Would you intervene to save a wild animal from a predator?

Kermit.de.frog

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYP1Vd4dM_U

This clip got me pondering - would I intervene to help an animal in the natural world in this situation?

I don't know. It's nature at it's wildest extreme at the end of the day and it's an essential way the ecosystem works.

I mean yeah there's bambi but that snake might not get grub for a while due to that guy.

P.S that particular situation is also extremely dangerous to the guy interfering with the snake's brunch. What if it had anger management issues?

The chan chan man

No

Mules

Nope

Dravokivich

I don't want to be seconds.

salamiii

it's only a boa constricta snake

IAMAMORON

I hoovered a Spider on Friday. He hadn't a chance poor Divil.

I am at peace with it now, but I went into myself for a while.

Jaysus Christ.

Saved a friend from a cougar in templebar one nite.

NcdJd

No let nature take its course. Sparrowhawks and foxes need to eat too.

Degag

Very interesting question and an ethical one also. First instinct would be to say yes as once i could be fairly sure there was no danger to myself.

However as you said, it's interfering with the ecosystem. I believe for example (but could be wrong) that the people making the nature documentaries don't/can't/won't interfere and attempt to save an animal they are tracking should it get injured for example.

BrianD3

The manner in which cackling hyenas and wild dogs eat their prey alive and always go for the asshole would probably make me think about intervening - but I'd probably conclude that nature is cruel and its the way things are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOsoUYjpjII

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYzFJ5R-hPs

interlocked

Absolutely

85603

Yes.

The roxette principle would apply, and id listen to my heart when caught in that ethical trap.

I saved a pigeon from some ravens once.
Or at least gave it a slight life extension before the wounds and distress would have probably finished it minutes later.
Still, in the moment who wouldnt want to be rescued.

endacl

No.

Same reason I wouldn't intervene to save a lettuce from a rabbit.

Quantum Erasure

Saving a wild animal, no. Saving sheep from 'pet' dogs, always....

(says me whose only ever shot at clay pigeons)

larchielads

What if the snake was eatin a dog? Still predator and prey is it not?

Gruffalux

That was a great rescue. Go get something else Boa. Our cats sometimes kill birds. Makes me sad. If I catch them in the first moments I smack them off the bird. They have plenty of food - greedy witches. Hunters come for the deer in the forests around here. I would be too nervous to confront a stranger with a gun. But I do give them dirty looks. Shooting a beautiful deer - big guns and small mickeys I reckon.

Randy Archer

Jaysus Christ. wrote: »

Saved a friend from a cougar in templebar one nite.

How do you know that he needed saving ?

Randy Archer

Gruffalux wrote: »

That was a great rescue. Go get something else Boa. Our cats sometimes kill birds. Makes me sad. If I catch them in the first moments I smack them off the bird. They have plenty of food - greedy witches. Hunters come for the deer in the forests around here. I would be too nervous to confront a stranger with a gun. But I do give them dirty looks. Shooting a beautiful deer - big guns and small mickeys I reckon.

I’m sure the hunters wouldn’t give a flying fiddlers for your dirty look or your Frankel attempt to confront them .They’d probably mistaken it for a lack of washing

Deer is a source of food . The lads in the Phoenix Park have to bring in snipers to cull their herds of deer occasionally to control the population .

This what happens when little kids take Disney films too literal when they are young 😂

Big mouth small brain is seems

nthclare

Saved a frog from a few cruel lads years ago, put it into a nearby big pond.

As I watched the frog swim off out darted around a 10 inch long pike and took the frog and the last I seen of the frog was his back leg hanging out of the pike...

I still think about it, and the frog was going to go one way or the other...

Gruffalux

Randy Archer wrote: »

I’m sure the hunters wouldn’t give a flying fiddlers for your dirty look or your Frankel attempt to confront them .They’d probably mistaken it for a lack of washing

Deer is a source of food . The lads in the Phoenix Park have to bring in snipers to cull their herds of deer occasionally to control the population .

This what happens when little kids take Disney films too literal when they are young 😂

Big mouth small brain is seems

You can presume I liked Bambi and I will presume you like shooting arrows from bows while tumescent.

andekwarhola

No. It's just nature even if it's hard to take.

gimli2112

I saw a robin in a cat's mouth recently, poor thing looked at me like it was trying to say "Save me"
Fcuk that, cat looked like it knew all the moves.

the purple tin

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I hoovered a Spider on Friday. He hadn't a chance poor Divil.

I am at peace with it now, but I went into myself for a while.

They just crawl back out again, unharmed but with a serious thirst for revenge.
Sleep tight :P

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

Our cats sometimes kill birds. Makes me sad.

I thought in general the advice was not to let house cats out at all?

Gruffalux wrote: »

I would be too nervous to confront a stranger with a gun. But I do give them dirty looks. Shooting a beautiful deer - big guns and small mickeys I reckon.

Covid ruined a trip for me to go game hunting with a bow that someone had offered to bring me on. I will get to it eventually.

Myself and my daughter (10) have been doing training on rifles recently. Always wanted to learn to shoot and great to be doing it with her. However I have never felt the urge to hunt with guns. Bow hunting I look forward to - but somhow doing it with guns has no appeal at all.

I do hunt and kill wild rabbit for food - but that's with traps not weapons.

Pawwed Rig

If the predator and prey are both wild then leave them at it.

I would shoo a cat away from a nest or similar though.
That said if the cat was killing a mouse I would leave them at it so probably hypocritical of me.

El Tarangu

85603 wrote: »

I saved a pigeon from some ravens once.
Or at least gave it a slight life extension before the wounds and distress would have probably finished it minutes later.

Tbh, that sounds like you prolonged the suffering of one bird, denied a meal to two other birds (and who knows, that pigeon could have been the difference between life and death for either of them), to serve no end other than assuaging your squeamishness.

El Tarangu

Gruffalux wrote: »

Our cats sometimes kill birds. Makes me sad. If I catch them in the first moments I smack them off the bird. They have plenty of food - greedy witches. Hunters come for the deer in the forests around here. I would be too nervous to confront a stranger with a gun. But I do give them dirty looks. Shooting a beautiful deer - big guns and small mickeys I reckon.

What's the difference between those hunters shooting those deer, and you allowing your cats to roam, killing all of the smaller wild creatures?

Pawwed Rig

El Tarangu wrote: »

(and who knows, that pigeon could have been the difference between life and death for either of them)

And their chicks

There was a BBC nature series using live cameras. Summer watch or something it was called? Is it still going?

Anyway one day after they had been following some chicks for awhile a lizard came in and decimated them all. The BBC got complaints from the public saying they should have intervened. The hosts had to explain why they would not do that.

Montage of Feck

No, as the animal is probably sick or injured anyway and intervening will only prolong their suffering.

Insect Overlord

Some people want to feel like a god, or at the very least a hero. I'd say we shouldn't be imposing our own personal morality tales on mundane acts of nature.

Gruffalux

El Tarangu wrote: »

What's the difference between those hunters shooting those deer, and you allowing your cats to roam, killing all of the smaller wild creatures?

One is a dumb creature who doesn't know any better. The other is a poor wee pussy just doing instinctual things. :pac:

I don't go round stopping hunters or whatever. Despite my own personal feelings I somehow managed to give birth to avid fishermen who terrorise the lakes, rivers and seas of Ireland. I don't like it but I cannot disown them.

bb1234567

No, predators have to eat too. The animal you save will be eaten by the same type of predator months later ,and the predator now just has to go find another animal of same species to eat because you stole it's dinner. It's just postponing the natural cycle of life by a bit at best, and causing disorder in a very efficient natural food chain at worst. And it is deeply hypocritical to say you would unless you yourself are vegan.

Having said that I would stop for example my house cat or dog killing a bird for sport. They are an invasive species, the killing does not contrubute to the natural cycle of life , it's disorder introduced by humans essentially.

Gruffalux

bb1234567 wrote: »

No, predators have to eat too. The animal you save will be eaten by the same type of predator months later ,and the predator now just has to go find another animal of same species to eat because you stole it's dinner. It's just postponing the natural cycle of life by a bit at best, and causing disorder in a very efficient natural food chain at worst. And it is deeply hypocritical to say you would unless you yourself are vegan.

That little antelope in the OP might live to be a wise old antelope who tells tales at the water hole, to all the baby antelopes who have sprung from her lineage because she survived, about the day they were freed from the mighty Boa Constrictor's grip. It is a tale that will go down in Antelope Mythology. They might even name a constellation after that antelope in antelope language. Things can work out good.

dxhound2005

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a BBC nature series using live cameras. Summer watch or something it was called? Is it still going?

Anyway one day after they had been following some chicks for awhile a lizard came in and decimated them all. The BBC got complaints from the public saying they should have intervened. The hosts had to explain why they would not do that.

They did it for penguins, different circumstances.

https://www.thejournal.ie/emperor-penguins-dynasties-4349792-Nov2018/

El Tarangu

Gruffalux wrote: »

One is a dumb creature who doesn't know any better. The other is a poor wee pussy just doing instinctual things. :pac:

I don't go round stopping hunters or whatever. Despite my own personal feelings I somehow managed to give birth to avid fishermen who terrorise the lakes, rivers and seas of Ireland. I don't like it but I cannot disown them.

The point I am making is that the cat that you are responsible for has probably laid waste to a lot more local wildlife than even the most proficient deer hunter, but you don't seem terribly troubled by this.

dxhound2005

dxhound2005 wrote: »

They did it for penguins, different circumstances.

https://www.thejournal.ie/emperor-penguins-dynasties-4349792-Nov2018/

Not really - as it was not a case of predation there. It was something else. When I said they had to explain why they would never intervene - I meant in a predation event.

But having said that no rule should be 100% steadfast. It is nice to know that even long held rules and principles are open to interpretation and exception if circumstances warrant it.

amadangomor

Cat constantly bringing in live Shrews and mice and always do my best to save them. Shrews a lot slower than the mice so easier to catch.

If a wild predator, would be my instinct to let nature take it's course.

Gruffalux

El Tarangu wrote: »

The point I am making is that the cat that you are responsible for has probably laid waste to a lot more local wildlife than even the most proficient deer hunter, but you don't seem terribly troubled by this.

It is true they are hunters. My cats are extremely old now and had bells on them when younger. The cat has the excuse of being an animal. The deer hunter however is a conscious human being killing a really beautiful animal - I meet deer regularly, they are really gorgeous almost mystical creatures. The hunter does not need it for food - he has plenty of food. They are killing for sport. Personally - and fcuk it, I am allowed have a personal opinion - I do not see anything sporty about it.
If the apocalypse comes I will kill and eat a deer if needs be, though it will be sad. It the meantime there are plenty of things to eat that I can grow and buy.

bb1234567

Gruffalux wrote: »

It is true they are hunters. My cats are extremely old now and had bells on them when younger. The cat has the excuse of being an animal. The deer hunter however is a conscious human being killing a really beautiful animal - I meet deer regularly, they are really gorgeous almost mystical creatures. The hunter does not need it for food - he has plenty of food. They are killing for sport. Personally - and fcuk it, I am allowed have a personal opinion - I do not see anything sporty about it.
If the apocalypse comes I will kill and eat a deer if needs be, though it will be sad. It the meantime there are plenty of things to eat that I can grow and buy.

I agree, I don't like the simplistic comparison between human behaviour and any animal. We don't live in an animal world, we created one for ourselves with it's own sets of rules and need for things like hunting for food is one means of survival that has been eliminted due to advancements in our wolrd . We were blessed with big brains and a conscience and we have a responsibilty and some might say privilege of being able to use them to inform whether we should do things such as kill deer. And an ability to weigh up whether the benefits to our race outweigh the pain/cruelty it causes.

A cat may be causing destruction by sport killing but they don't know that they're doing that, just following instinct. It's unnecessary and it's cruel and we can overcome those 'instincts' (if you want to argue humans have these instincts) we know that, and that's why we shouldnt be compared to a feckin cat even if we are both carnivores

statesaver

No.

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

The deer hunter however is a conscious human being killing a really beautiful animal - I meet deer regularly, they are really gorgeous almost mystical creatures. The hunter does not need it for food - he has plenty of food.

No one "needs" any meat for food however - so I am not sure what that point actually says. Farmed or Wild. Whether you go and hunt and eat deer - or you go and select a prepackaged steak off a supermarket shelf - you are choosing to eat meat you do not "need".

Also beauty is subjective. I too find deer beautiful. I happen to think the same about pigs and cows too however. I still eat them all. And if I am in a restaurant what has cow pig and deer on the menu my selection will be based on taste not my personal ideas of beauty.

I try to source my meat ethically. This is not the easiest thing in Ireland so I do not always succeed. But what you write off as mere "sport" I would say produces more ethical meat than some of the things many of us eat off farms. The wild rabbit I capture and kill is probably many times more ethical meat than - say - what people in KFC are eating.

Hunters that hunt _purely_ for sport and do not eat what they kill however - well there we would be more in agreement. But even that is open to argument too as quite often they hunt animals that need to be culled - and their target selection can be such as to remove the weakest or most sickly individuals from the herd.

But if I get to go bow hunt as I hope to I will be ensuring every part of the kill is eaten or used for something where possible.

bb1234567

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No one "needs" any meat for food however - so I am not sure what that point actually says. Farmed or Wild. Whether you go and hunt and eat deer - or you go and select a prepackaged steak off a supermarket shelf - you are choosing to eat meat you do not "need".

Also beauty is subjective. I too find deer beautiful. I happen to think the same about pigs and cows too however. I still eat them all. And if I am in a restaurant what has cow pig and deer on the menu my selection will be based on taste not my personal ideas of beauty.

I try to source my meat ethically. This is not the easiest thing in Ireland so I do not always succeed. But what you write off as mere "sport" I would say produces more ethical meat than some of the things many of us eat off farms. The wild rabbit I capture and kill is probably many times more ethical meat than - say - what people in KFC are eating.

Hunters that hunt _purely_ for sport and do not eat what they kill however - well there we would be more in agreement. But even that is open to argument too as quite often they hunt animals that need to be culled - and their target selection can be such as to remove the weakest or most sickly individuals from the herd.

But if I get to go bow hunt as I hope to I will be ensuring every part of the kill is eaten or used for something where possible.

This conversation is a bit of a mine field and agree with some of your points. But I don't agree it's the same thing as supermarket meat , deer are part of a large interconnected wild food chain that we chose to opt out of long ago. Wild animals have packs, dependants and hierarchies that they rely on for survival and our choice to hunt messes with that natural order unnecessarily. Cows and farm animals have packs and social hierarchies but even if some are killed within the packs their survival is never jeopardised by that as we feed and shelter them .We have our own food chain separate from nature , it consists of us and the farmed animals we breed for consumption. It doesn't justify us killing the farm animals, but they are not like for like situations with the same impact or effect imo

gozunda

Gruffalux wrote: »

It is true they are hunters. My cats are extremely old now and had bells on them when younger. The cat has the excuse of being an animal. The deer hunter however is a conscious human being killing a really beautiful animal - I meet deer regularly, they are really gorgeous almost mystical creatures. The hunter does not need it for food - he has plenty of food. They are killing for sport. Personally - and fcuk it, I am allowed have a personal opinion - I do not see anything sporty about it.If the apocalypse comes I will kill and eat a deer if needs be, though it will be sad. It the meantime there are plenty of things to eat that I can grow and buy.

Well no. Deer populations in Ireland are routinely culled to prevent excess numbers over which the areas they populate cannot support. If not done - deer will die of starvation and lead to overgrazing in the areas the inhabit. And yes the culled deer are used for food. And very tasty they are too.

We may not like it. But it serves a function.

On another note I've no problem taking out rats and other pests where they are causing problems with hygiene or food.

bb1234567

bb1234567 wrote: »

deer are part of a large interconnected wild food chain that we chose to opt out of long ago.

In Ireland? The post above mine suggests that we kill them more often than people might think. However I would not have much interest in hunting them here. The chance I have been given to bow hunt them is in a location where it is more the done thing.

Gruffalux

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No one "needs" any meat for food however - so I am not sure what that point actually says. Farmed or Wild. Whether you go and hunt and eat deer - or you go and select a prepackaged steak off a supermarket shelf - you are choosing to eat meat you do not "need".

Also beauty is subjective. I too find deer beautiful. I happen to think the same about pigs and cows too however. I still eat them all. And if I am in a restaurant what has cow pig and deer on the menu my selection will be based on taste not my personal ideas of beauty.

I try to source my meat ethically. This is not the easiest thing in Ireland so I do not always succeed. But what you write off as mere "sport" I would say produces more ethical meat than some of the things many of us eat off farms. The wild rabbit I capture and kill is probably many times more ethical meat than - say - what people in KFC are eating.

Hunters that hunt _purely_ for sport and do not eat what they kill however - well there we would be more in agreement. But even that is open to argument too as quite often they hunt animals that need to be culled - and their target selection can be such as to remove the weakest or most sickly individuals from the herd.

But if I get to go bow hunt as I hope to I will be ensuring every part of the kill is eaten or used for something where possible.

We agree on a lot.
I don't eat any meat but when my vegetarian children asked for it I sourced local organic that was meat raised with care. I also somehow seem to have reared hunters. And reserve the right to tease them. It is unnecessary as a sport. But they do not use guns.

ShatterAlan

El Tarangu wrote: »

Tbh, that sounds like you prolonged the suffering of one bird, denied a meal to two other birds (and who knows, that pigeon could have been the difference between life and death for either of them), to serve no end other than assuaging your squeamishness.

I don't think the ravens eat pigeon meat. They were probably just killing it.

NickNickleby

Three times that I've donned my cape come to mind:

Years ago, I was in the back garden and heard a high pitched calling. Went down the garden, and there was the neighbours cat, tormenting a tiny little mouse. So, I shoo-ed away the cat and bending down, picked up and empty flower pot and caught the mouse in it. When I stood up, the neighbour's cat ran up my back and onto my shoulder, and tried to get its paw into the flower pot. I flicked the mouse over the back wall and chased the cat around the garden, waving the flower pot. By the time the cat realised the pot was empty, I'm sure the mouse was well on his way.

Another time, one of my children came running in from the local park to say there was a bird trapped in the park. Little gang of eight year olds, all worried for the MAGPIE (I HATE them). Anyway, it was trapped in a load of nylon thread or tape or something, and pecked viciously as I carefully worked to release it. I saw it later with a mouse in its mouth :eek::pac::pac:

Last one. Heard a loud buzzing in our conservatory, and had to climb onto a chair to be able to see into a corner. There I spy a large bumble bee being wrapped up by a spider. I got a fork and parried with the spider then picked out the tightly wrapped bumble bee on the fork. I brought it out the back, and put it on the ground. Using a stiff stalk of grass, I picked all the spider thread off the bee. after a few minutes of composing himself, the bee eventually flew off. This was the only one that I consider 'interfering with nature' .

To be honest, I think we all respond to distress calls, as its in our DNA (isn't it??).

I have bird feeders in the back garden, and the amount of arm waving and shouting I do to scare away the magpies (they bully the small birds) the neighbours must think I'm nuts (probably Peckish !). On the other hand I've seen a bird of prey flash in and catch something, he probably thinks I've set up a take-away for him, but I see that as nature in the raw.

Gruffalux

Gruffalux wrote: »

It is unnecessary as a sport. But they do not use guns.

Just like no meat is really necessary I would also say no sport is "necessary" either. So for the same reason saying they do not "need" the meat I would also question whether this is a point that says anything either.

But actually for me "sport" has always been the wrong word for hunting. Not sure what the right word is but "sport" never sat right for me. But that would just be linguistic pedantry on my part.

I got lucky that someone I know is able to teach me and my daughter (10) and later my son (now 6 so soon enough) to use and fire rifles. But I would not use guns for hunting I think. Except maybe pheasants. But if I get to hunt land animals I would only have an interest in doing so with a bow.

No judgement on those that do! It just doesn't interest me at all.

Gruffalux

Deleted User wrote: »

Just like no meat is really necessary I would also say no sport is "necessary" either. So for the same reason saying they do not "need" the meat I would also question whether this is a point that says anything either.

But actually for me "sport" has always been the wrong word for hunting. Not sure what the right word is but "sport" never sat right for me. But that would just be linguistic pedantry on my part.

I got lucky that someone I know is able to teach me and my daughter (10) and later my son (now 6 so soon enough) to use and fire rifles. But I would not use guns for hunting I think. Except maybe pheasants. But if I get to hunt land animals I would only have an interest in doing so with a bow.

No judgement on those that do! It just doesn't interest me at all.

The words sport and survival do distinguish between very different motivations for the same activity, which is useful. Use 'non-survival hunting' perhaps?

I don't care if people hunt. Ernest Hemingway is my favourite writer and he was hardly ever without a gun. I just don't fancy it.

ShatterAlan

statesaver wrote: »

No.

Would you intervene to try and save a child from a shark/lion/wolf/crocodile?


The predator in this case doesn't know what is anymore than he knows what a chimpanzee is. He just knows that it's dinner.