BACKTALK: Letters, e-mails and faxes from PCT readers

Editor’s note: The photo that Barbara French refers to below was part of PCTOnline.com’s September “Online Extra” stories, which were posted at www.pctonline.com. The photo, which was supplied by PCT contributing writer Jeff Holper, depicted a bat that had been captured on a glueboard.

GLUEBOARDS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR BATS
As conservation officer for Bat Conservation International, I am writing to inform you about the inappropriate use of glueboards for capturing bats as depicted on your Web site. We have many pest control companies and wildlife damage control individuals throughout the U.S. and Canada who know how to do proper eviction of bats from buildings. Only proper eviction techniques ensure human health. We have worked with local, state and federal public health agencies to produce literature about issues associated with bats and public health, so we take this issue very seriously.

Glueboards cause a lot of problems for bats. Once bats are removed from the glueboards, a sticky residue is left on their skin. There are other types of problems with glueboards, such as bats ingesting the oils used to remove them from the glueboards. All PCOs need is an extension pole and a little net (i.e., a butterfly net). Put it over the bat and it clings inside, you take it down and take it out.

We receive literally thousands of requests from homeowners, property managers and tenants requesting information on safe exclusion of bats from buildings. Because of this, we recently began a certification program for pest control professionals. There is no cost and all companies that follow proper bat exclusion guidelines are listed on our Web site where we refer the many callers requesting these kinds of services. For more information, visit our site at www.batcon.org.
Barbara French
Conservation Officer
Bat Conservation International
Austin, Texas

HOLPER’S RESPONSE
Capturing a bat on a glueboard is not our typical way of evicting bats from buildings. Typically the bats are living in an attic space and not invading the living quarters of the resident. If that is the case, we install bat tubes that allow the bats to exit but not return, then seal up the entrances once the bats have moved on. We wait until the babies are old enough to exit and not be left behind. It allows the bats to move to a more suitable location for them and for the homeowner, with no injury to the bats. This is by far the most frequent way we handle bat problems.

Unfortunately, once in a while, a single bat will enter the living quarters of a home. Safety becomes the utmost concern, and I am leery to grab and catch bats since there have been quite a few rabid bats in St. Louis. I use a glueboard on a pole for hard-to-reach areas, such as a high-vaulted ceiling or a hard-to-get-to space. I find it is the best way to catch the bat and then it can be removed off the board if it needs to be tested for rabies. My greatest goal is to service the people who have called me and who have their safety and mine as the biggest concern. In these cases we are dealing with one bat at a time — at no time do we ever put glueboards in an attic or leave glueboards unattended as a manner of bat control. We do this one house at a time, one bat at a time. Just like removing a mouse off a glueboard with vegetable oil, the same can be done with a bat and the bat can be dealt with accordingly.
Jeff Holper
Holper’s Pest & Animal Solutions
St. Louis, Mo.

GOOD THINGS COME IN SMALL PACKAGES
I found Will Nepper’s insect light trap article in the October issue of PCT, “The ABC’s of ILT’s,” to be a helpful introduction to ILTs. Many of the points addressed (especially those related to pest exclusion and facility sanitation) can’t be stressed strong enough. However, there was one point that should be amended.

Regarding lamp size/wattage, Nepper states that “bigger is better with regard to light output” and “the higher the wattage, the greater the attraction.” It is important to know that bigger lamps/tubes aren’t always better light emitters.

For example, the standard 48-inch, 40-watt F40T12-350BL lamp is the largest ultraviolet lamp currently offered by ILT manufacturers. At initial lighting the 48-inch lamp, powered by a single-magnetic ballast, should emit about 2,100 microwatts per centimeter squared (mWcs) of insect attracting UV energy. In contrast, the more energy-efficient 36-inch, 30-watt F30T8-350BL lamp (similarly powered) should emit about 4250 mWcs of UV energy at initial lighting.

The 36-inch lamp, being smaller in both length and diameter, typically costs less than a 48-inch lamp and contains less contaminants (mercury) than a 48-inch lamp. This lamp is smaller, cheaper, more eco-friendly and stronger too. Perhaps the adage “good things come in small packages” should apply to ILT lamp tubes.
Jack E. Harris
Marketing Director
Insect-O-Cutor
Stone Mountain, Ga.

Readers are invited to write to PCT Letters, 4012 Bridge Ave., Cleveland OH 44113 or send an e-mail to jdorsch@pctonline.com. Letters may be edited for space or clarity.