Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2022 15:40:11 GMT
I think you might have given me your take on this before but I forget. Where are you on parity grizz vs lion? Used to be "lion", irrc. I think Antonio favours the bear on that matchup. I used to go with lion in years gone by, but have since become not so sure, especially where it's a contest of superior control and durability (the bear) vs superior killing ability. Normally the animal with superior control wins out over killing ability, as is the case with say bulldog vs sighthound. I say lion because it's the closest feline analogue to a catch dog. It is the most combat oriented feline and I'd guess the lion wins. The bear likely wouldn't at all be prepared to slug it out with a lion. Especially overtime the bear would want out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2022 15:43:33 GMT
... it's [the lion] the closest feline analogue to a catch dog. It is the most combat oriented feline ... I definitely agree with that much. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2022 15:46:12 GMT
Maybe Antonio was talking about tiger vs bear and not lion vs bear, can't remember exactly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2022 15:48:22 GMT
Maybe Antonio was talking about tiger vs bear and not lion vs bear, can't remember exactly. Yeah I'd put my money on the bear face to face against tiger. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2022 15:54:19 GMT
Maybe Antonio was talking about tiger vs bear and not lion vs bear, can't remember exactly. Yeah I'd put my money on the bear face to face against tiger. I see. I remember you favouring parity tiger to handily beat lion. I'm definitely decided the opposite, I see that matchup analogous in smaller degree to bulldog (lion) vs sighthound (tiger). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2022 15:55:30 GMT
Yeah I'd put my money on the bear face to face against tiger. I see. I remember you favouring parity tiger to handily beat lion. I'm definitely decided the opposite, I see that matchup analogous in smaller degree to bulldog (lion) vs sighthound (tiger). I previously believed that, and now I've flipped the other way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2022 16:05:14 GMT
I see. I remember you favouring parity tiger to handily beat lion. I'm definitely decided the opposite, I see that matchup analogous in smaller degree to bulldog (lion) vs sighthound (tiger). I previously believed that, and now I've flipped the other way. Yeahhhh bravo 👏👏👏 proud of you!!! 🏆🤸🎈💐 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2022 16:14:05 GMT
Bolushi would you say an 800 lb male grizz has a different attitude to a 400 lb male grizz, like how a 180 lb cougar has a different attitude to a 120 lb cougar? Or are 400 lb grizzlies still in full boss mode. I ask as I'm wondering whether the 400 lb lion would have a psychological advantage over the 400 lb grizz.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2022 16:27:26 GMT
Bolushi would you say an 800 lb male grizz has a different attitude to a 400 lb male grizz, like how a 180 lb cougar has a different attitude to a 120 lb cougar? Or are 400 lb grizzlies still in full boss mode. I ask as I'm wondering whether the 400 lb lion would have a psychological advantage over the 400 lb grizz. Yes, but no bear is even close to a cougar in that department. An 800lb bear is smart enough to know ''I am huge, you are not, haha fuck you'' meanwhile a 400lb bear would be a bit more cautious while still capitalizing off of its inherent size advantage over its adversaries. Its reaction to a 400lb lion would be ''what the fuck?!?!?!?'' |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Dec 19, 2022 22:05:38 GMT
With bear hunts, is the objective of the hunter for the hunting dogs to merely bail the bear up rather than lug it like they would with a boar? Would they leave the catch-dogs at home? These days they practically always leave the catch dogs at home on bears. Its frankly a little surprising to realise how frequently and readily catch dogs were used on bears in the past. And not just any bears, primarily brown bears. As I've said before "bullbreeds" could have just as easily wound up being called "bearbreeds" or "boarbreeds". It was really a toss up as those 3 were evenly targeted by bullbreeds. Just in England the boars and bears died out a little earlier so catch dogs were left with only bull work for a couple hundred years towards the end, and that's why they're Bulldogs, Bullmastiffs and bull terriers. In Germany catch dogs were still evenly bahrehbeissers and Bullenbeissers right to the end, bahrenbeissers a little bigger, but we're only talking maybe 60-70 lbs, vs 30-45 lbs for Bullenbeissers. Though these are baiting dogs, I think the actual field hunting dogs were always larger via being catch dog crossed out to tall sighthound (like in the artworks). The reason catch dogs aren't used on bears now it seems is probably actually because they aren't compatible with guns, more so than because they're not compatible with bears (not optimally compatible with guns, as we see in some sketchy videos some people in some parts of the world will try and combine them). If people were still commonly trying to kill bears with swords and knives and spears there would still be a lot of people relying on catch dogs. I favour bear over lion or tiger, generally speaking, but I think lions and tigers are much more dangerous to catch dogs (and that's why they're never really targeted by them). I think bears just aren't good at quick killing, they don't need to be. So when they are killing even a deer or what have you it often just devolves into them eating the poor thing alive. If that's a few bull arabs (or similar mediaeval boarhounds) instead, then they start clumsily trying to eat one alive and then another one is distracting them off that task by shaking them by the armpit or whatever and basically it's a hazardous and rugged but very doable task for catch dogs to fight and ultimately stretch, pin and subdue a bear without dying. A lion or tiger can just definitely kill dogs one by one very quickly, and that's why they are a silly target for catch dogs and were never really targeted. Bears were extensively targeted not just in the middle ages but also extensively well documented to be targeted in the 1800s by the British in India. In fact they're distinctly described as not much trouble. Haven't heard of polar bears targeted with catch dogs, I think probably they are too efficient at killing, they also live where mostly only Spitz breeds are viable working dogs, but yes I think they wouldn't be a good target anyway. All this said the idea of 3 bull arabs KILLING a brown bear is a bit of a stretch imo. Don't really see that happening. I see them getting the better of one in a melee, but I wouldn't advise they be left to finish the job. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2022 22:48:46 GMT
With bear hunts, is the objective of the hunter for the hunting dogs to merely bail the bear up rather than lug it like they would with a boar? Would they leave the catch-dogs at home? These days they practically always leave the catch dogs at home on bears. Its frankly a little surprising to realise how frequently and readily catch dogs were used on bears in the past. And not just any bears, primarily brown bears. As I've said before "bullbreeds" could have just as easily wound up being called "bearbreeds" or "boarbreeds". It was really a toss up as those 3 were evenly targeted by bullbreeds. Just in England the boars and bears died out a little earlier so catch dogs were left with only bull work for a couple hundred years towards the end, and that's why they're Bulldogs, Bullmastiffs and bull terriers. In Germany catch dogs were still evenly bahrehbeissers and Bullenbeissers right to the end, bahrenbeissers a little bigger, but we're only talking maybe 60-70 lbs, vs 30-45 lbs for Bullenbeissers. Though these are baiting dogs, I think the actual field hunting dogs were always larger via being catch dog crossed out to tall sighthound (like in the artworks). The reason catch dogs aren't used on bears now it seems is probably actually because they aren't compatible with guns, more so than because they're not compatible with bears (not optimally compatible with guns, as we see in some sketchy videos some people in some parts of the world will try and combine them). If people were still commonly trying to kill bears with swords and knives and spears there would still be a lot of people relying on catch dogs. I favour bear over lion or tiger, generally speaking, but I think lions and tigers are much more dangerous to catch dogs (and that's why they're never really targeted by them). I think bears just aren't good at quick killing, they don't need to be. So when they are killing even a deer or what have you it often just devolves into them eating the poor thing alive. If that's a few bull arabs (or similar mediaeval boarhounds) instead, then they start clumsily trying to eat one alive and then another one is distracting them off that task by shaking them by the armpit or whatever and basically it's a hazardous and rugged but very doable task for catch dogs to fight and ultimately stretch, pin and subdue a bear without dying. A lion or tiger can just definitely kill dogs one by one very quickly, and that's why they are a silly target for catch dogs and were never really targeted. Bears were extensively targeted not just in the middle ages but also extensively well documented to be targeted in the 1800s by the British in India. In fact they're distinctly described as not much trouble. Haven't heard of polar bears targeted with catch dogs, I think probably they are too efficient at killing, they also live where mostly only Spitz breeds are viable working dogs, but yes I think they wouldn't be a good target anyway. All this said the idea of 3 bull arabs KILLING a brown bear is a bit of a stretch imo. Don't really see that happening. I see them getting the better of one in a melee, but I wouldn't advise they be left to finish the job. That's awesome. So why aren't catch/bear dogs compatible with guns? I suppose it should be pretty obvious, but I can't think why. If you asked me to guess why catch dogs aren't used on bears in the modern times, I'd have said because due to vastly inferior weaponry for killing the bear, hunters of the past needed more assistance bringing the bear to heel so they could get closer to spear it of what-have-you. That now they can like pick a bear off more reliably from further away. Just a stab in the dark guess really. Like if you're using baiting and not catchdogs, the bear may have more of a tendency to keep legging it, while with catchdogs the bear WILL be kept for spear-range. Also perhaps there is the issue of the modern world being more "RSPCA", although I'm assuming that's not one of the main reasons at all. Off to see Avatar 2 this morning, enjoyed the first and hope this is as good. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Dec 19, 2022 23:26:44 GMT
Well there's two sides to it. For starters they're unnecessary or redundant with guns. The whole point of catch dogs is to make it safe for a human to approach and handle a dangerous animal. This could be to rope it up or brand it or castrate it or slaughter it with a blade or whatever. If they can stand back and shoot it with a gun, there's no reason to use catch dogs. Curs or scenthounds or spitz breeds or whatever will "hold" it at bay with their distracting/harassing techniques and you can carefully line up your shot. This avoids having to deal with all the injuries catch dogs get in their close-quarter battles as well. Additionally, the second side, is that a close quarter struggle means the catch dogs and the quarry melt into one mass of flesh and fur that's whirring around. Shooting at that mass with a gun is extremely reckless with a very high risk of shooting your dog. Bay dogs keep some distance so typically when they bail up a prey animal it's just parked on it's haunches or something threatening the dogs but clearly visible and separate from the dogs and easy to shoot safely without shooting a dog.
It may be true that some animals might ignore bay dogs, and may keep going and cause the hunt to be extended. Catch dogs can be more efficient at catching more animals in a shorter space of time, with each capture/killing of each animal being over and done with quicker. This is why catch dogs persist in popularity with hogs most of all because often feral hogs are abundant and often the goal isn't securing food but removing as many pest hogs as quickly and efficiently as possible. If you're using bay dogs on hogs and come across a large herd then you're definitely only catching one, by the time the bay dogs have persuaded one hog to bay and you have lined up your shot the others are of course long gone. This isn't true with catch dogs, where you can actually catch many of the hogs, each individual catch dog catching their own while you go around slaying each one, and as each drops the catch dog is then "running on" and running down another that ran off (which is why speed can really be a premium for pig dogs- even though hogs aren't that fast, the capacity to "run on" and catch more that ran off quickly and efficiently is very valuable).
So catch dogs thankfully still have their place, but they are largely redundant with the rifle and on some of the game they used to be employed on. Bears, and big cats for the most part, and also stags which they were used on in the past, now not so much. You only want one bear, one big cat or one stag, and you might as well just bay it and shoot it now that guns are a thing. When you just had a blade you absolutely needed to use catch dogs, it was a matter of life or death for the hunter to have a very reliable catch dog.
Avatar 2 is out? Oohhh... didn't even realise. Definitely let us know how it is.
edit- lol at the news feed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2022 15:58:15 GMT
Avatar 2 is out? Oohhh... didn't even realise. Definitely let us know how it is. edit- lol at the news feed. Thanks for the rundown on bear catchdogs, that was an enjoyable read and it all fits together. Yeah someone needs to do some objective reporting around here, too much bias, the place stinks of bias!!! jajaja totally kidding, damn good crowd if you ask me. Except bolushi, he's a ratbag  Well I saw Avatar 2 in 3D, my first 3D cinema experience. Wow, that's worth the extra dollars, at times I even thought rain or this or that was actually coming down upon ME, 3D at times totally blurs the lines between the screen and where I'm sitting. The movie itself wasn't bad, certainly not up to the first. Apparently the production was super-expensive, the most expensive ever or something. Not sure how much you want to know, so just in case, following are some minor spoilers... I thought this one was more "family" orientated compared to the original, which kind of wasn't a plus for my viewing pleasure. Like the generic "mum, dad and children go on an adventure while trying to avoid being killed by the big bad men". The original had a more original high-brow plotline compared to the second, which shouldn't really come as a surprise I suppose. For the first 30 mins I thought the whole thing was going to suck, like stylistically and conceptually just a rehash of the last parts of the original, very busy and with no original concepts to speak of. But when The Family went to stay with The Islanders, it got more chill and we got to see a new original "wonderland", with original creatures and different kinds of Na'vi. Original conceptual stuff finally came in and it was pretty cool. The kids would really like it. It was almost borderline too kiddies for me, particularly the plot. But still very cool. Both 1 and 2 have the same rating, "M", but I felt that while the original was a proper M, number 2 in spirit was more family PG. So yeah quite good, but not up to the original. The original was bonzer. |
|
|
|
Post by Hardcastle on Dec 20, 2022 16:14:58 GMT
Very good feedback actually. My concern is taking my kids. I THOUGHT my kids would love Avatar and made them watch on netflix or disney + or whatever (I originally saw it in cinemas in 3d)... I never dreamed it was problematic in any way, well... soon they were crying and disturbed and saddened beyond measure and I had to stop the movie. Lol. The fuck? They're a little older now, and if it's more family friendly? Well probably sucks for me personally but I'd still be happy that I could possibly watch a movie with my kids in the cinemas that wasn't too pathetic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2022 16:32:53 GMT
Very good feedback actually. My concern is taking my kids. I THOUGHT my kids would love Avatar and made them watch on netflix or disney + or whatever (I originally saw it in cinemas in 3d)... I never dreamed it was problematic in any way, well... soon they were crying and disturbed and saddened beyond measure and I had to stop the movie. Lol. The fuck? They're a little older now, and if it's more family friendly? Well probably sucks for me personally but I'd still be happy that I could possibly watch a movie with my kids in the cinemas that wasn't too pathetic. It's not as gratutiously violent as the original. If they can stick it through the first 30 mins of war-mongering drudgery, I think they'd love it. Most of the film is following "the kids" around having adventures. As for yourself, given your interest in animals you might get a bit out of the original animal concepts when they get to the Islands. There is lots of interacting and bonding with cool original sea creatures at The Islands. |
|
