Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Internet Has a Rat Poison Problem

audubon.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–218 of 218 posts

Re: The Internet Has a Rat Poison Problem

#211

Post by geon »

jbaber wrote: post #59
praptak wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a Cat to work on mice it has to be a Mouser. I can't pretend I know the full theory of Mousers but it seems that females brought up by Mouser mothers in a mouse-rich environment are the best Mousers, since they are taught to kill from their earliest years.

All I did was go to the adoption place and ask for a slightly older cat who'd been on the street long enough to be a hunter. They were very happy I wasn't asking for a cute kitten. He came litter trained, fixed, and kills everything that gets in the house.

I would have thought they were thrilled that you picked an older cat.

Re: The Internet Has a Rat Poison Problem

#212

Post by geon »

WalterBright wrote: post #14

I use the old-fashioned snap traps. They work fine. Sometimes it's necessary to tweak the catch to make it more sensitive. They're made of wood and wire, and aren't an environmental problem. I live near a greenbelt and there's a never-ending invasion of mice. If I leave the garage door open and unattended, they're in in a flash and setting up shop. The only way to get rid of them is the traps, and you have to get rid…

Snap traps work great. Mice are INCREDIBLY stupid. I set some snap traps at my cottage. I ran out of almonds, but I was too lazy to go inside for more, so for the last trap I just used an acorn. Sure enough, it caught a mouse. With thousands of acorns all over my yard.

A bucket with a free-spinning dowel across it works very well too. Although, where I live they are illegal to use unless you empty them twice daily. And any use of water or chemicals with them is illegal.

Re: The Internet Has a Rat Poison Problem

#213

Post by Benlights »

It feels like no one in this thread lives in an urban area with a persistent rat problem. We tried multiple types of traps; snap, glue, electrification. "Eco friendly" sprays, bait boxes, you name it. Nothing works.

When your wife is hesitant to leave the house because of the rats gamboling near the front door drastic action is needed.

I'm not advocating for brodifacoum but the comments here seem tone deaf and one dimensional.

Re: The Internet Has a Rat Poison Problem

#214

Post by dredmorbius »

WalterBright wrote: post #210
dredmorbius wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For someone who really can't functionally set a wooden trap, the difference isn't of degree but is a 1-or-0 situation. There are different manufacturers, the Time's Up or Snap-E have performed well: https://www.mitre10.co.nz/shop/times-up-plastic-mouse-trap/p... https://www.grainger.com/product/SNAP-E-Plastic-Mouse-Trap-3... The one weakness I've discovered (recently, as it happens) is that if the target is trapped i…

https://www.amazon.com/Victor-M201-Rat-trap-Pack/dp/B01N6IM6...

I know their littler bretheren well.

Re: The Internet Has a Rat Poison Problem

#215

Post by DiggyJohnson »

danlugo92 wrote: post #114
pcmaffey wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with most traps is that they only catch one at a time. By far the most effective way to deal with a mouse problem is a bucket with a ramp leading up to a cylinder(bought online) that spins and drops the mouse into the bucket when they come for the peanut butter taped to the cylinder. You can fill the bucket with water to drown them or something non lethal. It can catch many mice at once, they stay inside…

> There’s nothing worse than a maimed mouse dragging a snap trap around your house all night… Glue the trap to the floor?

Now you have a mouse trap glued to your floor?

Re: The Internet Has a Rat Poison Problem

#216

Post by ziml77 »

SamoyedFurFluff wrote: post #197
sgtnoodle wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you genuinely thought they were driving dangerously, then isn't it better to report it than to not? It's not really your fault that Uber's internal culture is so toxic. On the other hand, your choice to use Uber supports them. On the third hand, traditional taxi services often deliver exceptionally worse service, so what is someone to do? Regarding the driver's livelihood, it seems to me like you should not worry…

The question is less is someone driving badly but more is someone driving so badly that I think they deserve to risk losing their livelihood.

Their job is driving. If they do that dangerously, then yes they do deserve to lose that job. They don't get a free pass to endanger the lives of others just because they'd be financially ruined if they are fired.

Re: The Internet Has a Rat Poison Problem

#217

Post by derefr »

popcube wrote: post #205
derefr wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a natural predator in cities whose habitat is "your couch." But people say that allowing cats to be "outdoor cats" is a bad thing. (Cats do hunt a bunch of species that aren't going to try to enter your house, and may in fact be endangered. But then... so would owls, hawks, and snakes living in the same areas. My point isn't so much that having cats outdoors is good; but rather that we should apply the same s…

cats are not local species, except you live at their original region. cats are invade species, local animals do not evolve with them. cat can easy extinct most small animals in your region, local predators will not. please do not claim "they are same".

The GGP commenter was waxing on about having owls in their neighbourhood to such a degree that you'd expect that they'd be interested in introducing owls into a neighbourhood, as an invasive species, for pest control — the same way farmers traditionally introduced "barn cats" as a pest-control measure.

My point is that any invasively-introduced predatory species can and will end up hunting local wildlife to extinction. A species that has never been invasively introduced before isn't suddenly a more "noble" creature. That's the halo effect. One should treat the statement "we should get a pet owl, and let it roam the neighbourhood freely" with exactly the same suspicion as "we should get a pet cat, and let it roam the neighbourhood freely." There will be an equal environmental impact from both.

(And any predator kept as a pet will hunt "for sport", because you're already feeding them, so any hunting they do — and they will hunt, if for "practice play" if nothing else — will be done on a full stomach.)

Re: The Internet Has a Rat Poison Problem

#218

Post by hilbert42 »

kortex wrote: post #145
hilbert42 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I buy it at my local supermarket. Not the US, Australia. I’ve never heard any controversy about availability of brodifacoum in Australia....)." I can confirm that, just went to my armory where I stockpile my weapons and ammo for use in the never ending war against four and six-legged house invaders and read a few packet labels. I live in a location that I unashamedly call Ratsville or Cockroach City depending on spe…

I suppose it's better than strychnine in that there is a chance for antidote. But that presumes there is the time/knowledge to apply the antidote for the pet. And of course that won't help with wild animals or "utility pets" like barn cats. I'm not sure why the metal phosphide class isn't more popular in America. They hydrolyze in the stomach to produce toxic phosphine gas, which doesn't persist. Seems to be used in…

Yeah, right. As I said, I'm no expert on the subject but I don't understand why metal phosphides, zinc etc., aren't popular either.

My gut reaction is that some of the 'inappropriate' regulation of poisons (and chemicals generally) has to do with the process of regulation itself. In earlier times, regulations almost inevitably resulted in response to incidents (blue glass bottles introduced in Victorian times to reduce accidental/mistaken swallowing, thallium removed in the 1950s when too many abusive husbands were being bumped off by unhappy wives - thallium being so easy to administer, etc.). Such responses always left patchwork regulations with anomalies - such as why was strychnine available to anyone from my local pharmacy when I was a kid (that was mad even back then).

Lately, chemical companies and governments do regulations 'deals' in a more formalized bureaucratic way (which both parties prefer - as chemical companies see regulations as being protective of them and keeping the GP and other vested interests away from the process is desirable. Thus not all issues are covered. There's also the 'change' problem - changing regulations can involve much work - thus the well-known axiom comes to the fore 'don't change anything unless compelled to do so.

Post reply on HN