Sadistic Seagull

[Monocrom]

For the past few days, an unhealthy seagull has been wandering around the job site. There's definitely something wrong with him. The average seagull will quickly turn and scoot away on foot if a person approaches him, even if you approach slowly. Quicken your pace or make a loud sound, and they fly off instantly.

However, this one just very slowly walks by you when you walk right up next to him. He doesn't so much as walk as drunkenly take a few steps in the opposite direction. Then he just stops and stands there... If he doesn't fall down on his face and quickly get up. I was trying to shoe him away from some heavy machinery so he wouldn't get hurt. Wasn't my intention to make him hit his head on the concrete. (He literally behaves like a highly intoxicated person would).

He doesn't fly at all. Just slowly walks around all over the place. He won't even get out of the way of a fast-approaching vehicle. He had a couple of close calls. I've walked right up to him, he doesn't seem physically injured. No broken wings. He just doesn't fly. Sometimes he'll just sit in the grass. He goes days without eating. I tried to feed him, even though part of me hates birds. Made a water dish for him from the plastic bottom of a 1 liter coke bottle. Nothing works.

Told others about him. But no one with a position of authority at the job site could care less. Then things really got odd...

Making my rounds today, outdoors; and I see what looks like two seagulls mating in the middle of the road that leads to a fenced off area of the job site. Get a little closer, because I need to check the locked gate behind them, and I realize it's something else. A healthy seagull found the sick one, pinned him to the ground, got on top of his back, and was using his beak like a weapon by jabbing it hard into the body of the sick one, over and over again.

I'm thinking....

I get out of the patrol vehicle, and walk slowly up to them. The healthy and sadistic one, dismounts from the ill one and takes a few steps back. I take a couple of steps back, and the aggressor starts walking back towards the ill one. So I clap, and the sound scares off the healthy one. The ill one walks over to the grass and just lays down on his belly, like he's about to take a nap.

I take a closer look, and find a few bits of food over where the one-sided fight took place. All that, over a tiny bit of food. Bad enough the animal is clearly sick, possibly dying. But to get attacked by another, healthier, seagull... Just doesn't seem right.

Maybe he wasn't sadistic. Maybe that's just how animals are. A weaker member of your species has a bit of food... Go kill him and take it from him. I don't know. Just kinda bothered me. It's late, I'm tired, just thought I'd share.

 

[1wrx7]

Sounds like a case study of survival of the fittest. Humans usually want to help those who need it, even if it's a different species. I guess that's why we are a higher lifeform:thinking:... then I look at the horrible things people can do to each other and I :shakehead:sigh: At least you showed the good side of humanity... others might have just booted the drunk gull like a football.

 

[Stress_Test]

Yeah, it's easy to "humanize" animals, but don't forget that they don't think like we do. They can't be sadistic or have other such human traits because they pretty much function on instinct, not rational thought. The other seagull didn't think "hey that other guy's sick and I can have some fun beating him up, then eating his food".

Also, for many animals it's their nature to destroy an unhealthy member of their species. This ups the survival chance for the remainder. It may seem cruel to us, but that's simply the way they're wired. Dogs will attack and kill another pack member that is showing undesirable behavior because it's a threat to the survival of the pack itself.


BTW, Cesar Milan does a pretty good job of explaining some of the psychology behind the way animals operate (and not just dogs).

 

[jch79]

Monocrom, chances are, there's a non-profit animal rescue organization near you (any maybe even a bird rescue) - I'd call them.

I just Googled "bird rescue NYC", and came up with a few results.

:thumbsup: john

 

[LEDAdd1ct]

Wow, what a story! I have to agree that it is important not to anthropomorphize these little guys, as hard as that might be. They just don't function the way we do.

 

[Monocrom]

To: jch79 ~

I'll try to find out if that organization can help. Sadly, I'd have to be anonymous when I call them up. The higher-ups at work don't care, and would likely not appreciate it if I called up an animal-rescue organization that would stop by the work-site.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To: LEDAdd1ct ~

I've seen critters exhibit kind behavior as well. Two kittens from the same mom who looked out for each other. One would find food, he'd go get the other one and they'd share it. Over by the loading gate at the warehouse, came upon a mother cat nursing her new-born. The cats at the job site are strays, and likely ferral. Still, she didn't abandon her kitten.

It was just so odd seeing a seagull attack one of their own. From what I've seen, they're solitary creatures. They hunt for the plentiful crabs in the waters near the site. And they're very good at that. It's what's making me think that the attack really wasn't about the tiny bit of food that the ill one found.

 

[McGizmo]

Monocrom,

I have become a dependable food source for a flock of Java Finches here at my house. I have witnessed similar behavior among them and yet in pairs, they are classic "love birds". Although they do flock and congregate in large numbers, they are clearly out for number one with an occasional consideration shown for a mate and pairs often supporting each other against the balance. I don't think they have rules of engagement beyond instinctual response. They show little evidence of cogitation and a notion of ethics or morals is simply foreign to them, I believe.

 

[jch79]

To: jch79 ~

I'll try to find out if that organization can help. Sadly, I'd have to be anonymous when I call them up. The higher-ups at work don't care, and would likely not appreciate it if I called up an animal-rescue organization that would stop by the work-site.

Totally understand there. I've been in very similar situations..

Please let us know what happens!

:thumbsup: john

 

[LuxLuthor]

I think the obvious solution is to outfit the weakling with a .22 zip gun. That will allow him to even the odds.

ps) The animal world would have been just fine if man didn't come along and screw everything up.

 

[Mike Painter]

Wow, what a story! I have to agree that it is important not to anthropomorphize these little guys, as hard as that might be. They just don't function the way we do.

"King Soloman's Ring" by Conrad Lorentz is a good read on this subject.

In it he talks about birds killing other birds if they can. Unlike mammals they can usually escape from a fight if they want to and no surrender mechanism is built in. Most mammals can assume a posture that prevents the others of it's species from continuing an attack.

Farley Mowatt's "Never Cry Wolf" is also fun. He was the first person to really study wolves and find out how intelligent they are and that they were not the evil killers they were portrayed to be at the time. He was sent to essentially justify killing them all because they were "killing" all the caribou.

 

[Diesel_Bomber]

Actually, getting a .22 yourself and putting the unhealthy(and probably unhappy) seagull out of his misery may well be the kindest thing. Simple truth is that if a seagull can choose whether he eats or another bird eats, then he's going to eat. Death may well be the result for the bird that doesn't eat, but the other bird's welfare doesn't enter the seagull's mind and wouldn't change his decision if it did. Nice or whatnot doesn't enter his mental equation, only survival. This is the case with most animals; humans have been domesticated too long.

On the flip side, one of my adult cats(a male no less) came inside the house carrying a nearly newborn kitten, with a piece of umbilical cord still attached, and set it down in front of the food dish. Obviously my cat knew that the food dish is always full and had faith that a kitten would in no way affect his own supply. My wife ran out and bought some kitten replacement milk and some bottles, and that little stinker is now a fine young cat; currently laying across the back of my chair, alternating between snoozing and reading CPF with me. He seldom misses a chance to give the older cats hell.

:buddies:

 

[Mike Painter]

I just remembered a frined who saved a gull from probable death. It had stuck it's foot into a partially opened can and could not get it out.
He was carrying it back to the water. It was quite calm.
Then it reached up and bit him. One side of the beak in one nostril and the other on the other side. He had to pry it loose. He still let it go but does not pick them up any more.

 

[Monocrom]

Please let us know what happens!

:thumbsup: john

I'll keep you guys updated.

From what some of you have posted, and from what I've seen, it seems that seagulls do indeed run on primal instincts.

BTW... Diesel_Bomber's adult, male, cat kicks ***! That is just hard-core awesome what he did with that newborn kitten. :twothumbs

 

[Patriot]

Very interesting stories including the cat being nurturing to the new born kitten.

I'm a seagull rookie and don't know much about them but it seems that it make have been trying to eat the sick bird. I've observed many birds to be omnivores and I often see sparrows, cactus wrens, woodpeckers and ravens eating road kill, just to name a few. Friggets are a sea bird that prey primarily upon other live birds, crabs and small turtles so I guess many birds will eat whatever they can kill. On the surface it does seem rather brutal but animals are not moral creatures with the ability to choose between good or evil. Some of the higher animals, including birds are both physical and soul-ish or what the Genesis calls nephesh. Later on in Job...um, 39 I think, it says that God created these soul-ish creatures to serve and please one another and serve and please human beings. Obviously the philosophic naturalist isn't going to agree with much of that but if we look at how most mamals treat their young or look at how we interact and relate to our higher pets, actuality does seem to fit the biblical model rather well. What's interesting to ponder are apparent contradictions in behavior in these soul-ish animals. For example a male lion has been known to protect his own offspring to the death but apparently doesn't have any problem killing the cubs of another litter, just to cause the female to re-fire her baby factory so that he can mate. So, from that perspective maybe the same seagull who takes such good care of it's own young or perhaps even adopts might also kill another helpless seagull just because it's being an opportunist.

One of my favorite animal behaviors is when on species adopts or befriends another. Crows and kittens, tortoise and hippos, female lions and antelope and other oddities have all be documented. Maybe Monocrom has adopted a sick seagull and doesn't know it yet.

 

[BVH]

Did someone say "crows"? I Love crows! I feed a few daily at home. They remind me of Heckel & Jeckel.

 

[jtr1962]

When we were feeding two strays (a female and another who may have been her kitten but we weren't sure), the older cat would let the younger one take first dibs at the food. Generally though such altruistic behavoir is only seen in the wild in the case of parents nurturing their offspring. Animals as a rule will do whatever is needed to ensure their survival, even in the cases where they possess higher brain functions to moralize (human beings aren't the only creatures capable of that even if we like to pretend otherwise). And humans will disregard all their morals and socialization should their survival be at stake. I know myself if it ever came to the choice of eating or killing another person taking my food, I'd choose the latter in a heartbeat, with the caveat that I don't believe I'd be capable of killing a family member or a good friend. A stranger however, no problems whether they were male, female, adult, or child. In a desperate survival situation morals just don't enter into the picture. Fortunately, except for rare times in history (i.e. war, famine), most humans have been far removed from circumstances requiring that they kill others to ensure their survival. I'd imagine the last time this was so was the previous Ice Age.

Regarding the seagull, it may well be sick. Or it may have been in one of those flocks recently gassed to death to protect airliners, and was affected but not killed by the gas. Regardless, it won't survive long at this point without human intervention.The mere mention of seagulls reminds me of a story my grandmother told me. She was living in a housing project in her younger days. A seagull flew into the apartment. She strangled it to death, then threw it in the incinerator. Not a nice thing to do obviously, but the older generation wasn't conditioned to think of wild creatures as we do now. Seagulls I think were considered a major nuisance at the time.

 

[LuxLuthor]

I think you all need to re-read Jonathan Livingston Seagull.

 

[Diesel_Bomber]

If it came down to it I wouldn't just kill another human to eat, I'd kill another human so I could eat THEM. This may well be what the healthy seagull was doing to the sick seagull.

Fortunately, except for rare times in history (i.e. war, famine), most humans have been far removed from circumstances requiring that they kill others to ensure their survival. I'd imagine the last time this was so was the previous Ice Age.

I disagree. There's a reason I and millions of other people in the USA have CHLs. Some humans are not as far from animals as most people would like to believe.

:buddies:

 

[Patriot]

Did someone say "crows"? I Love crows! I feed a few daily at home. They remind me of Heckel & Jeckel.

I like them too. They're very intelligent. A learned that some testing places them higher at certain tasks than even chimpanzees. With entrapped food most untrained chimps are able to get and then use a tool to get to the food container. Crows and Ravens are able to get and use a tool, which allows them to retrieve and use a second tool when them lets them into the container of food. Chimps are only able to do something like this with years of training while it seems to be pretty easy for Ravens. So much for the term "bird brain" ... lol.

You'll like this video Bob.

http://www.slide.com/r/hD6DvyAOxD9ClUhvUpVcUMABW9QzpGnQ

 

[Patriot]

Originally Posted by jtr1962
Fortunately, except for rare times in history (i.e. war, famine), most humans have been far removed from circumstances requiring that they kill others to ensure their survival. I'd imagine the last time this was so was the previous Ice Age.

I disagree. There's a reason I and millions of other people in the USA have CHLs. Humans are not as far from animals as most people would like to believe.

:buddies:

Is that the Central Hockey League? Just kidding

I think the context of jrt1962's statement was mainly with regards to killing other human beings to eat them, not to protect one's life in the act of self defense.

With regards to how different we are from animals, I both agree and disagree with you DB. I agree to the obvious fact that we're made of the same physical stuff. That is to say that we have 98% DNA commonality with a chimpanzee. That sounds impressive until hearing that we have 50%-60% DNA commonality with a banana! I also agree that behaviorally we're creatures of habit and we often have the same metaphysical responses to fear, as in the example of fight or flight. Where humans differ with regards to this discussion is that most of us, who are without a moral handicap, have a moral barrier to killing another human beings, purely for the sake of food. This is also the case even in most staving nations. While it might not be a big deal for animals to attack and kill even their own species for food this is exceedingly rare for humans. In those dire cases where humans eat other humans for the sake of survival it usually happens after the other person has already died from outside effects and not as the result of direct action. In the few cases that "survivors" have attacked each other because they hallucinated a pork chop, these people were generally no longer in their right mind due the the toll their situation took on them. Other acts of cannibalism involve sociopathic behavior (the Hannibal Lecter effect) and have nothing to do with survival. Other instances of ships or airplanes disappearing and the passengers being eaten by tribes are often attributed to psychological warfare. In other words they do it to strike fear into others who they perceive as their enemy. This in itself is an important human distinction since animals don't do this and they can't hate.

A bit outside of the specific discussion, humans also differ in the topic of spirit, in that we have one. Animals don't have the ability to ask "who am I" "why am I here" "why is the universe here" "do I have a purpose" "what is my purpose" "what's going to happen to me tomorrow" "what's going to happen after I die" "is there a God" "if there is a God, what does he expect of me." Non-human life has no way of peering out of the "fish tank" so to speak. These are the major differences which set us apart from the animal kingdom. There are many other less impactful differences unique to the human mind, outside of the spirit, such as the ability to achieve symbolic thought and to manipulate symbols and our ability to deal with numerology. This occurs no where else in the animal world including among the highest non-human species. So these are a few examples of "difference" which are not simply realized as a matter of degree, as Darwin explained, they're instead matters of fundamental kind.