|
|
Post by Bolushi on Oct 17, 2023 18:07:51 GMT
It did? Where? The problem is pet dogs are a very wide spectrum. Some pet dogs kick ass, some don't even fight back, and everything in-between. Also we have yet to find a case of a bobcat killing a pitbull that hasn't been disproven/highly dubious? The morbidly obese petbull case is suspected to be a mountain lion. All the other cases are bobcats beating up petbulls that weren't fighting, but not actually killing them. Not much of a surprise, a bobcat doesn't have the tools to kill a pitbull. Plus, all those cases happened in urban city environments where the quality of dogs are is lower than rural areas. Pet boxers and pet pitbulls aren't far off, very close. In this case, it was in a rural location, and it's clear the boxer was actually dominant over the cat which implies it was really fighting. But the ocelot or puma ended up killing it with rakes to the stomach. It was a good boxer too, its muzzle wasn't deformed like most boxers. I'll find it, may take a while. Well, this bobcat attacked and mauled two pitbulls at once.
Therefore, one of the pitbulls had the chance to attack while the cat was grappling the other.
I think it was a puma, ocelots don't seem like they would be able to do rakes like that. And evidently it did not. Which means they truly weren't fighting back whatsoever and were getting beaten up. Also a bobcat can't grapple a pitbull, the bobcat's life is in the pitbull's hands. The difference in power is about equal to cheetah vs jaguar. And that's ignoring the substantial weight advantage those petbulls likely had. Yeah me too, just... it'd be very impressive if we ever got concrete proof of it being an ocelot. |
|
|
|
Post by Bolushi on Oct 17, 2023 18:08:45 GMT
Is it just me or is bobcat not there? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2023 18:45:34 GMT
Is it just me or is bobcat not there? There is no bobcat there. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Oct 17, 2023 18:52:04 GMT
I know recently you showed that and I had no idea what it meant and then asked you and I think you explained but I can't remember. In my defense I was intoxicated. I just searched bestiary looking for the conversation but can't find it. Clouded Leopard vs Olive Baboon. Ok so HRI is the key category, and according to that ALL known felids including panthera and machairodonts squeeze into 0.03 points of variation; between 0.07 and 0.10. Smilodon fatalis is 0.10 and the cheetah is 0.07. That makes the 0.01 so vast its basically meaningless when two animals match. I think maybe you would have been better off posting this table posted in the breakdown of that study by reddhole, because it has more precise figures and also actually contains the bobcat, ocelot, eurasian lynx and iberian lynx and -  And yes, does somewhat contradict the original carnivore limb robusticity study. Pretty interesting. It has the tiger and lion higher and only below the jaguar (which was always my intuitive assumption). It also has snow leopard higher than clouded leopard, leopard and puma. Which doesn't totally shock me either. Ocelot was 8.5 in the old study and is now 7.4, pretty significant drop, but it is still just above all lynxes. Having said that. This gives the eurasian lynx a big upgrade- from 6.5 to 7.3. Which honestly... makes more sense. It seemed crazy low in the other study. In fairness to the other study, however, this one does place the iberian lynx at at 6.5. The iberian lynx is often just considered a Eurasian Lynx, so... that kind of explains that. Seems we have been underestimating the poor eurasian lynx all this time, specifically from more northern latitudes, where indeed we had studies saying they eat a lot of deer. Now it makes sense. Bobcat wasn't even in the other study, but is in this and gets 6.8. So it wasn't made stronger, just finally got a figure provided. I gotta say, these results are more in line with my intuition overall. Also wolf is more robust than coyote here- just due to the coyote dropping so much. From 8 all the way down to 6.87. That's curiously big and probably the biggest turn around. Wolf dropped a tiny bit from the carnivore limb robusticity, but is still well within the range offered by vindolanda. Crucially, this study specifically mentions these figures are "averages" (in most cases), so that means we can stop worrying about "1 off specimens". In all honesty this seems more weighty and reliable than the carnivore limb robusticity study. Just not sure it really said what you said it did Duria. |
|
ophio
Ruminant
Posts: 230
|
Post by ophio on Oct 17, 2023 18:55:33 GMT
Clouded Leopard vs Olive Baboon. Ok so HRI is the key category, and according to that ALL known felids including panthera and machairodonts squeeze into 0.03 points of variation; between 0.07 and 0.10. Smilodon fatalis is 0.10 and the cheetah is 0.07. That makes the 0.01 so vast its basically meaningless when two animals match. I think maybe you would have been better off posting this table posted in the breakdown of that study by reddhole, because it has more precise figures and also actually contains the bobcat, ocelot, eurasian lynx and iberian lynx and - And yes, does somewhat contradict the original carnivore limb robusticity study. Pretty interesting. It has the tiger and lion higher and only below the jaguar (which was always my intuitive assumption). It also has snow leopard higher than clouded leopard, leopard and puma. Which doesn't totally shock me either. Ocelot was 8.5 in the old study and is now 7.4, pretty significant drop, but it is still just above all lynxes. Having said that. This gives the eurasian lynx a big upgrade- from 6.5 to 7.3. Which honestly... makes more sense. It seemed crazy low in the other study. In fairness to the other study, however, this one does place the iberian lynx at at 6.5. The iberian lynx is often just considered a Eurasian Lynx, so... that kind of explains that. Seems we have been underestimating the poor eurasian lynx all this time, specifically from more northern latitudes, where indeed we had studies saying they eat a lot of deer. Now it makes sense. Bobcat wasn't even in the other study, but is in this and gets 6.8. So it wasn't made stronger, just finally got a figure provided. I gotta say, these results are more in line with my intuition overall. Also wolf is more robust than coyote here- just due to the coyote dropping so much. From 8 all the way down to 6.87. That's curiously big and probably the biggest turn around. Wolf dropped a tiny bit from the carnivore limb robusticity, but is still well within the range offered by vindolanda. Crucially, this study specifically mentions these figures are "averages" (in most cases), so that means we can stop worrying about "1 off specimens". In all honesty this seems more weighty and reliable than the carnivore limb robusticity study. Just not sure it really said what you said it did Duria. What I find surprising is that the Asian golden cat somehow jumped a percent in hri. Up there with the pantherines. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2023 18:56:41 GMT
Clouded Leopard vs Olive Baboon. Ok so HRI is the key category, and according to that ALL known felids including panthera and machairodonts squeeze into 0.03 points of variation; between 0.07 and 0.10. Smilodon fatalis is 0.10 and the cheetah is 0.07. That makes the 0.01 so vast its basically meaningless when two animals match. I think maybe you would have been better off posting this table posted in the breakdown of that study by reddhole, because it has more precise figures and also actually contains the bobcat, ocelot, eurasian lynx and iberian lynx and - And yes, does somewhat contradict the original carnivore limb robusticity study. Pretty interesting. It has the tiger and lion higher and only below the jaguar (which was always my intuitive assumption). It also has snow leopard higher than clouded leopard, leopard and puma. Which doesn't totally shock me either. Ocelot was 8.5 in the old study and is now 7.4, pretty significant drop, but it is still just above all lynxes. Having said that. This gives the eurasian lynx a big upgrade- from 6.5 to 7.3. Which honestly... makes more sense. It seemed crazy low in the other study. In fairness to the other study, however, this one does place the iberian lynx at at 6.5. The iberian lynx is often just considered a Eurasian Lynx, so... that kind of explains that. Seems we have been underestimating the poor eurasian lynx all this time, specifically from more northern latitudes, where indeed we had studies saying they eat a lot of deer. Now it makes sense. Bobcat wasn't even in the other study, but is in this and gets 6.8. So it wasn't made stronger, just finally got a figure provided. I gotta say, these results are more in line with my intuition overall. Also wolf is more robust than coyote here- just due to the coyote dropping so much. From 8 all the way down to 6.87. That's curiously big and probably the biggest turn around. Wolf dropped a tiny bit from the carnivore limb robusticity, but is still well within the range offered by vindolanda. I trust this one a lot more. I'm going to re-plot it onto another table though, since its kind of hard to read. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Oct 17, 2023 18:57:56 GMT
I gotta agree, it looks more correct, and also explicitly states averages rather than vaguely letting us wonder if each number was based on only 1 specimen (which could be freaky either way).
|
|
|
|
Post by grippingwhiteness on Oct 17, 2023 19:23:48 GMT
I don't know if sometimes I even underestimate the power and effectiveness of feline scratches but I still struggle to believe that a feline is capable of cutting a canid in half and eviscerating it (or another animal that does NOT have the skin of a primate or ungulate) so badly to cause it's death, I guess that the accumulation of injuries and blood loss could just lead to a weakening and collapse of the opponent which is then finished with a decisive killer bite either to the nape or neck.
But I don't know...maybe I'm underestimating them? I'm underestimating cats?
Pets are very vague and interesting argument, there's no limit to how shit or good they can be, I wonder if they still will be that different in mentality than actual game dogs when it comes to how they behave with their owners.
You do know the video of the black lady struggling to keep in place that white pet pitbull that was growling and actually acting dominant over her, a game apbt page on Instagram reposted the video.
It wasn't just a normal post but also a very deep critique about it, and it said something like:
"This is what happens with the vast majority of pet bulls, zero discipline in their blood, zero discipline in their genetics in general."
My guess is - game dogs may sometimes have fucked up genetics but at least they have a very loyal behaviour which is scripted genetically in how they must behave. Do anything for your human. Your human is a sacred god you can't turn on.
Whereas pets (not all) may be completely fucked up both genetically and mentally? Because of the lack of selective breeding for them to behave in a certain way and ends up in horrors?
I could say this comparison looks like MMA fighters and real boxers for working dogs and the rest of the society is pets.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Oct 17, 2023 20:10:11 GMT
I don't know if sometimes I even underestimate the power and effectiveness of feline scratches but I still struggle to believe that a feline is capable of cutting a canid in half and eviscerating it (or another animal that does NOT have the skin of a primate or ungulate) so badly to cause it's death, I guess that the accumulation of injuries and blood loss could just lead to a weakening and collapse of the opponent which is then finished with a decisive killer bite either to the nape or neck. But I don't know...maybe I'm underestimating them? I'm underestimating cats? Pets are very vague and interesting argument, there's no limit to how shit or good they can be, I wonder if they still will be that different in mentality than actual game dogs when it comes to how they behave with their owners. You do know the video of the black lady struggling to keep in place that white pet pitbull that was growling and actually acting dominant over her, a game apbt page on Instagram reposted the video. It wasn't just a normal post but also a very deep critique about it, and it said something like: "This is what happens with the vast majority of pet bulls, zero discipline in their blood, zero discipline in their genetics in general." My guess is - game dogs may sometimes have fucked up genetics but at least they have a very loyal behaviour which is scripted genetically in how they must behave. Do anything for your human. Your human is a sacred god you can't turn on. Whereas pets (not all) may be completely fucked up both genetically and mentally? Because of the lack of selective breeding for them to behave in a certain way and ends up in horrors? I could say this comparison looks like MMA fighters and real boxers for working dogs and the rest of the society is pets. Working dogs have two things going for them- they get an outlet for their drives, so they know what to bite and when, and are satisfied with their life and know obviously you don't bite things when not doing your real job. Knowing what to bite and when is the most powerful training a dog can have to make it NOT bite at inappropriate times. Just clarifies civilised behaviour perfectly. So when people talk about the danger "attack trained" or "fighting dogs" or "hunting dogs", its actually totally bullshit. Also, they are owned by "dog men", who are a kind of animal themselves and one that just knows intuitively from generational culture running through their veins how to raise dogs. They don't even "train" the way you will learn at obedience clases, its totally different and actually a mode of raising dogs thousands of years old that just flows effortlessly and seamlessly from generation to generation. These guys don't need to do or say much to make their dogs behave perfectly, like few dogs you've probably ever encountered. Such dogs don't dare step out of line (with a few exceptions admittedly, but way less than pets belonging to fur moms). The whole system of these human families with their lineages of dogs are like well oiled organic machines. There's an ugly side to it too, dogs being killed regularly, that is unfortunately part of it. Depending on the role the dog performs there might be gross "baiting" practices used as well, but all in an unthinking and grunting way, like they are just simians mindlessly operating how they do and have for thousands of years. The dogs and humans are just where they are supposed to be and living how they are supposed to live, no different to wild animals being kind of consistent and predictable in their "life cycle" without having to consult with one another or refer to eachothers' work on how to behave, so is the lifecycle of dog men and their dogs. A good working dog is indeed a lot like an MMA fighter or boxer. Like I don't think George Foreman would have a heightened procilivity to turn tables upside down in a restaurant and start KOing all the waiters and fellow patrons, EVEN IF something bad happened and he was upset, he's kind of actually less likely to do that because of the discipline and training of his boxer lifestyle from a young age, and how he has nothing to prove due to all the experience in world championship fights. No vague killer instincts he yearns to satisfy, they are clear and are already satisfied. On cat claws- It seems the rear claws can do more damage, and especially from underneath. I've probably dismissed and overlooked or underestimated "defense" in general when talking about animals. I think I gradually came around on the defense of both cats and wild canids, which originally I kind of didn't even think about and just judged the offensive fighting ability, where I think the dogs I like really are superior, whether through anatomy or mentality or both or whatever. But the wolf has a defensive snapping bite that is more devastating than the what the dogs I like can do defensively (or through sheer size and also wild cunning; any dog), and to some extent I think it is also true for coyotes and to some small shrunken extent true for foxes as well. Their defensive damage output is fast, decisive and significant, relative to their size and especially relative to their strength. And it is a real hazard for even good dogs. Cats on the other have this "rake from the bottom" ability with their back claws specifically that actually can do real damage. The "paw swipe" always threw me off because I DO definitely think it gets overestimated by people who think it is a "KO punch", but rear claw raking on the underbelly of an opponent locked in close to them can be truly devastating, as seen with this decent looking boxer (probably a cross- possibly even a hunting dog) and I think also seen with the jaguar and hercules and also probably did a lot of the damage to coco and some other dogos as well and some other dog cases. Keeping the cat off kilter by constantly moving it and dragging it and shaking it and wheeling your body away from the rear claws can combat this hazard, and I think that is what dogos get put in pens to learn, but a lot of dogs fail, and seemingly pretty decent dogs included. |
|
