What do you think?
Rate this book
Pests: How Humans Create Animal Villains
An engrossing and revealing study of why we deem certain animals "pests" and others not--from cats to rats, elephants to pigeons--and what this tells us about our own perceptions, beliefs, and actions, as well as our place in the natural world
A squirrel in the garden. A rat in the wall. A pigeon on the street. Humans have spent so much of our history drawing a hard line between human spaces and wild places. When animals pop up where we don't expect or want them, we respond with fear, rage, or simple annoyance. It's no longer an animal. It's a pest.
At the intersection of science, history, and narrative journalism, Pests is not a simple call to look closer at our urban ecosystem. It's not a natural history of the animals we hate. Instead, this book is about us. It's about what calling an animal a pest says about people, how we live, and what we want. It's a story about human nature, and how we categorize the animals in our midst, including bears and coyotes, sparrows and snakes. Pet or pest? In many cases, it's entirely a question of perspective.
Bethany Brookshire's deeply researched and entirely entertaining book will show readers what there is to venerate in vermin, and help them appreciate how these animals have clawed their way to success as we did everything we could to ensure their failure. In the process, we will learn how the pests that annoy us tell us far more about humanity than they do about the animals themselves.
A squirrel in the garden. A rat in the wall. A pigeon on the street. Humans have spent so much of our history drawing a hard line between human spaces and wild places. When animals pop up where we don't expect or want them, we respond with fear, rage, or simple annoyance. It's no longer an animal. It's a pest.
At the intersection of science, history, and narrative journalism, Pests is not a simple call to look closer at our urban ecosystem. It's not a natural history of the animals we hate. Instead, this book is about us. It's about what calling an animal a pest says about people, how we live, and what we want. It's a story about human nature, and how we categorize the animals in our midst, including bears and coyotes, sparrows and snakes. Pet or pest? In many cases, it's entirely a question of perspective.
Bethany Brookshire's deeply researched and entirely entertaining book will show readers what there is to venerate in vermin, and help them appreciate how these animals have clawed their way to success as we did everything we could to ensure their failure. In the process, we will learn how the pests that annoy us tell us far more about humanity than they do about the animals themselves.
11 pages, Audiobook
First published December 6, 2022
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 452 reviews
October 9, 2022
Returning to this review to dock a star. The more I've learned about some of the species featured, the more I've realized how much more this book is biased against other animals than I initially realized. Highly recommend Brandon Keim's Meet the Neighbors as a companion (or replacement.)
Original: Pests: How Humans Create Animal Villains is a book that I rate right in the middle, not because it was a mediocre book across the board, but because I am averaging out the very polarized reactions that I had to it. I found myself both entertained and infuriated by the way this book was written and how these topics were handled by Brookshire. I knew going in that any book about animals mislabeled as "pests" was going to have a lot of animal suffering and death in it. I also knew from the description that this book was going to focus heavily on human thoughts and feelings about these topics. I could have handled a balanced amount of either of those. The biggest issue is that this writer became an accidental subject in her own piece, not because she shared personal anecdotes, but because her own bias taints much of the book. There are some redeeming statements at the end that help, but the fact that they were not appropriately woven throughout the text means that the writer is hit far more with the authors' (and far too many of her friends and family members') biases against (and occasionally for) other animals.
Let's start with the good- the 5 star stuff. This book had a ton of potential for several reasons. It is written in an accessible journalistic style. It is both readable for a variety of educational backgrounds and entertaining as well. It is also very well researched from what I can tell. Since this is an uncorrected proof, I do have a list of sources at the end but not footnote numbers in the text to match them to. I did not take the time to go through and fact check all of the sources, but from what I can tell, they were used responsibly. Strangely enough, I hated parts of this book, but put more page flags on the pages than a lot of books I have liked. I learned a lot of information about various animals, how they arrived where they did, how they continued to proliferate, the awful things that were done to them, and occasionally the not awful options (which were woefully not covered enough.) I liked the graphic design of the print copy as well as how the book was organized into different chapters for different animals. The inclusion of indigenous peoples perspectives from a variety of tribes, backgrounds, and locations was commendable. There are flaws in how she suggests that they apply to the bigger picture (for instance, you would cause mass extinction and habitat destruction if everyone started hunting deer, animal flesh from any source is unsustainable as it is currently consumed by settlers and many other populations,) but they are critical in seeing this issue from a more holistic point of view. There should have been more inclusion of their wisdom, but at least they balanced out the parade of anthropocentrism in the rest of the book.
These are the reasons I kept coming back to this book rather than throwing it in the trash. Unfortunately, there were a lot of times that I wanted to throw it in the trash.
The most glaring issue with this book is that it may have been doomed from its inception. There is no effort to understand and explain the point of view and experiences of other "pest" animals and to consider them as important in their own right by the author. The very sparse, often one-sentence, bits from interviews with indigenous people/scholars and occasional creative conservationists and vets does not make up for this flaw in discussing other animals is distant simplistic beings whose descriptions are limited to the conflict they have with humans. There are horrific killing methods mentioned throughout the text and very rarely does she even touch on how agonizing they are for the animals or harmful for the ecosystem. For instance, snakes need less oxygen to stay alive than we do, meaning the casually mentioned decapitation is slow torture. The poisoning of rodents (an often birds who eat them) is a lengthy torture, this gets one sentence. "Harvesting," "culling," and many other euphemisms also often involve terrifying captures and painful deaths. Campaigns that encourage the public to contribute often have lasting effects on other species, celebrating cruelty all around. I will spare you the endless amount of cruelties that were not properly addressed as such in this book.
Brookshire's bias is clear throughout the book in other ways. The message of almost every chapter is humans have to kill all of these animals, sad but true. She predominantly interviews people who believe this. That is, until we get to cats. The author has pet cats. So, despite feral cats being worse for birds and ecosystems than many of the previous animals discussed, they get a more fair shake in the discussion. There is a nuanced discussion of various points of view, including ones that say maybe the cats shouldn't pay the price of humans' constant destruction. Maybe there are other ways. Endangered elephants also get more fair treatment because who doesn't love an endangered species? Elephants also do because in the areas where there is conflict, the residents respect the elephants more overall than westerners and many others do with conflicting species while also dealing with the wests misunderstanding of human-elephant conflicts. Even though she regularly acknowledges that humans are the reason every single time that a species becomes a pest, the chapters usually still have suggestive thread that there is something about the other animal that is the problem. She will discuss how we've attracted wild animals with "our" spaces far more than she discusse how we've taken everything from them and left them the scraps.
It is quite clear in the section about rodents that the author used to previously put them through terror and hell before killing them in labs- had I known this before starting this book, I likely would have spared myself. Snakes? Easy enough animals for the author to give a one sided story on. Though we do get to hear about how the people "love" snakes like she "loves" mice right after we learn that they have contests where the winner gets an award for killing the most. The celebration does not sound like mourning to me. If someone was having a kitten slaughter competition, I don't think the author would have written about them the same way.
Her treatment of people who harm(ed) animals for work- including herself- sometimes made me wonder if she worked PR for animal exploitation industries or if the cognitive dissonance was just so strong that she could not see past it. She has the audacity to say that mice- a species that has been tortured and slaughtered by the billions in labs with no animal welfare act protections- are "winning" by being bred, harmed in an unfathomable variety of ways, and killed there because they get to "pass on their genes" through no consent of their own after being purpose bred and sold. All of this is said after she admits that mice were chosen for such cruelty in part because of their pest status and the struggles vivisectors were having defending the use of dogs. She also talks about how ranchers losing animals to wolves and other predators grieve such an emotional loss of the animals they "care for," completely ignoring the fact that they are grieving the loss of being able to send these animals to a slaughterhouse that will make a wolf pack look like a sanctuary. These are but a few examples. It is one thing to say one used to harm animals, that ranchers kill and sell meat, that hunters grow up in a certain culture. It is another to claim victims of these industries are some how lucky, cared for, loved, or considered someone higher than property.
The author also interviews a lot of her friends and family who are generally as anthropocentric as she is. We learn of someone who used to think deer were "cute" ...until her dogs attacked them (multiple times!) and the deer had the audacity to defend themselves and their babies. We learn about how hunting is a beautiful experience of being one with nature. I can tell you as a birder, nothing is stopping you from getting up early and sitting silently in the woods and waiting for an animal to show up. You don't need to shoot or stab anyone to do it or you can "capture" and "shoot" pictures instead. We learn of her friend who uses a sword against a raccoon. The author even opens the book with a story about "fucking Kevin"- a name she's given all the squirrels in her neighborhood because they might have disturbed her pitiful tomato, who she considers shooting with a bb gun. It is done partly in jest, but also with clear disdain. It is not the best way to show someone you're going to give "pests" fair treatment. It's not that I completely oppose these stories- they show humans' self-centered, ignorant, and irrational ways of thinking about other animals. The issue is that, when she draws from her own circle so much, she doesn't draw from others' enough. I remember every time there was someone in a chapter who challenged the maligning and slaughtering of various animals- who reacted to them as if the whole world didn't exist for humans- because there were so few of those people in this book.
At the end of each chapter, there are usually a couple of sentences, often good ones, about the reality of the situation. But, up against an entire chapter of unchallenged and contrary information, they don't pack the same punch. The author's conclusion is the fairest and most enlightened part of the book (still needing work, but it's a drop of water in the desert.) I found myself asking, "Why didn't you say any of this in the other chapters? Why did you give ethicists and people who care about other animals' right to exist- including "pests"- so little space until now? Judging by the way it is written, the author learned a lot through the process of writing this book, but never went back to check if the other chapters identified that process. She eventually comes to many of the right answers. If anyone is a pest, it's us. We are creative people who can come up with creative conflict management solutions. We should share the planet rather than dominating it. A lot of issues are rooted in colonialism. Etc. Had she written more about these points than a few pages at the end, perhaps I would have enjoyed this book more and found it more balanced. I can't say I recommend this book, but if you do read it, take what you can from it and then read another 20 or so books about other animals to fill the gaps- preferably ones that aren't all about how humans turn them into monsters.
This was also posted to my blog.
Original: Pests: How Humans Create Animal Villains is a book that I rate right in the middle, not because it was a mediocre book across the board, but because I am averaging out the very polarized reactions that I had to it. I found myself both entertained and infuriated by the way this book was written and how these topics were handled by Brookshire. I knew going in that any book about animals mislabeled as "pests" was going to have a lot of animal suffering and death in it. I also knew from the description that this book was going to focus heavily on human thoughts and feelings about these topics. I could have handled a balanced amount of either of those. The biggest issue is that this writer became an accidental subject in her own piece, not because she shared personal anecdotes, but because her own bias taints much of the book. There are some redeeming statements at the end that help, but the fact that they were not appropriately woven throughout the text means that the writer is hit far more with the authors' (and far too many of her friends and family members') biases against (and occasionally for) other animals.
Let's start with the good- the 5 star stuff. This book had a ton of potential for several reasons. It is written in an accessible journalistic style. It is both readable for a variety of educational backgrounds and entertaining as well. It is also very well researched from what I can tell. Since this is an uncorrected proof, I do have a list of sources at the end but not footnote numbers in the text to match them to. I did not take the time to go through and fact check all of the sources, but from what I can tell, they were used responsibly. Strangely enough, I hated parts of this book, but put more page flags on the pages than a lot of books I have liked. I learned a lot of information about various animals, how they arrived where they did, how they continued to proliferate, the awful things that were done to them, and occasionally the not awful options (which were woefully not covered enough.) I liked the graphic design of the print copy as well as how the book was organized into different chapters for different animals. The inclusion of indigenous peoples perspectives from a variety of tribes, backgrounds, and locations was commendable. There are flaws in how she suggests that they apply to the bigger picture (for instance, you would cause mass extinction and habitat destruction if everyone started hunting deer, animal flesh from any source is unsustainable as it is currently consumed by settlers and many other populations,) but they are critical in seeing this issue from a more holistic point of view. There should have been more inclusion of their wisdom, but at least they balanced out the parade of anthropocentrism in the rest of the book.
These are the reasons I kept coming back to this book rather than throwing it in the trash. Unfortunately, there were a lot of times that I wanted to throw it in the trash.
The most glaring issue with this book is that it may have been doomed from its inception. There is no effort to understand and explain the point of view and experiences of other "pest" animals and to consider them as important in their own right by the author. The very sparse, often one-sentence, bits from interviews with indigenous people/scholars and occasional creative conservationists and vets does not make up for this flaw in discussing other animals is distant simplistic beings whose descriptions are limited to the conflict they have with humans. There are horrific killing methods mentioned throughout the text and very rarely does she even touch on how agonizing they are for the animals or harmful for the ecosystem. For instance, snakes need less oxygen to stay alive than we do, meaning the casually mentioned decapitation is slow torture. The poisoning of rodents (an often birds who eat them) is a lengthy torture, this gets one sentence. "Harvesting," "culling," and many other euphemisms also often involve terrifying captures and painful deaths. Campaigns that encourage the public to contribute often have lasting effects on other species, celebrating cruelty all around. I will spare you the endless amount of cruelties that were not properly addressed as such in this book.
Brookshire's bias is clear throughout the book in other ways. The message of almost every chapter is humans have to kill all of these animals, sad but true. She predominantly interviews people who believe this. That is, until we get to cats. The author has pet cats. So, despite feral cats being worse for birds and ecosystems than many of the previous animals discussed, they get a more fair shake in the discussion. There is a nuanced discussion of various points of view, including ones that say maybe the cats shouldn't pay the price of humans' constant destruction. Maybe there are other ways. Endangered elephants also get more fair treatment because who doesn't love an endangered species? Elephants also do because in the areas where there is conflict, the residents respect the elephants more overall than westerners and many others do with conflicting species while also dealing with the wests misunderstanding of human-elephant conflicts. Even though she regularly acknowledges that humans are the reason every single time that a species becomes a pest, the chapters usually still have suggestive thread that there is something about the other animal that is the problem. She will discuss how we've attracted wild animals with "our" spaces far more than she discusse how we've taken everything from them and left them the scraps.
It is quite clear in the section about rodents that the author used to previously put them through terror and hell before killing them in labs- had I known this before starting this book, I likely would have spared myself. Snakes? Easy enough animals for the author to give a one sided story on. Though we do get to hear about how the people "love" snakes like she "loves" mice right after we learn that they have contests where the winner gets an award for killing the most. The celebration does not sound like mourning to me. If someone was having a kitten slaughter competition, I don't think the author would have written about them the same way.
Her treatment of people who harm(ed) animals for work- including herself- sometimes made me wonder if she worked PR for animal exploitation industries or if the cognitive dissonance was just so strong that she could not see past it. She has the audacity to say that mice- a species that has been tortured and slaughtered by the billions in labs with no animal welfare act protections- are "winning" by being bred, harmed in an unfathomable variety of ways, and killed there because they get to "pass on their genes" through no consent of their own after being purpose bred and sold. All of this is said after she admits that mice were chosen for such cruelty in part because of their pest status and the struggles vivisectors were having defending the use of dogs. She also talks about how ranchers losing animals to wolves and other predators grieve such an emotional loss of the animals they "care for," completely ignoring the fact that they are grieving the loss of being able to send these animals to a slaughterhouse that will make a wolf pack look like a sanctuary. These are but a few examples. It is one thing to say one used to harm animals, that ranchers kill and sell meat, that hunters grow up in a certain culture. It is another to claim victims of these industries are some how lucky, cared for, loved, or considered someone higher than property.
The author also interviews a lot of her friends and family who are generally as anthropocentric as she is. We learn of someone who used to think deer were "cute" ...until her dogs attacked them (multiple times!) and the deer had the audacity to defend themselves and their babies. We learn about how hunting is a beautiful experience of being one with nature. I can tell you as a birder, nothing is stopping you from getting up early and sitting silently in the woods and waiting for an animal to show up. You don't need to shoot or stab anyone to do it or you can "capture" and "shoot" pictures instead. We learn of her friend who uses a sword against a raccoon. The author even opens the book with a story about "fucking Kevin"- a name she's given all the squirrels in her neighborhood because they might have disturbed her pitiful tomato, who she considers shooting with a bb gun. It is done partly in jest, but also with clear disdain. It is not the best way to show someone you're going to give "pests" fair treatment. It's not that I completely oppose these stories- they show humans' self-centered, ignorant, and irrational ways of thinking about other animals. The issue is that, when she draws from her own circle so much, she doesn't draw from others' enough. I remember every time there was someone in a chapter who challenged the maligning and slaughtering of various animals- who reacted to them as if the whole world didn't exist for humans- because there were so few of those people in this book.
At the end of each chapter, there are usually a couple of sentences, often good ones, about the reality of the situation. But, up against an entire chapter of unchallenged and contrary information, they don't pack the same punch. The author's conclusion is the fairest and most enlightened part of the book (still needing work, but it's a drop of water in the desert.) I found myself asking, "Why didn't you say any of this in the other chapters? Why did you give ethicists and people who care about other animals' right to exist- including "pests"- so little space until now? Judging by the way it is written, the author learned a lot through the process of writing this book, but never went back to check if the other chapters identified that process. She eventually comes to many of the right answers. If anyone is a pest, it's us. We are creative people who can come up with creative conflict management solutions. We should share the planet rather than dominating it. A lot of issues are rooted in colonialism. Etc. Had she written more about these points than a few pages at the end, perhaps I would have enjoyed this book more and found it more balanced. I can't say I recommend this book, but if you do read it, take what you can from it and then read another 20 or so books about other animals to fill the gaps- preferably ones that aren't all about how humans turn them into monsters.
This was also posted to my blog.
1-awaiting-review-but-read
March 7, 2023Q1. When is a pest not a pest? When it's a pet - a bunny, a cat, a pigeon etc or when it's wildlife - an elephant, a wolf or deer for instance.
Q2 When is a pest always a pest. Mosquitos, cockroaches and hornets!
I'm enjoying the book, it's very well written, not just nature and society, but philosophy too. Nothing from the animals point of view though.
Q2 When is a pest always a pest. Mosquitos, cockroaches and hornets!
I'm enjoying the book, it's very well written, not just nature and society, but philosophy too. Nothing from the animals point of view though.
May 22, 2024
This is an eye opening book that I thoroughly enjoyed reading. Pests, or what we as humans perceive as pests, are all around us each day, some of them we have come to accept and some we actively fight because of the harm they can do to us or our belongings or our livelihoods. Being in agriculture, there are many things we see as pests that others will not see that way, and our perceptions of our surroundings and our upbringing create these pests, some of them are real and some of them are inherited. It is up to us as humans to learn how to co-exist with all these pests and to manage not only them, but also ourselves and the impact we have on the planet in our times. These pests are not out to get us, but are only just trying to in the environments we have created, and where some species falter, most of what we see as pests thrive because of us.
Very interesting read and highly recommended.
Very interesting read and highly recommended.
February 22, 2023
"A pest is only a pest because it bothers us, because it causes us harm. Pests aren’t about the animals themselves, they’re about us."
Two days ago I was sitting at my computer when I noticed a tiny insect climbing up the wall.
It had an oval body that looked like a shell with white and black zigzag stripes across its back. My first thought was, OMG is that some new kind of bed bug???
I immediately squished it, feeling only slightly guilty as I did.
I then googled it only to find it was a carpet beetle that had probably just come in with me from outside. Had I not played into my emotions but instead googled first, I would have put this beetle back outdoors where it belonged and sent it happily on its way.
But nope. I squished the living b'jesus out of that thing, sliding it between two pieces of paper and squeezing as hard as I could. For good measure, I then sat that possibly-new-breed-of-bedbug sandwich on the desk and pushed my thumb as hard as I could, willing all my weight and strength into making sure that helpless little thing never took another buggy, blood-sucking breath.
A little while later, a stink bug flew onto my desk. You might think this would elicit another rapid squishing response (RSR), but no. I greeted Little StinkBug and went to the kitchen for a bite of apple to feed it.
Watching it eat, I was reminded of this book, and how with one insect, I said, No way, you are not taking up residence in my house! And the other, I happily shared my space and fruit with.
Why the difference? Why did I sentence one insect to obliteration and ensure the other lives out a happy, well-fed life?
With the exception of bedbugs, mosquitos, and roaches, I like insects and spiders. I feel terrible if I accidentally kill one. Most I put outside but some, like stink bugs, I allow in my home. As long as they don't damage anything or bite us, they are free to hang out with me. I love watching them, they are so interesting. The tiny details of their bodies are intricate and amazing.
I know I'm weird and that many (most?) do not want any insects in their homes. Some species of animals and insects are almost universally hated, while others differ from person to person or place to place.
In this book, science journalist Bethany Brookshire discusses a number of species that are sometimes or usually considered pests and examines why it is we decide some are deserving of death even if in the past we welcomed them into our lives.
She points out how it is really about us when we hate other species and make a distinction between what we consider good or bad, welcome or unwelcome, lovable or loathsome. She also shows how in many cases, humans are responsible for creating the large numbers of these animals that turned them into pests.
It was a lot of fun to read though I had to turn off my emotions every time she discussed eradication methods. (If this was a novel, I'd have DNF'ed it immediately.) I love facts and this book is full of them, and Ms. Brookshire writes in an engaging, light-hearted, and at times witty manner that made it all palatable.
Some things I enjoyed learning:
• The best way to tell if a rat is black or brown is not by its color but "to take your rat’s tail and bring it up and over their back. If the tail stops in the middle of the head, it’s a brown rat. If the tail keeps going out past the nose, it’s a black rat." (I wonder if He Who Named the Rats thought this was a funny joke, forcing people to grab a wild rat to satisfy their curiosity.)
• "A pigeon can poo between nine and twenty-eight pounds of waste per year." (Good tidbit for that next boring cocktail party. You're welcome.)
• "Archaeologists have found ceramic mouse traps that are more than four thousand years old."
• India has almost 300 species of snakes, 60 of which are venomous.
• There is a Hadith that says the Prophet Muhammad once "cut off the sleeve of his robe rather than disturb the cat’s nap." -- How cool is that! If I was religious, that would make me convert to Islam.
For each species Ms. Brookshire examines, she shows both the "good" and the "bad", explaining why some people love (or at least tolerate) them and others hate them. It was interesting to see such obverse feelings and reactions, and to see the lengths people go to rid ourselves of those we deem "bad".
This book might not be for everyone because of the "elimination" methods discussed but if you can look past that, it's an extremely interesting book for lovers (and haters) of wildlife.
(Image: Brown stink bug by Melissa McMasters on Wikimedia Commons)
How can anyone not find that little fellow adorable!?
Two days ago I was sitting at my computer when I noticed a tiny insect climbing up the wall.
It had an oval body that looked like a shell with white and black zigzag stripes across its back. My first thought was, OMG is that some new kind of bed bug???
I immediately squished it, feeling only slightly guilty as I did.
I then googled it only to find it was a carpet beetle that had probably just come in with me from outside. Had I not played into my emotions but instead googled first, I would have put this beetle back outdoors where it belonged and sent it happily on its way.
But nope. I squished the living b'jesus out of that thing, sliding it between two pieces of paper and squeezing as hard as I could. For good measure, I then sat that possibly-new-breed-of-bedbug sandwich on the desk and pushed my thumb as hard as I could, willing all my weight and strength into making sure that helpless little thing never took another buggy, blood-sucking breath.
A little while later, a stink bug flew onto my desk. You might think this would elicit another rapid squishing response (RSR), but no. I greeted Little StinkBug and went to the kitchen for a bite of apple to feed it.
Watching it eat, I was reminded of this book, and how with one insect, I said, No way, you are not taking up residence in my house! And the other, I happily shared my space and fruit with.
Why the difference? Why did I sentence one insect to obliteration and ensure the other lives out a happy, well-fed life?
With the exception of bedbugs, mosquitos, and roaches, I like insects and spiders. I feel terrible if I accidentally kill one. Most I put outside but some, like stink bugs, I allow in my home. As long as they don't damage anything or bite us, they are free to hang out with me. I love watching them, they are so interesting. The tiny details of their bodies are intricate and amazing.
I know I'm weird and that many (most?) do not want any insects in their homes. Some species of animals and insects are almost universally hated, while others differ from person to person or place to place.
In this book, science journalist Bethany Brookshire discusses a number of species that are sometimes or usually considered pests and examines why it is we decide some are deserving of death even if in the past we welcomed them into our lives.
She points out how it is really about us when we hate other species and make a distinction between what we consider good or bad, welcome or unwelcome, lovable or loathsome. She also shows how in many cases, humans are responsible for creating the large numbers of these animals that turned them into pests.
It was a lot of fun to read though I had to turn off my emotions every time she discussed eradication methods. (If this was a novel, I'd have DNF'ed it immediately.) I love facts and this book is full of them, and Ms. Brookshire writes in an engaging, light-hearted, and at times witty manner that made it all palatable.
Some things I enjoyed learning:
• The best way to tell if a rat is black or brown is not by its color but "to take your rat’s tail and bring it up and over their back. If the tail stops in the middle of the head, it’s a brown rat. If the tail keeps going out past the nose, it’s a black rat." (I wonder if He Who Named the Rats thought this was a funny joke, forcing people to grab a wild rat to satisfy their curiosity.)
• "A pigeon can poo between nine and twenty-eight pounds of waste per year." (Good tidbit for that next boring cocktail party. You're welcome.)
• "Archaeologists have found ceramic mouse traps that are more than four thousand years old."
• India has almost 300 species of snakes, 60 of which are venomous.
• There is a Hadith that says the Prophet Muhammad once "cut off the sleeve of his robe rather than disturb the cat’s nap." -- How cool is that! If I was religious, that would make me convert to Islam.
For each species Ms. Brookshire examines, she shows both the "good" and the "bad", explaining why some people love (or at least tolerate) them and others hate them. It was interesting to see such obverse feelings and reactions, and to see the lengths people go to rid ourselves of those we deem "bad".
This book might not be for everyone because of the "elimination" methods discussed but if you can look past that, it's an extremely interesting book for lovers (and haters) of wildlife.
(Image: Brown stink bug by Melissa McMasters on Wikimedia Commons)
How can anyone not find that little fellow adorable!?
December 9, 2022
This a great overview of how we have, as a species, decided we own the outdoors, made a huge ecological mess and then made it a problem for other animals. Mostly on purpose. Because we can't be trusted to use trash cans correctly.
I picked up this book fully expecting what I encountered and knowing I would agree with Brookshire's conclusions. And I do. There's a thorough discussion of colonialism, cultural Christian thought insidiously insinuating itself into scientific endeavours and the everyday lives of people completely unaware of their biases, paternalistic attitudes of Western countries regarding how other cultures treat animals, disastrous attempts at bioremediation, and the absolute mess that individual opinions make of trying to implement any policy regarding population control of animals we find either cute or disgusting.
The one thing that really caught my attention was the idea that even though we're predators by any measure, we sometimes still feel like prey and we tend to panic unnecessarily about things like spiders. I feel more justified in panicking about being chased by a bear, but sometimes we're a little ridiculous. The author's encounter with a male turkey who was "having a lot of feelings" made me giggle.
The point of this book is not so much whether or not you agree with anybody specific, the author included, but to show there are as many points of view as there are people, that we usually fail to grant other animals the freedom of movement and right to a territory we grant ourselves and that we are the ultimate invasive species, directly and indirectly. My own opinion is nuanced, biased, contradictory, controversial, and mired down by my feelings towards animals as a group and specific individual animals. That's just how brains work. The author's feud with Kevin is a wildly relatable situation for a lot of people. I've somehow managed to refrain from grudges with critters who are just trying to survive outside without heat, air conditioning, a fridge and a microwave. The Kevins in my neighbourhood can have my tomatoes and I will not be trying to trick them into eating spicy food because that feels not only mean, but rude. My experience is not universal. Trying to make a living as a farmer makes Kevin more than an annoyance.
When we came up with agriculture we gave ourselves a ridiculous advantage. Don't get me started on firearms. We have cheated the system, and now we resent other animals for not playing by our entirely made-up rules that do not and should not apply to them, and that they're completely unaware of (Jail for Kevin! Jail for Kevin for one thousand years!). We are obsessed with controlling and subjugating nature and have taken it to an extreme. Outside plants don't belong to you regardless of whether you bought them as a seedling from Home Depot or lovingly sprouted them indoors before the last frost. As far as ecological rights go, we are entitled to as much as other animals: our shelter and food stores are ours if we can protect and defend them. If ants get in your kitchen, that's a you problem and you can try to get rid of them, but they're not doing anything wrong. We have an absurd surplus of food that we waste with reckless abandon and I think we tend to forget that and get very angry when other animals learn to rig the game the same way we have. There is an interesting discussion about this sense of entitlement at the beginning of this book.
In conclusion, perhaps Native Americans were right all along in the way they moved through the world and we should be asking them more questions and listening to the answers. May I suggest Braiding Sweetgrass for the umpteenth time?
I picked up this book fully expecting what I encountered and knowing I would agree with Brookshire's conclusions. And I do. There's a thorough discussion of colonialism, cultural Christian thought insidiously insinuating itself into scientific endeavours and the everyday lives of people completely unaware of their biases, paternalistic attitudes of Western countries regarding how other cultures treat animals, disastrous attempts at bioremediation, and the absolute mess that individual opinions make of trying to implement any policy regarding population control of animals we find either cute or disgusting.
The one thing that really caught my attention was the idea that even though we're predators by any measure, we sometimes still feel like prey and we tend to panic unnecessarily about things like spiders. I feel more justified in panicking about being chased by a bear, but sometimes we're a little ridiculous. The author's encounter with a male turkey who was "having a lot of feelings" made me giggle.
The point of this book is not so much whether or not you agree with anybody specific, the author included, but to show there are as many points of view as there are people, that we usually fail to grant other animals the freedom of movement and right to a territory we grant ourselves and that we are the ultimate invasive species, directly and indirectly. My own opinion is nuanced, biased, contradictory, controversial, and mired down by my feelings towards animals as a group and specific individual animals. That's just how brains work. The author's feud with Kevin is a wildly relatable situation for a lot of people. I've somehow managed to refrain from grudges with critters who are just trying to survive outside without heat, air conditioning, a fridge and a microwave. The Kevins in my neighbourhood can have my tomatoes and I will not be trying to trick them into eating spicy food because that feels not only mean, but rude. My experience is not universal. Trying to make a living as a farmer makes Kevin more than an annoyance.
When we came up with agriculture we gave ourselves a ridiculous advantage. Don't get me started on firearms. We have cheated the system, and now we resent other animals for not playing by our entirely made-up rules that do not and should not apply to them, and that they're completely unaware of (Jail for Kevin! Jail for Kevin for one thousand years!). We are obsessed with controlling and subjugating nature and have taken it to an extreme. Outside plants don't belong to you regardless of whether you bought them as a seedling from Home Depot or lovingly sprouted them indoors before the last frost. As far as ecological rights go, we are entitled to as much as other animals: our shelter and food stores are ours if we can protect and defend them. If ants get in your kitchen, that's a you problem and you can try to get rid of them, but they're not doing anything wrong. We have an absurd surplus of food that we waste with reckless abandon and I think we tend to forget that and get very angry when other animals learn to rig the game the same way we have. There is an interesting discussion about this sense of entitlement at the beginning of this book.
In conclusion, perhaps Native Americans were right all along in the way they moved through the world and we should be asking them more questions and listening to the answers. May I suggest Braiding Sweetgrass for the umpteenth time?
December 24, 2023
This book shows how different cultures think about living things in the natural world. It some places certain creatures are revered and loved. In other places they are considered to be a nuisance.
So that deer that you could be feeding that you think is cute, could be feasting on your neighbours garden.
One persons pet is another persons pest.
So that deer that you could be feeding that you think is cute, could be feasting on your neighbours garden.
One persons pet is another persons pest.
March 4, 2024
Bethany Brookshire's Pests... poses an interesting question: What makes a pest, a pest? She explores the biological and cultural associations between humans and rats, snakes, coyotes, sparrows, deer, and more. In each chapter, she attempts to demonstrate how pests aren't really good or bad. Their entire persona is largely dependent upon how the humans they interact with view them. And then she repeats this phrase over and over and over again (using different words) for another 289 pages.
Even if you are ok with the repetitiveness of an argument that never really says anything novel, there are a number of other things to dislike about the book.
--The author's writing is "cutesy," which feels grossly out-of-place in a science book even if it is "popular" science writing.
--The author is inconsistent in the story-telling within a chapter. Some examples, like the Chinese attempts to eradicate the sparrow, feel introduced only so she can spend most of the chapter talking about Australia, and Australia feels introduced only so she can condemn European colonists.
--The author takes excessive liberties when using quotes, and in some cases, drastically doctors the quote in such a way it changes the meaning entirely. See p. xxi for one example, wherein she embeds the words "Western, often white" inside brackets when quoting a researcher talking about something else entirely. It is bad journalism to write like this and it is unethical science to fundamentally alter the meaning of a quote even if you use brackets.
--The author has clearly marketed the book to an ultra-liberal readership on the woke left. She cannot mention Europeans without embedding the word colonist in the paragraph somewhere. In telling a story about coyotes, she feels the need to explicitly note that one of her sources, Steve Pavlik, is "a (non-Indigenous) professor of Native American studies" when providing his credentials. If Pavlik is an expert she trusts to provide evidence for her claim, it shouldn't matter if he's indigenous or not. Why provide that detail?
I could go on but these examples are more than sufficient to demonstrate why I rated the book 1 star.
Even if you are ok with the repetitiveness of an argument that never really says anything novel, there are a number of other things to dislike about the book.
--The author's writing is "cutesy," which feels grossly out-of-place in a science book even if it is "popular" science writing.
--The author is inconsistent in the story-telling within a chapter. Some examples, like the Chinese attempts to eradicate the sparrow, feel introduced only so she can spend most of the chapter talking about Australia, and Australia feels introduced only so she can condemn European colonists.
--The author takes excessive liberties when using quotes, and in some cases, drastically doctors the quote in such a way it changes the meaning entirely. See p. xxi for one example, wherein she embeds the words "Western, often white" inside brackets when quoting a researcher talking about something else entirely. It is bad journalism to write like this and it is unethical science to fundamentally alter the meaning of a quote even if you use brackets.
--The author has clearly marketed the book to an ultra-liberal readership on the woke left. She cannot mention Europeans without embedding the word colonist in the paragraph somewhere. In telling a story about coyotes, she feels the need to explicitly note that one of her sources, Steve Pavlik, is "a (non-Indigenous) professor of Native American studies" when providing his credentials. If Pavlik is an expert she trusts to provide evidence for her claim, it shouldn't matter if he's indigenous or not. Why provide that detail?
I could go on but these examples are more than sufficient to demonstrate why I rated the book 1 star.
August 1, 2023
if anyone is a pest, it's us, not the animals.
February 20, 2023
If you're a fan of nonfiction about nature and wildlife, then this could be for you. Pests: How Humans Create Animal Villains is a text full of different anecdotes, research, stats, and culture. You're not only going to learn about the wildlife of the US, but you'll learn about Australia, New Zealand, and Kenya and about animals there that are labelled "pests".
Firstly, I liked the informal way that the Bethany Brookshire writes. However, I found that this was full of content about her own life, friends, and family which made me question why she didn't allow more impartiality to her work. Regardless, it was interesting to hear what I think she believes is a balanced view of how to approach the problem of "pests".
I don't know that Brookshire's "solution" to the problem is culling (as one review I read states). However, I definitely do believe (as this reviewer did) that Brookshire's view about culling certain animals but not others is biased. But let's be honest, we're all biased, so at least Brookshire didn't try to hide that fact.
I would say that although there's a lot of pro-cull, that Brookshire maintains that human behaviour is truly the source of the problem, which I can appreciate since it's true. As someone who isn't a fan of killing most animals (although I'm still okay to kill a mosquito and a spider—I know, I know! I'm full of contradictions but what person isn't?!), I don't like thinking about killing animals for sport or even to eat, and as someone with low iron levels who loves beef, I struggle with that too. I have friends who are hunters and friends who are vegan, so I try to keep a balanced opinion and an open-mind. So this book was an interesting perspective for me.
If you're pro- or anti-culling, this might be something that you enjoy, but approach this nonfiction text with caution.
Overall, I feel like, although I didn't love Brookshire's tilt, I did really enjoy the learning experience and believe that this is full of important lessons. In fact, I wish she'd spent more time discussing Indigenous approaches to "pest control".
I listened to the audiobook and would recommend it :)
[Audiobook, borrowed from the library]
Firstly, I liked the informal way that the Bethany Brookshire writes. However, I found that this was full of content about her own life, friends, and family which made me question why she didn't allow more impartiality to her work. Regardless, it was interesting to hear what I think she believes is a balanced view of how to approach the problem of "pests".
I don't know that Brookshire's "solution" to the problem is culling (as one review I read states). However, I definitely do believe (as this reviewer did) that Brookshire's view about culling certain animals but not others is biased. But let's be honest, we're all biased, so at least Brookshire didn't try to hide that fact.
I would say that although there's a lot of pro-cull, that Brookshire maintains that human behaviour is truly the source of the problem, which I can appreciate since it's true. As someone who isn't a fan of killing most animals (although I'm still okay to kill a mosquito and a spider—I know, I know! I'm full of contradictions but what person isn't?!), I don't like thinking about killing animals for sport or even to eat, and as someone with low iron levels who loves beef, I struggle with that too. I have friends who are hunters and friends who are vegan, so I try to keep a balanced opinion and an open-mind. So this book was an interesting perspective for me.
If you're pro- or anti-culling, this might be something that you enjoy, but approach this nonfiction text with caution.
Overall, I feel like, although I didn't love Brookshire's tilt, I did really enjoy the learning experience and believe that this is full of important lessons. In fact, I wish she'd spent more time discussing Indigenous approaches to "pest control".
I listened to the audiobook and would recommend it :)
[Audiobook, borrowed from the library]
September 15, 2024
I picked this book up because I wrote my undergrad thesis on a similar subject (although my focus was entirely on rats).
The introduction, which included a rant about "F***ing Kevin," a squirrel (or likely multiple squirrels) that has repeatedly interfered with the author's attempts to garden, had me wondering whether I'd made a mistake. Thankfully, the book did improve.
Initially, it seemed like the text would be organized to cover one animal per chapter. Chapter 1 was rats, chatpter 2 was snakes, chapter 3 was mice (I raised an eyebrow at this, since there would inevitably be overlap with info from the rat chapter). The organization scheme slipped a bit in Chapter 4, which started with pigeons but repeatedly slipped into "rabbits in Australia" territory. This happened a lot, to the point where I wondered whether the author had originally wanted to write a book about invasive species in Australia.
The author's overall argument is that "pest" is a category we put animals into when we don't like them in what we consider to be "our" space, but that the reality is more complex than that. Also, rather than total eradication of animals perceived as pests, we should be focused on coexistence - recognizing that human and animal spaces overlap, and changing human behaviors to reduce the likelihood of human-animal conflict. Supporting evidence included things like 1950s China's attempts to get rid of sparrows in order to protect crops, which in turn resulted in a higher than usual insect population and even more damage to crops.
"But what about those invasive species?" you may be wondering. Things get murkier there. The author acknowledges that invasive species can and do cause problems for native species. However, the author also highlights various ways attempts to deal with invasive species have caused even more problems, as well as the difficulty with completely eradicating invasive species. She includes examples of instances where native ecosystems have been flexible enough to adapt to invasive species, and quotes scientists who argue that the issue is more complex than "invasive vs. native species" - that invasive individuals' existence matters as much as native individuals, and that even total eradication of invasive species wouldn't necessarily save certain threatened native species (due to other factors, such as climate change).
This wasn't a bad book, but it could be a bit repetitive at times, and some of the examples really muddied up the author's overall arguments.
(Original review posted on A Library Girl's Familiar Diversions.)
The introduction, which included a rant about "F***ing Kevin," a squirrel (or likely multiple squirrels) that has repeatedly interfered with the author's attempts to garden, had me wondering whether I'd made a mistake. Thankfully, the book did improve.
Initially, it seemed like the text would be organized to cover one animal per chapter. Chapter 1 was rats, chatpter 2 was snakes, chapter 3 was mice (I raised an eyebrow at this, since there would inevitably be overlap with info from the rat chapter). The organization scheme slipped a bit in Chapter 4, which started with pigeons but repeatedly slipped into "rabbits in Australia" territory. This happened a lot, to the point where I wondered whether the author had originally wanted to write a book about invasive species in Australia.
The author's overall argument is that "pest" is a category we put animals into when we don't like them in what we consider to be "our" space, but that the reality is more complex than that. Also, rather than total eradication of animals perceived as pests, we should be focused on coexistence - recognizing that human and animal spaces overlap, and changing human behaviors to reduce the likelihood of human-animal conflict. Supporting evidence included things like 1950s China's attempts to get rid of sparrows in order to protect crops, which in turn resulted in a higher than usual insect population and even more damage to crops.
"But what about those invasive species?" you may be wondering. Things get murkier there. The author acknowledges that invasive species can and do cause problems for native species. However, the author also highlights various ways attempts to deal with invasive species have caused even more problems, as well as the difficulty with completely eradicating invasive species. She includes examples of instances where native ecosystems have been flexible enough to adapt to invasive species, and quotes scientists who argue that the issue is more complex than "invasive vs. native species" - that invasive individuals' existence matters as much as native individuals, and that even total eradication of invasive species wouldn't necessarily save certain threatened native species (due to other factors, such as climate change).
This wasn't a bad book, but it could be a bit repetitive at times, and some of the examples really muddied up the author's overall arguments.
(Original review posted on A Library Girl's Familiar Diversions.)
March 22, 2023
Four years ago, after a particularly brutal winter and some damage from ice dams, pigeons took up residence in a section of my house’s eavestroughs. It was unpleasant, to say the least. My bed abutted the exterior wall where they were roosting, and my house is small enough that I generally heard their cooing throughout a quiet Sunday indoors. Eventually, at great expense, I had my eavestroughs redone and the pigeons were summarily evicted. Pests, I thought to myself. That opinion hasn’t changed—however, as Bethany Brookshire makes clear in Pests: How Humans Create Animal Villains, it is important for us to understand how our relationship with animals has evolved over the centuries, and how we come to designate certain animals as pests and others as pets, exotic attractions, or whatnot. That includes my avian nemesis.
Brookshire takes us through, one chapter at a time, different animals that are considered pests at some point and in some place in human history. From rats to elephants to our very own house cats, these animals don’t have much in common except for one thing: they live alongside humans, and they frustrate us just by being themselves. Our reactions are varied but usually along the lines of vilifying and then seeking to extirpate the problem. Alas, as Brookshire points out multiple times, it usually isn’t so simple. Most pests are not easily eradicated—we would need to change how we live to achieve that—and even when they are, maybe eradication isn’t the best option. In her interviews with various experts, many of whom often assume contradictory positions, Brookshire explores the nuanced ethics around pest control.
It’s difficult for me to pick a favourite chapter. All of them are, in their own way, fascinating and edifying. The pigeon one stood out to me for my own personal experience with them as a pest. That chapter, in particular, really shows us how quickly society’s perception of an animal can shift: Brookshire explains how, up until the early twentieth century, pigeons were viewed in a very positive light. This historical lesson is valuable because it belies our perception, created by our short lifetimes, that our relationship with animals and nature as it is today is how it has always been.
For similar reasons, I really liked the chapter about elephants. Brookshire takes aim at white conservationists who are essentially reinforcing a colonial attitude when they seek to preserve elephant populations at all costs. If you talk to the villagers who live alongside elephants every day, the situation quickly becomes more complicated. It’s hard for us white Westerners to view elephants as pests because our perception of them is so influenced by their portrayal in media. For me, as a Canadian, the closest I could liken them to would be moose—majestic creatures worth protecting, yet also incredibly dangerous in the wrong circumstances.
I appreciate how much Brookshire, herself a white woman, deferred to Indigenous experts when learning about these creatures and our historical connections to them. Along the same lines, she seems to have gone out of her way to seek out and then faithfully present differing points of view. This was especially notable to me in the chapter on feral cats, where she interviews both proponents and opponents of the trap-neuter-return (TNR) approach to feral cat population control. At times, the back and forth way that she alternates between these people can get a bit confusing (so many names!). However, I respect the work that went into showing us so many sides of these issues instead of being simplistic or reductive. As a result, rather than emerging from that chapter feeling biased in favour of or against TNR, now I understand that it’s a complex issue—one that I would have to do more reading and thinking about before I fully made up my mind. But I certainly see now how different people in different parts of the world come to view the issue of indoor versus outdoor house cats so distinctly and often passionately!
Pests is a story of animals, yet it is also a story about ourselves, humanity. How we have made ourselves a kind of pest in so many biomes, moving in and setting up shop and pushing out indigenous species, then bringing in our own invasive species, only to often turn around and yell at them for being too successful. Humanity is a host of contradictions. Brookshire’s compassionate, thoughtful, and informative look at how we relate to the species with which we coexist is a potent reminder that there are seldom simple answers when it comes to conservation, preservation, and urban development. If we are to be successful in managing the pests in our lives, we must come to terms with the fact that pest-management solutions will be different in different contexts. Sometimes that means population control, or changing how we store our garbage. Sometimes that means accepting that we don’t have complete control over our environment, no matter what we might desire.
Originally posted on Kara.Reviews, where you can easily browse all my reviews and subscribe to my newsletter.
Brookshire takes us through, one chapter at a time, different animals that are considered pests at some point and in some place in human history. From rats to elephants to our very own house cats, these animals don’t have much in common except for one thing: they live alongside humans, and they frustrate us just by being themselves. Our reactions are varied but usually along the lines of vilifying and then seeking to extirpate the problem. Alas, as Brookshire points out multiple times, it usually isn’t so simple. Most pests are not easily eradicated—we would need to change how we live to achieve that—and even when they are, maybe eradication isn’t the best option. In her interviews with various experts, many of whom often assume contradictory positions, Brookshire explores the nuanced ethics around pest control.
It’s difficult for me to pick a favourite chapter. All of them are, in their own way, fascinating and edifying. The pigeon one stood out to me for my own personal experience with them as a pest. That chapter, in particular, really shows us how quickly society’s perception of an animal can shift: Brookshire explains how, up until the early twentieth century, pigeons were viewed in a very positive light. This historical lesson is valuable because it belies our perception, created by our short lifetimes, that our relationship with animals and nature as it is today is how it has always been.
For similar reasons, I really liked the chapter about elephants. Brookshire takes aim at white conservationists who are essentially reinforcing a colonial attitude when they seek to preserve elephant populations at all costs. If you talk to the villagers who live alongside elephants every day, the situation quickly becomes more complicated. It’s hard for us white Westerners to view elephants as pests because our perception of them is so influenced by their portrayal in media. For me, as a Canadian, the closest I could liken them to would be moose—majestic creatures worth protecting, yet also incredibly dangerous in the wrong circumstances.
I appreciate how much Brookshire, herself a white woman, deferred to Indigenous experts when learning about these creatures and our historical connections to them. Along the same lines, she seems to have gone out of her way to seek out and then faithfully present differing points of view. This was especially notable to me in the chapter on feral cats, where she interviews both proponents and opponents of the trap-neuter-return (TNR) approach to feral cat population control. At times, the back and forth way that she alternates between these people can get a bit confusing (so many names!). However, I respect the work that went into showing us so many sides of these issues instead of being simplistic or reductive. As a result, rather than emerging from that chapter feeling biased in favour of or against TNR, now I understand that it’s a complex issue—one that I would have to do more reading and thinking about before I fully made up my mind. But I certainly see now how different people in different parts of the world come to view the issue of indoor versus outdoor house cats so distinctly and often passionately!
Pests is a story of animals, yet it is also a story about ourselves, humanity. How we have made ourselves a kind of pest in so many biomes, moving in and setting up shop and pushing out indigenous species, then bringing in our own invasive species, only to often turn around and yell at them for being too successful. Humanity is a host of contradictions. Brookshire’s compassionate, thoughtful, and informative look at how we relate to the species with which we coexist is a potent reminder that there are seldom simple answers when it comes to conservation, preservation, and urban development. If we are to be successful in managing the pests in our lives, we must come to terms with the fact that pest-management solutions will be different in different contexts. Sometimes that means population control, or changing how we store our garbage. Sometimes that means accepting that we don’t have complete control over our environment, no matter what we might desire.
Originally posted on Kara.Reviews, where you can easily browse all my reviews and subscribe to my newsletter.
December 2, 2022
Thanks to Netgalley and Ecco for the ARC of this!
This was so engaging and interesting, I loved the overall tone and message. I just read Beware the Burmese Python with my daughter, by coincidence, before picking this up and was excited to delve more deeply into the topic. It was all very easy to follow, even without a lot of prior knowledge, and it didn’t stray into too dry.
This was so engaging and interesting, I loved the overall tone and message. I just read Beware the Burmese Python with my daughter, by coincidence, before picking this up and was excited to delve more deeply into the topic. It was all very easy to follow, even without a lot of prior knowledge, and it didn’t stray into too dry.
August 27, 2025
Maybe I'm just too used to reading nonfiction published from university presses and academia in general, but this felt more colloquial and less informative than I usually prefer. I get that there's a market for this kind of less intimidating pop sci nonfiction to bring in readers that normally wouldn't give it a shot, but I guess I just wanted something with a little more meat on the bones.
I appreciate that the introduction lays down the gauntlet that the book will only be dealing with vertebrates, because when I hear the word, "pest," my first thoughts point to any number of bugs: cockroaches, flies, mosquitoes, termites, ants, centipedes, etc. None of those guys show up here, but we get a good variety of animals from the usual suspects (mice, rats), to the "yeah, I guess so" critters (deer, pigeons), and even to the "didn't know that was a problem" animals (elephants in Kenya, pythons in the Everglades). And while there are occasional discussions of ~what makes an animal a pest?~, for the most part this reads as a series of personal anecdotes where the author got a stipend from the publisher to travel the world and speak to experts in a narrow field. Again, nothing wrong with that kind of book, but not what I typically read.
I wish the conclusions (for each chapter but also for the overall book) were a little stronger and landed on something more substantial than, "maybe we can be nicer to the animals around us." This felt afraid to commit one way or the other: instead of arguing either in favor of a maximum conservationist, "all animals are sacred" approach or a, "fuck 'em, let's kill them all" power fantasy we landed somewhere in the middle. And I find myself maybe a little more informed, but not persuaded to change my attitude towards the wildlife around me.
But if you hate nonfiction books but want to read one just to say that you did, this is decently approachable.
I appreciate that the introduction lays down the gauntlet that the book will only be dealing with vertebrates, because when I hear the word, "pest," my first thoughts point to any number of bugs: cockroaches, flies, mosquitoes, termites, ants, centipedes, etc. None of those guys show up here, but we get a good variety of animals from the usual suspects (mice, rats), to the "yeah, I guess so" critters (deer, pigeons), and even to the "didn't know that was a problem" animals (elephants in Kenya, pythons in the Everglades). And while there are occasional discussions of ~what makes an animal a pest?~, for the most part this reads as a series of personal anecdotes where the author got a stipend from the publisher to travel the world and speak to experts in a narrow field. Again, nothing wrong with that kind of book, but not what I typically read.
I wish the conclusions (for each chapter but also for the overall book) were a little stronger and landed on something more substantial than, "maybe we can be nicer to the animals around us." This felt afraid to commit one way or the other: instead of arguing either in favor of a maximum conservationist, "all animals are sacred" approach or a, "fuck 'em, let's kill them all" power fantasy we landed somewhere in the middle. And I find myself maybe a little more informed, but not persuaded to change my attitude towards the wildlife around me.
But if you hate nonfiction books but want to read one just to say that you did, this is decently approachable.
April 25, 2025
3.75/5
This was an entertaining and informative read! I liked how she showed each “pest” through different historical, cultural, and geographical lens— she’s clearly done her research and immersed herself into it. The most eyeopening chapter was about elephants. I’m definitely guilty of viewing them through a western lens of gentle giants but they’re actually menaces. I enjoyed her voice, she was funny. Also I liked how she included the views of Indigenous people, specifically the notion of coexistence with nature and other animals not being rainbows and sunshine all the time but rather an inconvenience sometimes and us having to give up some privileges and be more mindful of our actions. Some things I didn’t like about the book was how it was repetitive at points; I get it, pests are just pests bc of the point of view of humans. Additionally, some chapters got too long and convoluted especially when she included different animals that didnt necessarily connect to the stories of the original chapter’s animals. Regardless, a good non-fiction read.
This passage summarizes the book well:
“The very word "pest" confers a type of "episteric violence," says Francisco Santiago-Avila, a conservationist at Project Coyote and the Rewilding Institute. It gives people the idea an animal is out of place, unworthy— or at least less worthy than the other things in the area you want to save from it. The word helps us take away any tugs that animal might have had on our conscience. A pest isn't part of nature anymore. It isn't wildlife. A pest becomes an evil influence that must be eliminated, and the ends will now almost always justify the means.”
This was an entertaining and informative read! I liked how she showed each “pest” through different historical, cultural, and geographical lens— she’s clearly done her research and immersed herself into it. The most eyeopening chapter was about elephants. I’m definitely guilty of viewing them through a western lens of gentle giants but they’re actually menaces. I enjoyed her voice, she was funny. Also I liked how she included the views of Indigenous people, specifically the notion of coexistence with nature and other animals not being rainbows and sunshine all the time but rather an inconvenience sometimes and us having to give up some privileges and be more mindful of our actions. Some things I didn’t like about the book was how it was repetitive at points; I get it, pests are just pests bc of the point of view of humans. Additionally, some chapters got too long and convoluted especially when she included different animals that didnt necessarily connect to the stories of the original chapter’s animals. Regardless, a good non-fiction read.
This passage summarizes the book well:
“The very word "pest" confers a type of "episteric violence," says Francisco Santiago-Avila, a conservationist at Project Coyote and the Rewilding Institute. It gives people the idea an animal is out of place, unworthy— or at least less worthy than the other things in the area you want to save from it. The word helps us take away any tugs that animal might have had on our conscience. A pest isn't part of nature anymore. It isn't wildlife. A pest becomes an evil influence that must be eliminated, and the ends will now almost always justify the means.”
September 19, 2022
Pests, by Bethany Brookshire, is a fun and informative read that shows just how subjective our judgements can be, in this case in relation to the animals around us.
I think any of us who have had companions (also called pets) that many people think of as pests already have a general idea of this subjectivity. I didn't understand how someone could not like my various friends, be they snakes, mice, or rats. One person loathed my rats while adoring her hamsters. What Brookshire does so well here is illustrate the ways in which we demonize (pestize?) some animals while giving these animals no choice but to develop the habits we hate in order to survive.
I think, for me, one of the big takeaways is that while the idea of a pest is certainly valid, we should keep in mind that on the whole this is not an objective quality of an animal but one that is formed in human minds through the dynamic of our interactions. This might help to create more situations where instead of killing "pests" we move them to some place where they will not be "pests." Instead of killing the snake, take it to an area where it can live, keeping in mind that it needs to be part of their natural habitat so as to not throw off that new ecosystem.
Highly recommended for readers who like to think about that dynamic between humans and the rest of the natural world, as well as animal lovers who have always had a soft spot for "pests."
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
I think any of us who have had companions (also called pets) that many people think of as pests already have a general idea of this subjectivity. I didn't understand how someone could not like my various friends, be they snakes, mice, or rats. One person loathed my rats while adoring her hamsters. What Brookshire does so well here is illustrate the ways in which we demonize (pestize?) some animals while giving these animals no choice but to develop the habits we hate in order to survive.
I think, for me, one of the big takeaways is that while the idea of a pest is certainly valid, we should keep in mind that on the whole this is not an objective quality of an animal but one that is formed in human minds through the dynamic of our interactions. This might help to create more situations where instead of killing "pests" we move them to some place where they will not be "pests." Instead of killing the snake, take it to an area where it can live, keeping in mind that it needs to be part of their natural habitat so as to not throw off that new ecosystem.
Highly recommended for readers who like to think about that dynamic between humans and the rest of the natural world, as well as animal lovers who have always had a soft spot for "pests."
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
April 3, 2023
I really enjoyed this book. I loved how Brookshire called out her own biases in the first chapter before diving into the content. It was refreshing to see interdisciplinary incorporation of scientists, hunters, indigenous communities, and animal rights groups to provide a full narrative and help combat the Eurocentric biases Brookshire was raised on. This was thought-provoking, funny, informative, and made me self reflect on my relationships with animals that I coexist with.
Also as a side note, any author that can make you feel emotional in a chapter about pigeons clearly has a talent for writing.
Also as a side note, any author that can make you feel emotional in a chapter about pigeons clearly has a talent for writing.
May 23, 2026
Really enjoyed this!! Invites a lot of questions about the equation of power, property, belonging, and management. Who's a pest???
Tbf, wasn't THE most scientific read ever, but that is not what I signed up for :p
Tbf, wasn't THE most scientific read ever, but that is not what I signed up for :p
March 9, 2023
This was a banger of a book! I love how Brookshire contextualizes conceptions of pests across the globe and not just through a specific geocultural lens.
October 16, 2022
The concept of a pest is completely artificial and arbitrary. I have been interested in it, and in sources of human-animal conflicts for quite some time, but I think that few people ever think about it. Apparently Bethany Brookshire is one of them - and wrote a great book about it.
It is a fine example of popular science, very informative and deeply researched but at the same time engaging and funny. Showing how irrational our attitudes towards animals are, she examines not only obvious pest cases such as rodents or pigeons, but also elephants, sparrows or even horses. And she brings many stories from outside the US, proving that it is an issue universal for humans all over the world.
If you liked this book and want to dive deeper into the topic of human-animal conflict , I can recommend Monster of God: The Man-Eating Predator in the Jungles of History and the Mind by my favorite author, David Quammen.
Thanks to the publisher, Ecco, and NetGalley for an advanced copy of this book.
It is a fine example of popular science, very informative and deeply researched but at the same time engaging and funny. Showing how irrational our attitudes towards animals are, she examines not only obvious pest cases such as rodents or pigeons, but also elephants, sparrows or even horses. And she brings many stories from outside the US, proving that it is an issue universal for humans all over the world.
If you liked this book and want to dive deeper into the topic of human-animal conflict , I can recommend Monster of God: The Man-Eating Predator in the Jungles of History and the Mind by my favorite author, David Quammen.
Thanks to the publisher, Ecco, and NetGalley for an advanced copy of this book.
October 7, 2022
I enjoyed reading this. It was well written and informative. I found myself interested to know more while reading. Definitely thought provoking.
January 16, 2023
Really cool that sometimes the best thing to do for an ecosystem is leave it alone
September 28, 2026
Sometimes - very rarely - I am so intrigued by a book that I'm willing to pay for a new copy if there's no other way to get my hands on it.
"Pests" was one of those cases, so I did have expectations. I expected this book to make a case for misunderstood animals and I somehow expected a book about misunderstood animals to also be against harming said animals. My bad I guess.
I won't deny there are cases where it's hard or impossible to avoid harming animals completely. However, there are way more where it could be avoided if people wouldn't see them as clearly less than (e.g. eating them when there are alternatives). I don't even want to go into all the examples where my expectation was disappointed in this regard because I don't want to get too upset. But even if suffering is sometimes inevitable, the way you talk about it speaks on how much you care and have empathy or lack thereof, no matter how often you claim to love said animals.
I'd like to share with you the very end of the chapter about mice (note, after writing about how they are misunderstood and intelligent and all that stuff):
Oof. I'm not even talking about the issue behind animal experiments. I'm saying that if you claim to have empathy for animals, making jokes about the unspeakably cruel suffering the most innocent ones that wouldn't hurt a soul are put through, isn't a way of showing it.
I understand how cognitive dissonance is a thing, but it still shocks me (and makes me frustrated an sad) everytime I encounter someone humanizing animals in a way or making a scientific argument for their existence but still being emotionally capable of causing them (unnecessary) harm and seeing no issue there.
Also arguing for just not feeding (i.e. starving them do death) pigeons to decrease the population? No thank you
To finish on a more positive note, here are three things I liked about the book:
- the cover
- indigenous and non-western perspectives
- readers might actually reevaluate their view on certain animals as "pests" - even though the compassion the book tries to convey doesn't go nearly as far as granting animals the rights or dignity they deserve
Well shit, this note didn't end quite positive after all.
To try again: Go and feed a pigeon, it will be thankful :)
"Pests" was one of those cases, so I did have expectations. I expected this book to make a case for misunderstood animals and I somehow expected a book about misunderstood animals to also be against harming said animals. My bad I guess.
I won't deny there are cases where it's hard or impossible to avoid harming animals completely. However, there are way more where it could be avoided if people wouldn't see them as clearly less than (e.g. eating them when there are alternatives). I don't even want to go into all the examples where my expectation was disappointed in this regard because I don't want to get too upset. But even if suffering is sometimes inevitable, the way you talk about it speaks on how much you care and have empathy or lack thereof, no matter how often you claim to love said animals.
I'd like to share with you the very end of the chapter about mice (note, after writing about how they are misunderstood and intelligent and all that stuff):
[...] In both cases, we played an active role. We created an environment where a brave mouse could thrive. We made the new, sterile laboratory niche where mice are now passing along identical genes by the million. Consciously or not, we made the mouse what it is today.
The mice aren't innocent bystanders either. They got those grains. They adapted, and they are still adapting, to live among us better than ever before. We engineered a niche, and they evolved to fill it.
Mice as a pest have succeeded wildly. Now as a laboratory model, in a way, they are still winning. After all, if the goal of an organism is to pass on its genes, millions of mice do it in labs around the world every day.
Oof. I'm not even talking about the issue behind animal experiments. I'm saying that if you claim to have empathy for animals, making jokes about the unspeakably cruel suffering the most innocent ones that wouldn't hurt a soul are put through, isn't a way of showing it.
I understand how cognitive dissonance is a thing, but it still shocks me (and makes me frustrated an sad) everytime I encounter someone humanizing animals in a way or making a scientific argument for their existence but still being emotionally capable of causing them (unnecessary) harm and seeing no issue there.
Also arguing for just not feeding (i.e. starving them do death) pigeons to decrease the population? No thank you
To finish on a more positive note, here are three things I liked about the book:
- the cover
- indigenous and non-western perspectives
- readers might actually reevaluate their view on certain animals as "pests" - even though the compassion the book tries to convey doesn't go nearly as far as granting animals the rights or dignity they deserve
Well shit, this note didn't end quite positive after all.
To try again: Go and feed a pigeon, it will be thankful :)
October 10, 2025
OMG SO GOOD I LOVED THIS BOOK SO MUCH ♡
This book was so phenomenal from start to finish! It was everything I hoped for and more. It was funny, endearing, heartfelt, and memorable. Like most pieces of writing on conservation, or should I say good pieces of writing on conservation, there was attention to not only nature - the animals and the landscapes - but also to how humans shape the environment themselves in ways often not noticed. I learned so much about the idea of pests from this book, and I also learned a lot about myself and the ways I have come to understand nature and pests in human environments. I like to be challenged by books and have my perception of the world put into context with longstanding traditions of thought to help myself better understand why I experience the world the way I do - and this book fulfilled that in such a unique and well-developed way.
Read this if you enjoy...
rats, cats, elephants, nature, conservation, society, biosolutions, bee-keeping, bears, sparrows, understanding complex relationships between culture and perceptions of pests, love, empathy, city sidewalks, pigeons.
This book was so phenomenal from start to finish! It was everything I hoped for and more. It was funny, endearing, heartfelt, and memorable. Like most pieces of writing on conservation, or should I say good pieces of writing on conservation, there was attention to not only nature - the animals and the landscapes - but also to how humans shape the environment themselves in ways often not noticed. I learned so much about the idea of pests from this book, and I also learned a lot about myself and the ways I have come to understand nature and pests in human environments. I like to be challenged by books and have my perception of the world put into context with longstanding traditions of thought to help myself better understand why I experience the world the way I do - and this book fulfilled that in such a unique and well-developed way.
Read this if you enjoy...
rats, cats, elephants, nature, conservation, society, biosolutions, bee-keeping, bears, sparrows, understanding complex relationships between culture and perceptions of pests, love, empathy, city sidewalks, pigeons.
February 18, 2023
all reviews in one place:
night mode reading ;
skaitom nakties rezimu
About the Book: What makes pest – a pest? Why one pest is a pest in one country, but not at all in another? What defines this status, and what should we do at the face or mercy of said pests? How did they get here if they’re not native, and how it affects everything around, other animals, nature, even us? Book beautifully balances research, history, and philosophical debates in attempt to find some kind of moral ground. We might just have to admit some truths to ourselves about ourselves. And possibly about our housecat Fluffy…
My Opinion: It’s a well written book that smoothly goes over a variety of pests from all over the world, how they got there, and how they got the unwanted status of a pest. It was strange to learn what animals can be considered pests, and even stranger to learn ways to discourage them away. Most astonishingly, I learned just how much damage a roaming housecat can cause. I knew it wasn’t great to let the cat just roam, but to this extent? Damn. Plenty of history, and nods to other good literature, including the recently reviewed Fuzz by Mary Roach. Overall a very fine read.
night mode reading ;
skaitom nakties rezimu
About the Book: What makes pest – a pest? Why one pest is a pest in one country, but not at all in another? What defines this status, and what should we do at the face or mercy of said pests? How did they get here if they’re not native, and how it affects everything around, other animals, nature, even us? Book beautifully balances research, history, and philosophical debates in attempt to find some kind of moral ground. We might just have to admit some truths to ourselves about ourselves. And possibly about our housecat Fluffy…
My Opinion: It’s a well written book that smoothly goes over a variety of pests from all over the world, how they got there, and how they got the unwanted status of a pest. It was strange to learn what animals can be considered pests, and even stranger to learn ways to discourage them away. Most astonishingly, I learned just how much damage a roaming housecat can cause. I knew it wasn’t great to let the cat just roam, but to this extent? Damn. Plenty of history, and nods to other good literature, including the recently reviewed Fuzz by Mary Roach. Overall a very fine read.
May 1, 2025
I appreciate what the author has done in this book, and can only imagine what a struggle working with so much information was. The book is well structured, each chapter focusing on a particular way how humans create animal villains. More often than not it describes more than one species that have ended up "pests" in a similar way. Different attitudes and solutions are equally represented, and the author presents the involved persons' views empathetically and without taking sides. Some reviewers have pointed out that the author doesn't write enough about suffering of some species, but I was not bothered by that, as the book to me seemed to have a bit more anthropocentric approach - what do we, humans, believe about other animals, and what are the consequences of those beliefs. The author is writing like a journalist for most of the book, and shares her personal views in the last chapter. I think the book has a very decent balance between reporting and structuring information, and sharing one's own values, and it is done in an honest and transparent way.
July 9, 2025
Honestly thrilling. I actually learned so much and was so fascinated the whole time. It was the best kind of informational, where it's interspersed with little stories and bits of humor so it doesn't feel like you're listening to a textbook but still absorbing a lot of really interesting info. I loved how the chapters were divided up, it was like listening to a little podcast each time and made the whole thing really easy to digest. My favorite was the pigeon chapter, I will always ride for pigeons!!! One of the best nonfiction books I've read! The rats ARE gonna like this announcement 🐀
September 14, 2023
I really loved this book. Very interesting and thought provoking. I think the author does a great job or wrestling with these difficult issues and presenting each sides with respect. There were a few minor mistakes (venomous vs poisonous in a chapter all about snakes) and the audiobook had some truly baffling pronunciations (I have never heard chytrid fungus pronounced that way and I work in a lab where everyone else studies chytrid), but the overall it is still one of the best books about human animal interactions I have read.
February 10, 2023
Loved these deep dives into various animals and what makes us label them a pest... and what our role has been in making them a pest.
November 30, 2025
3.5 rounded up to 4.
The book does a great job of thinking about what makes a pest! The book focuses on how a mixture of animal behaviors, human impacts, environmental changes and chance events make something a pest and how humans react to these 'pests'. Well researched and well written.
The book does a great job of thinking about what makes a pest! The book focuses on how a mixture of animal behaviors, human impacts, environmental changes and chance events make something a pest and how humans react to these 'pests'. Well researched and well written.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 452 reviews