Wyatt
Ruminant
Posts: 178
|
Post by Wyatt on Jun 24, 2023 21:30:17 GMT
Sheepdog makes it sound like a herding dog. A Tibetan Mastiff or Himalayan Sheepdog is a LGD that free-roams, which makes it a useless LGD to begin with. More so just a free-ranging farmers dog. Not really? Explain? Great Pyrenees for example stay close to the flock. Basically a perfect LGD, even if they go away from the herd they’re back in a short while and also aren’t far. Tibetan Mastiffs are basically a lot of times so far away from the herd that its not even protection. In the midst of the Himalayas with snow leopards and wolves. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jun 24, 2023 21:46:36 GMT
Messaged you, but yeah "himalayan sheepdog" is probably the correct terminology for someone who speaks english. It's not really a breed, but the "tibetan mastiff" breed pays homage to it. Is the Himalayan Sheepdog (aka Gaddi Kutta) not just a very close relative to the Tibetan Mastiff? That's what Desmond Morris (zoologist) and Wikipedia says. Also I may be wrong, but they seem to generally have a shorter coat and are slightly smaller. Tibetan Mastiff is the pet version. That's why it looks more striking; bigger with more fur and thicker limbs and looser skin and etc etc. It's an exaggerated "celebration" of these actual dogs kicking around this general region. The real dogs get called different things depending on who is talking; Bankhar, gaddi, whatever. They are pariahs adapted to be durable and resilient and they loosely deter predators from the villages and livestock. They aren't true "livestock guardians" but they represent an early embryonic stage of the evolution of livestock guardians. Livestock came into existence when wild herbivores realised they were better off lingering closer to such dogs and human camps than they were away from them, where they were more vulnerable to predators. Desmond Morris can eat my ass. |
|
Wyatt
Ruminant
Posts: 178
|
Post by Wyatt on Jun 24, 2023 22:00:32 GMT
Bobcats and wolverines have also made wolves stand back and bay. Admittedly I haven't seen a racoon manage that feat, and I never intended to say wolves have a threshold for baying as low as coonhounds, but the simple fact they have a threshold down in such cautious territory makes them closER to coonhounds than they are to gripping dogs, who have a threshold up through the stratosphere. The gap in threshold between wolf and gripping dog is greater than the gap in threshold between wolf and coonhound. Coonhounds can bay on a raccoon sure, but they can also get emboldened enough to kill some pretty serious things if the circumstances are right for them (like deer and MAYBE even puma if a pack gets excited - I've heard murmurs of the odd case). Wolves push that higher, and if circumstances are right for them they can even lug and kill musk ox, moose, boar and bison. So I get why one would at face value think they are like big-game gripping dogs, targetting similar game. To me the shrewd heightened measured caution still makes them unlike gripping dogs in a very big way. I don't disagree with you that a better analogue would be rougher dogs than coonhounds, I just said closER to coonhounds than gripping dogs. Really they are most like a cur, which is basically similar to a hunting spitz as well. They are rough, they will kill, they'll test to see if that is a feasible action, but still they are very very short of gripping dogs. If a hunter stupidly tried to use a wolf as a hunting dog... The cur guy would be the least disappointed, then the scenthound guy would be disappointed but not crazily disappointed. The gripping dog guy would be extremely disappointed. He would shoot it almost immediately. If I read any more of this I am going to fucking tear the fucking wall apart. So good argument but please. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jun 24, 2023 22:09:00 GMT
Bobcats and wolverines have also made wolves stand back and bay. Admittedly I haven't seen a racoon manage that feat, and I never intended to say wolves have a threshold for baying as low as coonhounds, but the simple fact they have a threshold down in such cautious territory makes them closER to coonhounds than they are to gripping dogs, who have a threshold up through the stratosphere. The gap in threshold between wolf and gripping dog is greater than the gap in threshold between wolf and coonhound. Coonhounds can bay on a raccoon sure, but they can also get emboldened enough to kill some pretty serious things if the circumstances are right for them (like deer and MAYBE even puma if a pack gets excited - I've heard murmurs of the odd case). Wolves push that higher, and if circumstances are right for them they can even lug and kill musk ox, moose, boar and bison. So I get why one would at face value think they are like big-game gripping dogs, targetting similar game. To me the shrewd heightened measured caution still makes them unlike gripping dogs in a very big way. I don't disagree with you that a better analogue would be rougher dogs than coonhounds, I just said closER to coonhounds than gripping dogs. Really they are most like a cur, which is basically similar to a hunting spitz as well. They are rough, they will kill, they'll test to see if that is a feasible action, but still they are very very short of gripping dogs. If a hunter stupidly tried to use a wolf as a hunting dog... The cur guy would be the least disappointed, then the scenthound guy would be disappointed but not crazily disappointed. The gripping dog guy would be extremely disappointed. He would shoot it almost immediately. Didn’t you agree that wolves are more comparable to herding dogs? So herders are in that basic ballpark as well, with curs and Spitz breeds and wolves, as far as balance of predatory drives/stages. A little subdued and suppressed relative to the more opportunistic and ruthless wolf, but they are basically similar and also will take their opportunities to kill. Herders, Spitz, curs and wild dogs (including wolves) are all in the "balanced" zone in regards to their predatory inclinations. Livestock guardians are suppressed and subdued. Terriers, sighthounds and gripping dogs are hyper enhanced. All in somewhat different ways but this is a basic generalisation. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jun 25, 2023 3:25:22 GMT
Bobcats and wolverines have also made wolves stand back and bay. Admittedly I haven't seen a racoon manage that feat, and I never intended to say wolves have a threshold for baying as low as coonhounds, but the simple fact they have a threshold down in such cautious territory makes them closER to coonhounds than they are to gripping dogs, who have a threshold up through the stratosphere. The gap in threshold between wolf and gripping dog is greater than the gap in threshold between wolf and coonhound. Coonhounds can bay on a raccoon sure, but they can also get emboldened enough to kill some pretty serious things if the circumstances are right for them (like deer and MAYBE even puma if a pack gets excited - I've heard murmurs of the odd case). Wolves push that higher, and if circumstances are right for them they can even lug and kill musk ox, moose, boar and bison. So I get why one would at face value think they are like big-game gripping dogs, targetting similar game. To me the shrewd heightened measured caution still makes them unlike gripping dogs in a very big way. I don't disagree with you that a better analogue would be rougher dogs than coonhounds, I just said closER to coonhounds than gripping dogs. Really they are most like a cur, which is basically similar to a hunting spitz as well. They are rough, they will kill, they'll test to see if that is a feasible action, but still they are very very short of gripping dogs. If a hunter stupidly tried to use a wolf as a hunting dog... The cur guy would be the least disappointed, then the scenthound guy would be disappointed but not crazily disappointed. The gripping dog guy would be extremely disappointed. He would shoot it almost immediately. If I read any more of this I am going to fucking tear the fucking wall apart. So good argument but please. Lol I don't understand what you're even worked up about or disagreeing with. You should try and explain. In the meantime, remember that no two adults ever really have the same perspective on something. You can look at a situation from many different angles where they are all different and all basically correct at the same time. People can get way too bogged down in nitpicking over semantics, but at the same time some things are just flat out wrong. Wolves having hyper high kill drives for example where they flat out massacre everything they can (like Joe Rogan recently , that's just patently incorrect. |
|
Wyatt
Ruminant
Posts: 178
|
Post by Wyatt on Jun 25, 2023 4:40:20 GMT
If I read any more of this I am going to fucking tear the fucking wall apart. So good argument but please. Lol I don't understand what you're even worked up about or disagreeing with. You should try and explain. In the meantime, remember that no two adults ever really have the same perspective on something. You can look at a situation from many different angles where they are all different and all basically correct at the same time. People can get way too bogged down in nitpicking over semantics, but at the same time some things are just flat out wrong. Wolves having hyper high kill drives for example where they flat out massacre everything they can (like Joe Rogan recently , that's just patently incorrect. I don’t disagree that wolves don’t have hyper drives. We have different perspectives yes. I think in your perspective you acknowledge that wolves do have gripping dog roles inside them, yet you believe they have too much self preservation. Which is where the coonhound example comes. In reality ignore what I said, Im just saying I need to quit feeding myself with things I disagree with. So you should do nothing |
|
Wyatt
Ruminant
Posts: 178
|
Post by Wyatt on Jul 16, 2023 19:32:14 GMT
Bobcats and wolverines have also made wolves stand back and bay. Admittedly I haven't seen a racoon manage that feat, and I never intended to say wolves have a threshold for baying as low as coonhounds, but the simple fact they have a threshold down in such cautious territory makes them closER to coonhounds than they are to gripping dogs, who have a threshold up through the stratosphere. The gap in threshold between wolf and gripping dog is greater than the gap in threshold between wolf and coonhound. Coonhounds can bay on a raccoon sure, but they can also get emboldened enough to kill some pretty serious things if the circumstances are right for them (like deer and MAYBE even puma if a pack gets excited - I've heard murmurs of the odd case). Wolves push that higher, and if circumstances are right for them they can even lug and kill musk ox, moose, boar and bison. So I get why one would at face value think they are like big-game gripping dogs, targetting similar game. To me the shrewd heightened measured caution still makes them unlike gripping dogs in a very big way. I don't disagree with you that a better analogue would be rougher dogs than coonhounds, I just said closER to coonhounds than gripping dogs. Really they are most like a cur, which is basically similar to a hunting spitz as well. They are rough, they will kill, they'll test to see if that is a feasible action, but still they are very very short of gripping dogs. If a hunter stupidly tried to use a wolf as a hunting dog... The cur guy would be the least disappointed, then the scenthound guy would be disappointed but not crazily disappointed. The gripping dog guy would be extremely disappointed. He would shoot it almost immediately. I disagree almost entirely that wolves would make a good coonhound. Its not even an argument. Wolves would be silent on trail, and silent when they get the prey up a tree. Wolves if they were hunting dogs would more very accurately be bear dogs, which are scenthounds used for large game like bear, boar, deer, moose, etc. and would actually be very good at it. They would be more comparable to the biggest and strongest bear dog. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jul 16, 2023 21:09:25 GMT
Bobcats and wolverines have also made wolves stand back and bay. Admittedly I haven't seen a racoon manage that feat, and I never intended to say wolves have a threshold for baying as low as coonhounds, but the simple fact they have a threshold down in such cautious territory makes them closER to coonhounds than they are to gripping dogs, who have a threshold up through the stratosphere. The gap in threshold between wolf and gripping dog is greater than the gap in threshold between wolf and coonhound. Coonhounds can bay on a raccoon sure, but they can also get emboldened enough to kill some pretty serious things if the circumstances are right for them (like deer and MAYBE even puma if a pack gets excited - I've heard murmurs of the odd case). Wolves push that higher, and if circumstances are right for them they can even lug and kill musk ox, moose, boar and bison. So I get why one would at face value think they are like big-game gripping dogs, targetting similar game. To me the shrewd heightened measured caution still makes them unlike gripping dogs in a very big way. I don't disagree with you that a better analogue would be rougher dogs than coonhounds, I just said closER to coonhounds than gripping dogs. Really they are most like a cur, which is basically similar to a hunting spitz as well. They are rough, they will kill, they'll test to see if that is a feasible action, but still they are very very short of gripping dogs. If a hunter stupidly tried to use a wolf as a hunting dog... The cur guy would be the least disappointed, then the scenthound guy would be disappointed but not crazily disappointed. The gripping dog guy would be extremely disappointed. He would shoot it almost immediately. I disagree almost entirely that wolves would make a good coonhound. Its not even an argument. Wolves would be silent on trail, and silent when they get the prey up a tree. Wolves if they were hunting dogs would more very accurately be bear dogs, which are scenthounds used for large game like bear, boar, deer, moose, etc. and would actually be very good at it. They would be more comparable to the biggest and strongest bear dog. You're right about coonhounds, I'm kind of underplaying the nuances of that role and the wolf is extremely far away from ideal to the point of being completely un-useable at all. Really there is no kind of hunting where a wolf would be anywhere close to ideal. Pretty much the only form of hunting you could do is a style which has been done with cheetahs and leopards and lurchers which is "mooching" where you basically just follow the animal and watch it work. So using a wolf like a sighthound would be pretty much the only kind of hunting where they'd be somewhat applicable. Even though they have the fantastic scenting abilities there's no way for a human to harness them. So you'd actually keep them on lead and slip them on nearby game, and then just tolerate their less than stellar performance in the pursuit and low success rate. There's a reason man developed hunting dogs which are very different from wolves. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jul 17, 2023 5:47:50 GMT
The vocalisation is a big thing, like that is how people follow scent-tracking dogs. Although as I write that... we do use GPS collars now, so that would open up the possibility of following a silent wolf, but I just don't think they'd be that determined on the scent trail. That's the thing, every dog IS indeed borrowing it's hunting style and tendencies from a natural aspect of the wolf's varied behaviours, but that little crumb of natural wolf behaviour is so amplified in the specialised hunting dog that it becomes almost unrecognisable and reaches a point where the wolf's performance would seem extremely poor in comparison. I just can't see a human hunter accustomed to working with specialised elite hunting dogs being anything but frustrated and disappointed trying to use a wolf. You mention the plotthound, the effort and obsessive intensity the plotthound puts in to doggedly tracking a scent and persistently staying on the quarry and applying pressure and etc, would all be totally alien to a wolf who in comparison would be quite casual and half-assed and ready to give up. Especially if the prey is healthy.
I just don't see any situation where a human hunter trying to use a wolf wouldn't think it totally sucks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2023 3:04:53 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. What do you speculate is the cause if not bite force or a locking mechanism? |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Jul 20, 2023 4:54:29 GMT
The cause of the gripping strength?
There is the broad muzzle, sturdy condyle and deep mandible that facilitate the ability to endure the struggling forces, then the rest is I think 50% will and 50% muscular strength and endurance in the cheeks and neck, muscles which are visibly hypertrophied in gripping dogs.
|
|
