4 ms·
Certainly it seems like total eradication is the best option. The article just posits that one-off killings have a negative effect. Knowing that the partial ki
by maxmcd 8y ago
Certainly it seems like total eradication is the best option. The article just posits that one-off killings have a negative effect.
Knowing that the partial killing of a rat "family" potentially increases the diversity and potency of bacteria seems like very useful information in a world where we can't easily kill all rats.
- jdavis703 8y agoNear the end of the article it mentions that existing rat populations act as a buffer against invasive species carrying new infections. This is pretty important for port cities, probably less so for inland areas.
- DKnoll 8y agoI'm surprised they didn't mention it in the article, but Alberta (a province adjacent to British Columbia on the east side) is mostly rat-free (infestations per year at 0 or in the low single digits since 2000. It is entirely land-locked though. As far as I know there have been no adverse effects. They started aggressive rat control in the '50s.