[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 35835 wrote:

I have no doubt my dog helps a lot too. Are you planning on getting another dog sometime soon, Carl?

Yep. A few weeks ago we picked up a 4 month old male English Shepherd. We have a 2yo female who had the chance to learn from old Jake, but she’s a bit wimpy. she does a pretty good job helping out with herding etc., but just isn’t brave enough to do much protecting…… she’s loves being under our bed at night….

Ringo comes from great stock from a farm in TN. His dad is pretty serious, sleeps all day, unless he’s needed for herding, and then prowls all night chasing coyotes, etc….

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 35731 wrote:

Wow Carl, possibly 3 raccoon in 3 days. And I thought I had raccoon problems… Sounds like yours are much worse. What are they getting into? Chickens? Feed?

Now there were three…… 2:30 am I heard a coon in the turkeys……. I was thinking that some of the excavation to get the bait from the fox-leg-hold I had set seemed to be more coon-like that foxish……

At that time of night I where a head-lamp and use .410 6 shot. He climbed a tree when he heard me coming (A good move with a dog chasing you……), and then he turned to check me out. All I could see was the eye reflecting back. I sighted on the bright eye, and injected a round of BB”s into his skull……

Now we can make 3 matching coon-skin hats.

Thinking about the coon climbing the tree helps me to understand all the work our old lab-cross did for us. Many nights he would charge out barking madly for a few minutes, then return to his bed, only to charge out again 15-30 minutes later….. I have a feeling these coons have been working the outskirts of this homestead for several years now, and without Jake here they are trying to take advantage.

A good guard dog will save a lot of work, and keep the issues of killing predators at a minimum.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Carl Russell 21055 wrote:

In the woods the chainsaw usually gets them riled up before the animals step in them. The noise and exhaust from the saw can keep them disoriented. It’s when you turn off the saw that they get you. I have dragged logs over ground nests before, and have had animals get stung, but I’ve never noticed that they were any more rattled than with biting flies, but I haven’t had the whole nest unload on them either.Carl

So a few days ago I was working on a steep bank, and had to back the horses up into a tight spot to get a top-section of a big pine. It was a difficult maneuver and it was pretty much the only way I was going to get this piece….. and if I didn’t have to, I wasn’t going to try to get them to do it twice.

So when my nigh horse started throwing his head and madly stamping the ground with his hind feet, I didn’t spend a lot of time investigating his concern….. I was reasonably certain he was in a hornets nest. He jumped a few times, but I reassured him that I wanted him to stand, and he did….. I mean he didn’t run away, but he didn’t stand still….. I made an allowance and worked quickly at making my hitch. All went smoothly after we pulled ahead 15-20 feet.

Now the biting flies are thick here now, and this happened about 1 pm….. high fly-time….. so although the stings were probably painful, and more numerous, he was still able to concentrate on the task at hand…..

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I tried to get him in a trap, but he was just too sly…… kept stealing the bait…… and visiting the flocks at random times throughout the day……. so I began to get used to the “fox in the bushes” alarm call…… and when I heard it this morning I went to the upstairs balcony window…… and who should be poking his nose out of the bushes……. at about 150 feet with a 4x scope on a .22, cross-hairs just behind the jaw, in front of his right shoulder (semi broad-side facing me), I let fly…….. This was the result……. Blood drops right where he stood, and, interestingly, a piece of his liver (on the spruce branch in the center of the frame) in a large drop at the exit wound ……. He couldn’t have gone far, but he did run off, and so far has escaped our discovery…

I would have preferred a head-shot, and an instant kill, but at this distance I had to go with certain contact, rather than a near miss.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I would not spend time wondering WHY he won’t go forward, and use that as the starting point. He is showing you he is not confident about what you are asking. I think he may need more clear clues. Pressure and release…… it always comes down to pressure and release.

I agree that the “cultivator” may be too dangerous for you to work with if he is acting up, but I see his problem one of not following your guidance.

I have posted elsewhere on here about giving signals to your horse by how you use the lines so that he knows that there is a difference between standing still and starting to move.

I have always “helped” a horse understand my start command by reinforcing it with a touch on the butt. I like to use a marshmallow stick, about 3 feet long, with a fork, slightly sharpened.

When I pick up the lines, creating contact on the bit, I speak an alert, like “ready”(so that they associate the bit contact with a new intention on my part), then I kiss at the horse and gently touch him/her at the tail-head with the stick. There should be no reason to poke, or swat, just set the distance between your hand and the butt of the horse so that you don’t have to affect line pressure, just roll your wrist slightly so that the stick touches the horse.

It may seem hard to believe, especially since he seems to move out fine with the other horse, but I think his “hyper” behavior is also related to uncertainty. He’s just relying on his working partner, and may be following the horse’s lead and not yours.

JMHO, Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Jen Judkins 35744 wrote:

Not planning, no….but if I had to, I know I could lay open the great vessels in the neck of a horse with a knife, with very little pain. They are so close to the surface. In fact, if my horse went down with a broken leg on the trail…that’s how I would put them down. Creepy thing to think about, but there it is.

It’s clear that there are many ways to kill an animal. In a pinch we do what is necessary.

The questions are, when premeditated, like putting down and good horse, do we have concerns of humane death? If we do, then what method do we choose? When setting a trap with the intention of killing a marauding predator, what is the difference between that and the premeditated killing of your favorite animal?

If it is all shades of grey, then I say the humane considerations are personal, depending on circumstances, and therefore are not pertinent. If you would rather use a spear than a firearm because you’re more comfortable with the use of that weapon, then fine, let’s just be honest about the compromises we are willing to make.

The spear is effective. Does it really matter that much whether it is a “humane” way to kill an animal?? I think not. Should it?? I think not. Does it make sense to try to make a spear seem as “humane” as a hot lead injection to the brain?? I think not.

Although humans have been killing animals for a long time, we are not predators. We are opportunistic omnivorous scavengers. We learned to hunt and kill, because of how beneficial it was to our survival. Killing has always represented a challenge for humans. We are not physically equipped with anatomy designed for killing, so we have had to devise ways to get the job done. I think the emotional component has always been a challenge as well. It’s not easy to deal with, and as a culture we don’t spend a lot of time trying to help each other come to grips with it.

I applaud all of you for your courage in facing into this question. Life really is a messy business, and our modern world would have us believe otherwise.

Andy, that rascal fox has been stealing my bait in contorted ways, doing an excellent job at avoiding the leg-hold trap, and of course he hasn’t come while I am awake……. Now that I have him coming at the bait from the other direction, I think I will set a few traps in his new trail……

More later, Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 35731 wrote:

Wow Carl, possibly 3 raccoon in 3 days. And I thought I had raccoon problems… Sounds like yours are much worse. What are they getting into? Chickens? Feed?

No coon today…. no fox either.

We’ve been losing a few young birds, one here, one there, with no regularity, so I just started setting the trap, and presto….

I waited from 4:45 to 6:15 am for the fox this morning, but nothing. He didn’t take the liver from the baited leg-hold either. I’m going to tie another turkey neck to the back-log to try to make him work harder to trip the trigger. I can’t seem to get foxes to go into a cage trap.

More later, Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Jen Judkins 35726 wrote:

…… ridiculous that a bullet is better than a knife. The only benefit of a bullet that I am aware of is its penetrating ability with bone, in a head shot, for instance. But we all know that the head shot is not what kills an animal…..

These statements are not entirely accurate.

Geoff’s assertion was that a bullet to the brain was more humane….. A head shot does not instantly kill an animal, but it does actually kill the animals without letting blood. The humane aspect is that it destroys the sensory ability of the animal instantly, which is the basis for the assumption of humane death. A kill to the heart, lungs, or major vessels is certainly affective, but the animal is aware of the pain and suffering.

Now I have declared that I don’t lose any sleep over the pain and suffering, because it is the death that I seek….. how I get there is my business……..

The mower injured fawn I killed by severing the brain stem at the base of the skull with my knife which incapacitated it…. stopped it from squirming….. then I crushed the skull with a stone…… over and done with.

Shooting an animal in the head is very effective for several reasons. First, it incapacitates the animal which facilitates any other action such as cutting major vessels for letting blood. Second, because it incapacitates the animal, it ensures that you will not be attacked by the animal as it suffers. Third, it will kill the animal……. making the act uncomplicated…..

So for the analogy about the tool…….. it really doesn’t come down to the tool. Whether harness or weapon, it comes down to the task. Understanding how the tool or weapon meets the objectives of the task make the choice different. There are tasks that cannot be done as effectively with a belly-backer harness as with a d-ring, just as stunning an animal to eliminate consciousness cannot be done with a spear.

Choose your weapon, and choose your morals, and be prepared to accept their limitations…….

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 35710 wrote:

….. none of this detracts from the fact that you simply do not know how humane a well placed spear can be until you use one and use it well……
We all have our own subjective experiences to draw from and many of us (including myself) have killed enough animals to know when it was done well and when it wasn’t.

These last few posts show exactly what I was meaning. It is a red herring to be using “humane killing” as a measure. Sure you can have your preferences……. you can have your sensitivities……… but there is no one way that guarantees success without the experienced skill of the person committing the act.

Humanity is too lofty for me when it comes to killing. The fact is that the “humane” thing would be to let the animal live. I have made choices that have put me in a collision course with the critters. I have to make a choice whether or not I am going to kill the animal. I have to weigh the humanity of the course I take, but once I make the choice there is no further judgement….. it is me and my interests, or it is the animal.

I can guarantee you that there is not one animal that appreciates what weapon you choose, or what organ you choose to target. There may be people looking over your shoulder who think they can stand in your shoes, and they may think that they have some moral beliefs that you should adopt, but this isn’t between you and them.

If you decide that you are going to protect your interests by making the choice to kill animals, then don’t look back. For me making a quick kill has practical reasons, like making certain that the animal is actually dead and can’t get away. Trapping the animal so that I can either effectively kill it with a body trap, or live trapping so that I can guarantee a kill shot has little to do with humanity, and everything to do with success.

If someone wants to hold me up as a humane killer and shower me with accolades, fine ( because I am good at it), but my sensitivity toward the lives of animals is deeper than that. Killing is a choice I make. So is the manner in which I live my life with intention to minimize the impact on the lives of other living beings. I show my humanity by only killing those animals that I need to kill. I kill a few extra livestock and poultry every year to sell to other people, but as a rule I only kill what I need to eat.

And I take responsibility for killing all of the animals that my choices impact. I kill every animal I raise on this farm, so I keep my stock numbers low, only what I need. I kill the dogs, cows, oxen, and horses that I have brought under my care when it is time. And I try to protect my livestock, poultry, and gardens from vermin so that I don’t have to kill them to begin with.

These choices about taking personal responsibility for the end-of-life of these animals force me to keep it all to a minimum. Justifiable under my own terms. Acceptable under my appreciation for what it means to live a humane life.

So to bring it back to the thread topic……..

Thursday morning I killed a skunk that was caught in a Conibear (set for a woodchuck as I would have live trapped the skunk had I expected him to stick his nose in that hole), but his hips were in one jaw and neck in the other….. typically a deadly trap, the hips prevented a quick kill, so I had to shot him (he sprayed).

Friday morning I killed a raccoon in a cage trap….. on the perimeter of the turkey coop.

Saturday morning found me killing a second coon in the same place.

Sunday morning may include another coon, but will likely mean the death of a fox that showed up just as I was going to check on the trap with the coon in it. He has already stolen bait this evening from a leg-hold I set for him, but I expect to be in sniping from the kid’s place structure a dawn tomorrow morning.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I share concerns for quick skillful killing. We can have those high expectations, but we also need to be honest……. sometimes you just have to beat the frickin’ thing to death….and those experiences should help us to develop more sensitivity to increase our skills to not have to do that the next time.

I am pretty damn good at killing, especially dispatching up close, and while I take my time to do it right, quick and painless, I also stand ready to do what needs to be done. And while I strive for perfection, at least part of my calm collected approach has to do with the fact that I know how unsavory it can be, and I have no guilt or sense of judgement holding me back. And when they’re dead, they’re dead.

I cut up a fawn once while mowing hay and had nothing but a knife and a stone to put the poor thing out of its misery while my horses stood unattended hitched to the mower. It was as quick and painless as I could make it, but any observer probably would have been upset. My spirit was laid raw, but I grew as a result, because it is those poignant life-moments that draw me close to the Earth in my life’s work.

I understand what Andy meant, I just wanted to clarify for others that while it is worthy to strive for perfection, we realize that everyone needs to start somewhere, and sometimes it ain’t pretty.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Countymouse 35659 wrote:

….. I would recommend going with a gun or whatever works for you, as I do not like the idea of experimenting with ways to kill animals.

I like the look of the dog-proof traps, but have never had a problem using cage traps. I caught another coon last night using some turkey guts in a large cage trap. I find that a little observation can find those places where they are likely to travel, and if I catch a chicken or cat, then no big deal. Cage traps and a .22 cal are a pretty successful deadly combo on this farm, and usually I can make the bait more attractive than the effort to get into a coop.

I like the idea of a spear, but I am usually shooting close-up in a cage, or long distance, like in a tree, or on the run, so I always grab a gun. I think in semi-urban areas the spear would make a lot of sense.

Thanks for sharing these ideas.

As far as experimenting with killing animals…….. I have been killing animals since I was 11(41 years)……. and I still feel like I’m experimenting…. Killing is a challenging endeavor, and usually includes doing something that you have never done before, with a living being that cannot be turned off with a switch. Sometimes things just don’t work out the way you think they should.

I just highlighted your comment because I think it is not appropriate to set high morel expectations around killing, because it can cause undo anxiety which either reduces a person’s autonomy, or complicates the process leading to more suffering and difficulty.

I think we need to make sure that we protect the sanctity of life, and make sure that we are not encouraging frivolous killing, but we also need to make sure that people are not restrained from experiencing the interface that they(we) insist on through our cultural habits. Our lifestyles require impact on other living beings….. I believe that people should learn what that means…. and to me that means, at least in part, learning to face into the Life-force of the animals that suffer from our choices.

After-all there are no predators in the wild that kill without practicing and experimenting……

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@jbpiii 35606 wrote:

….. learning how to live the simple agricultural life…..

Welcome James……. Hooking up with Andy (CountyMouse) will be a great thing.

I had a good friend who used to use the term “Simply Complex” to describe this endeavor.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Bill, you may want to go back and edit that post……. somebody may be getting unwanted calls….

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Ethan Tapper 35448 wrote:

……But, again, more and more it seems like I would rather see this type of woods work done than have people use more fossil fuel intensive building materials for their houses, or than let the land be cleared for development. In providing wood products (which these large operations do the bulk of), we in some ways pick the lesser of two evils.

I’ve thought a lot about this since you posted this…..

These wood products ARE fossil fuel intensive. And the economy of scale needed to offset the costs of fuel, maintenance, insurance, and finance charges is a hugely increasing irreversible, unsustainable, ecological impact.

The income derived from this production goes in significant minority to the operators and their communities, and in large part is exported out to mega corporations controlling those fixed costs.

I understand the lesser of two evils argument…….it is a trap.

I don’t discount your need to get a job that exposes you to the industry and gives you experience plying your trade, but under the art and science there are principles. Principles of ecology, principles of fair trade, principles of community, and principles of stewardship.

The “necessary evil” argument is meant to weaken, or invalidate, those principles.

Horse-loggers are by no means virtuous, but we have a lot more flexibility and capability to live and work by our principles…….

Once a habit is established it is hard to break. I have interaction with many professional foresters who have succumbed to the “necessary evil” doctrine. They aren’t doing anything different that their peers, so it seems reasonable to them, and their culture is establishing a landscape that reflects acceptance to these compromises so that the general public has accepted it as the norm.

I hope you can use this experience to refine your forestry vision. I know you have some very keen understanding of ecology and forestry, and you are gaining an understanding of harvesting and industry.

Just remember that there is a growing number of folks who are making a real difference in changing the established modern norms of forestry and timber harvesting, and you have direct access to us.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

@Riverbound 35113 wrote:

….. Using a smooth snaffle bit…..

I had intended to include a comment about this in my last post.

I know that most people refer to jointed bits as snaffle bits, so I will assume that is what you mean.

I have some serious reservations about using jointed bits in general, and question the effectiveness especially given the aspects of this enterprise.

The jointed action of these bits is designed to aid the driver by enhancing line pressure through squeezing the jaw. The squeezing action actually causes pain by pinching as the pressure increases.

When pressure is applied to reduce the gait of a horse it should be released slightly as soon as the horse assumes the desired gait(release reward). When the pressure causes pain, the pain lingers after the pressure is released, thus reducing the subtle message. The lingering pain makes it very difficult for the horse to feel the slightest release, and therefore may never actually get the idea.

Carl

[Author]

Posts