![]() |
Animal ethics and glue traps
What do you guys think about these traps? Have you ever seen or used them before? If you do, what do you actually do to the live animal caught on it?
Last week they were using these things at work, and I did not find out about it until I came into the office to witness an animal in one of them. It was a mouse, half its leg chewed off and its back legs broken. It was shivering and whimpering faintly, by my estimation it was there overnight. I knew how cruel these things were, but seeing it in person just puts it in my mind that these are quite diabolical. I do not see how it's necessary to superglue a creature onto a sheet of plastic until it slowly expires, that seems unnecessarily cruel. Especially with a creature such as a mammal that's relatively intelligent and quite capable of feeling pain. Thankfully there was a vet next door and they euthanised the animal free of charge. I do understand the necessity of pest control, but I do not understand people torturing them like that. I have used snap traps to eliminate mice before, as well as electric traps and they provide a humane, quick kill. I have never needed to force an animal to break its limbs or practically mutilate itself trying to survive. Do people think about the consequences before using these things, or do they just don't care/remain blissfully ignorant? I have heard of people just throwing them in the garbage while still alive, in similar condition. Do you think that is an acceptable way to kill an animal? I would not mind seeing these traps either outlawed or being heavily regulated, but I do realise some people may frequently inspect and humanely dispatch any animal caught. However, the impression I am getting is most people who use them don't bother to do this, which seems very irresponsible. They don't seem very hygienic compared to some other alternatives, either. I think it's important to realise that while controlling invasive/pest animals is important, recognising the fact they're not objects is also important. I felt pretty bad seeing the mouse struggling like that, so I made sure it didn't have to suffer any more. Do you guys have any stories like that with animals? |
It doesn't bother me. Most animals operate on pure instinct. Any species that largely operates on pure instinct may as well be a simple computer and is worth about as much.
I wouldn't want to see it suffering, of course, as my instinct is to feel empathy for most things that I see suffering, especially if they're "cute." But luckily, I am not a mouse. I don't operate on pure instinct. I can and do override instinct with intellect when instinct is wrong. That's part of why I value humanity so much; we can rise above pure base impulse and be something greater. I do agree that a quick kill is better where feasible, but when it comes to mice, nothing kills them immediately 100% of the time. Snapping mouse traps, the most common kind of trap, don't kill them instantly, either. Neither do poison pellets or any number of other solutions. In the end, people just go with whatever does the best job of killing them; mice breed like crazy and become a real problem if you don't deal with them in force. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Regarding empathy, such behavior makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective. Do a Google search for empathy and evolution and you'll get a lot of well-explained results, much better of a job than I could do here. I still think that is instinctive behavior. It doesn't have to be completely self-serving, either; a lot of instinctual behaviors that result from natural selection are behaviors that may actually harm the individual but help the community. These behaviors do get passed on because communities with these sorts of individuals are more likely to survive than communities without them. As for the comparison to computers, maybe a plant or bacterium would be a better comparison. They both feel "pain," in that they react in a predictable way to a potentially harmful stimulus. The point I was trying to make was that they don't really have any control over their own actions. They act purely on a ruleset: provide this stimulus, get this result. That's like a computer. When I said I don't like to see them "suffer," that's a word I'm ascribing to their behavior. In reality, their behavior is completely explainable by pure instinct. Some of it is related to trying to maintain internal homeostasis, some is an attempt to ward off predators, and some is an attempt to get assistance from any other mice in the area. These are normal behaviors, and they're often the same kinds of things we do when we're suffering, and that's probably part of the reason we feel as we do when we see them (some people will experience a different feeling: either we are the "ally" and we feel the need to help, or we are the "predator" and we see the opportunity to take advantage of the situation). Side note: dogs are an interesting case. Dogs treat some humans as members of their "pack" because of our symbiotic relationship; both humans and dogs benefit from treating each other as allies. A lot of the behaviors dogs have developed are specifically to make them more in tune with human behavior. For example, (some) dogs understand pointing. That's something humans came up with and, despite what it may seem, its meaning isn't patently obvious. There are many other things that gesture could mean, but over time, dogs have picked up that it means "look in that direction." That's pretty cool. Anyway, the point is that I still don't believe mice are sufficiently aware to be worth considering from an ethical standpoint, at least not to any significant degree. I recall vaguely how (un)aware I was when I was a young child, but from what I understand, even newborns are several orders of magnitude more aware than many adult animals. There are exceptions, and that's why in my original post, I said "most animals." But I don't think rats are one of those exceptions. |
I'm actually a vegetarian because I love animals so much.
I personally like those traps where the animal wanders in and you can release it later. Glue traps can also trap squirrels, birds, and other small animals you don't want to actually kill. |
Quote:
I wonder what your stance is on the hunters who don't check leghold traps often for foxes and the like, rather letting them dehydrate/starve/gnaw a leg off than doing the responsible and humane thing. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do they have to be sufficiently aware for them to be ethically considered? Why? Why do you think we have animal welfare laws, and regulations with regards to animal testing? What does "significant degree" mean? If someone took a random mouse and started torturing it with nailclippers, is its welfare and the mental state of the person doing it not worth considering because it's not aware as a human being? I know this is an extreme example, but I am using it to ask where one draws a line here. This is the kind of reasoning that is open to abuse; it's the sort of reason people use to justify anything under the sun. I knew a student who would openly brag about setting feral cats on fire, animals he caught with a cage. From an ethical standpoint, it was shocking but he brushed off such concerns, saying it was only a "pest" and since it was not human, its treatment did not matter. My personal view? He's a scumbag. You can often tell the quality of one's character with the way they treat "lesser" animals just as long as it isn't over extended. Someone with empathy to animals, I see as someone with a healthy amount of respect to them and can recognise that they aren't inanimate objects, to do whatever they wished with them. I am not really sure about you - you seem to paint them as objects, but supposedly are empathetic to them. Seems like a contradiction of stances, but that just might be me... correct me if I am wrong. As for rats not being an exception, perhaps if you get a couple as pets and observe their behaviour you may think about it in a different light. They are relatively intelligent animals, quite affectionate too. They are not automations, or at least the kind you'd liken them to. Oh, apparently they are capable of reflecting on mental processes. There is much we don't know about how their minds tick, to dismiss them so casually and attribute them to something like an inanimate object is IMO, heartless and a little ignorant. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I get that that's going to upset a few people who feel a close association with animals or draw the line somewhere else. I don't really care, I'm not asking them (or you) to believe what I believe. You might call me unethical. That's your judgment to make for yourself. I sleep soundly at night because I know that the things I push for are things that will help people. I have no compunctions about my beliefs whatsoever. Quote:
Not that any of that matters to what I'm saying. The point is that I don't really influence the laws to any significant degree and they have nothing to do with my personal ethical beliefs. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's basically the free will vs fate argument, which I don't think we need to get into here. The point I'm making is rather than draw an arbitrary line between free will and fate, perhaps we should use something a bit more tangible: complexity. In general, the pattern that we see throughout history is that as more complex external structures of matter arise, more complex internal structures of consciousness arise. Sensation arises in neuronal organisms, but not in simple prokaryotes or eukaryotes. Perception appears to arise with organisms that have a neural cord, and not in simpler neuronal organisms like flatworms. Impulse arises with the reptilian brain stem. Emotion arises with the limbic system present in all mammals. Symbols arise with the neocortex and triune brain. Concepts arise with a sufficiently wrinkly complex neocortex. Note that these distinctions are not absolutely rigid and clearly defined. The neocortex is present in mammals other than humans, though its structure is different. Structures similar to the limbic system are present in birds and some ancient reptiles. Which makes it possible that some reptiles and birds experience some sort of emotion, and some mammals may have very very rudimentary conceptual knowledge. But the overall trend is clear, and can be illustrated thusly: A cat makes a better pet than a rock, because cats experience sadness and happiness, while the only thing you have in common with a rock is that you both fall at the same rate. To state my position on this topic, I'll relate this to another topic: vegetarianism. When asked why he was a vegetarian, Alan Watts said "Because cows scream louder than carrots." Which we can restate as: mammals have more interior depth than plants. We don't think twice about cutting grass, because grass doesn't experience pain or sorrow. Animals do. |
Quote:
I still see a pretty thick line between the level of awareness we have and the level of awareness a mouse has, but what you say definitely has merit and might be part of what I'm missing. I understand my ethical position very well, but I have a bit of trouble defining exactly what it is I'm getting at that humans (and possibly some animals) have that other "lesser" animals lack. It might be more than one thing; there are a lot of things that make me feel humanity is worth going out of your way for that I haven't found in most (or in some cases, any) animals. Anyway, I do believe I have the right viewpoint here; I sincerely believe humanity is much more important and worth protecting than lesser creatures and I'll stand by that. |
Quote:
Don't hide behind scientific literature, I want your personal thoughts. Why do you feel sorry for the animal. I didn't ask for a reason why empathy might be advantageous. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for where I draw the line, I consider pain and suffering that the creature is capable of feeling. I would have to balance that with what is practical of course. This is why I'd be more upset if a human was tortured, for example. It's not as simple as what that quote of yours state, in fact it's a rather clinical and cold-hearted way to look at things. Yes, bacterium will move away from stimuli but it is incapable of feeling pain or suffering, it is not a good comparison to make when it comes to the treatment of animals. Quote:
Quote:
So these regulations have nothing to do with compassion and the ability to recognise the fact that animals can also feel pain and suffer? PETA is an extreme example (ALF are more worrysome anyway, I am not sure if PETA has even bombed a lab before) - what about the level headed people who will protest because they actually have a valid point about the treatment of animals? What about the animals themselves that have no control or power over it? Like for example, do you think it's reasonable to vivisect an animal without anaesthetic? Should we go back to the William Harvey era of animal experimentation where we pretend animals are insensible to pain and cannot suffer? It's not all about us. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Then what does? I would have thought thinking about your own thinking process is a pretty darn good guide to how much awareness one has. If that isn't at least a decent yardstick then I don't know what is. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
"I understand there to be three types of value: ground value, extrinsic value, and intrinsic value. All animals, in fact all objects including air and poop, are equal expressions of the great Mystery that is the universe (or equal expressions of matter/energy, if you're spooked by spirituality). This is ground value. Some objects are more fundamental than others: you must first have atoms and molecules before you can have organs and organisms. Therefore some objects have more extrinsic value than others. They are foundational parts of a larger number of more complex wholes. Finally, some whole objects have a greater number of less complex parts within themselves. This is intrinsic value. And because humans contain the greatest number of less complex parts, humans have the most intrinsic value." So I would propose that we can restate your position as: Since humans enfold the greatest number of less complex structures within their being, humans have the most intrinsic value. Quote:
But that's getting away from the original question a bit. I agree with you that we don't need to extend all of the same considerations to animals that we extend to humans, and the reason is essentially that animals are less complex than humans. Since animals experience pain and suffering, we should consider that when handling them. But since they don't have an awareness of the problems they cause when they invade our homes and workspaces, we don't need to feel too bad about eliminating or relocating them. And because of this value framework, I can also agree with CaptainCrunch that concern for humans and concern for animals are not mutually exclusive. Again, it's not that one is valuable and the other is not, it's that they're valuable in different ways. |
Quote:
Snap traps, like glue traps, can often cause severe injury that leads to a slow, painful death. To me, it seems hypocritical to support one and not the other. Take for example my boyfriend's family, who recently caught a rat in a snap trap; the trap close on the rat's jaw, instantly crushing it and pinning it to the trap. It didn't die though, instead banging the trap around their backyard trying to escape painfully. My boyfriend ended up having to kill it himself (with a spear because 1. it was closest and 2. he's a badass). If you wish for the pests you're trying to get rid of not to suffer, the only way to ensure that is to use live traps and then either release them somewhere else or personally kill them so you can guarantee that the pest you're trying to kill isn't suffering. Your electric traps are also good, as long as your pest is a small mouse. Anything bigger and they become useless; the rat in the paragraph above was far too big for one of those traps. |
I'd be the first to admit that it makes me a bit squeamish, but it's kind of like a thing that needs to be done, since they can spread diseases and all. I've seen them in action and they usually kill the animal very quickly. If they don't, then yeah, that's kind of unnerving, but yeah.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
When you talk about snap traps, you didn't quite get what I'm trying to say - if you believe that humans should do all they can to reduce the elongated suffering of animals in traps, then you should always use a humane trap and then kill it quickly afterwards. You should never use a snap trap, because you can't guarantee it will prevent that. Your stance seems to be very firm; am I misunderstanding it, and are you actually saying that a certain amount of animals can suffer at the hands of humans as long as it doesn't go above a certain percentage? I was under the impression that you believed that humans should do all they can to reduce the suffering of the pests they're trying to eliminate. Quote:
|
Quote:
Especially when the traps come with instructions telling people just to simply throw the animal away on them. Some countries have them regulated: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Are you a user of glue traps? Quote:
It's late here, forgive me for being half asleep at the time and misinterpreting that. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Man, I need to stop with the references. Quote:
|
Quote:
Your position on empathy being completely instinctual doesn't make a lick of sense, I'm sorry to say. Either it bothers you on some level or it doesn't, you're using two different positions that are in contradiction of one another. I mean, gee, I am hard wired to eat yet I clearly have reasons what my favourite food is, and why I hate particular types. I can say the same for different types of fashion and music. Why should it be any different for feeling sorry for an animal? Quote:
Quote:
Empathy isn't a reflexive action, it is moulded by our environment and life experience. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
It was nice discussing this with you, a pleasure. Just the only nitpick I have now is the "empathy is purely instinctual" thing, which I highly disagree with. But I'll continue this later, I need sleep. :) |
Quote:
Glue traps just seem cruel and unethical. My dad doesn't even use mousetraps, and I wouldn't either. |
Quote:
|
They are really heartbreaking... For goodness just finish the poor thing off. Don't keep it there til it rots. ;___;
I've never seen a trap like these but I have heard of them. We use snap traps for a quick kill and even those I feel bad for using. Mice are a ♥♥♥♥♥ and destroy everything so you almost shouldn't feel bad but I still do. I want them gone out of the house or wherever but I don't want to kill them... I can hardly look at the poor thing's body hanging off a trap...it just makes me sick. >_< |
I have no problem whatsoever with having mice killed. That is, preferably being killed without suffering too much.
Also, Isn't it cruel to keep a mouse captive - contained in a small space, just struggling in anxiety over being caught, just to be found hours later and killed? I would rather use a snap trap with a high success rate than a trap that keeps it in a so-called "humane" tiny space where it can be frightened to death, or rather until it doesn't die because it has just been locked up. Optimal solution in my opinion would be a mini-guillotine that simply cuts the mouse's head off. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 5:09 PM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.