What does the Game in gamefowl mean?

[centrarchid]

As a person with 30 years of experience studying just about every type of wild game fowl on the North and South American continents, I would have to firmly disagree with your statement. Wild birds regardless of kind, almost never fight over territory. Fighting among wild birds is strictly a method of establishing dominance with in a flock, and never result in intentional death. Wild fowl have a hard enough time surviving against the trials of nature. They would quickly go extent if they went around other members of their own flock. This is not to say that eventual death will not occur as a result of injuries sustained in battle or intentional starvation as a result of losing (common in older alpha males); but it is clearly not the intent of the battle to end up in death, but to establish dominance. The establishment of dominance is necessary and essential in nature to assure that the strongest genes survive.

Unlike humans, animals do not have the capacity to hate and make a decision to kill; they are simply following their instincts to survive and strengthen their group (flock, herd, etc.). It is entirely unnatural for wild birds to fight to the death within a flock. There are predatory birds that do kill to eat, but this is not what we are talking about. Humans have learned how to manipulate an animals instinct through training and selective breeding to cause animals to exhibit unnatural behavior, but there are studies that show that, even these specially bred animals, if left alone in a natural environment, will revert back to their natural instinct within a single generation.

I do not think Cadjien meant as you understood it. The "in the wild part" may be throwing meaning off.

In my area numerous bird (and fish) species defend discrete territories and that is mostly but no always done by males. Seldom is real harm done although on rare occasions damage to eyes does occur. Only bird species I know of that occasionally fights for keeps is the painted bunting but I am not familiar enough with that t say if it is of similar nature to that exhibited by gamefowl. Some fish may fight for keeps and one might be surpised to know species doing that when they are so common in some streams. They do so becuase they breed for only one breif season and get no second chances.

 

[Jungleexplorer]

I do not think Cadjien meant as you understood it. The "in the wild part" may be throwing meaning off.

In my area numerous bird (and fish) species defend discrete territories and that is mostly but no always done by males. Seldom is real harm done although on rare occasions damage to eyes does occur. Only bird species I know of that occasionally fights for keeps is the painted bunting but I am not familiar enough with that t say if it is of similar nature to that exhibited by gamefowl. Some fish may fight for keeps and one might be surpised to know species doing that when they are so common in some streams. They do so becuase they breed for only one breif season and get no second chances.

I was responding more to the idea of what Cadjien was implying by his statements. In his final sentence he said; "one thing on his mind, finish him." In this statement he is attributing the human characteristics of hate and choice to an animal driven solely by instinct. My response was to show that while, death may sometimes result of a battle for dominance, it is not the purpose of the battle nor is it the desire of the victor.

I guess what I am talking about would better understood by calling it the, Rule of Nature". Very often, especially in the US (where there is an overload of conflicting information), people will try to find some limited isolated example where things do not follow the rule. This is called the, Exception to the Rule. They then try to make it seem that the exception, is the the rule. This is usually done to defend or justify some opinion or ideology that is in conflict with the natural laws or rules.

My point is simply this; the rule of nature is that any battle that results in nature is for dominance or territory, and not for death. If the rule of nature were that battle was for death, then you would find male sparrows dead on your front lawn everyday and Central Park in New York would littered with the bodies of dead male pigeons. Once again, I want to make it clear that, even though sometimes death may result from a battle in nature (two buck deers that lock antlers for instance), it is not to purpose of the battle to result in death. And even though we may be able to find one or two types of animals, out of the innumerable types of animals on the earth, where death occurs more frequently as a result of a battle for dominance; this does not mean that the rule of nature is not true or that the intent of the battle was for death.

 

[Cadjien_De_Louisiane]

jungleexplorer - I cant argue with your statement, I appologize for beating around the bush, what I ment by "let say they meet up in the wild" I ment something that we cant talk about on here, I think you know what I mean. Being that said, What I should have said is my inturputation on gameness of gamefowl is a gamecock that is truely game is one that wont give up untill victory, what ever the end result is. Wether that be death, pulled apart my man, territory dominace in the wild, just wont give up. I take back the finish him statement.

 

[centrarchid]

I do not know mindset of combatants but seems like with those that are referred to as game have switches that do not turn off or on that would say run / submit when outcome is evident. Human selective pressures have intentionaly messed those switches up. As for the better in a conflict not relenting, that is seen all the time with critters that are not game and often plays itself with poor management of confined animals. I have that problem with fish all to often and if not carefull it could result in selection for the gameness attribute.

 

[Jungleexplorer]

jungleexplorer - I cant argue with your statement, I appologize for beating around the bush, what I ment by "let say they meet up in the wild" I ment something that we cant talk about on here, I think you know what I mean. Being that said, What I should have said is my inturputation on gameness of gamefowl is a gamecock that is truely game is one that wont give up untill victory, what ever the end result is. Wether that be death, pulled apart my man, territory dominace in the wild, just wont give up. I take back the finish him statement.

No need to apologize. It is kind of a soap box issue for me, so I am sorry for being so particular. I just see things from very different perspectives as most Americans because, although I was born here, I lived most of my childhood and a large portion of my adult life in other countries. I have raised chickens for most of my life in other countries, but just got into raising them here in the US a few years ago and just started looking into breeding Gamefowl this year. In all the countries where I have lived and raised chickens, they are looked at as only animals for food production and very little attention is given to breeding. It then should come as no shock to anyone why I would be surprised by the intense attention given by American growers to breed and other purposes then food production. It was therefore very confusing to me when I first started looking into raising gamefowl on my farm for the purposes of a free range flock for eggs and food. I had no idea of the history of the gamfowl for that "Other" purpose when I started down this road and did not know that extreme sensitivity I would encounter when talking about them. At first I was very confused by many of the answers that I was getting on another forum when I asked questions about gamefowl characteristics. Everyone seemed to be trying to tell me something but no one would come right out and say what it was. Finally, I asked the same question that I started this thread with and was actually banned permanently from that forum for asking it. I was given no explanation as to why and could never get an answer from the from administrator. I came here and asked the same question to see what would happen, and fortunately I got some answers to my questions. I now think I understand why I got banned from that other forum for asking a seemingly harmless question.

I like my gamefowl, but think I will move away from them for less controversial breeds. I have already procured a few Cubayalas for this purpose.

 

[Cadjien_De_Louisiane]

Yup im gonna move on to another subject, because I love BYC to much to get banned for something I dont partake in.
I do think gamefowl make good free range birds, they are such a hardy bird. I wish they would lay more eggs though.

 

[centrarchid]

Yup im gonna move on to another subject, because I love BYC to much to get banned for something I dont partake in.
I do think gamefowl make good free range birds, they are such a hardy bird. I wish they would lay more eggs though.

Some lay pretty good. A hen I tracked this year produced a good 120 eggs and brooded two clutches, one clutch to weaning. Others not so good. Biggest problem is they hide nest well when free range. I had triangulate a couple hens to find nest sites and they were a hundred yards from where hens normally hung out. It is also pretty hard to get banned here because I am around still despite racking up some naughty points.

 

[Jungleexplorer]

Yup im gonna move on to another subject, because I love BYC to much to get banned for something I dont partake in.
I do think gamefowl make good free range birds, they are such a hardy bird. I wish they would lay more eggs though.

I second that. Good talking to you. See you around.

 

[Nickeyo]

game are wild at heart that is why they quite often go feral and perch in trees because they were some of the first breeds made from jungle fowl so they share close ansestry

 

[centrarchid]

game are wild at heart that is why they quite often go feral and perch in trees because they were some of the first breeds made from jungle fowl so they share close ansestry

What we call gamefowl today were bred from jungle fowl at same time the other breeds were. Differences are for what they were selected for. Gamefowl where selected for fighting which changed behavior, increased size and made them more effective at fighting. The other lines were selected for meat and/or egg production. With many production breeds, they have been repeatedly developed from exisitng gamefowl of time, not directly from jungle fowl. Both gamefowl and production fowl have been selected to tameness. The capacity for surviving feral is not directly related to the the gameness attribute, rather many types of gamefowl have been reared under conditions that approximated being semi-feral that maintained the capacity for feral living. Additionally not all gamefowl are good at feral living, especially where birds have been intensively selected under condtions where they do not have to fly or otherwise deal with predators and sometimes cold.