I should have several threads with photos on here. There aren't oo many hogs in socal as it really depends on where you go. I'm in San diego and there's a growing population here. There's hogs in San bernadino, riverside, and kern.
Umm maybe I haven't read the latest veterinary books but did anyone else catch the fact that he said 'pick eared dogs hear better'? Uh okay, show me the proof please because last time I checked the only difference was the slightly, and i mean slightly, higher potential for flop eared dogs to have an ear infection. Ironically in the five dogs I've owned 3 were flops, never had a an ear infection and two our pick ears both of which have had ear infections.
Also of that's the case of better hearing for picks why are alost all hounds flops?
Also of that's the case of better hearing for picks why are alost all hounds flops?
I remember hearing something, not sure how true it is, about how the floppy ears allow for hounds to track better since they rely more on their sniffers than their hearing. Something to do with the ears coming into contact with the scent trail and picking up bits of scent, which act as a reminder of the scent they are tracking. Idk, not really a hound person so don't really know, I think a good majority of us overlooked the ear thing due to some other misinformed comments made.
It was a fun thread, and it was interesting to see people's choices and how they reflect a person's background. For instance, we see @BradA1878 picks Dogos because of his fascination with mossoloids. We also know he lived in Georgia for awhile, hence his fimilarity with curs and leopard hounds.
We also see @shishiinu picks Kishu because of his cultural identity as a Japanese immigrant, childhood familiarity and lifelong obsession. But he did not leave out the Plotts because his background in the American hunting scene and how they are widely used all over North America.
We also got to see a bit of a nerdgasm with the mentions of Dire Wolves and Blink Dogs.
But the thread kind of stopped being fun when it became ____ breed is better than ____ breed. Especially when it became _____ breed has _____ super-power.
We tend to forget dog breeds merely only byproducts of culture. Many cultures developed dogs to suit all needs across the spectrum. It's our own biases and preferences which lead us to favour one over another. In reality, most of those dogs can probably stand equal to one another. The only things which separate them is possible opportunities.
The thread stopped being fun for me when snow was being mentioned for a savannah/temperate environment.
I mentioned mountains. Which is where the deer and rabbits will be.
It was a fun thread, and it was interesting to see people's choices and how they reflect a person's background. For instance, we see @BradA1878 picks Dogos because of his fascination with mossoloids. We also know he lived in Georgia for awhile, hence his fimilarity with curs and leopard hounds.
We also see @shishiinu picks Kishu because of his cultural identity as a Japanese immigrant, childhood familiarity and lifelong obsession. But he did not leave out the Plotts because his background in the American hunting scene and how they are widely used all over North America.
We also got to see a bit of a nerdgasm with the mentions of Dire Wolves and Blink Dogs.
But the thread kind of stopped being fun when it became ____ breed is better than ____ breed. Especially when it became _____ breed has _____ super-power.
We tend to forget dog breeds merely only byproducts of culture. Many cultures developed dogs to suit all needs across the spectrum. It's our own biases and preferences which lead us to favour one over another. In reality, most of those dogs can probably stand equal to one another. The only things which separate them is possible opportunities.
Whilst we have had disagreements, this is one of the most intelligent posts I have seen. Every dog has a purpose and some will excel at it more than other dogs, however, the wide variation within dogs lets people pick their favorite. No dog is the strongest, as there are exceptions to every rule. I totally agree with your view on this.
Also of that's the case of better hearing for picks why are alost all hounds flops?
I remember hearing something, not sure how true it is, about how the floppy ears allow for hounds to track better since they rely more on their sniffers than their hearing. Something to do with the ears coming into contact with the scent trail and picking up bits of scent, which act as a reminder of the scent they are tracking. Idk, not really a hound person so don't really know, I think a good majority of us overlooked the ear thing due to some other misinformed comments made.
Yup. That is correct, it's why bloodhounds and beagles have such long ears.
@Ketsuryu, some of your comments are oddly dismissive. Most of the people responding are speaking from personal experience raising and hunting with these dogs.
And thanks to @akinno's link, I'm thinking some of those smaller terrier breeds (jagdterrier, patterdale) would be efficient with the smaller game on this hypothetical island, including the dwarf pigs! According to that California Catchers guy, the smaller dogs "fly" better when thrown by a boar.
@shishiinu, all this has made me curious about how your Kishu hunt together. Do you have pictures? And where in SoCal do you go? I never think about running into pigs down here (just coyotes) ..should I?!
I'm talking about his comment about a cougar taking out multiple dogos. That's pretty ridiculous. Single dogs have fought off cougars before, and those are documented Occurrences. While a cougar would have little trouble killing a single dog, several is not happening. While I respect their experience, I'm not believing something like that. I'm sorry if I come off as rude it's simply the way I talk.
It's pretty obvious a mountain lion could kill a dog. I don't know why anyone wouldn't believe hunters experiences, or, frankly, just see the obvious: of course a mountain lion could kill a dog or injure it badly enough that it would die (frankly the same thing if you ask me, though the dog may not die on the spot). Mountain lions can and do kill people, too. Plus, what's with the really rude tone--dismissing someone else's experience and knowledge as ludicrous?
Just like coyotes kill dogs, and not just small ones either.
I'm talking about this quote :
"Wish I can find that video of a puma taking out a whole pack of Dogo Argentinos before the hunters released more dogs."
^that seems highly unlikely.. A single dog is no problem for a puma. But killing a pack of trained catch dogs close to its own weight? Doesn't seem very credible.
I was like you once. Young, idealistic, not yet financially solvent. I had bizarre ideas of what dogs should be based on books and forums. My whole world flipped upside down once I actually re-did my hunting exam (because the laws changed since I last did it), and bought my first real hunting dog.
All the sudden, YouTube, books and forums weren't good enough anymore. I needed a mentor, and someone to talk to. So, I began making friends who hunted with all kind of different breeds. It's a shame their wisdom are not written down, but it's understandable, most people only have the time to write when they are retired.
I suggest you finish your studies, become independent and find your own path by buying your own dog. Once you gain some experience, you realize all those videos, those forum posts, those books and so on are only partial. They still require a bit of reality to string them together to form a cohesive applicable theory which can be used in real life.
My claims are not unreasonable. You suggested in the survival scenario: a machete, two dogs and some gears. Nothing else. No axe. No knives. No guns.
Using a machete for game is not a very good idea. It would best to set that aside for cutting and chopping wood. It's not exactly that hard to make a blade out of stone or spear out of wood; nor it is hard to find a whetstone if one knows what kind hardness and texture they are looking for.
If I had more than two dogs, or at least an population to breed to-- like village-dogs or feral dogs, then I could do the same thing as some of the old crankers in the Appalachians and the Rockies who are alone living off the land. Developing one's own strain from a population of nearby dogs is an everyday occurance.
But because there is that self-imposed limit of only two dogs-- breeding them doesn't make a lot of sense, especially if there is a high risk that they will throw bad litters. Maybe only 10% or 20% of the puppies produced will be good enough to advance the program, and the only way to tell if the dog turns out good is to actually hunt with them, and cull out the bad ones-- either by re-homing, putting them down or letting natural selection do its job.
Besides, coydogs and wolfdogs have very unstable temperament and are ill-suited for breeding. It would take at least 3 generations to purge the bad traits. In a survival situation, there won't be enough time to do that. One is looking at devoting at least 6 years of his life to establishing a solid foundation stock.
I don't like those odds. So, it would be a better investment of my time and energy in ensuring I don't lose my two dogs instead of trying to propagate some more. You see this strategy with people who live in remote cabins and remote camps. They don't have a use for dogs which are over-confident, unless the dogs can be easily replaced at the near-by village or town.
Secondly, old animals are the worst. The stories you read and hear about with bruins and Toms tearing apart dogs are all old ones which got tired of being chased all their lives. Every hunter will eventually run into that scenario at least once in their life.
Thirdly, if you actually know anything about cougar-wolf relation complex, you would realize wolf-packs are most stable when they number 15-30 individuals. Most hound-packs are limited to only 2 to 5. In some places, they do number up to 10.
Comparing 15-30 hundred-pounds of pure muscled wolves to a a pack of 5 thirty-to-eighty pounds dogs which haven't been favoured by natural selection, but artificial selection, is just nonsense.
If you have noticed what you've quoted, the puma decided to stand and fight then fled when the hunters released more dogs. The cat was eventually treed and shot.
Most cats don't choose to fight because they are ambush predators and are at a disadvantage when caught off-guard. Their default is to flee.
But we also have to remember being pursued for kilometers on end is a very unnatural thing. Wolves drive off cougars to carve a territory for themselves and to claim carcasses. Dogs, on the other hand, are bred by people, to be relentless and chase them for hours on end. Eventually, one is going to run into an animal which don't want to put with that.
However, I still encourage hounding because the act fills in an ecological niche left empty from depredating wolves and grizzlies. Without wolves and grizzlies as alpha-predators, the cougar and black bears' behaviours are modified and cause problems for people. Bear-dogs and cat-hounds are required to fill that emptiness. The risk of losing a few dogs is for the greater good.
Unfortunately, YouTube now has the policy of taking down videos of hunting or any kind of animal-suffering. I am really disappointed I can't find that video.
"Comparing 15-30 hundred-pounds of pure muscled wolves to a a pack of 5 thirty-to-eighty pounds dogs which haven't been favoured by natural selection, but artificial selection, is just nonsense."
My freind, the average wolf pack is far below 30. No to mention that it only takes a single wolf to kill a puma. No pack of large combative dogs is going to lose to a average puma, and the cat will most certainly not kill them all as you said. If you want me to post graphic pictures that do so, is I will. Just give me the go ahead, because they ain't pretty.
Edit: nvm I'll post them anyway as I see that you either think I mean all your posts, or you're trying to twist words. You said that a puma took out a whole pack of dogos and that bobcats are known killers of dogs. These will disprove it. These dogs had little trouble with a bobcat or cougar.
This pack of dogos wasnt taken out by a cougar.
And this single dogo is obviously faring well
If you can come up with a video or picture of a puma taking out a pack of dogos i'll believe you. Most of what you say makes sense, but that one sentence did not. Experience has nothing to do with it. Give me actual proof here please.
@Ketsuryu - I'm curious, how much hunting experience do you have, with or without dogs? If you do hunt, what animals have you hunted and by what methods?
I just want to know where you are coming from in regards to this discussion. Many of the forum members who posted here are well known through out the forum to be experienced hunters (or at least have close ties in regards to hunting), but we don't really know much about your actual hunting experiences. Actually, we don't really know much about you at all other than the small blurb of an intro and your tendency to disagree with those who have much experience in the matter.
Do you even have dogs, nihon ken or other wise, or are you looking to get one? What about this book you keep mentioning, why not share more about it? Why not share something else about yourself or are you just here to troll the forum and antagonize the veteran members?
One should view dogo pictures with pumas with caution. There have been more than a few photos taken when the pumas were declawed. Both front and back claws. Sometimes even fangs.
Here is a link of what Morocho the famous hunting dogo looks like after dealing with an fully armed puma.
No one denied dogs can't close on cats. What is disputable is whether or not it is a good idea to allow them to close in a survival situation. In a recreational hunting situation, the hunter accepts such fates are possibilities. Survival and recreation are not the same thing.
First off, where I live is the most dense population of cougars and wolves in all of the province. People's dogs get eaten all the time. But that doesn't deter me.
I will continue to run him until he either retire due to old age, or something happen whether if it is being hit by car, stolen by someone or picked the wrong fight with the wrong animal. With our luck, he probably would run into a pack of wolf and doesn't stand a chance.
The dog is happiest when he's hunting. It would be tantamount to animal cruelty to not hunt with him.
I don't see any difference between using a dog as a tool for hunting than someone who enslaves bees to procure honey. Or purposely propagate hens for eggs and cows for milk. Or someone who selfishly takes a pet dog as child substitute.
My own dog treed a few cats. But if he got scrapped up by a cat, I accept that as a consequence. But prohibiting him from getting into a nasty fight with an old cat is no different from being afraid of driving. Or being afraid of getting out your front door. But that is because I allow him to pursue game like that.
But the situation above is recreational. Not survival.
GRAPHIC IMAGES
You don't believe me that cats can't kill hunting dogs?
Eurasian Lynx:
The first two dogs happened to be hunting. The last one is some kind of pet which got into a bad fight.
Recent studies show the larger the wolf-pack, the less frequently they kill livestock which suggest larger packs are more stable than smaller ones.
Mind you, wolf-packs are smaller in southern Canada because the ranchers demand them to be controlled. So, in some of those studies, they have to use northern Alberta as the "control" to compare the kill-rate of smaller packs versus larger packs so the government could figure out the best livestock-wolf management plan would be. Hence where I pulled the 15-30 statement from. But there haven't been a pack larger than 37 though, except some rumoured super-pack of 400 individuals in Russia when rabbit population crashed.
But wolves do not always win. Males (Wolves), at 125 pounds, can go after a 110-pound female cougar if they are in a pack, but a lone wolf is a bagatelle for a 160-pound male cougar.
"When there is a pack around, cougars are not comfortable around their kills or raising kittens," says Jim Akenson. "A lot of times a big cougar will kill a wolf, but the pack phenomenon changes the table."
I can speak to one of the Dogo/Puma pics @Ketsuryu posted, the last one, because I am a proud papa and that is the father of my Dogo "Che".
The last pic is a picture of Lonko De La Cocha (aka "Tuco"). The story behind that picture is that a woman had a puma living under her home in Argentina. The puma had killed her small dog and she felt concerned for her young children. So she called the police to have it removed. Several trappers came out and tried to trap the cat but with no success. The cat was acting very aggressive and so no humans wanted to crawl under the house and shoot the cat - for fear of being attacked. So, they called Ulysses, the son of the creator of the Dogo breed and current owner of the "La Cocha" kennel. Ulysses brought Tuco to the house and released him in the crawl space. The dogo and Puma fought for a few minutes then the dogo came out dragging the Puma who was still alive. The cat was dispatched by Ulysses. That photo made the headlines in the local newspaper where the lady lived, and has now been circulating the internet.
Tuco was a dog that came (back) to La Cocha after his owner got too old and couldn't care for him. He had been living on a ranch where he was allowed to just free hunting 24/7. The dog was kinda wild when Ulysses got him. Actually Tuco's story reminds a lot of Momo's story, Shigeru's ( @TheWalrus ) female Kishu Ken (RIP).
Anyway, that particular dog (Tuco) had been "tested" on Puma at the ranch he lived, and then Ulysses continued to hunt him on puma. Point being, that dogs has LOTS of experience fighting puma (among other things). So, this wasn't some new-to-the-game dog in that last picture.
But Ann ( @ayk ) is totally right. You have to be careful with dogo pics and videos as it used to be common practice in Argentina to keep bears, boar, and puma for to fight dogo for testing and entertainment. It's illegal there now tho.
@Ketsuryu - I'm curious, how much hunting experience do you have, with or without dogs? If you do hunt, what animals have you hunted and by what methods?
I just want to know where you are coming from in regards to this discussion. Many of the forum members who posted here are well known through out the forum to be experienced hunters (or at least have close ties in regards to hunting), but we don't really know much about your actual hunting experiences. Actually, we don't really know much about you at all other than the small blurb of an intro and your tendency to disagree with those who have much experience in the matter.
Do you even have dogs, nihon ken or other wise, or are you looking to get one? What about this book you keep mentioning, why not share more about it? Why not share something else about yourself or are you just here to troll the forum and antagonize the veteran members?
While I appreciate your opinion , I would also appreciate if you didn't jump to conclusions so fast about trolling. If you take away all personal bias from knowing these people, you'd notice that more times then not ill simply say something and der members will almost instantly react in a hostile manner. Of course, I'm not a very hostile person, so I don't tend to throw insults back. In fact yes I have had nihon ken (3 actually), but unfortunately they have all passed away. I don't have a dog currently, as I cannot afford one.
The whole _______ versus ______ debate is better placed here:
At least there are other people who are willing to debate on a purely philosophical basis.
But keep in mind, many hunters, naturalists and biologists regard that website as nonsensical. They know that online debates =/= reality.
Erase hunters from there as they aren't scientists no offense. Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. I didn't think that there were forums for that kind if thing. Then again there's forums for everything.
No one denied dogs can't close on cats. What is disputable is whether or not it is a good idea to allow them to close in a survival situation. In a recreational hunting situation, the hunter accepts such fates are possibilities. Survival and recreation are not the same thing.
First off, where I live is the most dense population of cougars and wolves in all of the province. People's dogs get eaten all the time. But that doesn't deter me.
I will continue to run him until he either retire due to old age, or something happen whether if it is being hit by car, stolen by someone or picked the wrong fight with the wrong animal. With our luck, he probably would run into a pack of wolf and doesn't stand a chance.
The dog is happiest when he's hunting. It would be tantamount to animal cruelty to not hunt with him.
I don't see any difference between using a dog as a tool for hunting than someone who enslaves bees to procure honey. Or purposely propagate hens for eggs and cows for milk. Or someone who selfishly takes a pet dog as child substitute.
My own dog treed a few cats. But if he got scrapped up by a cat, I accept that as a consequence. But prohibiting him from getting into a nasty fight with an old cat is no different from being afraid of driving. Or being afraid of getting out your front door. But that is because I allow him to pursue game like that.
But the situation above is recreational. Not survival.
GRAPHIC IMAGES
You don't believe me that cats can't kill hunting dogs?
Eurasian Lynx:
The first two dogs happened to be hunting. The last one is some kind of pet which got into a bad fight.
Recent studies show the larger the wolf-pack, the less frequently they kill livestock which suggest larger packs are more stable than smaller ones.
Mind you, wolf-packs are smaller in southern Canada because the ranchers demand them to be controlled. So, in some of those studies, they have to use northern Alberta as the "control" to compare the kill-rate of smaller packs versus larger packs so the government could figure out the best livestock-wolf management plan would be. Hence where I pulled the 15-30 statement from. But there haven't been a pack larger than 37 though, except some rumoured super-pack of 400 individuals in Russia when rabbit population crashed.
But wolves do not always win. Males (Wolves), at 125 pounds, can go after a 110-pound female cougar if they are in a pack, but a lone wolf is a bagatelle for a 160-pound male cougar.
"When there is a pack around, cougars are not comfortable around their kills or raising kittens," says Jim Akenson. "A lot of times a big cougar will kill a wolf, but the pack phenomenon changes the table."
Im still waiting for evidence that a puma can "take out" a pack of dogos. I don't doubt that cats can kill dogs, but I think you're overestimating them a bit. As for your evidence:
1.can I have a link to the source of the pictures? 2. The article specifically said that it likely wasn't a bobcat, and cougars have been photodetector in N.C. 3. I never said a puma couldn't kill a wolf (by the way that looks to be a female wolf?) 4. I'm just saying that they don't average 30 individuals 5.none of this evidence proves a puma can kill several dogos.
I can speak to one of the Dogo/Puma pics @Ketsuryu posted, the last one, because I am a proud papa and that is the father of my Dogo "Che".
The last pic is a picture of Lonko De La Cocha (aka "Tuco"). The story behind that picture is that a woman had a puma living under her home in Argentina. The puma had killed her small dog and she felt concerned for her young children. So she called the police to have it removed. Several trappers came out and tried to trap the cat but with no success. The cat was acting very aggressive and so no humans wanted to crawl under the house and shoot the cat - for fear of being attacked. So, they called Ulysses, the son of the creator of the Dogo breed and current owner of the "La Cocha" kennel. Ulysses brought Tuco to the house and released him in the crawl space. The dogo and Puma fought for a few minutes then the dogo came out dragging the Puma who was still alive. The cat was dispatched by Ulysses. That photo made the headlines in the local newspaper where the lady lived, and has now been circulating the internet.
Tuco was a dog that came (back) to La Cocha after his owner got too old and couldn't care for him. He had been living on a ranch where he was allowed to just free hunting 24/7. The dog was kinda wild when Ulysses got him. Actually Tuco's story reminds a lot of Momo's story, Shigeru's ( @TheWalrus ) female Kishu Ken (RIP).
Anyway, that particular dog (Tuco) had been "tested" on Puma at the ranch he lived, and then Ulysses continued to hunt him on puma. Point being, that dogs has LOTS of experience fighting puma (among other things). So, this wasn't some new-to-the-game dog in that last picture.
But Ann ( @ayk ) is totally right. You have to be careful with dogo pics and videos as it used to be common practice in Argentina to keep bears, boar, and puma for to fight dogo for testing and entertainment. It's illegal there now tho.
Nice info! Goes to show you that an experienced dog is no joke
One should view dogo pictures with pumas with caution. There have been more than a few photos taken when the pumas were declawed. Both front and back claws. Sometimes even fangs.
Here is a link of what Morocho the famous hunting dogo looks like after dealing with an fully armed puma.
Sources would be from news outlets like YLE and a few hunting forums such as Ajokoirajärjestö.
Instead of digging through history retrieving the links, like @Calia has done with Airedales are a Failure blog, it's just simpler to supplement a few more articles and pictures.
In 2005, 40% of the attacks on hunting dogs were by lynxes. The rest were inflicted by wolves.
There's no reason to distort the truth as the insurance company Agria keeps track of the claims and investigate them. Not to mention the Agricultural Department is deeply invested in minimizing conflicts.
There's probably more, but that's all I care to pull from one of our hunting groups which discuss predator co-existence.
Seeing the countries are tiny (5 to 10 million people), seemingly insignificant events make national news. Here, those kind of things wouldn't even get exposure unless the reporters think it would piss off the cattle-ranchers. I know this because wolf-attacks on livestock are not published here in Canada since we are used to it; unless there's a public outcry for a management program. In the States if a wolf even touch one sheep, it makes the local news and sometimes national.
In my area, someone's dog goes missing every week taken by wolves, coyotes or cougars sometimes bears, but it never makes the news. Not important enough. Accepted fact of life.
The only times those kind of news make the headline is if they happen in a major population center like Calgary, Kelowna or Vancouver where the residents are not used to living alongside wildlife.
I managed to recover the link to the Dogo pursuit video from a Facebook group, but the video was removed due to Use of Terms Violation.
I am kind of done with the discussion if eyewitnesses who think they saw a cougar are somehow more valuable than the DNR department who identified the culprit and admit bobcats are often mistaken as cougars in the East.
Again, it obviously wasn't a bobcat. No bobcat is killing a healthy pit bull. Not to mention that cougars have been reported and photoed in N.C. No authority would want to call it a puma and cause panic. If it killed a 120 pound dog, was able to drag the carcass, it wasn't a bobcat. A bobcat can hardly kill a coyote. Everything else you said I can agree with.
Very interesting thread, and I have absolutely zero doubt that a good-sized cat of any species can take out dogs without much trouble. Like others have mentioned, even little domestic housecats can be tough as nails if cornered, they're quick, flexible, and have lots of sharp parts (claws, teeth). Infection is a real risk. I've not seen the videos referenced, nor seen a live mountain lion--but just seeing taxidermy mounts and seeing videos of live ones, I have no doubt at all that a ticked off lion can kill more than a few dogs faster than a human can do anything about it.
I've had this conversation before ("which dog would you have outside of civilization?"), but it was in regard to the dogs that were in the actual room with us. The Finnish Lapphund I grew up with was my choice at the time, because she was my dog and by far the most athletic and versatile of the dogs in the room--but, though that breed started its existence as a multi-purpose "survival dog" for a specific climate, it's not going to fill the niche described perfectly. A Lapphund (provided it's not been bred exclusively as a show dog, and I'm referencing off the bitch I owned) is a good alarm dog, decent enough at hunting small game and easy to keep, pretty weatherproof in a fairly cold climate (they don't do well in extreme heat), and used for keeping semi-domesticated reindeer in a small area by running about and barking--thereby staying far enough away to avoid injury (most of the time). They're not big dogs, they're not serious hunting dogs--but they have been survival dogs. Would she have been perfect? No, and she would have been worse than useless in hunting big game. But when the question related to a specific, small group of dogs--it was possible to answer with some confidence.
So basically, "best survival dog" depends so much on the environment and the individual that, though this thread is a fascinating look into it, it's impossible to answer definitively--just as @souggy said.
Personally, I'd prefer to hunt small game in a survival situation. The risks are smaller, and if you screw up once, you're probably not gonna die from it or lose your dogs to it. The ecosystem described doesn't make a great deal of sense (no birds?), and that makes it a difficult question to even formulate a good answer. But you know what? I'm not a hunter. I may never be (or maybe I will--who knows). So instead, I'll listen to people like @souggy and @shishiinu , who actually have that experience and those contacts with the greater community of people who hunt with dogs.
Wow this thread has evolved into something completely different from what is was when I was on last.. Like Trzcina said, in a survival situation it would be safer for the dogs if you stuck to smaller game. It was mentioned that it's not possible for rabbits to sustain a diet but If there are enough rabbits and you only have yourself and 2 dogs to feed, I see no reason for this to not work. It was also mentioned there were deer, at first it was said they were small deer then later someone said elk sized? And it was being pushed to hunt them because it was safer then hunting boar.. This I would call debatable based on your hunting experience. All large game animals can kill dogs specially when only using 1-2. Elk often travel in large herds and are well known for fending off and killing predators. If I was only using a dog or two and I didn't have a gun, I would not go after elk unless there were very special circumstances. 1: I happen upon one alone. 2: it is either a doe, young buck or baby. 3: I have a fashioned a spear and am able to close the deal. If they are more like white tail who travel in smaller groups then I might be more inclined but personally, I would chose boar. I have some experience in boar. They travel in smaller groups, when startled the groups tend to break up allowing the dogs to pick one up to bay, and they are much easier to bay. They are much slower and not as likely to jump over my dogs. Boar are also easier to dispatch. Once you get up behind them to grab their back legs it's game over. Like I mentioned in my post much earlier, in a situation where I rely on the health of my dogs, I would only use bay dogs! And to clean up some confusion earlier, boar hunting does not involve the dogs killing the boar. Catch dogs may tear up the boar and yes they might be capable of dispatching the animals themselves in the right circumstance but that is not their jobs. Bay dogs isolate the animal and keep it from running, catch dogs hold the animal to keep it from running and the hunter kills the animal. Of course an unmentioned issue that comes along with boar hunting is if there is a presence of "Psudo-rabies" which is common in certain parts of Florida.
It was mentioned that it's not possible for rabbits to sustain a diet but If there are enough rabbits and you only have yourself and 2 dogs to feed, I see no reason for this to not work.
Even if you could catch enough rabbits to feed a town, it really isn't healthy to sustain on rabbit. Rabbits are such a lean meat that if it one were to use it at their main sustenance then they can literally get sick and die from lack of fat. Fat (and protein) is very important to have for very active dogs and humans, without it the body will have a hard time recovering and keeping up to the rigors of surviving. Rabbit is a good meat, but it should be secondary to another food source that is high in fat.
I meant as for what you would hunt. I could go all day talking about fishing and foraging for other sources of food but this thread seems to only be about what would you HUNT and why. You could even catch rabbits and hand raise them to fatten them up if you'd like
@navydog - that's what a lot of posters originally speculated they would do (and selected dogs that would help them do that). I found those answers quite interesting too (like those of @ayk, @calia). The strangeness (and frankly, unsustainability) of the hypothetical ecosystem makes it difficult to address the scenario with serious thought. Moreover, having only a machete makes hunting a much more arduous proposition. As @souggy pointed out, you'd want to use that as your wood crafting tool and would need to fashion hunting tools. Given the different methods of hunting that would necessitate, I think you would need to factor in your calorie calculations into your overall strategy differently than you would if you were in a typical hunting scenario (and a heavier focus trapping and domestication makes a lot more sense).
Well, Texas is 696 241 km². The only ones which approach that size are Madagascar (587,040 km²). Baffin Island (507 451 km²), Sumatra (480 848 km²), New Guinea (785 753 km²) and Borneo (748,168 KM²). There's more biodiversity on Baffin Island than in this scenario.
But since we are looking at temperate zone, the most suitable ones would be Great Britain (229 848 km²), Honshu (227 963 km²), South Island (145 836 km²), North Island (111 583 km²), Newfoundland (108 860 km²).
The closest island I can think of which matches this scenario would be the continent of Zealandia given the description of temperate forests, savannas and mountains. They have all the potential game, except for the predators. The largest mammalian predators would be stoats, feral dogs and feral cats.
For Great Britain to work, we would have to wind back the geological clock back to when wolves still roamed the island. However, they do have all the listed ecosystems when the island used to be forested.
Not sure what Honshu would be like if 103 million people weren't living on it. If UK's ecosystem is radically different from 600 years ago, and they only number 64 million, hard to fathom Japan would be like without humans.
But on the other hand, if remnants of the Appalachians could be "considered" as mountains, then Newfoundland could be a candidate seeing they have both grasslands and temperate forests. They have wolves and coyotes as well as lynxes. No bobcats, but Canada Lynx is close enough. Boars would have to be substituted with escaped feral pigs. Just no feral goats. The golden jackal is basically a Eurasian coyote anyway in term of ecological niche and genetic relatedness; and the eastern wolves are basically coydog-coywolf-wolfdog admixture anyway.
In any case, all of those islands have more biodiversity. The proposed ecosystems are plausible though. The only thing missing in the picture is the lack of mention of avian species.
@souggy - I think it's the absence of other avian species, reptiles, amphibians, and lack of biodiversity (esp the latter) that makes it implausible to me in the real world. 9 mammals, 1 bird, a few species of deep water fish, plus you and your two dogs. That's discounting you, that is 10-15 species over three different climate ranges....
Comments
Also of that's the case of better hearing for picks why are alost all hounds flops?
We also see @shishiinu picks Kishu because of his cultural identity as a Japanese immigrant, childhood familiarity and lifelong obsession. But he did not leave out the Plotts because his background in the American hunting scene and how they are widely used all over North America.
We also got to see a bit of a nerdgasm with the mentions of Dire Wolves and Blink Dogs.
But the thread kind of stopped being fun when it became ____ breed is better than ____ breed. Especially when it became _____ breed has _____ super-power.
We tend to forget dog breeds merely only byproducts of culture. Many cultures developed dogs to suit all needs across the spectrum. It's our own biases and preferences which lead us to favour one over another. In reality, most of those dogs can probably stand equal to one another. The only things which separate them is possible opportunities.
Yup. That is correct, it's why bloodhounds and beagles have such long ears. I'm talking about his comment about a cougar taking out multiple dogos. That's pretty ridiculous. Single dogs have fought off cougars before, and those are documented Occurrences. While a cougar would have little trouble killing a single dog, several is not happening. While I respect their experience, I'm not believing something like that. I'm sorry if I come off as rude it's simply the way I talk.
I'm talking about this quote :
"Wish I can find that video of a puma taking out a whole pack of Dogo Argentinos before the hunters released more dogs."
^that seems highly unlikely.. A single dog is no problem for a puma. But killing a pack of trained catch dogs close to its own weight? Doesn't seem very credible.
All the sudden, YouTube, books and forums weren't good enough anymore. I needed a mentor, and someone to talk to. So, I began making friends who hunted with all kind of different breeds. It's a shame their wisdom are not written down, but it's understandable, most people only have the time to write when they are retired.
I suggest you finish your studies, become independent and find your own path by buying your own dog. Once you gain some experience, you realize all those videos, those forum posts, those books and so on are only partial. They still require a bit of reality to string them together to form a cohesive applicable theory which can be used in real life.
My claims are not unreasonable. You suggested in the survival scenario: a machete, two dogs and some gears. Nothing else. No axe. No knives. No guns.
Using a machete for game is not a very good idea. It would best to set that aside for cutting and chopping wood. It's not exactly that hard to make a blade out of stone or spear out of wood; nor it is hard to find a whetstone if one knows what kind hardness and texture they are looking for.
If I had more than two dogs, or at least an population to breed to-- like village-dogs or feral dogs, then I could do the same thing as some of the old crankers in the Appalachians and the Rockies who are alone living off the land. Developing one's own strain from a population of nearby dogs is an everyday occurance.
But because there is that self-imposed limit of only two dogs-- breeding them doesn't make a lot of sense, especially if there is a high risk that they will throw bad litters. Maybe only 10% or 20% of the puppies produced will be good enough to advance the program, and the only way to tell if the dog turns out good is to actually hunt with them, and cull out the bad ones-- either by re-homing, putting them down or letting natural selection do its job.
Besides, coydogs and wolfdogs have very unstable temperament and are ill-suited for breeding. It would take at least 3 generations to purge the bad traits. In a survival situation, there won't be enough time to do that. One is looking at devoting at least 6 years of his life to establishing a solid foundation stock.
I don't like those odds. So, it would be a better investment of my time and energy in ensuring I don't lose my two dogs instead of trying to propagate some more. You see this strategy with people who live in remote cabins and remote camps. They don't have a use for dogs which are over-confident, unless the dogs can be easily replaced at the near-by village or town.
Secondly, old animals are the worst. The stories you read and hear about with bruins and Toms tearing apart dogs are all old ones which got tired of being chased all their lives. Every hunter will eventually run into that scenario at least once in their life.
Thirdly, if you actually know anything about cougar-wolf relation complex, you would realize wolf-packs are most stable when they number 15-30 individuals. Most hound-packs are limited to only 2 to 5. In some places, they do number up to 10.
Comparing 15-30 hundred-pounds of pure muscled wolves to a a pack of 5 thirty-to-eighty pounds dogs which haven't been favoured by natural selection, but artificial selection, is just nonsense.
If you have noticed what you've quoted, the puma decided to stand and fight then fled when the hunters released more dogs. The cat was eventually treed and shot.
Most cats don't choose to fight because they are ambush predators and are at a disadvantage when caught off-guard. Their default is to flee.
But we also have to remember being pursued for kilometers on end is a very unnatural thing. Wolves drive off cougars to carve a territory for themselves and to claim carcasses. Dogs, on the other hand, are bred by people, to be relentless and chase them for hours on end. Eventually, one is going to run into an animal which don't want to put with that.
However, I still encourage hounding because the act fills in an ecological niche left empty from depredating wolves and grizzlies. Without wolves and grizzlies as alpha-predators, the cougar and black bears' behaviours are modified and cause problems for people. Bear-dogs and cat-hounds are required to fill that emptiness. The risk of losing a few dogs is for the greater good.
Unfortunately, YouTube now has the policy of taking down videos of hunting or any kind of animal-suffering. I am really disappointed I can't find that video.
My freind, the average wolf pack is far below 30. No to mention that it only takes a single wolf to kill a puma. No pack of large combative dogs is going to lose to a average puma, and the cat will most certainly not kill them all as you said. If you want me to post graphic pictures that do so, is I will. Just give me the go ahead, because they ain't pretty.
Edit: nvm I'll post them anyway as I see that you either think I mean all your posts, or you're trying to twist words. You said that a puma took out a whole pack of dogos and that bobcats are known killers of dogs. These will disprove it.
These dogs had little trouble with a bobcat or cougar.
This pack of dogos wasnt taken out by a cougar.
And this single dogo is obviously faring well
If you can come up with a video or picture of a puma taking out a pack of dogos i'll believe you. Most of what you say makes sense, but that one sentence did not. Experience has nothing to do with it. Give me actual proof here please.
I just want to know where you are coming from in regards to this discussion. Many of the forum members who posted here are well known through out the forum to be experienced hunters (or at least have close ties in regards to hunting), but we don't really know much about your actual hunting experiences. Actually, we don't really know much about you at all other than the small blurb of an intro and your tendency to disagree with those who have much experience in the matter.
Do you even have dogs, nihon ken or other wise, or are you looking to get one? What about this book you keep mentioning, why not share more about it? Why not share something else about yourself or are you just here to troll the forum and antagonize the veteran members?
Here is a link of what Morocho the famous hunting dogo looks like after dealing with an fully armed puma.
[warning, very bloody photo of the dog.]
http://s81.photobucket.com/user/kouritas/media/morocho.jpg.html
I'm done with this thread.
First off, where I live is the most dense population of cougars and wolves in all of the province. People's dogs get eaten all the time. But that doesn't deter me.
I will continue to run him until he either retire due to old age, or something happen whether if it is being hit by car, stolen by someone or picked the wrong fight with the wrong animal. With our luck, he probably would run into a pack of wolf and doesn't stand a chance.
The dog is happiest when he's hunting. It would be tantamount to animal cruelty to not hunt with him.
I don't see any difference between using a dog as a tool for hunting than someone who enslaves bees to procure honey. Or purposely propagate hens for eggs and cows for milk. Or someone who selfishly takes a pet dog as child substitute.
My own dog treed a few cats. But if he got scrapped up by a cat, I accept that as a consequence. But prohibiting him from getting into a nasty fight with an old cat is no different from being afraid of driving. Or being afraid of getting out your front door. But that is because I allow him to pursue game like that.
But the situation above is recreational. Not survival.
GRAPHIC IMAGES
You don't believe me that cats can't kill hunting dogs?Eurasian Lynx:
The first two dogs happened to be hunting. The last one is some kind of pet which got into a bad fight.
Bobcat:
Cougar kills wolf:
Wolf pack sizes:
https://www.ualberta.ca/~fschmieg/Caribou/pdfs/Alberta Naturalist 31(2).PDF
http://journals.sfu.ca/cfn/index.php/cfn/article/download/321/321
https://www.ualberta.ca/~fschmieg/Caribou/pdfs/GK thesis.PDF
http://www.fur.ca/files/Density, Demography wolf study Summary.pdf
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/136/7/1923S.full
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/286079?uid=3739392&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21104770319921
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.28/abstract;jsessionid=88A273F4C2A03E30036C2DAF79E4BE9B.f04t04?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3899736?uid=3739392&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21104770319921
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3783040?uid=3739392&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21104770319921
Recent studies show the larger the wolf-pack, the less frequently they kill livestock which suggest larger packs are more stable than smaller ones.
Mind you, wolf-packs are smaller in southern Canada because the ranchers demand them to be controlled. So, in some of those studies, they have to use northern Alberta as the "control" to compare the kill-rate of smaller packs versus larger packs so the government could figure out the best livestock-wolf management plan would be. Hence where I pulled the 15-30 statement from. But there haven't been a pack larger than 37 though, except some rumoured super-pack of 400 individuals in Russia when rabbit population crashed.
Cougar-wolf interactions:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2980/1195-6860(2007)14[214:IBCPCA]2.0.CO;2
http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/cjz-2012-0147#.VINFdzHF9qo
http://journals.sfu.ca/cfn/index.php/cfn/article/download/550/556
And some more.
Let's see what cougar experts have to say:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1957&dat=20030525&id=XdBKAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pekMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4526,6289089
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_4573745
http://carnivoraforum.com/
At least there are other people who are willing to debate on a purely philosophical basis.
But keep in mind, many hunters, naturalists and biologists regard that website as nonsensical. They know that online debates =/= reality.
The last pic is a picture of Lonko De La Cocha (aka "Tuco"). The story behind that picture is that a woman had a puma living under her home in Argentina. The puma had killed her small dog and she felt concerned for her young children. So she called the police to have it removed. Several trappers came out and tried to trap the cat but with no success. The cat was acting very aggressive and so no humans wanted to crawl under the house and shoot the cat - for fear of being attacked. So, they called Ulysses, the son of the creator of the Dogo breed and current owner of the "La Cocha" kennel. Ulysses brought Tuco to the house and released him in the crawl space. The dogo and Puma fought for a few minutes then the dogo came out dragging the Puma who was still alive. The cat was dispatched by Ulysses. That photo made the headlines in the local newspaper where the lady lived, and has now been circulating the internet.
Tuco was a dog that came (back) to La Cocha after his owner got too old and couldn't care for him. He had been living on a ranch where he was allowed to just free hunting 24/7. The dog was kinda wild when Ulysses got him. Actually Tuco's story reminds a lot of Momo's story, Shigeru's ( @TheWalrus ) female Kishu Ken (RIP).
Anyway, that particular dog (Tuco) had been "tested" on Puma at the ranch he lived, and then Ulysses continued to hunt him on puma. Point being, that dogs has LOTS of experience fighting puma (among other things). So, this wasn't some new-to-the-game dog in that last picture.
But Ann ( @ayk ) is totally right. You have to be careful with dogo pics and videos as it used to be common practice in Argentina to keep bears, boar, and puma for to fight dogo for testing and entertainment. It's illegal there now tho.
Erase hunters from there as they aren't scientists no offense. Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. I didn't think that there were forums for that kind if thing. Then again there's forums for everything.
Im still waiting for evidence that a puma can "take out" a pack of dogos. I don't doubt that cats can kill dogs, but I think you're overestimating them a bit. As for your evidence:
1.can I have a link to the source of the pictures?
2. The article specifically said that it likely wasn't a bobcat, and cougars have been photodetector in N.C.
3. I never said a puma couldn't kill a wolf (by the way that looks to be a female wolf?)
4. I'm just saying that they don't average 30 individuals
5.none of this evidence proves a puma can kill several dogos. Nice info! Goes to show you that an experienced dog is no joke I remember reading that the owner dispatched the cat?
Instead of digging through history retrieving the links, like @Calia has done with Airedales are a Failure blog, it's just simpler to supplement a few more articles and pictures.
Here's one from Sweden:
http://www.jaktojagare.se/lodjur-dodade-grawachtel
Grawatchel is a new experiimental strain being used in boar-hunting by crossing German Spaniel (Watchelhund), Norwegian Gray and Swedish Elkhound.
More on lynxes:
http://webnews.textalk.com/se/article.php?id=308006&context=60321
http://www.expressen.se/gt/lodjur-attackerade-och-skadade-hund/
http://www.jaktojagare.se/dubbelt-sa-manga-hundar-dodade-och-skadade-av-rovdjur
In 2005, 40% of the attacks on hunting dogs were by lynxes. The rest were inflicted by wolves.
There's no reason to distort the truth as the insurance company Agria keeps track of the claims and investigate them. Not to mention the Agricultural Department is deeply invested in minimizing conflicts.
Discussion about lynx-attacks on a hunting forum:
http://www.jaktsidan.se/ipb/topic/13943-det-haender-aldrig-mig/page-2
There's probably more, but that's all I care to pull from one of our hunting groups which discuss predator co-existence.
Seeing the countries are tiny (5 to 10 million people), seemingly insignificant events make national news. Here, those kind of things wouldn't even get exposure unless the reporters think it would piss off the cattle-ranchers. I know this because wolf-attacks on livestock are not published here in Canada since we are used to it; unless there's a public outcry for a management program. In the States if a wolf even touch one sheep, it makes the local news and sometimes national.
In my area, someone's dog goes missing every week taken by wolves, coyotes or cougars sometimes bears, but it never makes the news. Not important enough. Accepted fact of life.
The only times those kind of news make the headline is if they happen in a major population center like Calgary, Kelowna or Vancouver where the residents are not used to living alongside wildlife.
I managed to recover the link to the Dogo pursuit video from a Facebook group, but the video was removed due to Use of Terms Violation.
I am kind of done with the discussion if eyewitnesses who think they saw a cougar are somehow more valuable than the DNR department who identified the culprit and admit bobcats are often mistaken as cougars in the East.
I've had this conversation before ("which dog would you have outside of civilization?"), but it was in regard to the dogs that were in the actual room with us. The Finnish Lapphund I grew up with was my choice at the time, because she was my dog and by far the most athletic and versatile of the dogs in the room--but, though that breed started its existence as a multi-purpose "survival dog" for a specific climate, it's not going to fill the niche described perfectly. A Lapphund (provided it's not been bred exclusively as a show dog, and I'm referencing off the bitch I owned) is a good alarm dog, decent enough at hunting small game and easy to keep, pretty weatherproof in a fairly cold climate (they don't do well in extreme heat), and used for keeping semi-domesticated reindeer in a small area by running about and barking--thereby staying far enough away to avoid injury (most of the time). They're not big dogs, they're not serious hunting dogs--but they have been survival dogs. Would she have been perfect? No, and she would have been worse than useless in hunting big game. But when the question related to a specific, small group of dogs--it was possible to answer with some confidence.
So basically, "best survival dog" depends so much on the environment and the individual that, though this thread is a fascinating look into it, it's impossible to answer definitively--just as @souggy said.
Personally, I'd prefer to hunt small game in a survival situation. The risks are smaller, and if you screw up once, you're probably not gonna die from it or lose your dogs to it. The ecosystem described doesn't make a great deal of sense (no birds?), and that makes it a difficult question to even formulate a good answer. But you know what? I'm not a hunter. I may never be (or maybe I will--who knows). So instead, I'll listen to people like @souggy and @shishiinu , who actually have that experience and those contacts with the greater community of people who hunt with dogs.
(Wow sorry this was so long)
Well, Texas is 696 241 km². The only ones which approach that size are Madagascar (587,040 km²). Baffin Island (507 451 km²), Sumatra (480 848 km²), New Guinea (785 753 km²) and Borneo (748,168 KM²). There's more biodiversity on Baffin Island than in this scenario.
But since we are looking at temperate zone, the most suitable ones would be Great Britain (229 848 km²), Honshu (227 963 km²), South Island (145 836 km²), North Island (111 583 km²), Newfoundland (108 860 km²).
The closest island I can think of which matches this scenario would be the continent of Zealandia given the description of temperate forests, savannas and mountains. They have all the potential game, except for the predators. The largest mammalian predators would be stoats, feral dogs and feral cats.
For Great Britain to work, we would have to wind back the geological clock back to when wolves still roamed the island. However, they do have all the listed ecosystems when the island used to be forested.
Not sure what Honshu would be like if 103 million people weren't living on it. If UK's ecosystem is radically different from 600 years ago, and they only number 64 million, hard to fathom Japan would be like without humans.
But on the other hand, if remnants of the Appalachians could be "considered" as mountains, then Newfoundland could be a candidate seeing they have both grasslands and temperate forests. They have wolves and coyotes as well as lynxes. No bobcats, but Canada Lynx is close enough. Boars would have to be substituted with escaped feral pigs. Just no feral goats. The golden jackal is basically a Eurasian coyote anyway in term of ecological niche and genetic relatedness; and the eastern wolves are basically coydog-coywolf-wolfdog admixture anyway.
In any case, all of those islands have more biodiversity. The proposed ecosystems are plausible though. The only thing missing in the picture is the lack of mention of avian species.