Not once have I said I would leave an animal to suffer.......

You didnt need to, you clearly said you wont help..and that you have a number of times seen baby animals (im guessing with our mums) hooping about, and left them...who then eventually died... seems clear enough to me..and if that aint suffering..then I dont know what is.

And you seriously think no wild animal ever suffers?

If the rabbit was injured and suffering then I'd put it out of it's misery. If a baby crow is hopping about at ground level having fallen out of it's nest I'd leave it to it's Mother to defend it. If I found a litter of rabbits that were uninjured I'd leave them and let nature decide the course of action They might survive, wild animals are very resilient, but if they die in the process then so be it, that's life. Perhaps I'm just more realistic than you, I don't know. What I do know is not every creature can be saved/have a nice happy ending.

Try and put words in my mouth if you like, but I've never left any animal I've come across suffering. It may suffer as a result of my inaction, but then it may go on to live a long and happy life too........

ermm...I know wild animals suffer, I have seen it one to many times..

That's good, for a second there I thought you believed you could save everything!

I dont think I can save anything, I am an assistant, not a qualifed nurse, nor qualifed/insured to do rescues on my own..All I do is ASSIST in these situations
Plus course I know they suffer, if they werent suffering they wouldnt be in the hospital in the first place

I'd never leave an animal to suffer, but I'd be more likely to end it's suffering than rescue it tbh. Just the way I've been brought up I guess!

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOUSHKA05
no not really because your point dosent even make sense lol...because i could say that saving an animal and giving it a chance to procreate will potentially save more animals from starving !
So it's ok for an animal to be pursued by a predator to then be killed and eaten, but it's not ok to leave an animal to die naturally so it can be eaten by scavengers?

and of course i believe it! if the main prey of the fox is rabbits and rodents it dosent take a genius to work out that if there are more foxes there will be less rabbits and rodents!
That's why I don't think you know much about Foxes tbh. They are opportunists and will take easy prey like domestic chickens and human rubbish before they'll take difficult prey like rabbits etc. If rabbits were the natural prey of the fox, then we wouldn't have an out of control rabbit population would we? Allowing more foxes to survive will just exacerbate an already over flowing fox population.

lmao enjoy tho i have no idea why you brought meat eating into this debate in the 1st place
Well you said every animal has a right to be given a chance to survive. Farm animals don't have this right as they're bred to be eaten. It's a lovely notion to think that every animal has a right to survive, but it's just not realistic. It's called Mother Nature.



Quote:
Originally Posted by NOUSHKA05
exactly! fortunatley i think most of us couldnt pass bye and leave an animal to suffer...and thank goodness there are organisations and caring people like DD where our wildlife get the care they deserve.


Not once have I said I would leave an animal to suffer.......

but you keep contradicting yourself Ripsnort you ask me if its 'not ok to leave an animal to die naturally so it can be eated by predators' in one breath then go on to say 'Not once have i said i would leave an animal to suffer'...so what does leaving an animal to die 'naturally' actually mean???

lol i know foxes are opportunists and will kill chickens but farmers who take care of their birds properly dont lose many to foxes....and lmfao at this statement 'if rabbits were the natural prey of the fox etc etc' .....

maybe you should read this....In rural areas of Britain, 45% to 70% of the diet of foxes is made up by rabbits. During its lifetime, by eating rabbits each fox might be worth £150-£900 in increased revenue to farmers.

In areas with high levels of predator control, where fox density is lower, rabbit density is higher and there seems to a negative link between predator control and rabbit abundance, i.e. rabbits seem to thrive where there are fewer foxes

And what about wildlife camera crews, are they supposed to interfere when a baby animal is abandoned, or seperated from its parent/s?

I recall an episode of bigcat diary from a few years ago now. There was a very young cheetah cub that got seperated from his mother, there were lions and other predators in the area, that would have finished him off with out hesitation but despite that, and despite how much it pained them to do so, they never interfered, and said that no matter how tempted they were, they never could. Luckily for the cub, he was found by his mother, though I can't remember what happened to him after that.

But what if they had interfered, that cub would have lost its chance at growing up naturally, not being taught the lessons it needed to know to survive by a member of its own species. Whilst it isn't impossible for an animal raised by humans to be successfully released back into the wild, it is a lot harder, and cheetah's already have a low survival rate as it is, they're also from what I've read, quite easy to tame, so you also run the risk of not being able to release it because it is to used to human company, and would therefore put itself at risk by approaching people, harmless as its intentions maybe, many farmers view them as vermin as we do foxes.

And what of other predators? lions, tigers, wolves, bears etc, when these animals are habituated, it can be fatal for both them and us. But in a way I guess we've got it easy, we don't have such predators, unless you believe that there is a population of bigcats stalking the length of britain, so those aren't decisions you have to make, the consaquences aren't yours to deal with.

Interestingly, and almost in a way to the detriment of the point I'm trying to make, there was an experiment conducted where 2 zoo born tiger cubs were raised by humans, who tried to teach them how to survive in the wild on their own, which of course included teaching them how to hunt and kill.

They were successful, their offspring now hunt and kill for themselves on a game reserve in Africa. However, these cats that being the 2 originals, were raised by bigcat experts, who dedicated about 3 years to raising and teaching those cubs everything they needed to know. How many wildlife rescues have the expertese, time and resources to do similar?

So I guess my point is, that whilst it is a lovely thought that each and every wild animal should get another chance at ffreedom, it isn't always practical, viable or realistic, in a world that isn't black and white.

Do I?

It means it dies naturally without human intervention - via Mother Nature eg predation. How do you think animals die in the wild, magic fairy dust?!

Thanks but I prefer real life to paper statistics produced by no one in particular! Plus I've already read it on the other thread you posted it on!