Talk:Mousetrap

German ban

I couldn't find a reference online for the german ban of mousetraps. Is this a fact? If so is there a reference for it?

I live in Germany and can't seem to find any reference to this anywhere. Also, mouse traps are very much still being sold in stores. In fact, you can't even find a no kill mouse trap here (i ended up making a bucket trap). I'm going to remove it as it is just not true.82.83.241.149 20:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look in a pet store. I found an exeptional non-lethal trap there. It was see-through, so I used the trapped mouse as a T.V for my two kittens.

Please remove photographs of dead mice

To show how a mousetrap works, I suggest that we post a drawing or diagram. There is absolutely no reason why a picture of a dead mouse caught in the trap needs to be used to show how a mousetrap works. It is violent, unpleasant and renders this page unsuitable for children. I actually came here looking for history of the board-game FOR children known as "mouse trap". Arriving here instead was perhaps to be expected, but the imagery of dead mice was shocking and unwelcome.

I see no reason for posting pictures of dead mice caught in mousetraps. It adds nothing of elaboration or explanation for the topic is a grisly and gratuitous display of violence. The pictures should be removed.

I somewhat agree. I was actually wondering how they kill, but two pictures? Maybe have them on a linked paged or something, but it certainly changes the page to be a little too much for kids. 75.1.5.91 08:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People look up a mousetrap encyclopedia entry to find out how mousetraps work. Since most of them are in the business of killing mice, how can a dead mouse be irrelevant? Two pictures is gratuitous, removing both would be bowdlerization. 68.190.89.231 22:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds reasonable - I removed the second dead mouse. Haukur 22:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These pictures, and also the links at the bottom of the page, are obviously placed there by PETA　activists or someone similar. This isn't the place for peta activism. Perhaps however, a "criticism" section is in order, because there is a significant population of people who oppose killing mousetraps and glue traps. --74.128.140.243 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment here, but it looks like a very old conversation. I think maybe one or two pictures is okay, but so many seems gratuitous. Most importantly, I hope people aren't going around killing mice to get pics for Wikipedia. :-( Perhaps we need a disclaimer: "No animals were harmed in the course of creating this article." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of a mouse caught in a glue trap may be useful. Drutt 21:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the pictures of dead mice are really necessary at all. They're just too gruesome, in my opinion. If someone wants to see a picture of a mouse in a trap, they are more than capable of doing an image search elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.49.200 (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I agree that the photos of the dead mice should be removed and I don't think that they are necessary or helpful for this article ... as mentioned above, a diagram would accomplish how each type of trap works and still be a 'family friendly' type of article ... my 11 year old daughter was looking at this article for a school project to build a better and non-lethal mousetrap and she was very upset by these photos - and to be honest, when I saw them I was too -- Ukt-zero (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we post photos of dead humans killed in various ways on the pages for military weapons I wonder? If not, why is the photo on this page acceptable? 01:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This debate is becoming more suited for the animal rights or animal cruelty page. The mousetrap is a device with a specific purpose, to capture and sometimes kill pest mice. The page gives equal time to live capture and humane mouestraps. To compare pictures of dead mice to dead humans is not reasonable.Bugguyak (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patents

I noticed that both of the links to the United States Patent Office for mousetraps don't yield any results. If you happen to find the actual patent numbers, please add valid United States patent links. Dollarback

The UK patent for the common modern mousetrap is GB number 13277, invented 1897, granted 1899, inventor James Henry Atkinson. Partial patent information (not much more than part of the drawing and the number).

The US patent for a nearly identical design was applied for on 30 October 1899 by John M. Mast. It was granted as U.S. patent 0,744,379 on 17 November 1903. There are no references to Hiram Maxim in the prior art. --71.162.85.65 00:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried a humane trap (a weighted ramp that the mouse can't walk back over once he's gotten past the end of it).

It caught a mouse immediately, but unfortunately I didn't see the little thing hiding under the ramp and released it by mistake.

I sure hope he's dumb enough to fall for the same trick twice.

Josh Scholar

He will. He's not gonna identify it as dangerous. 124.197.50.143 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That redlink for the mousetrap video game was rather unneeded since it was only worth a brief mention along with the Buckner & Garcia song inspired by it. --SuperDude 05:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious edit

I am suspicious about this recent edit. It looks like a prank and the facts added are unsourced (although not entirely implausible). Algae 06:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found an anonymous edit adding the word "cruel" to the description of glue traps. That isn't NPOV so I removed it. Winick88

They are cruel. It's a statement of fact ... perhaps a criticism section is in order. Considering the wealth of information (and personal experience) that tells how inhumane they actually are, I think such a section would be appropiate. People should know the full extent on what these traps can actually do to rodents and birds, and the morality of using such devices to "remove animals". I might start on one actually - perhaps even a morality section. Yes, it is relevant to the topic - we are killing animals afterall. The question of cruelty must be discussed. Yes, I think a criticism section is in order, particually if it's well known that the amount of suffering inflicted is distasteful to a lot of people. Lechensko 04:03, 6 March 2007 AEST (UTC)

As the Winick88 said, that claim is against WP:NPOV. Be very careful in any edits you do in this direction. That said, you most recent edit is EXACTLY what we want -- sourced, factual and neutral. Thank you for adding it! --Mdwyer 17:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm in this case a criticism section is apt. This is where we can expand on that area... ethical considerations on such things are important and worthy of mentioning. With some of these removal methods, you will always have an ethical dilemma (and rightly so). Lechensko 04:52, 6 March 2007 AEST (UTC)

How does mousetrap "cruelty" compare with being tortured to death by a cat? Drutt 11:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ That has been exactly my point for some time now.

My mices are sooo smart that they are getting my bait without setting off the trap! Please Help.

18:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)LocomotiveBreath --68.190.89.231 22:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)--68.190.89.231 22:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use peanut butter or another semi solid food. Stinky is better. 74.12.71.70 03:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also make sure the holder is as cloe to releasing the trap as possible, so that the slightest touch will set it off.

Better yet, just use the glass trap...get the mouse with no mess 82.83.207.11 10:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--- How can such a subject cause such a flurry of changes and counterchanges? But what should be added is the effective toilet roll tube with peanut butter trap described at http://glass.typepad.com/journal/2005/09/how_to_catch_a_.html SilasW 22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trap

I have this trap, it is a two piece one, The bottom peice is a bit of metal with two straps on it, and the top piece is a 5-sided wire cage with a hole at the top which the mouse can get in but out of, which is strapped onto the bottom peice, on which the bait is placed. What is this trap called?

124.197.50.143 21:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Page

can we please add a page for mouse trap racers I searched for that and it redirected me to here

Thanks :D

god 07:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inert gas mousetrap

The RADAR mousetrap, invented by Dr. Nigel Binns, kills trapped mice or other rodents with carbon dioxide, then notifies the user by e-mail so that the trap can be quickly emptied and reset. Dr. Binns claims that the trap is painless and also reduces future mouse deaths by pinpointing the exact location of the trap and how many animals are caught so that their access can be controlled by sealing access holes. PETA has recognized this product as an "animal friendly achievement."

I'm pretty unsure if carbon dioxide IS inert gas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.149.9.181 (talk) 05:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A colorless, odorless, tasteless gas, formula CO2, about 1.5 times as heavy as air. Under normal conditions, it is stable, inert, and nontoxic. The decay (slow oxidation) of all organic materials produces CO2. Fresh air contains approximately 0.033% CO2 by volume. In the respiratory action (breathing) of all animals and humans, CO2 is exhaled." Yep - CO2 is inert. Bob98133 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this context, carbon dioxide isn't inert. It is toxic upon inhalation (no, it doesn't just replace air from a confined space, it is toxic in deed). It is quite chemically inert, but not biologically.--84.163.124.2 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was intrigued by this and went to look. It turns out that it's manufatured by own Australian company and is only notable in so far as the inventor was given an award by PETA. I'm not sure that qualifies it as something for an encyclopedia article on mouse traps since it's not known or accessible to the vast majority of people -- even experts. —mako ๛ 20:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of things described in Wiki that are not available to the general public. I don't think that should be a criteria for including or excluding things. This type of trap is notable just because it is a very high tech type device for this purpose. I recall learning about lasers long before they became available or used commercially. At the time, I thought they had no purpose, now I own a dozen or so in CD players, etc. I would say this high tech device should go back on the regular page. I thnk it is notable just because it is so futuristic - face it, who's going to spend whatever it costs on one of these anyhow? Bob98133 11:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rat trap

Redirect, mousetrap is more complete than Rat trap. I suggest we simply redirect Rat trap to mousetrap and add a section saying that Rat traps are larger than mouse traps. Clerks. 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

earlier mousetraps

"The first mouse trap was invented by James Henry Atkinson... in 1897" is incorrect. The following link has American mouse trap patents from 1870 and 1886.

[1]

I've also heard mention of ancient chinese mouse traps, and the term "mouse trap" existed at least as far back as Hamlet, but I cannot find sources or examples of anything prior to 1870.

Paxacha 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]