Applying Human traits to wildlife.

[paulchandler6]

Is it right to apply Human traits to wildlife? I have seen Birds of Prey described as lazy because they make a kill and sit around until the next meal.
Rabbits and Pheasants as stupid because they don’t get out of the way of vehicles on the road.

What is the primary role of a BOP, to further their species and survive to carry this out?

Rabbits and Pheasants are not aware that a vehicle can kill as they do not perceive it as a predator?

Interesting to see what the rest of you folks out there think.

Paul

[Susie]

We are all animals (yes, okay, I use the term loosely ) so I don't see why some traits won't apply across species although I am sure that in some cases over simplification or misinterpretation occurs.

[hannahpanda]

Our lecturers have warned us to be careful of Anthropomorphism when describing species.

It depends in what context. Using our traits to describe animals ensures that people understand what we say, but saying they are "lazy" and "stupid" because people dont understand why they act the way they do then.. they need to do some reasearch

[naturelover]

if you want my opinion they are the ones that are stupid.

[mrs fish]

I don't blame bop's for sitting about after a kill, it takes alot of energy and skill to catch their meal

I think it is interesting that a woodpigeon that eats and eats only has a life span of 3 years whereas a gull that doesn't seem to hardly eat anything to me(a few worms in the morning and the odd chip) has a life span of 30 years!

That seems to be the case with humans too at the moment

[Gill Catton]

Interesting thread

I think 'lazyness' is actually a human invented critisim (sp?) of a very sucessful resting behaviour that probably helped us to survive as it does birds of prey and other species.

People assume animals need to roam miles and miles in their life to feel happy and for some animals (particualrly those that need to migrate) this may be true but for others if food or mates are always within reach of their shelter they won't wander far at all.....

With regard to rabbits and pheasants I think we are just being unfair in our judgement. If you have ever been on a railway line looking head on at a train approaching at 125 miles an hour it often looks like its hardly moving its certainly very difficult to percieve the actual speed people often get killed on rail lines for this reason, because it looks like they have time to get out of the way when they don't. This I think may be how it is for rabbits and pheasants. The most road kill happens on roads with virtually no verge just a hedge then road or on quiet roads where there's only periodic traffic so animals either can only see the traffic head on or are unused to traffic at all.

I think also you're right that animals don't recognise cars as a 'predator' because they don't exhibit any predator type behaviours they don't chase animals off into the field, their 'eyes' (headlights) are often 'looking' away from the animal and I think this is why cars work so well as a hide....

I think even even with recognised predators an animal like a rabbit won't run as an initial behaviour unless a fox has appeared unexpectedly. Often if they see a fox coming they stand up and indicate to the fox that it has been spotted - older foxes frequently then don't bother because they know they stand little chance of a catch, and the rabbits continue grazing with one or two keeping an eye on the fox, the rabbits then only run if the fox continues to get close.

Hmmmm I've gone off on a tangent here haven't I !

er yes we definately project human emotions onto animals but I think sometimes we are right but just misinterpreting or reassessing under modern environs the behaviours in ourselves.....

[coasty]

As regards the animals ability to recognise a car as danger.. The lack of a learning opportunity surely is the factor,,,, Hard to learn any lessons when you are spread along the tarmac?

[The Black Rabbit]

This could turn into a very interesting thread indeed. (With luck).

Some of us have mentioned this topic before - making direct comparisons between humans and (other) animals, especially in terms of behaviour / emotions / feelings etc...

Whilst I am pretty much against the anthropomorphism of other animals, (sometimes even to the point of giving wild animals names on tv shows - though I certainly understand why they do that - I did the same with "Scargill and Anne", our nesting Blue Tits last year), and the disneyfication of wildlife in general, especially amongst us Brits, there are some interesting anomalies I think.

You mentioned birds of prey Paul.
I could present to you half a dozen falconers now, who think, or indeed KNOW, their birds are very individual, in terms of human behaviour, I suppose.
Some they would describe as pig-headed, some as arrogant and superior, some as lazy, some as bone-idle, some as show-offs, some as mercurial - the list would go on and on.

Ah... but these are kept birds eh? So thats not a fair example?
Maybe.
Maybe not...

Doug

[zan]

I'm not generally a fan of anthropomorphisms because I think it often takes something away from the animal itself. I think it can help remind people that animals aren't just unfeeling objects and I think it's fair enough that people do it when teaching or to convey a point, but it's also dangerous if we assume animals feel the same way about a situation as we would.

It's something that has big implications in the welfare of e.g. domestic food animals or in designing zoo enclosures. I haev a friend who works in an aquarium, and she is always saying how many complaints they get that their (rescued, non-releasable) turtle must be lonely. Doesn't matter taht it's a naturally solitary species...

the only way to really work out the animal's 'feelings' are to get to know it intimately, whether through research or owning a captive animal. As long as that's done carefully and well, it shouldn't be a problem.

[coasty]

Originally Posted by The Black Rabbit

This could turn into a very interesting thread indeed. (With luck).

Some of us have mentioned this topic before - making direct comparisons between humans and (other) animals, especially in terms of behaviour / emotions / feelings etc...

Whilst I am pretty much against the anthropomorphism of other animals, (sometimes even to the point of giving wild animals names on tv shows - though I certainly understand why they do that - I did the same with "Scargill and Anne", our nesting Blue Tits last year), and the disneyfication of wildlife in general, especially amongst us Brits, there are some interesting anomalies I think.


Doug

I agree Doug , However I suggest we should start by agreeing if we feel non humans are capable of emotional responses. I for one beleive many animals feel fear, uneasiness, loss ie bereavment, loneliness and they are capable of interaction with others of their species and humans, But importantly should these traits be described as human in the first place?.