2 yr old rooster has gone psycho

[chooks4life]

I'm not sure if the fake tid-bitting is in any way associated with true tid-bitting. We humans might just mistake it for the same or similar behavior. I think it is a completely separate behavior with completely separate sounds, actions and motives, and no chicken confuses the two behaviors.

I have two macaws housed outside in an aviary 24/7 near the chickens. The two are fairly strongly pair bonded although both are females. There are times and situations when the two macaws will become quite unmanageable, especially around dusk (roosting).

In the cold weather I bring them in the house for the night. These two are well socialized, trained, mature birds that I fly free outside and who are trained to do many tricks. However, if I leave it too late to bring them in the house, they become quite aggressive. The behavior is so predictable, I now will never go in their flight anytime near dusk. They both drop to the ground making a funny sound and then sidle/stomp over to me sideways with eyes pinning to attack my feet. If I were foolish enough to ask them to step up on my hand, they will bite. When they are in this mind set, I lure them outside using me as the lure. Once outside of their flight, a lot of their aggression drops and if I am able to get them off the ground, I can ask for a step up and bring them in the house and I have my pet birds back, not the monsters I had a few minutes before.

When they move in (to attack my feet), they will pick up and throw down sticks and stones. It reminds me of that scene from the original Planet of the Apes where the apes (or was it early humans?) picked up the femur bone and beat it on the ground.

Is this natural macaw behavior or is it learned behavior from watching my nasty rooster? I honestly don't know. It is new behavior (the picking up and throwing down of sticks and stones) that started in the past year since I got my chickens. I don't think I ever saw that behavior before the rooster started to attack me. Maybe the parrots quite understood that "fake" tid-bitting behavior when they first saw it and decided to incorporate it into their repertoire of behaviors to communicate with me.

No, that's word-perfect for what I've seen a Mitchells' Cockatoo do. There were two in a cage, they had no roosters around, had never seen a chicken and were both in their teens or early twenties.

He did everything you're describing. His keepers used a high pressure hose to pin him to the walls when cleaning the cage.

Also, X2 on the fake tidbitting, it's not the same, and the chooks never mistake it though I've seen them mistake all manner of other communications. I guess we can only call it fake tidbitting because we don't have any better description for it, and after all it's remarkably similar.

Best wishes.

 

[jajeanpierre]

Originally Posted by jajeanpierre

All my studying of Applied Behavior Analysis came from animal trainers and a professor of psychology who taught a class geared to animal training.

In a nutshell, Applied Behavior Analysis analyses/quantifies/records the whole sequence of a behavior, from the Antecedent (what triggers the behavior), the Behavior itself, and the Consequence (to the leaner) of the behavior. The Consequences either increase, decrease, or don't influence the behavior being continued.

I have heard of this system before. It helps to break incidents down to review them and try to understand them but systems like this don't really work when applied to complicated behaviors for which the animal receives no benefit within its lifetime, or which lack any antecedent beyond mental imbalance, and they presume mental health or instinctive soundness in the animal, which many domestic animals are bereft of.

Here is where I disagree. All animals "behave" in response to a stimulus (the antecedent) and the consequences to their behavior. The consequence determines whether that behavior increases, decreases or remains neutral.

The mistake most people make is they try to understand what the learner's motives are. There is no way for us to know the motives and thoughts of an animal. That is private, only truly known to the animal. Think of how we misunderstand the intentions and motives of our own species, humans, speaking the same language and raised in the same culture. If we can be so wrong with our own species, even face to face talking, it unrealistic to think we can understand the motives of another species.

With ABA (Applied Behavior Analysis), success in training doesn't require us to have any understanding of the internal workings or motives of the learner. We only need to test and observe the changes to the behavior as we tweak the antecedants and the consequences. The learner guides us.

Anytime a behavior continues or increases, there is benefit to the learner. If there was no benefit, the behavior would stop. Just because you don't understand or can't recognize exactly what the benefit is that maintains or increases a behavior, don't assume it isn't there. No one works for free. Work--behavior--is always paid for in some way. "What's in it for me." Even people involved in charity work get something out of the deal whether it is to satisfy a debt they feel they have to society (reducing feelings of guilt) or the euphoria they feel from the adulation of people telling them they are such wonderful people. There's a payoff somewhere.


Derangement in domestic animals is pretty common especially in those intensively farmed and which have experienced complete destruction or severe alteration of the natural lifestyle and natural family/social unit for generation after generation since the advent of modern farming in some cases. We're often still evaluating them along wild fowl lines, with a strong presumption of their 'correctness' as they are, however they are, but they are long and far removed from their ancestral state and it's right for us to both demand more and still expect less in the average, if that even makes sense. Domestic poultry have achieved greater standards than the average bird is held to and us getting too soft and forgiving on detrimental individuals can drag the average down and waste the hard-won domesticity that our own ancestors worked at.

So, from an ABA point of view, looking at my rooster attacking, it would look something like this:
Antecedant: My proximity or my making a loud noise by calling dogs, whistling for parrots or banging anything.
Behavior: Fake Tid-bitting, full on attack, rushing when my back is turned.
Consequence: Everything from me grabbing a light bamboo pole, chasing him and whacking him with it, walking into him, catching him and doing the usual recommended things.
Then the question is, what is the frequencey and intensity of the behavior (attacking)? Well, it has escalated, so I can see from my own simple analysis that my increasing aggression simply doesn't work and might even be making the problem worse, so I should simply stop.

I would suspect that it's more like this:

Antecedent: rooster views himself as the natural alpha and humans as inferior opponents to be subjugated or killed. Humans challenge this when they intrude into his territory

An antecedent is a stimulus that triggers a behavior. It occurs IMMEDIATELY before the behavior. Break down the behavior analysis into things you can see and quantify. Don't try to ascribe feelings/motives to the learner. It doesn't matter WHY the learner behaves, only that s/he does. You change the behavior by changing the antecedent and the consequences.

Behavior: escalating pre-attack behavior patterns including fake tid-bitting, culminating in outright attacking

Just to clarify, behavior is always observable. It isn't a thought. The behavior might be as subtle as the bird standing a little taller.

Consequence: human refuses to accept subordinate position and retaliates, rooster's alpha status is thereby completely challenged by subordinate, due to both human restraint and incorrect perception of his own magnitude/inherent and unassailable superiority (lol) rooster's aggression only escalates as he seeks to kill the inferior...

The consequence is that the human is aggressive to the bird.

Probable Future Behavior? I know in my situation, the behavior--aggression by the rooster--has increased, so the probable future behavior is, Rooster increases frequency and intensity of attacks.

So, if I had only done an ABA analysis of everyone else's (aggressive) solution to aggressive roosters, I might not have quite the dangerous bird I have now. Why have I kept doing what obviously wasn't working?

Or it may be that he is simply so intensely aggravated by your presence that he is rabidly opposed to it, and it's not so much a perception of his alpha status that drives him so much as absolute intolerance of your proximity and even death is better than letting you persist. Maybe he just likes to fight and wants to kill, some are like that. I'd still bet on this being more alpha-centric though.

I suspect you are right but it doesn't matter why, only the behavior.

I know that relegates the antecedent to being you merely existing, not what you're actually doing, but with this sort of rooster your existence is often enough of an antecedent, as there is no right or wrong behavior you can do to avoid or trigger his wrath. Your rooster might be 'triggered' by actions, perhaps, but plenty aren't, at least nothing discernible, it's all in their heads, and the fact that many launch their very first attacks from behind, without provocation or warning, suggests it's got very little to do with perceiving you as either a predator, fellow chicken, or anything but a future victim. It's very specific behavior and shows no respect nor fear.

I've seen the same sort of behavior in turkeys who inherited it. At that stage I was still trying to train it out of animals so I was buying animals from family lines I knew were human aggressive, because I thought surely nurture should triumph over nature with enough of them to be worthwhile. Long story short, I was wrong.

I got them as tiny chicks from a couple who believed it was some natural part of being a turkey to attack a human whenever they turned their back. They thought it was just some instinct that belonged to the species. It was a strong trait in the parents, the offspring showed subtle warning signs, and as with some aggressive roosters it also got much stronger around 2 years old, escalating into full on attack whenever a human turned their back. The first few times that I noticed the toms rushing after me as I left the cage, I didn't think much of it but did take note. Soon it escalated to the toms who had never feared me staying away from me when I was in their pen. They'd never been abused. Soon enough I noticed them starting to approach every time my back was turned but turning away and stopping when I turned back. One day, I stood in the pen turning away, turning towards, and repeating that, and they acted like I was some sort of magnet and so were they, as though they were responding to the poles... Turn away, they spin like clockwork pieces on the spot and start running towards my back. Turn towards, they spin again and walk the other way. Turn my back, and instantly they about-face and rush for my back. And repeat. We repeated that about a dozen times. Some animals just make it so easy to make them into dinner. I did try to train it out of them but that was a waste of time.

I was once given a Leghorn rooster who fought repeatedly with one of my dominant roosters, would not accept defeat and obviously would have continued to the death if I hadn't separated them. Both 'played by gentlemans' rules' (lol) meaning neither used their spurs or tried to maim one another. Every time my rooster quickly defeated his opponent he would stand around or walk off, while the leghorn lay there gasping until he got his breath back, but then the leghorn would hurry over to my roo to battle again. He couldn't win, never came close, but couldn't stop. He was given every opportunity to pull his head in and just join the flock, but kept making a beeline for that rooster. Because neither was being damaging, just booting one another as the usual dominance fight goes, I didn't intervene, just supervised, expecting the leghorn would get the idea sooner or later.

Eventually both were so out of breath they were weak, the leghorn looked like his heart might fail, they'd had many dozens of battles in nonstop succession and I realized this leghorn rooster was going to go till he died, so I removed him. Even during this prolonged series of battles they didn't wound one another, they battled like socially balanced and sound roosters do, except the leghorn seemed to either lack, or refuse to employ, any submissive behaviors or mental patterns, so social harmony could not resume. He couldn't win but either wouldn't or couldn't accept that.

Studies in dogs, as Temple Grandin has referenced in one of her books, show the more infantile breeds like 'toy' dogs, or any that look more like puppies than primitive type dogs even as adults, have more puppylike mentalities and lack at least one, several or even all of the normal submissive behaviors domestic dogs that look more primitive as well as wild dogs and wolves etc possess, so they can cause confrontations to the death because they cannot submit and cannot understand submission when they see it; also they appear to have overweening perceptions of their own status, because they are adult dogs stuck in often infantile mindsets. Something similar may be the case with some roosters.

As an aside about the toy dogs, I disagree. I have mini Dachshunds. I watched a veterinarian--you would think he would have some understanding of dog language--walk across my lawn with my mini Dachshund defended her territory. She screamed her outrage but he ignored her and continued walking. I ran up and grabbed her because I feared he would get bit. My Dachshund was communicating but the vet completely ignored her very clear and reasonable communication. What happens when someone doesn't hear you? You yell louder. How does a dog yell louder? They bite. If my pit bull had so much as walked towards the vet, he would have stopped dead in his tracks. So, the pit bull never has to escalate to a bite, but a toy dog does. I think the study was flawed.

Punishments are things that decrease a behavior. If they don't decrease the behavior, then they are just abuse. That's what I was always taught. I was also taught that if you were going to use something like punishment, you had better make it so severe that the animal would never ever do that behavior again. Think of how quickly and thoroughly a child leans to never touch a red hot stove element after one touch.

So basically, you were taught to gamble on punishment working and if the gamble doesn't pay off you wear the 'abuser' label. Nice. :/ I'm not sure your teachers are up to date on what's legal and ethical these days, lol! I'm joking, I know that's just one of the accepted methods. We're all learning our way to managing animals better, and quite often even the professionals don't have an answer. Not to throw dirt at your teachers, it's a very complicated and confused subject, what works for one doesn't even work for most it seems when it comes to animal training or classifying animal behavior.

The point they were trying to make was that if you applied aversives (things an animal avoids) after you discovered they didn't work, then you were being abusive. I agree with that philosophy.

I think the punishment theory you were taught might better be described as conditioning because if I understand it right, it's an attempt to mimic the natural punishment/consequences that reinforce or negatively 'reinforce' any action such as occurs in the wild as well as in domesticity. (?)

Yes, it is Operant Conditioning, which is where the learner "operates" within his/her enviornment. It is how we all learn.

The problem with the idea of punishment and reward being what controls the increase or decrease of a given behavior is that it doesn't account for all the motivations behind that behavior, or it assumes they are all logical. Sometimes psychosis is the motivation and trying to deal with that logically isn't going to work because it's entirely illogical. Sometimes there is simply no behavior or reaction that is going to decrease the behavior.

All may be true, but it really doesn't matter whether I can understand the motivations. All that matters is the behavior and whether it increases, decreases or remains the same as a result of whatever consequence is applied.

The natural world conditions us to avoid certain things, but when it comes to social interactions, there's far more questioning and testing and repeat attempts to change the 'reigning paradigm' to suit the individual and so forth, because social 'rules' are fluid and often change between individuals, and between the same individuals at different times, in different circumstances, etc, whereas fire always burns no matter what; social rules are nowhere near as clear cut as that so aggression in response to aggression rarely achieves the same kind of complete, lifelong avoidance as getting burned does.. Even with fire we get blase and familiarity breeds contempt, at least for some. At best you may get a temporary reprieve while the animal waits for you to get a bit older or more infirm, as you see with a flock of sheep with young rams awaiting the older rams' age related weakness or injury or illness to seize dominance. They may have fought when they first felt like they were strong enough to beat the older rams, but after losing they accept their place and bide their time. At no point do they permanently accept subordinate positions for life, when the opportunity arises they will act immediately. They are socially upwards motivated and willing to risk life and limb to satisfy that urge. You see the same thing with roosters but normal roosters never include humans in the flock hierarchy like another chicken, they respect you without you having to fight, be healthy, etc.

We don't expect to get hotter than fire nor immune to it, so we don't tend to keep questioning it, but the rooster who thinks he's stronger than you doesn't respect you without question. He has 'questioned' or tested your authority, assuming he's that mentally clear and not just deranged, and he's discovered he doesn't die for attacking you. He remains with the flock, you go away. Even separating him isn't likely to change it because he sounds like a very aggressive individual who believes he's the true alpha without due cause which is delusional and should have been dispelled by the fights you've had with him. If he thinks you're an automatic inferior who will never belong in alpha status, as his behavior suggests, he expects he's going to be able to dominate you because alphas always dominate subordinates, it's the natural order. At no point is your retaliation going to change his askew and unrealistic perception of both you and himself, this isn't a fight to see who's alpha because he's already decided that; this is an alpha trying to get rid of what he perceives to be an inferior animal.

Most hyper-aggressive animals, male or female, assume they are alpha despite being so socially malignant that in the wild they would fail to pass on their genes (for the most part), as most of these hyperaggressives lack decent parental and pair instinct, so the roosters are often also abusive to the hens and the hens to the chicks. We bred the hyperaggression into them, it's not the ancestral type; it's excessive, unrestrained and abnormal. Mentally abnormal animals are scorned by normal mates in the wild, but in domesticity they're often accepted.

It's natural for social dynamics to change regularly throughout an animal's lifetime, for everyone's statuses to change, and for animals to watch their 'society' at all times to see if they need to change to cope better in the current social system with every little nuance of alteration that occurs. They're always ready to change social status. For this reason I don't think punishment/negative reinforcement or conditioning works for social behaviors the same way it does for extrasocial circumstances i.e. those with inanimate objects/entities where there are no ifs or buts or maybes, no 'one day when I'm stronger' and there's no dialogue to be had with the unquestionable and unchallengeable dangerous entity, i.e. fire.

He would learn to respect fire due to the consequences of disrespecting it but because you're a fellow animal he won't learn to respect you due to the consequences of disrespecting you, because there is a question there of whether he can make you submit/die, whereas there is no questioning and challenging the fire, and because he's not too intelligent (obviously) he doesn't realize you're potentially as dangerous as fire and could kill him instantly. It's a theory anyway... Personally I don't think he's all as mentally reasonable as that.

Of course, there are a whole host of negative side effects to punishment. They include but are not limited to increased aggression and avoidance behavior (I wish I had gotten that side effect!).

Yeah, totally agree with this... Punishments aren't really among any of the most effective training methods I know of, especially not with seriously aggressive animals and especially not with those that are aggressive due to perceived status rights being violated by the human, where the animal's belief in its superior status is not based on anything real, so trouncing it in a physical battle won't alter its behavior even though it got dominated and invalidated as the natural alpha. It's akin to some kind of neurosis, some rooster aggression is definitely a mental fault.

Socially balanced individuals are open to the idea that their opponent may be the superior one, and the battle is not to kill their opponent, but to find out which is the most worthy one, so to speak, and once that's achieved, they go their separate ways and respect one another, and one anothers' social status; just because one animal is subordinate does not make it a punching bag with no rights. The alpha doesn't keep attacking the subordinate and the subordinate certainly doesn't challenge the alpha again unless they've gotten stronger or smarter and now think they can take the alpha position. It's based on testing and measurable results, not an incontestable perception of absolute superiority which denies all evidence to the contrary as per your experiences with your rooster.

When I first had my rooster problems no one had any solutions except violence against the rooster. Perhaps I could have tried to train him to do a behavior that he couldn't attack me at the same time as doing the behavior, but in my opinion he was just too motivated to attack and that would have trumped any desire for a goody that he would have earned for doing a behavior.

Logic can lead to violence apparently being the answer, but that's only because logic itself is flawed because it depends on what we can quantify and we cannot quantify everything around us completely accurately, and in my experience violence is never the true answer, unless it's permanent, i.e. culling. I'm sure there are some who never attacked again after being attacked in return but I don't have any personal experiences that verify that so at the moment I don't consider violence the correct method in any situation.

I don't want to keep a violent animal for its whole lifetime, breeding it most likely (because I don't keep almost any nonbreeders except a few pets), hoping it never snaps again, wasting years of my life on that already proven risk, adding its almost guaranteed to be worthless genetics to my programs and then watching its descendants to see the trait surface again. With the abundance of great alternatives and the ease of keeping them I don't see the value in keeping animals that will only respect me if I abuse them.

About the pointlessness of trying to redirect him, I believe you're right, I'd bet it wouldn't have worked because he sounds quite bent/motivated to harm you, and either way if you'd started giving him treats to try to distract him, that would merely have added positive reinforcement. Chooks are quick to learn to do whatever gets the treats, they've trained many humans in the history of the species' domesticity.

I honestly think you are correct that it has a genetic basis. In the past, all roosters lived on farms with farmers and children running around. A nasty rooster would NOT have been tolerated. Now, breeding birds has become largely commercialized and temperament doesn't matter. Dr. Temple Grandin has written articles on how commercial breeding practices have allowed "rapist roosters" as she calls them to be used in a breeding program. They are not culled from a breeding program because of their rude behavior.

Temple Grandin has some interesting points of view, I've only just started looking into her work and at this rate she will leave a good legacy of better animal treatment behind her.

There are studies proving the genetic predisposition towards violence is very strong, in various species including chickens. If you were curious you could conduct your own breeding experiment using this rooster and try to breed out violent behavior, or even breed more in. Would be very dangerous though.

You've brought up some interesting points, Chooks4life.

Thanks, and best wishes with your future studies and your rooster. I also did some studying on ethology and animal training across species, philosophies and eras, as it's always fascinated me, and I've yet to find any body of work that is totally correct in application, it's a very complicated world and animals are more complicated than is already obvious.

 

[ivan3]

Wasn't going to post this, but as some others are interested in ethology (good bibliography):

https://www.ifm.liu.se/biology/zool...says/Beas-Introduction-thesi1_-fran-pelle.pdf

 

[6of6chicks]

I think the punishment theory you were taught might better be described as conditioning because if I understand it right, it's an attempt to mimic the natural punishment/consequences that reinforce or negatively 'reinforce' any action such as occurs in the wild as well as in domesticity. (?)

Yes, it is Operant Conditioning, which is where the learner "operates" within his/her enviornment. It is how we all learn.

The problem with the idea of punishment and reward being what controls the increase or decrease of a given behavior is that it doesn't account for all the motivations behind that behavior, or it assumes they are all logical. Sometimes psychosis is the motivation and trying to deal with that logically isn't going to work because it's entirely illogical. Sometimes there is simply no behavior or reaction that is going to decrease the behavior.

All may be true, but it really doesn't matter whether I can understand the motivations. All that matters is the behavior and whether it increases, decreases or remains the same as a result of whatever consequence is applied.

Thank you BOTH for continuing this discussion. I'm sure I'm not the only one still following!

Since you've gone into the area of dogs, I wanted to chime in. I strongly disagree with the statements in red. Not sure about chickens, but with dogs you HAVE to attempt to understand the motivations behind behavior. For two solid reasons:

1. You cannot possibly know ALL the variables that could affect the behavior you are observing. Sometimes you can identify a simple cause/effect chain of events in behavior (I said "sit." My dog knows the command, "sit," therefore she sat.) but that type of logic assumes you are aware of every single antecedent that could possibly have caused the behavior. To try to boil it down to just antecedents/consequences based on your observations of behavior - that's simply impossible, especially when dealing with animals. The best example I can think of is pain. Dogs don't always demonstrate they are in pain in ways that are easily recognizable to people. If the behavior I observe is sudden snarling and I don't know it's because she has an obstruction (because I didn't know she ate a rock yesterday), any "consequence" I apply to correct the snarling will be pointless.

2. Attempting to understand motivation is essential when attempting to correct behavior in an animal. Now, is a dog thinking deep, philosophical thoughts that you need to figure out? No. But you need to understand WHY your dog does something in order to find an appropriate consequence (for you OR your dog) for its behavior. Otherwise it is purely a shot in the dark that your consequences will work. They may be corrective, but may not actually solve the problem. For example, let's say my dog chews up my shoe. There are a number of corrective actions I can take, depending on what method or voice of authority I choose to listen to. Let's say I'm lucky & catch the dog in the act, so I yell/scold. Maybe I'm really lucky and the dog connects my scolding with his chewing. But will that necessarily stop the behavior? Not unless I understand WHY - the motivation for the shoe chewing. Was the dog bored? Hungry? Had it been left alone too long and was lonely? Was the leather in the shoe too similar to rawhide and the dog couldn't tell the difference? Maybe my previous yelling has backfired and the dog chewed the shoe to seek attention. All of that speaks to motivation. Unless you want to truly correct a behavior and prevent it from occurring again you have to make some attempt to narrow down the variables in play. Observation alone won't get you there.

I write all this because somewhere in here someone talked about a rooster attacking new boots that had a yellow line on them. After the yellow line was blacked out with a sharpie, the rooster's aggression stopped (if I'm remembering that right). Logic implies that the yellow on new boots was the antecedent. In other words, the yellow ticked off the rooster. You have to see that as motivation, otherwise physically correcting the rooster for aggression won't work. Understanding the motivation sometimes allows YOU to correct YOUR behavior, thus changing the environment to change the animal's behavior and in that particular case case avoid potentially abusive corrections altogether.

Just my two cents based on years of working with dogs. That said, I'm brand new to chickens. Most of the time I can't even begin to figure out what their crazy behavior means!

 

[Ganjaroo]

In response to MANY like-minded posts here, I must say that I firmly believe that NO animal should be beaten into submission, or even struck, ..not even once. I think most everyone can agree that this especially does not work with a rooster. When my roo attacked last week, I kicked AT him only to get him away from me, and of course this only made him come at me more fiercely. Throwing a sheet over him and picking him up stopped him cold. Then he was locked in the coop to re-think his attitude problem.
Since the attack, he has returned to his old self, and I am learning of ways to adjust my behavior around him to prevent this from happening again. I realize that those of you with the CULL HIM mentality think this is ridiculous, and that's fine. You are entitled to your opinions. Just know that I was being flippant when I titled this post, "Rooster has Gone Psycho". He is NOT a violent, psychotic, or mean roo. He has many good traits and is normally quite the gentleman. He deserves another chance, and right or wrong, .. that is exactly what he is getting.
Just a footnote: ..earlier this morning, I caught my roo, the hens, and the cat sharing a nap in the hay. lol. The cat, who has been chased out of the yard by him on numerous occasions, was snuggled right up to his wing! Is this some kind of violent, killing machine who must be culled at the first serious display of aggression? No, I think not.
Again, I will work with him, and I am hoping for the best.

Time will tell if I have made the right decision, but regardless of the outcome, at least I will know that I've tried. Thanks again to everyone for sharing your stories and experiences. I truly appreciate all of you, no matter whether you think I'm a fool for my decision or not. I have learned TONS from you from Day One of my chicken keeping, and I am continuing to do so. Good day to all!

 

[6of6chicks]

Many terms used in the context of ethology are being thrown around. Doing so appears to be more of an attempt to appear heady and confuse those not so interested in simply the abstract concepts. I hope those parties communicating in such a fashion are legitimate experts in ethology that will then begin to provide more applicable methods for bird behavior management. Thus far, the only tool that has been suggested and not assaulted is selective breeding.

I'm not sure who this is directed at, but I certainly wasn't trying to come across a pretentious know-it-all or anything. I just thought the whole conversation was very interesting and it gave me a lot to think about.

Over the years I have just come to believe that almost all of the times that my dog has ticked me off it has ultimately been MY own fault. If I had just been a little wiser, a little more proactive, and a little better at understanding why my dog did what she did, most of the time the unwanted behavior could have been prevented to begin with. I can give you a thousand examples, but it really doesn't matter. The point I was trying to make is that you have to know why an animal behaves the way it does in order to figure out how to stop an unwanted behavior. In my experience physical punishments (hitting, kicking, whatever) don't accomplish anything in the long run, and sometimes actually escalate whatever conflict you are having with the animal. Not hard to figure out that if you get angry at an animal, fight or flight kicks in and sometimes you will get an animal that fights you back. Plenty of rooster stories in here to back that up. In the end, those kinds of corrective punishments don't accomplish anything positive. It's much, much easier to change the environment than it is to change the animal.

Am I an expert and/or have a degree in ethology? Nope. Just my personal opinions. But do I love animals? Yup. Do I like living in peace with well-behaved animals? Yup. Has that motivated me to spend a whole lot of time learning how to be a better animal owner? You betcha.

To the OP - this is JUST my opinion, but I don't think you're wrong at all for keeping the rooster. Sometimes I have no clue why one of my dogs will act up, but almost always I have a forehead slap/light bulb moment later on when it finally dawns on me why they did what they did. It is NEVER out of meanness or anger on my dog's part. Usually it's a reaction to SOMETHING on their part and poor management/understanding on my part. Now I may be new to chickens, but my instincts tell me that some of that logic applies to them too.

My personal opinion is that something set your rooster off, and just because you haven't figured out why yet doesn't mean he should be automatically culled. Now, if down the road the behavior keeps happening and you haven't figured out why and it passes the point of no return - then sure, invite him to Sunday dinner. But for now, if he's back to his sweet self, then good for you for giving him another chance.

 

[subhanalah]

I just take it as people throwing around ideas to get feedback in a non-threatening environment.

I didn't take anyone to say that their word was law...but then aga8n...When I'm not typing on a touch screen (I.e. talking) I do this all the time. Mostly to see if others have perceptions, views, or knowledge that corroborates or is contrary to my thought/postulations....

But maybe I'm misinterpreting the tone entirely.

 

[centrarchid]

6of6chicks,

Your logic is sound and comment was not directed at you. I have some pertinent training to this discussion, apparently at least on par with some of the "experts" here, and use it routinely, especially with poultry. Readers need to be flexible and considerate of the possibility that the aggression is manageable and that in most instances dealing with it is simple although it may require repetition and changes in how you as the keeper interact with your charges.

Greater effort needs to be expended on understanding context of aggression. Age of aggressor and particulars of aggressive behavior should always considered. Discussion can then concentrate on specific details of a given situation that can under many circumstances be used to fix problem.


Most of this thread has essentially been dwelling on philosophy which does not get you anywhere.

edited by staff

 

[subhanalah]

I think sometimes, especially with how much industry has skewed the "traditional wisdom" for the care of these animals, it's a good idea to challenge what is currently accepted as "ideal" or "absolute."

Look at how many people think white store bought eggs are "ideal."

 

[lularat]

6of6chicks,

Your logic is sound and comment was not directed at you. I have some pertinent training to this discussion, apparently at least on par with some of the "experts" here, and use it routinely, especially with poultry. A lot of what is being stated by some others is a bit on the bull poop end of spectrum. Readers need to be flexible and considerate of the possibility that the aggression is manageable and that in most instances dealing with it is simple although it may require repetition and changes in how you as the keeper interact with your charges.

Greater effort needs to be expended on understanding context of aggression. Age of aggressor and particulars of aggressive behavior should always considered. Discussion can then concentrate on specific details of a given situation that can under many circumstances be used to fix problem.


Most of this thread has essentially been dwelling on philosophy which does not get you anywhere.

Agreed!