Do You Have An Opinion On Killing Predators?

[appps]

Well I guess we are a bit different here in Australia because our biggest predator the fox is a pest not a native animal whose territory humans have encroached on. I don't have any problems with them being eradicated humanley because it's not just chickens they are attacking. They were introduced and who ever did it should also have been shot lol

We're it a native animal then my opinion might be different.

 

[chickortreat]

Deleted.

 

[Nicole01]

Sure, anything that is legal to shoot that is going after my flock. I can't do anything about the abundant hawks eyeing my girls as prey. My girls have great cover from the hawks.

I just had a coyote eat a hen. We tried to trap/hunt it with no availability. As long as it is legal and a danger to my flock, we will try our best to get it. We do not go out and kill every animal in sight. We will kill anything after our flock minus hawks and eagles. We do follow our law.

If I had a gun, I'd most likely shoot the dog that comes in our yard snapping at my flock wanting to kill them. The neighbor just says sorry and leaves him out anyways. Luckily my mace with tear gas works if I don't have my own dogs with me. Yesterday was the 6th time in a month he's been after my flock. He'd bite me too if he could. My dogs will run him off too. Next year we are building a fence in our backyard. We will do this in stages since its 4 acres, but it will keep most the dogs out once we start. I'm not worried over night predators, my girls are very safe in our coop and run that's well built.

 

[Nicole01]

If someone breaks into my house, the last thing I'd be worried about is whether or not they are a local or not. Why would it matter if the species was native or not, if it's harming your chickens? Besides, as has been stated here before, you cannot eradicate a species by shooting them. For every one you shoot, a dozen more will take its place. It's true! I read it here on BYC. It does amuse me that this principle seems to only apply to certain specie, such as coon, possom, etc. No one buys this baloney when it comes to species they perceive to be endangered.

If someone broke into my house, both my big dogs would rip them apart. I suppose I'd be the one to get in trouble if the person robbing us who was bit and took us to court.:/ Although, I do have a sign on my door that says beware of dogs. We do keep firearms in the bedroom in case of an emergency.

 

[janinepeters]

Besides, as has been stated here before, you cannot eradicate a species by shooting them. For every one you shoot, a dozen more will take its place. It's true! I read it here on BYC. It does amuse me that this principle seems to only apply to certain specie, such as coon, possom, etc. No one buys this baloney when it comes to species they perceive to be endangered.

The reason that the principle "you cannot eradicate a species by shooting them...seems to only apply to certain species" is because it DOES apply only to certain species...and certain conditions. Different species reproduce at different rates. See post #90 on this thread.

As far as what people "perceive to be endangered", there are people who study animal populations for a living, and their determinations are based on actual data, not whim. Here's where you can find lists of species around the world which are threatened, vulnerable, endangered, etc:
http://www.iucnredlist.org/
Click on a category (such as "endangered"), then click on a species, and you will find documentation of the research done on that species which led to that determination.

 

[Egghead_Jr]

Do I have an opinion on killing predators?

Why yes, yes I do.

 

[RaeRae2]

If someone broke into my house, both my big dogs would rip them apart. I suppose I'd be the one to get in trouble if the person robbing us who was bit and took us to court.

Although, I do have a sign on my door that says beware of dogs. We do keep firearms in the bedroom in case of an emergency.

Actually the "Beware of Dogs" sign on your porch may get you into MORE trouble! Many years ago my coon hound appointed himself as the neighborhood watch dog. He would fiercely protect his house, his porch, his yard. Very disturbing because I had to watch him CONSTANTLY. He was outside on his cable and a boy scout came in the yard and that dog pinned the kid. Absolutely terrifying for me. I could have lost everything in that moment, but thankfully the dog did NOT harm the kid at all. Only scared him half to death.

I called an attorney who specializes in domestic property and tresspassing law. I asked if I could hang up a "Beware of Dog" sign to protect myself from soliciters just walking up my driveway, or if a neighbor comes up the driveway and the dog happens to be out there. Basically I wanted people to be aware that I have a potentially dangerous dog so basically - enter at your own risk.

The lawyer told me that hanging up a "Beware of Dog" sign was admitting your dog is dangerous. If you know the dog is dangerous and do not take proper precautions to secure the dog away from humans or other animals, you can be found guilty of malicious intent or negligence. He told me that hanging up a sign was actually about the worst thing you could do for yourself and essentially that just "seals your fate" in a court of law.

He told me instead I need to hang up "No Tresspassing" and "No Soliciting" signs. That way I am warning people to stay off my property, but I am not advertising to the world that I own a dangerous dog.

 

[RaeRae2]

If someone breaks into my house, the last thing I'd be worried about is whether or not they are a local or not. Why would it matter if the species was native or not, if it's harming your chickens? Besides, as has been stated here before, you cannot eradicate a species by shooting them. For every one you shoot, a dozen more will take its place. It's true! I read it here on BYC. It does amuse me that this principle seems to only apply to certain specie, such as coon, possom, etc. No one buys this baloney when it comes to species they perceive to be endangered.

Species are placed on the endangered, protected, or threatened list because their numbers are low, their reproduction is inadequate, and the threat they face from predation and loss of habitat is too high to overcome. They are not assigned endangered, protected, or threatened status by backyard joe blows who "perceive" them to be endangered. You might want to check out the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species Program web page for more information: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

No, you are not likely to eradicate your entire local popultion of raccoons, or opossums, because they reproduce like wild fire, habitat is very easy to come by for the most part, their resources are abundant, and their natural predators are generally lacking. If you shoot 10 opossums on your property, you simply open up more habitat and resources for 10 more to move in from neighboring farm lands. But species that are much less abundant and not as densely populated CAN be more easily controlled through eradication. But shooting only one Fisher Cat on your property means that you might not EVER see another one again because their numbers may be very low (depending on where you live). Where I live, I have seen one Fisher and accoridng to my state's DNR, Fishers are not terribly common. But I have seen hundreds of coons and opossums over the years.

In my state, an example of this would be the Canda Lynx, the Whooping Crane, the Timberwolf. These species were hunted or poisioned to near extinction but have made a comeback due to protection. The wolf's habitat for example, has shrunk every year due to urban sprawl and industrialization. People began hunting and trapping them without mercy because they were feeding on livestock. Calves, lambs, chickens, even foals and domestic dogs became food. The rate that they were hunted and killed overcame the rate they could reproduce and rear young. With the loss of habitat, the loss of food, and the intense predation from humans, the species was almost totally eradicated. The DNR planted packs of captive bred wolves in this state to re-establish the populations.

But for all of the trapping and hunting of coons, why aren't they near extinction? Their numbers just keep growing, despite the very healthy and active population of coon hunters raising coon dogs around here. Coons can reproduce so fast, and so efficient, that hunters cannot overcome their numbers. In fact, for species that reproduce and rear young very efficiently, hunting is an EXCELLENT way to guarantee a healthy, reproducing population. By thinning out the herd, you open up more resources (land, food, and breeding opportunities) for the remaining population (deer and rabbits also come to mind.)

So yes, my opinion still stands that shooting 10 or 20 coons a year that are threatening your free range chickens is absolutely NOT an effective way to control the poulation. If anything, you are only strengthening the population by opening up more food and habitat for others to move in. Not only do I believe this because of published research and results, but also from my years of watching my grandparents hunt and trap chicken predators continuously and NEVER making any dent in the population, whatsoever. They raised all types of fowl for meat and egg production and I don't ever remember a day without some type of predator hunt. Most of the pens were not secure (chicken wire) and could be ripped into. Many of the birds free ranged. Some of the guinneas and peacocks even roosted in the trees. The ducks would wander over the hill to the pond and get eaten by snapping turtles and fox. The constant killing just never made a single bit of difference.

I think you need to remove habitat and food sources (e.g., lock up grain bins securely, keep chickens in SECURE pens and runs, thin out underbrush and excess vegetation that provides hiding spots, remove breeding habitats, keep property clean and well inspected, keep up on mowing and brush hogging, trim low hanging branches, etc.) But constant shooting and trapping as the main source of protection is ineffective for the most common chicken predators.

 

[RaeRae2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaeRae2

Everyone has the freedom to do as they see fit, within the confines of the law. I find it unnerving though to think of how many people are carrying weapons around "just in case." I really believe that only maybe 1% of all gun owners ACTUALLY have the knowledge and experience to handle that weapon properly in an emergency situation.








REALLY...?
1%.... ?!?!?!
99% of the people i have been in contact with over the years pride themselves in safety of ownership.
Sorry, i don't appreciate the stereotyping either... I find it insulting!

I don't think personal attacks are necessary, really?
Just because my views are different than yours?
I for one, was a law enforcement officer for 11 years.
Worked with 4H and scouts during hunter education training, and have a healthy respect for any gun.
I think i am qualified to handle a firearm, and know when NOT to use one.
Being a gun owner does not mean uneducated, and last i checked its my right as American to do so..
As far as my livestock, they are confined in chain link covered coops and runs unless I am out with them.
I have lost my last animal to a stray dog, or coyote, raccoon etc... not going to happen again.
The rifle and i will handle it as I see necessary.

My comment about 1% was dealing with concealed hand guns placed by beds or elsewhere within a home to "defend one's property" against tresspassers. I was not referring to someone owning a shotgun with which to shoot a coon with. The two thoughts were actually disconnected, and I apologize if I did not type them out appropriately.

I in fact own a .22 rifle and enjoy target practicing. I grew up around guns and was raised by parents who were very avid big game hunters, and also competition handgun and rifle shooters. I was target practicing (never shot an animal), cleaning guns, and reloading shells from the time I was about 9 years old. I spent much of my childhood in a gun range doing homework with ear muffs on. I am no stranger to weapons or in shooting them. But I do not for one moment believe that I have the knowledge or the training or the mental fortitude to tuck a gun into my belt and flash it around when a "tresspasser" comes on my property. And in fact, I do not believe that more than 1% of the general gun owning population would be. When you are faced with either a real or imagined attacker, adrenaline soars, and people act in ways they might not otherwise. I was referring to people shooting people in self defense. Not farms protecting livestock with a shotgun, or rifle, or similar.

 

[Nicole01]

Quote: Originally Posted by Nicole01 If someone broke into my house, both my big dogs would rip them apart. I suppose I'd be the one to get in trouble if the person robbing us who was bit and took us to court. Although, I do have a sign on my door that says beware of dogs. We do keep firearms in the bedroom in case of an emergency. Actually the "Beware of Dogs" sign on your porch may get you into MORE trouble! Many years ago my coon hound appointed himself as the neighborhood watch dog. He would fiercely protect his house, his porch, his yard. Very disturbing because I had to watch him CONSTANTLY. He was outside on his cable and a boy scout came in the yard and that dog pinned the kid. Absolutely terrifying for me. I could have lost everything in that moment, but thankfully the dog did NOT harm the kid at all. Only scared him half to death. I called an attorney who specializes in domestic property and tresspassing law. I asked if I could hang up a "Beware of Dog" sign to protect myself from soliciters just walking up my driveway, or if a neighbor comes up the driveway and the dog happens to be out there. Basically I wanted people to be aware that I have a potentially dangerous dog so basically - enter at your own risk. The lawyer told me that hanging up a "Beware of Dog" sign was admitting your dog is dangerous. If you know the dog is dangerous and do not take proper precautions to secure the dog away from humans or other animals, you can be found guilty of malicious intent or negligence. He told me that hanging up a sign was actually about the worst thing you could do for yourself and essentially that just "seals your fate" in a court of law. He told me instead I need to hang up "No Tresspassing" and "No Soliciting" signs. That way I am warning people to stay off my property, but I am not advertising to the world that I own a dangerous dog.

We can't leave our dogs on a leash outside by themselves or near our door. They are by our sides 100% of the time outside as well. I do live out in the country thank goodness. There are not too many people that stop by. The kids will not and do not answer the door.

Our dogs would most likely bite a stranger that walked into our house. Next year we are putting a chain link fence in 3.5 acres(backyard), so the dogs can have a little more freedom when going to the bathroom. Plus, fencing our property will keep running dogs away from our flock.

I do know it is a huge risk, but they will protect inside our house. Our entire family knows. When we have company the dogs are put away or muzzled. Our dogs are great with us and the neighbors, but not strangers. They both run off other dogs and keep the chickens safe.

Our dogs have never bitten in the past that I know of(we have a rescue dog), but they do bark at the doorbell or knocking. I've been raised never to trust any animal and to always have respect for them. We've never had an incident, but I do not want anyone to walk right in ever. We also keep our doors locked at all times.