Why feed wild life?

[davecatt]

I have always believed that it is wrong to make wild animals dependent on us for food. Food should only be provided in extreme weather conditions.

So my question is: Why do you feed hedgehogs,birds etc at this time of year when food is abundant for them? Do you really care about the wild creatures around us or do you care more about the spectacle of seeing them in the comfort of your own back yard?

Surely, artificial food mixes only train them away from their instinct to seek out their natural food? You wont always be there to care for them.

Dave

[Stinky Bob]

I only put out for birds and mainly I do it because of habitat loss and changing farming practices, but I stop during the autumn glut. The RSPB and I think the BTO recommend carrying on feeding birds during the warmer months.

[slimrbp]

As Bob says the RSPB now recomend you feed all year:
The RSPB: Advice: When to feed wild birds

I guess it depends on your surroundings, I am not sure personally how abundant natural food is in my area (suburbia) so I am happy to supplement their diet. Even with the food out and available I still see tits investigating all of the likely spots for insects and the young starlings were busy eating beetles off the lawn so it doesn't seem to curb their natural instincts.

[AshLee]

It's a blummin' good question, Dave, and one that is surprisingly difficult to answer. Ultimately everything we do is for ourselves (or so we are often told ).

Honestly? It makes me feel good when I care for something other than myself. I have always positioned the feeders so it is better for the birds and not my personal viewing, so it's not a comfort thing. But it is a responsibility, and one that would have to be relinquished upon death (it'd be some solicitor that could include a bird-feeding clause in my will and make it stick, I reckon).

One thing is certain in my mind. I am partly resonsible for the survival of many small creatures in my garden and beyond. Many wouldn't be here if I hadn't fed and sheltered them. I do understand how bad it would be if I stopped feeding the birds or drained the ponds. So I don't stop feeding and I do what I can to maintain my wild area. There is nothing else near me, apart from other people's gardens, and they are barren in comparison.

Other than this, you are in the realms of deepest philosophy, no? I try not to venture too far along that path, as it ultimately leads to impossible questions like "is it better for animals to have life followed by death, or no life at all?" and (always) on to the final question "why are we here?".



Ash

[artdemole]

When we stop pollution.When we stop destroying THEIR habitat.When they then have enough THEN we can stop.AT the moment it can be a matter of life or death.SO it is best we look after the wildlife with extra food.

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by AshLee

It's a blummin' good question, Dave, and one that is surprisingly difficult to answer. Ultimately everything we do is for ourselves (or so we are often told ).

Honestly? It makes me feel good when I care for something other than myself. I have always positioned the feeders so it is better for the birds and not my personal viewing, so it's not a comfort thing. But it is a responsibility, and one that would have to be relinquished upon death (it'd be some solicitor that could include a bird-feeding clause in my will and make it stick, I reckon).

One thing is certain in my mind. I am partly resonsible for the survival of many small creatures in my garden and beyond. Many wouldn't be here if I hadn't fed and sheltered them. I do understand how bad it would be if I stopped feeding the birds or drained the ponds. So I don't stop feeding and I do what I can to maintain my wild area. There is nothing else near me, apart from other people's gardens, and they are barren in comparison.

Other than this, you are in the realms of deepest philosophy, no? I try not to venture too far along that path, as it ultimately leads to impossible questions like "is it better for animals to have life followed by death, or no life at all?" and (always) on to the final question "why are we here?".



Ash

According to Immanuel Kant, if by giving a shilling to a beggar you get personal satisfaction then it is not a moral act. All charity should be disinterested.

STYRBJORN

[AshLee]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

According to Immanuel Kant, if by giving a shilling to a beggar you get personal satisfaction then it is not a moral act. All charity should be disinterested.

STYRBJORN

Oh 'eck! LOL

[ForestPaul]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

According to Immanuel Kant, if by giving a shilling to a beggar you get personal satisfaction then it is not a moral act. All charity should be disinterested.

But I don't imagine the beggar cares about the morality, just about the shilling.

[STYRBJORN]

Dam' right! Just taking up the point about the philosophical arguments. Kant's world would be a very dreary place to live. I was walking through town t'other day, and a guy offered me the Big Issue. I didn't want the mag, but I stuck my hand in my pocket, had about 70-80p change, gave it to him as a contribution. Did I feel good? Yup. Was he grateful? Yup.

STYRBJORN

[willowjay]

I have always believed that by putting out food for the birds, I'm encouraging them to continue to come into my garden - and once there they can do me a service - eating slugs etc. And - of course, a garden without birds is dead, no movement, no song, no day-to-day dramas.