For the record, hawks can get the ducklings in the water if they're fast enough, along with herrings, frogs, and even fish. When you're a cotton ball walking on two paddles the world is s scary place.
@@elyon7068, right.... Birds will not readily abandon their young because they “smell humans.” For one thing, birds don’t have a great sense of smell. Their olfactory bulbs are small and simple compared to other animals (although this wasn’t always the case, and there are exceptions to the rule, like the turkey vulture, albatross and kiwi), and they’re not going to be able to pick out your scent from all the other smells hitting their beaks at any given moment.
Probably a young duck with her first or second clutch - in the wild, it can take new parents ‘a few tries’ before they get the hang of parenting, but this is one of the reasons why ducks lay so many eggs, as a means to ensure that at least some of the ducklings make it to adulthood.
@@OryanMcLean You are absolutely fucking insane for saying that. Sure, humans may be the “most intelligent” species, but that doesn’t mean we should kill others just because. People like you are the reason our world is dying. Get a fucking life.
Who ever told that guy hawks can't get the ducklings in the water was told a huge lie, in fact hawks are known to eat fish as well as small rodents, small pets, and other birds.
James Wilson Yes hawks will try to get ducks in the water but are not nearly as successful compared to the ducks walking on an open parking lot. The ducks will dive under water if they see the hawk coming on that open lot they are dead ducks, not a chance.
@@TheModernFalconer yea hawks can dive underwater, its a fact but when there is a mom around, just like seagulls they will avoid diving...yet they might dont, the chances of survival are increased tho
The whole thing about mother birds abadoning their babies if touched by humans is a complete, and and unsubstantiated myth. Birds don't rely on smell to find their own, they use sound.
That's just something your parents tell you so that you'll leave the eggs and the baby birds in the nest lol. Kind of like don't make funny faces or your face will stay that way!
When I was a kid, I used to live near a lake. The number of ducklings one would see with mothers would tend to decrease as the spring months wore one. There is a reason why, despite so many hatchlings, the world isn't filled with ducks.
Right, Birds will not readily abandon their young because they “smell humans.” For one thing, birds don’t have a great sense of smell. Their olfactory bulbs are small and simple compared to other animals (although this wasn’t always the case, and there are exceptions to the rule, like the turkey vulture, albatross and kiwi), and they’re not going to be able to pick out your scent from all the other smells hitting their beaks at any given moment.
duck mom: AH A HAWK EVERY DUCK FOR THEMSELVES *waddles into water* chicks: *confused af and 7 make it to the water* duck mom: wheres duey and luey? chicks: who are those two?
The reason ducks have so many offspring is because of predators. It's the circle of life. Swear to god, guys like this make other men look like giant pussies. The hawk has to eat, too. You don't have to like it, but don't cry like a little bitch about it and don't try to "save" them. You want to save an animal, adopt a goddam dog or cat. Leave nature alone. It doesn't want you and it doesn't need you.
You do know that the hawk isn't going to eat a salad or settle for tofu right? Leave it alone and let nature be. Some ducklings are meant to be snatched up.
"Come on kids. We're going to a cement pond where there is no cover and no food, and you can forget about making any friends because there the only other birds around killed two of your siblings.
It's an old wives take trust me when I was younger u used to chase baby ducks and when I caught them I let em go momma came back every time. I've also save a few birds that fell from the best and put them back parent a still came back.
AydarBMSTU Probably a combination of mothers not wanting their kids to mess with animals, and a mix up based on mammals, since some of them will abandon or eat their babies if they smell wrong. Mammals have a great sense of smell though and birds generally don't! Birds don't care if their babies don't smell right, or even look right. How else would cuckoo chicks get away with it?
The thing about "touching baby animals makes their mommy not want them anymore" is a very common lie. Probably started by some parent long ago to convince children so they wouldn't mess with the baby animals. This lie expanded to the rest of the world, it's unsurprising to find people who believe in it still.
+ZEALOUS DAW What if the hawk had just enough energy to make one swoop and no more, he was on the brink of starvation. Or let's say the hawk was getting that duckling to feed to his own offspring who would die of starvation did not get any food. Just because hawks looks menacing doesn't mean they are, in fact ducks quack and poop everywhere, hawks clean up vermin such as mice.
..... Hawks eat lots of things not just ducks. Small dogs, baby chickens, human plants, snakes, rodents, small birds, small dogs, eggs, ect. Don't get me wrong, I love hawks, and It's part of life, but it is sad, don't you think?
WorldPeace Productions Unite It's natural, so it's not sad. Sadness is a human construct. It doesn't exist in nature. If ducks have lots of chicks it's because most of them will get eaten by pretty much anything. And that fucking superstition of ''don't touch it, his mother will abandon it!''. So ridiculous to see grown man behaving like toddlers.
Juanito Calavera "[Sadness] doesn't exist in nature" Are you implying that humans are not part of nature, and that creatures such as Dolphins and Gorillas cannot feel sadness? You're incorrect.
Not to the degree that we feel it. If what we feel is sadness, what they feel is not, since it doesn't compare or come nearly as close. And yes, sadness does not exist in nature. If a lion kills the baby of an antelope and the mother is calling for him in an attempt to make him come back, it's not sad, it's natural. It's their instinct. You know why? A human that loses a child, will never forget it, as long as he/she lives. Might not even recover from it. An animal that loses a child has some hours, maybe a day or two of nervous distress, and then... poof! It's as if never happened. So our degree of sadness is so vast, so complex that to call the primitive feeling of loss that any superior mammal can feel "sadness" is ridiculous imho. And by the way, just the superior mammals, and within them only the highest order, such as primates and cetacea are capable of this incredibly primitive and base "sadness". You are then using these two subgroups that don't ammount to 0.1% of all the species of animals in the planet to generalise and say that animals "feel" "sadness". Quite an exaggeration in the very least. So what if humans come from nature? That doesn't mean that the things that come from us are natural. And it's easy to prove. Humans are natural. Humans invented RU-vid. Is RU-vid natural? No. There you go. That was easy. Yes, we do come from nature but through our intellect we have separared ourselves from it. And anything that comes out of our intellect is hardly natural. We even created a term for it. Artificial. Anything from a rock tied to a stick to the Hubble telescope including all the abstract concepts such as sadness are artificial and do not exist in nature. It's kind of evident, right? Nothing artificial in nature. You need to stop anthropomorphising animals.
Juanito Calavera While I agree with your main point that human emotions are far, far stronger than anything possible by a member of another species, I do not understand where the distinction between natural and un-natural takes place. I'm assuming that you believe that if a beaver constructed a dam, it would be natural. I'm assuming that you believe that if a human constructed a spaceship, it would be unnatural. What if a human made the same dam? If a beaver made a spaceship? What is the cut-off point for something being "unnatural"?
Hector Perez You're missing the point. They wanted to "save" the ducks from the falcons attack. This is pure nature and you cannot possibly deny that. Everything else is variable and i agree with you to some point if there were some trees or bushes around it might would have been easier for the ducks to not be spotted.
The hawk won't get them in the water, but eagles will....herons, egrets, turtles, minks,etc, etc.....fact is out of those 9 ducklings, 2 might make it to adulthood if they're lucky.
...As Samuel Jackson would say in Pulp Fiction.....'Correctamundo!!" :) Though I would help these ducklings out if I could. A few years ago, I saw on the neighbor's porch a baby House Sparrow dangling from the nest, as if I got caught on something. It was night time, no parents of the bird around it.....I couldn't just leave him there. So I cut him down, and put him in a shoe box, with some food, paper towels for warmth, etc...and left him outside for the night hoping the parents would locate him, etc......So next morning I check the box, I can't find him for the life of me....Looked all around, under bushes, porch furniture, nothing.....I get in my car and pull out of the driveway.....I look ahead and there was one spot I never checked......under my tire...I ran him over....killed him......ruined my day, honestly...I did all that work to save him, only to wind up his murderer....but then I thought about it.....and this bird was just destined to not make it....he was dangling from a nest, neglected, neglected some more....even if he survived my tired, he obviously wasn't wanted.....So I guess the moral is, there's a plan for those natuire see's as unfit.
