dragon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Sam Conway) (11/21/90)
In article <3159@lectroid.sw.stratus.com> mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) writes: > > I'm not so sure it's "quick and painless"... > > Purina Falcon Chow) and it was not pleasant to see and HEAR > the falcon SLOWLY eat the bird while it was still alive. In > fact, they seem to grab it and then fly to the perch and just > look around for a while (perhaps looking for competitiors? > Sam?) and peck at it's head every once in a while the whole > time the parakeet was screaming. Yes, looking for competitors, or anything else that might interrupt the meal. I've been watching the argument about who is more "merciful", a shotgun or a hawk. Not only do I find it the most absolutely silly topic of conversation I've ever encountered 8-)...but it seems that some of those involved have not had the opportunity to observe hawks feeding. By necessity, a place that releases recuperated birds to the wild must feed them on live prey, so that their hunting capability can be judged. I recall feeding a quail to a very enthusiastic goshawk and then watching from a distance. The gos jumped on the quail and then simply stood there, looking around. The quail was gasping most pitifully; every time it tried to struggle, the hawk would grip it tighter. This went on for about ten minutes until the hawk felt safe enough to feed. The quail only died when its body had been mostly ripped apart. On the other hand, I watched a Cooper's hawk (also an accipiter) exhibit what I call "prey-dancing". It grabbed a quail and immediately footed it into a very mushy pile of meat. I don't think the quail even knew what hit it. I have also seen peregrines immediately snap the neck of their prey before eating it...but I've also seen birds that had been struck by peregrines but not killed, and it is true the their injuries are particularly gruesome. So, is Nature cruel? Are hawks cold-blooded? That can only be judged by those who want to impose our own definitions upon Nature. In short, it does what is necessary. As for shotguns...well, this one, too, is a silly argument. A shotgun is an instrument -- it is neither cruel nor merciful in and of itself. The injuries that it inflicts CAN be very painful...but so can those inflicted by a redtailed hawk. Isn't it cruel that a gunshot bird can escape, only to slowly die later on? It is no more cruel than the rabbit whose hide is ripped from its back before it escapes from the hawk into its burrow. Now, there is one way in which guns are more "cruel" than a "natural" death: a hawk's talons are not made of lead. A gunshot bird who survives is likely to be eaten by someone else in the forest...and then that some- one is administered a toxic dosage of lead from the pellets buried in its prey. Nature counted on predators, including man -- what she didn't count on was lead. And as a final point in this rambling dissertation....please don't bore me with arguments that an animal hunts only because it HAS to, and man hunts only because he WANTS to. If anyone has ever seen a peregrine take down a bird, eat a small portion of the breast, and then fly away to hunt for something else, you'll understand. Don't get me wrong. I don't like guns pointed at my birds, either. But let's face facts. Guns exist. They aren't going to go away. Thus, the best we can do is try to learn how to use them responsibly. -- Sam Conway * What shape do you usually have? dragon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu * Mickey Mouse shape? Smarties Chemistry Dept., Dartmouth College, NH * shape? Amphibious landing craft Vermont Raptor Center (VINS) * shape? Poke in the eye shape?
mm@lectroid.sw.stratus.com (Mike Mahler) (11/21/90)
[Nicely said Sam.] The easiest question to answer in this case is "Which is more sad, a hawk getting it's meal or a hunter shooting a hawk?" I have a few questions: What's the purpose of the "prey dancing"? Is it so other hawks don't recognize it as a kill and won't bother to challenge? Are there any attempts at passing legislation aimed at making lead buckshot illegal? (at least)... -- Taking action is a choice. Taking NO action is a choice as well.
stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters) (11/26/90)
In article <25889@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> dragon@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Sam Conway) writes: >I've been watching the argument about who is more "merciful", a shotgun >or a hawk. Not only do I find it the most absolutely silly topic >of conversation I've ever encountered 8-)...but it seems that some of >those involved have not had the opportunity to observe hawks feeding. I've never had the opportunity, which is why I asked whether it was really true that a falcon immediately kills what it catches. Because my news server went out to lunch, I didn't get to see any responses, and I don't know if Sam's comment was provoked by some thread started by my question. But Sam, I think you must have missed a point somewhere. As you say, it would be pretty silly to argue whether a shotgun or hawk is cruel, so I have to presume that the issue was which *human* was being more cruel, the one using the gun or the one using the hawk (falcon?). That's not a silly question, although it ought to be phrased without a presumption that either is cruel - and belongs in another newsgroup. >So, is Nature cruel? Are hawks cold-blooded? That can only be judged >by those who want to impose our own definitions upon Nature. In short, >it does what is necessary. I think the right way to phrase this is that cruelty and mercy are *concepts* that don't apply to Nature. They're human moral values; asking if a hawk is cruel is like asking if a rainbow is heavy or if a bird's call is yellow. Anyway, I still don't know if falcons kill their prey immediately as was asserted in the posting that prompted my question. (I'm also curious why Sam's posting arrived here long after some from farther away that seemed to refer to it.) -- Dick St.Peters, GE Corporate R&D, Schenectady, NY stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com uunet!dawn.crd.ge.com!stpeters
geleynse@hppad.HP.COM (Martin Geleynse) (11/28/90)
Dick St.Peters (stpeters@dawn.crd.ge.com (Dick St.Peters) writes: >I've never had the opportunity, which is why I asked whether it was >really true that a falcon immediately kills what it catches. Because >my news server went out to lunch, I didn't get to see any responses, ... >Anyway, I still don't know if falcons kill their prey immediately as >was asserted in the posting that prompted my question. I also missed most of the discussion. Though I haven't been able to watch very many wild falcons kill things close enough to really see what they were doing, I have flown falcons for a number of years. In my experience the time it takes a falcon to kill something it has captured depends to a large extent on 2 things: how big the quarry is, and how experienced the falcon is. When my 4 year old tiercel (male) peregrine grabs a gray partridge (fairly large compared to typical quarry for a wild peregrine), and brings it down, the partridge is invariably dead or very close to it by the time I get to him in 30 seconds or so. I would guess that most passerine quarry would be killed almost instantly. In his first year my bird did not kill nearly as cleanly. In fact during the early part of the season, the quarry would occasionally break free and escape. I imagine this happens to young falcons in the wild as well. They soon learn that "it ain't over till its over". As to "cruelty": Falcons are guiltless killers. I'm sure they don't care if the quarry is dead or merely incapacitated - just so long as it can't get away!. I think the reason they have developed the "toothed" upper mandible and usually kill quickly is that they don't have very strong feet compared to hawks, and they cannot count on being able to hold on indefinitely.