Killer duck......

[Fishkeeper]

360 same mornings with relaxed humans; 5 scary humans ones that are all also 5 nights that she had some duckfight. She cán connect that.

This is the issue here. Animals have a very, very hard time connecting consequences that are not immediately after the action. That's what I'm trying to say. This is known for all animal species that we've studied in relevant ways. It is known for young children, who don't yet have the skill to consider their past actions and think about what they've done that might be causing a certain response.
What am I not saying clearly enough here? The issue isn't their inability to make connections, the issue is the distance between action (duck fight) and consequence (unhappy humans). A duck is not capable of going "oh, the humans are upset", thinking back over everything it's done lately, and coming to the conclusion that the problem is the fight.
Ducks learn not to run into windows because, when they run into a window, it immediately hurts. If they ran into a window and then it hurt an hour later, they wouldn't know why. That's why dogs will repeatedly eat foods that make them sick- they don't make the connection between eating a specific food, and feeling bad an hour later. Your ducks learn not to be loud when trying to sneak in and get the cat food because, when you see them, you immediately make them stop.

If you went outside after a duck fight, found the dead duck, and visibly reacted in angry ways, immediately, where the aggressor could see, she might learn from that. That's an immediate thing: humans see dead duck, humans get mad.

If the duck sees humans acting angry, the duck does not sit and think back on everything that's happened to try and figure out why. They don't have those skills.

 

[Miss Lydia]

The thing is these 3 ducks died from a predator attack they weren’t killed by the OP’s duck like first thought.

 

[Loopeend]

This is the issue here. Animals have a very, very hard time connecting consequences that are not immediately after the action. That's what I'm trying to say. This is known for all animal species that we've studied in relevant ways. It is known for young children, who don't yet have the skill to consider their past actions and think about what they've done that might be causing a certain response.
What am I not saying clearly enough here? The issue isn't their inability to make connections, the issue is the distance between action (duck fight) and consequence (unhappy humans). A duck is not capable of going "oh, the humans are upset", thinking back over everything it's done lately, and coming to the conclusion that the problem is the fight.
Ducks learn not to run into windows because, when they run into a window, it immediately hurts. If they ran into a window and then it hurt an hour later, they wouldn't know why. That's why dogs will repeatedly eat foods that make them sick- they don't make the connection between eating a specific food, and feeling bad an hour later. Your ducks learn not to be loud when trying to sneak in and get the cat food because, when you see them, you immediately make them stop.

If you went outside after a duck fight, found the dead duck, and visibly reacted in angry ways, immediately, where the aggressor could see, she might learn from that. That's an immediate thing: humans see dead duck, humans get mad.

If the duck sees humans acting angry, the duck does not sit and think back on everything that's happened to try and figure out why. They don't have those skills.

I know.
We are on the same page.
I agree with you.
I never said `ducks sit and think back on everything that's happened to try and figured out why`. I literally said the opposite. Multiple times now.
Please stop proving a point we both think the same about.
It makes it a non-discussion since there is no discussion. Since I agree with you.
Ít is beginning to feel personal or the total opposite that you are attacking me because you have something personal going on. In both of these cases you are welcome to talk to me through a personal message.
But I dislike having discussions that go no where and everything I say is just wrong, a lie, no matter how or what I say, even after saying that I agree with you. That does not do good to anyone. Noone grows/learns.
You are welcome to stay at my property to learn how my ducks are in about one year when our guest-building is finished to check our ducks out. I pay. I can not pay the flight-cost unfortunately, but can accomandate a free stay and food for you and your family. After that you are allowed to form opinions on how much I do or do not lie about my ducks. Beforehand it is just useless, silly, and hurtfull. Saying "I don't believe you' once is enough. If you want to say it more you are freely to come check it out and build a opinion based up on facts. If those facts mean I'm not the winner; great. Then I might learn something. It's a win-win for everyone. But bluntly just saying "no! you are wrong!' has no winners.

 

[Fishkeeper]

I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying I think something slightly different happened than your perception of the situation. It's a very common thing for people to attribute human abilities and thinking to animals.

I might be misreading something. Please tell me if I'm wrong about this:
You have/had a duck that killed other ducks. It eventually stopped killing other ducks. You think this may have been partially due to the duck learning that you don't want it to do that, because it saw you being upset the morning after it killed a duck.

It's not an unreasonable conclusion. I don't know how common knowledge about animal thought patterns is, but I don't think it's something that most people read about.

What I'm saying is this:
The majority of animals can only make connections between immediate events. You can easily teach a chicken to press a button for a reward, if the reward is given immediately. If you try to teach a chicken to press a button, but you only reward it 2 hours after it presses the button, it's not going to work.
The killing of a duck, and your reaction to that, are separated by a decent amount of time. The aggressive duck performs an action in the evening, then, a good 8+ hours later, you react. I'm saying that I don't think a duck is capable of making the connection between your response now, and something it did 8 hours before. Even if it has a memory of the killing as an event (which we don't know if birds remember like that), it has no way of knowing that, specifically, its action of killing another duck was the problem. Without a bridge between the two, it's going to think you're upset for no reason it's aware of, or it might think that something unrelated (car horn, hawk, etc) is why you're upset.
I also think that your duck stopped killing other ducks either because of a hormone shift, because of how the other ducks behaved towards it, or I suppose it's possible that the aggressive duck saw you respond to, specifically, the body, and connected that immediate event (discovery of dead duck) to response (unhappy humans).

I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, I don't mean it to. I'm trying to explain why I've come to the conclusion that I have, and I really don't know how else to put it. I don't know if I'm misreading something you're writing, or if I'm not writing clearly enough, or what. But it looks to me like you have the conclusion that ducks can link past events with present consequences, and I'm quite sure they can't. I'm not sure it's ever been confirmed that any animal can. That's a really complex process.

 

[Loopeend]

I'm not saying you're lying. I'm saying I think something slightly different happened than your perception of the situation. It's a very common thing for people to attribute human abilities and thinking to animals.

I might be misreading something. Please tell me if I'm wrong about this:
You have/had a duck that killed other ducks. It eventually stopped killing other ducks. You think this may have been partially due to the duck learning that you don't want it to do that, because it saw you being upset the morning after it killed a duck.

It's not an unreasonable conclusion. I don't know how common knowledge about animal thought patterns is, but I don't think it's something that most people read about.

What I'm saying is this:
The majority of animals can only make connections between immediate events. You can easily teach a chicken to press a button for a reward, if the reward is given immediately. If you try to teach a chicken to press a button, but you only reward it 2 hours after it presses the button, it's not going to work.
The killing of a duck, and your reaction to that, are separated by a decent amount of time. The aggressive duck performs an action in the evening, then, a good 8+ hours later, you react. I'm saying that I don't think a duck is capable of making the connection between your response now, and something it did 8 hours before. Even if it has a memory of the killing as an event (which we don't know if birds remember like that), it has no way of knowing that, specifically, its action of killing another duck was the problem. Without a bridge between the two, it's going to think you're upset for no reason it's aware of, or it might think that something unrelated (car horn, hawk, etc) is why you're upset.
I also think that your duck stopped killing other ducks either because of a hormone shift, because of how the other ducks behaved towards it, or I suppose it's possible that the aggressive duck saw you respond to, specifically, the body, and connected that immediate event (discovery of dead duck) to response (unhappy humans).

I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, I don't mean it to. I'm trying to explain why I've come to the conclusion that I have, and I really don't know how else to put it. I don't know if I'm misreading something you're writing, or if I'm not writing clearly enough, or what. But it looks to me like you have the conclusion that ducks can link past events with present consequences, and I'm quite sure they can't. I'm not sure it's ever been confirmed that any animal can. That's a really complex process.

Again; we are on the same page.
You are not misreading.
you are saying basically 99% everything that is my opinion too; but I also feel that you indeed have 1% of questioning going on to believe some stuff I say because our duck-situations are just not comparable. Our ducks are just not the same. I'm not mad at you, I don't think you are rude or misreading; but I can't give you an other answer then that my ducks apparently do what I say to you they do. I do not know why. But saying my ducks don't do that and I made it up will be a lie from me when I would say that. And I don't like lieieng. I just can't give you an answer. I can only share my experiences. I'm not in a situation to change my mind because then that will mean I have to lie to you and that is a sin. My options are A. Being stubborn and keep this going to prove my right 'win' or B. Lie to you to prevent a negative discussion. I don't want both.

Invitation extends to OP since that is the true victim in this whole story.