Mousetrap
A mousetrap is a mechanical or electromechanical device engineered to capture or kill mice, serving as a primary tool for rodent pest management to mitigate property damage, food contamination, and zoonotic disease risks such as hantavirus transmission. The archetypal design, the spring-loaded snap trap, features a baited trigger that releases a high-velocity striking bar to deliver a rapid lethal impact, minimizing prolonged suffering through instantaneous cervical fracture or cranial trauma. British inventor James Henry Atkinson patented this configuration in 1899 as the "Little Nipper" (GB 13277), supplanting earlier rudimentary traps like treadle-activated jaw mechanisms and establishing a benchmark for efficacy and affordability that persists today.[1][2] Over time, mousetrap variants have proliferated to address diverse needs, including glue boards that immobilize rodents via adhesive surfaces for subsequent dispatch, live-capture cages enabling relocation without immediate lethality, and electronic models that administer high-voltage shocks for discreet, reusable operation. Empirical assessments of trap performance reveal snap traps' superior capture rates and population suppression in controlled trials, particularly against commensal mice, outperforming non-resetting alternatives when consistently monitored and baited.[3][4] While innovations like self-resetting mechanisms enhance scalability in infestations, traditional snap traps remain dominant due to their proven mechanical reliability and causal directness in disrupting rodent reproduction cycles.[5]Purpose and Functionality
Rationale for Rodent Control
Rodent control, particularly targeting house mice (Mus musculus), is essential due to their capacity to transmit zoonotic diseases to humans through direct contact with contaminated urine, droppings, saliva, or via vectors like fleas. House mice are primary carriers of lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus (LCMV), which can cause flu-like symptoms, meningitis, or encephalitis, with infections often occurring through inhalation of aerosolized droppings in enclosed spaces.[6] They also harbor hantaviruses, responsible for hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, a severe respiratory illness with mortality rates up to 38% in the Americas, contracted via exposure to rodent excreta during cleaning or nesting disturbances.[7] Additional pathogens include leptospirosis, salmonellosis, and rickettsialpox, spread through contaminated food, water, or bites, underscoring the public health imperative for rapid population suppression to mitigate outbreak risks.[8][9][10] Beyond health threats, uncontrolled rodent populations inflict substantial structural and economic damage by gnawing on materials to wear down continuously growing incisors, compromising building integrity, electrical wiring, and stored goods. In residential and commercial settings, mice chew insulation, wood, and plastic, leading to potential electrical shorts and fires, while contaminating food stocks with feces and urine, rendering them unsalable or unsafe.[11] Economically, rodents cost the United States approximately $19 billion annually in damages, pest control, and lost productivity as of 2018 estimates, with average household losses exceeding $1,100 per infestation from merchandise spoilage, repairs, and mitigation efforts.[12][13] In agriculture, such as California's 2025 almond sector, rodent activity devastated over 100,000 acres, incurring $109–311 million in crop losses and irrigation repairs alone.[14] These impacts necessitate proactive control measures, as rodents' high reproductive rates—one female mouse can produce up to 10 litters of 5–6 offspring yearly—exacerbate infestations if unchecked.[11]Fundamental Mechanisms
The core mechanism of a traditional mousetrap, exemplified by the spring-loaded snap design, operates through the controlled storage and abrupt release of elastic potential energy to achieve rapid capture or lethal impact on the target rodent. A coiled spring, typically made of high-tension wire, is manually tensioned during setup, storing energy according to the formula for elastic potential energy, E = \frac{1}{2} k x^2, where k is the spring constant and x the displacement; for standard mouse traps, this yields roughly 0.8 joules of stored energy.[15][16] This energy is restrained by a trigger—a sensitive lever or hook mechanism baited with food attractants—requiring minimal disturbance force, averaging 0.14 newtons (with a range of 0.04 to 0.66 newtons across tested models), to disengage.[3] Upon triggering, the restraint releases, converting the potential energy into kinetic energy that drives a pivoting striking bar—often a rigid wire or wooden arm—through an arc at velocities exceeding 20 miles per hour, delivering impact momentum and clamping forces calibrated for instantaneous lethality via cervical fracture or crushing.[17][18] The trap employs a first-class lever principle, with the pivot (fulcrum) at a central staple or hinge, the spring applying effort on one side to amplify force on the load side (the bar), enabling efficient mechanical advantage despite the small scale.[19] This lever configuration, combined with the spring's rapid extension, ensures the bar's angular acceleration overcomes the rodent's evasion reflex, typically within milliseconds of contact.[20] While snap traps dominate mechanical designs, fundamental principles extend to other variants: electric traps substitute high-voltage electrocution for mechanical impact upon trigger release, and adhesive types rely on viscous surfaces for immobilization rather than kinetic force, but all share dependency on low-threshold sensory triggers (olfactory bait cues and tactile sensitivity) to initiate capture sequences grounded in Newtonian mechanics of force, motion, and energy conservation.[18] Empirical testing reveals significant variation in performance metrics—impact momentum differing by factors of 6–8 across models—but consistent reliance on precise engineering to balance sensitivity against false triggers from non-target disturbances like dust or vibration.[18][21]Historical Development
Ancient and Pre-Industrial Traps
Archaeological findings indicate that rudimentary rodent traps existed in ancient Egypt around 2000 BCE, with small torsion-based devices—employing twisted plant fibers or sinew for tension—unearthed from the tomb of Khety at Beni Hasan, suggesting early mechanical attempts to capture mice and rats through spring-like action triggered by bait.[22] A clay vessel from the Kahun site, dating to the Middle Kingdom (circa 1800 BCE), has been interpreted as a possible rat trap, potentially functioning as a baited enclosure with a closing mechanism or pitfall design to confine rodents.[23] Literary evidence from ancient Greece provides the earliest textual reference to a mousetrap, appearing in the Batrachomyomachia (Battle of Frogs and Mice), a parody epic dated between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE, which describes a wooden device contrived with "unheard-of arts" to ensnare mice, likely a simple box or spring trap baited to exploit rodent curiosity.[24] In medieval Europe, ceramic pots repurposed as mousetraps appear in archaeological contexts from rural settlements in the Netherlands, dating to the 12th–14th centuries CE; these multipurpose vessels, often with narrow necks and internal baffles or sticky substances, allowed rodents to enter for bait but hindered escape, combining enclosure with adhesive elements derived from natural resins.[25] Adhesive trapping methods, using tree gums or birdlime applied to surfaces, trace back thousands of years across Eurasian cultures for rodent capture, predating mechanical springs and relying on the causal stickiness to immobilize prey upon contact.[26] By the 16th century in England, Leonard Mascall documented twelve distinct mouse trap designs in his treatise A Book of Engine and Traps to Take Polecats, Fitzes, Dasmuls, Iays, and such other like (first published 1590), including deadfall mechanisms where a weighted board or stone dropped via a trigger stick to crush the rodent, spring-loaded snares using bent saplings or animal sinew for rapid closure, and baited pit traps lined with smooth pottery shards to prevent climbing out.[27] These pre-industrial traps emphasized simplicity and local materials—wood, cordage, and stone—prioritizing reliable tension release over mass production, with efficacy dependent on precise bait placement to lure rodents into fatal positions without alerting them prematurely.[27] Such designs persisted into the 18th century across rural Europe and colonial America, often customized by farmers using available resources like notched logs for figure-four triggers in deadfalls, reflecting empirical adaptations to rodent behavior patterns observed in granaries and homes.[28]19th-Century Inventions
The 19th century witnessed the patenting of several mechanical mousetrap designs, spurred by urbanization, agricultural expansion, and escalating rodent infestations in human settlements. These inventions transitioned from rudimentary live-capture or drowning methods to more efficient lethal mechanisms, often employing springs and triggers for rapid deployment. Patent records from the United States and Britain document over a dozen mousetrap variations by mid-century, reflecting iterative improvements in reliability and ease of use.[29] A multi-catch device known as the Perpetual Mousetrap, patented by Colin Pullinger & Sons in 1861, utilized a rotating cage activated by a treadle, allowing continuous operation without resetting after each capture; a preserved example from the Museum of English Rural Life demonstrated functionality after 150 years. In 1879, James M. Keep secured U.S. Patent No. 221,224 for the "Royal No. 1," a heavy-duty spring trap akin to bear snares, featuring a jaw-like closure for instantaneous kills.[30][22] The flat snap trap emerged with William C. Hooker's 1894 U.S. Patent No. 528,061, comprising a wooden base, wire bail, and spring-loaded striker triggered by baited jaws, marketed for its simplicity and low cost in targeting both mice and rats. Toward century's end, James Henry Atkinson patented the "Little Nipper" in Britain (No. 13,277, filed 1899), incorporating a sensitive U-shaped wire trigger on a similar wooden platform with a hardened steel spring; Atkinson produced fewer than 50 units before selling rights in 1913 for £1,000, enabling mass manufacturing that popularized the design. These snap variants prioritized causal efficacy through kinetic energy transfer, outperforming prior baited boxes in speed and lethality, as evidenced by their enduring commercial success.[31][2]20th-Century Refinements and Proliferation
The spring-loaded snap mousetrap, initially patented by William C. Hooker in 1894, saw significant refinements in the early 20th century through commercialization by companies such as the Animal Trap Company, which introduced the Victor brand in 1898.[32] These improvements focused on enhancing reliability, with designs featuring stronger springs, more sensitive triggers, and durable wooden bases to ensure quick and humane kills while minimizing accidental human injury.[33] By 1925, the Victor Choker Mouse Trap incorporated four independent trap mechanisms on a single base, increasing capture efficiency in infested areas.[34] Throughout the mid-20th century, iterations of the Victor snap trap proliferated, with variations in trigger configurations—such as expanded or oscillating baits—to exploit mouse behavior more effectively, while maintaining the core mechanical simplicity that allowed for inexpensive mass production.[35] The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office continued to grant numerous patents for mousetrap refinements, though most recycled established methods like snapping or choking, with only a small fraction achieving commercial success amid over 4,400 total patents issued since the 19th century.[29] This era marked the trap's widespread adoption in households and agriculture, driven by urbanization and post-World War II suburban expansion, which heightened rodent control demands; Victor traps alone were produced in tens of millions annually by the late 20th century.[33] In the latter half of the century, adhesive or glue traps emerged as a notable innovation, first developed in the 1970s using strong synthetic adhesives applied to flat boards or trays to immobilize mice upon contact.[36] These traps gained popularity in the 1980s for their ease of use and disposability, particularly in commercial settings, though they drew criticism for prolonged suffering compared to instant-kill snap mechanisms.[28] By the century's end, the combination of refined snap traps and glue alternatives had solidified mechanical mousetraps as a staple of non-chemical rodent control, with global production reflecting their proliferation in response to persistent pest pressures in expanding human habitats.[37]Recent Innovations (2000s–Present)
Electronic mousetraps emerged as a significant innovation in the early 2000s, with Bob Noe patenting an electric design in 2000 that delivers a high-voltage shock to kill rodents upon bait contact, enabling clean, no-touch carcass disposal and reuse after multiple kills.[38] These battery-powered devices typically feature enclosed tunnels to guide mice onto electrified plates, ensuring instantaneous death via electrocution while containing remains to prevent escape or mess, addressing limitations of traditional snap traps in hygiene and user convenience.[39] Subsequent developments integrated digital monitoring, with smart traps incorporating Wi-Fi connectivity and sensors introduced in the 2010s to notify users via mobile apps of captures, facilitating timely maintenance and data tracking for infestations.[40] Victor's Smart-Kill series, for example, connects to apps for real-time kill confirmations and usage statistics, enhancing effectiveness in residential and commercial settings by allowing remote oversight without frequent physical checks.[41] Similarly, Goodnature's self-resetting electronic mouse traps, operational since the mid-2010s, employ CO2-powered strikes for humane dispatch and automatic reset, achieving up to 100 consecutive catches per gas cartridge without manual reloading.[42] In commercial applications, IoT-enabled systems like Ecolab's connected traps, deployed in large facilities by the 2020s, use sensors to detect rodent activity and transmit data for predictive pest control, reducing response times and chemical reliance through integrated analytics.[43] These advancements prioritize efficiency, reduced human intervention, and verifiable kill rates, with empirical tests showing electronic models outperforming mechanical ones in consistent lethality under varied conditions, though battery life and initial costs remain practical considerations.[36]Types of Mousetraps
Snap Traps
Snap traps utilize a spring-loaded mechanism to deliver a rapid, lethal strike upon activation. A baited trigger, typically a wire or pedal sensitive to minimal force, holds a cocked spring in tension; disturbance by a mouse releases the spring, propelling a metal bar or wire downward to crush the rodent's neck or spine, aiming for instantaneous death through spinal severance or trauma.[29] Triggering forces for mouse-specific snap traps average 0.14 newtons, with a range of 0.04 to 0.66 newtons across models, enabling detection of small movements while minimizing non-target triggers.[3] The foundational design emerged in the late 19th century, with James Henry Atkinson patenting the "Little Nipper" in 1897, featuring a wire snare on a torsion spring, and John Mast securing U.S. Patent 744,379 in 1903 for the enduring wooden-base variant with a pivoting striker bar.[1] [29] Variations include plastic-housed models for easier cleaning and disposal, such as the Snap-E trap with interlocking teeth for secure kills, and adjustable-sensitivity triggers in brands like Victor for reduced accidental discharges.[44] Mouse traps differ from rat versions in scale, with smaller jaws and lighter springs calibrated for Mus musculus body mass, typically under 30 grams, to ensure efficacy without excessive force waste.[45] Empirical assessments indicate snap traps achieve population reductions exceeding 90% when deployed in multiples along rodent runways, baited with peanut butter or seeds, and reset daily, outperforming non-resettable alternatives in short-term trials. However, efficacy drops for mice in high-density scenarios without frequent monitoring, as single-use limitations allow survivors to learn avoidance, and improper placement yields catch rates below 50% in uncontrolled field tests.[46] Advantages include low cost, reusability, and absence of chemicals, though drawbacks encompass potential for incomplete kills if striking force misaligns, necessitating verification of fatalities to prevent prolonged suffering.[4]Electric and Electronic Traps
Electric and electronic mousetraps employ high-voltage electrical shocks to kill rodents instantly upon triggering, offering a powered alternative to mechanical devices that relies on sensors for detection rather than purely physical mechanisms.[3] These traps typically feature a baited tunnel or chamber with conductive plates; when a mouse bridges the plates by stepping on them, an electronic circuit activates capacitors charged to deliver 2,000 to 7,000 volts for 1-2 seconds, inducing ventricular fibrillation and cardiac arrest.[39] The process minimizes visible mess and allows for no-touch disposal, as the dead rodent remains contained within the device until emptied.[47] Early electric traps emerged mid-20th century, with the Electrocuter Mousetrap demonstrated in 1947 using a similar electrocution principle in a baited enclosure powered by household current.[48] Contemporary battery-operated models, such as the Victor M250 introduced in the 2000s, advanced this design with integrated sensors and indicators like flashing LEDs to confirm kills without opening the trap, powered by four AA batteries sufficient for up to 50 kills.[39] Multi-catch variants, including the Victor M260, extend capacity to hold up to 10 mice per setup, resetting automatically after each dispatch.[49] Empirical assessments position electronic traps as effective for non-chemical rodent control, with laboratory tests showing dispatch times under 5 seconds and low escape rates when properly baited with attractants like peanut butter.[3] Manufacturers report 100% kill rates in controlled conditions due to immobilizing features like beveled entry columns, though field efficacy depends on factors such as trap placement along rodent runways and maintenance to prevent battery failure or debris interference.[39] These devices are reusable, reducing long-term costs compared to disposables, but require initial investment of $20-40 and periodic battery replacement, with safety features like enclosed designs limiting risks to non-target animals when positioned inaccessible to pets.[50]Live-Capture Traps
Live-capture traps, also termed humane or catch-and-release devices, function by confining mice within an enclosed space without inflicting physical harm, facilitating their transport and release at a remote site to mitigate re-infestation risks. These traps exploit the rodent's exploratory behavior toward bait, employing mechanisms such as spring-loaded or counterweighted doors that seal entry points upon disturbance.[51][52] The foundational design traces to a 1870 patent by W. K. Bachman of South Carolina, which utilized a wire cage to ensnare mice alive, predating widespread lethal alternatives and reflecting early preferences for non-destructive capture in certain contexts.[53][36] Modern iterations, including box and tunnel variants, typically accommodate one individual per activation; for example, treadle-activated models drop a guillotine door when the bait platform tilts under the mouse's weight, while multi-door tunnels permit passage in one direction only before locking.[54] Empirical evaluations affirm their utility, with field assessments reporting capture rates of approximately 90% under controlled conditions, closely rivaling snap traps' 95% efficacy when baited optimally and positioned along travel paths.[55] In agricultural settings, Sherman live traps yielded 8.88% success across tested deployments, outperforming some adhesive methods but trailing snap traps' 10.05% marginally, attributable to rodents' wariness of novel enclosures.[56] Comparative trials further demonstrate faster initial captures versus glue boards, as mice enter live traps more readily due to perceived escape viability.[57] Despite reusability and reduced lethality, operational challenges persist: unchecked multi-catch designs can induce stress, dehydration, or conspecific aggression over extended intervals, potentially exceeding single-trap welfare impacts.[58] Relocation efficacy remains variable, with dispersed release sites necessary to curb homing behaviors documented in house mice over distances up to several kilometers.[59]Adhesive Traps
Adhesive traps, commonly known as glue boards or sticky traps, are non-mechanical devices consisting of a cardboard or plastic base coated with a layer of strong, pressure-sensitive adhesive. When a mouse encounters the trap—typically placed along walls, in corners, or near signs of rodent activity—it adheres to the surface upon contact, immobilizing its feet and body and preventing escape.[60][59] These traps rely on the rodent's natural movement patterns rather than bait in many cases, though some users apply attractants like peanut butter; however, baiting can sometimes reduce efficacy by alerting mice to the adhesive.[61] They can be deployed as flat boards or folded into enclosed tunnels to minimize dust contamination and target rodents more selectively.[62] Adhesive traps emerged in the 1970s as a simpler alternative to spring-loaded designs, gaining popularity for their low cost, ease of use, and lack of mechanical parts that could fail.[36] Unlike snap traps, they do not require setting tension or resetting after each capture and can hold multiple mice simultaneously, making them suitable for monitoring infestations.[63] Empirical studies indicate variable effectiveness. A 2023 experiment found glue traps captured mice less frequently and more slowly than live-capture traps, with escaped mice showing a strong preference for re-entering non-adhesive options over glue boards.[64][57] Field trials have demonstrated that house mice often detect and avoid glue traps, resulting in lower capture rates compared to alternative methods, though commercial testing claims immediate results without poisons.[65][63] Adhesive traps face significant criticism for animal welfare concerns, as captured rodents typically do not die instantly but suffer prolonged distress from starvation, dehydration, hypothermia, or self-injury while attempting to escape, with studies showing most perish over hours to days.[66] They also pose risks to non-target species, including pets, wildlife, and even humans, due to the indiscriminate nature of the adhesive.[67] Regulatory responses include England's 2024 ban on public use of glue traps for rodents, citing inhumane outcomes, while U.S. proposals like the 2024 Glue Trap Prohibition Act seek a national prohibition on their sale and possession.[68][69] New York State considered a similar ban in 2024, highlighting health risks from trapped rodents' feces and urine.[70] Proponents argue their efficacy in high-infestation scenarios outweighs drawbacks, but evidence of avoidance and suffering supports restrictions in favor of quicker-kill alternatives.[71][65]DIY and Mechanical Bucket Traps
DIY bucket traps, also known as rolling log or spinner traps, utilize a container such as a 5-gallon bucket to capture mice by exploiting their climbing behavior and inability to escape smooth vertical surfaces. The basic design involves suspending a wire or rod across the bucket's rim, upon which a lightweight cylinder like an empty aluminum can or section of PVC pipe is threaded to rotate freely; peanut butter or similar sticky bait is applied to the cylinder's exterior to lure rodents. A ramp, typically a wooden plank or board angled from the ground to the bucket rim, provides access, prompting the mouse to traverse the spinning element in pursuit of the bait, causing it to tip and plunge into the bucket below.[72][73] For lethal variants, the bucket is partially filled with water or antifreeze to drown captured mice, with reports indicating rapid submersion upon falling due to the container's depth and slick interior walls preventing reclimb. Non-lethal dry setups omit liquid, allowing live capture for relocation, though escape risks increase if the bucket lacks sufficient height or if debris accumulates. Construction requires minimal tools: drilling holes in the bucket rim for the rod, securing the ramp stably, and ensuring the spinner balances evenly to avoid premature tipping. Bait placement on the spinner, rather than the bucket floor, sustains attraction as initial catches do not deplete accessible food, enabling multiple captures per setup.[73][74] Mechanical enhancements elevate basic DIY models into semi-automated systems, such as self-resetting lids or plank mechanisms that pivot under weight to drop rodents without manual intervention. Commercial examples like the Kick The Bucket trap incorporate a pivoting platform over the bucket opening, baited and spring-loaded to flip captives inward repeatedly, with user reports documenting up to 11 mice caught overnight in controlled indoor settings. Similarly, walk-the-plank designs use a weighted board that tips sequentially, compatible with standard 5-gallon buckets and touted for continuous operation until manually emptied. These mechanical iterations reduce reset frequency compared to purely passive spinners, though efficacy depends on bait freshness and placement in high-traffic rodent paths.[75][76] Empirical assessments of bucket trap performance remain largely anecdotal, with pest control practitioners estimating up to 80% success rates when optimally baited and positioned, outperforming some single-catch alternatives in multi-rodent scenarios due to capacity for simultaneous trapping. Homemade rolling-log variants, a core bucket design, are noted for reliability in catching multiples without frequent servicing, though dry traps may prolong suffering if not checked daily, contrasting instant-kill snap methods. Limitations include reduced effectiveness against larger rats, which may detect and avoid the mechanism, and the need for periodic cleaning to prevent odor buildup deterring further entries.[77][78]Disposable and Multi-Catch Traps
Disposable mousetraps are single-use devices designed for easy disposal after capturing a rodent, often concealing the catch to minimize handling. Adhesive traps, commonly known as glue boards, feature a flat surface coated with a strong, non-drying adhesive that immobilizes mice upon contact. These traps require no mechanical setting and can capture multiple mice if placed in high-traffic areas, though efficacy diminishes as adhesive weakens or mice detect and avoid the sticky surface after initial encounters.[65] Field studies have shown that house mice often repel from glue surfaces during initial interactions, reducing long-term capture rates in wild populations.[65] Glue traps are non-toxic and inexpensive, typically costing less than snap traps for one-time use, but they fail to deliver instant kills, leading to prolonged distress as trapped mice may survive for hours or days via starvation or dehydration.[79][80] Other disposable variants include pre-baited snap traps engineered for throwaway use, such as those with enclosed designs that hide the dead mouse for hygienic disposal without direct contact. These mimic traditional snap mechanisms but prioritize convenience over reusability, with spring-loaded bars delivering lethal force upon trigger activation. Effectiveness mirrors reusable snaps in controlled tests, with high initial success rates for house mice, though disposal mandates replacement after each catch.[81] Multi-catch traps enable repeated captures without manual resetting between individual mice, suitable for infestations where single-trap limitations hinder control. Early designs trace to 1876, when Nebraska inventor John Morris patented a hinged-door mechanism allowing multiple entries before emptying, marking one of the first commercially viable repeating traps.[82] Modern iterations, such as wind-up or low-profile models like the Ketch-All or Pro-Ketch, employ one-way entry tunnels or rotating drums that direct mice into holding chambers, accommodating up to 30 individuals depending on trap size.[83][84] These reusable devices avoid poisons and kill mechanisms in humane variants, relying on confinement for later dispatch, though lethal multi-catch options integrate snap or drowning elements for efficiency in severe cases. In practical applications, they excel in monitoring and reducing populations in enclosed spaces like vehicles or buildings, with manufacturers reporting sustained performance over multiple cycles until capacity is reached.[85][86] Empirical comparisons indicate multi-catch traps outperform single units in high-density scenarios by minimizing bait competition and entry blockages, though regular emptying is essential to prevent escapes or stress-induced failures.[83]Effectiveness and Comparisons
Empirical Catch Rates
Field studies comparing multiple trap types in agricultural settings have reported capture rates of approximately 10% for Victor snap traps targeting small rodents, outperforming several live traps such as the Sherman model at 8.9%.[56] In controlled tests against house mice (Mus musculus), snap traps achieved capture rates of 56% over multiple nights, compared to 8% for glue traps, with multiple-catch designs like the Tin Cat reaching 68%.[65] Glue traps exhibit lower efficacy due to mouse avoidance behaviors, including detection via vibrissae and olfaction, leading to repulsion or neutralization with debris; field observations confirm non-glue traps consistently yield higher captures, particularly for adults.[65] Laboratory experiments demonstrate house mice prefer and are captured significantly faster in live traps (median 2.6–3.5 minutes) than glue traps (median 145 minutes), with 91% entry rates into live options when both are available (p < 0.001).[64]| Trap Type | Study Context | Capture Rate/Success | Comparison Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Snap (Victor) | Agriculture, small rodents | 10.05% | Highest among tested lethal and live traps.[56] |
| Snap | House mice, field buildings | 56% (vs. 8% glue) | Superior to glue; multiple-catch up to 68%.[65] |
| Live | Lab, escaped mice | 75–100% entry preference | Faster capture than glue (minutes vs. hours).[64] |
| Self-resetting (A24) | Pen trials, house mice | Variable; lower if snaps reset daily | Outperforms unreset snaps but requires maintenance for snaps to compete.[46] |