This is my first instructable, so any feedback is greatly appreciated!  After discovering a yellow jacket ground nest near our front door a few days ago, I decided to look up ways to get rid of these mean insects without the pesticides. We have various wildlife and friendly insects in our yard, so I try to avoid pesticides.  A quick Google search resulted in a few solutions to my problem and this is the one I chose.  This method was super simple, pesticide free, eco safe and VERY effective.  Friends and family were pretty amazed at the results as was I!  So let's get started!

Step 1: What You Need

Here are the “tools” needed: wine (they prefer red to white), a clean water or soda bottle, a bread knife or scissors, and dishwashing liquid.  First, cut off the top quarter or third of the bottle. Add about ½ “ of wine and about two drops of dishwashing liquid.  Now flip that top over to make a funnel and place it snuggly back into bottle.  You are done!  See how easy that was?

<p>It looks wonderful! I can see having an empty bottle and knife in the picnic basket so that one can be set up anywhere. Does it have to be wine? What about coke? It would seem sweet enough to attract them.</p><p>Thanks for sharing.</p>
<p>You would want to be careful about what bait you use, pop might attract honey bees or other helpful/endangered insects. I would imagine 2-buck-chuck from Trader Joes would work just fine and target mostly/only yellow jackets.</p>
<p>That was my concern. I would like to get rid of the Warps but I am VERY concerned about Bees <br>dying. There is a serious ecological tragedy heading our way with the <br>shrinking population of bees. It doesn't look like this device can <br>discriminate?</p>
<p>if you put a few drops of vinegar that would act as a repellent for bees but it still attracts wasps.</p>
<p>Correct. The scientific fact is that CO2 does not have the chemical or physical properties to hold heat.</p><p>In fact its not even a greenhouse gas! But b/c people associate it with plants, and plants are in hot greenhouses, the unscientific lie was developed. </p><p>What? Cos is NOT a greenhouse gas? Correct. Greenhouse owners do not even need to pump in extra CO2. The CO2 in a greenhouse is used up by the plants during photosynthesis (remember grade school sicence?). </p><p>Plants convert the CO2 to make food for themsselves and in doing so give off water vapor and oxygen. The water vapor is what we call humidity. The greenhouse traps the humidity inside the greenhouse to make the warmer climate inside. If the water vapor is released, it naturally rises, cools in upper level of the atmosphere, condenses, and we get rain.</p><p>The heat index your weatherman informs you of daily is about how much heat the water in the air - not the CO2 - is holding.</p><p>But there is way too much money to be made by saying CO2 is bad. Just think if people would wise up and sue the corrupt powers who &quot;legaly&quot; have ripped us all off with things such as emissions testing.</p>
<p>THANK YOU!!! I remember with the first Earth Day we all planted trees to take in CO2 and supply us with oxygen. Now we're supposed to be worried about emissions and not the lack of forrests!</p>
<p> Well is there anything wrong with being concerned and doing something about both emissions an deforestation? Both are bad for human kind.</p>
<p>You are mostly wrong, Co2 forms an insulating blanket on the earth that traps the heat in during the night.<br>That is why our night time temperatures are only 5-10 degrees cooler. <br>30 years ago they were 20-30 degrees cooler, so Co2 is helping to warm the earth. Maybe you should use your computer to educate yourself. <br>It is very easy, simply read what the academics publish and ignore Fox News and Yahoo and Facebook posts.</p>
<p>where i live we get quite a wide variation of daytime and nighttime temps. that is just a fact.</p>
<p>WOW... that's an amazing level of warming you're surmising, which is completely unbacked by any real data. The CO2 changes come significantly AFTER temperature variations... that's the dirty little secret that real scientists are now admitting all over the world. The only ones still on board with anthropomorphic warming are those who've hitched their financial wagons to the &quot;global warming&quot; gravy train. Many are now ABANDONING the whole thing...</p><p>______________________</p><p>&ldquo;The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round.&quot; - Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.</p><p>&ldquo;I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound,&rdquo; - Christopher W. Landsea, IPCC author and reviewer, NOAA National Hurricane Center </p><p>&quot;The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart &mdash; Heads will roll!&quot; - UN Scientist Dr. Will Alexander</p><p>&ldquo;Worst scientific scandal in history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.&rdquo; - UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, PhD environmental physical chemist.</p><p>&ldquo;Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!&rdquo;- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, PhD atmospheric chemist</p><p>&quot;A Death Spiral for Climate Alarmism&quot; &quot;We can expect the climate crisis industry to grow increasingly shrill, and increasingly hostile toward anyone who questions their authority&quot; - UN IPCC Scientist Kenneth P. Green, IPCC expert reviewer for the United Nations</p><p>&ldquo;Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.&rdquo; &ndash; Meteorologist Hajo Smit, Dutch UN IPCC committee.</p><p>&ldquo;The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense&rdquo; &ndash; Dr Vincent Gray, IPCC reviewer and climate researcher.</p><p>&quot;We&rsquo;re not scientifically there yet&quot; - Tom Tripp, UN IPCC Lead Author </p><p>&ldquo;The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn&rsquo;t listen to others. It doesn&rsquo;t have open minds&hellip; I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions&quot; &ndash; Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia </p><p>&ldquo;We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.&rdquo; - Dr. Roger Pielke, Colorado State Climatologist.</p><p>________________________</p><p>HUNDREDS more scientists are dropping this nonsense every day... like a hot potato. When the brief (northern hemisphere) warming trend stopped they TRIED to change the name from &quot;global warming&quot; to &quot;climate change&quot; in a transparent attempt to blame all climate fluctuations on mankind. But the theory never progressed beyond theoretical hyperbole. NONE of their predictions came to pass, and NONE of the validating studies bore any fruit. In scientific terms, the theory should now be considered disproven. But there are those for whom this issue has left the realm of science and become RELIGION. They continue their march on &quot;faith&quot;... and a LOT of tax dollars. </p>
Your comment is too long.
<p>Not to interrupt the scientific debate, fellas, but I am encouraged that this is going to get rid of the insects that my grandkids are allergic to and preserve our bees! Do't use coke or any soda -- bees are attracted to that scent. We've accidentally trapped several in soda cans up at the park and, yes, even almost swallowed one poor guy in a big gulp of cola before I gave it up for health reasons. </p><p>It's an excellent instructable. Thank you so much!</p>
<p>&quot;When the brief (northern hemisphere) warming trend stopped&quot;<br><br>Silly, it hasn't stopped, but please waste your time typing another 500 word essay.</p><p>This was the highest for <strong>July</strong><br> in the 1880&ndash;2016 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2015 by <br>0.11&deg;F, the previous record holder for the warmest month on record. <strong>July</strong> 2016 marks the 40th consecutive <strong>July</strong> with temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average.</p><h3><a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/" rel="nofollow">State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information ...</a></h3><p><a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/" rel="nofollow">https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/</a>National Climatic Data Center<br><br></p>
<p>They claimed 2014 was the &quot;warmest on record&quot;.. but it was later found to be a lie. Then they claimed 2015 was the &quot;warmest on record&quot;.. but it was later found to be a lie. Now they're claiming 2016 was the warmest... do I need to go on?</p><p>The fact is... we only have 30 years of 'good' climate data (satellites). The rest of earth's history is based on sheer guesswork. Over the last century, we can see LOCAL trends, (mostly from airports and cities). Some might call that &quot;weather&quot;. But we were missing vast swaths of the planet where there was no recorded data at all, so NOBODY can say with any certainty at all what the &quot;mean temperature&quot; of earth was. Heck... we can't even claim to knoow that with certainty today.</p><p>The centuries and eons before recorded temperatures are VERY subjective. We can look at tree rings, ice cores and such to fill in some blanks... but the guesswork grows. All we can say for certain is that earth has gone through a LOT of periods MUCH warmer than today. We've also seen ice ages. We have absolutely NO idea what earth's &quot;normal mean temperature&quot; is (or even if there is any such thing).</p><p>And so we're looking at a 30 year data set. That's not a &quot;trend&quot;. Heck, it's not even a &quot;blip&quot; when measured against the geologic time spans that global climate has spanned. Anyone claiming we're too cool... or too warm... is spouting utterly non-scientific nonsense.</p>
<p>So do you still believe the earth is flat?<br>Having worked in HVAC for 20 years I can tell you mankind generates enormous amounts of heat. After 5 stories we cool 10 times more then we heat.<br>Look at a car engine and how much heat it produces.<br>Anyone denying man made global warming is just being paid to deny it.<br>The facts are true, doesn't matter if you want to believe it or not.<br>I'm off to better things, enjoy your mom's basement.</p>
<p>Not sure hwee you live;' we still get an average of 20 degrees cooler at night and, during some seasons, 30-40. Don't know the science, but I do know the temperatures. :)</p>
<p>how? Co2 is heavier than air even if that were true wouldn't we all smother first?</p>
<p>You are quite incorrect. Your thinking is contrary to the massively supported thinking of scientists.</p><p>Here's a read for you :</p><p>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/</p>
<p>Wow... there is so much wrong with this. </p><p>It's easy to hypersimplify a complex process and ignore the science to fit your own belief however CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Your allusion to greenhouses on the ground is amusing and..well, sort of cute.. but that's not science. </p><p>I'd refute your claim but I'd prefer that Scientific American does it as they cite the studies and sources for the data for me: </p><p><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carbon-dioxide-is-greenhouse-gas/" rel="nofollow">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-carb...</a></p><p>Please take a quick read - any anyone here who is actually reading and being swayed by any of these pseudoscience posts, please just read the science and more importantly read the cited studies and data rather than believing the hypersimplified posts. </p><p>Will</p>
<p>Wrong on nearly every point.</p>
<p>I'm glad you provided the level of depth and clarity through the cited references you used to disprove the science. Can you add more? </p>
Sorry, my global warming comment was sarcastic and unnecessary.
Visible light from the sun strikes the Earth and does all kinds of stuff. What energy is left is radiated from the surface in the form of infrared light, back into space.<br><br>CO2 does not, itself, hold heat. what it does do is reflect infrared light back to the earth's surface, most of which is covered by water, which does hold heat.<br><br>If you think that there is more money to be made by trying to not pump CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, you should be just as questioning of those who already have it: the ones who stand to lose it if they have to spend momey to modernize their manufacturing processes.
<p>Daisy, both debates should be resolved by science, not knee jerk comments. Global warming is a scientific fact, and denoferth is of course wrong. But &quot;shrinking bee populations&quot; are not a fact. When a colony collapses, keepers buy new queens and rebuild. Overall, the population is steady. You can pretend otherwise, just like denoferth can pretend that global warming is a myth - but then you're no wiser than him. ;)</p>
<p>Do you think you have a source on that? Not trying to debunk you or anything but i just wanted more information on that. If not its fine.</p>
Sorry, my global warming comment was sarcastic and unnecessary. But the bee keepers I know, and I know 4 different ones, are having trouble keeping their hives alive through the winter. These are experienced keepers who have had bees for years and this is a new problem. I do not know about wild bees personally, but I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned that they too may face the same problems.
<p>Just because something is a &quot;scientific fact&quot; does not mean that it is correct. Take a look at how long people argued for the theory of a flat earth when it was challenged.</p>
<p>Honey bees aren't even native to North America, they are from Europe. Plus there's loads of night time pollinators in No. America like moths et. al. This bee thing is scare mongering propaganda. You do enough scare mongering with enough varied topics and you can rile up a population of people. </p>
<p>That's not true at all. The native peoples of Mexico and South America kept honey bees. One culture even had a special variant they had bred with no stinger! These harmless honey bees were passed down like family heirlooms and considered extremely valuable. These stingless bees completely died out, sadly, when the Europeans took over and kinda destroyed everything.</p>
<p>We are seeing few honeybees here as compared to say 4 years ago. And not many other flying insects either. We used to have to buy a yellow porch light so it would not attract moths and other night flyers. No more. I saw almost no moths this year. They used to be such a pest. There aren't even many yellowjackets this year. And I am not a proponent of global warming. I am just an observer.</p>
<p>I'd be more inclined to believe that the spray of something would be doing most of the damage to insects in the area. Here is exactly the same thing I was questioning my PhD sister who said Naled was safe as per the EPA... http://gizmodo.com/south-carolina-just-annihilated-millions-of-bees-by-acc-1786042200</p>
Honeybees are what are used by commercial growers to pollinate our food crops. Commercial growers, especially fruit, grow so much of a single crop with a short period of bloom, it is necessary to bring in pollinators. Single crop farming means there is not enough food year round for enough native pollinators to live on so honey bees are brought in and moved around as different crops come into bloom. They are necessary for commercial food production.
<p>Neighborhood honey bees are not at risk like commercially raised honeybees. They do not like yellow jacks/wasps so they tend to stay away from them. </p><p>Lay out a piece of watermelon and watch how the wasps go for it but not the honey bees. </p>
<p>Excellent observation.</p>
The bait discriminates.
<p>In fact, honey bees are attracted to pop/soda etc etc.</p>
<p>Well it works on my mother in law... :D</p>
<p>You built a trap big enough for a mother in law....... Can you share these plans please. </p>

About This Instructable




Bio: I love to learn new things, create and build cool stuff and tend to think outside of the box. I like to think of myself ... More »
More by thebeatonpath:DIY Yellow Jacket Bottle Trap 
Add instructable to: