Hide table of contents

The original version of this post can be found  in pdf form by following the link. 

Executive Summary

Around the world, poison is a frontline rodent control management tool. Typical pest management of rodents consists of trying to reduce obvious food and shelter available to them and then poisoning some of the animals when their numbers get large enough that their presence is noticeable. The chemical agents used to kill rodents are known as “rodenticides.” All rodenticides are cruel, but some especially so, and different rodenticides have different non-target effects, such as danger to human children, pets, and other wildlife. The goal of this report is to understand the current practices in rodent pest control and identify levers to improve the welfare of the rodents. This paper describes the past and current rodent pest control landscape with a particular focus on harms of rodenticides and the possibilities for rodent birth control as a cruelty-minimizing alternative. Because rodent birth control is most available in the United States, the focus of this paper is primarily on the U.S.

Controlling a pest population can also be achieved through reducing births, greatly reducing the need for lethal control means. Methods for reducing births include:

  • Resource reduction (by e.g. containing food waste)
  • Habitat reduction (by e.g. filling in abandoned burrows or filling in cracks that give access to the interior spaces of walls)
  • Effective birth control agents (such as EPA-approved ContraPest)


It is often not feasible to practice ideal humane rodent pest control, and for many, humaneness is simply not a priority when addressing a rodent infestation. However, there are practical alternatives that reduce rodent suffering and death without being as difficult or expensive to implement. Rodent birth control can be used in concert with lethal control methods that are more humane than rodenticides, such as traps and asphyxiants that provide quick deaths. These methods and their relative humaneness and effectiveness are discussed.

Other alternatives that have been offered to replace rodenticides unfortunately have not been proven effective or would present serious challenges. Apart from ContraPest, most of the known chemicals that reduce rodent fertility have not been developed to be sufficiently effective, cost-effective, or safe to be competitive with lethal control agents. Many advocates are excited about the potential of single-dose sterilants, which would completely abolish fertility in one dose, to replace rodenticides because the application would be very convenient and similar to single-dose rodenticides. But such a strong sterilant would come with a higher risk of overdose, bioaccumulation, and the evolution of resistance. 

Finally, the report considers the direct impact of replacing rodenticides with ContraPest. Future reports will cover the indirect effects of reducing rodenticides and what interventions are best to reduce the use of rodenticides in the U.S.



This research is a project of Rethink Priorities. It was written by Holly Elmore. If you’re interested in RP’s work, you can learn more by visiting our research database. For regular updates, please consider subscribing to our newsletter.
 

Comments3


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

I really appreciated this in-depth post, both because it seems like a well researched analysis of a problem with some concrete suggestions and because it's easy to read at different levels; the section headers and summaries made it really easy to get a sense of the overall take and then dive deeper into the sub-topics that I was most confused about. 

Thank you! I was hoping it would be useful to people to consult just the heading they were curious about.

Reading this paper, and its description of rodenticide deaths, made me sad. I appreciate the work y'all do.

Curated and popular this week
Sarah Cheng
 ·  · 6m read
 · 
Note: I'm crossposting this from the United States of Exception Substack with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. I'm posting this because I thought it was interesting and relevant, and don't necessarily agree with any specific points made. ---------------------------------------- A good and wholesome K-strategist. I am a climate change catastrophist, but I’m not like all the others. I don’t think climate change is going to wipe out all life on Earth (as 35% of Americans say they believe) or end the human race (as 31% believe). Nor do I think it’s going to end human life on Earth but that human beings will continue to exist somewhere else in the universe (which at least 4% of Americans would logically have to believe). Nevertheless, I think global warming is among the worst things in the world — if not #1 — and addressing it should be among our top priorities. Friend of the blog Bentham's Bulldog argues that this is silly, because even though climate change is very bad, it’s not the worst thing ever. The worst thing ever is factory farming, and climate change “rounds down to zero” when compared to factory farming. I disagree. I think there is a plausible case that climate change is orders of magnitude worse than factory farming. In fact, I think I can convince Bentham of this (that it’s plausible, not that it’s definitely true) by the end of the following sentence: Climate change creates conditions that favor r-selected over K-selected traits and species in most environments, and these effects can be expected to last for several million years. I don’t know if I’ve already convinced him. For most people, that sentence is probably nonsense. But if you’re familiar at all with the concept of wild animal suffering, it should start to raise some alarm bells. Biologists describe species’ reproductive strategies along a continuum of r-selection to K-selection, based on how a species trades off between quantity and quali
 ·  · 27m read
 · 
(This post draws heavily on earlier writing co-authored with Jesse Clifton, but he’s not listed as an author since he hasn’t reviewed this version in detail.) Should we always be able to say whether one outcome is more likely, less likely, or exactly as likely as another? Or should we sometimes suspend judgment and say “none of the above”, that the answer is indeterminate? Indeterminate beliefs (often modeled with imprecise probabilities)[1] could have far-reaching implications for anyone who cares about the distant consequences of their actions. Most notably, we might be clueless about how our decisions affect the long-term future, if our estimates of our net effects on long-term welfare ought to be severely indeterminate. Perhaps we don’t have reason to consider most interventions good in expectation for the far future, even if we also don’t have reason to consider them bad or precisely neutral in expectation. Before we can assess the case for cluelessness concretely, then, we should see if rationality requires us to have (or “act as if” we have) determinate beliefs. Here, I’ll argue that the positive arguments for having determinate beliefs in general are uncompelling, and indeterminate beliefs motivate different decision-making procedures than determinate beliefs. That is, there’s a viable alternative to “going with your best guess”. By itself, this claim doesn’t imply large changes in cause prioritization. But in my experience, accepting that indeterminate beliefs are plausible and decision-relevant goes a long way in making the case for cluelessness compelling. Key takeaways: * The “degrees of belief” studied in this post are not, e.g., our acceptable betting odds, or a probability distribution that (along with a utility function) rationalizes our preferences. Rather, they are our basic judgments of the plausibility of different possible outcomes. And the rationality of our decisions under uncertainty depends on these beliefs. (more) * A prima facie mot
 ·  · 4m read
 · 
There’s something deeply wrong with the world, when the median US college graduate’s starting salary is a dozen times higher than the price to save another person’s entire life. The enduring presence of such low-hanging fruit reflects a basic societal failure to allocate resources in a way that reflects valuing those lives appropriately. (If you personally earn over $60k, and agree that your least-important $5k of personal spending is not nearly as important as a young child’s entire life, I’d encourage you to reallocate your budget accordingly and save someone’s life today. Then, if you’re happy with the results, consider taking the🔸10% Pledge to make it a regular thing. This should be the norm for anyone who is financially comfortable.) It’s a tricky thing. If you really let yourself internalize this fact—that children are dying for want of $5000—it can be hard to think of anything else. How can life just go on as normal, when children are dying and we could easily prevent it? Why don’t more people treat this as the ongoing moral emergency that it is? Where is the urgency? Why aren’t most of the people around us doing anything? Will you break through the barrier? Psychological Defense 1: moral delusion In order to live anything approximating a “normal life”, in these circumstances, we need to develop psychological defenses to block out the cacophony of global demands. And so we do. (Few are willing to be the sorts of radical altruists profiled in Strangers Drowning. I know I’m not!) We learn to turn away, and ignore the needs of the world outside our local bubble. If people try to draw our attention back, we may even react with hostility: accusing them of being “preachy”, or “holier-than-thou”, or engaging in some kind of underhanded “guilt-tripping.” (How dare you break the social contract of mutually supporting each other’s delusions of decency, as we sip champagne while children starve?) We find—and elevate—other moral causes, preferably ones “closer to h