Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Guard animals on the farm vs shooting problem animals yourself?

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:46 AM
link   
A little point of moral differentiation has been running through the back of my mind for a while now.

I am seeing it more and more from anti hunting/animal rights people. That is… The suggestion of using guard animals on farms and other areas to guard against predatory animals that prey on livestock. They say you don’t need to go out there and kill any wild animals, the guard animals will take care of everything.

They say, “If X animal even gets close, they will kill it. Just stomp it to death!” or something like that.

Example…. This post
www.abovetopsecret.com...

That begs the question… What difference does it make if you kill the predatory animal yourself, or if you have an animal do it on your behalf? It reminds me of the mentality of a person that hires a hitman to kill their estranged spouse. They don’t have the fortitude to do it themselves, so they have someone do it for them. they think it’s cleaner and more acceptable (less repulsive) that way.

It is almost like they have kind of mental complex going. They want the wild animal dead that is hurting them or their property, but they feel that is “wrong” to kill it themselves. But if they set up the situation that leads to the death of that wild animal (putting a guard animal in the field) that they somehow are not “morally responsible for the wild animal’s death” It allows them to detach themselves from the reality of the world by just writing it off as the conflict between two animals. The situation is out of their control. Even though they were the one that actively created the conditions for the conflict to happen.

You can create the conflict between the guard animal and the wild animal, or you can create the conflict between the gun and the wild animal. The result is the same. Your intent to cause the result is the same. It is just the second option that allows to the mentally place the responsibility for the act on an animal that is just carrying out his basic instincts of self preservation.

In my opinion, it is more morally reprehensible than directly killing the wild animal could ever be. You are placing an innocent animal(third party) in a life and death situation to carry out your desires because you are unable to come to grips with responsibility of carrying out your duties yourself.

It teaches a person that they can maintain a mental detachment from the results of their actions.

And the unsettling thing is environmental and animal rights agencies promote that psychological split. If your guard animal kills a predatory animal, then it’s ok. If you kill that predatory animal directly, then you can be charged for killing it. Even though you are directly setting up the conditions to cause the death of that predatory animal either way.

In another way, it also runs the along the same mentality that goes along with dog fighting. You are knowingly putting two animals in an area, and you dang well know what the result will be. But if you do it in the farm fields, with the other animal in the fight being a wild animal, then it’s perfectly OK.

In my opinion, intentionally putting innocent animals in a life or death fight with wild animals is morally far worse than even the most cruel hunter could ever be.




posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
I think it's more along the lines of using a guard dog to scare off predators with his "bark" and not his bite. We have a goose on my farm that protects our ducklings as they hatch out, protection from coons, weasels, rats, and opposums with nothing more than a loud honk.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by tigershark1988
 


But… if you have a group of coons that are real hungry, to the point that the loud honks do not deter them, and they press the attack. Who is going to win the conflict? I have a feeling that something is going to end up dead. The fact remains that the animals are being put in a life threatening situation. You have just selected the animal that you think will win the confrontation more times than not.
edit on 6-8-2013 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 

If i was out in the wild, i would rather have a mule with me than most any person. They are loyal, for starters. They hear what i can't, can smell water from at least 5 miles away, depending on the wind, are great camp guards at night, can carry heavy loads, and i could use him/her to plow with, haul fallen timber for building...the list is near endless. To suggest that one would get such an animal to use as mere bait is indeed folly. (unless however you do not have the practical experience of such rural, down to earth living, then your ignorance of such matters can be forgiven)

Losing a mule to a mountain lion would be akin to losing a member of ones family, in most cases. It would mean additional work, which in turn gets backed up because of the labor saved by using the mule for hauling, pulling, carrying material.


edit on 6-8-2013 by occrest because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:17 AM
link   
I guess it all depends if you want to have your guard animal put in an obviously dangerous confrontation, or as you said, kill them yourself, however you will not be awake or near your animals at all times to prevent such from happening. Horses and llamas that stay out at night are very territorial, I've been charged in the dark in one field behind my relatives house while dumping leaf bags, had to sprint to the fence to avoid the grunting charging beasts!

Then again, horses and llamas cannot stop a fox from digging under your chicken coop..
Perhaps a Great Pyrenees?

I skimmed your post so I apologize if I am repeating something you've pointed out..



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   


You have just selected the animal that you think will win the confrontation more times than not.
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 

That's the point.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 

You could negate the requirement for posting "guard animals" or indeed killing any "predator" yourself by providing a safe and secure environment for any livestock for which you may be responsible.
Personally, I would provide food for the potential predators as they also have the right to life.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:33 AM
link   
We got packs of Coyotes, Bears and Mountain Lions around here. I'm not so sure a big dog will get the job done. Ill keep animal safe with the gun.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by tigershark1988
I think it's more along the lines of using a guard dog to scare off predators with his "bark" and not his bite. We have a goose on my farm that protects our ducklings as they hatch out, protection from coons, weasels, rats, and opposums with nothing more than a loud honk.


Geese are incredible, I once witnessed a gander in full flow chasing a German Shepherd away ,The dog must have been 5 times the size of the goose but there he was running as fast as he could with his tail between his legs!



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


Another problem with a guard animal is that the chances of a fight to the death is fairly unlikely. Most animals will turn tail if they are losing the battle and run off to lick their wounds.

But the chances of the guard animal having wounds is highly likely itself. Now you have a decision to make.

Go out yourself and look for the animal that caused to wounds yourself, kill it and have it tested for viruses like rabies and whatnot. Or get your guard animal to the vet. Many vets will recommend putting the animal down rather than incurring high medical costs and a small chance of recovery.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


i do see your point, but how else to deal with the problem "predators"? you can't have people sitting outside covering all of the land 24/7 with guns, to deal with them, not even considering shooting these problem predators is almost a legal no no. yet herds NEED to be PROTECTED. especially since these "wild" predators are being released into farming areas by organizations like the ministry of natural resources.

it has gotten bad enough in some areas that it has been FORCING farmers to keep their flocks locked in barns that would otherwise be let roam free. as one relative has put it. he MUST keep pregnant heifers in the barn or as soon as the calf drops, the heifer is surrounded by these predators and both heifer and calf killed, at moment of birth. yet at the same time it is illegal to hunt these destructive predators down, especially since the government is putting so much effort and money into "stocking" the predators in the area.so they have had no choice than to use other animals to kill the predators. trust me the farmers would MUCH RATHER deal with the predators by hunting them down rather than to risk another animal, but the GOVERNMENT is not giving then that choice.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
My neighbor has a German short-hair that kills any varmint, coons, woodchucks, opossums, you name it. Personally, I would rather shoot a problem varmint to put it out of its misery quickly. I would do the same with a large predator, but only if it was proven to be a problem. I'm not going to shoot an animal, just because it passed through the field one night.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   


In my opinion, intentionally putting innocent animals in a life or death fight with wild animals is morally far worse than even the most cruel hunter could ever be.


Coyotes, raccoons, foxes, and anything smaller wont attack your sheep or chickens if there's a couple of large protector animals around. They'll avoid your farm, and go to the farm animals that are unprotected - maybe somewhere where the farmer with just a gun is asleep?

Also, aside from humans needing a certain amount of sleep, which usually isn't in the field with the animals all night, the protector dogs (like Great Pyrenese) can smell the predators before they can see or hear them.
Dogs have keener senses than any human.

And if you have a smaller farm, or are surrounded by other farms, it's illegal and dangerous to be shooting in the dark at what might be a predator. It could be a neighbour's dog, another loose farm animal, or the bullet might end up where it shouldnt.
A friend of mine was cutting through a corn field to go home when he was a teen, and was shot in the ankle.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Politically Correct idiocy aside....

The purpose of having a protection animal and a varmit gun are one and the same. In reality, here in the country, the animals are there to protect when you are not able to. If I am outside and see a critter that needs to be gone, i simply kill it. If I am not outside and the dogs see something that needs to be gone, they either kill it or at least make enough noise so I come out and kill it.

The point being to kill it before it damages something... that something including my dogs.

Any other animal in the animal kingdom will protect its home without regard to how pretty the offending invader is or how hungry the invader is or how endangered the invader is. Only man, in his infinite (dis)intelligence will place himself in danger of losing his food supply or even his ability to safely move around in his home range for those and similar reasons. That's not empathy and it's not environmentalism. It's just plain fear and idiocy.

And it is this attitude which will cause many many deaths, either from direct attack or via lack of resources after being raided by wild animals, that will thin the herd of humanity should our veneer of civilization collapse.

In my native tongue: "It's a critter. You eat it."

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
How can you "want an animal dead" but then feel remorse about killing it?

I can't comprehend this mindset....you either want to kill something or you don't....


If you want to protect your assets without killing, then set live traps. No conflict there.

Another thing to consider....a guard animal can protect your assets while you sleep.



The purpose of having a protection animal and a varmit gun are one and the same. In reality, here in the country, the animals are there to protect when you are not able to. If I am outside and see a critter that needs to be gone, i simply kill it. If I am not outside and the dogs see something that needs to be gone, they either kill it or at least make enough noise so I come out and kill it.


Pretty much it in a nutshell....



edit on 6-8-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 

I understand your point - and it’s a good one.
Here’s what I did.
I had a Llama (stud) who roamed with my animals and yes - would ‘stomp’ and attack anything that came into the paddock and geese who’d peel the skin off anything threatening - people included.
I also had guard dogs.
I also had specific ‘arms’ to protect the geese and guard dogs. A long rifle, pistol and shotgun.
If we’re going to raise animals we have the ultimate responsibility to keep them safe - that includes keeping the guard animals safe too.
Great thinking on your part though - I like it.
S&F

peace



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I am not personallly trying to say guard animals are unacceptable. A persons has to do what they have to do to protect their stuff.

But I am just pointing out the juxtaposition that a lot of animal rights people put themselves in by arguing against hunting and trapping, but then they turn right around and say guard animals are A-OK

When, from a logical/moral perspective, guard animals are far worse than trapping/hunting because you are involving a third party in your dispute, and creating a condition where you can have two animals fight to the death.

If you can support guard animals, there is no logical/moral way you could oppose direct hunting/shooting of that prey animal.

So, I am not personally saying guard animals are unacceptable. I am just pointing out the glaring moral contradiction that many people are spewing to support their worldview.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
Politically Correct idiocy aside....

The purpose of having a protection animal and a varmit gun are one and the same. In reality, here in the country, the animals are there to protect when you are not able to. If I am outside and see a critter that needs to be gone, i simply kill it. If I am not outside and the dogs see something that needs to be gone, they either kill it or at least make enough noise so I come out and kill it.


Its all about protecting your resources, and in my experience, there are usually firearms and some type of "protection" animal involved. Cant watch your livestock 100% of the time, and the protection animal is there for those very times. I have seen everything from llamas to dogs being used.

I have never, ever seen it presented to be an either/or scenario by the people who are actually farming, running ranches, etc. These things go hand in hand in the "real world." The closest I have seen is where someone has a firearm, but not protection animals. I have never heard a rancher or farmer discuss it as some moral dilemma, where they try to keep a clean conscience by letting the protection animal do the "dirty work."

Kind of a strange question to ask, in that context.

Boggles my mind as much as when a bear came into a community recently, and they told the entire city to "go inside, lock your doors and windows, and get to a safe place."
Are some people really that far removed from nature?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny

Those glaring contradictions seem to happen whenever a PC mindset is involved. The real world is not black and white, but PC tries to make it so.

Killing another person is wrong... UNLESS that other person is trying to kill or injure you.

Killing animals for sport is wrong... BUT killing animals for food is fine.

Pulling the wings off butterflies is torture... BUT ripping them apart to eat them is fine for a cat.

Stealing is wrong... BUT is it stealing in a SHTF scenario and you procure needs from a corpse?

War is terrible... BUT war can be justified if one is being attacked.

Eating nothing but meat is unhealthy... BUT eating no meat can also be unhealthy.

Child abuse is wrong... BUT discipline is necessary to raise a well-adjusted child.

Guns are dangerous... BUT guns can be necessary when defending against others with guns.

The list goes on and on and on... whenever someone decides they want to see the world in black and white, right and wrong, they will end up contradicting themselves.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   
It seriously annoys me when I hear people who bang on and on about the joys of living as close to nature as possible, who then moan about the inconvenience of wild animals. Nobody forces anybody to live out in the middle of nowhere, or where there are predators, and all these predators were on that land long before humans came along. If you are raising animals where there are predators, it's your job to keep them secure and that shouldn't mean by killing every threat that comes near "your property."
edit on 6-8-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join