said...

No, I'm a bonafide meat eater. But I don't see reason or moral worth in torturing animals when you are to kill them.

CaptiousNut said...



What about abortion?

What's your stance on that?

Anonymous said...

This isn't about abortion, this is about glue traps.

Any view on abortion is irrelevant, don't change the subject.

Paul Mitchell said...

Yes, please, let us debate philosophy in a total vacuum. We can only think about Google stock price, not total market. Plus 95.84% in the last year in case you were wondering.

Dammit, I love idiots. They are an endless supply of humor.

CaptiousNut said...


C'mon....full disclosure here. I tell everything on this blog.

You broached the *humane* topic. Clarify your definition as it regards to other animals.

Unknown said...

Electronic mouse traps are the most humane traps I've found since they kill the mice instantly. Snap traps can still leave the mouse half alive. An example of one of these is the Multi-Kill made by Victor.
Here's the trap I'm referring to:

Anonymous said...

Ignorance cannot change the fact that glue traps are cruel. It can only demonstrate your weakness, your inability to face unpleasant facts.