Anyone here for animal rights?

[brianspencer66]

Why are you all so blind?? Why can't you see the pain your putting these animals through?

Can't you see how scared they are? They don't know if they are going to live or die. They've been taken from they're families. They've been locked up and purposely hurt. I don't care if it's for medical, cosmetics or whatever. It is wrong!! and if scientists loved animals, then they woulden't do it!

Young lady Im with you on alot of what your saying here. But I do sense your coming at this argument from an emotional perspective and what some here are asking you for is a more intellectual perspective. They know how you feel but they want to know how you came to these conclusions. Lots here agree with you but only want some deeper substance to your argument. Simply showing pictures to tug at peoples heartstrings dont help very much. How about if you sit back relax and do the hard research to back up your argument then come back and state your point in a more articulate manner.

As for the cute little mouse and rat thing. Well I live in New York City and its not exaclty the rain forrest here and well rats spread disease. there was a thing called a plague in Europe one time with numbers like 75 million people were killed and this plague spread all through out large cities in Europe and Asia. Rats are the most vile discusting animals on earth if they are wild. But your heart is in the right place I just think you need to study more about your subject and garner a more refined and focused point of you. Good luck to you.

 

[MattyC]

Ok, where I stand on this issue. Animals don't really have any rights per se, possibly with one exception: all animals should have the right be be free from torturous activity done by man. With animal cruelty the issue with me is not the killing - sometimes killing is justified, whether it be for food, medical testing or pest control. However, I am a big believer on being humane to animals whenever possible and whenever an animal should die, it should be in a quick and humane manner. There is one issue here that irks me though - that if a person views a specific animal as "vermin" or insignificant, hell even "not cute", that means it is OK to torture one or make it die slowfully and painfully?

I'm not an animal rights nut, but when I see stuff like glue traps on the market I shake my head. Consider the many alternatives of nuisance animal removal, and here we have one that is the definition of animal cruelty and arguably the most inhumane method of animal capture. I don't know how many of you have used these devices before, let alone how they work - but it is the most horrible thing of cruelty and sadism I've ever seen. The animals stuck in one (usually a small rodent, sometimes even a bird) scream in pain as they try to pry themselves off, ripping off skin, breaking limbs and dislodging eyeballs. In some cases they literally rip themselves to pieces trying to get off, either through disembowelment or chewing their limbs off the glue. Some people even have the coldheartedness to throw the poor fucking thing into the bin, alive where it will possibly take days to starve to death instead of mercifully killing. That is torture, nothing more, nothing less.

It's this kind of needless cruelty to animals that pisses me off; and once more these same fucking idiots say "it's only a mouse" to justify such barbarity? All this and they could've used a damn snap trap where usually the creature dies instantly. It's one thing killing animal pests, it's another thing to prolong suffering when there is no need. That they are "vermin" is ultimately irrelevant as they are trying to adapt and survive in an environment that we presented them - after all, who gave the rat such an ecological niche in the first place? That some animals are pests isn't an evil or purposeful act towards us - which I hope people here will agree on. Regardless of how much damage they do (or we let them, since some people have no idea about the concept of 'prevention'), no creature deserves to be tortured like that. It is unjustifiable when you can come to the same conclusion by killing quickly. I mean come on, you have a small animal on a piece of cardboard where it gets mutilated and starves to death. Glue should be used for arts and crafts and fixing things, not "capturing animals".

It's about a general respect of life and friggin' decency. I have no objection to killing animals, but I have a strong objection to needless cruelty and inhumane methods of disposal. I just thought it was reasonable and important to mention the glue trap in such a thread. Same goes for steel-jawed traps for foxes, or any other kind of "snare trap" that causes the animal incredible suffering.

And since they weren't mentioned yet, I did.

 

[MattyC]

However, i have no qualms about eating meat or hunting or pest\vermin control

Would you have any qualms about it if it was done in an inhumane fashion that really is not necessary? With animal "rights", that's the issue I see with that - not if you are intending to kill the animal.

 

[MattyC]

there was a thing called a plague in Europe one time with numbers like 75 million people were killed and this plague spread all through out large cities in Europe and Asia.

The black death was carried by fleas, which in turn went on the rats - and a host of other animals too. One of the major reasons why the plague was so devastating in the first place was the lack of natural predators for rodents (cats were often seen as "the devil" during the dark ages and were killed en masse, which cased the rodent population to rise exponentially) and the unsanitary conditions that were present. People would literally shit on the streets, throw food out their windows and not even bother to clean up. Not to mention that rats were also victims themselves of the plague, so when they died of it the fleas would jump off them to look for warm hosts and go on other animals - including humans.

The rat isn't to blame here - they were merely the vectors, like every other animal at the time was. Some research actually suggests that the plague spread faster than what was possible for the rats to transverse. This tells me that the plague was either airborne, or that there was another creature(s) carrying the fleas.

BTW, the most "disgusting and vile" animal on the planet is man. That is not debatable. Non-human animals only do what's natural to them in order to adapt and survive - premeditated and intentional actions such as rape, murder, pedophilia, torture, etc does not exist in the wild... intentionally, at least.

Animals like rats can't help what they are - especially if they are opportunistic. That is why you can't blame them, and that is exactly why it's wrong to kill an animal simply it is because "that animal". To torture a living thing is never justifiable.

Rats are the most vile discusting animals on earth if they are wild.

There was a kid in primary school who burned one alive for that very reason. That a species to some people may be vile is no reason for such cruelty. I hate people who say that they are against animal cruelty, yet are perfectly fine treating certain animals with that much disrespect. I'm not talking about those people who trap and kill either... I'm talking about those who feel the need to go out of their way and intentionally causing suffering without remorse.

You're either against needless cruelty to animals or you are not. Emphasis on needless, as sometimes cruelty cannot be avoided.

 

[JimmyBoy]

Matty C I'm with you on glue traps. Last year we had a mouse invasion during the summer and my parents went crazy with the glueboards. We caught one with the glueboard. I was on the computer when it was caught and I heard this soft, but rapid squealing coming from the kitchen. Instead of leaving it there I picked up the glue board to the counter and took my dad's meat cleaver and very quickly I cut off it's head. It sound barbaric i know but it was quick and sudden and it died instantly.

After that, we bought the spring traps so at least the mouse dies in a matter of seconds rather than leaving it wailing on the boards. i didn't like what i had to do but hey, mice spread diseases (god knows what they bring from the sewers), they eat your food, and are a general risk to your family. i wasn't capturing it alive and letting it loose outside because it can come right back in or go into another neighbor's home. I don't like killing them, but hey it has to be done.

 

[MattyC]

Matty C I'm with you on glue traps. Last year we had a mouse invasion during the summer and my parents went crazy with the glueboards. We caught one with the glueboard. I was on the computer when it was caught and I heard this soft, but rapid squealing coming from the kitchen. Instead of leaving it there I picked up the glue board to the counter and took my dad's meat cleaver and very quickly I cut off it's head. It sound barbaric i know but it was quick and sudden and it died instantly.

It's why some countries have banned them, and why Australia is acting on it (the hardware chains there have already stopped selling them IIRC). It's an unacceptable way to capture and kill any animal, period.

i didn't like what i had to do but hey, mice spread diseases (god knows what they bring from the sewers), they eat your food, and are a general risk to your family. i wasn't capturing it alive and letting it loose outside because it can come right back in or go into another neighbor's home. I don't like killing them, but hey it has to be done.

You're more a chance to get a disease from a few other animals rather than ones you don't usually see. Don't get me started on greasy fingered kids at your local takeout. 😉

Anyways, that's besides the point. As I said already, the issue is not killing here, it is the method (and the intention behind it). Those who want them to suffer a painful death just because of what they are, or if they're "lazy" are assholes. Case in point - throwing them out alive stuck on glue, that is intentional cruelty and should be illegal, if it's not already. Actually, glue traps themselves should be criminal. If some nitwit was caught mutilating a wild rat with some nailclippers, they would be prosecuted - glue traps essentially do the same thing (maybe worse).

What you did was the right thing - you put it out of its misery, that's not barbaric. What would be is leaving it there to starve... kudos to you. However I'd still question the use of such an unethical trap, for that is barbaric in itself.

My stance here is the reducing of suffering, not prolonging it when it is not necessary! This goes for all animals with the capacity to feel pain. I'm not a vegetarian (medium rare porterhouse is my favourite food), but being humane is important.

 

[MattyC]

i wasn't capturing it alive and letting it loose outside because it can come right back in or go into another neighbor's home.

Relocation is usually a death sentence because the chance of survival outside their living zone(s) is incredibly small. They are bound to be eaten by predators... and them "coming back" is really only applicable if you release them in your backyard for example. To your local park or across the street for example is no problem... the stress involved will not make them come back usually. What you see as "coming back" usually means you have more mice. They all look similar anyway. 😉

When small animals are not in my house or garden, there's no reason to kill them. To kill just because you want to (and without reason) IMO is wrong... this is why killing for me is a last resort usually. Capture and release is fine - you don't kill the animal, the animal goes back to its natural environment and everything is the same as it was before the intruder came into your home.

What the neighbors get in their house is their concern, it is bound to happen anyway if you have a local family of mice living nearby. 🙂

 

[brianspencer66]

The black death was carried by fleas, which in turn went on the rats - and a host of other animals too. One of the major reasons why the plague was so devastating in the first place was the lack of natural predators for rodents (cats were often seen as "the devil" during the dark ages and were killed en masse, which cased the rodent population to rise exponentially) and the unsanitary conditions that were present. People would literally shit on the streets, throw food out their windows and not even bother to clean up. Not to mention that rats were also victims themselves of the plague, so when they died of it the fleas would jump off them to look for warm hosts and go on other animals - including humans.

The rat isn't to blame here - they were merely the vectors, like every other animal at the time was. Some research actually suggests that the plague spread faster than what was possible for the rats to transverse. This tells me that the plague was either airborne, or that there was another creature(s) carrying the fleas.

BTW, the most "disgusting and vile" animal on the planet is man. That is not debatable. Non-human animals only do what's natural to them in order to adapt and survive - premeditated and intentional actions such as rape, murder, pedophilia, torture, etc does not exist in the wild... intentionally, at least.

Animals like rats can't help what they are - especially if they are opportunistic. That is why you can't blame them, and that is exactly why it's wrong to kill an animal simply it is because "that animal". To torture a living thing is never justifiable.



There was a kid in primary school who burned one alive for that very reason. That a species to some people may be vile is no reason for such cruelty. I hate people who say that they are against animal cruelty, yet are perfectly fine treating certain animals with that much disrespect. I'm not talking about those people who trap and kill either... I'm talking about those who feel the need to go out of their way and intentionally causing suffering without remorse.

You're either against needless cruelty to animals or you are not. Emphasis on needless, as sometimes cruelty cannot be avoided.

Well thank you and I stand here corrected. And true rats cant help what they are but if they invade your house or climb into a childs crib to harm them, well they need to be killed. But your point about man is most true and well taken. I see people throwing garbage here in New York on the street all the time. half eaten pizza or leaving food on the subway. So yes if we were more careful with our garbage we would not have these problems. As for man being the most distructive force on earth your right.

 

[Bugman]

I'm not an animal rights nut, but when I see stuff like glue traps on the market I shake my head. Consider the many alternatives of nuisance animal removal, and here we have one that is the definition of animal cruelty and arguably the most inhumane method of animal capture. I don't know how many of you have used these devices before, let alone how they work - but it is the most horrible thing of cruelty and sadism I've ever seen.

I was in the pest control business for almost 5 years.In that time i was in thousands of homes and businesses and we used glue traps as a routine manner.I found them to be pretty much useless for rodent control.I never saw the things you mention about mice tearing off skin or anything else to try to escape.Never heard about it from other techs either.It could happen i suppose but i think its not common.The usual things we found were insects,dirt,dried leaves in the garage etc.

In many cases customers did not want snap traps in the house because of small children or pets.The only other option was bait which is not an easy death for a mouse or rat.If by chance we did find a live rodent in a glue trap we killed it in the most humane way possible.Many times a customer would call us and request that we come by and take care of it and we always did so as soon as possible.Sure there are some sadistic people out there but they are a small miniorty in my opinion.The best way to keep rodents out of a house or building is exclusion, sealing up any entry points.That can be difficult to impossible depending on the house or building.

Glue traps are an important and effective tool in controling many pests.There is no reason to ban there use in my opinion.

 

[MattyC]

I never saw the things you mention about mice tearing off skin or anything else to try to escape.Never heard about it from other techs either.It could happen i suppose but i think its not common.

It's common knowledge these traps do that. I mean, there was even a test that tested the effectiveness of these traps - that showed exactly the same thing. If you want I can provide you a link to that. Certainly common enough for some countries to actually prohibit them in their animal welfare acts, or at least consider it. Common enough for supermarkets and hardware chains to blacklist them.

Based on my personal experience, the experiences of people I know and what I've read on the internet, these traps do what I had described. I'm pretty sure a few people here can vouch for that (in fact one already did). I could post a video from YouTube or find such pictures to show you the results of the things, but I don't really want to.

And why would the techs talk about it? I doubt they'd even give a shit enough to raise it as an issue, or the animals already died from suffocation or shock.

If by chance we did find a live rodent in a glue trap we killed it in the most humane way possible.

Glad to hear.

The best way to keep rodents out of a house or building is exclusion, sealing up any entry points.That can be difficult to impossible depending on the house or building.

Yep, prevention is the best cure.

Glue traps are an important and effective tool in controling many pests.There is no reason to ban there use in my opinion.

I entirely disagree with you. They should be banned based on the cruelty inflicted upon said animal... it's akin to torture, I thought the torture of animals was illegal?

Considering the alternatives (and the new CO2 traps they are using today), I don't think they are that 'important' as there are always better and more humane methods of control. They are beyond unethical - this is a welfare issue pretty much, it's really prolonged suffering that isn't necessary and if you can help to that end, why not? Considering the fact that many countries have banned them (or are considering it), really tells you something. As for being effective, you said yourself that they are useless - so why use them?

A number of pest control companies don't even use them anymore. Some people really should get with the times and stop using such medieval traps that do nothing but capture and torment the poor creature. It is a question of morality here - it gets to a point where it's not "pest control" anymore, but just animal abuse.

Also not forgetting to mention that most of these glue traps have instructions around the lines of "simply dispose of the creature with trap into the rubbish", without even telling the person to humanely kill the animal. Is that really an acceptable way to kill an animal?

In many cases customers did not want snap traps in the house because of small children or pets.

The adhesive on these traps are pretty damn strong. I've heard people getting stuck in them and hurting themselves, as well as pets. You can rip skin off from a simple pull as it is that strong. Now imagine a small mammal doing that for a few hours... thus, they should be prohibited on ethical grounds.

 

[MattyC]

or climb into a childs crib to harm them

Over exaggerating much?

They're really timid in the wild, when they see humans they scatter and try to avoid us (unless they are your common subway rat who is used to humans because they realise there is free food).

 

[Miss Serendipity]

I love mostly all animals, however I am not a vegetarian & I do it meat!

I am against animal cruelty & if I see an animal getting poorly treated
I report it. I don't kill animals for sport or anything but I 'd defend myself if one threatened my life.

I am not against people whos beliefs differ from mine, to each their own just don't shove it down my face is all I ask.

 

[ViperGTS]

I think we upset the OP.

 

[Comfort Eagle]

I think we upset the OP.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing...

But, she wasn't really arguing a case..

 

[tkl-pen]

I think that all animals deserve to live without mistreatment and abuse - but I also think that I should be able to eat meat when I am higher up on the food chain than a chicken, turkey, cow or pig - I hardly think that a great white shark would consider my animal rights if he/she were to eat me.

 

[MattyC]

Some people seem to confuse animal "rights" with animal "welfare". They are entirely two different things, the latter being the one I believe in strongly. Welfare emphasises the humane treatment for all animals, but at the same time is not opposed to killing them for various reasons.

 

[brianspencer66]

Over exaggerating much?

They're really timid in the wild, when they see humans they scatter and try to avoid us (unless they are your common subway rat who is used to humans because they realise there is free food).

Well no not an exaggeration. Ive read newspaper accounts many times of rats climbing into a babies crib or people being attacked or bitten . Many people here in New York City have had horrible encounters with rats. Im not one for cruelty to animals, but in a large city common sense must be the prevailing fact where there are as many rats as people. There is a worry of rabies or diesease. The rodent population needs somehow to be controlled. A large city is not a rain forrest so the same standards simply dont apply here.

 

[MattyC]

Well no not an exaggeration. Ive read newspaper accounts many times of rats climbing into a babies crib or people being attacked or bitten.

I doubt the validity of some of those claims. As an aside, some people who get bitten deserve it because they are doing something incredibly stupid (for instance, handling one with bare hands, cornering one where the rat can defend itself, and so on).

Many people here in New York City have had horrible encounters with rats.

Horrible psychologically? That they simply see one and they scream in fear at the sight? Or did the rats, like a tiger does to prey, have them in their sights and jump for them, going for their necks? Define "horrible" - if it's leaving poop on your floor, stealing your food or chewing through your stuff then I would agree with you (but that's more annoying than anything).

Im not one for cruelty to animals, but in a large city common sense must be the prevailing fact where there are as many rats as people.

"I'm not one for cruelty but..."

Mmmhmm, ok. My point ultimately is a humane dispatchment of nuisance animals... means needless cruelty is not on. I understand the need to control animals, but people should not use that as an excuse for intentional cruelty.

There is a worry of rabies or diesease.

Rats don't carry rabies, or it is incredibly rare. They don't have much saliva and if they are rabid, they die very quickly. Sometimes this disease line is overrated, because you usually get sick from other people rather than rats themselves. Considering all animals carry disease, rats should not really be the only worry. Raccoons, stray dogs and cats carry some nasty stuff too.

The rodent population needs somehow to be controlled. A large city is not a rain forrest so the same standards simply dont apply here.

Who's applying rain forest standards? I'm just emphasising more humane methods of control so that the animal doesn't have to suffer unduly. I don't see how you can be against this principle if the results effectively are the same (for animal population control or 'nuisance' invasion). They're living, breathing, feeling creatures... and even though at times they are pests, they're not demonic objects. I hope you can remember that.

 

[*~Game Girl~*]

My opinion still stands...Animal testing is vile, evil and sick. and I will NOT support it, or it's products. These animals have been denied the right to live.

I have thrown away everything my parents and I have that have been tested on animals (we were unaware at the time). We've switched to natural products.

'The Body Shop' is a great place for natural products. They use resources from nature, and they work just as well without the need for testing. This shop is 100% AGAINST vivisection (correct word for animal testing) and I support this shop all the way. They have alot of really great things. So why don't people switch to natural products? It's actually much better for you. Because all these brand name products CAN also put harmful chemicals in your body. (it was shown on a documentry a few days ago). But if you switch to natural products, you are not only saving animals, but saving yourself as well. Thing is, natural products are more expensive. But I don't care aboutt he price. I jsut want an animal cruelty free life style.

Don't believe me? Look it up. and see how many women out there are actually poisoning themselves with intoxicated make-up.

 

[Comfort Eagle]

My opinion still stands...Animal testing is vile, evil and sick. and I will NOT support it, or it's products. These animals have been denied the right to live.

I have thrown away everything my parents and I have that have been tested on animals (we were unaware at the time). We've switched to natural products.

'The Body Shop' is a great place for natural products. They use resources from nature, and they work just as well without the need for testing. This shop is 100% AGAINST vivisection (correct word for animal testing) and I support this shop all the way. They have alot of really great things. So why don't people switch to natural products? It's actually much better for you. Because all these brand name products CAN also put harmful chemicals in your body. (it was shown on a documentry a few days ago). But if you switch to natural products, you are not only saving animals, but saving yourself as well. Thing is, natural products are more expensive. But I don't care aboutt he price. I jsut want an animal cruelty free life style.

Don't believe me? Look it up. and see how many women out there are actually poisoning themselves with intoxicated make-up.

Ok, that's a good point, but what you're not talking about is when animals are tested on for medical advances for people. You can keep saying you can stick to natural healing, but that usually isn't going to work.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0903poste0903.html
http://nanotechwire.com/news.asp?nid=904
http://www.amprogress.org/site/c.jrLUK0PDLoF/b.933657/k.923A/ANIMAL_RESEARCH.htm

I know you aren't going to read any of it, and you'll just come back and say "ANIMAL TESTING IS WROOOOOOOOONG!!!", but hell, I gave it a shot.

 

[*~Game Girl~*]

Well..Answer me this.

Alternatives have been found for certain experiements...They work well....So...why are we still conducting these same experiments on animals if an alternative has been found?

 

[Comfort Eagle]

Well..Answer me this.

Alternatives have been found for certain experiements...They work well....So...why are we still conducting these same experiments on animals if an alternative has been found?

Well which experiments? Say you have a cancer treatment, you could probably have tests where it would cure the cancer isolated, but you would have to see how said drug affected other organs in the body, so shooting the drug into a monkey would have to be done to ensure that a dangerous drug wasn't killing people.

 

[MattyC]

Well which experiments? Say you have a cancer treatment, you could probably have tests where it would cure the cancer isolated, but you would have to see how said drug affected other organs in the body, so shooting the drug into a monkey would have to be done to ensure that a dangerous drug wasn't killing people.

Some cancer research is actually done by tissue samples grown from the lab, as well as through computer simulations. We know well enough about a lot of cancers now to start using computer models, rather than live animals. The testing of new drugs, however, is paramount and thus animals are still used in that capacity. Slowly but surely, animals are starting to be phased out through more advanced techniques.

BTW, this animal experimentation is somewhat hyped. Most of the time the animals are treated with respect, and it is made sure they are comfortable before they get tested on. Various ethical committees decide the pros and cons on each experiment relating to animals - sometimes they are not even allowed because the animal would be in just too much pain. Even during the experimental stage, every effort is made to decrease pain (within limits of course, sometimes they will have bad side effects from treatments never tested before). When the experiment is performed, the animal is humanely put to sleep.

There are laws that regulate such matters regarding welfare of lab animals. Some people think there are these evil, cackling mad scientists who cut up live rats without anesthesia (which is illegal and immoral anyway, so it's a moot point) - but that's just a stereotypical view. The few that do not respect the actual animal tested on are punished, every scientist working with animals are taught how to take care of them, handle them and minimise suffering where possible. They are trained to do so - and usually have a healthy respect for the animals they are working for, and why wouldn't they? After all, it are those animals who are going to go through some unavoidable pain and death for the benefit of mankind. The lab rat, or any other lab animal for that matter, as contributed so much and has helped humanity as a whole. They at least deserve some respect, especially from those who are working with them.

However, not all experiments require animals (such as those that are being repeated, where there is no need to do so again because the results prior are already conclusive). For example, putting industrial bleach in a rabbit's eyes does not benefit mankind at all, not only is it horrible but it has been done hundreds of times already. Since we know the results, why keep on doing them. Why put unnecessary pain on animals when the experiments themselves are in the end, unnecessary?

Breakthrough medical advances where animals are used are fine. But with cosmetics, stuff that we already know and tested? No way. That kind of experimentation on animals really should be prohibited.

 

[brianspencer66]

I doubt the validity of some of those claims. As an aside, some people who get bitten deserve it because they are doing something incredibly stupid (for instance, handling one with bare hands, cornering one where the rat can defend itself, and so on).



Horrible psychologically? That they simply see one and they scream in fear at the sight? Or did the rats, like a tiger does to prey, have them in their sights and jump for them, going for their necks? Define "horrible" - if it's leaving poop on your floor, stealing your food or chewing through your stuff then I would agree with you (but that's more annoying than anything).



"I'm not one for cruelty but..."

Mmmhmm, ok. My point ultimately is a humane dispatchment of nuisance animals... means needless cruelty is not on. I understand the need to control animals, but people should not use that as an excuse for intentional cruelty.




Rats don't carry rabies, or it is incredibly rare. They don't have much saliva and if they are rabid, they die very quickly. Sometimes this disease line is overrated, because you usually get sick from other people rather than rats themselves. Considering all animals carry disease, rats should not really be the only worry. Raccoons, stray dogs and cats carry some nasty stuff too.



Who's applying rain forest standards? I'm just emphasising more humane methods of control so that the animal doesn't have to suffer unduly. I don't see how you can be against this principle if the results effectively are the same (for animal population control or 'nuisance' invasion). They're living, breathing, feeling creatures... and even though at times they are pests, they're not demonic objects. I hope you can remember that.

Well as a person living in a large city only a moron would handel a live rat with their bare hands. Most people here know much better pretty quickly. And saying they desrve it is simply ridiculas Ive had friends as a kid bitten and none of them deserved it. They were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time (like a rat infested household).

And yes horrible psychologilly. Sample in point. A few years back a woman got out of her parked car near city hall here next to a construction site at 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon and was attacked by several rats in broad daylight. This was witnessed by many people who reported the woman got back in her car screaming and drove away. Now I know this is slightly somthing out of the movies but it seriously moved city officials to clean up that construction site of wild vermin.

look Im against clubbing seals to death as much as the next guy. But filthy vermin is simply filthy vermin and Id frankly care less how they are rid of.

And yes it is rare indeed that they do carry rabies and that other animals carry this. But keep this in mind rats are still capable of carrying highly contagious diseases like leptospirosis, hepetitis, hantavirus and salmonella. They did a study of 200 trapped rats in Baltimore a few years ago and found more than half were carriers of some of these very antibodies. They also host ticks and fleas and there is evidence of that asthma can be spread or at least exacerbated by rodent infestation.That why they are called vermin!!

One female rodent can have over 200 offspring in one year .

 

[MattyC]

And saying they desrve it is simply ridiculas Ive had friends as a kid bitten and none of them deserved it.

I'm talking about situations where they do stupid enough things to get bitten.

A few years back a woman got out of her parked car near city hall here next to a construction site at 2 or 3 o'clock in the afternoon and was attacked by several rats in broad daylight. This was witnessed by many people who reported the woman got back in her car screaming and drove away.

I think you are full of shit, no offense. I've never, ever heard a story like that - unless it's some stupid urban legend. Rats are not vicious pack animals like some wild dogs are, they are timid animals that tend to avoid humans whenever possible because we are predators to them.

You're either buying into these silly stories or are making them up in order to justify some of the things us humans do to them.

look Im against clubbing seals to death as much as the next guy. But filthy vermin is simply filthy vermin and Id frankly care less how they are rid of.

So you're being selective towards which animals you hate seeing cruelty being inflicted upon. How immensely kind of you.

As I had said, that they are vermin is not relevant. That does not mean one should torture one or give it a slow, painful death... you can't justify needless animal abuse just by attaching the "vermin" tag. That in itself is not only ridiculous, but very cold hearted. You said yourself you're not one for animal cruelty, yet your indifference and total apathy shows otherwise

This is all about being against pointless cruelty, and people who go out of their way to intentionally inflict it. On rats, on dogs, on cats... what ever animal. The double standard you are supporting destroys the notion that you dislike such cruelties. And as this has nothing to do with the necessity of killing.

But keep this in mind rats are still capable of carrying highly contagious diseases like leptospirosis, hepetitis, hantavirus and salmonella.

Oh, I can list a lot of other diseases other animals carry. That rats carry disease is well known, so I don't know what your point is here. It is a moot one.

A lot of these diseases aren't transmitted as easily as you'd think, unless you don't clean up regularly or eat rat feces in your food (which is the primary method of transmission). Hell, if I had dog shit in my food I'd get incredibly ill too with a disease. BTW, hantavirus is carried by deer mice mostly. Disease doesn't magically transport to you just from looking at a rat, which is how some people actually think.

They did a study of 200 trapped rats in Baltimore a few years ago and found more than half were carriers of some of these very antibodies.

It would be interesting to see what they found from 200 stray dogs and cats, and raccoons. Perhaps even humans.

BTW, do you even know what 'antibodies' are?

That why they are called vermin!!

Why are we arguing them about being vermin? OF course they are, well, in instances where they provide a problem anyway. But that's not the issue here. The point is not to be a fucking prick and have the decency to give these animals a quick death where possible.

One female rodent can have over 200 offspring in one year.

And one man has the potential to create the actions that causes the death of millions of his own species. Your point? We've already established that they are pests, and why they need to be controlled. But that's not the point I'm making.

It's this kind of "oh I don't care how it dies or gets treated, it's only a (insert animal here)" attitude that is the reason why animal cruelty exists in the first place. It royally shits me, because with such an attitude people think they can do whatever they want with "lesser species", including unspeakable things (such as the situation I described earlier). Maybe if people had more respect for life in general, and had an ounce of compassion, we would see less acts of pointless cruelty and/or sadism.

You're over blowing the cons of an animal you don't like, so you can dismiss any ethical consideration towards it as if it was a waste of time. And then be as blatantly hypocritical as changing your tune for seals. Do you even know why animal cruelty is hated in the first place? I'll give you a hint: it's not because of what animal it is - something you seem to be using, and completely disregarding obviously cruel acts towards creature B because it's "vermin". I don't even have to begin to explain why that is morally incomprehensible, no matter how inconsequential it may seem to be.

I'll say this to you again, because you seem to be ignoring this small, yet vital statement: They're living, breathing, feeling creatures... and even though at times they are pests, they're not demonic objects.