Rodent IPM In Schools

Currently, there is much attention on the issue of Integrated Pest Management in schools. Several states already have legislation mandating that IPM programs be implemented in their schools. This may be the path that several other, if not all, remaining states follow. The overall goal is to minimize the use of pesticides in schools and should a pesticide be needed, to use the least toxic pesticide and to apply it in the safest manner. All of this makes good sense. But how does the school IPM issue specifically affect the way we do rodent control? Let’s take a look.

The primary rodent pest inside most schools in the United States is the common house mouse. For schools located in rural and semi-rural areas, the deer mouse can be a pest, in addition to the house mouse. And for some inner-city schools, rats may occasionally pose problems. However, here we focus our attention on only mouse IPM programs.*

PROACTIVE PROGRAMS. When the mouse is supplied with food, warmth and cover, it can multiply quickly. In just a few months a school classroom can go from having a few mice to having several dozen mice running around. Thus it is important for both school personnel and pest management professionals to remain proactive about rodents. Here are some tips to help:

Use pest-sighting logs for both mouse sightings and mouse signs. Pest-sighting logs that are filled in by school personnel in between pest management service visits are an essential part of any school IPM program. For mouse IPM programs, sighting logs should record not only live mice, but mouse droppings, mouse-damaged paper or boxes, or any scratching noises heard by personnel in classrooms or other areas. Rodent entries in the log should prompt a call to the pest professional for service.

Focus inspection time in mouse-vulnerable areas. Being proactive also means inspecting in those areas that are most prone to mouse infestations. In this way, the pest professional can stay one step ahead of the mice. In each of these "mouse-vulnerable areas," the school’s role in the IPM program is to regularly repair walls, eliminate clutter, keep floors clear and clean and store all foods in tight plastic containers. Some of the more "mouse vulnerable areas" of a school include the following:

• Cluttered classrooms where foods are stored in cabinets.

• Kitchen cabinets and accessible kitchen walls voids where openings into the walls remain unrepaired.

• Kitchen storerooms: especially those using old wood shelving with gondola style bases (creating enclosed floor voids) and/or cluttered storerooms with boxes on the floor or shoved up against the wall.

• Student locker voids. Often the void behind, below or above lockers accumulates papers, food scraps and other items attractive to mice for feeding and nesting.

• Any closets where snacks, candies, popcorn are stored like band booster rooms, snack bars, promo rooms and closets.

• Cluttered receiving areas around large bay doors.

• Custodial closets where food garbage is not quickly discarded.

• Classrooms where student snacks or pet foods are not properly stored in mouse-proof containers.

• Suspended ceilings above all mouse-vulnerable areas.

Keep an eye on the calendar. For schools in rural areas surrounded by crop fields, it can be expected that mice will move into the school when crops are harvested in the fall. Good rodent proofing of the school will go a long way in minimizing the numbers that get in. But even in the tightest schools a few mice will find a way. In these schools, schools and pest professionals should anticipate the mouse dispersal. Professionals can install mousetraps in the vulnerable areas just prior to crop harvests and apply additional control efforts as necessary.

Use monitoring tools. In addition to inspecting for the mouse signs mentioned, mouse and monitoring traps (MMTs) can be installed into at least a few of the most mouse-vulnerable areas of the schools as well as in those areas that have had previous mouse activity. Several different types of MMTs now exist on the market and some private pest management companies design their own. Some examples of MMTs include installing glueboards into curiosity traps or snap traps and insect sticky monitors into a heavy-duty plastic box such as Kness’ Stick-All Depot. In some MMTs, ant and roach baits can also be installed in the stations.

MOUSETRAPS. In the majority of cases, mousetraps properly installed, using professional techniques based on experience and a thorough inspection of the vulnerable areas, should swiftly eliminate the mouse infestation. That is, providing the program is proactive and the mice weren’t left unaddressed for several weeks. And this non-chemical approach best defines the school IPM intent. Snap traps and "repeating curiosity traps" are effective mousetraps when properly installed and maintained.

However, a mistake made by both professionals and laymen is the response of setting out only one or two mousetraps in the affected area. Should it truly be only one mouse, a couple of traps may take care of the problem. But, for good IPM programs, it is most cost- effective to err on thoroughness. Therefore, inspections and traps are best when set above, below and on both sides of the mouse-active areas.

BAITS. It has been, and remains, a wide-scale practice in many schools around the United States that minor mouse infestations are often handled by custodians, maintenance and grounds personnel and teachers applying over-the-counter (OTC) mouse bait. Typically, these are casual applications of simply putting the bait in areas showing mouse activity (e.g., teachers’ lounges, on the floors of storerooms and in many different closets including those inside classrooms). Practically speaking, are such programs of great toxicological threat to the students? No. And the scarcity of mouse bait-student encounters throughout the past 50 years — since the introduction of the first anticoagulants — supports this.

Still, accidents can and have hap pened with mouse baits inside schools, causing much concern and unnecessary alarm among parents and school staff. Moreover, mice are notorious for moving (translocating) pellet-style baits and depositing them in a variety of areas away from the placement site. Loose baits can certainly be of concern inside schools and other child-care facilities if casual bait applications are made. But even so, the actual toxicological threat to a student encountering a few mouse bait pellets is nil because it is highly unlikely mouse bait pellets would be eaten. The problem is the perception that a "poisoning event" occurred might be high and the consequences are time consuming for all parties. Therefore, any baiting programs for schools must be designed to ensure students do not encounter baits in any form.

When serious rodent infestations occur and the program is beyond an expensive labor intensive trapping program, it is clearly a case for a pest management professional. He or she can analyze the situation and is trained in the use of tamper-resistant rodenticide baiting strategies and products.

EVERYONE’S RESPONSIBILITY. By their design, IPM programs must involve all parties to be successful. Schools play a direct role in preventing serious mouse infestations from occurring and they must work cooperatively with their pest management professional. Pest management professionals have a responsibility to perform proactive inspections, implement the safest remedial programs and to educate school personnel that mousetraps and/or baits cannot (and should not be expected to) compensate for insufficient cleaning, storage practices or rodent proofing.

*Author’s note: Rodent IPM Programs for Schools is addressed in a chapter in Corrigan’s book, Rodent Pest Management: A Practical Guide for Pest Management Professionals, to be published by GIE Media.