When did the incident happen when bounty on rats led people to farm rats?

When did the incident happen when bounty on rats led people to farm rats?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Sorry for the title but don't know how to phrase it exactly.

I once read an article about a period (in France I think but I'm not sure) when the cities were growing and people strted to have issues with rats (I think) that were spreading deseases.

So the authorities decided to pay citizens a sum of money for any dead rat they presented. Thes worked for a period until people figured out they could make lots of money out of this. And so they started raising rats only to kill them later and make the money.

I can't find anything online (don't know what keywords to use) but maybe someone has an ideea on when this happend and where.

This happening is known as The Great Hanoi Rat Massacre. It took place in 1902 in Hanoi, which was a French colony at that time.

At the beginning action was a success, but as the bounty was granted for every rat's tail, soon the town was occupied by rats with cut out tails, that were left alive for breeding, and there were more and more rat farms in the downtowns.

You'll find details in "Of Rats, Rice, and Race: The Great Hanoi Rat Massacre, an Episode in French Colonial History" by Michael G. Vann.

What's interesting, the situation when an attempted solution to a problem actually makes the problem worse is called Cobra Effect, which origins come from a similar story that took place in Delhi under British rules, only this time it was about poisonous snakes. What's more, when the government finally decided to stop paying for dead cobras, they were all released alive by breeders, so the population of cobras after the happening was much bigger then previously.

Poston War Relocation Center

The Poston Internment Camp, located in Yuma County (now in La Paz County) in southwestern Arizona, was the largest (in terms of area) of the ten American concentration camps operated by the War Relocation Authority during World War II.

The site was composed of three separate camps arranged in a chain from north to south at a distance of three miles from each other. Internees named the camps Roasten, Toastin, and Dustin, based on their desert locations. [1] The Colorado River was approximately 3 miles (4.8 km) to the west, outside of the camp perimeter.

Poston was built on the Colorado River Indian Reservation, over the objections of the Tribal Council, who refused to be a part of doing to others what had been done to their tribe. However, Army commanders and officials of the Bureau of Indian Affairs overruled the Council, seeing the opportunity to improve infrastructure and agricultural development (which would remain after the war and aid the Reservation's permanent population) on the War Department budget and with thousands of "volunteers." [2]

The combined peak population of the Poston camps was over 17,000, mostly from Southern California. At the time Poston was the third largest "city" in Arizona. It was built by Del Webb, who would later become famous building Sun City, Arizona and other retirement communities. The Poston facility was named after Charles Debrille Poston, a government engineer who established the Colorado River Reservation in 1865 and planned an irrigation system to serve the needs of the Indian people who would live there. [3]

A single fence surrounded all three camps, and the site was so remote that authorities considered it unnecessary to build guard towers. [1] The thousands of internees and staff passed through the barbed-wire perimeter at Poston I, which was where the main administration center was located.

Poston was a subject of a sociological research by Alexander H. Leighton, published in his 1945 book, The Governing of Men. As Time Magazine wrote, "After fifteen months at Arizona's vast Poston Relocation Center as a social analyst, Commander Leighton concluded that many an American simply fails to remember that U.S. Japanese are human beings." [4]

1. Cannibalism led to one of the Western world&rsquos favorite fairy tales

During the Great Famine in Europe (1315-1317), poor growing conditions in the spring of 1315 led to lost crops and severe food shortages which lasted until the harvest at the end of 1317. During the famine, millions of people died due to starvation, sickness, and crime. The famine affected Europe from the Russian plains to the Italian Alps. The crime of infanticide became common, and cannibalism occurred across Europe, often preceded by murder, as roving bands of starving people struggled to find food. Frightened people in towns and villages recorded the stories of murder and cannibalism in France, the Germanic lands, and in Central Europe.

Archeological evidence from bones discovered in the 20 th century, carbon dated to the period of the Great Famine and the lean years which followed, indicate butchering of human bodies, as well as evidence of burning. Although many deny that cannibalism took place, arguing the spreading influence of the Church would have prevented it, others believe the evidence is overwhelming that it did, particularly of children found abandoned. The fairy tale we know as Hansel and Gretel, which was first written down by the Brothers Grimm, was likely based on an old folk tale which derived from the period of the Great Famine. The children were to be the victims of cannibalism, lured to the oven of a cannibalistic witch.

What Happened On Easter Island — A New (Even Scarier) Scenario

Let me tell it the old way, then the new way. See which worries you most.

First version: Easter Island is a small 63-square-mile patch of land — more than a thousand miles from the next inhabited spot in the Pacific Ocean. In A.D. 1200 (or thereabouts), a small group of Polynesians — it might have been a single family — made their way there, settled in and began to farm. When they arrived, the place was covered with trees — as many as 16 million of them, some towering 100 feet high.

These settlers were farmers, practicing slash-and-burn agriculture, so they burned down woods, opened spaces, and began to multiply. Pretty soon the island had too many people, too few trees, and then, in only a few generations, no trees at all.

As Jared Diamond tells it in his best-selling book, Collapse, Easter Island is the "clearest example of a society that destroyed itself by overexploiting its own resources." Once tree clearing started, it didn't stop until the whole forest was gone. Diamond called this self-destructive behavior "ecocide" and warned that Easter Island's fate could one day be our own.

When Captain James Cook visited there in 1774, his crew counted roughly 700 islanders (from an earlier population of thousands), living marginal lives, their canoes reduced to patched fragments of driftwood.

And that has become the lesson of Easter Island — that we don't dare abuse the plants and animals around us, because if we do, we will, all of us, go down together.

And yet, puzzlingly, these same people had managed to carve enormous statues — almost a thousand of them, with giant, hollow-eyed, gaunt faces, some weighing 75 tons. The statues faced not outward, not to the sea, but inward, toward the now empty, denuded landscape. When Captain Cook saw them, many of these "moai" had been toppled and lay face down, in abject defeat.

OK, that's the story we all know, the Collapse story. The new one is very different.

A Story Of Success?

It comes from two anthropologists, Terry Hunt and Carl Lipo, from the University of Hawaii. They say, "Rather than a case of abject failure," what happened to the people on Easter Island "is an unlikely story of success."

Success? How could anyone call what happened on Easter Island a "success?"

Well, I've taken a look at their book, The Statues That Walked, and oddly enough they've got a case, although I'll say in advance what they call "success" strikes me as just as scary — maybe scarier.

Here's their argument: Professors Hunt and Lipo say fossil hunters and paleobotanists have found no hard evidence that the first Polynesian settlers set fire to the forest to clear land — what's called "large scale prehistoric farming." The trees did die, no question. But instead of fire, Hunt and Lipo blame rats.

Polynesian rats (Rattus exulans) stowed away on those canoes, Hunt and Lipo say, and once they landed, with no enemies and lots of palm roots to eat, they went on a binge, eating and destroying tree after tree, and multiplying at a furious rate. As a reviewer in The Wall Street Journal reported,

In laboratory settings, Polynesian rat populations can double in 47 days. Throw a breeding pair into an island with no predators and abundant food and arithmetic suggests the result . If the animals multiplied as they did in Hawaii, the authors calculate, [Easter Island] would quickly have housed between two and three million. Among the favorite food sources of R. exulans are tree seeds and tree sprouts. Humans surely cleared some of the forest, but the real damage would have come from the rats that prevented new growth.

As the trees went, so did 20 other forest plants, six land birds and several sea birds. So there was definitely less choice in food, a much narrower diet, and yet people continued to live on Easter Island, and food, it seems, was not their big problem.

Rat Meat, Anybody?

For one thing, they could eat rats. As J.B. MacKinnon reports in his new book, The Once and Future World, archeologists examined ancient garbage heaps on Easter Island looking for discarded bones and found "that 60 percent of the bones came from introduced rats."

So they'd found a meat substitute.

What's more, though the island hadn't much water and its soil wasn't rich, the islanders took stones, broke them into bits, and scattered them onto open fields creating an uneven surface. When wind blew in off the sea, the bumpy rocks produced more turbulent airflow, "releasing mineral nutrients in the rock," J.B. MacKinnon says, which gave the soil just enough of a nutrient boost to support basic vegetables. One tenth of the island had these scattered rock "gardens," and they produced enough food, "to sustain a population density similar to places like Oklahoma, Colorado, Sweden and New Zealand today."

According to MacKinnon, scientists say that Easter Island skeletons from that time show "less malnutrition than people in Europe." When a Dutch explorer, Jacob Roggevin, happened by in 1722, he wrote that islanders didn't ask for food. They wanted European hats instead. And, of course, starving folks typically don't have the time or energy to carve and shove 70-ton statues around their island.

A 'Success' Story?

Why is this a success story?

Because, say the Hawaiian anthropologists, clans and families on Easter Island didn't fall apart. It's true, the island became desolate, emptier. The ecosystem was severely compromised. And yet, say the anthropologists, Easter Islanders didn't disappear. They adjusted. They had no lumber to build canoes to go deep-sea fishing. They had fewer birds to hunt. They didn't have coconuts. But they kept going on rat meat and small helpings of vegetables. They made do.

One niggling question: If everybody was eating enough, why did the population decline? Probably, the professors say, from sexually transmitted diseases after Europeans came visiting.

OK, maybe there was no "ecocide." But is this good news? Should we celebrate?

I wonder. What we have here are two scenarios ostensibly about Easter Island's past, but really about what might be our planet's future. The first scenario — an ecological collapse — nobody wants that. But let's think about this new alternative — where humans degrade their environment but somehow "muddle through." Is that better? In some ways, I think this "success" story is just as scary.

The Danger Of 'Success'

What if the planet's ecosystem, as J.B. MacKinnon puts it, "is reduced to a ruin, yet its people endure, worshipping their gods and coveting status objects while surviving on some futuristic equivalent of the Easter Islanders' rat meat and rock gardens?"

Humans are a very adaptable species. We've seen people grow used to slums, adjust to concentration camps, learn to live with what fate hands them. If our future is to continuously degrade our planet, lose plant after plant, animal after animal, forgetting what we once enjoyed, adjusting to lesser circumstances, never shouting, "That's It!" — always making do, I wouldn't call that "success."

The Lesson? Remember Tang, The Breakfast Drink

People can't remember what their great-grandparents saw, ate and loved about the world. They only know what they know. To prevent an ecological crisis, we must become alarmed. That's when we'll act. The new Easter Island story suggests that humans may never hit the alarm.

It's like the story people used to tell about Tang, a sad, flat synthetic orange juice popularized by NASA. If you know what real orange juice tastes like, Tang is no achievement. But if you are on a 50-year voyage, if you lose the memory of real orange juice, then gradually, you begin to think Tang is delicious.

On Easter Island, people learned to live with less and forgot what it was like to have more. Maybe that will happen to us. There's a lesson here. It's not a happy one.

As MacKinnon puts it: "If you're waiting for an ecological crisis to persuade human beings to change their troubled relationship with nature — you could be waiting a long, long time."

'The Devil We Know:' How DuPont Poisoned the World with Teflon

A new Netflix documentary titled, “The Devil We Know,” tells the story of DuPont’s decades-long cover-up of the harm caused by chemicals used to make its popular non-stick Teflon™ products. The film shows how the chemicals used to make Teflon poisoned people and the environment—not just in Parkersburg, West Virginia, where DuPont had a Teflon plant, but all over the world.

It all began in 1945, when DuPont, renamed DowDuPont following its 2017 merger with Dow Chemical, began manufacturing Teflon, a product best known for its use in non-stick cookware, but also widely used in a variety of other consumer products, including waterproof clothing and furniture, food packaging, self-cleaning ovens, airplanes and cars.

One of the key ingredients in DuPont’s Teflon was C8, a toxic, man-made chemical created by Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, better known as 3M, to make Scotchgard. The chemical, also known as PFOS or PFOA, is what gave Teflon its non-stick properties.

Both 3M and DuPont were well aware of the health hazards associated with C8. But that didn’t stop DuPont from dumping the toxic chemical into local waterways, where it made its way into public drinking water and subsequently sickened thousands of people, and ultimately killing many of them.

3M and DuPont covered up the health risks of C8

The film features stories from a number of people who were affected by DuPont’s Teflon, including DuPont employees, children and adults in the surrounding community, as well as pets, livestock and wildlife.

One of those stories is that of Sue Bailey, a former DuPont employee who gave birth to a son with severe deformities. Her son, William Bailey, aka Bucky, was born with half of a nose, one nostril, a serrated eyelid and a keyhole pupil where his iris and retina were detached.

Sue’s work for DuPont required her to come in direct contact with C8. Her job involved working in a large room with huge cylinders filled with C8. The cylinders would bubble over like an out-of-control bubble bath, according to the film. The Teflon production process left behind a discharge of water. It was Sue’s job to pump it out back, where it would flow directly into the river.

DuPont tried to blame Sue for her son’s birth defects. But she wasn’t buying it. On her first day back to work, she heard her co-workers talking about another DuPont employee who had given birth to a baby with deformities very similar to Bucky’s.

DuPont knew exposure to C8 could harm human health and cause birth defects. Both DuPont and 3M had been studying the chemical since the 1960s. One study on the chemical led by 3M, determined that the chemical could potentially cause birth defects in the eyes of rat fetuses.

Studies link Teflon chemical to six human diseases

The film also features Ken Wamsley, a former DuPont employee who worked for the company for 40 years. He said the first time he heard C8 was dangerous was from a supervisor who said it might hurt pregnant women. DuPont sent all the women home, but insisted the men were not at risk.

That turned out to be a bold-faced lie.

Today, we know that exposure to C8 in drinking water is linked to six different diseases: kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, preeclampsia and high cholesterol, according to the film.

Evidence shows that DuPont knew for decades that exposure to C8 could cause long-term health effects in humans. DuPont started conducting cancer studies in 1988. The company’s own studies showed that exposure to C8 killed rats, dogs and monkeys, by causing testicular cancer, liver disease and pancreatic disease.

Teflon chemical is in the blood of 99 percent of Americans

Not only did DuPont continue to manufacture Teflon, but it also continued to dump the chemical into waterways.

In 2001, a class-action lawsuit was brought against DuPont by residents of the Ohio River Valley who had been exposed to C8 in their drinking water. DuPont agreed to settle the suit, offering the plaintiffs $343 million.

But in a groundbreaking decision, the plaintiffs refused to take individual payments. Instead, they decided to establish a C8 Science Panel dedicated to studying the link between C8 in drinking water and human disease.

C8 contamination is so widespread that, according to this article in the Intercept, 99 percent of Americans have the chemical in their blood. It’s also been found in the blood of people from all parts of the world. The main sources of exposure are still somewhat of a mystery. The likely culprits, though, are industrial waste and the consumer products that shed C8 over time.

Under terms of the $343-million settlement, six water districts could test people’s blood and sue DuPont if the Science Panel could prove exposure to C8 caused any harm.

DuPont said it was confident the test results would prove C8 was safe.

In order to overcome the challenge of recruiting enough volunteers to submit their blood for analysis, the panel used some of the funds from the settlement to offer each volunteer $400.

Through the payout and a massive media effort, the panel got more than 70,000 people to participate. The process took more than seven years. In 2012, the results were in: Exposure to C8 in drinking water caused six different human diseases.

DuPont is still manufacturing Teflon

More than 3,500 cases were filed against DuPont. Soon, the victories started pouring in.

The first case involved a woman who said exposure to C8 caused her kidney cancer. The jury found DuPont guilty and awarded the plaintiff $1.6 million.

In 2017, DuPont and Chemours, a company created by DuPont, agreed to pay $671 million to settle thousands of lawsuits.

Many lawsuits are still pending to this day.

DuPont agreed to casually phase out C8 by 2015. But it still makes Teflon. DuPont replaced C8 with a new chemical called Gen-X, which is already turning up in waterways.

Animal studies conducted by DuPont found tumors in rats exposed to Gen-X, according to the film. The tumors are similar to those seen in rats exposed to C8.

Whether Gen-X is just as bad—or even worse—than C8 remains to be seen.

Want to learn more? Click here to find places where you can watch the film.

Julie Wilson is communications associate for the Organic Consumers Association (OCA). To keep up with OCA news and alerts, sign up for our newsletter.

Splish, splash, that rat's taking a bath

This one is most common in big cities like New York, but you can find variations on it all over. Rats live in the sewers, the stories go, and it's entirely possible that one will, at some point, swim up some pipes and end up in someone's toilet. The lucky people will just open the lid to find a rat treading water there. The unlucky ones will be sitting on the toilet when it happens.

It sounds unlikely — that's a lot of swimming and it's a long way for a rat to hold their breath — but it's completely and terrifyingly true. The Seattle Times even ran a 2016 piece warning readers what to do when a rat made an appearance in their toilets (squirt in some dish soap to break the water's surface tension, then flush it away — it'll head back the way it came). And it happens way more than anyone would think. The King County Public Health Department answers between 50 and 80 rat-in-toilet occurrences each and every year.

Experts say the rats are trying to get into a kitchen or drain where they smell food, but since the toilet is the easiest access to a home, that's usually where they pop up. Health officials say the best thing to do is clean drains regularly, but they also add that rats can show up in a toilet anywhere, anytime, during any season.

Jamestown Colonists Resorted to Cannibalism

A gruesome discovery in a trash deposit at Jamestown points to cannibalism.

Archaeologists have discovered the first physical evidence of cannibalism by desperate English colonists driven by hunger during the Starving Time of 1609-1610 at Jamestown, Virginia (map)—the first permanent English settlement in the New World.

The announcement was made by a team of researchers from the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History, Historic Jamestowne, and the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation at a press conference May 1 in Washington, D.C.

There are five historical accounts written by or about Jamestown colonists that reference cannibalism, but this is the first time it’s been proven, said William Kelso, director of archeology at Historic Jamestowne.

“This is a very rare find,” said James Horn, vice president of research for the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. “It is the only artifactual evidence of cannibalism by Europeans at any European colony—Spanish, French, English, or Dutch—throughout the colonial period from about 1500 to 1800.”

Portions of the butchered skull and shinbone of a 14-year-old girl from England, dubbed “Jane” by researchers, were unearthed by Jamestown archaeologists last year. They found the remains about 2.5 feet (0.8 meters) down in a 17th century trash deposit in the cellar of a building built in 1608 inside the James Fort site.

Kelso then asked Doug Owsley, head of physical anthropology at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, to examine the remains and determine if she was killed or cannibalized.

Kelso said he hadn't believed previous historical accounts regarding cannibalism. He thought they were politically motivated, intended to discredit the Virginia Company—the stockholders who provisioned and financed the settlement.

"Now, I know the accounts are true," he said.

Since the excavation of James Fort began in 1994, the discovery is second only to the discovery of the fort, he added.

The findings answer a longstanding question among historians about the occurrence of cannibalism at the settlement during the winter of 1609, when about 80 percent of the colonists died. (Read about the real story of Jamestown in National Geographic magazine.)

Owsley described multiple chop and cut marks on the girl’s skull that were made by one or more assailants after she died. “They were clearly interested in cheek meat, muscles of the face, tongue, and brain,” he said. Jane’s hair was not removed.

One of the foremost forensic anthropologists in the world, Owsley has analyzed numerous skeletal remains of prehistoric people who were victims of cannibalism. Their bones were similar to Jane's in that they had cut marks and were splintered and fragmented, he said.

Four closely spaced chop marks in her forehead indicated a failed attempt to split her skull open, Owsley said. The close proximity of the unsuccessful blows indicates that she was already dead, or they would have been more haphazard, he explained.

The back of her skull was then cracked open by a series of chops by a light weight axe or cleaver, he said.

Cleaver blades and knives excavated from the Jamestown site were compared to the blows, and Owsley said he thinks a cleaver was used.

There were also numerous cuts, saw marks, and gouges along her lower jaw made by the tip of a knife to get to the meat, and to remove throat tissue and the tongue, he said.

Owsley said the cutting was not done by an experienced butcher, except possibly the chops to the shinbone. “There is a hesitancy, trial, and tentativeness in the marks that is not seen in animal butchery,” he said.

“The desperation and overwhelming circumstances faced by the James Fort colonists during the winter of 1609-1610 are reflected in the postmortem treatment of this girl’s body,” Owsley added.

Although only part of the skull is still intact, researchers were able to produce a facial reconstruction of Jane by digitally creating a 3-D skull.

Historic Jamestowne’s Kelso said that settling Jamestown was “a very dark undertaking.” This evidence of cannibalism “almost puts you in the time,” he added. (Learn about the harsh realities of life in Jamestown.)

Since only ten percent of Jane’s skeleton has been recovered, researchers have not been able to tell much about her story, but they do know by examining her shinbone that she was 14 years old.

Based on isotope studies of her third molar, the high nitrogen content meant Jane may have been from a high-status family or served as their maid.

Elevated nitrogen levels indicate that she ate a lot of protein, which was scarce and expensive, said Kari Bruwlheide, a physical anthropologist at the Smithsonian who works with Owsley.

Researchers also know that she was probably from the southern coast of England, based on a comparison of oxygen isotopes in her tooth and oxygen isotopes found in groundwater samples from the area. The water she consumed while her permanent teeth were forming during infancy helps to pinpoint where she was born.

A study of the carbon isotopes in her bones indicated she was eating a mostly European diet, which means that Jane had not been in Jamestown for long before her death, Bruwelheide said.

According to Horn, of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Jane probably arrived at Jamestown in August of 1609 on one of six ships from England that straggled into the fort after surviving a hurricane during their crossing.

The new arrivals’ food stores were spoiled or depleted—most of their provisions were lost when the flagship Sea Venture shipwrecked during the storm—and many of them were in poor health, he said.

The Jamestown colonists were already starving when the 300 new settlers arrived, having suffered from diseases and food shortages.

Increasing demands for food from nearby Indian tribes, coupled with severe drought conditions, caused relationships with the Powhatan Indians—a powerful chiefdom that extended across much of Virginia’s coastal region—to deteriorate.

The colony’s leader, Captain John Smith, who had been wounded in an explosion, left with the fleet on its return trip to England, leaving Jamestown rudderless.

By November, the Powhatans launched a war against the English, laying siege to Jamestown and cutting the colonists off from outside help. “Conditions became increasingly desperate,” Horn said.

At first the settlers ate their horses, then their dogs and cats. Jamestown residents also ate rats, mice, and snakes, according to a firsthand account by George Percy, who became the colony’s temporary leader after John Smith left.

Percy writes that some colonists ate their boots, shoes, and any other leather they could find. Others left the fort to search for roots in the woods, but were killed by Powhatan warriors.

As the siege continued into the winter, Percy wrote in an eyewitness account: "And now famine beginning to look ghastly and pale in every face that nothing was spared to maintain life and to do those things which seem incredible, as to dig up dead corpse out of graves and to eat them, and some have licked up the blood which hath fallen from their weak fellows."

According to several colonists, one man killed his pregnant wife and chopped her into pieces, which he then salted and ate for food. He was executed for murder.

"Only in the most desperate of circumstances would the English have turned to cannibalism," Horn said. He believed the accounts because he said there was no reason for Percy to write falsely about something that would reflect poorly on his leadership.

By spring of 1610, only about 60 people living at the fort had survived, according to Kelso’s calculations. How many of the dead were cannibalized is unknown, but Jane was not an isolated case, according to historical accounts.

The colony was saved that spring by the arrival of settlers who had been shipwrecked with the Sea Venture in Bermuda—they had built themselves a new boat—who brought in much-needed supplies. They were followed soon after by Lord de la Warr, Jamestown’s first governor, who brought in additional supplies—a year’s worth—and even more colonists.

Upon his arrival, De la Warr ordered a clean up of the fort. Trash, including Jane's remains, were deposited in cellars and pits throughout the settlement.

Jamestown endured and colonists kept coming. "They kept their foothold and kept the Spanish from claiming all of North America," Horn said.

"This discovery underlines the incredible challenges each colonist faced in establishing European settlements in the New World. There were scores that never lasted more than 6 to 12 months."

A public exhibition about the discovery and investigation of Jane’s remains, along with the evidence of cannibalism, her facial reconstruction, and the circumstances that led to the Starving Time will open at the Archaearium at Historic Jamestowne, on Jamestown Island, on May 3.

10 Answers 10

X-Y problem time, I think. How do you know it's a rat?

Your comment on the question says that it looked "chewed and not cut with a tool". This is precisely what wear looks like, and this is backed up by you saying it's happening in the same place each time, and it's always the same pipe and never anything else. A lack of dead rats in traps makes this virtually certain.

Most likely, something is rubbing on your fuel line. Not all the time, but often enough to do damage over time. Check for anything which could rattle in the direction of the fuel line. Pull on every wire, cable, pipe and mounting to see what could potentially reach the fuel line.

As an alternative, this could be due to how the fuel line is run. If the fuel line has to run round a tight bend, and especially if a fixed (metal) pipe points in one direction and the flexible pipe then has to do a sharp right-angle turn to the next place, this is setting up for the pipe to fatigue on the bend. Usually manufacturers design this out, but it's still possible if you get a sloppy Friday-afternoon-production specimen. I wouldn't expect this to happen as quickly as you describe, but it's definitely worth considering, especially if the point of damage is within an inch or so of a pipe mounting.

You could cover the pipe with some protective braiding like this -

Here in Arizona where wood rats (a.k.a. pack rats) are a major pest, a common solution is to put lights under the vehicle and/or inside the engine compartment. You can put a cheap shop light on an extension cord and stick it under the car when it's parked. The rats no longer feel safe in the brightly lit space.

I joined this community just to answer this question.

While there are already some good answers here, one proven solution that is highly effective is to mix crushed hot pepper with paint. Apply it to the hose, cable, etc. and let it dry.

Next time that the rodent gnaws on the painted fuel line hose, the little varmint gets an unforgettable hot mouth and never comes back!

The cayenne/paint mixture that I read about dried with a textured look. The pepper was both sufficiently concentrated and just coarse enough that the paint sealed in and protected the pepper granules.

This method also works on wiring harnesses, other tubing, coaxial cables, etc. What attracts rodents is the fairly recent plant-based composition of hoses, wires, and other plastic- and rubber-like materials. I don't know the details, but at some point in recent history, Federal law mandated the use of soybeans as an ingredient [citation needed].

I also joined this community just to respond. In my part of the world we have this a lot. Fuel lines and other similar tubes and cables are often damaged. It is because martens are attracted to the smell of certain types of tubing, because fishmeal is added to these plastics and rubbers.

You can try things like parking on chicken wire and hanging toilet blocks in the engine bay, and anti marten ultrasound generators.

I heard that peppermint spray mixed 50/50 with water will make them stay away and should last about 6 months. Many people use this to keep mice out of engine compartments.

We've faced this problem a lot of times. It's one of my previous questions here.
When we took the car for servicing, the mechanics covered the wires and tubes with a thin and very light-weight tube that looked like this.

This kind of protection should actually be implemented as a built-in feature for vehicles. I don't understand why they don't do it.

Even my bike is parked in the same place, and the rats usually never touch the rubber tubes. But during the past 6 years, they chewed off the tube from my bike twice, and the only correlation I could make was that that was the time we had placed rat poison in the area, and I think it chews off the rubber to give it's stomach some relief (like how lions eat grass). I did consider the possibility of it needing rubber to line it's nest, but if that was the case, the incidents would've happened far more often. Don't say they were taking revenge for the death of their fellow-rats :-).

Best way to get rid of them is to use a multi-catch live trap like this one:

Make sure the bait has such a strong smell that they'd go toward the trap before even thinking of going toward your vehicle. If it's a much larger rat, you'd need one of the more powerful traps that snap shut onto their necks, killing them immediately.

I am surprised that you are OK to live with rats as they are pretty good at destroying things and spreading diseases. I would give the rats something else to eat, like rat poison bite. I am doing it and I don't have rats nor mice anywhere around my home. You can use traps, there will be fewer rats but still some.

The stainless steel braid is most likely an effective solution, but it is kind of expensive. For similar protection of underhood wires and rubber lines leading from the propane tank to a grill, I've used other metal tubes. In one case, I had a square-cross-section aluminum leg from a broken clothes rack. I split it the long way with a dremel tool, opened it up, put it around the hose, and then pressed it back together. No more squirrels eating the propane lines. You can buy, or preferably find, various sorts of electrical conduit for cheaper than the stainless steel braid. One might worry about dissimilar metals, but you may have small diameter copper pipe lying around. Even a pvc water line might be good enough it is much thicker and harder than rubber fuel lines. If you fuel line is strongly curved, the braid will work nicely, but you can also just cut smaller sections of metal pipe or tube and string them together.

We've also found some of the sprays to be effective for chipmunks and squirrels chewing on automotive wires.

Our worst case was an old Chrysler minivan that had a low-hanging wire that simply signaled the computer than the transmission was active. If the wire was cut, the car wouldn't run. Squirrels loved chewing that wire.

I would combine several answers to one.

As Graham already suggested, it is suspicious that rodents damage only one exact spot on the whole pipeline. So identify the cause thoroughly.

HandyHowie also suggested good solution to anticipate the pipe wear no matter what causes it.

The pipe may actually seem tasty for rodents so changing the material may be solution as well.

Thank you!

The virulence of that hatred can be surprising in light of the fact that many African Americans had migrated North, to cities like Chicago, to flee the South. From the perspective of civil rights activists, Ralph argues, “You can argue it was easier to identify the visible problems and laws that were disenfranchising people in the South. In the North, it was more muddied, more difficult to find a single thread you can pull out.”

King expressed that idea when he looked at the hostility from the perspective of whites. “As long as the struggle was down in Alabama and Mississippi, they could look afar and think about it and say how terrible people are,” he wrote later in his autobiography. “When they discovered brotherhood had to be a reality in Chicago and that brotherhood extended to next door, then those latent hostilities came out.”

These fair housing demonstrations gradually started to take place in other nearby cities, such as Louisville and Milwaukee. The Chicago activists even got street gang members to serve as marshals at the 1966 open housing marches in an effort to redirect their energies. Among the campaign’s other accomplishments were efforts to organize tenant unions, so residents could stand up to landlords about things like peeling lead-based paint on their walls, and the launch of Jesse Jackson’s career, as he helped run the Windy City’s chapter of a campaign to combat discriminatory hiring practices.

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Fair Housing Act into law on April 11, 1968, one week after King’s death. Yet some experts see the Chicago campaign’s effectiveness as mixed, because the problems that the activists tried to combat there have not gone away.

“Did that legislation equalize opportunities? No, but it was an important step, and fair housing groups that had been working before then now had congressional backing,” as Ralph puts it. “Did it end the slums? No, so [the movement] was not successful that regard. But there were substantial strides taken forward.” Peter Ling, a Martin Luther King biographer, has called the Chicago campaign the civil rights leader’s “most relevant campaign” for today’s world.

As Claybourne Carson, editor of the King Papers, put it in his foreword to The Chicago Freedom Movement, the fact that these problems still exist are not King’s fault. “It is also,” he wrote, “the failure of those of us who have outlived him.”

For many European powers, colonies were considered essential to supply natural resources and other essential goods. Moreover, the colonizers thought it was the mission of the ‘advanced’ European nations to civilize the backward people.

For increasing cultivation, the French began to build canals to irrigate the land in the Mekong delta. This helped in increasing rice production. The area under rice cultivation went up from 274,000 hectares in 1873 to 1.1 million hectares in 1900 and 2.2 million in 1930. Vietnam exported two-thirds of its rice production and by 1931 had become the third largest exporter of rice in the world.

After that, the French began to work on infrastructure projects. This was necessary for transportation of goods for trade and also for moving military garrisons in the entire region. Construction of a trans-Indo-China rail network began in this period and the final link with Yunnan in China was completed by 1910. The second line was built to link Vietnam to Siam (early name of Thailand).

Should Colonies be Developed: Paul Bernard was an eminent French thinker. He believed in developing infrastructure in Vietnam so that people could become more prosperous. A prosperous public would mean a better market for the French business. He also advocated for land reforms so that farm output could be improved.

The colonial economy in Vietnam was mainly based on rice cultivation and rubber plantation. Rail and port facilities were set up to service this sector. Little effort was made by the French to industrialise the economy.

The Dilemma of Colonial Education: The French wanted to civilize the Vietnamese by imposing the ‘modern’ European culture on them. They also wanted to educate the local people so that a large workforce could be created for clerical jobs. They did not want to impart a better education as they were afraid that more education could lead to awakening among the local people which could prove dangerous for the colonial rulers. So, full access to French education was denied to the Vietnamese.

Talking Modern: The elites in Vietnam were highly influenced by the Chinese culture. It was important for the French to counter this influence. They systematically tried to dismantle the traditional education system and established French schools for the Vietnamese. But replacing the Chinese language (which was used by the elites) was very difficult.

Some French policymakers wanted the use of French as the medium of instruction. They wanted to build an Asiatic France which could be solidly tied to the European France.

Some other policymakers wanted Vietnamese to be taught in lower classes and French in the higher classes. There was a provision to award French citizenship to those who learnt French and acquired the French culture.

There was a deliberate policy of failing the students in the final year of French classes. This was done to prevent the local from qualifying for the better-paid jobs. The school textbooks glorified the French and justified colonial rule. The Vietnamese were shown as primitive and backward who were only capable of manual labour.

Looking Modern: Looking modern as per the French meant aping the western culture. Short haircut was encouraged, while Vietnamese traditionally kept long hair.

Hexham pub customer caused panic when he pulled out gun he bought to shoot rats

A pub customer caused panic when he drunkenly pulled out a gun he had bought to shoot rats.

Stonemason Martin McQuade had purchased the pistol-like BB gun in Newcastle city centre before drinking to excess.

Newcastle Crown Court heard he then produced the weapon at the Station Hotel in, Hexham, Northumberland, in front of shocked customers and staff.

The court heard the 57-year-old has "limited recollection" of what he did due to the amount he had to drink.

Prosecutor Kevin Wardlaw said McQuade had bought the weapon legally on June 12 2018, "to shoot vermin on his own private land" and was then in the Hexham bar in the late afternoon that day.

Mr Wardlaw said: "The defendant came in and ordered a pint of San Miguel and complained it wasn&apost given in the glass he wanted. It was given in a San Miguel glass and he wanted an ordinary pint glass so it was changed and given back to him.

"For a short period there was a short conversation but nothing was said or done that would give any indication of what was going to happen.

"The defendant, who had been carrying a white carrier bag, put his hand into the bag and pulled out a gun.

"He held it at chest height and appeared to pull the trigger back, though no noise was heard."

Read More
Related Articles
Read More
Related Articles

The court heard McQuade left the bar after being told to put the weapon away.

Mr Wardlaw said the people in the bar were "shocked" by the incident and the worker who served him was in "such a panic".

McQuade was tracked down through CCTV and police found the BB gun at his home.

He was due to appear in court last June but failed to appear at the hearing.

A warrant was issued for his arrest and he was brought before Wimbledon Magistrates&apos Court in February.

McQaude, of Trinity Road, London, pleaded guilty to possession of an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence after his case was transferred to Newcastle.

Judge Edward Bindloss sentenced McQuade to 13 months behind bars and said the witnesses were in "fear and shock".

The judge said: "There seems to be no reason for it at all. There was no argument, no build up, he walked away of his own volition.

"The three people present had no idea if it was working or loaded or would have discharged."

Andrew Walker, defending, said McQuade has previous convictions but has stayed out of trouble for years and never been to prison before.

Mr Walker added: "He is at a complete loss to try and explain why he did what he did.

"He accepts alcohol consumption is not an explanation but it was part of the reason why he acted in a way he would not normally act."

Mr Walker said McQuade has worked as a bricklayer and stonemason for most of his adult life and has had tragedy in his family background.

Watch the video: Rat Infested House Disgusts New Owners. Hoarding: Buried Alive (July 2022).


  1. Dim

    Sorry for intervening, but you couldn't give a little more information.

  2. Haywood

    Not a bad blog, read it - added it to bookmarks, write more, I will follow the RSS.

  3. Kemal

    I have not seen a more competent presentation for a long time, but you are not completely right everywhere, in 10 minutes such topics do not completely swell

  4. Crogher

    Bravo, this admirable thought has to be precisely on purpose

Write a message