Do You Have An Opinion On Killing Predators?

[janinepeters]

Thanks JP but I am a Hypocrite because I love beef but cant deal with paying $$$$ for organic, free range beef... so I eat commerical beef... I do spring for freerange chicken and eggs (which is why I am now raising them)... but have yet to kill anything except fish (grew up fishing)... And I do think I should kill what I eat....So for me it would just be fish, maybe chicken (havent crossed that bridge yet)... But would certainly feel ok to eat predators.... (but do not kill them myself, just do not like waste)....

Nobody's perfect. You're aware and you do your best. It's a process. It took me 15-20 years of gradual change to reach a mostly humane diet, and still it's only "mostly". Yup, it's expensive.

 

[Citychicken12]

Personally, I need help getting rid of flies ( wrong thread I know) They are the only creature giving me problems right now hahaha

 

[chickortreat]

.

 

[tom e]

I won't hesitate, and don't think it is cruel to defend them, got the .22 by my bed, lol. But if I see a raccoon or snake or ANYTHING getting at them through some hole in my security and don't fix it after, not only am I inviting more trouble (that I may not be around to defend next time) but I have lost the moral high ground (if such a thing exists- I will say yes). Everything needs to eat, and if we aren't doing our best to protect them, we're just feeding the wildlife- quickly or slowly. We may say, "That raccoon deserved it cause it's a bad animal taking from me" but realistically we deserve to lose our birds if we are complacent. I take that criticism myself as well, whenever I mess up. The goal is peaceful coexistence and never having to kill an animal that I don't want to eat, but the reality is that it's a process and I'll strive to get better and better at it.

 

[tom e]

I beg to differ with you, but that's not exactly how it works. If that were the case, why worry if a predator kills one (or more) of your flock? I mean, another will replace it.....and then another, and another..... Not quite so is it? The simple fact remains that every time you take out a predator, you are reducing the risk of losing a chicken to predators. Normal habitat will only support so many of any given specie. If, for example, there are 4 coons within 1 mile of my home, and I take out 2 of them, I have reduced the likelihood of a coon getting one of my chickens by 50%. Granted, others may migrate in to replace them, but they're not exactly on standby, just waiting to move in when Cousin Bandit takes a .22 slug.

Only if you think you can shoot all the predators around you faster than they can reproduce. I guarantee you cannot. If we could, there would be no raccoons in the world. Plenty of folks have tried that over the last century or two, and better sportsman than you or me I'll bet. Look at coyotes. We have had government bounties on them (where they pay you for every skin you bring in) and government poisoning and trapping campaigns, and all that has caused is a huge INCREASE in their population and range. They used to be a west coast species, and now they are in every state in the nation- even in NYC.

 

[redsoxs]

I will kill the problem predator - one that is lurking around or that has already snatched one of my birds. I know some will say all predators are problem predators if you let them become a problem. Maybe so, but I kind of treat it like the national parks treat problem bears - ones that maul campers or tear up dumpsters or raid tents - that's the bear they go after. When a predator become an active nuisance is when I will take action and trap that one. With things like hawks and owls I find a shotgun blast into the trees near them - I don't shoot them - is enough to send them packing. Just my opinion - I know others do it differently and that's cool.

 

[tom e]

I actually agree with you redsocks. I will kill one too if necessary, and I use my own discretion at that. But I think it is a one sided (and ultimately futile) approach to say, just buy more bullets. After all if it weren't, one wouldn't have to buy any more eventually.

Like the man said, "How's that working out for you?"

Also don't anybody get me wrong, shoot every last raccoon you see if you want, it truly doesn't bother me, I do the same with the gophers and with the cottontails (which I eat). It WOULD bother me if I thought one had the remote possibility of reducing their numbers appreciably, but since they don't, I think it is fine. Check my lawn sometime, gopher holes everywhere. I'm simply saying, if the goal is killing another raccoon, mission accomplished right? But if the goal is protecting your chickens and the gun is your ONLY means to that end, my wager is that you'll (I don't mean anyone in particular here) keep losing birds.

 

[chickortreat]

.

 

[tom e]

I suppose it's a waste of time, but I still disagree that predators can reproduce faster than they can be done away with. One can shoot 3 or 4 coons in an evening, that will take months to be replaced by reproduction. Are you implying that if efforts had not been made to reduce coyote populations, that they would NOT have increased in population and range? If you are correct, then I say again that maybe we should encourage predators to kill our chickens so that they may in like manner increase their numbers. Sounds preposterous, don't it?

What I'm suggesting is that as it turns out, the efforts to control predators have other effects that can't easily be predicted. In fact, probably one of the biggest helps to the coyotes was the successful elimination of yet another predator- the wolf. But it is believed by some that killing them further did in fact help them since then, because we are selecting for the best and strongest and smartest when we kill the ones that we get.. It's similar to deer, in areas where they aren't hunted and where they have few predators, they get weaker and sicker without those pressures, even while their populations might boom initially.
If you wanted to do something similar with your chickens (in case you were being serious) you'd have to turn them loose- and actually, I'll bet you'd find that they would adapt in ways that make them more like their wild ancestors. Provided the terrain is suitable for them, you'd actually find that those pressures would probably increase their populations. Of course they wouldn't be as suited to what you want them for anymore. But no, not preposterous at all, that's much of the basis of modern biology.
What are we talking about again?

 

[janinepeters]

I suppose it's a waste of time, but I still disagree that predators can reproduce faster than they can be done away with.

I think both sides of the argument are somewhat bogus here. History has shown that for some species, (e.g., the coyote), expensive, time consuming eradication campaigns did not reduce the population. Coyotes were, in fact, able to reproduce faster than people could kill them. But this is not true for ALL species, whether predator or prey. This is partly why we are in the midst of an extinction crisis.

There are many factors influencing the population of a species, for example: hunting pressure (by both humans and other species), quality of habitat, quantity of habitat, connectivity of habitat, road density, climate, etc. Also, the innate reproductive limitations of the species are very important: some can produce only one or a few offspring once a year. Others can have many litters of multiple young. The latter group is much less vulnerable to human hunting, because they can quickly produce more young when habitat opens up, as it does when you shoot an individual. The former group is not so lucky, and their numbers can decline sharply due to human hunting. This is why we regulate hunting.

For me personally, there are 2 reasons favoring prevention of conflict rather than destruction:

1. Many of those factors influencing animal populations are changing rapidly: climate is quickly warming, habitat is being destroyed more quickly than ever before, and human population (which impacts many of these other factors) continues to grow. We already know that many species around the world are failing to cope, and we cannot assume that species doing well now will still be in good shape tomorrow. We've managed to kill off abundant species before, and we can do it again. Take the passenger pigeon: once so numerous that people shot them out of the sky for fun, leaving many of them to rot. Current status? Gone. All of them. Combine the backyard chicken craze with climate change, urbanization, suburban sprawl, and human population growth...That's a pretty stiff challenge even for these common predators we lure in with a chicken dinner.

2. It's simply more humane, IMO, to prevent conflict with wildlife, than to kill them. This is a value thing which others may not share. I understand this is not a concern for everyone.