|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jun 13, 2023 7:54:26 GMT
I don't agree with this. I think I know where this is coming from - the observation that these wolves can sometimes have a "gripping dog" roleplayer in the pack, but I think that's just as true for other wolves and I also don't think any wolves have any actual physiological adaptation for gripping specialisation. They're all still all alrounders by design. Some might do the job, but there's no allowance for evolutionary adaptation in that direction. For that you'd need wolves that don't need to do anything else. It's not like that, its a very informal "job" some casually slip into later in life owing only to their size, no gripper specialisation beyond that. Grippers don’t need to be big and sizeable. A 30 lb pit Bull can own a 1300 lb bull. Except for maybe the very largest Belgian blues. That's true, but if you're not a specialised gripper, being big helps. Makes you a heavier anchor that drains more fight out of the prey. They already target weakened prey anyway, so the best thing wolves can do is have their biggest "whopper" member hold the head of the ox, elk, moose or bison or whatever and hold it still so the others can eviscerate. This is likely the foundational wolf behaviour from where the gripping dog lineage arose, and yes those specialised for bovines did end up becoming smaller and more compact, and that's because they target healthy bovines that will send them flying into the stratusphere. Ability to endure that "journey" and not be obliterated becomes paramount, and it turns out being compact and dense with robust bones is optimal for lasting a "career" in such a hazardous role. Wolves are more careful with who they are "lugging", and for them size is very much a plus for the wolf whose job it is to lug. It is also in boarhounds and sometimes it can even be beneficial on cattle as well, but you just have to weigh the pros with the cons and the con of becoming more suceptible to injury or death on rampaging healthy fit bulls outweighs the benefit of weight when we are talking elite level bull tamers. |
|
Wyatt
Ruminant
Posts: 178
|
Post by Wyatt on Jun 13, 2023 8:02:32 GMT
Grippers don’t need to be big and sizeable. A 30 lb pit Bull can own a 1300 lb bull. Except for maybe the very largest Belgian blues. That's true, but if you're not a specialised gripper, being big helps. Makes you a heavier anchor that drains more fight out of the prey. They already target weakened prey anyway, so the best thing wolves can do is have their biggest "whopper" member hold the head of the ox, elk, moose or bison or whatever and hold it still so the others can eviscerate. This is likely the foundational wolf behaviour from where the gripping dog lineage arose, and yes those specialised for bovines did end up becoming smaller and more compact, and that's because they target healthy bovines that will send them flying into the stratusphere. Ability to endure that "journey" and not be obliterated becomes paramount, and it turns out being compact and dense with robust bones is optimal for lasting a "career" in such a hazardous role. Wolves are more careful with who they are "lugging", and for them size is very much a plus for the wolf whose job it is to lug. It is also in boarhounds and sometimes it can even be beneficial on cattle as well, but you just have to weigh the pros with the cons and the con of becoming more suceptible to injury or death on rampaging healthy fit bulls outweighs the benefit of weight when we are talking elite level bull tamers. I once thought that wolves probably took yearlings. But new evidence actually showed heifers and even a couple bulls killed by wolves. I wonder now, how would a wolf do as a herding dog? Similar to a Border Collie or a Kelpie maybe. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2023 8:03:16 GMT
Grippers don’t need to be big and sizeable. A 30 lb pit Bull can own a 1300 lb bull. Except for maybe the very largest Belgian blues. That's true, but if you're not a specialised gripper, being big helps. Makes you a heavier anchor that drains more fight out of the prey. They already target weakened prey anyway, so the best thing wolves can do is have their biggest "whopper" member hold the head of the ox, elk, moose or bison or whatever and hold it still so the others can eviscerate. This is likely the foundational wolf behaviour from where the gripping dog lineage arose, and yes those specialised for bovines did end up becoming smaller and more compact, and that's because they target healthy bovines that will send them flying into the stratusphere. Ability to endure that "journey" and not be obliterated becomes paramount, and it turns out being compact and dense with robust bones is optimal for lasting a "career" in such a hazardous role. Wolves are more careful with who they are "lugging", and for them size is very much a plus for the wolf whose job it is to lug. It is also in boarhounds and sometimes it can even be beneficial on cattle as well, but you just have to weigh the pros with the cons and the con of becoming more suceptible to injury or death on rampaging healthy fit bulls outweighs the benefit of weight when we are talking elite level bull tamers. Gripping dogs also seem to have shorter, less elongated snouts than wolves. Is that to minimize stress and injury? I don’t think any predator wants to target the healthiest, fittest prey out there. Too risky. Losing size makes sense. A smaller target is harder to hit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2023 8:04:08 GMT
That's true, but if you're not a specialised gripper, being big helps. Makes you a heavier anchor that drains more fight out of the prey. They already target weakened prey anyway, so the best thing wolves can do is have their biggest "whopper" member hold the head of the ox, elk, moose or bison or whatever and hold it still so the others can eviscerate. This is likely the foundational wolf behaviour from where the gripping dog lineage arose, and yes those specialised for bovines did end up becoming smaller and more compact, and that's because they target healthy bovines that will send them flying into the stratusphere. Ability to endure that "journey" and not be obliterated becomes paramount, and it turns out being compact and dense with robust bones is optimal for lasting a "career" in such a hazardous role. Wolves are more careful with who they are "lugging", and for them size is very much a plus for the wolf whose job it is to lug. It is also in boarhounds and sometimes it can even be beneficial on cattle as well, but you just have to weigh the pros with the cons and the con of becoming more suceptible to injury or death on rampaging healthy fit bulls outweighs the benefit of weight when we are talking elite level bull tamers. I once thought that wolves probably took yearlings. But new evidence actually showed heifers and even a couple bulls killed by wolves. I wonder now, how would a wolf do as a herding dog? Similar to a Border Collie or a Kelpie maybe. I think they’d be more akin to a blue heeler. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jun 13, 2023 8:10:48 GMT
That's true, but if you're not a specialised gripper, being big helps. Makes you a heavier anchor that drains more fight out of the prey. They already target weakened prey anyway, so the best thing wolves can do is have their biggest "whopper" member hold the head of the ox, elk, moose or bison or whatever and hold it still so the others can eviscerate. This is likely the foundational wolf behaviour from where the gripping dog lineage arose, and yes those specialised for bovines did end up becoming smaller and more compact, and that's because they target healthy bovines that will send them flying into the stratusphere. Ability to endure that "journey" and not be obliterated becomes paramount, and it turns out being compact and dense with robust bones is optimal for lasting a "career" in such a hazardous role. Wolves are more careful with who they are "lugging", and for them size is very much a plus for the wolf whose job it is to lug. It is also in boarhounds and sometimes it can even be beneficial on cattle as well, but you just have to weigh the pros with the cons and the con of becoming more suceptible to injury or death on rampaging healthy fit bulls outweighs the benefit of weight when we are talking elite level bull tamers. I once thought that wolves probably took yearlings. But new evidence actually showed heifers and even a couple bulls killed by wolves. I wonder now, how would a wolf do as a herding dog? Similar to a Border Collie or a Kelpie maybe. Yes, with more wounding, and any kind of injury or weakness would be exploited and punished. They almost can't help themself. Even if hypothetically they were trained and understood, vulnerable stock would be too tempting for them. But they would herd the healthy stock in a style that is a blend of living-fence/heeler/header. Bit of everything. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2023 8:13:11 GMT
I once thought that wolves probably took yearlings. But new evidence actually showed heifers and even a couple bulls killed by wolves. I wonder now, how would a wolf do as a herding dog? Similar to a Border Collie or a Kelpie maybe. Yes, with more wounding, and any kind of injury or weakness would be exploited and punished. They almost can't help themself. Even if hypothetically they were trained and understood, vulnerable stock would be too tempting for them. But they would herd the healthy stock in a style that is a blend of living-fence/heeler/header. Bit of everything. It’s that predator drive amirite? Curiosity killed the cat. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jun 13, 2023 8:14:54 GMT
That's true, but if you're not a specialised gripper, being big helps. Makes you a heavier anchor that drains more fight out of the prey. They already target weakened prey anyway, so the best thing wolves can do is have their biggest "whopper" member hold the head of the ox, elk, moose or bison or whatever and hold it still so the others can eviscerate. This is likely the foundational wolf behaviour from where the gripping dog lineage arose, and yes those specialised for bovines did end up becoming smaller and more compact, and that's because they target healthy bovines that will send them flying into the stratusphere. Ability to endure that "journey" and not be obliterated becomes paramount, and it turns out being compact and dense with robust bones is optimal for lasting a "career" in such a hazardous role. Wolves are more careful with who they are "lugging", and for them size is very much a plus for the wolf whose job it is to lug. It is also in boarhounds and sometimes it can even be beneficial on cattle as well, but you just have to weigh the pros with the cons and the con of becoming more suceptible to injury or death on rampaging healthy fit bulls outweighs the benefit of weight when we are talking elite level bull tamers. Gripping dogs also seem to have shorter, less elongated snouts than wolves. Is that to minimize stress and injury? I don’t think any predator wants to target the healthiest, fittest prey out there. Too risky. Losing size makes sense. A smaller target is harder to hit. Harder to hit and less torque cranking against your neck, less impact when you hit the ground or hit the bull's horns. A dog's own body weight would be its enemy, pulling on it's hold, as the g-forces increase its own weight multiplies, the collisions will be more damaging to it. Yes a mouth that is relatively broad for how long it is also increases their purchase on the target. Of course modern show-descendents of gripping dogs have taken this too extreme and their mouth is now almost useless, but the broad mouth was one of the earliest physiological adaptations that gripping dogs started to make. edit to add- being big helps gripping dogs too, early gripping dogs were upsized fairly dramatically from pariahs, and the "heavy hanger" role is one still useful for hunting boar. They are essentially anchors, and a big anchor is good. It was just expecting dogs to tame the fiery prime healthy bulls that started sculpting bulldogs down in size, when they worked out no anchor was big enough for some of them, and you had to be something that could repeatedly bounce back and slowly drain the fight out of the bull with multiple persistent attempts. |
|
Wyatt
Ruminant
Posts: 178
|
Post by Wyatt on Jun 13, 2023 8:24:18 GMT
I’ve never seen gripping dogs on American Bison. Only guars and water buffalo. HardcastleDo you agree somewhat? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2023 8:25:54 GMT
I’ve never seen gripping dogs on American Bison. Only guars and water buffalo. Hardcastle Do you agree somewhat? I think it’s illegal. You could look into European bison perhaps. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jun 13, 2023 8:30:44 GMT
I’ve never seen gripping dogs on American Bison. Only guars and water buffalo. HardcastleDo you agree somewhat? Over the years I've seen a couple of old testimonies mentioning bulldog vs bison. Not many, but a scarcity of evidence is not an evidence of scarcity, I see no reason bulldogs wouldn't have been useful on bison. I do respect that bison are formidable and agile and difficult, posing different challenges to cattle, possibly LESS bulldogs could lug a bison, a more elite exclusive class, but I know some could. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2023 8:34:17 GMT
Gripping dogs also seem to have shorter, less elongated snouts than wolves. Is that to minimize stress and injury? I don’t think any predator wants to target the healthiest, fittest prey out there. Too risky. Losing size makes sense. A smaller target is harder to hit. Harder to hit and less torque cranking against your neck, less impact when you hit the ground or hit the bull's horns. A dog's own body weight would be its enemy, pulling on it's hold, as the g-forces increase its own weight multiplies, the collisions will be more damaging to it. Yes a mouth that is relatively broad for how long it is also increases their purchase on the target. Of course modern show-descendents of gripping dogs have taken this too extreme and their mouth is now almost useless, but the broad mouth was one of the earliest physiological adaptations that gripping dogs started to make. edit to add- being big helps gripping dogs too, early gripping dogs were upsized fairly dramatically from pariahs, and the "heavy hanger" role is one still useful for hunting boar. They are essentially anchors, and a big anchor is good. It was just expecting dogs to tame the fiery prime healthy bulls that started sculpting bulldogs down in size, when they worked out no anchor was big enough for some of them, and you had to be something that could repeatedly bounce back and slowly drain the fight out of the bull with multiple persistent attempts. 1st paragraph: Weight is enormous. That’s why ants can be dropped down a staircase unfazed while a whale would collapse under its own weight on a beach. 2nd paragraph: You see the same idea in crocodilians. Fish-eating gharials and Australian freshwater crocodiles have slender jaws while Niles and salties have broad, powerful jaws. 3rd paragraph: I have a healthy respect for the tenacity of bull catching dogs. |
|
|
|
Post by lycaon on Jun 14, 2023 3:56:30 GMT
Gripping dogs also seem to have shorter, less elongated snouts than wolves. Is that to minimize stress and injury? Gripping dogs also have more robust zygomatic arches than wolves. When you look at the anatomy of their skulls and muscles, you can see that the griping dogs have moved away from efficient killing to a sustained bite. These features allow dogs of this type to maintain a forceful bite against struggling prey while reducing stresses and fatigue on their jaws; when given the opportunity the gripping dogs will try to fit as much of the prey as they can into their mouths. It's a bite often associated with confident dogs but also gives them maximum hold. On contrast when wolves bite onto struggling prey, they use their canine teeth and incisors, the combined forces of their bite and struggling prey tears into the skin/muscles and results in debilitating injury. Wolves generally don't like to use their entire mouths unless feeding/carrying kills. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jun 14, 2023 5:33:30 GMT
I believe gripping dogs also have enhanced condyle width. A quick search and the easiest best demonstration I can find is a human graphic, but it's the bone that joins the lower mandible to the skull-  That is proportionately wider and stronger in gripping dogs, to help them endure a large powerful animal struggling in their grip without their jaw breaking. Also the lower mandible itself is deeper. It's always been OBSERVED that there is something special about bullbreed bites, and it's been crudely misunderstood as simply "hard biting", and then bite force tests would show nothing particularly special about their bite force. Then people tried saying they had "lock jaws", and then it was rightly pointed out there is no "locking mechanism" in their jaw, but then it was like we just threw the baby out with the bath water and said there is nothing special about their bite. That's not true either. They do have a distinctive full mouth gripping bite that they can hold with more strength, sustain with more stamina and withstand dislodgement attempts with more resilience. And yes this also comes with some weaknesses or inefficiencies when it comes to other natural uses of the canine jaw that are employed by wolves and other more basal dogs. Defensive snaps and slashing bites and penetrative kill bites are all nerfed in a purist gripping dog. It is really just designed to hold and drain the fight out of an adversary, but it has incidentally turned out be a great foundation for combative success, which is very similar to how greco roman wrestling incidentally turned out to be a great foundation for combative success among humans. Somewhat counter intuitively since it lacks the punches and kicks and "finishing" manuveures, but it turns out if you are in control of your opponent and draining the fight out of them you are really 9 tenths of the way to victory. This was also true with dogs. The bulldog, which really was adapted to drain the resistance out of dangerous animals so they could be safely handled (an entirely practical utilitarian application), found itself bestowed with gifts that incidentally are an optimal foundation for combative prowess and a career in bloodsports. Unfortunately for them. |
|
Wyatt
Ruminant
Posts: 178
|
Post by Wyatt on Jun 24, 2023 17:52:21 GMT
Well i’d think a Northwestern or Mackenzie Valley Wolf would be probably the closest thing we can try to compare to gripping dogs. I don't agree with this. I think I know where this is coming from - the observation that these wolves can sometimes have a "gripping dog" roleplayer in the pack, but I think that's just as true for other wolves and I also don't think any wolves have any actual physiological adaptation for gripping specialisation. They're all still all alrounders by design. Some might do the job, but there's no allowance for evolutionary adaptation in that direction. For that you'd need wolves that don't need to do anything else. It's not like that, its a very informal "job" some casually slip into later in life owing only to their size, no gripper specialisation beyond that. It is true for other wolves, Eurasian wolves for example. I listed Mackenzie Valley Wolves simply because these are the largest subspecies of wolf, you’re right, and because of the size advantage they’re more likely to have a “gripping dog role” in the pack, same with large Eurasian wolves. I do believe wolves have “gripping” in their mentality and saying otherwise is questionable. Wolves and bulldogs if we look at them with their prey, both of them focus on taking the fight out of their prey. The only couple differences between the two is that wolves work through basically all the stages you will see in dogs. They’ll stalk, they’ll round the prey up, they chase, and when they catch what they are looking for they take the fight out of their prey and then they take it down. Secondly, is that bulldogs more have extreme durability bred into them, and have specialized builds for it. You could always say “its to an amateur level” and i’ll agree to disagree. It is agreeable that you can’t say the wolf is specialized in anything, being the jack of all trades. However, i’d say its less that its in an amateur level and more they do what works best, and thats using all equally and working through the stages. Its weird how in the video of the wolf subjugating the bison, 2 wolves, especially the one at the head got a beating by a bison and still fought, and ended up taking the fight out of it and killed it later. Yet, with huge packs they take a while to put through how they are going to make an attack on bison. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jun 24, 2023 19:04:42 GMT
The gripping dog tendencies and abilities all have their root in natural wolf behaviour. Every aspect, including the "taking a beating and keep going" part, IS inherited from wolves.
But the same is true for scenthounds and the way they shirk at conflict and are cautious and avoid engaging. That caution and fear of engagement is from wolves too. Everything in dogs is from wolves, they are just a very balanced "gumbo" of all the dog traits. When they act like gripping dogs its either due to extreme desperation or because their target is severely compromised and vulnerable (possibly even strategically compromised by them over a long period of time).
As such I don't think the mackenzie valley wolf or any kind of wolf is closer to gripping dogs than it is to any other kind of dog. In fact where it's "meter" is for commiting to close-quarter engagement, I'd say ALL wolves are MUCH closer to coonhounds than they are to gripping dogs. They have a very heightened and strong sense of caution and self preservation and are very reluctant to throw themself head-long into a close quarter engagement with full unwavering commitment. They are very very very far away from gripping dogs in their nature and mental state. They do a gripping dog impression at very specific times and even then with very nerfed commitment that is very very ready to waver. For gripping dogs the lack of reluctance and the intensity and fullness of the unwavering commitment is everything. So at "being a gripping dog" the wolf is extremely low, very short of being even vaguely competent. It's willingness is low, and its commitment is low. Very very low. It's anatomy is poor for the task as well. Mentally and physically it is poorly adapted, and that makes sense. It has too much to do and it has a balance of inclinations suited to independent wild survival. Wild survival punishes gripping dog behaviour, the extreme willingness is stupid, and the unwavering committment possibly even stupider. Knowing when not to attack is huge, knowing when to give up is also huge. The answer to the first is "most of the time" and the answer to the second is "early and often". But those answers are huge "fails" for a gripping dog. So the wolf is miles away from a gripping dog, doesn't matter which kind.
|
|
