Abstract:
A reporting system collects, communicates and analyzes information from a plurality of pest monitoring locations. The monitored locations include activity sensing pest devices. These devices can include traps and/or passive and active monitoring devices not having a trapping or killing functionality. The system includes automatic reporting from the plurality of activity sensing pest devices and also includes physical inspection data. Preferably an automatic real-time communication system is used, with the preferred communication system being a radio-frequency (RF) or other over-the-air system. However, hardwired systems, use of a personal digital assistant (PDA) as an interim data carrier, and other technologies may also be employed. Manual input devices for providing the additional physical inspection data on the activity sensing pest device parameters and a computer based report generator (of the resulting combined data) provide for a robust and efficient pest monitoring and/or trapping tool.

Description:
This application claims priority from provisional application Ser. No. 60/368,647, filed Mar. 29, 2002, and which is incorporated herein by reference. 
    
    
     FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
     This invention relates generally to a method and apparatus for providing reporting on a plurality of activity sensing pest devices; more particularly to a system for providing automatic reporting from a plurality of activity sensing pest devices together with physical inspection data; and still more particularly to an automatic real-time reporting system for a plurality of traps with manual input means for providing additional data on trap parameters based on physical inspection and a report generation means on the resulting combined data. 
     BACKGROUND 
     Rodents, flies, cockroaches, and other nuisance insects and animals (hereafter referred to collectively as “pests”) create health concerns and introduce spoilage, among other concerns. Many businesses deploy a variety of traps and/or monitors throughout the business&#39; physical premises and facilities to insure a reduction and/or elimination of such pests. These actions can be undertaken to insure inspection compliance, to maintain sanitary conditions, reduce spoilage, comply with applicable laws and regulations, and/or increase consumer confidence. Even upon complete elimination of pests from a physical site, however, the pests can often find their way back into the premises. For example, open doors, windows or loading docks, cracks in foundations, delivery of contaminated materials or packaging, etc., may all provide an avenue for access back into the premises. Therefore, even if the pests are reduced or eliminated, pest traps are continuously used in order to detect the presence of pest activity. 
     Since many physical plants are large, often a great many traps are required to adequately cover the premises. As the number of traps increases, so too does the time and labor required to physically inspect the traps. Presently, physical inspections of each and every trap at a facility are performed at desired time intervals (e.g., weekly or monthly). These inspections insure that captured pests are removed from the trap, that the trap is in working order and that the trap is still in the proper location. It will be appreciated, however, that while each trap is inspected, such inspection is not oftentimes needed for each trap. For example, in many cases a large number of traps did not catch any pests in the given time interval, the traps are still in working order and the traps are properly placed. 
     In the prior art, systems have been developed (such as U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,517,557; 4,884,064; and 5,949,636) which are focused principally on notification of trap activity. These same devices suffer from drawbacks in that they do not provide additional information regarding the time of activity, the condition of the trap and the ability to track other parameters which may help reduce the pests on a more constant basis on the premises. 
     For example these prior art systems do not have the ability to reconcile different modes of trap activity, such as human or environmental interference with actual pest activity. A pest control system can preferably differentiate pest and non-pest activity in order to use information to identify and address the source of pest activity. An additional drawback of systems in the prior art is the lack of ability to track the action(s) taken once trap activity occurred. Such actions may include the trap being inspected and emptied, if required, as well as the time between trapping a pest and removing it from the facility. 
     Pest information systems utilizing barcode scanning and manual data input are also known in the art. These systems (such as the barcoding system sold under the designation Estat by the assignee of the present invention, Ecolab Corporation, as part of its Ecopro system) do not quantitatively track pest activity as a function of desired time intervals (e.g., such as daily, hourly, etc.). Additionally, the prior art barcode scanning systems do not provide data or otherwise indicate potential trap activity prior to actually visiting the trap. 
     A combination of activity sensing pest devices equipped with feedback mechanisms would significantly improve the ability to deliver pest control at a facility. For example by having a more comprehensive understanding of the conditions which existed when the pest was captured, such conditions may be altered so that the opportunities to capture additional pests and/or reduce the re-introduction of pests into the facility are maximized. By taking such proactive steps, the costs and labor associated with monitoring the traps may be ultimately reduced. 
     Therefore, there arises a need for a pest monitoring and reporting apparatus and method which provides timely reporting on pest conditions and for the introduction of additional data from a physical inspection of the pest monitoring location. The pest monitoring location can be a passive or active monitoring location, can include trapping, and/or can include a combination of monitoring and trapping. Further, such system would also help reduce unnecessary visits to a number or percentage of the locations and traps that do not require physical inspection at that time. The present invention directly addresses and overcomes the shortcomings of the prior art. 
     SUMMARY 
     The present invention provides for a method, apparatus and reporting system for collecting, communicating and analyzing information from a plurality of pest monitoring locations. The monitored locations include activity sensing pest devices. These devices can include traps and/or passive and active monitoring devices not having a trapping or killing functionality. While traps may constitute the majority of activity sensing pest devices in a given pest control program, devices which only monitor pest activity may be preferred in some locations and applications. Accordingly, both types of devices may be utilized in the various environments in which the present invention may be employed. Further, unless the context provides otherwise, both traps and passive or active pest monitoring devices are included within both the scope of the term “activity sensing pest devices” and within the scope of the invention. 
     The system provides automatic reporting from a plurality of activity sensing pest devices and further includes physical inspection data. The resulting reports, due to the additional information, provide a finer granularity report than was possible in the prior art. Further, in the preferred embodiment, an automatic real-time communication system is used in connection with a plurality of activity sensing pest devices. The communication system is preferably radio-frequency (RF) or other over-the-air system. However, hardwired systems, use of a personal digital assistant (PDA) as an interim data carrier, and other technologies may also be employed. Manual input means for providing the additional physical inspection data on the activity sensing pest device parameters and a computer based report generation means (of the resulting combined data) provide for a robust and efficient pest monitoring and/or trapping tool. 
     In one preferred embodiment of the present invention, a device constructed in accordance with the principles of the present invention includes a plurality of pest presence sensors located within, adjacent or proximate to a plurality of pest traps. As noted above, the sensors may also be used without a trapping or killing functionality directly associated therewith. Therefore, the individual sensors detect the presence of a pest, detect the presence of a pest in a respective trap and/or detect that the trap has operated in a manner indicating the presence of a pest within the trap (e.g., that the trap was activated). When the sensor detects this condition, a pest signal is generated and a communication device acts to relay the event data and a trap identifier code to a computer. The sensor may also provide a time stamp for the event data. Alternatively, the computer can generate a time stamp based on the time that the signal is received. Since many traps are multiple catch traps, the present invention provides for recording and tracking multiple events from a single trap. Similarly, pest monitoring devices that do not include a trap often can provide information on multiple pest events. The transmitted data is collected in a database program running on the computer, and an initial report is generated. 
     During or subsequent to generating the initial report, a physical inspection of those traps generating one or more events occurs. The physical inspection includes resetting traps, identifying false positive trap conditions, correcting trap location placement, and identifying other trap parameter data. Such data is preferably input at the trap itself via a manual data entry device. It will be appreciated, however, that such physical inspection data may also be temporarily stored in a portable computer (for example a personal digital assistant (PDA)) and subsequently downloaded into the computer database. A physical inspection can also be made of an area in which a monitoring device is located only for pest detection and not trapping. Inspection of such areas are preferably made if such monitor has generated one or more pest detection signals. 
     The resulting final report includes pest monitoring data, trap event data and the physical inspection data. This final report is beneficial to the pest control vendor and/or physical location manager since the combination of location, time stamp and physical inspection data can lead to determination of pest infiltration avenues. Furthermore, by generating an initial report, the physical inspection may be modified to visit only those traps or locations generating an event. Alternatively, a predetermined number and/or percentage of the other traps at the facility may also be visited on a periodic basis to insure that the traps are operable, properly placed, etc. Because fewer traps need to be visited on each physical inspection tour, less time is spent at the facility by the inspectors. This improves efficiency and cost effectiveness of the pest control program, while also improving the reporting function and the proactive nature of the pest control program. 
     Therefore, according to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a pest monitor reporting system, comprising: a pest report database; a plurality of sensors, the sensors associated with respective activity sensing pest devices, the sensors being arranged and configured to determine if a pest is in the area monitored by the sensor and to generate a pest signal; a communication device, operatively connected to the sensors, for receiving the pest signal and for communicating to the pest report database that a pest signal occurred and the specific activity sensing pest device at which the pest signal occurred, wherein the pest report database is updated. 
     According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a pest monitor reporting system as described in the preceding paragraph wherein the pest activity sensing devices include a pest trap and/or include a pest monitor that does not include a trapping function. 
     According to a further aspect of the invention, there is provided a pest reporting method for a plurality of activity sensing pest devices (e.g., pest traps and/or monitors), comprising: monitoring a plurality of pest presence signaling devices associated with a similar number of pest traps and monitors; recording the occurrence of pest presence signals and associating the pest presence signal with individual traps and monitors; physically inspecting the pest traps and monitors which generate a pest presence signal; determining whether the pest presence signal is due to a pest or some other event; and recording additional data based on the physical inspection. 
     Another aspect of the invention includes the method as set forth in the preceding paragraph and further including one or more of the following additional steps: electronically recording additional data regarding trap condition; physically inspecting a number of the plurality of traps which did not generate a pest presence signal; generating a first report on the traps which generate a pest presence signal; and generating a second report which includes the pest presence signal data and the additional data. 
     While the invention will be described with respect to preferred embodiment configurations and with respect to particular devices used therein, it will be understood that the invention is not to be construed as limited in any manner by either such configuration or components described herein. Also, while the particular types of pests and traps are described herein, it will be understood that such particular pests and traps are not to be construed in a limiting manner. Instead, the principles of this invention extend to any environment in which pest detection is desired. Further, while the preferred embodiments of the invention will be generally described in relation to transmitting and receiving RF information from the traps, it will be understood that the scope of the invention is not to be so limited. These and other variations of the invention will become apparent to those skilled in the art upon a more detailed description of the invention. 
     The advantages and features which characterize the invention are pointed out with particularity in the claims annexed hereto and forming a part hereof. For a better understanding of the invention, however, reference should be had to the drawings which form a part hereof and to the accompanying descriptive matter, in which there is illustrated and described a preferred embodiment of the invention. 
    
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
       Referring to the drawings, wherein like numerals represent like parts throughout the several views: 
         FIG. 1  is a functional block diagram of an automatic pest control report generation with additional trap parameter data system. 
         FIG. 2  is a schematic diagram of the report generation process of the system of  FIG. 1 . 
         FIG. 3  is a representative trap location map illustrating the plurality of pest traps, with the traps including trap identifier codes. 
         FIGS. 4   a - 4   d  are representative reports of the database program for the traps illustrated in  FIG. 3 . 
         FIG. 5   a  schematically illustrates a functional block diagram of a fly counter with an optional trapping function constructed in accordance with the principles of the present invention. 
         FIG. 5   b  schematically illustrates a functional diagram of an exposed elevated side view of the fly trap of  FIG. 5   a.    
         FIG. 5   c  schematically illustrates a functional diagram of an exposed elevated end view of the fly trap of  FIG. 5   a.    
         FIG. 6  schematically illustrates a functional block diagram of a destructive electrocution insect light trap constructed in accordance with the principles of the present invention. 
         FIG. 7   a  illustrates a perspective view with portions broken away of a wind-up type rodent trap constructed in accordance with the principles of the present invention. 
         FIG. 7   b  illustrates a second perspective view with portions broken away of a wind-up type rodent trap of  FIG. 7   a.    
         FIG. 8   a  illustrates a perspective view of an insect monitor having an electrode grid (and the cover partially removed) constructed in accordance with the principles of the present invention. 
         FIG. 8   b  illustrates a perspective view of the monitor of  FIG. 8   a  with the cover of the insect monitor in place. 
         FIG. 8   c  schematically illustrates a functional block diagram of the insect monitor of  FIG. 8   a  constructed in accordance with the principles of the present invention. 
         FIG. 9   a  illustrates a rear view of a Tin-Cat style rodent trap constructed in accordance with the principles of the present invention. 
         FIG. 9   b  illustrates the Tin-Cat style rodent trap of  FIG. 9   a  with the cover hinged open to reveal the interior of the trap. 
     
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
     A system constructed in accordance with the principles of the present invention may be employed in a variety of environments and with a variety of components. The system may include a variety of styles of activity sensing pest devices within a single facility (e.g., for trapping or sensing any type of animal, rodent, fly or insect) and utilizing a single reporting database; include individual styles of activity sensing pest devices in different reporting databases for the same facility; and/or include a single type of activity sensing pest devices in one or more reporting databases. In each case, the principles apply to an automatic, real-time reporting system for a plurality of activity sensing pest devices (e.g., traps and/or pest presence monitors), with manual input means for providing additional data on both the pest trap and pest monitor parameters based on physical inspection. A reporting database collects the data and provides reports on the resulting combined data. The system reports have greater utility, improve time, costs and efficiencies associated with inspection of the traps, and improves pest control. 
     A discussion of the various preferred trap and monitor embodiments which may be used in connection with the present invention will be deferred pending a discussion of the functional elements making up the present invention. 
     First referring to  FIG. 1 , a functional block diagram of the automatic pest report generation system and additional pest trap and pest monitor parameter data is provided. The system is shown generally by the designation  10 . A plurality of activity sensing pest devices are shown at the designation  11 . Any number of “n” activity sensing pest devices  11  may be utilized in connection with the present invention. In the case of traps, each of the n traps  11  include a pest enclosing, retaining or killing device (best seen in  FIGS. 6 ,  7   a - 7   b , and  9   a - 9   b  and discussed further below). As discussed above, one or more of the activity sensing pest devices  11  can also take the form of a passive or active pest monitor—which monitor may or may not include a trapping device (best seen in  FIGS. 5   a - 5   c  and  FIGS. 8   a - 8   c ). A pest sensor  12 , a physical inspection data entry device  13 , and a communication block  14  are also provided. 
     Pest sensor  12  may take a number of forms, but in each form generally monitors pest activity in and/or about the trap  11 . Examples of the pest sensor  12  include a switch or mercury switch (for monitoring movement of the trap), a capacitance device (for monitoring a pest altering the capacitance of a grid), a current monitoring device (for detecting current spikes in a destructive or electrocution style trap), or light extinction of a light source (for monitoring an interrupted beam or laser). The sensor  12  is generally located in or on the pest trap  11 . However, it is possible to also locate the pest sensor  12  adjacent or proximate the trap  11 . It will be appreciated that sensor  12  may be located in an area without a trap being present. In this latter case, the sensor  12  acts as a pest monitor for that area. When pest activity is detected and a pest presence or detection signal is generated by the sensor  12 , the pest presence signal is provided to the communication block  14 . 
     The communication block  14  may take a number of forms. For example, the communication block may communicate over a fixed wire (e.g., to hardwire receiver  21  via optional connection  23 ) or by telephone or cellular phone, it may take advantage of putting signals over existing wiring in a building, or it may utilize over-the-air transmissions designated as  22 . In each of these forms, the communication block  14  operates to pass the pest presence or detection signal—as a pest event—to a receiver  15  (or alternatively directly to local PC  16 ). In the preferred embodiment, an RF type communication device is utilized. In this type of embodiment, the receiver  15  will generally be located relatively close to the transmitter device in communication block  14 . In the preferred embodiment, the transmitter range is generally around one hundred feet. However, the range is affected by, among other factors, the type of RF device used and by the structural characteristics of the facility or area. If appropriate communication schemes are utilized, then the receiver  15  may be located off-site. 
     Sensor  12  may include a memory device or other data storage to accumulate event data and then pass along a block of information to the communication device. For example, sensor  12  may be constructed to archive pest presence signals in an onboard memory location or in a separate memory device  29 . The later communication of the stored data may occur at set intervals, may be prompted by a polling transaction, or may be physically activated by an inspector via a personal computer, special purpose computing device, or PDA. By storing the data, any number of pest detection events may be transmitted as a block. 
     For example, in one embodiment (best seen in  FIG. 5   a  and discussed in more detail below) the sensor may archive event data in the counter block  511 . The counter block  511  can include an electronic memory storage location, and can optionally include a visually perceptible means for displaying the data such as an LCD display or mechanical counter (not shown). The microprocessor block  509  can initiate transmission of the collected data via communications block  510 . This can take the form of a PDA establishing contact with the communications block  510  or take another of the forms identified above. The data can be passed as individual event data or as histograms of the number of events within different time windows. 
     The sensor  12  provides data on the activity sensing pest devices  11  identifier code, the time of the event, and the event itself. However, the receiver  15  or local computer  16  (discussed below) may provide a date stamp for the received pest event. In one embodiment, the communication block  14  includes a transmitter manufactured by Freshloc Technologies, Inc. (Plano, Tex.). Such transmitter is a strobe radio frequency (RF) transmitter, disclosed in Heller U.S. Pat. No. 5,119,104 and Heller U.S. Pat. No. 6,222,440, which patents are hereby incorporated by reference. The code of such device may be modified in order to hold a resistance change for a period of time to insure that events are detected during polling. 
     Once the event is transmitted to receiver  15 , the data is provided to local computer  16 . Computer  16  may be a special purpose computing device or may be a personal computer (e.g., an IBM compatible computer having a Pentium style chip). The data is in turn provided to remote personal computer  17  over the internet or direct connection  24 . Computer  17  includes a processor  27 , input devices  18  (e.g., keyboard and mouse or other pointing device), video display unit  19 , and a printer  20 . CPU  27  is provided to run a database program stored in memory  26 . The program may also be running from a hard drive, floppy drive, CD-ROM, or from a server or other computer on a network machine. The database  25  is stored in memory  26 . It will be appreciated that the database may also be stored on a local area network server, hard drive, cd-rom drive or other storage device accessible by the CPU  27 . 
     Database  25  stores the event data and includes other database functions, such as relating events to pest trap identification numbers, and generating reports, among others. In one embodiment, the database program is provided by FreshLoc Technologies as part of their system identified by as the FreshLoc system. However, other relational database programs capable of storing and relating fields in a number of records, and having a report writing capability may also be utilized. When utilizing other programs, the received data from the various activity sensing pest devices  11  must be recognized by the computer  17  and stored in the database  25 . The database  25  can reside on local computer  16  with reports being generated locally and, optionally, transmitted to other computers via a network, extranet or internet. 
     In the database  25 , the activity associated with each activity sensing pest devices  11  may be tracked by the unique ID number. The facility of interest contains any desired number of activity sensing pest devices  11  and the location of the activity sensing pest devices  11  are maintained with the unique ID number to be used in the reporting process.  FIG. 3  illustrates a map of an exemplary facility with trap  11  locations and ID&#39;s shown. The map data is generated from database  25 .  FIGS. 4   a - 4   d  identify exemplary reports. An initial report including only trap activity data for a specific trap is illustrated in  FIG. 4   a . It will be appreciated that “TRAP ACTIVITY” indicates that the sensor  12  employed in connection with the trap generated a pest presence signal which was relayed to the database  25 . In  FIG. 4   a , the specific trap identified in the report is associated with an identifier code “KK6” (best seen in the map of  FIG. 3 ). Virtually any series of letters, numbers and symbols might be employed as identifier codes, with the identifier codes set forth herein merely being one example. It will also be appreciated that pest monitors may be provided with trap ID numbers regardless of whether a physical trap is associated with the pest monitor. In  FIG. 4   b , an initial report is generated showing traps which have initiated pest presence signals and other traps which should be visited according to some schedule. The schedule to visit other traps can be random, predetermined, or statistically generated. In  FIG. 4   c , a summary report with additional trap parameter data added following a physical inspection of the trap identified by the trap identification code KK 6  is illustrated. In  FIG. 4   d , a summary report for each of the traps identified in  FIG. 3  is shown.  FIGS. 3 and 4   a - 4   d  will be discussed further below. 
     In order to provide the feedback information, each activity sensing pest device  11  also preferably includes one or more feedback devices  13  which permit an inspector to provide physical trap and monitor parameter feedback at the actual location of the activity sensing pest devices  11 . This additional data is preferably input to the database  25  running on computer  17  (via the communication block  14  to receiver  15  to local computer  16 ). The feedback device  13  may take the form of one or more buttons; a keypad; a keyboard; one or more dipswitches; an infrared receiver which is configured to interact with a PDA (e.g., of the type sold under the designation Palm Pilot or other personal data device), or any other input device allowing selection among a plurality of parameter ID&#39;s such as those set forth in Table I below. In each case, the device  13  allows an inspector to indicate a particular parameter, from among a predetermined set of perimeters. For example, an inspector could indicate that a trap was inspected and no animal was found or that the trap was inspected and an animal was found. Table I includes a representative list of codes which may be utilized by a trap inspector. 
     
       
         
               
               
               
               
             
               
               
               
               
             
           
               
                 TABLE I 
               
               
                   
               
               
                   
                   
                 Analog Code 
                   
               
               
                 Parameter 
                 Digital 
                 (Voltage level or 
                 Parameter 
               
               
                 ID 
                 Code 
                 resistance value) 
                 Description 
               
               
                   
               
             
             
               
                   
               
             
          
           
               
                 1 
                 0001 
                 V1/R1 
                 Trap Checked - No 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Activity 
               
               
                 2 
                 0010 
                 V2/R2 
                 Trap Checked - 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Activity Type 1 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Found 
               
               
                 3 
                 0011 
                 V3/R3 
                 Trap Checked - 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Activity Type 2 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Found 
               
               
                 4 
                 0100 
                 V4/R4 
                 Trap Checked - 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Activity Type 3 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Found 
               
               
                 5 
                 0101 
                 V5/R5 
                 Trap Cleaned 
               
               
                 6 
                 0110 
                 V6/R6 
                 Trap Out of Place 
               
               
                 7 
                 0111 
                 V7/R7 
                 Trap Damaged 
               
               
                 8 
                 1000 
                 V8/R8 
                 Light Bulb 
               
               
                   
                   
                   
                 Replaced 
               
               
                 9 
                 1001 
                 V9/R9 
                 Glueboard Replaced 
               
               
                 10 
                 1010 
                 V10/R10 
                 Cover Opened 
               
               
                   
               
             
          
         
       
     
     It will be appreciated that the trap parameter/data is exemplary and other information may be provided. Further, the code number may be assigned arbitrarily. In other systems, the code number may be associated with other trap parameters. The resistance code is provided as an example of values which may be provided to a FreshLoc type system to distinguish between the various feedback data being entered. However, various voltage levels (as shown in Table I) may also be employed to generate the feedback data in an analog device. 
     The feedback data can alternatively be entered directly into local computer  16  by an operator after physically inspecting the traps. The data might also be temporarily stored during the inspection in a PDA or other special computing device, and subsequently downloaded into computer  16 . In these embodiments, it will be appreciated that the input block  13 , communication block  14  and receiver block  15  may be modified to function properly with the data gathering methodology employed. However, transmission of initial data on pest activity is preferred in order to generate an initial report (for example visits to the appropriate activity sensing pest devices can then be determined). 
     Preferably each activity sensing pest device  11  includes a feedback mechanism  13 . Due to the characteristics of the physical premises, the costs, the benefits from the individual activity sensing pest device  11 , and other factors, one or more of the activity sensing pest devices  11  may not include a feedback sensor  13 . However, in view of the advantages provided by the feedback reporting system as described herein, it will be appreciated that the benefits increase as the amount and quality of the feedback data increases. 
     Once transmitted to the database  25 , the additional parameter data on the activity sensing pest devices is also tracked against the appropriate ID number. This results in a refining of both the data and the resulting reports from database  25 . The activity sensing pest devices reporting becomes a feedback loop as illustrated in  FIG. 2  by the designation  50 . In  FIG. 2  the sensors  12  provide data to summing block  51  and to initial report block  52 . The physical inspection component of the process includes reviewing the initial report(s)  52  and providing additional physical inspection data at block  53 . The physical inspection data can include data on each trap and monitor  11 . However, preferably the data is for a smaller set of traps and monitors, which include those traps and monitors that generated a pest activity event signal and a number or percentage of the remaining traps and monitors of the “n” activity sensing pest devices  11  in the facility that did not show any pest activity. 
     The feedback loop provides data on false positives, disturbed traps, and other factors. The time data corresponding to when the pest activity occurs helps to proactively determine pest infiltration factors and/or information relating to maintaining an optimum pest control plan, such as disturbed traps, etc. 
     Turning to  FIG. 3  and  FIGS. 4   a - d , an example of the system will be described. In operation, if a mouse was caught in a mousetrap with trap id KK 6  (best seen in  FIG. 3 ), the pest event for that trap would be generated and the date and time would be communicated to computer  17  for recording to database  25 . As noted above, an alternative would be to use the clock on computer  16  and/or computer  17  and merely record the date and time of receipt of a transmission from a trap. A pest event may trigger an immediate physical inspection of the trap. However, generally such inspections would occur daily, weekly or monthly. An initial report showing the pest activity of a particular trap is generated ( FIG. 4   a ) and a plan to inspect traps  11  showing pest activity is determined ( FIG. 4   b ). In  FIG. 4   a , the trap activity is shown only for trap KK 6 . Two other traps are shown in  FIG. 4   b  as having trap activity. These other traps are traps KK 1  and KK 11 . These three traps preferably have a different color corresponding to the Activity Legend illustrated in  FIG. 3 . The map in  FIG. 3  also preferably provides an indication of the number of pest activity events received for the given activity sensing pest device. 
       FIG. 4   b  also includes a plan to inspect other activity sensing pest devices  11 . Although these latter devices  11  did not show pest activity, an inspection of the devices can reveal electronics malfunctions, undetected pest events, and visual evidence of pest activity that was not detected electronically. Accordingly, all activity sensing pest devices will generally be inspected periodically. Such inspections can occur at a lower frequency based on the initial reports. When the trap is physically inspected, feedback on the trap parameters can be provided to the system via one or more feedback devices  13 .  FIG. 4   c  illustrates a summary for a particular trap which generated pest presence signals with additional feedback data added to the summary. As shown in  FIG. 4   c , the trap was disturbed on two separate occasions with no rodent caught. This may be an indication of intentional or inadvertent movement of the trap by workers or inanimate objects (e.g., a forklift, pallets, etc.) in the area, a failing trap, or malfunction, among others. In any of these events, proactive measures can be taken to determine the cause of the activity. Additionally, final summary reports for all of the traps (or a subset thereof) can be generated as shown in  FIG. 4   d.    
     The various styles of traps  11  may include a large variety of commercially available traps for trapping any type of animal, such as rodents or insects. Examples of commercially available live animal/rodent traps are the Victor M310 Tin Cat; the Havahart Live Traps; the Kwik Katch Mouse Trap, and the Kness Ketch-All. Examples of commercially available zapping light traps are the Gardner AG2001; the Gardner AG-661 Light Trap, and the Anderson Adhesive Insect Light Trap. Examples of commercially available glueboard light traps are the Ecolab Stealth Unit; the Gardner WS25; the Gardner GT100, and the Anderson Adhesive Insect Light Traps. 
     Several preferred embodiments of activity sensing pest devices  11  which may be utilized together with the present invention will next be discussed. In the discussion of the various embodiments, the sensing pest device  11  may also be referred to as pest trap  11  or monitor  11  as the sensing pest device  11  is intended to include both of these terms. Further, inspection data entry device  13  may, depending on the embodiment, be referred to as feedback device  13 , input block  13 , feed back mechanism  13 , feedback sensor  13 , means  13 , and contact buttons  13 . Still further, communication block  14  may also be referred to as transmitter  14  depending on the embodiment. 
       FIGS. 5   a  through  5   c  illustrate a non-destructive flying insect monitor, while  FIG. 6  illustrates a destructive flying insect trap. Current flytraps used in pest control service employ several methods of immobilizing flying insects. A service technician during routine service cleans the trap and may make a note of the extent of activity at the trap based on visual inspection. This standard method of pest control service has a number of limitations. Of primary importance to customers and pest control companies is verifying that technicians actually visited the trap and did not simply conjure up false information. A second limitation is that activity (i.e., a count of insects) is only trackable to the time between services, such as monthly or weekly. Since the data is not real-time activity, it cannot be broken down into daily or hourly counts. This limitation prevents the implementation of proactive solution of problems (e.g., such as employees leaving doors open) and the targeted response to known problems (e.g., such as discarding potentially contaminated products based on pest activity). The trap  500  shown in  FIGS. 5   a - 5   c  overcomes these drawbacks by providing both real-time data logging and communication of additional trap parameters (e.g., service activity). 
     The trap  500  includes a curtain of light made up of a beam  502  which is bounced between reflective surfaces  504 . In the preferred embodiment, a laser  503  is utilized with a laser power supply  505 . Other light sources with collimating lenses (not shown) might also be used. The laser beam terminates at a photo cell  506 . The photocell  506  is connected to amplifier circuit block  507 . A sensitivity adjustment block  508  is included to compensate for the various devices into which the amplified signal from the photo cell might be provided. Such devices can include a microprocessor  509 , a transmitter  510  (which may be used as a transmitter  14 ), manual input device (feedback mechanism)  516 , and/or a counter block  511 . Manual input device  516  may be used as the additional trap parameter input means  13 . 
     When a flying insect  501  enters into the beam of light  502 , a part of the light is extinguished. The photocell  506  detects the lower light intensity. Therefore, the light curtain may be used as a pest monitor or sensor  12 . The amplifier circuit block  507  and sensitivity adjustment block  508  provide the pest activity signal to transmitter block  510  (and/or other blocks  509  and  511 ). The flying insects  501  are attracted by UV lamps  512  or other attractant. The device can operate as a counter alone (e.g., as a pest monitor without a physical trap) or it can operate as a trap. In the latter case, the flying insect may become entangled on a glue or sticky board lying beneath the light curtain  514  and/or become eliminated by electrical discharge device (not shown). A housing  513  mounts the various components of the trap. 
     A further discussion of a non-destructive flying insect monitor (and optional destructive trap) may be found in the commonly assigned application of the assignee hereof entitled LIGHT EXTINCTION BASED NON-DESTRUCTIVE FLYING INSECT DETECTOR, and filed concurrently herewith on Mar. 27, 2003. Such application is incorporated herein by reference. 
       FIG. 6  illustrates an electrical-discharge insect-control system  550  with an event monitoring circuit  551 . The system  550  kills insects by discharging electricity from a transformer  552  through the insect when it approaches the electrified grid  553 . The insect reduces the air gap between the electrodes of the grid, allowing breakdown to occur in the air and electrical current to flow through the insect and air. The current flows during the short period of time in which the insect is in the vicinity of the grid and kills the insect. The system  550  includes a sensing circuit  551  to monitor for a pest event (e.g., when an insect is in the vicinity of the grid  553 ). When the current flows, the circuit detects the transient signal as the system is activated and supplies this signal to a counter  554  and/or microprocessor  555  for compilation of event data. This data can then be transmitted by a transmitter device  556  for further analysis. Feedback information may also be supplied for transmission via the feedback device  557  by the user of the system. 
       FIGS. 7   a  and  7   b  illustrate a wind up type rodent trap  605  of the type known in the art. However, additional components including pest activation sensor  12 , communication device  14 , an optional gross motion sensing switch  603 , an optional cover switch  604 , and additional trap parameter input means  13  are provided within housing  601  of trap  605 . In the preferred embodiment, the sensor  12  is a contact closure switch utilizing mechanical or magnetic action, the communication device  14  is a modified FreshLoc device identified above, and the input means  13  are spring activated contact buttons  13 . 
     Gross motion sensing switch  603  provides information on rough treatment of the trap  605 . Examples may include the trap  605  being kicked by an individual or struck by an inanimate object (e.g., a ladder or forklift). Cover switch  604  can provide information on whether the trap has been opened prior to the physical inspection. Such information can explain an empty trap even though a pest detection signal has been generated and a pest event received. This switch can be a mercury type switch, a momentum switch, and other switches which sense physical movement of the trap (or which monitor the physical location of the trap, e.g., a GPS sensor). Switch  604  can take the form of a mechanical switch, photo sensitive switch, magnetic switch, and other devices which are capable of functionally determining if the cover has been opened. 
     In operation, a mouse or other rodent enters the trap  605  through entrance hole  600  into the rotating trap mechanism  602 . The mechanism rotates with the rodent to place the rodent within housing  601 , but without access back through entrance hole  600 . The sensor  12  detects the rotation and triggers a pest activity signal to transmitter  14 . This causes transmitter  14  to communicate with receiver  15  that a pest event occurred. During subsequent inspection, additional trap parameter data can be entered through buttons  13 . 
       FIGS. 8   a - 8   c  illustrate an insect monitor  800  with electrode grid  801 . Capacitive sensing block  803  is operatively attached to the grid  801 . Power block  802  is connected to the capacitive sensing block  803  and to the microprocessor block  804 . Memory block  805  is connected to the microprocessor block  804  (and/or the microprocessor can have its own on board memory; not shown). Switch block  808  is connected to the microprocessor block  804  to provide user feedback input. IR device  806  is provided to enable input and output communication with a PDA  21  or other IR communication device. An RF device  807  may also be connected to microprocessor block  804  to provide RF communication with the monitor  800 . 
     Capacitive sensing block  803  is arranged and configured to detect changes in the capacitive coupling between the electrodes of grid  801 . When an insect enters the monitor  800 , the insect provides capacitive coupling between the electrodes of the grid  801 . The change is sensed by the capacitive sensing chip  803 . The time and date of the event is determined by the microprocessor block  804  and may be stored in memory  805  or can be transmitted directly to a computer  16  via RF device  807 . If the data is stored in memory block  805 , it may be transmitted at a latter time (e.g., in a batch mode) via RF device  807 ; it can be stored for transmission to a PDA device  21  via IR device  806 ; and/or it can be transmitted after additional data is entered at manual input device (switch)  808 . If RF device  807  provides for two way transmission, the information can also be transmitted after a polling transmission by computer  16  (via receiver block  15 ). 
     Prior art devices of this type of monitor are often accomplished by use of glue boards with plastic covers or strategically placed attractants. A limitation of these devices is that a service technician does not have the ability to determine when the activity occurred during the service cycle. The monitor shown in  FIGS. 8   a - 8   c  allows the comparison not only of activity in multiple monitors but also allows technicians to determine if activity occurred at the same time. An additional limitation of traditional monitors is that technicians can report they visited a monitor without actually having visited the monitor. Therefore, the feedback buttons  808  (best seen in  FIG. 8   c ) insures that the monitor was inspected, as well as documenting the inspection process. A further benefit of the monitor  800  of  FIGS. 8   a - 8   c  is that the monitor does not have to immobilize the insect to communicate the activity to the inspector. This benefit allows the database  25  to report on the activity in a facility without causing customers or inspectors to view unsightly insects. 
     A further discussion of the capacitive sensing monitor may be found in the commonly assigned application of the assignee hereof entitled METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CAPACITIVELY SENSING PESTS, and filed concurrently herewith on Mar. 27, 2003. Such application is incorporated herein by reference. 
       FIGS. 9   a  and  9   b  illustrate a rodent trap  900  of the type known in the art as a tin cat style trap. Additional components including pest activation sensor  12 , communication device  14 , and additional trap parameter input means  13  are provided on the rear of  901  of trap  900 . Two different types of sensors are shown on trap  900 . Switch  910  is shown on one side of the trap  900 . A contact element  905  is shown on the inside of trap housing  901  corresponding to switch  910 . Contact element  905  is closed by movement of the first trap mechanism  904 . On the other side of trap  900 , a magnetic sensor  909  is shown. Magnet  908  resides within housing  901  and passes by the magnetic sensor  909  through movement of the second trap mechanism  904 ′. In the preferred embodiment, the communication device  14  is a FreshLoc device identified above, and the input means  13  are spring activated contact buttons. 
     In operation, a mouse or other rodent enters the trap  900  through entrance holes  903  into trap mechanism  904  or  904 ′. The weight of the rodent lowers the mechanism  904  or  904 ′ closing contact  905  or passing magnet  908  past magnetic sensor  909 . The rodent crawls under the lower opening of blocking element  906  and into the trap  900 . Once the rodent is off of the mechanism  904  or  904 ′, it springs back up so the rodent cannot exit back through holes  903 . Cover  902  is hinged and securely fastens to base  907 . The sensor  12  detects the momentary contact of contact  905  or change in magnetic field from magnet  908  and triggers a pest activity or detection signal to transmitter  14 . This causes transmitter  14  to communicate with receiver  15  that a pest event occurred. During subsequent inspection, additional trap parameter data can be entered through buttons  13 . 
     It will be appreciated that the principles of this invention apply not only to the types of activity sensing pest devices (including traps and monitors) described herein, but also to the method of collecting pest monitoring and/or trap data, and then providing feedback data based on physical inspections. While particular embodiments of the invention have been described with respect to its application, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the invention is not limited by such application or embodiment or the particular components disclosed and described herein. It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that other components that embody the principles of this invention and other applications therefor other than as described herein can be configured within the spirit and intent of this invention. The arrangement described herein is provided as only one example of an embodiment that incorporates and practices the principles of this invention. Other modifications and alterations are well within the knowledge of those skilled in the art and are to be included within the broad scope of the appended claims.