 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Agriculture - Poultry Forum » Last of the Roosters... |
|
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Ron Hardin... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 1:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The last rooster of eight dropped off at night in September 2007 met his end, when the
neighbor's dog got loose (rare event) again.
He'd survived two Ohio winters, and apparently decided he lived in a particular tree out
back, and was a free range chicken all that time.
I'm very surprised he lasted that long, what with hawks everywhere; but apparently white
isn't a hawk-attracting color.
I assumed he'd survived previous dog-loosings by being faster than the other roosters. He
certainly isn't faster than the dog.
Rooster dog-evading strategies seem to be positively suicidal, including leaving a
perfectly safe tree to outrun the dog on the ground. Perhaps evolutionary roosters in the
wild didn't contend with dogs.
A couple years of photos that got tagged "roosters" are on flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhhardin/tags/roosters
There's a slideshow button.
--
rhhardin at (no spam) mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Christina Websell... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ron Hardin" <rhhardin at (no spam) mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4AEC94DA.3061 at (no spam) mindspring.com...
[quote]The last rooster of eight dropped off at night in September 2007 met his
end, when the
neighbor's dog got loose (rare event) again.
He'd survived two Ohio winters, and apparently decided he lived in a
particular tree out
back, and was a free range chicken all that time.
I'm very surprised he lasted that long, what with hawks everywhere; but
apparently white
isn't a hawk-attracting color.
I assumed he'd survived previous dog-loosings by being faster than the
other roosters. He
certainly isn't faster than the dog.
Rooster dog-evading strategies seem to be positively suicidal, including
leaving a
perfectly safe tree to outrun the dog on the ground. Perhaps evolutionary
roosters in the
wild didn't contend with dogs.
A couple years of photos that got tagged "roosters" are on flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhhardin/tags/roosters
There's a slideshow button.
--
rhhardin at (no spam) mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
[/quote]
But we do know that you're a jerk since you didn't seem to help the roosters
that were dumped with you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| A _L_ P... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Christina Websell wrote:
[quote]"Ron Hardin" <rhhardin at (no spam) mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4AEC94DA.3061 at (no spam) mindspring.com...
The last rooster of eight dropped off at night in September 2007 met his
end, when the
neighbor's dog got loose (rare event) again.
He'd survived two Ohio winters, and apparently decided he lived in a
particular tree out
back, and was a free range chicken all that time.
I'm very surprised he lasted that long, what with hawks everywhere; but
apparently white
isn't a hawk-attracting color.
I assumed he'd survived previous dog-loosings by being faster than the
other roosters. He
certainly isn't faster than the dog.
Rooster dog-evading strategies seem to be positively suicidal, including
leaving a
perfectly safe tree to outrun the dog on the ground. Perhaps evolutionary
roosters in the
wild didn't contend with dogs.
A couple years of photos that got tagged "roosters" are on flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhhardin/tags/roosters
There's a slideshow button.
--
rhhardin at (no spam) mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
But we do know that you're a jerk since you didn't seem to help the roosters
that were dumped with you.
I thought that too at first but OTOH he didn't pen these dumped birds[/quote]
into a makeshift coop - he didn't want them, remember, so he wouldn't
likely have had a spare good house for them and it's a bit unreasonable
for him to go ahead and build one for them. He fed them, I gather - put
food and water out for them - and gave them a compromise between being
dumped out in the wilds and being adopted by someone who wanted them.
And how many people want a car-load of roosters? They're tough eating
and don't have much flesh even when young. He could have killed them
straight away I suppose. But they chose to roost in a tree and I've
tried to rescue some wanted chooks from a conifer. For reasons of their
own they took to the tree as their preferred night quarters and there
was no way I could get them night or day. They laid in the nest boxes
in the houses which had doors open all day so the coop-roosting birds
could go out in the paddock and eat grass and bugs and whatever and
enjoy their lives. But would they stay there to be caught? No way!
Go out at night with a ladder? The ladder wasn't long enough to reach
the tippy-top and even if it had been the birds just sleepily edged
farther and farther out along the branches which certainly wouldn't
support me or my ladder.
Sometimes I think animals are decently served by people letting them
live their lives on their own terms, so long as they are not left to
suffer when ill or injured. And the OP doesn't seem to have done that.
When we adopt animals, or breed them, we take on 100% responsibility
for full care. When strays or dumped animals arrive I don't think it is
so clear-cut. Kill healthy animals that are doing no harm? Is that
more ethically OK than giving them a bit of a helping hand (access to
food, water, shelter if they want to take up the offer which these ones
adamantly didn't)?
I don't know the answer with as much certainty as you do, Christina.
Life sucks, we're all liable to get killed by some animal or other
whether we are worms or roosters or Presidents. Worms and roosters
are generally eaten by their killers, that's the big difference.
A L P |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 0tterbot... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 4:24 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"A _L_ P" <hay.hell.pea at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcigas$4ac$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
[quote]Christina Websell wrote:
Sometimes I think animals are decently served by people letting them live
their lives on their own terms, so long as they are not left to suffer
when ill or injured. And the OP doesn't seem to have done that. When we
adopt animals, or breed them, we take on 100% responsibility for full
care. When strays or dumped animals arrive I don't think it is so
clear-cut. Kill healthy animals that are doing no harm? Is that more
ethically OK than giving them a bit of a helping hand (access to food,
water, shelter if they want to take up the offer which these ones
adamantly didn't)?
[/quote]
if they'd been male dogs or cats or rabbits or any one of a hundred other
things, o.p. might have had some moral or ethical responsibility to actually
_kill_ them (rather than "save" them) before they had the opportunity to
breed in the wild, or to kill wildlife, or to spread disease. since these
were roosters, not presenting any sort of feral problem of any kind that we
know of, the only thing he really did "wrong" was to continue to use the
situation to wind up the bleeding hearts. and i'm not convinced that's
actually wrong ;-)
the person who did wrong was the person who dumped them. that is wrong,
because it's avoiding the 100% responsibility that you mentioned.
kylie
[quote]
I don't know the answer with as much certainty as you do, Christina. Life
sucks, we're all liable to get killed by some animal or other whether we
are worms or roosters or Presidents. Worms and roosters are generally
eaten by their killers, that's the big difference.
A L P[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jill... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
A _L_ P wrote:
[quote]On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
But we do know that you're a jerk since you didn't seem to help the
roosters that were dumped with you.
I thought that too at first but OTOH he didn't pen these dumped birds
into a makeshift coop
[/quote]
He did not feed them when he knew they would have no food, he gloated over
their deaths, lack of food, lack of water and their injuries, he "took"
responsibility of them using the possessive "my" when describing them, and
asking this group what care they needed, but did not one thing to protect
them or care for them.
Sadly chickens are incredibly stoic, and are capable of surviving tremendous
stress and abuse.
Just because they do, does not give him the right to inflict it, especially
when it has been plainly described how to prevent it.
That, to many, is worse than benign, ignorant neglect, its active and
abusive neglect.
He came here and asked, he ignored the very good advice about the basic care
required, and he recorded their demise.
--
regards
Jill Bowis
Smallholder Shop
Housing; Fencing, Equipment, Books, DVDs, Gifts
http://www.smallholdershop.co.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ron Hardin... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:51 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The words "control freak" have not come up yet, for some reason.
--
rhhardin at (no spam) mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| A _L_ P... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jill wrote:
[quote]A _L_ P wrote:
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
But we do know that you're a jerk since you didn't seem to help the
roosters that were dumped with you.
I thought that too at first but OTOH he didn't pen these dumped birds
into a makeshift coop
He did not feed them when he knew they would have no food, he gloated
over their deaths, lack of food, lack of water and their injuries, he
"took" responsibility of them using the possessive "my" when describing
them, and asking this group what care they needed, but did not one thing
to protect them or care for them.
Sadly chickens are incredibly stoic, and are capable of surviving
tremendous stress and abuse.
Just because they do, does not give him the right to inflict it,
especially when it has been plainly described how to prevent it.
That, to many, is worse than benign, ignorant neglect, its active and
abusive neglect.
He came here and asked, he ignored the very good advice about the basic
care required, and he recorded their demise.
Oh, I thought he had taken the advice on putting out feed and water.[/quote]
Yes, it's helluva shabby if he didn't.
A L P |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Christina Websell... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"0tterbot" <spl at (no spam) t.com> wrote in message
news:ltcHm.51398$ze1.31247 at (no spam) news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[quote]"A _L_ P" <hay.hell.pea at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcigas$4ac$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
Christina Websell wrote:
(no, I didn't)
[/quote]
Sometimes I think animals are decently served by people letting them live
[quote]their lives on their own terms, so long as they are not left to suffer
when ill or injured. And the OP doesn't seem to have done that. When we
adopt animals, or breed them, we take on 100% responsibility for full
care. When strays or dumped animals arrive I don't think it is so
clear-cut. Kill healthy animals that are doing no harm? Is that more
ethically OK than giving them a bit of a helping hand (access to food,
water, shelter if they want to take up the offer which these ones
adamantly didn't)?
if they'd been male dogs or cats or rabbits or any one of a hundred other
things, o.p. might have had some moral or ethical responsibility to
actually _kill_ them (rather than "save" them) before they had the
opportunity to breed in the wild, or to kill wildlife, or to spread
disease. since these were roosters, not presenting any sort of feral
problem of any kind that we know of, the only thing he really did "wrong"
was to continue to use the situation to wind up the bleeding hearts. and
i'm not convinced that's actually wrong ;-)
the person who did wrong was the person who dumped them. that is wrong,
because it's avoiding the 100% responsibility that you mentioned.
kylie
I don't know the answer with as much certainty as you do, Christina. Life
sucks, we're all liable to get killed by some animal or other whether we
are worms or roosters or Presidents. Worms and roosters are generally
eaten by their killers, that's the big difference.
[/quote]
I don't like the idea that having 7 or so roosters dumped on him he chooses
not to help them but rather watches as they all gradually die and posts
about it.
My opinion would be either I took them in and fed them, killed them, or
found an animal home to take them in. What I wouldn't do would leave them
and lick my lips posting aboutt how all they all gradually died.
Tina |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Christina Websell... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
" Jill" <news at (no spam) NOSPAMkintaline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7l59urF3cr13rU1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net...
[quote]A _L_ P wrote:
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
But we do know that you're a jerk since you didn't seem to help the
roosters that were dumped with you.
I thought that too at first but OTOH he didn't pen these dumped birds
into a makeshift coop
He did not feed them when he knew they would have no food, he gloated over
their deaths, lack of food, lack of water and their injuries, he "took"
responsibility of them using the possessive "my" when describing them, and
asking this group what care they needed, but did not one thing to protect
them or care for them.
Sadly chickens are incredibly stoic, and are capable of surviving
tremendous stress and abuse.
Just because they do, does not give him the right to inflict it,
especially when it has been plainly described how to prevent it.
That, to many, is worse than benign, ignorant neglect, its active and
abusive neglect.
He came here and asked, he ignored the very good advice about the basic
care required, and he recorded their demise.
And it makes me sick.[/quote]
Tina |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Christina Websell... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ron Hardin" <rhhardin at (no spam) mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4AEE1104.D8C at (no spam) mindspring.com...
[quote]The words "control freak" have not come up yet, for some reason.
--
What's the matter with you? What sort of person would have animals dumped[/quote]
on them and take pleasure in watching them die rather than feed them?
And post about it. OMG.
You are plonked, I should have done it before.
Bye
Tina |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Christina Websell... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"A _L_ P" <hay.hell.pea at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcl5mh$7d8$1 at (no spam) news.eternal-september.org...
[quote]Jill wrote:
A _L_ P wrote:
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
But we do know that you're a jerk since you didn't seem to help the
roosters that were dumped with you.
I thought that too at first but OTOH he didn't pen these dumped birds
into a makeshift coop
He did not feed them when he knew they would have no food, he gloated
over their deaths, lack of food, lack of water and their injuries, he
"took" responsibility of them using the possessive "my" when describing
them, and asking this group what care they needed, but did not one thing
to protect them or care for them.
Sadly chickens are incredibly stoic, and are capable of surviving
tremendous stress and abuse.
Just because they do, does not give him the right to inflict it,
especially when it has been plainly described how to prevent it.
That, to many, is worse than benign, ignorant neglect, its active and
abusive neglect.
He came here and asked, he ignored the very good advice about the basic
care required, and he recorded their demise.
Oh, I thought he had taken the advice on putting out feed and water. Yes,
it's helluva shabby if he didn't.
[/quote]
He seems to think it amusing if another one dies, just one left now, poor
boy. Never fed or watered and no place to go.
I call it disgusting. I'd be ashamed if I did that.
Tina |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ron Hardin... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Christina Websell wrote:
[quote]I don't like the idea that having 7 or so roosters dumped on him he chooses
not to help them but rather watches as they all gradually die and posts
about it.
My opinion would be either I took them in and fed them, killed them, or
found an animal home to take them in. What I wouldn't do would leave them
and lick my lips posting aboutt how all they all gradually died.
[/quote]
Those that died, died suddenly, when neighbor's dog got loose (rare, but it happens) and
dispatched all that he could find.
All always in excellent health, as far as I could see. Comb frostbite seemed to be the
only adverse effect from winter, and they always recovered from that.
Lots of food under the bird feeders. They preferred bugs, given the choice, in bug
season.
As to killing them: people who claim to love animals are not nice people, as a dog
training friend says.
The biggest killers of dogs are humane societies.
It's a control-freak personality type.
I found the roosters interesting and just left them alone. Once in a while one would
wander over just for company.
They universally dashed for cover when a hawk went over (or even an airplane if low
enough), but had really suicidal instincts against dogs. Some genetic wiring needs
attention there.
Noticeably, they have only one thought at a time.
Unlike say baby robins that you might raise, of which that might be true but is not
noticeable in their behavior.
--
rhhardin at (no spam) mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 0tterbot... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Christina Websell" <spamfree at (no spam) tinawebsell.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7l93b8F3cgq0nU1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net...
[quote]That, to many, is worse than benign, ignorant neglect, its active and
abusive neglect.
He came here and asked, he ignored the very good advice about the basic
care required, and he recorded their demise.
Oh, I thought he had taken the advice on putting out feed and water. Yes,
it's helluva shabby if he didn't.
He seems to think it amusing if another one dies, just one left now, poor
boy. Never fed or watered and no place to go.
I call it disgusting. I'd be ashamed if I did that.
[/quote]
hm, i'm seeing it differently.
1: clearly they had food & water, or they'd have died of hunger or thirst.
(this one's a bit obvious, don't you think?)
2: they had a place to go: a tree. chooks like trees, believe it or not.
when i gave away my english game hens (who weren't happy with us, nor we
with them) i deliberately made first offer to someone who would have them in
his orchard with his other chooks, in a situation damned similar to these
roosters (except it doesn't snow very often here). they've absolutely
thrived & i'd NEVER make a blanket statement that chooks that sleep in trees
are neglected (they might be, but not because of that). i'm far less
convinced that keeping 7 roosters contained (especially together!!!) would
be any better at all.
3: what appears to amuse ron isn't the deaths of the birds, it's winding up
people like you. he's been trolling you for a year (or however long it's
been) & you're _still_ rising to the bait!! i personally don't find trolling
funny, but some people do, alas. you don'twant to confuse it with finding
dead roosters funny, though. **
i see it as just something interesting that happened, & ron was interested
to see what might happen, but then with things being as they are, the
roosters ended up dead (which is the same as would have happened had the
original owner killed them like he should have, rather than dumping them.)
when he realised there are a few people here who would have a conniption
about the situation, he kept writing in to get a rise out of them, which is
a different issue entirely. and there it is.
kylie
** he may also find dead roosters funny. i have absolutely no idea. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jill... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:48 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
0tterbot wrote:
[quote]
hm, i'm seeing it differently.
1: clearly they had food & water, or they'd have died of hunger or
thirst. (this one's a bit obvious, don't you think?)
[/quote]
leaving domestic birds to scrabble for survival rations when you know what
they should fed is neglect.
The fact that they survived is not the same as being correctly cared for,
starvation is neglect.
Birds can starve for a LONG time before finally dying, or being too weak to
escape from predators.
[quote]2: they had a place to go: a tree. chooks like trees, believe it or
not.
[/quote]
Just because some chickens like trees does not mean that one should keep
birds in frozen deep snow conditions with nothing else to offer them.
I would never make a blanket statement that "chickens like trees",
especially not in a context that suggests that not providing domestic birds
with appropriate shelter and protection from predators is good advice.
[quote]i'm far less convinced that keeping 7
roosters contained (especially together!!!) would be any better at
all.
[/quote]
Who suggested keeping them contained?
[quote], it's
winding up people like you.
[/quote]
Not wound up here, and he, himself, is kilfilled, but certainly would not
let such treatment as he meeted out be supported as acceptable ways of basic
care of any domestic bird.
Intentionally neglecting animals is not a case study for anyones interest,
clearly YMMV
--
regards
Jill Bowis
Kintaline Plant and Poultry Centre http://www.kintaline.co.uk
Local Origins Rural Network www.lorn.org.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Ron Hardin... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
0tterbot wrote:
[quote]i see it as just something interesting that happened, & ron was interested
to see what might happen, but then with things being as they are, the
roosters ended up dead (which is the same as would have happened had the
original owner killed them like he should have, rather than dumping them.)
when he realised there are a few people here who would have a conniption
about the situation, he kept writing in to get a rise out of them, which is
a different issue entirely. and there it is.
[/quote]
I post here because somebody might be interested in roosters as wild birds,
as I am, as the opportunity presented itself. The pics for example
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhhardin/tags/roosters
(which come up in reverse time order; hit slideshow if you want)
are a two year chronicle.
The odd personality disorders of the vocal minority here is no reason to omit giving
a link to what I think is interesting about roosters as I have found them; there are
other people.
Odd things:
1. All 8 roosters set off each day together with a single purposeful mind to some
distant foraging area; you'd think they would split up; and they come back each night
(why? There are trees all over).
2. When the roosters are in fighting mood, one or two seem to be the troublemakers;
yet the others hang around with them. What's the point of fighting if you don't get
exclusive claims to a territory? Other kinds of male birds go find another territory
when they lose in the pecking order.
3. They make out okay in the snow with the food under the bird feeders.
Lots of food falls. Otherwise they seem to be pretty helpless in the snow, unlike
other birds which scratch out stuff under the snow. (Other birds die in ice storms,
which prevents that.)
4. Combs frostbite, but regenerate in the spring.
5. Suicidal decisions when confronted with dogs; a leap from tree safety to make a
run for it in an open yard. Great decisions when a hawk is spotted, namely running
quietly and very fast for cover. Maybe the racket they make when alarmed and running
from a dog protects the rest of the flock and has survival value for them, but it
certainly doesn't help the particular rooster, if anything alerting the dog to their
presence.
6. The find their own water somewhere.
7. Once a single rooster was left, he was fairly companionable, and would wander
over for company sometimes when I was doing the lawn. He remained suspicious of my
Doberman, though the Doberman followed the house rule very well, namely no chasing
the roosters.
One rooster wander off early and found some other living area; I could hear him
answering the crowing in the morning somewhat nearby but not local.
The rest of the roosters fell victim to the neighbor's dog, when he got loose once a
year or so. They are pretty careful because it's a major task to recapture him.
My own dog follows a house rule about not crossing the property line, so she can't
escape, being restrained by her own character. Well worth teaching.
--
rhhardin at (no spam) mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:50 am
|
|