Who?

Where?

What?

Research & Resources

  • Print

Resources from Animal Protection Organizations

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)

Animal Welfare Institute

PETA

Animal Welfare Board of India

International Fund for Animal Welfare

Animal Legal Defense Fund

*In Georgia, for example, an "animal"... shall not include any fish nor shall such term include any pest that might be exterminated or removed from a business, residence, or other structure. (Ga 16-12-4(1)) Since any creature "might" be removed from a structure, it's arguable that Georgia protects nothing. Georgia also provides a plethora of affirmative defenses to animal cruelty. Nothing in the law prohibits one from "...defending his or her person or property, or the person or property of another, from injury or damage being caused by an animal"; or "injuring or killing an animal reasonably believed to constitute a threat for injury or damage to any property, livestock, or poultry." (Ga 16-12-4(f)) Conceivably, a reasonable belief your neighbor's Chihuahua might dig a hole in your lawn would justify his summary execution. Is it any wonder that Georgia ranks in the bottom tier of the ALDF 2011 U.S. Animal Protection Laws Rankings?"

Miscellaneous Additional Research: 

Rat Population Management Scientific Field Study in New York City Subway System

The Humaneness Of Rodent Pest Control
G Mason, Animal Behaviour Research Group, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, UK, and K E Littin, Animal Welfare Science and Bioethics Centre, Massey University, New Zealand
Published in the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare's Journal, Animal Welfare 2003, 12: 000-000

"Abstract
"Rat and mouse control methods potentially affect the welfare of many millions of animals every year. Here, the humaneness of the methods used in the UK and the USA is assessed in terms of their speed and mode of action, the appearance and behaviour of affected animals, experiences of human victims, long-term effects on animals that survive exposure, and welfare risks to non-target animals. Several methods emerge as relatively humane: cyanide, alpha-chloralose, electrocution traps and well-designed snap traps all usually kill swiftly and with little distress. Preventative methods such as rodent-proofing are also humane, as well as an essential — and probably under-used — component of effective control. However, anticoagulant poisons, the most common means of controlling rodents, generally take several days to kill, during which time they cause distress, disability and/or pain. Sub-lethally affected animals are also likely to experience haemorrhages and their sequelae, and carnivores feeding on affected rodents may be secondarily poisoned. The acute rodenticides zinc phosphide and calciferol are also generally inhumane, the former typically causing severe pain for several hours, and the latter, pain and illness for several days. Sticky boards, to which rodents become adhered by the feet and fur until they are killed or simply eventually die, also raise very serious welfare concerns. This evidence highlights remarkable paradoxes in the way society treats different classes of animal, and argues for more education, legislation and research targeted at reducing the vast numbers of rodents currently killed inhumanely."

Humane Considerations in Rodent Control, by Stephen R. Kaufman, M.D.

Note that this was written about 25 years earlier than the Mason et al. paper cited above.

An Investigation of Anticoagulant Rodenticide Data Submitted to the Department of Pesticide Regulation (California, 11/2018)

Humane Deterrents and Pest Control (Rodents) 2014 , by the National Council of SPCAs (New Zealand) Special Projects Unit

How humane are our pest control tools? (09-11326) MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Technical Paper No: 2011/01 Prepared for MAFBNZ Operational Research By Landcare Research, Lincoln, New Zealand

Rodenticides and Wildlife

Additional information