| User | Post |
|
12:47 pm
July 28, 2009
|
alicat
| | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1215 |
|
|
Revenant,
I don't need the credit, just give me a percentage of that check! 
Interesting site. Just looking at those collars makes me squeemish.
I would recommend though that when approaching any dog that you don't immediately try to pet the dog on the top of the head. One of the biggest problems at M&G's are adults and children who immediately rush up to pet a dog. Although a greyhound would not react negatively 99.9999% of the time, that's a greyhound. There are any number of dogs that might find a hand approaching as an aggressive act and you don't know the dog's history, especially when in a shelter or at a rescue M&G. We watch everyone approaching any of our dogs and try to educate them that they should always ask before petting and instruct them to put their hand out so the dog can sniff them first. A lot of people will ask but there are still people who don't realize that a dog (even the friendliest) can be startled and react or just be protecting his/her owner. So, always ask and put your hand out within a reasonable distance and let the dog sniff you first. It just makes good sense for everyone.
Oh yeah, the Chihuahuas would definitely be the Sharks!
|
|
|
12:52 am
September 29, 2009
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
UPDATE:
In the discussion of feral dogs, we brought up wolves and coyotes as well as their hybrid versions with dogs. Well, there's a new predator on the block…it is the mix between a wolf and a coyote, aptly named, the "Coywolf." Here's the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32976657/ns/technology_and_science-science/
I never really thought that was possible…but, Nature smiled and here we are. Quite interesting actually.
And…we'll have to now throw that DNA into our new (and sadly fictional) Feral Dog DNA data-base.
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
3:25 pm
September 29, 2009
|
alicat
| | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1215 |
|
|
Thanks for the update Revenant.
For those of you in the Albany area that are interested in hearing Dr. Kays speak about this topic, there is a free lecture being held at the New York State Museum.
new york’s coyote/coydog/coywolf—what is it and how did it get here?
October 28, 2009 : 7:00 P.M. – 8:00 P.M.
Description: New York’s largest predator immigrated to the state in the mid-1900s and is larger and more colorful than western coyotes. Dr. Roland Kays, curator of mammals, reviews the history of coyotes in New York and presents new genetic data about their origins.
|
|
|
5:52 pm
September 29, 2009
|
Drache Frau
| | |
| Investigator | posts 74 |
|
|
I have four dogs, two of which are siblings. One thing I've noticed is that the siblings run off together. They have no problem with the other two, but they also have no problem leaving the other two behind. Could it be that dogs raised with other dogs have more of a 'natural' pack instinct? I'm very close to them and they obey every word I say, so there's no issue with the dominance. Just a personal observation.
|
Ghost, n. The outward and visible sign of an inward fear.
|
|
|
6:55 pm
September 29, 2009
|
alicat
| | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1215 |
|
|
Drache Frau,
Sure. Since the siblings haven't been separated and they are the same age with basically the same experiences, the bond hasn't really been broken so that's why they travel together. In my particular case, I have greyhounds which are extremely pack oriented and know nothing but being in the company of anything other than greyhounds 24/7 from birth. That being said, as pack oriented as they are, when I adopted my second one (she was 2), the first one was much older (9) and just didn't care to "travel" with the other as she was too antsy for him although they got along fine. When they would go to visit their "friends", the older ones paired off and the younger ones went off together. It was just like having kids. I do have a close friend with a household of multiple breeds including a pair of siblings and their mom. The household consists of 4 dobies (mother, 2 siblings and an unrelated 4 month younger dobie), a greyhound, a pit bull mix and a dachshund. The get along fine but only the 2 siblings "travel" together while everyone else goes their own way, including their own mother. I think she feels she's done her part.
Congratulations on having 4 obedient dogs with no dominance problems. Obviously you've trained them well.
|
|
|
1:39 pm
September 30, 2009
|
Drache Frau
| | |
| Investigator | posts 74 |
|
|
Well, as long as they have enough exercise it's not hard. Besides, I like to read about dog behaviour every so often and I've always been fascinated with wolves. 
Do you think that maybe one reason the feral dogs are so dangerous is because they have the intelligence of certain breeds and less of the fear of being around people that wild animals have? Just a thought. They are all from domesticated dogs and most breeds have been wired to be 'people friendly'. Like labs are known to be good family pets because they're usually so friendly and trusting. (might I say that is one thing that bothers me the most about people being cruel to their dogs. The dogs start out like any other puppy, excluding those that are bred for violence, and then they're treated so poorly  ) Maybe they feel more comfortable around people and see them as a normal part of the environment and possibly competition, like lions and hyenas?
|
Ghost, n. The outward and visible sign of an inward fear.
|
|
|
3:23 am
October 1, 2009
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
Drache Frau said:
Do you think that maybe one reason the feral dogs are so dangerous is because they have the intelligence of certain breeds and less of the fear of being around people that wild animals have?
Yes. There's an interesting article (which I can't find to save my life) that talks about wolves and how they've changed in the past couple of centuries due to the invention of firearms. They have had many generations to understand and conclude that "man" equals death and to stay away from man as much as possible.
The hybrids of dogs with wolves and coyotes, along with the true feral dogs, do not have this fear. They know that man can represent many things like food. This is where the problem lies. It becomes a battle for resources; food, water, shelter, and territory. Unlike the wild wolf, these animals do not view man as death, but as competition for these resources…and they shall act accordingly. Which, of course, means aggression.
From the information that I've seen, the typical feral dog is still rather small. Or at least smaller than a coyote. Unfortunately, this won't last forever. Depending on where the feral dogs are, natural selection will determine if larger feral dogs would succeed more. If this becomes true, then we're headed for some problems. Then we go from a pack of smaller feral dogs which are a nuisance to a pack of large, strong, smart dogs who have no fear of humans. Great…. 
Alicat: Man…I'd love to go to that lecture on the Coywolf. It seems like it would be really interesting.
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
11:13 am
October 1, 2009
|
Oubliette
| | Igloo in NJ | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 574 |
|
|
Wolves really have gotten a bad rap. They prefer to avoid man when possible. Of course, if any potential food is lying weak, injured etc., they might not pass up the opportunity. Even so, if the person does the right things, the wolves can still likely be driven off.
There was a very interesting show a few years ago (may have been Discovery Channel, can't remember) where research has shown that even if wolf babies are raised exactly like canine familiaris, they will never, ever turn to humans for help in any kind of situation. The test involved a piece of meat which was placed inside a locked cage. The dogs, after trying to get the unattainable meat, would constantly look or even go over to their human, obviously asking for help. But no matter what, the wolves raised by humans never once even looked at their human handler. It seems we have actually bred a dependence on humans into average dogs.
This might explain somewhat why these wild/domestic mixes will approach humans. The animals themselves might not even realize why, but an association with humans in various ways seems to be hardwired into their DNA through the dog part of their ancestry.
|
If 50 million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
Anatole France
|
|
|
8:23 am
October 2, 2009
|
Drache Frau
| | |
| Investigator | posts 74 |
|
|
Revenant,
maybe we'll get lucky and the animals will realize the ferocity of Jack Russells and Chihuahuas and start getting smaller. And perhaps because of the 'friendly' breeds genes they won't want to fight each other as much. Even wolves avoid fighting other pack members. It actually might work. Smaller dogs don't have to eat as much, are faster, and can fit into smaller places easier, which would benefit them if they're in larger city areas. Maybe we'll end up with packs of feral dogs the size of rats.
….. wait, that's actually scarier.
|
Ghost, n. The outward and visible sign of an inward fear.
|
|
|
8:04 pm
February 9, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2957 |
|
|
When good wolves go bad. A recent article on what appears to be a super pack of wolves causing some real problems for a town in Russia. Who's to say that something like this hasn't happened in the distant past that has contributed to an innate fear of the animal.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..llage.html
Maybe that's why foxes may have been man's best friend first!
http://www.physorg.com/news/20…..riend.html
One I came across last spring who didn't appear to want to be anyone's best friend!
 
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
10:20 pm
February 9, 2011
|
Axel Olrik
| | |
| Investigator | posts 184 |
|
|
I guess everyone has seen the studies resulting from attempts to domesticate fox for the Russian fur trade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D…..silver_foxade:
….but I think the real reason dogs predominated was not that they were more "companionable" but that they were "useful". Hard to hunt or herd sheep with a fox.
I lived in Upstate NY (Canandaigua) just as the coyote population was recognised there and the differences in their morphology attributed to hybridization with the Canadian Timber Wolf. That was a decade ago and they seemed to have spread widely since then.
I remember reading "Dangerous to Man" by Roger Caras as a child and being a bit dubious about his contention that virtually all wild animals would avoid humans if given the chance (if I remember correctly, his only exceptions were some crocodilians and sharks). The current increase in mountain lion attacks, attributed to mother lions failing to teach their young to avoid humans, has been linked with the legal prohibition against hunting them. My attitude has always been, any large, hungry predator that would not consider a nice, slow, defenseless human as prey, is probably not going to contribute to the gene pool.
I've also read several papers that claim that attacks like those in Nosfer's article on the Russian Super Pack, were once common in Europe and were the foundation of fairly tales like" Little Red Riding Hood"; but that for some reason wolf predation on humans was never well established in the New World.
My five dogs definitely separate by breed…the German Shepherds want nothing to do with the others (Boston Terrier, Border Collie and 120 lb Akbash) and travel in tandem although they do not seem to be otherwise companionable, are different ages and were acquired at separate times from very different sources My friends and I have noticed similar behaviour with our chickens who definitely separate out by breed despite being artificially incubated, hatched and brooded together. I think there may be some subtle behavioural traits that make animals that share genetic backgrounds congregate…maybe one of the mechanisms of speciation?
|
|
|
8:41 pm
February 10, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2957 |
|
|
Post edited 8:47 pm – February 10, 2011 by Nosfer
Species separation is not a rule, though.
"Not only do coyotes hunt singly and in packs, they have even been observed hunting cooperatively with other species. In Wyoming, scientists have seen coyotes hunting with badgers, …. These teams were so effective that researchers reported often seeing the same pairs working together again and again."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09…..gewanted=1
As for mountain lion attacks and their lack of training to their offspring. First of all a great number of reports of mountain lions are misidentifications of bobcats, lynx, etc. But, more to the point is that the prohibition against hunting them hasn't necessarily resulted in mountain lions becoming poorer teachers to their cubs but rather that…there are MORE of them around. Add that to the fact that humans continue to encroach and the result is more potential for contacts thus more potential for contacts that could go wrong. I seriously doubt that mountain lions are getting dumber.
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
10:07 pm
February 10, 2011
|
Axel Olrik
| | |
| Investigator | posts 184 |
|
|
Here in the West, the general consensus among wildlife researchers is that the increase in mountain lion attacks is due to:
1) The encroachment of human settlements into lion habitat,
2) Habituation to the presence of humans, especially among younger lions, raised by a generation of lions that were never harassed by humans. Mountain lion (even domestic cat) predation is largely shaped by the experience of the young with their mothers. In the 70s, when attacks first began to increase, it was noticed that most involved young animals and seemed to be practise attacks incited by the movement of joggers or cyclists through lion territory. Now we have attacks that are definitely predatory, the most recent local one was by a female with cubs to feed. The number of attacks is still so low that it is difficult to make definitive statements about their causes, but there are similar observations about bears, with pretty strenuous methods (dogs, rubber bullets, bull horns) employed to increase their fear of humans and lessen the chance of fatal encounters.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/enforcement…..index.html
We actually had a mountain lion wander through our neighborhood in the East Bay a few years ago. Very dense human population, but there are green spaces that connect with the Sierra foothills. They are even reported in Berkeley occasionally. The one we saw was just wandering down the street early in the morning.
|
|
|
11:13 pm
February 10, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2957 |
|
|
Post edited 11:15 pm – February 10, 2011 by Nosfer
Post edited 11:16 pm – February 10, 2011 by Nosfer
Post edited 11:23 pm – February 10, 2011 by Nosfer
California mountain lion population has increased by over 10 times, most assuredly facilitating the number of encounters. In the early 1970s in California there were only about an estimated 600 mountain lions while that number has grown to more than 6000 now. Cubs to feed? ie a mother with cubs being in a defensive mode protecting her young?
Here in the West a number of the bear attacks are simply the result of stupid humans. I submit that it is not as much the animals failing to teach their young, it is often the humans failing to use THEIR intelligence. Depends upon the type of bear, too. I've personally seen a sow teaching her cubs avoidance (fortunately for me!) What is the cub to think, though, if she gets them away and then proceeds to attack…THAT would sure send some mixed signals! 
Encroachment of humans. Yes, as I said we continue moving into their territory and that has an effect on their food supply. A great number of the attacks are on children, thus easier prey.
Wildlife Ecology Professor Paul Beier looked into the increase and says a few things about it (note that he uses the name cougar rather than mountain lion).
- Cougar attacks have clearly increased during the last 2 decades, despite some possibly undocumented nonfatal attacks during the early years.
- This seasonal pattern of attacks may reflect increased human activity in wildlands in warmer months. The diel pattern of attacks also resembles the diurnal activity pattern of humans rather than the nocturnal activity pattern of cougars indicating that the increased encroachment I mentioned definitely plays a part
- It is also possible that the decreased persecution of cougars, along with the establishment of large wilderness areas free of hunting, may allow cougars to habituate to humans as a non-threatening part of their environment. this would indicate a lessened fear (though is that taught or acquired through the animal's own experience or does it become innate?)
but (in his next sentence)
- However, there is no evidence that cougars are more likely to attack humans in unhunted areas. Indeed, 57% of the attacks occurred in British Columbia, where about 200 cougars are killed annually by hunters and predator control agents (Hebert 1989).
Still a lot unknown as you said. While the attacks have been increasing…the raw number of them is still pretty darn small.
Edited: Formatting
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
11:23 am
June 10, 2011
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
This recent news articles deals with a pack of larger dogs in Washington:
http://www.myqwest.com/news/re…..mp;ps=1011
It is unknown if this pack are wild dogs or just dogs on the loose (dogs that occasionally return "home"). The term "feral dogs" was not used and I do not wish to imply it. I brought up the article for one reason:
"Most recently, the dogs killed a 350-pound llama Tuesday night. They've also killed goats and other farm animals."
When speaking in terms of true feral dogs, the animals have consisted of relatively smaller breeds (talking to an outstanding local shelter in Denver…DFL). The current information is rather sketchy. It is generally believed that the feral dogs are 40lbs or under. Smaller dogs…smaller prey.
Reading that a pack of large dogs capable of taking down a 350 lb animal is just scary. Due to various factors, the larger breeds will eventually enter into the feral population. And when that happens…everything will be up for grabs. Wickedly smart pack animals with great size who have no fear of man. Great. 
Anyway, the only problem that I have with the article is the very first sentence:
"Authorities are trying to track a pack of dogs that has killed about 100 animals in nighttime forays in northeastern Washington state…"
100 animals…one pack. Certainly possible. Although…perhaps a bit unlikely? What do you think the odds are that there are a couple of other unknown packs of wild/feral dogs doing the same thing? Dogs learn quick. One pack sees another pack hunt…botta-boom, botta-bing…you now have two hunting packs.
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
5:33 pm
June 10, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2957 |
|
|
My question would be how they determined there to be 100 animals in the pack in the first place. Did they see the entire pack at once? Or 100 dogs at once? At night? 100 would be quite a few. While not directly comparable given location and circumstances (strays, night time carousing, etc), here are some links to the make up of wild dog packs.
http://wilddog.hypermart.net/H…../index.htm
http://asstudents.unco.edu/fac…..20dogs.pdf
A few other studies have the peak around 10 to 20 animals.
One pack seeing another pack and doing the same thing is possible, but 100 doing that in an area like that makes my eyebrows arch a little regardless if you call it a pack or two packs or three packs.
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
1:54 am
June 11, 2011
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
What? The 100 animals mentioned in the article were the kills, not the size of the pack. 100 kills (goats, the llama, and other farm animals) attributed to the same pack seemed a bit high to me, that's what I was questioning. It wouldn't be a far stretch to envision a couple of smaller packs (both in physical size and number) sort of scavenging a bit behind the larger pack and eventually branching out on their own with the smaller farm animals (chickens, ducks, etc).
So…ok then…
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
10:18 am
June 11, 2011
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2957 |
|
|
Yep, it does. For some reason when I came back and started to reply I saw the top of your last paragraph (100 animals…one pack) and went down the wrong path. 100 animals killed in about 70 days? The article mentions the llama and the goats, but chickens and ducks are included in farm animals. One foray into a chicken yard by the pack could rack up a lot of "kills", especially if there are chicks. Course they also give the term "about 100" so is that 90, 110?
About 15 attacks…100 animals in 15 or so attacks, would be pretty high unless you consider that it appears in some of the attacks that they've gotten into a pen that the owner forgot to close and it was a frenzy where the animals couldn't escape. And, it is spring and many animals are with young which are much easier targets And this seems to be the case in some of the attacks (does that have lost their kids and kids that are orphaned). Although they assume it's the same dogs, they haven't ruled out multiple packs, however.
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
Login 
Register 
The Forum [is where Ancient Roman skeptics hang out.]
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
