Killing Rats

[binocular]

As a cat owner, I know full well that animals had to be killed in order to make food for our cat.

What does it matter if I don't know which cow or pig or fish exactly was killed, parts of which our cat now eats? I know that some had to be killed.
And because I continue to buy meat and cat food, I am, given the principle of supply and demand, furthering the meat industry.
I can't say I am innocent in the killing of animals. I am basically simply paying other people to do it.

As someone who drives, I know that bugs are smashing into my car and dying and I'm squishing them under my tires. So should I stop driving? As someone who walks, I know that I'm crushing bugs underfoot. Should I stop walking? I know that in bathing myself, I'm killing countless microbes and washing them down the drain. Should I stop bathing? I know that in drinking water, I'm either drinking microbes and killing them in my stomach acid or they've been killed already via water purification. Should I stop drinking water?

The fact of life is that beings are harmed and killed constantly. The Wheel of Life can just as aptly be called the Wheel of Death. We've got to draw the line somewhere. The Buddha drew it at intention because that is how kamma is created.

The fact that already simply because one is breathing, millions of other beings die, does not automatically imply that the only solution is to not breathe. Or not drive, or not dig over the garden, or not eat, or whichever.

Are you trying to construe innocence, by subsequently re-defining the principles by which guilt is constituted?

If you have any hand in the killing of others, you are guilty of killing. The degree of guilt varies, however. (The Law acknowledges this, hence there are different categories of homicide.)

Some people will go through a lot of mental and moral gymnastics in an effort to construe innonce. This effort, however, only proves their guilt.

[Mkoll]

As a cat owner, I know full well that animals had to be killed in order to make food for our cat.

What does it matter if I don't know which cow or pig or fish exactly was killed, parts of which our cat now eats? I know that some had to be killed.
And because I continue to buy meat and cat food, I am, given the principle of supply and demand, furthering the meat industry.
I can't say I am innocent in the killing of animals. I am basically simply paying other people to do it.

As someone who drives, I know that bugs are smashing into my car and dying and I'm squishing them under my tires. So should I stop driving? As someone who walks, I know that I'm crushing bugs underfoot. Should I stop walking? I know that in bathing myself, I'm killing countless microbes and washing them down the drain. Should I stop bathing? I know that in drinking water, I'm either drinking microbes and killing them in my stomach acid or they've been killed already via water purification. Should I stop drinking water?

The fact of life is that beings are harmed and killed constantly. The Wheel of Life can just as aptly be called the Wheel of Death. We've got to draw the line somewhere. The Buddha drew it at intention because that is how kamma is created.

The fact that already simply because one is breathing, millions of other beings die, does not automatically imply that the only solution is to not breathe. Or not drive, or not dig over the garden, or not eat, or whichever.

Are you trying to construe innocence, by subsequently re-defining the principles by which guilt is constituted?

If you have any hand in the killing of others, you are guilty of killing. The degree of guilt varies, however. (The Law acknowledges this, hence there are different categories of homicide.)

Some people will go through a lot of mental and moral gymnastics in an effort to construe innonce. This effort, however, only proves their guilt.

To your question, no. The purpose of all those examples was to lead up to the point I mentioned at the end:

The fact of life is that beings are harmed and killed constantly. The Wheel of Life can just as aptly be called the Wheel of Death. We've got to draw the line somewhere. The Buddha drew it at intention because that is how kamma is created.

[binocular]

To your question, no. The purpose of all those examples was to lead up to the point I mentioned at the end:

The fact of life is that beings are harmed and killed constantly. The Wheel of Life can just as aptly be called the Wheel of Death. We've got to draw the line somewhere. The Buddha drew it at intention because that is how kamma is created.

I asked just for verification. So far, it all looks like you're trying to construe innocence. When you talk of drawing the line, it suggests a reasoning process like in this example:

"Many people smoke marijuana. Because there are so many, we cannot punish them all, we just don't have the man power and prison utilities necessary for that. We have to draw the line somewhere. So we will punish only those who who have in their possession a pound of marijuana or more."

It's an utilitarian approach to morality that attempts to establish culpability based on how widely spread a problematic behavior is, or on how easy/difficult it is to prove guilt, not on some other criteria.

Note that in some cases, intention is irrelevant, referring here to a post by Ven. Dhammanando: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... do#p394784

[Anagarika]

I haven't been on DW for a while, and visited via a link from another site. I saw this topic and, with thoughts of kamma and goodwill, thought I'd post a suggestion.

Since taking an anagarika ordination, I gave up most all of my stuff, and live in a former derelict house that sold for the price of a used Toyota Corolla. The house came with a good location near the Center for Southeast Asian Studies and the Burma Studies Center, but also, due to its condition (basically falling apart at the seams) and history, came with a recurrent mouse problem. Once the Burmese/Thai Hill Tribe people that I interact with on my travels to Chiang Rai have good housing and hot water, I will then, too.

Mindful of the whole Pānātipātā veramanī sikkhāpadam thing, I researched a solution. What has worked is this: glue traps. These traps (buy them or make them yourself) are typically seen as very inhumane, as they trap the rats and mice, then the animals then literally starve to death in the trap. However, the work around is this: Set the traps around the dwelling. Listen for the sound of the mouse and trap moving; check the traps once a day. Pick up the trap and go outside, and unlike the knucklehead in the video, go far way from your dwelling to, say, a park or open area. Bring with you some vegetable oil ( I use olive oil), and saturate the glue base and the teeny feets with the oil. Wait 5-10 minutes and soon, the rat wriggles free and runs away. Unlike our mindless friend in the video, make sure that the rat doesn't run somewhere where he/she is not wanted.

phpBB .

It's a perfect system: effective and nonlethal. It pisses off the mice, but I've found that they are suitably chastised, and, having caught and released 8-10 so far, they don't come back.

[Dhammanando]

It's a perfect system: effective and nonlethal.

It's not bad, but why waste olive oil, which costs a fortune in Thailand, when the most common of the country's non-lethal traps will cost you only one little lump of sticky rice per rat?

1.jpg (41.73 KiB) Viewed 2938 times

2.jpg (63.83 KiB) Viewed 2938 times

[Anagarika]

HI Bhante:

Your suggestion is the best one, but using these traps ( I bought two of them) resulted in no catches. I learned that the mice might be smarter than me. I used peanut butter as bait ( the leading online suggestion) but the mice did not go for it. Maybe the sticky rice is the key. I know that there are days when I am in Thailand that I'd walk into a trap for a nice mango with sticky rice.

[Dhammanando]

HI Bhante:

Your suggestion is the best one, but using these traps ( I bought two of them) resulted in no catches. I learned that the mice might be smarter than me.

The secret (as I learned from a visiting thudong monk) is to lightly toast the ball of sticky rice over a candle flame before attaching it to the dangling pin. Doing it this way I would catch a rat virtually every night and the captures only came to an end when the whole family had been safely removed.

I also made a modification to the trap by using a hacksaw to cut off the bottom quarter inch of the trapdoor. The resulting gap is too small for the trapped rat to escape through, but it ensures that its tail doesn't get damaged when the door snaps shut.

[Dhammanando]

These threads always remind me of Jasper Carrott's "I've got this mole..." sketch.

phpBB .

[No_Mind]

About live capture and release.

Glue traps are in my opinion inhumane. I have used it once out of curiosity and banned them from my home. I have urged everyone I know to not use them. It is more humane (though bad Kamma) to use a break-back trap.

It is not quite possible to release a rat caught in a trap a mile away. Reason being it will die in unfamiliar surroundings. It is killing the rat by proxy.

Release rats within 100 yards of where they were caught. Releasing a rat into a strange area will almost surely result in his or her death.

PETA

Killing is much less likely to carry a risk of causing suffering than release in an unfamiliar area,

Guiding principles in the Humane Control of Rats and Mice

Besides those people near whose home I release it will kill me if they catch me doing so. Since rats invade my home at night .. the release will have to happen in very early morning to avoid ire of those who stay at the place of release .. honestly I do not want to walk a mile with a live rat, in a trap which is in a bag, at 4:30 AM instead of meditating .. as I said in OP there is a new one as soon as the preceding one dies .. I will have to keep on carrying rats a mile at 4:30 AM three times a week in perpetuity.

Dealing with rats are a tricky ethical dilemma. Insects do not feel pain and it is easier on one's ethics to kill mosquitoes.

I am not looking for approval of my method of using a vicious killing machine .. but after 2 decades of suffering (specially last Saturday) I accept I will have to live with the bad Kamma of killing them. But my trap will only be used if it causes instant death as other buyers have attested to (the reason for its purchase).

[pilgrim]

Glue traps are messy. The cage traps Bhante recommended are the trap of choice in my country. Some people drown the rats after capture but the humane ones release the rats some distance away. The trick is in the bait. Use something that is irresistible to the rat. Stuff that have a strong smell such as like salted fish, durian seed or chicken bones. If that still doesn't work, local lore says one must put a flame to the trap to burn it lightly to remove the smell of adrenaline of the previous victim.

[Fluke]

Release rats within 100 yards of where they were caught. Releasing a rat into a strange area will almost surely result in his or her death.

PETA

Killing is much less likely to carry a risk of causing suffering than release in an unfamiliar area,

Guiding principles in the Humane Control of Rats and Mice

Hm just my opinion and I may be wrong, but if I was the rat I'd rather take my chances in unfamiliar surroundings than be killed with a broken neck.

I had a rat last summer and caught it, released it about a mile away by the side of a river. There it had water to drink and could eat the insects living around the river.. I like to think it survived.

[Mkoll]

Release rats within 100 yards of where they were caught. Releasing a rat into a strange area will almost surely result in his or her death.

PETA

I'd like to see the study that supports this claim, if there is one. PETA provides no references on that page. Rats are evolutionarily successful and hardy creatures with a wide habitat distribution. I find it unlikely they would "surely die" if released in a non-extreme (e.g. freezing cold or blistering hot, desserts, etc.) environment.

[pilgrim]

Release rats within 100 yards of where they were caught. Releasing a rat into a strange area will almost surely result in his or her death.

PETA

I'd like to see the study that supports this claim, if there is one. PETA provides no references on that page. Rats are evolutionarily successful and hardy creatures with a wide habitat distribution. I find it unlikely they would "surely die" if released in a non-extreme (e.g. freezing cold or blistering hot, desserts, etc.) environment.

PETA's aount is ridiculous. Rats have been known to jump ship, swim rivers, etc and colonised islands. 100 yards indeed.

[No_Mind]

PETA's aount is ridiculous. Rats have been known to jump ship, swim rivers, etc and colonised islands. 100 yards indeed.

As a tangential topic (and not defending PETA's position) all we can conclude from rats jumping ships and colonising islands is that --

A ) rats survive very well in closed environs like sewers and ships.

B ) there might not have been a suitable predator on those islands like owls, eagles, snakes (in fact isolated islands lack predator birds among its native avian population).

If I let go a rat from a sewer in an open field it would likely be killed by an eagle or owl or snake because it does not know how to burrow quickly like a meadow rat. Also feeding practices in a sewer which it has known since birth will not work in an open field. Eating scraps of waste from a garbage dump and surviving by being a scavenger is entirely different from foraging and surviving on nuts and seeds in a park. Is it not? How will it know how to find nuts and seeds without being snatched up by an owl .. it was not taught by its mother.

There is some justification in PETA's belief .. maybe not 100 yards but relocating a rat from sewers and garbage dump of a highly populated locality to an open park two miles away is as good as killing it.

The other link I provided goes into details of U.K laws regarding release of trapped animals .. so not that it is entirely unfounded.

Also when we speak of rats colonising islands we do not have complete data .. maybe 1,000 rats were on a ship in Southampton when it departed for an island in the Pacific. Only 500 rats were alive when it arrived after 11 months (rest having died of malnutrition, disease and drowning) and of these 500 rats, 450 were eaten by predators in the first four weeks and 50 survived to give rise to a population of 10,000 within a decade. So probably there was 95% mortality.

We do not know .. there is not enough data on survival possibility of a single rat in a ship. All we can conclude is -- if 500 healthy rats are let loose on an island .. there will be 10,000 within a decade.

Chances are that of the 5,000 of us in this forum, vast majority will be here in 2047. But also by that time statistically speaking 10% of us would have died and 20% would have suffered from cancer and nearly 80% would be on hypertension medication (assuming the youngest member here today is no less than 20).

My own chances of being here is 2047 is bleak since I am above 40, have hypertension, high cholesterol and do not exercise.

90% of present DW members will be alive in 2047 does not translate to 90% possibility of me being alive in 2047.

How, when and why reproduction and survival of a species is successful is unknown .. and does not attest to the "hardiness" of a single individual of that species.

[Mkoll]

My own chances of being here is 2047 is bleak since I am above 40, have hypertension, high cholesterol and do not exercise.

Bro, do you even lift?

In all serious, you used to weight lift so I'm sure you understand and know how to keep fit and eat healthy. Why don't you anymore?