It's always interesting when the world of fantasy collides with the world of reality, as it does here. I'm speaking of something that is the moral equivalent of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. In this case, it takes the form of a plea for help on an Animal Rights Bulletin Board. At issue: a house is infested with mice, and the choices appear grim indeed for someone who (presumably) believes that animals have rights, and who obviously is willing to go the extra mile to avoid harming innocent animals:
I've been using the humane traps that PETA sells for several years, and relocating mice. Recently, though, I've had an invasion of mice, many more than usual, and these traps can't keep up with them, because mice have so many babies, along with this mass invasion. I've plugged every hole I can find, but I've learned a lot about mice during these years of relocating: They are extremely clever, adaptable, and can squeeze through the tiniest of holes.
I have 7 dogs and they don't scare the mice. I need a humane way to trap SEVERAL mice at one time, as this one-at-a-time trap isn't going to cut it this year. They have been tearing up the wiring, the house, my clothes, anything they can get into. I don't want to kill them. I just need to relocate them, but this has gotten so out of hand, I'm afraid we'll have a fire soon, if something isn't done to get them out. It's overwhelming.
Does anyone have a solution on what I could possibly use to trap several at once? Some of the mice are so clever, they've started either avoiding even the PETA humane traps, and some have even somehow discovered how to get into them, eat the peanut butter, and get out, without tripping the door.
I was struck by the tone of desperation: the author can't live with the abundance of her murine companions, and she couldn't live with her conscience if she were to off them. Her idea of a compromise is to relocate them.
What's interesting about her plan is this: the notion that she could rid her home of mice by relocating them is as much a fantasy as is the vision of the cruelty-free world nurtured by Animal Rights true-believers. When faced with a problem that requires hard, real-world decisions between unappealing but real alternatives, our author opts for a fantasy compromise.
If our heroine believes she can trap mice and relocate them faster than they can reproduce — good luck. They are prolific: 6 - 8 litters per year, each litter of 4 - 8 pups. And, as she has discovered, mice learn quickly and they can become very good at evading traps (it's part of their charm ...).
I'm reminded of Yogi Berra's immortal words: "In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." And so it is with our heroine's relocation plan: it's a good theory, but it'll never work. Or so I would argue.
In point of fact, even if her "relocation compromise" were a realistic goal rather than a fantasy, it is the worst of both of the alternatives she's struggling to avoid. Think about her predicament: she can do nothing, she can exterminate them, or she can relocate them (or so she believes ...).
1) She could do nothing. Our homeowner rejects this option because she believes her mice would continue their gnawing, and sooner or later, they might start a fire.
The mice would certainly continue to gnaw, but they might not start a fire. There are no guarantees, though fire by gnawing is admittedly a risk.
Given that a fire is not inevitable, perhaps it is a risk our homeowner should take. Were a fire not to occur, doing nothing would certainly be best for the health and well-being of the mice. And even if the mice did start a fire, our homeowner's conscience would be at peace because she didn't affirmatively cause the fire — or whatever murine, canine or human lives the fire might claim (to an ARA, it's better to be passive and let animals starve or burn to death than to actively be the agent of their death).
The rest of her worries are trivial. What is property destruction (her cloths, her food, her furniture) when measured against the deaths of animals?
2) She could engineer their extermination, by any number of methods. This might effectively eliminate the mice, but it would be a major affront to her faith: she would herself be directly responsible for the unnecessary deaths of dozens if not hundreds of animals whose only sin was in taking up residence in her home. Her conscience would never forgive her — she'd be burdened by guilt for the rest of her life. She would be an Angel of Death.
3) She could opt to relocate her mice. If our homeowner really fears being incinerated, and she wishes to be kind to the mice, this is the worst option of all. She could not deport all the mice from her house, and even if she could, others would repopulate it. She would therefore fail to eliminate the possibility of a gnawing-induced fire: the risk would remain, and that risk would rob her of sleep and peace of mind.
But beyond this, relocating the mice would gnaw at her conscience as unrelentingly as her mice gnaw on her possessions.
Besides -- once relocated, the mice would undoubtedly encounter dangers equal in severity and cruelty to those they faced in her home: they'd be exposed to the elements (mice lose body heat very quickly when wet or cold), some would be dismembered and eaten by predators, and perhaps some would even die a cruel death of starvation.
And, if the homeowner trapped and relocated the mother of immature pups — those who depend on the doe for warmth and sustenance — those pups would starve to death or die from hypothermia.
The bottom line here is that for all the suffering our homeowner would impose on her relocated mice and the motherless pups in her home, her "relocation plan" wouldn't make her feel secure, safe, or help her sleep better than if she did nothing.
She would be an Angel of Death and Suffering, but would fail to achieve her goal.
The "relocation compromise" really is the worst of the 3 solutions, and our homeowner really is faced with one of those ugly choices between the devil and the deep blue sea: exterminate them, or live with them.
A thousand thanks to Vicci A. for the tip.
Brian