| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Agriculture - Poultry Forum » Last of the Roosters... |
|
Page 2 of 3 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| FarmI... |
 Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 8:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"0tterbot" <spl at (no spam) t.com> wrote in message
[quote]"Christina Websell" <spamfree at (no spam) tinawebsell.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
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.
hm, i'm seeing it differently.
[/quote]
Me too.
[quote]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!!
[/quote]
Indeed!
That photo essay is very interesting (all 751 photos). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| A _L_ P... |
| Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 4:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
FarmI wrote:
[quote]"0tterbot" <spl at (no spam) t.com> wrote in message
"Christina Websell" <spamfree at (no spam) tinawebsell.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
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.
hm, i'm seeing it differently.
Me too.
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!!
Indeed!
That photo essay is very interesting (all 751 photos).
I found his observations on their behaviour interesting. We don't often[/quote]
get a chance to see how they behave when not constrained by pens. Their
first port of call for food wasn't the feed that dropped from his
domestic birds' feeders, which I found interesting. It seems to have
been just one of the resources they chose when they had freedom to
choose. Also the fighting behaviour, which is something that is a
problem when one tries to keep several roosters together. Yet as a
bachelor pack they seem to have largely reached accommodation with one
another while choosing (all except that one, I wonder where he went?) to
stick together, rather like the young males of other social animals.
Their totally maladaptive behaviour when dogs came around was
fascinating. My own experience indicated that their instinct was to go
higher in the tree and further out on the branches. I'd never have
expected them to come down from the tree esp when the threat was not IN
the tree, like a cat, but running around on the ground.
We have "rooster colonies" in various parts of NZ where people too
tender-hearted to kill their unwanted birds dump them. Some hens too.
They become popular local attractions - unpopular with local councils
though, who periodically kill them for reasons such as, oh, they might
go on the road, they haven't got permits..... Disappointing to the
people who visit them and take them food and enjoy their free if
pan-handling spirits. Dogs get them sometimes, which is sad. I think
if I were a rooster, or a hen who was no longer laying enough for my
owners to want me, or the children had got bored, I'd rather have life
than death or the living death of a draughty dirty pen and a water dish
infrequently replenished let alone cleaned. I'd be taking my chances in
a place where there is cover, roosting places and enough hand-outs to
get me through the adjustment period while I learned to experience the
joys and troubles of independence and find the wild edibles in the
surroundings.
That is what I think from the birds' point of view. As a owner I see
the responsibility to one's birds differently.
Death comes to all. Trying to guess what good life means for another
human is hard enough. Harder perhaps because we do not have the option
to offer them a Peaceful Pill when the life choices on offer are cruel
to their bodies or spirits.
A L P
A L P |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 0tterbot... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:25 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Ron Hardin" <rhhardin at (no spam) mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:4AF17AFA.247F at (no spam) mindspring.com...
[quote]0tterbot wrote:
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.
I post here because somebody might be interested in roosters as wild
birds,
as I am, as the opportunity presented itself.
[/quote]
all right then, i'm prepared to stand corrected on that, particularly since
i'm not bothered either way.
The pics for example
[quote]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.
[/quote]
i don't ask questions here any more because of that. there's apparenly only
one right way to do anything, yet this advice is often absurd when related
to people such as myself who live in, for example, completely different
weather conditions, under different laws, or in quite a different
circumstance.
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
both these things are interesting. we already know they form attachments to
their home base & their flock, i suppose this is a demonstration of how
strong both those urges are. also, a tree wouldn't be just a tree, but
rather, the right one. of certain roosters, it would be fair to say that if
one left in a snit, there wouldn't be anyone to fight with, so of course
they would stay ;-)
[quote]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.
[/quote]
it's probably ingrained in them to protect their hens even at their own
expense, so the behaviour just kicks in even though they have no hens. i
find it interesting how roosters & hens behave quite differently, but i must
say i prefer hens. i've also noticed in mine the dog/hawk thing. hens do it
as well, actually (babble hysterically drawing attention to themselves when
all they'd need to do would be to get up high). it might be that they are
subconsciously inclined to draw attention away from any babies they might
have. there would be a method to their madness from an evolutionary point of
view, we just don't know what it is at this time, as in my experience,
chickens are simply not intelligent enough to exhibit neurotic behaviour
unless they are kept in completely inappropriate conditions (.e.g. an egg
battery).
[quote]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.
[/quote]
it certainly would be. my dog's a loon. this sort of situation reminds me of
having to give up on a dog n.g. because 1: there was only ever one right way
to do anything, regardless of circumstance 1a: the right way depended on who
you asked, therefore 1b: there were constant flame wars about the most
incredibly stupid & unimportant things, and 2: nobody _really_ wanted to
post about dogs - everyone's dog was apparently some sort of
child-substitute, which meant they faffed on & on about operant conditioning
& the dangers of being anthropomorphic whilst simultaneously making children
of their pets. or something like that. self-described experts give me the
horrors, because they already know everything and therefore will never learn
anything. the internet is fairly leaping with them! my dog prospered
regardless, needless to say - i just decided not to worry so much.
kylie |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| 0tterbot... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 4:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
" Jill" <news at (no spam) NOSPAMkintaline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ld7tuF3doq3mU1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net...
[quote]0tterbot wrote:
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?)
leaving domestic birds to scrabble for survival rations when you know what
they should fed is neglect.
[/quote]
it is NOT in this case. not legally, ethically or philosophically. so stop
saying that.
ron has a responsibility to himself & family, his place & his animals. the
roosters didn't belong to any of those categories - he didn't bring them
there, he didn't own them. ron has another responsibility, like everyone
else, to try to intervene in a bad situation (e.g., if his neighbours had
starving livestock, or if a child he knew was being abused) to report it to
the appropriate authorities. again, this doesn't apply to the roosters
because by his judgement, they were meeting their own needs just like any
other wild animal that happened to live on his property, they were not
injured or starving or being abused.
the roosters were feral animals that turned up. never having taken
responsibility for them, he didn't owe them anything. & since they were not
harming his land, animals, family, etc he _also_ didn't have the
responsibility of killing or removing or domesticating them, as he would
have if they were feral dogs, rats, etc.
so since they were looking after themselves, and not causing any harm, you
cannot claim neglect either of the roosters, or any of the places they went
or animals they met.
[quote]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.
2: they had a place to go: a tree. chooks like trees, believe it or
not.
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]
nobody here has actually asked for any advice in this thread. you just keep
giving it. which is different.
[quote]i'm far less convinced that keeping 7
roosters contained (especially together!!!) would be any better at
all.
Who suggested keeping them contained?
, it's
winding up people like you.
Not wound up here, and he, himself, is kilfilled,
[/quote]
if he's killfiled, you got wound up. that's how it works.
but certainly would not
[quote]let such treatment as he meeted out
[/quote]
he didn't mete out any treatment whatsoever. he just left them alone. are
you accusing him of active cruelty now?!
be supported as acceptable ways of basic
[quote]care of any domestic bird.
[/quote]
the birds' situation was not domestic. he did not claim to be providing
basic care (or care of any kind). he is not obliged to provide basic care to
them, because (just to repeat myself) they were never his birds, and ALSO
were not harming property, ecology or any other animal (which situation
would have obliged him to do something about it).
[quote]Intentionally neglecting animals is not a case study for anyones interest,
clearly YMMV
[/quote]
sometimes we have found, for example, birds or kangaroos or other animals
which have been hit by a car or injured in some way. despite having NO
legal, ethical or philosophical obligation to them, we normally kill such
animals to prevent any suffering - in other words, we try to help them even
though we don't "have" to, because in my view it's the right thing to do.
i'm actually not convinced it's always the right thing to do (as a rule,
most wild animals would seem to prefer to be left alone to die quietly,
rather than being "helped" by a strange, scary human with a tyre iron, but
there you go). we have some type of moral obligation to other living
creatures, but i simply cannot see how ron broke a moral obligation - he
clearly hasn't. the roosters weren't sick or injured, nor causing anyone or
anything else to become sick or injured, therefore there has been NO
neglect. i don't feed the wild birds here, regardless of species, & he
didn't feed his either. might be time to just get over the idea that the
roosters somehow entered the sphere of things he was obliged to control. he
wasn't. i'm frankly mystified as to why anyone here would think it was
somehow ron's job to control the roosters' living situation in this
particular circumstance. the frank truth is that they would have left if
conditions didn't support them, because nobody was asking them to stay.
kylie |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jill... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 6:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
0tterbot wrote:
[quote]" Jill" <news at (no spam) NOSPAMkintaline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ld7tuF3doq3mU1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net...
0tterbot wrote:
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?)
leaving domestic birds to scrabble for survival rations when you
know what they should fed is neglect.
it is NOT in this case. not legally, ethically or philosophically. so
stop saying that.
[/quote]
For some people, describing animals possessively "my roosters" indicates
that they are taking responsibility for them.
He asked, here, in Novermber 2007, what their needs were. He was given good,
basic advice, for their care, or disposal, which he ignored, and then kept
telling us how much he was ignoring it.
They are domestic birds - they are NOT wild birds. They never will be.
Studying wildlife ecology and ethology is, indeed, fascinating, as is
studying that of domestic animals. and comparing the two.
Ecology and animal behaviour of both types is a topic close to my heart, its
what I have studied for many years.
Good husbandry comes from learning about both topics.
These roosters were not wild, or feral. They were domestic.
We were led to understand that they had been bred in a domestic
environment., they had been reared in a domestic environment.
That is not wild, nor feral.
As a domestic animal man has altered them, they are not wild birds, with the
resouces that wild birds have. Man has created an animal with greater
dependancy on us, which it is our responsibility to recognise and fulfill,
even in its most basic terms.
It would have been more humane to have culled them.
I agree that feeding wild birds, and other wild animals, can be a far more
complex issue ecologically and ethologically.
Interfering with Darwinian selection is considered by some to be a bad
thing. Human nature is one of interfering sometimes not when they should.
Certainly over here, the feeding of wild foxes has created a serious
problem, and what is almost now a subspecies of fox, reliant on human
habitation, sickly, with a different lifestyle and behaviour. It is very sad
to see, for the species, as much as for those who try to keep birds in
places where there is now conflict.
Putting injured animals swiftly out of their pain, is another issue where
thinking as a human and thinking as an animal can give very different
results.
[quote]
Not wound up here, and he, himself, is kilfilled,
if he's killfiled, you got wound up. that's how it works.
[/quote]
It may for you, but I choose to kilfill people who I just do not wish to
read.
It is free choice. How you make your choices may not be the same as I.
There are plenty on usenet who might wind me up, but I choose to read them.
I may not respond to them, but find their views interesting and challenging,
despite my disagreement.
Its interesting to learn from others.
--
regards
Jill Bowis
Domestic Poultry and Waterfowl Solutions
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine Nursery
Seasonal Farm Food
http://www.kintaline.co.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| FarmI... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"A _L_ P" <hay.hell.pea at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
[quote]FarmI wrote:
"0tterbot" <spl at (no spam) t.com> wrote in message
"Christina Websell" <spamfree at (no spam) tinawebsell.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in
message
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.
hm, i'm seeing it differently.
Me too.
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!!
Indeed!
That photo essay is very interesting (all 751 photos).
I found his observations on their behaviour interesting. We don't often
get a chance to see how they behave when not constrained by pens. Their
first port of call for food wasn't the feed that dropped from his domestic
birds' feeders, which I found interesting. It seems to have been just one
of the resources they chose when they had freedom to choose. Also the
fighting behaviour, which is something that is a problem when one tries to
keep several roosters together. Yet as a bachelor pack they seem to have
largely reached accommodation with one > another while choosing (all
except that one, I wonder where he went?) to stick together, rather like
the young males of other social animals.
[/quote]
And indeed some adult male animals. Bulls in a bull paddock for instance -
away from the cows, there is no drama - so different to 2 bulls in with the
cows.
[quote]Their totally maladaptive behaviour when dogs came around was fascinating.
My own experience indicated that their instinct was to go higher in the
tree and further out on the branches. I'd never have expected them to
come down from the tree esp when the threat was not IN the tree, like a
cat, but running around on the ground.
[/quote]
Althuogh they are birds, perhaps when they lived in the wild state befre
domestication they were more of the ground dwelling type bird like perhaps
the dodo or the kiwi - that certainly would fit with their origins. They
certainly don't fly well and I know mine hide under blackberries and plum
tree suckers quite a lot.
[quote]We have "rooster colonies" in various parts of NZ where people too
tender-hearted to kill their unwanted birds dump them. Some hens too. They
become popular local attractions - unpopular with local councils though,
who periodically kill them for reasons such as, oh, they might go on the
road, they haven't got permits..... Disappointing to the people who
visit them and take them food and enjoy their free if pan-handling
spirits. Dogs get them sometimes, which is sad. I think if I were a
rooster, or a hen who was no longer laying enough for my owners to want
me, or the children had got bored, I'd rather have life than death or the
living death of a draughty dirty pen and a water dish infrequently
replenished let alone cleaned. I'd be taking my chances in a place where
there is cover, roosting places and enough hand-outs to get me through the
adjustment period while I learned to experience the joys and troubles of
independence and find the wild edibles in the surroundings.
That is what I think from the birds' point of view. As a owner I see the
responsibility to one's birds differently.
Death comes to all. Trying to guess what good life means for another
human is hard enough. Harder perhaps because we do not have the option to
offer them a Peaceful Pill when the life choices on offer are cruel to
their bodies or spirits.
[/quote]
Very valid and thoughtful comments. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| FarmI... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
" Jill" <news at (no spam) NOSPAMkintaline.co.uk> wrote in message
[quote]0tterbot wrote:
" Jill" <news at (no spam) NOSPAMkintaline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ld7tuF3doq3mU1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net...
0tterbot wrote:
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?)
leaving domestic birds to scrabble for survival rations when you
know what they should fed is neglect.
it is NOT in this case. not legally, ethically or philosophically. so
stop saying that.
For some people, describing animals possessively "my roosters" indicates
that they are taking responsibility for them.
He asked, here, in Novermber 2007, what their needs were.
[/quote]
He didn't ask what their needs were. He simply asked if they would starve
in the snow or below freezing and later if they needed feeding in the cold
or the snow. And although he did use the word 'my' he also said they were
'feral'.
He was given good,
[quote]basic advice, for their care, or disposal, which he ignored, and then kept
telling us how much he was ignoring it.
[/quote]
He didn't ask for advice on care (other than feeding) or disposal but he was
given it anyway.
Since he didn't ask for any advice other than how they would survive the
cold and then if they needed food in cold or snow he can hardly be accused
of igoring the full panoply of advice given when he didn't ask for it.
[quote]They are domestic birds - they are NOT wild birds. They never will be.
Studying wildlife ecology and ethology is, indeed, fascinating, as is
studying that of domestic animals. and comparing the two.
Ecology and animal behaviour of both types is a topic close to my heart,
its > what I have studied for many years.
Good husbandry comes from learning about both topics.
These roosters were not wild, or feral. They were domestic.
We were led to understand that they had been bred in a domestic
environment., they had been reared in a domestic environment.
That is not wild, nor feral.
As a domestic animal man has altered them, they are not wild birds, with
the resouces that wild birds have. Man has created an animal with greater
dependancy on us, which it is our responsibility to recognise and fulfill,
even in its most basic terms.
It would have been more humane to have culled them.
[/quote]
I agree that it is the responsibility of an owner to do that. Ron does not
appear to have taken on 'ownership' beyond making sure that his dog stayed
away. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jill... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
FarmI wrote:
[quote]Yet as a bachelor pack they seem to have largely reached
accommodation with one > another while choosing (all except that
one, I wonder where he went?) to stick together, rather like the
young males of other social animals.
And indeed some adult male animals. Bulls in a bull paddock for
instance - away from the cows, there is no drama - so different to 2
bulls in with the cows.
[/quote]
We have had peaceful bachelor flocks of birds, for quite a number of years,
as well as sheep, and, in the past, male goats very happily living together.
Mind you we also have multiple cockerels in with our girls, living at peace,
but then we have positively selected for good behaviour, and no aggression
towards humans, so the genetic pool is not as aggressive as many.
Chickens have been domestic for so many thousands of years now that direct
comparisons to any wild state is not really useful for creating good
husbandry.
But certainly many of the ancient reports of birds living with native
populations suggest ground forest dwelling animals, who may use trees but
are not dependant on them and often found in more shrubby growth and lower
branches.
Now chickens in much of the world are far removed from these, especially
metabolically. Man has developed the birds so mcuh and their nutritional
needs, and systems, have been altered to be more efficient and eat very
different feeds to those in the wild. The more productive the bird, the more
intensive the breeding has been, and that is in close alignment with the
feed producers. What a low productive breed can use and survive on is very
different to that of the high productive ones. ~High energy feeds, high
fats, are a serious issue - hence why wild bird seed is such a BAD thing
for chickens. Fatty liver syndrome, for instance, is slow to develop and,
often completely missed by keepers until death. But its caused by poor
feeding.
Modern chickens can be easily starved by poor feeding, particularly layers.
They may be taking in calories but if they are not getting the required
nutritional spread then they will have to deplete their own bodies reserves.
--
regards
Jill Bowis
Domestic Poultry and Waterfowl Solutions
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine Nursery
Seasonal Farm Food
http://www.kintaline.co.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jill... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
FarmI wrote:
[quote]
I agree that it is the responsibility of an owner to do that. Ron
does not appear to have taken on 'ownership' beyond making sure that
his dog stayed away.
[/quote]
My comments are coloured by a different conclusion based on my reading of
all his comments, and reading things he has written elsewhere.
If you don't consider he has taken any responsibility then, yup, our
perspective will be different.
For me, he took responsibility and therefore his actions and comments are
inexcusable.
In a wider perspective, these chickens are domestic, created by us for our
own ends, aka food, and therefore there is a global responsibility.
The fact that so many cockerels are a waste product does not mean we should
neglect them intentionally.
He asked advice here, and clearly knew little about poultry needs.
So the fact that he got a wider range of advice, than just about the food,
is not , in my view, something to condemn folks here for.
There is more to keeping chooks than feeding them.
--
regards
Jill Bowis
Domestic Poultry and Waterfowl Solutions
Herbaceous; Herb and Alpine Nursery
Seasonal Farm Food
http://www.kintaline.co.uk |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| FarmI... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
" Jill" <news at (no spam) NOSPAMkintaline.co.uk> wrote in message
[quote]FarmI wrote:
I agree that it is the responsibility of an owner to do that. Ron
does not appear to have taken on 'ownership' beyond making sure that
his dog stayed away.
My comments are coloured by a different conclusion based on my reading of
all his comments, and reading things he has written elsewhere.
If you don't consider he has taken any responsibility then, yup, our
perspective will be different.
[/quote]
Ican only conclude that Ron specifically avoided any acceptance of
responsibility for the roosters. You conclude that he did take
responsibility. That does make our perspectives different.
[quote]For me, he took responsibility and therefore his actions and comments are
inexcusable.
[/quote]
Yes, you've been saying just that same thing for a year.
[quote]In a wider perspective, these chickens are domestic, created by us for our
own ends, aka food, and therefore there is a global responsibility.
The fact that so many cockerels are a waste product does not mean we
should neglect them intentionally.
He asked advice here, and clearly knew little about poultry needs.
So the fact that he got a wider range of advice, than just about the food,
is not , in my view, something to condemn folks here for.
[/quote]
I pointed out that Ron didn't ask for the range of advice given. I didn't
'condemn' anyone for giving that advice.
Ron, however, has been condemned.
[quote]There is more to keeping chooks than feeding them.
[/quote]
Of course there is. However Ron never claimed or seemingly aspired to be
their keeper. He was told that he should assume that role.
'We' are not in a position to make Ron take responsibility and never have
been. If 'we' were in Ron's place, our responses may have been different.
'We' weren't. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Christina Websell... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
" Jill" <news at (no spam) NOSPAMkintaline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7lik6pF3b36rjU1 at (no spam) mid.individual.net...
[quote]FarmI wrote:
Yet as a bachelor pack they seem to have largely reached
accommodation with one > another while choosing (all except that
one, I wonder where he went?) to stick together, rather like the
young males of other social animals.
And indeed some adult male animals. Bulls in a bull paddock for
instance - away from the cows, there is no drama - so different to 2
bulls in with the cows.
We have had peaceful bachelor flocks of birds, for quite a number of
years, as well as sheep, and, in the past, male goats very happily living
together.
Mind you we also have multiple cockerels in with our girls, living at
peace, but then we have positively selected for good behaviour, and no
aggression towards humans, so the genetic pool is not as aggressive as
many.
Chickens have been domestic for so many thousands of years now that direct
comparisons to any wild state is not really useful for creating good
husbandry.
But certainly many of the ancient reports of birds living with native
populations suggest ground forest dwelling animals, who may use trees but
are not dependant on them and often found in more shrubby growth and lower
branches.
Now chickens in much of the world are far removed from these, especially
metabolically. Man has developed the birds so mcuh and their nutritional
needs, and systems, have been altered to be more efficient and eat very
different feeds to those in the wild. The more productive the bird, the
more intensive the breeding has been, and that is in close alignment with
the feed producers. What a low productive breed can use and survive on is
very different to that of the high productive ones. ~High energy feeds,
high fats, are a serious issue - hence why wild bird seed is such a BAD
thing for chickens. Fatty liver syndrome, for instance, is slow to develop
and, often completely missed by keepers until death. But its caused by
poor feeding.
Modern chickens can be easily starved by poor feeding, particularly
layers. They may be taking in calories but if they are not getting the
required nutritional spread then they will have to deplete their own
bodies reserves.
[/quote]
OK, this is my personal opinion on this. I would certainly not be happy if
someone dumped a load of roosters on me. What I wouldn't do is watch them
die one by one and post about it and that is what makes me sick about Ron's
posts.
Chickens are domestic animals, they cannot survive in the wild. If you get
roosters dumped, it's a moral responsibility to find a way to get them
rehomed. If not, you have to kill them.
It is totally out of order to watch them dying in the wild without rescuing
them.
Tina |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Christina Websell... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 7:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"FarmI" <ask at (no spam) itshall be given> wrote in message
news:rc-dnT53XfJi_GjXnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d at (no spam) westnet.com.au...
[quote]" Jill" <news at (no spam) NOSPAMkintaline.co.uk> wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
I agree that it is the responsibility of an owner to do that. Ron
does not appear to have taken on 'ownership' beyond making sure that
his dog stayed away.
My comments are coloured by a different conclusion based on my reading of
all his comments, and reading things he has written elsewhere.
If you don't consider he has taken any responsibility then, yup, our
perspective will be different.
Ican only conclude that Ron specifically avoided any acceptance of
responsibility for the roosters. You conclude that he did take
responsibility. That does make our perspectives different.
For me, he took responsibility and therefore his actions and comments are
inexcusable.
Yes, you've been saying just that same thing for a year.
In a wider perspective, these chickens are domestic, created by us for
our own ends, aka food, and therefore there is a global responsibility.
The fact that so many cockerels are a waste product does not mean we
should neglect them intentionally.
He asked advice here, and clearly knew little about poultry needs.
So the fact that he got a wider range of advice, than just about the
food, is not , in my view, something to condemn folks here for.
I pointed out that Ron didn't ask for the range of advice given. I didn't
'condemn' anyone for giving that advice.
Ron, however, has been condemned.
There is more to keeping chooks than feeding them.
Of course there is. However Ron never claimed or seemingly aspired to be
their keeper. He was told that he should assume that role.
'We' are not in a position to make Ron take responsibility and never have
been. If 'we' were in Ron's place, our responses may have been different.
'We' weren't.
so imagine this. Someone dunps some roosters with you so what do you do[/quote]
about it?
a. Try and find them a home
b. Post to usenet telling us all how most of them died
Tina |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| FarmI... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 2:52 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Christina Websell" <tina at (no spam) tinawebsell.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
[quote]"FarmI" <ask at (no spam) itshall be given> wrote in message
" Jill" <news at (no spam) NOSPAMkintaline.co.uk> wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
I agree that it is the responsibility of an owner to do that. Ron
does not appear to have taken on 'ownership' beyond making sure that
his dog stayed away.
My comments are coloured by a different conclusion based on my reading
of all his comments, and reading things he has written elsewhere.
If you don't consider he has taken any responsibility then, yup, our
perspective will be different.
Ican only conclude that Ron specifically avoided any acceptance of
responsibility for the roosters. You conclude that he did take
responsibility. That does make our perspectives different.
For me, he took responsibility and therefore his actions and comments
are inexcusable.
Yes, you've been saying just that same thing for a year.
In a wider perspective, these chickens are domestic, created by us for
our own ends, aka food, and therefore there is a global responsibility.
The fact that so many cockerels are a waste product does not mean we
should neglect them intentionally.
He asked advice here, and clearly knew little about poultry needs.
So the fact that he got a wider range of advice, than just about the
food, is not , in my view, something to condemn folks here for.
I pointed out that Ron didn't ask for the range of advice given. I
didn't 'condemn' anyone for giving that advice.
Ron, however, has been condemned.
There is more to keeping chooks than feeding them.
Of course there is. However Ron never claimed or seemingly aspired to be
their keeper. He was told that he should assume that role.
'We' are not in a position to make Ron take responsibility and never have
been. If 'we' were in Ron's place, our responses may have been
different. >> 'We' weren't.
so imagine this. Someone dunps some roosters with you so what do you do
about it?
a. Try and find them a home
b. Post to usenet telling us all how most of them died
[/quote]
Depends on the breed but for any breed I'd first try to catch them and get
them into a pen. If I couldn't catch them quickly, I know they'd end up
dead very quickly due to active foxes round here.
From there on, depending on the breed, I'd either kill them all and eat them
or ask around and keep some and try to find homes for some.
BUT, I'm not Ron and I realise that my choices (or yours) were not those
taken by Ron. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| A _L_ P... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 7:38 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
FarmI wrote:
[quote]"Christina Websell" <tina at (no spam) tinawebsell.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
so imagine this. Someone dunps some roosters with you so what do you do
about it?
a. Try and find them a home
b. Post to usenet telling us all how most of them died
Depends on the breed but for any breed I'd first try to catch them and get
them into a pen. If I couldn't catch them quickly, I know they'd end up
dead very quickly due to active foxes round here.
From there on, depending on the breed, I'd either kill them all and eat them
or ask around and keep some and try to find homes for some.
BUT, I'm not Ron and I realise that my choices (or yours) were not those
taken by Ron.
If you couldn't catch them how would you kill them? That's another[/quote]
complication.
Here in New Zealand there are many "lifestyle blocks" of a few acres
like the one where I came across the tree-roosting chooks. When they
were on the ground they were not far from other chooks and farm animals.
There were houses nearby. Our firearms legislation would have made it
very unwise to shoot them, both from a "real" safety-to-others point of
view and from the risk of losing one's firearms license for what would
have been classified as dangerous use of a firearm, no matter how
skilled a marksman one was, if the neighbours had complained which they
almost certainly would have since we are not as a culture tolerant
towards people shooting near our homes.
Ron's situation may have been very different. Perhaps he could have
easily shot them with no risk to other animals including humans and no
hassles with the law.
If not shooting then trapping. It would have to be when, where, other
birds and animals would not be at risk but the wild / post-domestication
roosters would take the bait and end up in a cage - live capture.
Likewise poison.
A L P |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| FarmI... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 1:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"A _L_ P" <hay.hell.pea at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
[quote]FarmI wrote:
"Christina Websell" <tina at (no spam) tinawebsell.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote in message
so imagine this. Someone dunps some roosters with you so what do you do
about it?
a. Try and find them a home
b. Post to usenet telling us all how most of them died
Depends on the breed but for any breed I'd first try to catch them and
get them into a pen. If I couldn't catch them quickly, I know they'd end
up dead very quickly due to active foxes round here.
From there on, depending on the breed, I'd either kill them all and eat
them or ask around and keep some and try to find homes for some.
BUT, I'm not Ron and I realise that my choices (or yours) were not those
taken by Ron.
If you couldn't catch them how would you kill them? That's another
complication.
[/quote]
 ) Indeed, which is why I wrote what I did.
Having seen Ron's pics, I wasn't convinced that catching them would be easy
where he lives. I know where I live (on a farm) it'd probably been darn
nigh impossible - they'd be off into the paddocks before I could get
anywhere near them.
[quote]Here in New Zealand there are many "lifestyle blocks" of a few acres like
the one where I came across the tree-roosting chooks. When they were on
the ground they were not far from other chooks and farm animals. There
were houses nearby. Our firearms legislation would have made it very
unwise to shoot them, both from a "real" safety-to-others point of view
and from the risk of losing one's firearms license for what would have
been classified as dangerous use of a firearm, no matter how skilled a
marksman one was, if the neighbours had complained which they almost
certainly would have since we are not as a culture tolerant towards people
shooting near our homes.
Ron's situation may have been very different. Perhaps he could have
easily shot them with no risk to other animals including humans and no
hassles with the law.
[/quote]
There appeared to be other houses nearby and given that there was a
neighbour who had golden Retriever which kept escaping, I think it'd be
similar to the blockies you describe. And if you tried to pick them off in
the tree, you can imagine what would happen at the first shot.
[quote]If not shooting then trapping. It would have to be when, where, other
birds and animals would not be at risk but the wild / post-domestication
roosters would take the bait and end up in a cage - live capture.
Likewise poison.
[/quote]
With poison, I have real concerns. It's seldom possible to guarantee that
the target animal gets the bait. I've done it with a fox that killed all of
my chooks in one raid but I wasn't comfortable with it. I do know it got
the fox and the cubs in that den but I was not comfortable about it at the
time and still am not. It took some staging to make sure that the fox and
not wild carrion eating bird took the bait laid in the dead bodies of the
chooks. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 21, 2009 11:25 am
|
|