Will a chicken hawk eventually leave?

[Davaroo]

Quote:
Thanks bud, I appreciate it. Extensive.
In general the various protection acts go like this:

"...the framers of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act were determined to put an end to the commercial trade in birds and their feathers that, by the early years of the 20th century, had wreaked havoc on the populations of many native bird species.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act decreed that all migratory birds and their parts (including eggs, nests, and feathers) were fully protected.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is the domestic law that affirms, or implements, the United States' commitment to four international conventions (with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia) for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. Each of the conventions protect selected species of birds that are common."

I note that the birds were protected, not because they prey on us, but because we preyed on them.
Today, there is little use for plumage, hunting and trade restrictions on species that have lost their appeal or marketability.
Now, I don't suggest we go back to the free-for-all times of the 1800's. Yet, the laws that were created to prevent species decimation may be, just may be, in need of review. Alas, few laws, once enacted, are repealed. Certainly not those as sweeping as these. And most assuredly not in these times.
Meanwhile, the hawks are free to leave their normal environs and come to your chicken dinner. SO it goes.

We still havent answered this question: "Is there anything that can postively deter them before they appear on the fencepost above your chicken yard?"

 

[dacjohns]

No problem Dave.

Something we often fail to take into account is the migratory nature of many animals, especially birds. I worked in wildlife biology a little and have done some research.

We tend to get tunnel vision, put on blinders, however you want to describe it when it comes to our environment. We often fail to take into account that our actions may have far reaching ramifications. Birds don't observe lines drawn on a map, that is borders, whether they are state, international, or other types of borders. We might be protecting a certain species of birds while another country does not. That species might well be at risk because of habitat loss or actually killing because it has desirable or undesirable traits. So if the bird is not protected anywhere that may be the end of it.

Just a quick explanation.

I agree that many of our laws, acts, or whatever you want to call them should be relooked.

 

[Davaroo]

Quote:
I recognize the boundary crossing nature of the migratory bird. It is wise to steward all species of life, yet I also wonder if anybody but us fully cares about such laws. Well maybe the Germans and Brits do. We love our law, after all.
In that light, it might be wise to leave these laws alone. Once again, without America leading the way, who knows what might happen?
Teddy Roosevelt was right.

The other side of this is that this particular tunnel vision is to protect our livestock/food animals/pets from attack and death. Somewhere, a compromise should be driven in.
But it won't be. And so it goes.

SO how do we keep them disinterested - the hawks that is?

 

[dacjohns]

How do we keep the hawks disinterested?

First we have to make them distinterested. Captive breeding program where we selectively breed for nonagressive non chicken eating hawks. Then after all those decades of breeding program gradually replace the aggressive chicken eating hawks with the non chicken eating hawks.

Guess we just have to keep trying to protect our chickens. After all, hawks will be hawks.

 

[Wolf-Kim]

Quote:
Along with the new hawk breeding program, we also need to run parallel programs with fox, coon, bear, snake, coyote, and the other ill-bred chicken-killing predators out there!

Because humans are so much better at breeding animals than nature..

-Kim

 

[Davaroo]

Quote:
Actually, we are.
Take a look at the wild jungle fowl vs. the modern domestic chicken. The one is a rangy, broody bird that lays only sporadically and has a rather rapacious attitude. Strictly at the caprices of Nature.
The domestic bird, on the other hand, is a large meaty fowl, suitable for laying or eating a'plenty, goes broody occasionally by comparison (if at all, in some cases) and has a suitable temperament for captivity. All those lovely birds in your yard are the product of ages of human breeding.
Not everything from the hand of Man is to be shunned...don't buy into that old saw.

Nature's greatest success is strength through numbers. Her mission statement?
"Create en masse, and let a balance be struck through disease, starvation and predation."

 

[Wolf-Kim]

Quote:
Actually, we are.
Take a look at the wild jungle fowl vs. the modern domestic chicken. The one is a rangy, broody bird that lays only sporadically and has a rather rapacious attitude. Strictly at the caprices of Nature.
The domestic bird, on the other hand, is a large meaty fowl, suitable for laying or eating a'plenty, goes broody occasionally by comparison (if at all, in some cases) and has a suitable temperament for captivity. All those lovely birds in your yard are the product of ages of human breeding.
Not everything from the hand of Man is to be shunned...don't buy into that old saw.

Nature's greatest success is strength through numbers. Her mission statement?
"Create en masse, and let a balance be struck through disease, starvation and predation."

I understand that our domestic animals are bred for their purposes. Which they fill quite nicely.

I was thinking about the natural predators we were talking about. The hawks and etc. Think about it. These hawks have survived in the wild over time because they were bred to survive. Now we are talking about breeding them to be "non-aggressive non chicken eating" hawks.

Which do you think would survive better once released into the wild?

I think humans do an excellent job on breeding the domestic animal. Well, the people that do it correctly anyway. I was referring to the idea of breeding an already wild animal to be able to survive in the wild. I think when it comes to breeding wild animals, nature has us all whipped.

-Kim

 

[dacjohns]

Is there a tongue-in-cheek smiley or should I have used the

?


"I was thinking about the natural predators we were talking about. The hawks and etc. Think about it. These hawks have survived in the wild over time because they were bred to survive. Now we are talking about breeding them to be "non-aggressive non chicken eating" hawks."

My attempt at humor went serious?

Technically, the hawks in the wild were not bred to survive, they did it on their own.

 

[Wolf-Kim]

I think it was understood what I meant by "bred." Naturally selected and all.

We knew you were not being serious, well, I did anyway.

-Kim

 

[Davaroo]

Quote:
Actually, we are.
Take a look at the wild jungle fowl vs. the modern domestic chicken. The one is a rangy, broody bird that lays only sporadically and has a rather rapacious attitude. Strictly at the caprices of Nature.
The domestic bird, on the other hand, is a large meaty fowl, suitable for laying or eating a'plenty, goes broody occasionally by comparison (if at all, in some cases) and has a suitable temperament for captivity. All those lovely birds in your yard are the product of ages of human breeding.
Not everything from the hand of Man is to be shunned...don't buy into that old saw.

Nature's greatest success is strength through numbers. Her mission statement?
"Create en masse, and let a balance be struck through disease, starvation and predation."

I understand that our domestic animals are bred for their purposes. Which they fill quite nicely.

I was thinking about the natural predators we were talking about. The hawks and etc. Think about it. These hawks have survived in the wild over time because they were bred to survive. Now we are talking about breeding them to be "non-aggressive non chicken eating" hawks.

Which do you think would survive better once released into the wild?

I think humans do an excellent job on breeding the domestic animal. Well, the people that do it correctly anyway. I was referring to the idea of breeding an already wild animal to be able to survive in the wild. I think when it comes to breeding wild animals, nature has us all whipped.

-Kim

I misread your post. I thought it was yet another "Nature always good, Man always bad" post. Sorry.

No, we cannot outbreed hawks or such to remain in the wild. Once we breed to suit us, they have to remain with us. Part of the responsibility angle we must accept when we ply any craft with our hands, be it chickens or A-bombs.

The whole domestic versus wild debate is for us, not them, anyway. They are one or the other, but know little difference in either case.

Hawks should remain as they are. Indeed, all wild creatures. However, I am not so benevolent as to suggest they should have free hand with our livestock and pets, simply because they are wild.