What would you do and when?

[Ascholten]

In a different thread, it was brought up that someone was abandoning unwanted roosters on state lands, basically just throwing them into the wild to fend for themselves.

I personally think this is pretty disgusting. Just because you don't like an animal or want it, is NOT a reason to basically abuse it, which when you think of it, is what you are doing at this point.

As the poster in the original tread pointed out, that rooster is NOT going to be able to fend for itself in the wilds over there.

The poster also hinted that this person has done this many times as well and they are rather upset.
So a conversation ensured, and leads to this thread.

If you see someone abusing animals, at what point would you step in to put a stop to it?
would you call the authorities because you thought the abuse was bad or
would you just pretend it's not happening and ignore it?

At what point WOULD you consider abuse significant enough to take action versus just pretending it is not happening? or would you just let it go on because it's not you so it's not a big deal in your opinion.

Curious to hear what others think on this subject.

IMO, letting animals loose that you no longer want, not only the potential abuse to them part, but is just so BAD for many other reasons. Invasive species is a real problem in some parts of the world, and this is exactly the kind of thing that causes them.

Aaron

 

[Ruby Rogue]

I'm not sure if you want me to post here or not, but at what point do bad animal practices cross the line of abuse?

I'm against dumping roosters in the woods.

Could I consider anyone who allows their birds to free range without a guardian animal abusers?

 

[JedJackson]

If I saw someone hurting an animal for no reason I would definitely call the authorities. But rooster dumpers usually act in stealth and at night, whether they are dumping on public land or in your chicken yard. There's not much to be done in that case except to take charge and find these unwanted animals new homes, even if it means them becoming someone's dinner. It's the waste and needless suffering that I find objectionable.

 

[Ascholten]

You could consider them animal abusers, but that does not necessarily make it a valid accusation.

If someone is making reasonable attempts to protect their free ranging birds then that's not abuse IMO. ie No you do NOT need a rooster to guard your flock. If one lives in an area where the threat level is lower, a guardian animal might not be needed. What do you consider free ranging? anything with no roof or netting over their head? If I have 3/4 acre fenced in and let them run there, is that free ranging? Do they have immediate access to safety in case a threat or perceived one does show up?

The difference is again IMO when someone KNOWS their actions are bad for the animal and yet, intentionally does them anyways, that is abuse. You know those roosters have a near zero chance of surviving where you are throwing them loose at. If you didn't know the first time, you DO know now, that it's been brought to your attention. (Hopefully the OP let that person know that what they are doing is wrong).

Maybe we should, further define.. Negligence is not knowing what you are doing is bad, Abuse is when you DO know what you are doing is wrong.

If someone is intentionally abusing animals, it should be brought to their attention to stop, give them a chance to correct it on their own. If they continue then get help with the situation.

Some would say people have a moral / ethical obligation to step in and stop the abuse. Others would say it's none of my business. Where do we draw the line

Aaron

 

[The Moonshiner]

Can't really answer cause your "abuse" definition is too broad and different situations would bring different responses.
For dumping roosters it's pretty simple. If I knew who was doing it I'd just have a quick discussion letting them know I'd be happy to take the roosters and eat them.
If it was someone with a dog tied to a tree starving to death I guess I could have the same discussion but unsure they'd then give me the dog.

 

[Ascholten]

That's the thing, abuse is subjective to each person. Of course some things are blatantly obvious but others, not so much. the question becomes, at what point do YOU consider it abuse.

I know down here they use dogs to hunt with a lot. The way some of those boys treat those dogs, well were not going to get into that here in great detail.

Eating the rooster, I would find that acceptable IMO, it's being 'taken care of' in a way that's quick and humane hopefully.

But yes, each situation is unique, and there is no cut and dry, this is and this isn't abuse, this topic is more a gauge of where people draw that line and if they'd get involved to prevent it or not.

Thank you for your input

aaron

 

[Fallenone05]

Can't really answer cause your "abuse" definition is too broad and different situations would bring different responses.
For dumping roosters it's pretty simple. If I knew who was doing it I'd just have a quick discussion letting them know I'd be happy to take the roosters and eat them.
If it was someone with a dog tied to a tree starving to death I guess I could have the same discussion but unsure they'd then give me the dog.

I know this comment is weeks old but honestly most people with dogs chained are proud of them being chained. At least that's how it is in Oklahoma, especially with ""pit bull"" breeds. Gotta show off that ~vicious~ mutt.

In a different thread, it was brought up that someone was abandoning unwanted roosters on state lands, basically just throwing them into the wild to fend for themselves.

I personally think this is pretty disgusting. Just because you don't like an animal or want it, is NOT a reason to basically abuse it, which when you think of it, is what you are doing at this point.

As the poster in the original tread pointed out, that rooster is NOT going to be able to fend for itself in the wilds over there.

The poster also hinted that this person has done this many times as well and they are rather upset.
So a conversation ensured, and leads to this thread.

If you see someone abusing animals, at what point would you step in to put a stop to it?
would you call the authorities because you thought the abuse was bad or
would you just pretend it's not happening and ignore it?

At what point WOULD you consider abuse significant enough to take action versus just pretending it is not happening? or would you just let it go on because it's not you so it's not a big deal in your opinion.

Curious to hear what others think on this subject.

IMO, letting animals loose that you no longer want, not only the potential abuse to them part, but is just so BAD for many other reasons. Invasive species is a real problem in some parts of the world, and this is exactly the kind of thing that causes them.

Aaron

Too many people don't think dumping is abuse. They think it's an animal, and all animals will just revert back to a feral state and fend for themselves. Dogs, cats, chickens, whatever. Do I think it should stop? Yeah. But people don't care. Depending on where you're located you might just be told to mind your business or be met with a gun and told to mind your business.

 

[Iluveggers]

It’s a fine line. Is not feeding your chickens at all and relying on foraging abuse? (That’s what they’d be doing in the wild).
Some people do this.
Is keeping you chickens locked in a small run all day? (They have food & water and access to a coop).
Some people do this.

Is not feeding your chickens at all AND keeping them locked in a run all day with no food?
This one is definitely.

There are many styles and levels of what people might think is acceptable. If the animals will most likely get sick and die due to conditions caused by a human then I think it is abuse.

Most backyard/acre chicken owners treat their chickens better than factory egg chickens. Regardless of their keeping method.

 

[Fallenone05]

It’s a fine line. Is not feeding your chickens at all and relying on foraging abuse? (That’s what they’d be doing in the wild).

IMHO that's the problem. Gallus Gallus domesticus, aka the chicken, isn't really suited to live wild like their junglefowl counterparts. A dog isn't a wolf just like a chicken isn't really a junglefowl. When you think of Southeast Asia, places like Laos and the Philippines, basically tropical areas, are where junglefowl come from. Those are typically hot, humid and not usually snowy areas and food is pretty abundant.

Pickings are slim in winter if you don't live in a temperate climate that allows forage year round, and a lot of people don't realize that when they dump chickens to fend for themselves.

 

[Ascholten]

and what happens when the dumped animals gang up, and start getting into the neighbors gardens and tearing stuff up. Is that cool then? What happens when the feral dogs band up and start intimidating people in the neighborhood? Is that cool? what about the stray cats that piss on everything every morning to mark it, that smells WONDERFUL !!! said No One EVER.

We HAVE flocks of feral chickens here, you can pull up to a stop sign and there they are !! One of the gas stations they come thru in the morning looking for snacks, and some people actually feed a cheeto here, a piece of bread there, a fry there, yah REAL healthy
Someone backing out scares them, they all take off into traffic and cause a wreck, now what?

Aaron