Talk:Surplus killing

Crows

The article sited as evidence for crows exhibiting surplus killing behavior states plainly that the behavior observed was not surplus killing behavior as the crows cached their kills with the intent to consume them later. 174.102.232.96 (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

But the definition of surplus killing used here includes those instances where animals cache their kills as well as those where they abandon their kill. The same thing is true of voles, which are described in the article. The question is whether both of these options are in fact considered surplus killing. Ileanadu (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Humans

Humans are not listed in any of the sources for this article. Either cite a source that specifically mentions humans performing surplus killing or stop adding them to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.107.177 (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Humans have exhibited the capacity, in several examples throughout history to the present, of various types of Surplus Killing. From the documented times of the Vikings, the Mongols, and the Holocaust, to the frequent mass shootings that happen across the United States of America. Humans definitely take part in Surplus Killing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.227.156.126 (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

But surplus killing is about killing more prey than one can eat. I highly doubt the Holocaust is a good example.. or any instance of other humans being killed. If sourced, it could say "early humans and humans in tribal communities" or such, but modern humans are fairly efficient. Prinsgezinde (talk) 14:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Scott (2012) page 148

The source reads

...four or fewer red foxes killed up to 230 adult black-headed gulls in one night, eating fewer than 3% of them; in two separate instances in Australia a single introduced fox killed eleven wallabies and 74 penguins over several days, eating almost none of the victims; up to 19 spotted hyenas killed 82 Thomson's gazelle and badly injured 27 more in one night, eating only 16% of the kill.

Given the placing of the semicolons and the fact that neither gazelle nor hyenas are found wild in Australia, I'm reading "two separate instances" as referring to the killing of the wallabies and penguins (probably the wallabies in one series of attacks and penguins in another, as they occupy quite different habitats) though the author's expression is ambiguous. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad links

Have found a couple of links that don't work. Fixed one last night. This one, like the one I fixed last night doesn't go to the listed article but to the home page. The particular article is nowhere to be found on that page. I have replaced it with a link to the web.archive.org crawl of the site. Ileanadu (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Sentence makes no sense

The 3rd sentence in the first paragraph begins "Other than humans, surplus killing has been observed among" followed by a list of several animals, both mammals and non-mammals. Does this mean that humans have not engaged in surplus killing or have not been observed doing it? Does it mean all these other animals have observed surplus killing but humans have not observed surplus killing? Does this mean that other animals have engaged in killing a lot of humans? First, "observed among' does not mean that every instance of surplus killing is listed, but perhaps that should be made explicit. These are not all the animals that engage in surplus killing. For example Shrike#Behaviour are not mentioned.

Having gone back through the history of this article, it appears that at one point, humans were listed at the end of the list of predators and a link was provided to this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Surplus_killing&diff=prev&oldid=727696394

Certainly human beings have been responsible for the decimation, and even extermination of many animal species. Humans who kill for food are certainly known to kill more than can be eaten at one seating and then store the excess elsewhere. Unlike many predators, human beings often kill for reasons other than survival. They hunt for sport, in which case, every kill can be said to be excessive, or none of the kills are excessive/surplus if they all provide enjoyment of the "sport." Current understanding of animal behavior holds that most animals kill either for food/survival, or for protection/self-defense. Whereas what makes excessive killing remarkable among most animals is its apparent rarity, in humans this kind of excessive killing is normal and doesn't really belong in this category. Or if we want to include notions of what we now recognize as excessive killing by humans, it seems to me would require a longer article. What is excess is a matter of morality/ethics. Also, there would be many additional issues, would we include power lines electrocuting animals or wind generators striking down animals (mostly birds)? Do we include the unnecessary killing of some fish and mammals due to nets and dragging methods of collecting fish? What about the Japanese who continue killing whales despite an apparent surplus of frozen whale? Do we include people who seem to enjoy killing cats, dogs, and other pets for fun? Vegetarians would count the killing of any animal as an excess kill.

I think it's best to leave humans out of this article, unless there is an authority that includes humans under this term. I checked footnotes 1 & 2 and they don't mention killing by humans at all. Otherwise, including humans in this article would require a lot more detail than this calls for.

(1) https://books.google.com/books?id=-2JygEhQf7YC&pg=PP12&dq=Mills,+L.+Scott.+Conservation+of+wildlife+populations:+demography,+genetics,+and+management+(2nd+ed.).+Hoboken,+NJ:+Wiley-Blackwell&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZ0duk78zcAhWrtVkKHbnzBugQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=surplus%20killing&f=false (2) https://books.google.com/books?id=wcJ4GzdgnUQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Moskowitz,+David.+Wolves+in+the+Land+of+Salmon&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiN-ofm8czcAhWEmlkKHQvVDokQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=surplus%20killing&f=false

I wonder if our future understanding of excess killing will be completely changed. The concept seems to have arisen out of attempts to measure an animals "kill rate" an attempts to measure that rate versus energy expenditure. However, it also seems to arise out of our preconceptions about why animals kill. Humans are thought to be the only humans that kill for sport. Thus surplus/excessive kills or hen house killing appear to be aberrations. If in fact, they aren't aberrations then our understanding of why animals kill will need to change. There was a documentary recently on forensic techniques by veterinarians and others. In one of the incidents, the mysterious deaths of some dolphins was solved when it was determined to have been caused by groups of dolphins after all other possibilities were eliminated forensically, and after observation of this behavior. The why is not known.

This quote from pages 228-29 of footnote 2 as cited above provides support for these points:

https:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/c/c2/Surplus_killing.jpg

I will change the text of the article in accordance with my suggestions above. Ileanadu (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2018 (UTC)