[Technically Speaking] I can’t believe it!

When I first arrived at NPMA in 1991 one of the first issues we wrestled with was electronic rodent and insect devices (notice I avoided the use of the word “repellers”). These devices come in all shapes, sizes, technologies, claims and prices. I can’t believe that despite numerous cease-and-desist orders from the Federal Trade Commission and EPA regarding the sale of these devices, that these products continue to be sold in the marketplace, bilking an unsuspecting public out of millions of dollars and potentially risking damage to consumers’ property and health.

This issue hit my radar screen during the last several months when I was called into several prospective accounts that had ongoing mice, cockroach and ant problems. At all of these properties I found various devices plugged into outlets throughout the home or office and asking myself, “If these devices work, why am I here?” Perhaps there aren’t enough placements of them; perhaps they’re not in the correct location; perhaps they’re not being used with other management tools (that work); or perhaps they simply don’t work; or all the above.

RATS IN THE OFFICER’S CLUB. My first experience with these devices was in the early 1980s when I was a military entomologist assigned to the Academy of Health Sciences at Fort Sam Houston. At that time we had a severe problem with roof rats in the Officer’s Club. We tried one of the devices in the bakery, where rats could easily be tracked due to the flour on the floor. Per package instructions, four devices were placed in each corner of the room. During the next couple of weeks we continued to observe rat activity throughout the room and on top of the devices. The failure was explained by the manufacturer as equipment interfering with the sound transmission, the equipment may need adjustment, etc. “We’ll check it out and get back to you,” they said. To date I’ve yet to hear from them.

DEVICES IN THE FIELD. Today, when I observe these devices at an account I act uninformed and ask the customer what the device is. The typical response is that it’s an insect and/or mouse repeller and that it doesn’t work. (Obviously. This is why we were called.) The most recent case was a hardware store that had every conceivable product for mouse control and they chose the electronic repellers and they had mice all over the store and were surprised to learn that they don’t work.

I can’t believe homeowners, apartment dwellers and office workers continue to buy these devices. The most likely reason for the continued purchase of these devices is:

• They’re environmentally friendly — no pesticides unless you read the “fine print” that says to be successful the devices should be used with other rodent control methods.
• They’re humane — unless they perform as suggested, they must blast the mouse’s poor little ear drums with ultrasonic sounds. Heaven knows what that frequency of sound does to their little organs.
• They’re inexpensive — probably now made in China. Perhaps if the mice chew on the device they may die from lead poisoning from eating the paint.

WHAT MANUFACTURERS SAY. It is interesting to examine some of the statements made by manufacturers and try to understand the rationale behind them.

• For instance, what about the concept that to be successful these devices should be used in conjunction with other management techniques? I find this totally contrary to what I’ve learned about rodent behavior and pest management strategies over the years. If we need to use traps and baits why would we want to disrupt rodents’ behavior using these devices? I guess these devices are so successful when used with other management techniques because the devices don’t work.
• One of the packages I saw stated that if the red light is blinking the device is operating properly. The blinking red light tells me two things: The red light is working and I don’t have a power outage.
  I have several concerns about these types of devices:
• The most important concern is that people may be relying on these devices to protect themselves from rodent-borne diseases, most notably Hantavirus. Perhaps a hefty lawsuit about these devices’ failure to protect human health (although they don’t make those claims — it could be implied) would put these manufacturers out of business.
• There is also the potential of structural damage, e.g., electrical wires and pipes, and more importantly potential fire hazard, resulting from these devices failing to perform as stated and “effectively repel rodents.”
• Taking money from an unknowledgeable and unsuspecting public is unconscionable.
• If these devices work there will no longer be a need for pest management services (putting tens of thousands of people out of work).
• There will no longer be a need for tons of insecticides and rodenticides that are sold every year (putting more people out of work).

CONCLUSION. Truth be told, the reason I wrote this cynical column regarding these bogus devices was that while checking a well-respected manufacturer’s Web site, I found that they were selling these devices branded with their name. I can’t believe they would put their name on this equipment. I was told that there was research to back up the effectiveness of these devices — more than four weeks ago and I’m still waiting. I also was told that it was clearly indicated on their Web site that the devices aren’t stand-alone technology. At this writing, it isn’t. In fact their Web site information states, “Proper high frequency sound to effectively repel rodents.”

I can only believe that this is not about protecting the environment and is about a different type of green — the kind that goes in your wallet.

The author is president of Innovative Pest Management, Brookeville, Md.