Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Guard animals on the farm vs shooting problem animals yourself?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:42 PM
link   
I was a ranch-hand once!

Electric fence-lines keep the cows from trying to eat through the fence...

One could run a second electric line an inch or so above the ground; but could short-out due to several reasons like the grass is either wet, or too long.

If you shoot it, you're obligated to eat it- in my book.

Check this perimeter system.
edit on (8/6/1313 by loveguy because: easier link




posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov

Well, all I can say is I'm personally very glad for your sake that those who actually live out here don't share your views. If they did, you'd be starving. No meat, because no one can raise livestock effectively when coyotes or wolves are busy killing them quick as they can reproduce, and no vegetables because no one can plant more crops than rabbits and deer can eat, at least not when the plants are small in the springtime.

Unless, of course, we just kill off all other animals; that would solve the immediate problems. I personally don't like that idea nearly as much as just killing the ones that have to be killed. Usually, animals can be scared off or kept at bay with fences, and I really like that solution when it works.

Thank you for proving my point about PC in the posts above. Every single animal in existence will strive to protect what they consider theirs from other animals, up to and including killing any threat, except those humans who have lost all comprehension of what nature is.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
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)


Other animals all over the planet will kill those that are a threat to them.. why don't you think humans have this same right?


Originally posted by nake13
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.



You have just exposed your own incredible ignorance of the subject. You are naive to the extreme. Yeah, feed the predators? Are you kidding? Even your extremist animal rights friends wouldn't suggest such a thing. Let me get this straight, you are seriously suggesting FEEDING the predators that are coming into your property? You must be joking or trolling. And if you don't know why your suggestion is so utterly ridiculous, that's even more sad.

Go try and eat a cougar's baby and see if the cougar believes that YOU "have the right to life" And what would you do to keep them safe? Built a 10foot high concrete wall around miles and miles of property?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


Even building a fence around a lot of property is expensive, and often fiscally impossible or impractical. Personally, I use (4' high) 18' long cow panels (a 4" grid wire) and 8' wood posts that are about 4" in diameter. Each panel is about $19, and each post is about $4. You do the math, and see how much it costs. And this is about the CHEAPEST option I've found, that also works. At a 4" grid (usually 2" x 4" for the bottom couple of rows), it really is only capable of keeping larger predators out, not small ones.

For 180', it would be $190 for the panels, and $48 for the posts. Then add in about $12 or so for all the staples/wire, and you're looking at $250. This doesn't even cover the labor of doing it, or adding a gate (add about $100-$150 for each gate, depending on type). So, we're at $400 for 180' and that is doing it on the cheap, cheap. Factor out for hundreds of feet, and you've got a MAJORLY expensive project.....
edit on 6-8-2013 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 

Ordinarily I would not respond to such an ignorant and ill conceived response as this, however, why is it so laughable to feed predators in an environment where domestic animals are kept, I mean it's the oldest trick in the book, distract them with an alternative food source, but I guess you would prefer running around like Elmer bloody Fudd with your head stuck where the sun don't shine blasting away at anything that moves, well you stick to your hillbilly methods and I'll stick to mine.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Gazrok

Our way is cheaper...

Dig holes about 12-18" deep every 6 foot or so along the fencerow. Cut cedar trees into 6' lengths and put those in the holes, tamping them securely. Run 48" fencing wire between the posts and pull it tight enough to twang it in the middle using a come-along and a fence stretcher (which you can make from two pieces of pressure-treated 2x6 and some 1/2" bolts). Staple the wire to the posts and repeat for each stretch of fence.

At the corners, brace from the top of the corner post to the bottom of the next post with another piece of cedar. If you wanna get fancy, use the chainsaw to set the ends into the posts a little for a sturdier fit. It's also a good idea to use concrete instead of tamped dirt on the corners, and make sure the corners are the largest posts... they take most of the stress.

If you have a spot where you simply cannot dig, use any large trees for posts... you'll have to argue with the fence wire to make it lay right around the ground, but it can be done. The staples will not kill a large enough tree (although the tree will grow around the wire after several years).

Cost for 330 feet of fence: $190 for the wire and I'll agree with $12 for staples. Gates are still high (treat gate posts like corner posts), but you can make gates from pressure treated lumber from a sawmill and save some cash there. The hinges are cheap.

Again, use what you have... cedar trees grow like weeds here (and you can also use yellow poplar) and last forever and two weeks. The tools you need (hammer, chainsaw, come-along) are tools that can be used for other things as well.

Oh, and if you use yellow poplar, have your camera ready next spring. The fence posts will actually put out new shoots and bloom!


TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by nake13

...why is it so laughable to feed predators in an environment where domestic animals are kept...

It's not if you want to raise predators.

Animals tend to spend most of their time searching for food. If you make that food available on your place, you will soon have more predators around than you can feed. And once the predators don't get enough food, hey, there's plenty more in the form of your animals.

Feeding predators = more predators = more food = more predators = not enough food = predators eat everything you own (and possibly attack you).

Sorry nature doesn't agree with your worldview.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

Well I suppose if you take the view that we are part of the natural cycle of things, then that does make perfect sense,however,we are supposed to be(as a species) the most intelligent beings out there, therefore we ought to be able to "tweak" the natural order thus allowing us to show a certain degree of compassion toward ALL species, especially the predators as they are usually the ones who reach endangered status quicker than most(,i.e the Tiger )

You may regard cougars etc as a "pest" but how long before they become endangered if livestock owners don't show a modicum of common sense and learn to protect their animals without resorting to killing another species, which has as much right to life as any other? which is why I strongly disagree that the action of feeding predators as a means of diverting them from any livestock in our care is somehow against the natural order.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by nake13

I do take the view that we are part of the natural cycle. "Society," however, is not. Look at any inner city, then look at any rural area: the city is dirty, disease-ridden, and full of crime against each other. The rural setting will be cleaner, with healthier people in it, and will have an almost non-existent crime rate. The difference is that in the city, natural processes have been abandoned because the people there believe they are too "intelligent" to accept natural processes. In the country, we know we are a part of nature and we adapt to nature instead of trying to redefine it.

Intelligence is not some number derived from a test; intelligence is measured in reality as the ability to survive and thrive in the conditions one finds oneself in. In that respect, the very idea that society exhibits "intelligence" is in itself laughable. Society breeds decay, crime, and disease, none of which are conducive to survival. Ergo, there is little to no intelligence in society.

I would hope that you are aware that we do not simply walk around killing anything we see out here. We don't. We put up fences and many use natural repellants to try and keep predators away form our livestock and others away from our crops. We use guard animals to scare off potential problems so they can continue to exist in the wild. But what we do not do is concern ourselves with the supposed right of an animal to live. That supposed right does not exist in nature... do you think a rabbit has the right to live when it comes under the scrutiny of a hungry fox? No, it does not. It has the right to attempt to live by escaping, and the fox has the right to attempt to eat it. Which one wins depends on which one is faster and smarter.

If I have a garden that is providing food for my family, and deer want to eat my garden, I have several options: I can try repellants such as cat urine to keep the deer away, I can keep dogs that will chase the deer away, I can put up fences that make it harder for the deer to enter my garden, I can shoot the deer when they enter the garden, or I can abandon my garden. If I fail to maintain my garden, especially in a societal breakdown, I run the risk of starvation. Therefore it becomes not a question of whether or not I have the right to kill an animal, but whether or not I will survive or the deer will eat my food. In that scenario, the most insane thought process I can imagine is to worry about the deer's right to survive at the expense of my own.

The situation becomes even more dire when the offending animal is a predator. A deer is not going to eat me, but rather could make it difficult or impossible for me to have food. A predator can kill livestock affecting my food supply even more so than a deer eating a garden, or could even attack and injure me, kill me, eat me or my family members. Not to mention the constant threat of rabies.

I realize you believe that your attitudes toward nature are progressive and civilized, but in reality they are inane and ignorant of the realities that exist. The tigers you want to protect have absolutely no problem taking you down if given a chance, and the only realistic response to that is, if a direct confrontation cannot be avoided, to retaliate in like manner.

Example: Where I used to deer hunt there was a bear that claimed that particular area as it's range. I found out the bear was there by seeing tracks and rubs, which identified it as a large and potentially dangerous animal. My response was to go out and purchase a gun that would have the power to protect me if needed. I still own that .444 Marlin rifle. I had one opportunity to use it. One morning I was watching for the deer to make their appearance around a watering hole when I hear something rooting around behind me. I turned around, switched guns, and saw, through the scope, a medium-sized black bear rummaging around in a pine thicket not 200 yards away. I watched him for a few moments to make sure he had no interest in me, and went back to my hunting, glancing around occasionally just to be sure. I could have easily taken the bear out, but there was no need to do so. Had there been a need to do so, I would not have hesitated to drill a hole through his chest.

That's reality. Without the gun, I might as well have been an ant struggling against an elephant. The bear had the inherent ability to kill me easily. It did not have the desire, and so it lived. If it had indicated any intent to do me harm, it would not have. That is the mentality you argue against: the simple instinctive desire for self-protection.

I ask: would you have allowed the bear to roam around where you were without any type of defensive weapon? Had that bear attacked you, would you have simply bowed your head and with your last thought, thought "the bear has the right to live"?

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Some folks that contribute to this topic are like the folks that tell you how to raise kids, but don't actually have any.

Raising live stock and protecting them is a combination of all of the above options... good fencing, a few good guard animals, and a couple of readily available guns.

I use field fence with a couple of strands of barbed wire along the top. This keeps my animals in and the predators out for the most part.

The guard dogs scare off or attack the predators... in my neck of the woods they are coyotes, bobcats, wild dogs. My giant lab even barks and chases away buzzards. And the cats are good for keeping away snakes.

And my horse pals around with the goats and is big enough to startle and intimidate any animals thinking of trying to prey on my herd.

Beyond that, I have an old single barrel shotgun that is simple, easy to use, always loaded... just like a computer mouse... just point and click. This comes in handy when I am on the backside of the farm and I chance a meeting with a predator or a very large snake. I keep it in the truck... find my truck and you find me.

When you start as a farmer, there is a learning curve... and hopefully you make it to the up side of the bell curve...

Thankfully, I haven't lost any animals in a number of years.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Problem "predators" get shot.

For protected problem "predators" i shoot first then bury deep.

This includes peoples pet dogs.
www.nolo.com...



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by nake13
therefore we ought to be able to "tweak" the natural order thus allowing us to show a certain degree of compassion toward ALL species


Compassion is strictly a construct of human society.
The rest of nature entertains no such concepts.
And they are unable to learn such constructs even is you wanted to teach them.
To try and apply compassion to the natural world is an act of pure self delusion.
For if the tables are ever turned, you will see no such compassion in return.

The only reason predatory animals don’t act aggressive to humans is because they haven’t figured out that they can eat you yet. When they do, then you better be ready with lethal force because your compassion will get you nothing. They will not decide to not eat you because you let them live.
edit on 6-8-2013 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
here u go,, in case hasn't been mentioned.

Rhodesian Ridgeback
Dog Breed
The Rhodesian Ridgeback is a dog breed developed in Southern Africa. Its European forebears can be traced to the early pioneers of the Cape Colony of southern Africa, who crossed their dogs

Rhodesian Ridgeback,,very good dog.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 03:25 AM
link   
I understand that your thread resulted from a post on my thread : www.abovetopsecret.com...

However, to really understand the property in question you have to understand that it's a shop, not our farm or our home. And we've been there nearly three years without any incident of this kind. It's a place of business so a goose wandering around protecting the land 24-7, biting people, and crapping is not going to work here, just as a donkey or a mule.
I really do understand the OP though. Why on earth would I get a donkey or a mule ( which is going to increase work load, flies, expenses, etc) when my only motivation to buy the animal is to subject it to needless trauma I can probably take care of myself? I would not buy a donkey or a mule unless I loved them and knew how to and was willing to care of it regardless if could kill a mountain lion. And that result is not guaranteed! There are trees, rooftops, etc from which the donkey or mule would be at a terrible disadvantage!
Thank you for this thread. It is yet another conversation about how we really are when we find ourselves in nature.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by nake13
therefore we ought to be able to "tweak" the natural order thus allowing us to show a certain degree of compassion toward ALL species


Compassion is strictly a construct of human society.


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


That's my point, do we only show compassion to members of our own species?, of course not, and as we have the capacity for logical ,I would suggest that it is up to us to ensure that we do not put ourselves in a situation where we encroach upon a predatory species territory, likewise, if we take it on ourselves to raise and care for livestock, we have the responsibility for their well being, but not at the expense of other creatures.



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I don't in any way claim that collective human society has the monopoly on intelligence, my point was that we have the capacity, as individuals, to rationalise our relationship with the natural world, I would suggest that we also have an obligation to ensure that we minimise our encroachment into the territories of other so-called predatory species.

Personally I do not keep large livestock animals, but do have several egg laying chickens, there are a substantial number of urban foxes in our area, but I choose to ensure that my chickens are kept secure, both by building a suitable enclosure for them and by putting out dog food and water for the foxes that visit, what would you do if you were a predator faced with the choice of food that is placed out in the open, and live food that requires substantial effort to get at?



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 05:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
Problem "predators" get shot.

For protected problem "predators" i shoot first then bury deep.

This includes peoples pet dogs.
www.nolo.com...


___________________________________________________________________

Don't even get me started on people's pet dogs!!! And the bars and restaurants that are 'dog friendly!!



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by nake13

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by nake13
therefore we ought to be able to "tweak" the natural order thus allowing us to show a certain degree of compassion toward ALL species


Compassion is strictly a construct of human society.


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


That's my point, do we only show compassion to members of our own species?, of course not, and as we have the capacity for logical ,I would suggest that it is up to us to ensure that we do not put ourselves in a situation where we encroach upon a predatory species territory, likewise, if we take it on ourselves to raise and care for livestock, we have the responsibility for their well being, but not at the expense of other creatures.




__________________________________________________________________________


When, in the course of human history, have we not encroached upon animal's territory, whether by migration of trade routes or settlements?



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 05:33 AM
link   
Ostriches have been used as guards for property and livestock:

In South Africa, ostriches are used for defending sheep and cattle herds... The same role is being held by the Australian ostrich, emu, in Australia. Their impressive bodies and attitude even makes thieves fear them. As an example of that, the owner of a deposit of old cars in Lambert, Mississippi, used an ostrich as guard, and the bird proved more effective than two Doberman dogs!

ostrich link

And there is a breed of dog used to protect livestock against cheetahs in Namibia:

Anatolian Kangal dogs are extremely loyal and are ready to fight to the death.
The puppies are given to farmers when they are just eight weeks old.

They grow up with the flocks of goats and sheep they are to guard and bond with them.
If a predator approaches, the dogs bark loudly and the flock gathers round them.

dog link
edit on 7/8/2013 by deltaalphanovember because: typo
edit on 7/8/2013 by deltaalphanovember because: a livestick is not a livestock
edit on 7/8/2013 by deltaalphanovember because: cheetahs not leopards



posted on Aug, 7 2013 @ 05:42 AM
link   
Well if you could shoot the intruding animals and then use the hide and meat, sure why not. But to kill them just because I think is wrong.






top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join