| [Not a valid template] |
|
This image was created on December 30 past with the tripod-mounted Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS lens, the 1.4X II TC, and the EOS-1D Mark IV. ISO 400. Evaluative metering +1 stop: 1/500 sec. at f/8 in Av mode. (The proper compensation should have been about +1 2/3 stops as the RAW file was under-exposed.) Read on to find out why this bird was so alert…. |
Do Birds Understand Death? Two Tales: One New, One Old
I was with two private day clients on the Barnegat Jetty; we were photographing a group of seven Long-tailed Ducks feeding exactly as Denise Ippolito describes in the Barnegat Jetty Site Guide. I noticed a Long-tailed Duck floating past the feeding group and quickly realized that it was dead. And just as quickly realized that it had been dispatched by a shotgun blast; there had been several boats hunting both in the bay and on the ocean near the jetty to the north on the far side of the inlet. Multiple shotgun blasts had filled the cold air all day long. (Denise and Neil Nourse had found a wounded long-tail suffering on the beach earlier that afternoon; it eventually succumbed.) Neil, who used to hunt sea ducks, said that recovering the birds was often difficult or impossible. Below is the image of the dead bird floating by.
| [Not a valid template] |
|
This image was created moments before the opening image above, also with the tripod-mounted Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS lens, the 1.4X II TC, and the EOS-1D Mark IV. ISO 400. Evaluative metering +1 stop: 1/500 sec. at f/8 in Av mode. (Again, the proper compensation should have been about +1 2/3 stops as the RAW file was under-exposed.) |
Well, I see and photograph the dead sea duck and get back to concentrate on photographing the feeding birds when suddenly the long-tail shown in the first image in this post sees the dead duck and becomes quite concerned, peering with interest over the waves at its fallen flock-mate. Then it begins swimming towards the deceased sea duck and is almost instantly joined by the other six birds. The dead bird was being carried towards the bay at a fairly rapid pace by the incoming tide. The group swam quickly and was soon alongside the dead duck. They swam with the carcass for a minute or so before turning around and taking flight to the east, heading out to the open ocean…..
| [Not a valid template] |
|
This swimming Long-tailed Duck hen was one of the group of seven. It as also photographed with the tripod-mounted Canon 800mm f/5.6L IS lens, the 1.4X II TC, and the EOS-1D Mark IV. ISO 400. Evaluative metering +1/3 stop: 1/640 sec. at f/8 in Av mode. |
Please do not take the tale above as either anti- or pro-hunting.
You can see more Barnegat images here and on Denise’s blog here. The January 4 and January 6 posts with lots of great jetty images are sandwiched around a Fractalius post that is filled with Denise’s creative stuff.
The Old Tale
As I was watching the fairly amazing behavior noted above, a similar experience from the late 1970s came to mind. I was on a fishing boat in Mexican waters at the Coronado Islands off the coast of Imperial Beach, CA. We were live-lining anchovies for Yellowtail and baby Bluefin Tuna. The mates toss out scoops of live anchovies as chum. You place a single live anchovy on a bare hook and toss it out about twenty feet from the boat. When a fish grabs your bait you hold on for dear life. Most of the fish simply take out all your line, tangle you in the kelp, and break off.
Naturally the Brown Pelicans view this as great fun. The gather around the boat coming closer and closer to grab the anchovies as soon as a scoop is tossed away from the boat. But like the fish, the occasionally grab a baited hook. Then the angler has the chore of reeling in the hapless bird and the mates have the chore of grabbing the large birds and removing the hook. If my memory is correct, the mates tried spraying the pelicans with chloroform or with something similar. But that did not stop the pelicans from remaining a big nuisance. Next the mates tried batting the pelicans in the head with a billy club. That did not work as several hundred birds gathered around the boat for free breakfast.
The mates were becoming more and more frustrated until finally one whacked a pelican so hard in the head that it died right on the spot. The mate tossed the body overboard. As the dead bird floated away from the fishing vessel the pelicans quit feeding and formed up in lines with their fallen comrade. Within five minutes there were several long curving lines of pelicans floating away from the boat with the dead bird. I was watching a funeral procession.
Not a single Brown Pelican came anywhere near the boat for the rest of the morning.
Do birds understand death?
Shopper’s Guide
Here is a list of the gear that I used to create the images above. Thanks a stack to all who have used the Shopper’s Guide links to purchase their gear as a thank you for all the free information that we bring you on the Blog and in the Bulletins.
Canon 800mm f/5.L IS lens Right now this is my all time favorite super-telephoto lens.
Canon EOS-1D Mark IV professional digital camera body And this is the very best professional digital camera body that I have even used.
Canon 1.4X II teleconverter This is my most used accessory; I would be lost without it.
And from the BAA On-line Store:
Gitzo 3530 LS Tripod This one will last you a lifetime.
Mongoose M3.6 Tripod Head Right now this is the best tripod head around for use with lenses that weigh less than 9 pounds. For heavier lenses, check out the Wimberley V2 head.
Double Bubble Level You will find one in my camera’s hot shoe whenever I am not using flash.
Delkin 32gb e-Film Pro Compact Flash Card Fast and dependable.
NEOS Navigator 5 Insulated Overshoes My brand new pair of NEOS Navigators kept me warm and dry and provided safe footing and a good grip on the slippery jetty rocks.
If you are considering the purchase of a major piece of photographic gear be it a new camera, a long lens, a tripod or a head, or some accessories be sure to check out our complete Shopper’s Guide.
I assume vultures understand death
Thanks a stack to Ingrid and Caspar for their well thought out, well written comments.
When I first asked “Do birds understand death?” I had intended it as a rhetorical question to assert my position that birds and animals do in fact understand death. Little did I know 🙂
The nub of Keith’s argument seems to be this:
“… the difference between human emotion and animal reaction is the rationalisation of the implications of the situation – “what will I do now?” “What does this mean for me?” “How will I go on without..?”” He adds, “I do not accept for a moment that the vast majority of animals have the capacity to do that, and nor is there any credible science out there to suggest otherwise.”
For Keith, it seems that human emotion, to be human emotion, must include intellectualization. Even the Wikipedia definition he cites does not go that far. It says, “Emotion is the complex psychophysiological experience of an individual’s state of mind as interacting with biochemical (internal) and environmental (external) influences. In humans, emotion fundamentally involves “physiological arousal, expressive behaviors, and conscious experience”.[1] Emotion is associated with mood, temperament, personality and disposition, and motivation.”
This definition refers to conscious experience but says nothing about Keith’s requirement of “rationalisation of the implications of the situation.”
In my view, Keith’s questions (“what will I do now?” “What does this mean for me?” “How will I go on without..?”) are no part of emotion, but rather a possible mental response to the events that triggered an emotion. Moreover, I do not think they occur universally even in humans. They are raised – if at all – only after the initial emotion has subsided sufficiently to give way to thought about the situation, which may take moments to days, weeks, or even years, depending upon the severity of the event and the temperament of the responder.
Keith adds, “I do not accept for a moment that the vast majority of animals have the capacity to do that, and nor is there any credible science out there to suggest otherwise.”
Art simply asked, “Do birds understand death?” For me, that means simply “Do they understand that the dead one is gone?” I think the behavious of crows strongly suggests that they do understand that, but as Art says, “How could you possibly know what animals are feeling or for that matter, thinking?”
Keith says, “The only answer available to any of us that avoids speculation, projection, anthropomorphism, wishful thinking and oversentimentality is no, for the simple reason that there’s no empirical evidence to support a yes.
“Any suggestion to the contrary is exactly the same as saying that because you’ve heard a parrot saying its name, parrots can speak English – it’s precisely the same line of thought. Just because a given animal can do something that resembles something humans can do, it doesn’t make it the same thing at all.”
In my view, it is no more “scientific” to answer the question “No” than “Yes” – perhaps less so. The fact is that we have no way of knowing what most animals think or don’t think. The best we can do is observe behavior, and the behavior of some corvids suggests that they do understand. Rejecting the implications of that behavior is just as “speculative” than accepting it. Indeed it is more so, because in essence it is saying, “Even though these crows appear to be mourning their loss, I reject that interpretation because I believe it is a projection, an anthropomorphism, wishful thinking and oversentimentality.” In short, there is some empirical evidence to support a yes, but none to support a no.
So long as we lack the ability to divine animals’ thoughts and feelings, the only strictly scientific answer is, “Some birds seem to grieve for their fallen comrades, which makes it appear that they do indeed understand that the dead ones are gone. But since we have no absolute way of divining their thoughts or feelings, we cannot say with certainty what their behavior actually means.”
As for parrots speaking English, i.e. using words to express thoughts, or intentions, I have heard many stories of parrots using both words and non-verbal communication (e.g. barking like dogs) to express their thoughts or reactions, and even with the clear intent of getting dogs in trouble.
Keith wrote: “nor is there any credible science out there to suggest otherwise.”
This would be impossible to ascertain, even with dedicated scientific studies. For one, the environment of the animal experiencing the incident or stimulus is riddled with dangers that mandate proactive reaction. That is to say, a wild animal, if it does share any of the emotional components you discuss, would not have the luxury of exhibiting the signs a human observer might look for to “prove” emotion in the way you suggest. It would be logical fallacy for me to suggest an equivalency using this language, but if you were observing humans facing death of a loved one under duress, under threat (say war), you would not see them exhibit the same, prolonged grieving you’d find in a suburban home. Ask anyone who’s lived with a pet, how long their perceived grief last after the loss of a loved mate or human. And second, again, one simply cannot know how an animal actually processes the information — which takes me back to the original point about underestimating their abilities at the cost of our own humanity toward them.
Second, Keith says: “But the original question was about birds, and the answer to the original question is still “no” as far as I’m concerned – and the whole discussion about “emotion” simply side-tracked the original question.”
I say this is far too grand a generalization, considering the broad set of responses one sees across species. First, I disagree with your contention about birds in general. But even if one agrees, there are great disparities in how different birds react in its environment. I would suggest that anyone who’s lived with a parrot or even a corvid, would claim a recognition that transcends your characterization of their understanding.
Keith, Rather than spend the rest of eternity chasing our tails we will need to agree to disagree here on lots of things (I am just not sure what!)
Art, you asked “do birds understand death”?
I’ve tried to answer that. The only answer available to any of us that avoids speculation, projection, anthropomorphism, wishful thinking and oversentimentality is no, for the simple reason that there’s no empirical evidence to support a yes.
Any suggestion to the contrary is exactly the same as saying that because you’ve heard a parrot saying its name, parrots can speak English – it’s precisely the same line of thought. Just because a given animal can do something that resembles something humans can do, it doesn’t make it the same thing at all.
Hi Keith,
I was hoping for a simply yes of no answer when I asked, “In your 7:17 am you seem to be implying that animals can feel emotion and you stated somewhere that emotion is different from understanding…. Please let me know if I am correct on both counts.
Here’s where I was heading: When you stated “That’s simply not true, on any level” when referring to this: “A… animals (sic)have feelings and emotions, very much like ours” I would ask, “How could you possibly know what animals are feeling or for that matter, thinking?”
All of your statements are based on either your opinions or the opinions of experts who likewise have no way of knowing what’s going on inside an animal’s brain.
And I would ask the same when it comes to an animal understanding anything. Does the Green Heron dropping bread in the water not understand something? Do the chimps in various learning experiments not understanding something?
I do agree 100% with this, “Art, the whole area of emotion is too complex to debate here (sic) usefully.”
ps: are you familiar with the zebra images/story from ABP II?
Wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion
Here we go – a pretty accurate (as far as I’m concerned) definition, from our friends at Wikipedia ()():
“Emotion is the complex psychophysiological experience of an individual’s state of mind as interacting with biochemical (internal) and environmental (external) influences. In humans, emotion fundamentally involves “physiological arousal, expressive behaviors, and conscious experience”.[1] Emotion is associated with mood, temperament, personality and disposition, and motivation.”
Goes a bit beyond simple innate survival responses, doesn’t it?
😉
Sigh…
Wish I could preview and/or edit posts…
“Keith, In your 7:17 am you seem to be implying that animals can feel emotion and you stated somewhere that emotion is different from understanding”
Hi art,
I don’t believe that (most) animals can feel “emotion” in a human sense. I’m suggesting that animals have the capacity for innate, intuitive responses in reaction to external stimulus, that would might result in an emotional response in us because we can understand what the situation means to us as we look ahead.
When I say (with added emphasis here):
“Experiencing an “emotion” (if we must call it that)…
My point is that it’s certainly reasonable to say that animals “react”, and if it makes some folk happier to equate that reaction to a human emotional response (insofar as both responses – initially at least – are unlikely to involve any conscious intellectualisation) then I’m simply saying “call it what you like”.
But I still maintain that the difference between human emotion and animal reaction is the rationalisation of the implications of the situation – “what will I do now?” “What does this mean for me?” “How will I go on without..?” – I do not accept for a moment that the vast majority of animals have the capacity to do that, and nor is there any credible science out there to suggest otherwise.
Ergo, they do not experience “emotion” as the word applies to us, and surely do not “understand” the implications of the stimulus that provokes the reaction they might be seen responding to.
which is why I end the paragraph with:
“…in response to the prevalent circumstances is not the same as understanding them, and any suggestion (in the absence of any persuasive evidence to support it) that birds are able to do anything more than experience and react to a situation, is by definition anthropomorphic“.
You’ll note too, that I keep bringing the discussion >em>back to birds. As it happens I have no doubt in my own mind that the great apes have the capacity for emotional responses as we experience them (plenty of evidence of that), and for all I know may even have some ability to comprehend the future implications of their changed circumstances. But the original question was about birds, and the answer to the original question is still “no” as far as I’m concerned – and the whole discussion about “emotion” simply side-tracked the original question.
Art, the whole area of emotion is too complex usefully to debate here. Even where we might agree that a given response – fear, say – is likely shared by every animal including us (I’d actually argue that fear isn’t an “emotion” either, but it’ll serve for the purposes of this point), how it’s felt by different species means that it’s not remotely The Same Thing for every critter.
As I suggest, humans will – and do – analyse what a given fear situation means to them: we go far beyond a simple “thisisbadthisisbadthisisbad…” reaction, whereas most animals can do nothing of the sort. For them, a fear reaction is about two things only – fight or flight. We do that too, but then we think about the situation, which is when the real emotions start.
So what becomes an emotional response (as we mean it) in a human simply cannot happen with – for example – birds, because emotion in a human sense, and understanding (back on topic) imply the ability to consider the implications – real and anticipated – of a situation in a way denied to most of the animal kingdom.
Wow. Thanks a stack to all for the interesting discussion that has developed above (especially Keith and Bill).
Keith, In your 7:17 am you seem to be implying that animals can feel emotion and you stated somewhere that emotion is different from understanding….
Please let me know if I am correct on both counts.
“Anthropomorphism… Anyone that is around animals and takes the time to study them KNOWS that they have feelings and emotions, very much like ours”.
That’s simply not true, on any level. I don’t know a single farmer (and I know a lot of farmers and farming families) that would do anything than laugh at that – and who has more hands-on experience of animals than farmers?
Anthropomorphism at its most blatant.
“The “experts” and so-called “scientists” are finally coming around on this…very slowly I might add !! but coming around”
Care to cite some credible references relating to the understanding of death by birds?
And again: not “recognising”, not “reacting to”, but understanding
Good luck with that…
Anthropomorphism…..anyone that is around animals and takes the time to study them KNOWS that they have feelings and emotions, very much like ours. The “experts” and so-called “scientists” are finally coming around on this…very slowly I might add !! but coming around.
So do I believe that birds understand death??? You BET I do !!! Eventually these “scientists” will discover that we have been giving animals the short end of the stick and realize that the STUPID and DUMB ones were US! My sheepdog is about ready to use my Mac! Ha!
Annie Katz
“”We have long denied feelings to the “other”, whether an enemy, a Black person, or an animal of another species”
This is another argument entirely; the first two cases are an an attempt to “dehumanize” another human ( a subject for an entirely different discussion); for the sake of prejudice (a human emotion); the third implies that we should therefore “humanize” animals, for the sake of empathy (also a human emotion). This seems to be an emotionally “loaded” argument for defining the natural world entirely according to human terms,
“It surely originated in a misguided (emotional) desire to prove that people are not animals”.
My point ( and I think Keith’s) is precisely the opposite; from a natural history/biological perspective, humans ARE animals (whether or not we are anything more than that is a matter for a discussion of spirituality, theology, and epistemology). Our behaviors, urges, many of our actions, even those feelings some want to project onto other species, are driven more by hormones, pheromones, and instincts created through natural selection than by reason and intellect. There’s no dividing line between nature’s world and ours. We are just as much a part of that world, and just as subject to its rules, as any other living thing. The only difference, is that man is the only species arrogant enough to believe that we are of supreme importance in that world, that we have some “right” to define it according to our desires ( and yes, “feelings”), and that we are somehow above its unchanging rules.
Instead of wondering whether or not, since we don’t know for sure, we ought to presume that animals have feelings just like ours, (so that we will “care” more about them?), maybe we ought to have the humility to realize that as far as nature is concerned, all we are is another predatory species occupying a niche in nature’s balance. If we’re so superior in reason, and morals, why should it be so difficult for us to respect, love and admire the awesome, intricately interwoven spectacle of the natural world, for its own sake, without having to attribute our own characteristics to every creature in it? Are we really so morally and intellectually bankrupt that we cannot or will not value anything that is not somehow “like us”? If we are THAT self-absorbed, we’re in worse shape than I thought.
Interestingly (Art!) I’ve seen a number of analyses of Lawrence’s poem which suggest that it is about the fact that “wild things” live only in the moment and only for what is.
That should resonate with you, I imagine..!
@ Bill Stubbs
I couldn’t agree more, Bill.
On a similar tack, the single most pointed and pertinent thing I ever read on the subject was DH Lawrence’s observation:
“I never saw a wild thing sorry for itself.
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself“.
It is horribly arrogant that some people think they know better than Nature.
“I don’t understand why it is considered more “scientific” to reject the idea that animals have emotions (by labeling it “anthropomorphism”) than to accept the evidence of our senses.
Anthropomorphism is what it is, but you’re missing my point by a wide margin – we’re not discussing emotion, we’re talking about understanding.
Emotion is essentially an innate response to a stimulus: we might analyse and intellectualise the implications of a stimulus in order to come to an understanding of it, but there’s no evidence that any animals do that. Experiencing an “emotion” (if we must call it that) in response to the prevalent circumstances is not the same as understanding them, and any suggestion (in the absence of any persuasive evidence to support it) that birds are able to do anything more than experience and react to a situation, is by definition anthropomorphic.
Some interesting reading on the subject here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_in_animals:
“the scientific examination of animal emotion has led to little information beyond a recognition that animals have the capacity for pain and fear, and such responses as are needed for survival. ”
As I suggested up the page.
“It surely originates in a misguided (emotional) desire to prove that people are not animals.”
Nothing of the sort – this is another example of projecting your mindset, anthropomorphically.
In fact, it originates from a wish to be objective and not to assume. No more than that.
To do otherwise – to conclude that because a given reaction to a given situation by a given animal looks like an emotional response because we would react emotionally in a similar situation – is very weak, woolly thinking, often in support of an agenda.
And again, emotion is in any case irrelevant to the original question about understanding.
I don’t understand why it is considered more “scientific” to reject the idea that animals have emotions (by labeling it “anthropomorphism”) than to accept the evidence of our senses. It surely originates in a misguided (emotional) desire to prove that people are not animals.
We have long denied feelings to the “other”, whether an an enemy, a black person, or an animal of another species. Not long ago, it was considered unscientific to attribute emotions and other “human” characteristics to chimpanzees. That idea was exploded when humans learned to communicate with Washoe and other chimps, as chronicled by Roger Fouts in “Next of Kin”.
There seems to be some relationship between intelligence and complexity of emotions, but to draw a hard line between human “emotions” and the “instinctual behavior” of other species seems to me to be an emotional response rather than a “scientific” one (i.e.one based on observation and reason).
And “recognise” is neither more nor less correct than “recognize”; which you prefer depends primarily on whwere you were educated; see e.g. http://www3.telus.net/linguisticsissues/BritishCanadianAmerican.htm
In response to Keith’s comment, “I disagree with Ingrid, I’m afraid. To me, the notion that any bird can “intellectualise” (correct spelling again!) death to the extent that it understands it on any level is anthropomorphism.”
I realize that scientifically speaking, anthropomorphism is used to avoid improperly attributing emotions to animals that they may not possess, in particular, those that resemble ours. I would argue that we simply do not know what emotions or understandings animals have, owing to the impossibility of thinking or feeling like a crow. We don’t know how that long-tailed duck perceived the death of his flock mate. It’s as impossible for us to ascertain your idea of the duck’s understanding as it is to confirm my perspective. For that reason, I err on the side of granting that they could possess more in the way of consciousness than we humans are willing to concede. Historically, we’ve been proven wrong often enough, when we’ve underestimated the capacity of one species or another. Personally, I’ve seen too many unsavory behaviors toward non-humans, justified on the basis of their lack of consciousness. I think it’s more fair to say that we simply don’t know, but that observations suggests more understanding than we’ve previously attributed to the “other.”
I have to agree with Keith here; let’s not confuse recognition with understanding. Many bird and animals recognize injury or other distress in offspring, in a mate, in a member of their flock or pack; whether they understand the difference between distress and death is more problematic. When we see these behaviors, we are seeing the result of untold generations adapting by developing instinctive behaviors that help preserve the species, and here, I have to ask, is that not itself marvelous and wonderful enough, and reason enough, to value and respect them, without trying to project our human emotions and thought processes onto them?
There a real philosophical question to ask here, because the more we project our own characteristics onto animals, the more we try to make them more like us, the more likely we are to judge them by our standards, and that, I think, does them a disservice. Animals, unlike us, aren’t “good” or “bad”, “sweet” or “mean”, “cute” or “ugly”; they just are what they are, each a marvel in its own right. I’ve know many a bird lover who loves the finch at the feeder, but hates the sharp-shinned hawk who devours one, now and then; and yet the sharpie is just being what it is, a wonderfully agile predator which takes the weak, the slow, the unwary, and makes the prey species stronger over time. Is it right to love the mockingbird’s song, but hate the rat snake that preys on its eggs and nestlings? The snake isn’t “mean”; it’s doing what it does in nature’s grand scheme. How about the animals that can even be a threat to us when we intrude in their world; is the cougar that may consider us lunch “vicious” or the rattlesnake that may bite us in self-defense “evil”?
We can’t love that natural world selectively, or pass judgement on what lives in it by our emotions; if we all did that, we’d literally love some creatures to death in misguided attempts to preserve or save them all, and drive others to extinction because their looks or behaviors aren’t warm, fuzzy or endearing, by our standards. We either care about it all, or someday, we’ll destroy it all, by trying to preserve it instead of conserving it.
I think there’s a real danger here in confusing the word “understand” with (say) the word “recognise” (and yes, that’s the proper spelling!)
I don’t doubt that many species – especially smarter species like crows – recognise death (carrion eaters would need to be pretty good at that really – it’d be dangerous for them not to be able to tell that dinner was ready); and I believe that being able to see the “otherness” of a corpse of their own species is a necessary survival mechanism probably possessed by most birds.
But “understanding” death? No.
I disagree with Ingrid, I’m afraid. To me, the notion that any bird can “intellectualise” (correct spelling again!) death to the extent that it understands it on any level is anthropomorphism.
I have no problem with the idea that life-paired birds will seem to mourn the loss of a partner, but this is a purely instinctive reaction to the cessation of a genetically pre-programmed long relationship (arrived at purely because it happens to be a viable species survival strategy), and “understanding” doesn’t come into it. Such birds refuse to abandon an injured mate because that’s how instinct tells them to react, not because of they’re not prepared to give up on a “loved one”.
We might do that, birds just do what their nature tell them to do.
So: can birds recognise death? Yes. Are they able to react to the implications to them of a corpse of their species? To a greater or lesser extent, yes.
But so they understand it? No, they don’t. They just sense on an intuitive level that it’s something they don’t want, which is a very, very basic survival mechanism: species that haven’t developed this instinct don’t survive – just look at the Dodo and the Great Auk.
Do birds understand death? I’ve seen it go both ways. I’ve had birds fly into my window and had many birds continue to hop around the back deck, completely ignoring the dead bird until I collected myself enough to retrieve it and bury it. But I’ve also come upon a dead crow (at the dump) where many crows were gathered in a tree above it, seemingly watching over it. They dispersed when I got close and kept their distance while I took some pictures of nearby eagles. As soon as I moved on, they gathered in the tree again.
When I visit a bird sanctuary a distance from where I live, I find it quite disconcerting to hear the blasts of shotguns where they happen to be shooting ducks nearby. I don’t even eat meat, so I find the killing of animals particularly disturbing. I still don’t understand why hunting is called a sport.
One thing I’ve noticed, when I’m out at art fairs selling my work, is how often people like to share their stories of animal death. I know it’s all part of the cycle, but I find it upsetting to hear some of these stories (especially if they involve suffering). People almost have a compulsion to share the gory details though and sometimes can’t be stopped. I seem to come across dead animals much more often since moving to a rural area. Although it’s still quite upsetting, I have to say that I’m getting a little more used to it.
My ex-wife once had a newspaper delivery route (on foot). On day she came across a dead crow in the road, and she moved it to some grass at the side of the road. Several crows came and “thanked” her, and after that they greeted her whenever she came by the same place on her route.
In India, as a small boy, walking the streets with a pellet gun, I shot and killed a crow. Immediately swarms of crows, calling loudly dove at me and perched above me, clearly very agitated. They followed me home – about two miles – and only left when I was out of sight and indoors. They clearly understood death and danger!!
One summer day my husband Ben was playing golf and hit a drive that literally split a flying Cedar Waxwing in half. His foursome watched in horror as the bird exploded and two feathered bird parts dropped out of the sky and hit the ground. They saw another Waxwing (presumably its mate) circling above the two parts of the dead bird for quite awhile in a frantic state. It finally flew away when the golfers walked down the fairway and passed the dead bird parts. The members of the foursome were in a state of shock and felt terrible about the event. The reactions of the surviving mate were very dramatic.
I hope never to meet the person who enjoyed clubbing a bird on the head, and he should be glad never to meet me too! :o)
I recently saw an email re a bird who stayed with his killed mate for a very long time. I do not like to see birds or any animals, killed deliberately just for the sake of shooting them. I think it is wrong.
It was sad to see the duck floating by in the water and it was worse to see the duck slowly dying on the beach. Seems cruel to me. My brother is a hunter and he eats what he kills. He doesn’t hunt for sport. I can respect that even though it is not something I could do. I know that I could have never been on that boat and watch them club the Pelicans. That’s horrible in my opinion. To answer your question- yes. I believe animals do.
As a wildlife rehabilitator, I say we underestimate non-human consciousness in this area at great cost. There have been studies done on crow “funerals” — what appear to be whole-flock observations of a single flock member’s death. If you’ve spent time with geese or cranes or other life-bonded birds, you may have witnessed that family and flock members will often stay close with an injured mate. Hunters I’ve met have shared tales of drakes or hens, swimming around to be with a mate who was shot or injured on the water. I tell my friends that it’s not “anthropomorphism” to assign qualities to an animal that it rightfully possesses or exhibits, even if those qualities are similar to human characteristics, and even if we can’t fully bridge the chasm of language between species.
Fascinating and touching accounts. I understand elephants also stage funeral processions.
Lovely images! Glad you had good weather for your visit to the jetty.