Is it illegal in Maryland to use glue traps to kill rats and mice under the state's animal cruelty law?

Plain-English summary

A member of the Maryland House of Delegates asked the Attorney General whether using commercially sold glueboards, sticky boards that trap and kill rats and mice by adhesion, violated Maryland's Cruelty to Animals Law. The statute required that pest elimination, like other activities that unavoidably cause animals some pain, be carried out by "the most humane method reasonably available."

The Attorney General concluded that glueboards did not automatically violate the law, even though the office acknowledged that death by a glueboard, which could take more than 24 hours and involve painful struggling, was not "humane" in an absolute sense. The opinion reasoned that the statute did not ban every method that causes some suffering; it only required using the most humane method reasonably available considering effectiveness, cost, and safety. Because other pest control methods, such as multiple-dose poisons, springtraps, or professional extermination, had their own drawbacks in effectiveness, expense, or risk to children and pets, whether a glueboard violated the statute would depend on the specific facts of each case rather than being illegal across the board. The opinion recommended that the General Assembly address the question directly if it wanted a clear rule, since the law as written could not be enforced against pest control choices made inside private homes.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did Maryland's Cruelty to Animals Law flatly ban using glue traps on rats and mice?
No, according to this opinion. The Attorney General concluded the law did not categorically prohibit glueboards, because the statute only required "the most humane method reasonably available," a standard that takes effectiveness, cost, and safety into account rather than demanding the single most painless method regardless of circumstances.

Why wouldn't a slower, more painful method like a glueboard automatically break the law if a quicker method existed?
The opinion reasoned that a comparatively less humane method could still be lawful if it was significantly more effective, less costly, or safer than the alternatives, since the statute measured what was "reasonably available," not simply what was theoretically the least painful option in a vacuum.

Could someone actually get prosecuted for using a glueboard to kill mice in their own home?
The opinion suggested this was unlikely as a practical matter, noting that law enforcement of this kind of statute is not realistically possible for pest elimination methods used inside private dwellings, and it recommended that the General Assembly take up the question directly if it wanted a clearer rule on glueboards specifically.

Background and statutory framework

Article 27, §59 of the Maryland Code made it a misdemeanor to torture, torment, or cruelly kill an animal, but it also recognized that some ordinary human activities, including pest elimination, food processing, animal training, and hunting, unavoidably cause animals some pain. For those activities, the statute defined "cruelty" as a failure to use "the most humane method reasonably available," reflecting a 1975 amendment that replaced an earlier version of the law found to raise fair notice concerns in a 1973 opinion of the Attorney General, and that a later 1980 opinion had upheld as constitutional.

Applying that standard to glueboards, the opinion found that death by adhesive trapping, which could take over a day and involve significant struggling, was not humane in an absolute sense, but concluded that other common pest control methods carried their own tradeoffs: multiple-dose anticoagulant poisons could take up to 72 hours to kill and posed risks to family members, springtraps could injure children or pets, and professional extermination services were markedly more expensive. Because the statute asked whether a method was the most humane one "reasonably available," accounting for those practical constraints, the opinion concluded that whether a particular use of a glueboard violated the law would turn on the specific facts and circumstances rather than being decided categorically for or against the method.

Citations

Statutes:

• Article 27, §59 of the Maryland Code (Cruelty to Animals Law, "most humane method reasonably available" standard for pest elimination)
• Article 27, §59 (Cum. Supp. 1972) (prior version of the statute, before the 1975 amendment)
• Article 27, §62 of the Maryland Code (defining "animal" and "cruelty")
• Article 27, §59A of the Maryland Code (specific prohibited methods of killing dogs and cats)

Cases:

• In re William G., 52 Md. App. 131 (1982)
• Buffalo Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, 546 F. Supp. 274, 288-90 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), rev'd on other grounds, 744 F.2d 917 (2d Cir. 1984)

Source

• Landing page: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Pages/attorney-general%E2%80%99s-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://oag.maryland.gov/resources-info/Documents/pdfs/Opinions/1986/Volume71_1986.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain, the linked PDF is authoritative.

CRIMINAL LAW

Cruelty To Animals - Pest Elimination - The Use of Glueboards To Kill Rodents Does Not Necessarily Violate The Cruelty To Animals Law.

January 14, 1986

The Honorable Idamae T. Garrott
Maryland House of Delegates

You have requested our opinion as to whether the use of commercially-marketed glueboards to kill rats and mice violates the Maryland Cruelty to Animals Law, Article 27, §59 of the Maryland Code.

For reasons stated below, we conclude that the use of glueboards to kill rodents does not necessarily violate the Cruelty to Animals Law. The applicability of the statute would depend upon the facts and circumstances surrounding each particular use. We recognize that, as a practical matter, law enforcement of this nature is not possible with regard to pest elimination methods used in private dwellings. Hence, the question of whether glueboards are an acceptable method of rodent control ought to be addressed directly by the General Assembly.

I
Cruelty to Animals Law

Article 27, §59 provides as follows:

"Any person who (1) overdrives, overloads, deprives of necessary sustenance, tortures, torments, cruelly beats, mutilates or cruelly kills; or (2) causes, procures or authorizes these acts; or (3) having the charge or custody of an animal, either as owner or otherwise, inflicts unnecessary suffering or pain upon the animal, or unnecessarily fails to provide the animal with nutritious food in sufficient quantity, necessary veterinary care, proper drink, air, space, shelter or protection from the weather, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or both. Customary and normal veterinary and agricultural husbandry practices including but not limited to dehorning, castration, docking tails, and limit feeding, are not covered by the provisions of this section. In the case of activities in which physical pain may unavoidably be caused to animals, such as food processing, pest elimination, animal training, and hunting, cruelty shall mean a failure to employ the most humane method reasonably available. It is the intention of the General Assembly that all animals shall be protected from intentional cruelty, but that no person shall be liable for criminal prosecution for normal human activities to which the infliction of pain to an animal is purely incidental and unavoidable."

The legislative intent underlying this criminal statute is stated directly in it, that "all animals... be protected from intentional cruelty," with the caveat that "no person" be prosecuted "for normal human activities to which the infliction of pain to an animal is purely incidental and unavoidable."1

We are aware of no cases construing either the "pest elimination" provision in the Maryland statute or any analogous provision in the cruelty to animals statutes of other states. Instead, the cases tend to address mistreatment of domestic animals and exhibitions of animals, such as cockfighting. Nonetheless, pest elimination is specifically included and, therefore, must meet the statutory standards. See also Article 27, §62 ("animal" defined as "every living creature except man").

II
Applicability to Pest Elimination Methods

The killing of rats and mice in dwellings is, of course, a "normal human activity." The traditional methods of accomplishing this objective include anticoagulants, acute poisons, and springtraps.2

More recently, the repertoire of pest elimination methods has come to include glueboards. Glueboards are "rodent control devices consisting of a flat, rigid base (such as cardboard, fiberboard, or plastic) coated on one side with an extremely adhesive material." Frantz and Padula, "A Laboratory Test Method for Evaluating the Efficacy of Glueboards for Trapping House Mice," in Vertebrate Pest Control and Management Materials: Fourth Symposium 210 (D. E. Kaukeinen ed. 1983) ("Frantz and Padula"). The glueboard is designed, like flypaper, to trap the animal on its surface and cause death by starvation, dehydration, suffocation, or stress.

Article 27, §59 requires use of "the most humane method reasonably available." The term "humane," in the context of pest elimination, has been defined as that method which produces "rapid unconsciousness without distress." Frantz and Padula, at 224.

The use of glueboards to eliminate pests is not humane in that sense. A rodent stuck to a glueboard might take more than 24 hours to die. During that interval, the rodent's attempts to free itself from the board are likely to be quite painful.3 But even though glueboards do not eliminate rodents in a quick and relatively painless manner, neither do some of the other methods of pest control. Multiple-dose anticoagulants, for example, are so-called because the rat must ingest several dosages of the chemical before death occurs. The lag phase between ingestion and death may last as long as 72 hours. See Rowsell, Ritcey, & Cox, "Assessment of Humaneness of Vertebrate Pesticides," in Proceedings of the Canadian Association for Laboratory Animal Science 241 (1978-1979).

Moreover, even if one were to flatly conclude that glueboards are, comparatively, not a humane form of pest elimination, they would not necessarily be unlawful. A comparatively inhumane pest elimination method would still be in compliance with the statute if it were "the most humane method reasonably available." See also Article 27, §62 ("cruelty" defined in terms of "unnecessary or unjustifiable physical pain or suffering").

This language is not an absolutely precise guide to conduct. As we observed in an opinion discussing the constitutionality of the Cruelty to Animals Law: "There is some risk of misjudgment regarding whether the 'most humane method reasonably available' was used or whether a person's acts are 'normal human activities to which the infliction of pain to an animal is purely incidental and unavoidable'." 65 Opinions of the Attorney General 174, 178 (1980) (1975 amendment cured statute's failure to give fair notice of prohibited conduct). See In re William G., 52 Md. App. 131 (1982). However, the underlying principle is clear: The amended Cruelty to Animals Law "eliminates the possibility of prosecution for commonplace and generally accepted human activities." 65 Opinions of the Attorney General at 178.

We think it unquestionable that considerations of effectiveness, safety, and cost are a "commonplace and generally accepted" aspect of pest control and that the statutory phrase "the most humane method reasonably available" allows these factors to be taken into account. See, e.g., Buffalo Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, 546 F. Supp. 274, 288-90 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), rev'd on other grounds, 744 F.2d 917 (2d Cir. 1984) (Where different methods of licensing would be much more costly and much less efficient than that being used, such methods were not "realistically available" alternatives under the applicable statute.). See also Black's Law Dictionary 1138 (rev. 5th ed. 1979) ("reasonable" defined as "suitable under the circumstances"); id. at 123 ("available" defined as "obtainable; present or ready for immediate use").

Given this statutory language, it is virtually impossible for us to conclude that a method of pest control is inherently, i.e., under all circumstances, unlawful under the Cruelty to Animals Law. The conditions simply vary too much from one application to the next.

In terms of effectiveness, glueboards may work where other control methods fail. Indeed, a study critical of the inhumaneness of the device observed that "glueboard application should be limited to problems for which other management strategies are inappropriate or have failed." Frantz and Padula at 224.

A "reasonably available" pest elimination method must also be affordable and safe. Pest elimination techniques requiring the use of chemicals are likely to be significantly more costly than the glueboard method. These methods generally require employment of professional exterminators.

With respect to safety, the use of acute poisons can pose risks to family members living in a house infested with rats or mice. The use of springtraps might pose as much risk as glueboards to non-target animals, that is, animals not intended to be eliminated, like house pets. In addition, such methods might pose a risk to young children.

These examples underscore the reason why we cannot conclude flatly that glueboards violate the Cruelty to Animals Law. The point is simply this: There may be situations in which use of a pest elimination method produces a longer or more painful death than other methods, but at the same time the less humane method is significantly less costly, more effective, or safer than alternative methods. In those situations, use of the less humane method, be it a glueboard or any other pest control technique, does not violate Article 27, §59.

IV
Conclusion

In summary, it is our opinion that the use of glueboards to kill rodents does not necessarily violate the Maryland Cruelty to Animals Law. The applicability of the statute to glueboards would depend upon the facts and circumstances surrounding each particular use. Because of the practical difficulty of enforcing the Cruelty to Animals Law in this context, we recommend that the General Assembly consider directly the question of whether the use of glueboards should be specifically prohibited.4

Stephen H. Sachs
Attorney General
Mary C. Keane
Staff Attorney

Jack Schwartz
Chief Counsel
Opinions and Advice

1 Prior to 1975, the statute read as follows: "Any person who (1) overdrives, overloads, deprives of necessary sustenance, tortures, torments, cruelly beats, mutilates or cruelly kills; or (2) causes, procures or authorizes these acts; or (3) having the charge or custody of an animal, either as owner or otherwise, inflicts unnecessary suffering or pain upon the animal, or unnecessarily fails to provide the animal with proper food, drink, air, space, shelter or protection from the weather, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 or by imprisonment not to exceed 90 days, or both." Article 27, §59 (Cum. Supp. 1972). The constitutionality of this statute was questioned in 1973, on the ground that it failed to give adequate notice of the prohibited conduct. See 58 Opinions of the Attorney General 80, 83 (1973). In 1975, the statute was amended to its present language. This version of the statute was approved as constitutional in a subsequent Opinion of the Attorney General. See 65 Opinions of the Attorney General 174 (1980). Thus, the General Assembly amended the statute with the obvious intent of simultaneously preventing prosecution for such "ordinary human activities" as pest elimination, while still requiring that all animals be treated humanely.

2 Anti-coagulants are chemicals that kill rodents by causing them to bleed to death. Strychnine is an example of an acute poison. Springtraps are the familiar baited devices. Another extermination device, fumigants (poisonous chemicals applied by spraying), is not discussed in this opinion because its use is limited to outdoor settings.

3 See affidavits of Dianne Fervis, D.V.M. (October 29, 1985), David McKeown, D.V.M. (November 5, 1985), Nedim C. Buyukmihci, D.V.M. (October 22, 1985), Flodella E. Mitchell, D.V.M. (November 13, 1985), and Robert M. Lynn, D.V.M. (November 9, 1985) (supplied by Valerie Stanley, Esquire, Animal Legal Defense Fund).

4 Cf. Article 27, §59A (specified methods of killing dogs and cats prohibited). See generally 67 Opinions of the Attorney General 110 (1982).