New to ducks: Agressive khaki drake towards female mallard

[casportpony]

There is no difference! - Apart from »domesticated« mallards usually hatch in an incubator and are familiar with being handled by humans. Yes and that toe-thing…

 

[casportpony]

Just thinking if a wild Mallard and a domesticated Mallard were side by side I didn’t think there would be any difference. And even domestic Mallard ducklings are known to hatch under a female Mallard I understand they are good broody’s And mamas.

I don't think I could tell either.

 

[Pyxis]

Yep, no difference aside from clipping the back toe off at hatch. Their bones are so pliable at that age that it doesn't hurt them, and if it's not done they can be mistaken as wild mallards since there are no differences between them otherwise. And if you're in the US and I think also Canada it's illegal to own a wild mallard.

So the back toe needs to be clipped off to indicate that it's hatched from domestic stock. It's a little different from dogs in that it's not something that's done for purely cosmetic reasons. It's to protect wild mallards. And, it doesn't affect the ducks at all; after it's done it's not something that will cause them any problems.

Leg bands can be faked, or removed from domestic birds, and they could cause domestic birds problems necessitating removal and then you wouldn't be able to prove the bird was domestic. There's also no way to put a permanent band on a day old duckling. The back toe once gone is gone, and doesn't cause the birds problems.

To me dubbing is worse, actually. At this time, it's something that's only done for cosmetic reasons - you have to do it to any cockerels and cocks you want to show, but there's no other reason for it. And when it originally started it was done to fighting birds to prevent the other rooster from getting a good a shot in at the comb and causing its opponent to bleed to death since combs bleed so profusely.

But this has gotten a little off-topic, lol.

 

[casportpony]

 

[sourland]

How are they different other than one is domesticated other is wild. They look the same and sound the same? Don't they? I sure can't tell a difference.

Actually body conformation changes depending upon the number of generations they are removed from the wild. Birds that are several generations from the wild tend to lose the stream lined bodies of the wild birds and become more 'chunky' like the mallard derived breeds.

 

[Miss Lydia]

More like Call bodies? Does voice change too?

 

[WannaBeHillBilly]

Yep, no difference aside from clipping the back toe off at hatch. Their bones are so pliable at that age that it doesn't hurt them, and if it's not done they can be mistaken as wild mallards since there are no differences between them otherwise. And if you're in the US and I think also Canada it's illegal to own a wild mallard.

So the back toe needs to be clipped off to indicate that it's hatched from domestic stock. It's a little different from dogs in that it's not something that's done for purely cosmetic reasons. It's to protect wild mallards. And, it doesn't affect the ducks at all; after it's done it's not something that will cause them any problems.

Leg bands can be faked, or removed from domestic birds, and they could cause domestic birds problems necessitating removal and then you wouldn't be able to prove the bird was domestic. There's also no way to put a permanent band on a day old duckling. The back toe once gone is gone, and doesn't cause the birds problems.

To me dubbing is worse, actually. At this time, it's something that's only done for cosmetic reasons - you have to do it to any cockerels and cocks you want to show, but there's no other reason for it. And when it originally started it was done to fighting birds to prevent the other rooster from getting a good a shot in at the comb and causing its opponent to bleed to death since combs bleed so profusely.

But this has gotten a little off-topic, lol.

That migratory bird act is just another example for »the way to hell is covered in good intentions«: Introduced to protect wild native bird species this law makes it illegal to rescue an orphan mallard duckling and raise it, but allows seasonal duck-hunting. (?!?)
In some places Mallard ducks have become a nuisance, if not a pest, still it is illegal to remove eggs from a »wild« birds nest to reduce the population.
And the bones of a freshly hatched duckling may be »pliable« - cutting off a toe doe hurt and the ducklings bleed. And some of them die due to infections, you all know that a brooder full of ducklings is not a hygienic environment.

 

[Pyxis]

That migratory bird act is just another example for »the way to hell is covered in good intentions«: Introduced to protect wild native bird species this law makes it illegal to rescue an orphan mallard duckling and raise it, but allows seasonal duck-hunting. (?!?)
In some places Mallard ducks have become a nuisance, if not a pest, still it is illegal to remove eggs from a »wild« birds nest to reduce the population.
And the bones of a freshly hatched duckling may be »pliable« - cutting off a toe doe hurt and the ducklings bleed. And some of them die due to infections, you all know that a brooder full of ducklings is not a hygienic environment.

Well, it's illegal to rescue any native wildlife unless you have a wildlife rehabilitation license, so the Migratory Bird Act doesn't really make things any different for ducks than other wildlife. A wildlife rehabber can still take them in, rehabilitate them, and get them back to the wild, which is something a kind-hearted person who takes an orphan duckling out of the wild might not be able to do (get them safely back into the wild, I mean). You're not allowed to take a baby deer out of the wild, but you can go deer hunting during certain times, with the proper licensing. Same for ducks.

You can get permits to destroy nests and oil eggs to reduce populations of native birds in areas that they have become nuisances. Much better to do it that way than to allow anyone who decides that the wild birds near their houses or at the local park are annoying so they're going to take or destroy their eggs.

I mean, we could move to the system that's used for keeping other native birds like wood ducks and Canada geese. Which would make it exceedingly more difficult to own them. Permits to own them, permits to breed them, permits to sell them. Fees to be paid every year to renew the permits. The government knowing where all the captive domestic ones are, or at least where they're allowed to be. No permit, no mallards.

So, it's either the permit system, or clip the back toes off the ducklings. There's no real other way to permanently mark them right at hatch. You could do wing bands, I suppose, but those could be taken out or put into adults stolen from the wild too. Although I guess you could also cut the toe off of one that comes from wild by the same argument - if you know to do it. But really I guess the permit system would keep track of the domestics better. It would also severely curtail people's ability to own them though too. I'm guessing that right there is the reason why we cut the back toe off - people probably fought to be allowed to do it that way instead of having to have permits. The government would certainly make more money if they went the permit route.

All this said, I don't own domestic mallards. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just explaining why it is the way it is

 

[sourland]

More like Call bodies? Does voice change too?

Yes, almost like Call bodies - I almost included that in my post. I don't believe they become more vocal.