Post User Polls

What do you think of D.C. implementing protections for raccoons, foxes and other critters?

The raccoons, opossums and foxes that roam District neighborhoods can breathe a bit easier.

The D.C. Council gave tentative approval Tuesday to a bill that would implement tough new standards for how animal and pest control companies rid District homes and properties of unwanted wild animals.

The bill, which does not apply to residents or property managers, requires that animal control operators take "all reasonable steps" to try to guarantee the use of humane and non-lethal force in the capture of nuisance and unwanted animals. Read the full article.

By Abha Bhattarai  |  October 5, 2010; 1:38 PM ET  | Category:  Local Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Should there be term limits for members of Congress? | Next: Who is your favorite Peanuts character?


Please email us to report offensive comments.

I can't believe ANYONE voted against this common sense bill in this poll. Just because an animal is not wanted in a particular area does not mean it should be dealt with INHUMANELY. The least we can do is treat them humanely in dealing with them. The opposite of humane treatment, by definition, is something that causes pain. 36% of people really want to deliberately inflict pain on a living animal just for being in the "wrong" place (usually due to displacement by human development anyway)!? What is society coming to?

Posted by: VirginiaDad | October 5, 2010 3:11 PM

@VirginiaDad...couldn't have said better!!

Posted by: DC_Original | October 5, 2010 3:27 PM

Showing some humanity is perfectly expected. Isn't that what separates us from the "animals"?

Posted by: jckdoors | October 5, 2010 4:19 PM

Racoons can make very good household pets.

Posted by: solid3 | October 5, 2010 4:53 PM

Given that foxes eat mice & small rats, and the other animals are happy to eat various forms of refuse, they often act to reduce the population of pest species. However considering that would require people to be smarter than a 5th grader, and think more consequentially than a brick. The poll results reflect that knee jerk idiocy.

Posted by: Nymous | October 6, 2010 5:20 AM

Kudos the the DC Council! In addition to the availabily of humane methods of control, sticky traps, poisons and leg-hold traps hold consequences beyond those for the "nuisance" animal. Sticky traps often catch small songbirds i.e. wrens. Poisoned pigeons are often eaten by hawks, who then can become poisoned as well. And the consequences of using such inhumane decives as a leg-hold traps is best said by St. Francis of Assisi-"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter of compasion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their fellow men."

Posted by: acgs | October 6, 2010 7:49 AM

Several years ago I bought one of those humane mouse traps. After seeing the condition of the little mouse caught in the trap, I decided to co-exist with the mice.

Posted by: mbrumble | October 6, 2010 8:41 AM

This legislation goes to far and puts the cost on the homeowner after a wild animal invades the home or property. Like most of Cheh's legislation it is not well thought out and an attempt to treat animals, wild animals, on the same level as humans. Human safety is more important and that is not the priority in this legislation.

Posted by: voter20 | October 6, 2010 8:43 AM

Rats and mice are next.

Posted by: moebius22 | October 6, 2010 9:11 AM

The problem with most "lethal" methods is the danger they pose to innocent pets, valuable wildlife and children.

Posted by: pjohn2 | October 6, 2010 9:44 AM

Actually, rats make lovely pets too!

Voter20: I don't think this applies to homeowners.

There is a product that you plug into an outlet that emits a sound that keeps rats and mice away. I'm sorry I don't recall the name. My father got one after I got my pet rats (pressure from me for humane solution)

Posted by: hebe1 | October 6, 2010 10:17 AM

Mbrumble, that's just nasty! Mice are NOT included in this bill. Those other animals just get lost inside of our man-made environment and deserve decent treatment. But mice take up residence in a home and never want to leave. And they leave their feces everywhere and they bite babies if you have one in the house. Humans do not co-exist with mice. Get rid of them and seal the domicile so they can't get back in. Ech, NASTY!!!

Posted by: forgetthis | October 6, 2010 10:25 AM

@VirginiaDad...thank you, my sentiments exactly!!

Posted by: emacco | October 6, 2010 10:55 AM

Is the DC Council this tough on the neglected and abused children in its foster care system? Until they get that fixed, I can't believe they waste time on making sure animals are treated well.

Posted by: awb21 | October 6, 2010 11:01 AM


Raccoons, opossums and foxes all carry it.

Add to the fact that the only predatory control (as inefficient as it is) on these critters is the automobile, and you're left with people to reduce the population.

I'm just fortunate that I live in the country and can utilize firearms to trim my "herds". Nothing more humane to kill vermin with than a high velocity lead suppository.

And I prefer to eat what I kill. Waste not, want not.

Posted by: mhoust | October 6, 2010 11:07 AM

Forgetthis, you're being very hypocritical. Mice are also animals "that get lost inside a man-made environment" too. Why aren't the deserving of decent treatment too? Not cute enough, I suppose?

I don't take this bill seriously at all because it exempts mice and rats. They can feel pain just as much as a fox or raccoon would - so I suppose it's OK to torture them to death by glue traps? The hypocrisy of people is amazing sometimes.

Bottom line here: if you're going to kill an animal because it's a pest to you, fine. At least do so humanely. Glue traps should be banned full stop, the suffering they inflict is so unnecessary.

Of course, I'm not surprised there's already a post missing the point. Having compassion for animals and hating unnecessary cruelty does not mean you're giving them the same rights as human beings, it means you have empathy.

Posted by: GavinMangus | October 11, 2010 12:22 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company