# What's the best way...



## lostbutnotforgot (Apr 19, 2007)

What's the best way to kill a wild rat? I'd really rather not do it at all, but my sister's cat got a hold of a wild one today and it's very injured. Internally, nothing on the surface. It can't even stand. I have it in a cage outside (old rat cage that I wasn't ever going to use again anyways). It's in the same 'air space' as Betty, since my window is open, but there are rats outside all the time anyways, so I don't think anything bad will happen. I would take it into a vet or call animal control, but it's too late to go out. I doubt it will live until morning, so I suppose I could just leave it to die that way, but any suggestions to make it's passing easier are welcome.


----------



## Sparker (Jun 17, 2007)

Take him to an emergency vet, if you can. Every place that I know of will perform a humane euthanasia for free so that the animal doesn't have to suffer.


----------



## rattikins (Jun 12, 2007)

lostbutnotforgot, what ended up happening?

In my opinion, the very worst thing would have been to simply let it die on its own. 

One of the hardest things to do is to take another life, but although easier on the human to just put it out of your mind and let it "go away" I believe that it is your moral obligation to do what is necessary, in this case to kill it humanely either by yourself or a vet. :?


----------



## lilspaz68 (Feb 24, 2007)

Its very likely that the rat is ill to begin with and thats why the cat was able to catch it. 

I would call and see if you can have it pts. Killing it yourself you will remember for far too long. I had to kill a wild injured baby mouse, I still remember to this day doing it.  It had to be done as it was suffering and the cat was waiting to get it again, but I still hate thinking about it. 8O


----------



## rattikins (Jun 12, 2007)

lilspaz68 said:


> Killing it yourself you will remember for far too long.


In my opinion, that's unacceptable. 

Many things in life are quite unpleasant, but being the greater (more intelligent, morally obligated) species, it is our responsibility and our burden to do what is necessary.

It is not only cruel but selfish to NOT kill a suffering animal simply because it's yucky and you won't forget about it for a long time. 

Do what is right, at all personal costs.


----------



## Kimmiekins (Apr 14, 2007)

Killing it yourself may prolong it's suffering, if it's not done right. Could cause prolonged pain and agony. I think the risk is too great for error.

I would always advocate taking it to a vet or perhaps a shelter and letting them humanely end the suffering.


----------



## rattikins (Jun 12, 2007)

Kimmiekins said:


> I would always advocate taking it to a vet or perhaps a shelter and letting them humanely end the suffering.


Kimmiekins, I completely agree with you on this, however the poster said "I would take it into a vet or call animal control, but it's too late to go out"

It would seem then that we have two options, a mercy kill or allowing it to suffer slowly till death. 

I would personally strongly suggest the mercy kill, as it is the only humane thing out of these two options. 

Although, yes of course you're perfectly correct - a vet is best.


----------



## Kimmiekins (Apr 14, 2007)

Very true, though this was posted last night, I think that's why they mentioned it being too late (though I'd think ANY e-vet would PTS an animal suffering, even if they don't usually see the species).

OP, can you give us an update please??


----------



## lilspaz68 (Feb 24, 2007)

I was able to step on a baby mouse's head while it was under a leaf. How do you suggest another person kills a grown rat?


----------



## rattikins (Jun 12, 2007)

lilspaz68 said:


> I was able to step on a baby mouse's head while it was under a leaf. How do you suggest another person kills a grown rat?


Do you really want me to explain? Seriously? 

You can imagine how it would be quick and least painful, and it is the only humane answer, however "yucky" it might have to be.


----------



## Matt (Jun 14, 2007)

I know a few ways to kill a Full grown rat.

Its not the best but it is INSTANT!


----------



## lilspaz68 (Feb 24, 2007)

rattikins said:


> lilspaz68 said:
> 
> 
> > I was able to step on a baby mouse's head while it was under a leaf. How do you suggest another person kills a grown rat?
> ...


We try very hard to not advocate home euthanasia as it can all go horribly wrong and instead of taking away the suffering, can cause even more. As you know there are a lot of people out there not willing to take their rats to the vet (its just a rat) and they would love to hear that they can euth at home. It sucks but thats why I don't bring it up.

Just remember that newbies could read this and get the wrong idea, and if you have a suggestion for the OP, take it to PM.


----------



## rattikins (Jun 12, 2007)

*#1 - "Get the wrong idea"?*

I've been very very clear on what I feel and it in no way is inappropriate or unclear. 

As I said VET is best, however following that ACTUALLY KILLING THEM ALL THE WAY, not doing it wrong, is second best. 

I have a right to feel that allowing them to slowly suffer and die is a horrible option, and I'm not going to be told not to say so. 

Leaving them to die slowly and not taking the responsibility is the cowards way out, and it should be posted that if you are unwilling to take them to the vet to be pts, then you are responsible for ending their suffering. 


*#2 - "if you have a suggestion for the OP, take it to PM"
*
YOU are the one who wanted me to lay out a graphic specific answer as to how to kill something. 

I do not feel that it is appropriate to do so on a forum, thus my NOT answering your question and saying "Do you really want me to explain? Seriously?" was said to drive home to you how wrong that would be, and that I would not do what you were asking me to do. 

So it's very ironic that you're NOW saying to PM the OP, when *you* are the one who was asking for a graphic answer just a few posts up and *I* was the one who refused to comply.... :roll: 

I am not in anyway advocating killing the rat themselves as a first or best option and I made that VERY clear, so I've done NO harm here. 


*In my opinion, what I said was very necessary, as I personally think that passively letting an animal die when you could morally end its suffering is a crime. So please do not question my personal ethics and attempt to say that because they are different from yours, they do not belong here, because they do.*


----------



## javakittie (Aug 18, 2007)

The point is that killing it yourself **IS NOT AN OPTION!** Because there is no way to guarantee complete efficiency. There are a thousand and one ways to kill something, yes, but the thing is to do it correctly. Most people will not do it correctly, thus prolonging the pain. Every person ever brought up on animal cruelty charges for that will tell you the same thing, they thought it was dead.

The point is that because there is no way to guarantee a clean, swift death at home, the OP [and _*anyone*_ else reading this] needs to take the animal to a Humane Society, Animal Shelter, or E-Vet. Most of these places will humanely euthanize an animal to end it's suffering at no charge, or for a small donation. E-Vets are obviously open after hours, so that's not an excuse.

Allowing any animal to just lie there and slowly die is not an option, either. Action must be taken to end their suffering. Ending it yourself is not the answer.

Rattikins : You need to learn what 'rhetorical' means. Lilspaz was proving a point of how difficult it would be to kill a grown rat yourself. As for you not advocating the OP [or anyone else] not killing the animal themselves, you sure could have fooled me. I had to go back and search for where you mentioned taking the animal to the vet. Everything else was how the OP [and anyone else reading this] should take action, be an adult, and kill the animal themselves.

There a is a difference between 'yucky' and having to live with what is basically a traumatic experience. Having to end an animal's life yourself is a *very* difficult thing to do. Going by your indifferent responses, I take that to mean you've never had to do it yourself. Lilspaz was trying to save the OP [and anyone else reading this] the trauma of having to do that. She advocated taking it to an authority that could not only ensure a clean death, but someone who's job that is and is used to such ordeals.


----------



## OdysseyDesign (Aug 26, 2007)

I first like to point out the audience that may be reading this thread, this includes people under age. To tell someone, especially a child that it is acceptable to take a life.....is NOT acceptable!

We have vets for a reason, one of those is to humanely put animals to sleep. NO human being has the right to take a life a way. Is the OP a vet? Does the OP know for a fact this rat is dying? (no offence to the OP as I am sure she/he is correct). There are evets everywhere, take the rat in and let them deal with it in the correct manner that is best for the rat. To late to go out just leads me to believe that perhaps the poster is underage? If this poster is not under aged then there is no excuse not to take this rat to the local emergency vet.

My point is, if grandma is dying, is it ok we hold a pillow over her face? There is NO difference between this rat or grandma. Both are living things and no one has the right to take their life away.


----------



## rattikins (Jun 12, 2007)

OdysseyDesign & javakittie:

You are wrong to say that it is NEVER right to take a life. That is ONLY your opinion. :roll: 

Not everyone believes this Judeo-Christian belief and you have no right to say that there are NO instances when a mercy kill would not be moral. You HONESTLY believe that it is MORE ethical to allow a creature to suffer slowly to death rather than quickly take away its life and end its torment? That's sick. :x 

You can't even see that you're closed mindedness has huge potential to cause massive harm!


You both are clearly very young or uneducated if you cannot see that there WOULD be instances in which this is THE ONLY OPTION!! You need to read a book and broaden your horizons to realize that there have been plenty of philosophical arguments that would very much condone this as the most ethical thing to do. 


...What if it's 3 am and you live in a town of 600 people where the vet is 7 hours away. THAT 7 HOURS IS TOO LONG TO LEAVE AN ANIMAL SUFFERING!! If it is going to die, and you have no other option, then a mercy kill is the right choice. 

...What if you are on a boat out at sea and find an injured animal? Where's the vet now?

...What if you're in the middle of the desert?

The "what ifs" go on forever. 


Your example of your grandmother is completely irrelevant and inappropriate. And interestingly you say that only a vet can take a life but then say that no one has that right.... wow.... :roll: 


*There ARE SITUATIONS IN WHICH A VET CANNOT BE A CHOICE!!*

In these situations a moral person would realize that to kill them IS the right answer, although it is NOT the easy one. 

In my opinion, you both think too narrowly. :roll:


----------



## rattikins (Jun 12, 2007)

lostbutnotforgot, did you receive my private message? :?


----------



## javakittie (Aug 18, 2007)

And you, apparently, have just realized that you're full of it because clearly you are grasping at straws now. My age? My religion? That's all you could come back with as an argument?

I at no point said it was morally wrong to do such things. I said that there was no way to ensure a clean death, and by that reason alone, it shouldn't be done. 

The hypothetical situations you posed are ludicrous. We are not in those situations, and therefore they do not apply. To use your own words "completely irrelevant and inappropriate."

As for you being morally right in killing an animal, I'm sure your local ASPCA would disagree. There are reasons why there are vets, the ability to humanely euthanize is one of them.


----------



## mopydream44 (Jun 10, 2007)

> In these situations a moral person would realize that to kill them IS the right answer, although it is NOT the easy one.


this is your opinion, which I can respect (in the same way I can respect the beliefs of what the other members have said) but you saying that something IS the right answer is just as closed minded as the others saying it is NEVER acceptable. Can you see how it's a bit hypocritical? Please don't take this as a personal attack, as you are not the only person who is adamant about their opinion. I understand that you feel strongly but it would appear that the others do as well. 

I think we need to respect that people on this forum believe different things, and nothing IS OR ISN'T right for EVERYONE. Things can, however, be right or wrong for an individual. 

it's a touchy topic, and I hope that we can all agree to disagree rather than argue. I think the owner of this post should take the animal to a vet IF POSSIBLE but if not perhaps someone can offer to give them information for home euth via PM, if that is something they can feel sure about doing, and perform it properly (however that may be) but I don't think it's appropriate to discuss in a public forum. 

small edit to be more clear.


----------



## OdysseyDesign (Aug 26, 2007)

rattikins said:


> OdysseyDesign & javakittie:
> 
> You are wrong to say that it is NEVER right to take a life. That is ONLY your opinion. :roll:


LMAO do you have any idea how absorb that sounds? Seriously. Its like an open invitation for people to start murdering living things.




> Not everyone believes this Judeo-Christian belief and you have no right to say that there are NO instances when a mercy kill would not be moral.


Religion has nothing to do with my beliefs and yes I have the right to say that a person should never take it upon themselves to take away a life.



> You HONESTLY believe that it is MORE ethical to allow a creature to suffer slowly to death rather than quickly take away its life and end its torment? That's sick. :x


The situation we are speaking of in this thread, the person deemed it to late to go out. Personally I do not find that an excuse since obviously there are vets located nearby. 



> You can't even see that you're closed mindedness has huge potential to cause massive harm!


oh? and by you saying that it is ok to take a living things life has no potential to cause harm? Oh look, that poor poor homeless man suffering in the cold. Should we put him out of his misery? The dog tied up in the back yard. It is suffering. Should it be put to sleep?



> You both are clearly very young or uneducated


and you are clearly full of it. To try to justify your ignorance on our being young and uneducated (btw, I am 32 and very well educated)




> if you cannot see that there WOULD be instances in which this is THE ONLY OPTION!! You need to read a book and broaden your horizons to realize that there have been plenty of philosophical arguments that would very much condone this as the most ethical thing to do.


BOOKS!! I love books...... I am currently reading, A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini. What book are you reading?




> ...What if it's 3 am and you live in a town of 600 people where the vet is 7 hours away. THAT 7 HOURS IS TOO LONG TO LEAVE AN ANIMAL SUFFERING!! If it is going to die, and you have no other option, then a mercy kill is the right choice.
> 
> ...What if you are on a boat out at sea and find an injured animal? Where's the vet now?
> 
> ...


you do know you are grasping at straws right?




> Your example of your grandmother is completely irrelevant and inappropriate. And interestingly you say that only a vet can take a life but then say that no one has that right.... wow.... :roll:


Thatâ€™s how I feel. I do not think anyone has the right to take a life away. As the intelligent beings we have taken it upon ourselves to deem vets as the educated degreed licensed group of people to humanely put animals to sleep. 




> *There ARE SITUATIONS IN WHICH A VET CANNOT BE A CHOICE!!*
> 
> In these situations a moral person would realize that to kill them IS the right answer, although it is NOT the easy one.


so it is morally correct to kill things?



> In my opinion, you both think too narrowly. :roll:


I have one as well but I think I will keep it to myself


----------



## lostbutnotforgot (Apr 19, 2007)

I'm SOOOO sorry it took so long to get back on. My life has been really hectic the last few days; my mom's horse coliced and died, a cat of ours died this morning from old age, I'm sick, and an elderly relative ended up in the hospital, all on top of starting college again. 

The rat died about an hour after I posted, I knew there was no hope for it's surviving, and I couldn't take the poor thing to an e-vet since I cannot drive and my parents couldn't help me at the time. There was something else wrong with it, as it was rather skinny. I just wanted to know an ethical way to end it's suffering on my own, and would like to know for future references. 

Rattkins, I did not get your PM, if you would please send it to me again I would be very grateful as I can imagine this will happen again at some point. I understand people not wanting to end an animals life, but I have no problem doing so if I must in order to end it's suffering.


----------



## rattikins (Jun 12, 2007)

*MODERATORS - 

Could you please lock this thread?

I feel very strongly that mercy killing is right in certain circumstances, and I felt that I stated it that way. THEN some other posters have come here and ATTACKED the very essence of what I was trying to say in a helpful manner to the original poster, and now they have turned this into NOTHING helpful and ONLY arguments about life and death which could go on FOREVER. 

This is simply turning into a thread war, and is not going to help anyone. 

I have PMed the OP, as this is the only helpful and appropriate thing to do.

While I could go on and on and on with these two about why I feel the way I do, I don't want to do that here and don't think they will ever see the way I do, so this is just pointless. 

I now would like to respectfully do the thing that is best for everyone else on the forum (however much I personally would like to continue this debate) and ask the moderators to lock the thread for the aforementioned reasons. 

Thank you.*


----------



## Kimmiekins (Apr 14, 2007)

Edit: Not worth it, never mind.


----------



## rattikins (Jun 12, 2007)

Kimmiekins, Buddhism is not a religion... it's a way of life.


And the original poster said THEY COULD NOT GET TO A VET. 

THEREFORE we needed to move on and help how we could, the vet is NOT AN OPTION...

We could tell them until we were blue in the face that they should take them to a vet, but they said they were not going to... therefore we had to move forward and give what advice we had left open to us. 

In my opinion, that was telling her that I believe that a mercy kill is the best option LEFT. 

And I agree with you that I worded that part very poorly - I should have made it clear that IN MY PERSONAL VIEWS there are things that ARE RIGHT. Sorry about the wording. :?


----------



## Kimmiekins (Apr 14, 2007)

This isn't the place to argue about my faith - But actually, Buddhism is a GOD-LESS religion, the only one of it's kind. I've been a practicing Buddhist for years now, I'm pretty sure I know what it is. 

Anyhow, I edited my message.


----------



## rattikins (Jun 12, 2007)

Kimmie, yes you are right, you can use the word religion to describe it I suppose. 

I don't like to however, because as you know it's so different from what people often ascribe to religion in general


----------



## rattikins (Jun 12, 2007)

Moderators? :?


----------



## Kimmiekins (Apr 14, 2007)

I can respect that.  But it's accepted as both a religion and a philosophy. It's unique as a religion, for sure.


----------



## mopydream44 (Jun 10, 2007)

> And I agree with you that I worded that part very poorly - I should have made it clear that IN MY PERSONAL VIEWS there are things that ARE RIGHT. Sorry about the wording.


Rattikins that was my point as well. I hope you don't take my comment as a personal attack because I in no way was trying to come down on you but it seems like you were trying to force an opinion on others (sorry for the confusion)

However, since the poor rattie in question has passed I believe that this thread should stop. Maybe all of you can start a friendly discussion in the lounge about personal beliefs


----------



## DonnaK (Feb 8, 2007)

I think this thread has gone a little away from the original subject matter, and as the rat has now died, at the request of several members, I'm going to lock it.


----------

