It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Many predators don't kill only when they're hungry. They're prey driven and go crazy killing chickens and such just for fun. Feeding wild predators isn't practical because it's in their blood to HUNT and kill. Putting a steak out every other day won't do the trick. People who have small livestock know this. It defeats the purpose if you're feeding your predators and not your family. Besides being costly, it attracts even more predators.
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.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by missvicky
It amazes me how many people seem to have disconnected from the fact that animals are not people. People can make a moral decision ("Should I do this?") based on beliefs and expectation of future consequences. Animals cannot do so. A dog will eat food placed in front of it, as long as it has not been trained (through selective positive and negative feedback mechanisms) to not eat it. A tomcat will mate with any creature which produces the correct pheromones to signal the mating (which is a female cat in nature). The dog is not interested and cannot understand that the food in front of it belongs to someone else, and the tomcat does not feel a moral obligation to the female cat he just interacted with.
These are human traits. Just as doves do not swim and grasshoppers do not build webs of silk, other animals do not share human traits. So if the dog and cat cannot make moral decisions, how much less can a wild animal make moral decisions? It can't; but it can learn how to adapt to its environment. A large part of that adaptation is finding out where good sources of food are... be that source an area of lush greenery, an area with plenty of prey, or a house that puts out food.
Unlike people, wild animals survive, alone and uncared for, by taking advantage of opportunities. Unlike people, they die by ignoring opportunities. And unlike people, they have no feelings of appreciation or loyalty and only care to use the opportunities they find to continue their survival. I wish, like you, that some people could understand that.
Originally posted by tovenar
reply to post by InTheLight
I personally think electric fencing is a great idea, if coupled with a guard-dog.
Coyotes can jump over fence up to 5 ft tall if they can get a running start; even higher if there are cross-pieces or wire. I don't think the fence in the video would stop coyotes from just climbing over it unless the shock level is set cruelly high.
You cannot set it up beneath overhanging trees, because raccoons will climb the tree and drop into the chicken's yard. Raccoons will also just wear the fence out by having several of them climb over at once, and the middle one doesn't get shocked. (Really!) They will also just test a piece of fence until it stretches, falls down, or wears out. Which is why you need a dog to keep them from concentrating on the fence itself. The dog won't catch any raccoons, but he'll keep them from concentrating on breaking in.
Badgers of course will dig under it. They will burrow all the way under a chicken coop and and come up through the floor, like "The Great Escape," only in reverse.
Snakes are a problem too. Especially where the gate is. Snakes in Texas will strangle chickens. Of course the chickens will sometimes peck the snake to death if they have a rooster with them.
And then there's hawks.