Wildlife at pond

[RobAmy]

Again I appreciate the back and forth with this topic. As Mitch said and quote we each have our ponds and can do what with them we like. I agree with this 100%.

Max384 you replied exactly how most people react today and do not try to take the time to fix the problem. This attitude is fine but just not for me. I am not basing this post on emotion at all, but this is how I live my life 100% and by no means am I perfect. For the record I have never lost a fish to a animal myself. I have herons in my yard from time to time but they have never taken a fish. I was upset that fish where getting in my skimmer, I did not say to bad ( look for my post) I put rods in the skimmer to help for the safety of the fish. I had a frog get in the pump area and die and again because of something I installed ( I did not realize this would happen, never owned a skimmer). So I made a screen so this would not happen again. I personally do not want my pond or my own hand to kill the visitors that pond may invite including my fish.

I do appreciate the fact you had to never kill a animal at the pond yet. I did not mean to insult you at all and of course that example was ridiculous but when you say you are not talking about revenge, then when do you kill a animal, I assume it would be after the animal killed one of your fish ( I hope not before) Is that not revenge? Call it prevention but still the same in my book.

We all have our own opinions and that is what makes the world go round.

My point of this whole post is that is disturbing to me that animals die because we built something for our own pleasure and with some education and maybe some additional work on our part this could be avoided.

Happy Ponding

 

[max384]

Actually, I'm trying to look at it from the fish's 'point of view. Either way, they are in your pond.
Not all pond keepers give the fish a good quality of life. Sometimes people can't look after them properly and they wind up suffering then dying. I would think the fish should rather be eaten while still healthy by a predator than suffer a slow and lingering death.
Enjoyment is pretty subjective and subject to the whims of the pond-keeper.

Of course, we each have our ponds and can do what with them we like.

But you're creating a false dichotomy here of either slowly dying in a bad pond or getting eaten. There's also a third option, which is to live a long healthy life in a healthy pond.

Again I appreciate the back and forth with this topic. As Mitch said and quote we each have our ponds and can do what with them we like. I agree with this 100%.

Max384 you replied exactly how most people react today and do not try to take the time to fix the problem. This attitude is fine but just not for me. I am not basing this post on emotion at all, but this is how I live my life 100% and by no means am I perfect. For the record I have never lost a fish to a animal myself. I have herons in my yard from time to time but they have never taken a fish. I was upset that fish where getting in my skimmer, I did not say to bad ( look for my post) I put rods in the skimmer to help for the safety of the fish. I had a frog get in the pump area and die and again because of something I installed ( I did not realize this would happen, never owned a skimmer). So I made a screen so this would not happen again. I personally do not want my pond or my own hand to kill the visitors that pond may invite including my fish.

Often times taking time to fix a problem means fish die. At this point, it's not about taking the time or effort. It's about saving fish in my opinion. So, where you may see that as lazy (and it often may be), others may be doing this to save fish lives.

I do appreciate the fact you had to never kill a animal at the pond yet. I did not mean to insult you at all and of course that example was ridiculous but when you say you are not talking about revenge, then when do you kill a animal, I assume it would be after the animal killed one of your fish ( I hope not before) Is that not revenge? Call it prevention but still the same in my book.

That is most certainly not revenge. The only reason I would do that is for prevention. Just because it happens after it killed a fish does not automatically make it revenge. Revenge is about why you killed it, not when. And truthfully, I would kill an animal to prevent a fish being killed if I found it necessary. I'd hope I wouldn't, but again, it goes back to it being between the fish's life or the predator's, and I'll always choose the predator.

We all have our own opinions and that is what makes the world go round.

My point of this whole post is that is disturbing to me that animals die because we built something for our own pleasure and with some education and maybe some additional work on our part this could be avoided.

Happy Ponding

I agree with this point. I think prevention that would keep our fish safe and the predators safe is most certainly the best bet, and the approach I've been taking. We just differ in how we would handle the situation after deterrents have failed.

 

[MitchM]

Once the fish has been taken, killing the predator will not bring the fish back. Killing the predator after the fact is revenge.
Killing the predator before it takes the fish means that you are presuming to know what the predator is thinking. It may just want a drink of water.
I suggest that you let the predator go and put in a more effective non-lethal method of protecting your pond. What you had was insufficient. That's not the predator's fault.

 

[talal101]

Once the fish has been taken, killing the predator will not bring the fish back. Killing the predator after the fact is revenge.
Killing the predator before it takes the fish means that you are presuming to know what the predator is thinking. It may just want a drink of water.
I suggest that you let the predator go and put in a more effective non-lethal method of protecting your pond. What you had was insufficient. That's not the predator's fault.

I kind of have to agree with the revenge school of thought here, you wouldn't kill an animal for no reason, but you would kill it after it killed your fish, that means your killing for revenge because it killed your fish. But Max is also right here because in order to take revenge, you have to kill the animal with the thought and intention of killing for revenge......so in a sense it is prevention.

 

[MitchM]

What is the point of killing the predator?
To prevent the same predator from coming back? There will be other predators to replace it.
To prevent further fish from being taken? - Again, there is no useful reason to kill the predator.
- Unless the pond is being used as bait so that one can kill further predators. Then you're just a hunter using bait to attract predators.

 

[max384]

Once the fish has been taken, killing the predator will not bring the fish back. Killing the predator after the fact is revenge.
Killing the predator before it takes the fish means that you are presuming to know what the predator is thinking. It may just want a drink of water.
I suggest that you let the predator go and put in a more effective non-lethal method of protecting your pond. What you had was insufficient. That's not the predator's fault.

?? Huh? Are you seriously suggesting that I'm making the argument that I'm killing the predator after it has killed every last living thing in my pond out of revenge. That's a bit silly, now isn't it? I have more than one fish, and thus killing the predator wouldn't be about avenging my fish that was eaten. It would be about preventing further death of fish. Even if it did eat every last living thing in my pond, killing it would be about preventing further harm to my future pond animals. Revenge is about motive. You can take my word for it that I'd be killing to prevent further death, or you can play mind reader and keep telling me that I'm suggesting revenge. If the motive is prevention rather than revenge, than you can't blindly call it revenge because it happened after the fact. Plain and simple.


You guys seem to be hung up on what's fair, such as mentioning what is or isn't the predator's fault. It's not about fairness to me. It's about protecting what is mine, which in this case is the fish. That surely isn't fair to the predator for being killed for doing what comes natural to it. I get that. But it's also not fair to the animals that the predator eats, whether that be natural prey or the colorful fish in our ponds. So how exactly do we sort out what is most fair? I try not to get caught up in emotions over stuff like this. It complicates things. I find it much easier to approach these situations logically.

 

[MitchM]

No, it's not silly at all.

Please explain how killing the predator will prevent future losses.

If you say because the predator is dead, then what about the next predator that comes along?

.

 

[max384]

No, it's not silly at all.

Please explain how killing the predator will prevent future losses.

If you say because the predator is dead, then what about the next predator that comes along?

.

The predator is dead. The next one that comes along would unfortunately have to suffer the same fate. Like I said, this would be my last resort, but if it came down to it, that's what I'd do if I needed to in order to protect my pond fish.

 

[MitchM]

Ok, so what makes you different then from a deer hunter that stocks a corn feeding station so that the hunter can hunt the deer?

 

[max384]

Ok, so what makes you different then from a deer hunter that stocks a corn feeding station so that the hunter can hunt the deer?

Motive.

This being said, legalities aside, I don't think baiting an animal is immoral if it is killed for food. A baited animal is quite often in a position much easier for the hunter to shoot it from. This generally means a cleaner kill with less suffering for the animal, which is obviously a good thing.

 

[MitchM]

The end result is the same.
Just because you call it something else doesn't make it different.
You both can predict the behaviour of the animals once you put out an attractant.

You could choose to design your pond so the predators have no interest in it, instead you decide to design your pond with the result of attracting them to the pond where you are prepared to kill them.

Same thing.

I'm not sure I want to know, but do you enjoy killing the predators?
If not, you should really think about redesigning your pond.

 

[max384]

The end result is the same.
Just because you call it something else doesn't make it different.
You both can predict the behaviour of the animals once you put out an attractant.

You could choose to design your pond so the predators have no interest in it, instead you decide to design your pond with the result of attracting them to the pond where you are prepared to kill them.

Same thing.

I'm not sure I want to know, but do you enjoy killing the predators?
If not, you should really think about redesigning your pond.

Motive makes all the difference, regardless of the end result. You can't honestly believe that it makes no difference, can you? As an example, if I shoot someone and kill them, they're dead. If I planned to kill someone for the thrill of it, that's cold blooded murder. If I was cleaning my gun and it accidentally went off and killed someone, that's an accident (negligent? of course). Even though the end result (someone dead due to a gunshot wound) is the same, the motive makes all the difference. This analogy is obviously different than killing predators, but motive most certainly makes a difference.

I've already said that I've never had to kill a predator at my pond. I've already said that I'd much rather deter a predator than kill one. You're either being intentionally obtuse or you have not read my posts very carefully at all. I'd appreciate it if you'd go back and at least reread my posts in this thread. And please don't insinuate that I enjoy killing them or that I'm designing my pond to attract them. That approach to conversation is nothing more than an ad hominem attack, which does nothing to stimulate or further the discussion.

You seem to take an emotional approach to this and I take a logical one while trying to leave the emotions out of it as much as possible. There is nothing wrong with either approach. However, when you start making it personal, it crosses a line.

 

[MitchM]

No, I didn't insinuate anything. I asked a question.
When I asked earlier about what you would do once another predator took the place of the one you killed, you did not say that you would redesign your pond. You said you would kill the next one as well.
You are not being consistent.

I'm not being emotional either. I'm trying to follow your logic, but you seem to vary what your actions would be.

Like I said before, you can run your pond however you like, but you wanted to inject a different point of view to this thread.
I was challenging you on it. I wanted to see if you truly understood your actions.That is all.

 

[max384]

No, I didn't insinuate anything. I asked a question.
When I asked earlier about what you would do once another predator took the place of the one you killed, you did not say that you would redesign your pond. You said you would kill the next one as well.
You are not being consistent.

I'm not being emotional either. I'm trying to follow your logic, but you seem to vary what your actions would be.

Like I said before, you can run your pond however you like, but you wanted to inject a different point of view to this thread.
I was challenging you on it. I wanted to see if you truly understood your actions.That is all.

Yes. You did insinuate. And I'm going to bow out of this conversation with you now. We've exhausted all meaningful conversation and I don't think anything positive will come from further conversation on this matter. And I truly don't want to get into an internet poo-slinging contest, which is where I fear this may be going. We have differing opinions and neither of us are obviously changing our minds. The best we can do is to agree to disagree.

 

[MitchM]

... The best we can do is to agree to disagree.

Agreed.

.