In my research into the morality of trapping mice in the previous post, I stumbled onto a very interesting debate about the immorality of glue traps and the need to ban them. While the conventional AR philosophy holds that glue traps should be banned, the discussion devolved into a practical question of whether or not the old-fashioned "snap traps" might be the most humane approach:

You know the little plastic boxes which catch the mice live? For later release? They are problematic in that if you don't check them daily, the mice starve in 'em. So, the plain old spring/squash 'em traps are best, ironically.

in my fanciful mind, i want the word to get out in the underground that my house is not open for the rodent kingdom, go somewhere else.

i hadn't posted in awhile and i guess this is just one of those topics that caught me this morning in one of those moods.

sorry for ranting...

....this is an animal RIGHTS tribe, which means that all animals are considered to have basic rights (the right to live being a very basic one) so it isn't about living in harmony with "critters" it is to acknowledge that they have just as much of a right to live there as you do, and if you would not like them inside your home, then make sure your home is clean, and that all foodstufff is put away in tight plastic, ceramic or glass containers.

Plus whether it is HUMANE or not is a welfare issue NOT a rights issue. It is NEVER humane to kill someone. And the snap traps do just that...they kill them and most times they just catch the animals in the midsection and leave them to agonize for hours or days and die slowly of internal bleeding...

But regardless of which one may make you feel better about yourself...any killing of any animal is not acceptable...EVERE...we here in an animal RIGHTS tribe would HAVE to check the no-kill traps more than once a day...although, still deterrents are MUCH better than traps, because the idea is to make them leave on their own, rather than putting them outside (which is futile because they came from the outside so can easily just make their way BACK in.

Snap and glue traps are ALWAYS a violation of an animal's RIGHTS ... KILLING someone being a pretty big violation of someone's RIGHTS.... which I think is why the original poster posted the info for the ban glue traps tribe here, NOT to have a discussion of the best way to kill mice or of whether or not it is EVER acceptable to kill them.

You may rant by I personally think that your rant is TOTALLY not welcome here, at least not by me.

Nice high horse you are climbing on, say that to the mice that died.
It isn't about feeling better.

let me understand this Gypsy, YOU come on an ANIMAL RIGHTS tribe and say that snap traps (that KILL MICE) is acceptable...and I am the bad guy?

play the victim all you want...if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem...I DO NOT apologise to speciesist and omni-apologists, and animal abusers.

I am working very hard to achieve total animal liberation and a free society...as many of the members of this tribe are as well...and I personally don't care or want your apologies...just stop killing non-hum,an...and if you want to apologize to someone apologize to the mice that you killed.

Should someone in the resistance apologise to a Nazi that he may have offended, an abolitionist apologise to a slave-owner who may have taken some things the wrong way?
A sufragette apolgize to a wife-beater who was "misunderstood"

and I do not apologise to butchers...not to antagonize!!! what? so talking about killing mice for your own convenience in an ANIMAL RIGHTS TRIBE??? you don't think that may perhaps antagonize its members??

wtf??

According to Antoine, people like me are of course part of the problem, and I'm not welcome even to comment at the site. (Which is why I thought I should post about it here instead.)

If you don't believe in Animal Rights you are part of the problem...I prefer to be part of the solution.

I think that it is clear that butchers, psychopaths, animal agriculturists, animal experimenter's or any animal abusers of any kind are not invited here. Unless they are willing to reject their evil ways and join us in the struggle towards Animal Rights.

Animal Rights mean rejecting speciesism and giving all Animals basic rights...oh and please don't bring up a lion killing a gazelle to me, and whether the lion has the right to do so, last I checked neither of us are lions...lions may have their own morality I am only concerned with human morality, I will let lions judge themsleves.

Animal Rights imply the recognition BY HUMANS of NON-HUMAN Rights and to see it otherwise is to trivialize.

and besides lions never created factory farming.

It actually brightened my day.

MORE: If these perspectives brightened your day, there's plenty more at Antoine's blog, the guiding principle of which is expressed as follows:

racism = speciesism = sexism
it all means the same thing but speciesism kills billions every year!

And lest you think we're natural meat eaters, forget it! Being descended from Paleolithic hunter gatherers won't get you meat eaters off the hook, as the meat eating was an aberration indulged in by people who had no right to be living in northern climates:

physical evidence of human flesh-eating, such as tool-scarred bones or ancient fire pits, is found only in northern areas which are well outside of the natural ecological niche for our tropical ape species; thus, any evidence of cultural diets so remote from our proper ecological niche is totally irrelevant to any understanding of what the natural diet for our species is. This ecologically-relevant, and crucially-important fact is universally, and conveniently, ignored in any discussions of Paleolithic humans. Paleolithic (tool using) humans are not natural humans and are just as irrelevant as any modern cultural group and their modern self-destructive dietary practices.

Further, "Because of the considerably harsher conditions and seasonal variation in food supply, hunting became more important to bridge the seasonal gaps, as well as the ability to store nonperishable items such as nuts, bulbs, and tubers for the winter when the edible plants withered in the autumn. All of these factors, along with clothing (and also perhaps fire), helped enable colonization of the less hospitable environment." clearly admits that such humans were well outside of thier natural ecological niche which would provide the proper nutrition for our species, thus they were forced to consume highly foreign, non-natural "foods" just to survive. So, it is obvious that any claims as to the applicability of the Paleolithic diet to any understanding of the natural diet for our species are totally, and unavoidably, bogus.

As to all you pet owners out there, remember. Having pets is unethical.

(I'll try to keep it a secret from Coco....)

UPDATE: Speaking of tribal perspectives, humancentric Professor Ann Althouse (linked by the speciesistic Glenn Reynolds) seems blissfully unconcerned with Paleolithic man's proper place. Reports Althouse:

...anthropologists Steven L. Kuhn and Mary C. Stiner theorize that the women must have joined the men in hunting for large animals.