While, as you probably agreed here
There's still pens where cougars have lost that I consider valid, because those individual cougars despite losing fought back very soundly.
And I still struggle to agree with that logic. Requiring the cougar to fight back to a level that pleases you before it counts. There's something problematic about that perspective. However, I guess to some extent I would do something similar with dogs too.
Sometimes it is just clearly a cull doing clearly the wrong thing, and in my mind in those cases it has nothing to do with the cougar and everything to do with the dog. Its not that the cougar is fighting well, the dog just sucks, usually because it is hesitant, shirking at claw damage, barking or targeting the wrong area of the puma or etc etc.
I guess you are analysing and scrutinising pumas in the same way, with an idea of how they SHOULD perform to qualify as a legitimate puma, and I suppose I have to just wear it or it begins to look a bit like hypocrisy/double standards.
I do think there is a key difference if the puma's bad performance is being graded AFTER the dog makes a good hold. In some videos we can't say that either way, because they START with cougar already in a good hold, and we don't know what lead to that.
I used to always argue that ALL wild animals are top tier and equivalent to good lines of working dogs because mother nature culls the duds like a brutal cut-throat redneck, so none of them are akin to shitty cull dogs. That seemed logical.
But I've recently come to understand this is complicated and actually there is a lot of variation in populations of wild animals too. So I probably need to update this aspect of my argument to some extent.
I'm willing to drop debating the videos where the puma is doing nothing, on the grounds that it POSSIBLY never did anything and wasn't gonna do anything and was akin to a puma version of "nero". Possibly. I guess I understand the possibility makes the video invalid evidence.
There will come a time where I ask for a similar level of "understanding" in return.
Ideally though, I'd prefer to stop analysing videos and isolated cases altogether. I don't believe it is "the high road" in these debates, personally. Its visually impactful and effecting, but I think actually more misleading than educational to scrutinise isolated events (and even if we had 40, it would be relatively few scant isolated cases in the grander scheme of things).
Calling escaping a victory is highly unusual when analysing and judging a combative encounter. A victory would be killing the dog. Escaping is forfeit which is actually called a loss, usually. Regardless of any other detail.
I understand calling it a loss under the circumstances would be extremely harsh and unfair, but I think calling it a victory is a stretch as well. We get to see the dogo all injured in hospital and that looks convincing, but that isn't that strong of a case.
All these guys won their fights-
:format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22166477/EpGU3y8XEAAj8CA.jpeg)
^guy laying down on a drip won against standing guy.
Its not uncommon at all for the winner to be more brutally injured and even need medical assistance while the loser does not.
Judging purely by damage inflicted... that COULD be ONE method of determining a winner, but it is basically a sport you just now made up. You're somewhat arbitrarily deciding that was the sport.
I'm open to an argument that should be the top consideration based on everything. You know like, the dogo probably attacked, the puma only wanted to get away, it had limited time and did a lot of damage and succeeded in getting away and the dogo did not succeed in preventing it from getting away so... therefore... the puma won "the contest" they were engaging in at that moment. But then is it a fight if escaping is winning? Or was it a game of "catch and prevent escapees", and the dogo was "it"?
All valid philosophical considerations, and IMO you are jumping to the conclusion of "fight victory" a little too eagerly and quickly with minimal justification.
Damage done looks more impactfully persuasive than it really should be.
I'll agree with that. The damage is such that it is plausible to speculate the dog was at risk of "losing from the top" (and aka the cat winning from the bottom) if the fight carried on.
But notice this is speculative "could have" language we are using. The puma may have been all but spent, fighting wise, when it managed to escape. And the dog may have yes been badly wounded but in that moment still very much fighting and possibly could have survived winning as well.
That is why I would say, fight wise, there was no winner. There's a case for the damage done, there's also a case that a forfeit has to be a loss just in case you artificically pad your fight record by forfeiting every difficult fight.
So... no winner, would be my verdict. Maybe if we saw the fight our perception would shift and we'd both agree on a clear winner. And that MAY WELL have been the cat (or not). I don't think we have enough to conclude, I think damage done is visually impactful but not actually decisive.
There could be a case where a dogo survives but I am still like "yeah nah, it lost" because I got to see it get monstered and manhandled and dominated and mauled with no effective answer, before the cat just left. That could happen, and that may have happened here. But not enough info, and some clues suggesting probably not because to me that would show a dog with far LESS injuries.
The number and placement of injuries to the dog, like I said, are indicative of a sloppy undecided messy brawl where no one was in control and it ended abruptly.
I guess I could take an "ahead on points" argument for the cat. That is fair, and probably as good as I can do.
I don't think it is for sure. I have posted the testimony from George P Sanderson who actually hunted leopards with small bull terriers and he remarked how even though they have sharp claws they often don't do much damage PROVIDED the dogs rush in decisively, make good on their hold and master the cat from the outset. I believe him, and believe there are some video evidences supporting that, with both wild and penned cougars.
I know this is 4 dogs on 1 leopard (though do remember they are literally 35 lbs each), but still some fundamentals are made clear; A leopard can be made powerless and quickly taken to a place where it is not fighting anymore. He says the dogs can't kill the leopard, and I think with 35 lbs dogs against a male leopard that is probably close enough to true, or would take so long it would be psychotic to wait, still the knife you'll note wasn't to save the dogs, it was mercy for the leopard which was totally incapacitated. Ditto for the bear earlier mentioned. The dogs were at no risk and the animal was beaten before the guy brought the knife out. This is what a lot of people don't get. The "human help" is usually to help the prey not be slowly tortured to death. The people aren't diving in between the danger and the dog, the dog dives in between the danger and the man, makes it safe by stopping the animal from being able to fight, and THEN the man safely intervenes with a mercy killing of the incapacitated prey. That is how hunting with gripping dogs actually operates, and it is kind of gross how badly misrepresented the dogs involved have been. They are the clear heroes and have been portrayed as the cowards on ava forums for decades.
But back on track- this says what I am saying- cats, like any other animal, can be taken to a place where they simply don't fight anymore. It is very clear this is what he is describing with both the sloth bear and the leopard in these accounts, and this is an ideal hunt going smoothly. That is what you expect gripping dogs to do, that is their job. You have an animal over there that is dangerous and a threat to cause harm, and the dogs confront that dangerous animal directly and neutralise the danger and threat. Take its fight out of it.
When you have a case where the dogo is fucked up and wounded all over, it failed to do that. But BECAUSE it is wounded all over and not just dead with 2 holes in the back of its neck or in its throat, the puma ALSO failed to kill the dogo. They were embroiled in a sloppy brawl. In that situation the cat is absolutely better equipped to cause way more damage. That is not something I would ever argue against. It has defensive capabilities to hurt and ward off attackers by harming and injuring them, these specialised dogs don't have that. A wolf does, actually, it has quick snapping and slashing bites that do a lot of damage per micro-second. Bulldogs don't have that in their arsenal at all. So in some brief skirmish where no one gets control, they will take a lot of injuries against a puma, leopard or even a wolf, and they will dish out probably no injuries. That is simply how they are tuned, they are tuned for a specific thing which is rendering their opponent "hors de combat". They should succeed, but may not. And if they don't, they'll get badly injured and their target won't be injured at all.
Most significantly, we can dance around all these little cases all day, the fact is such dogs ARE viable tools to hunt leopards and pumas. A good one SHOULD take the fight out of the average puma or leopard it is likely to encounter where/when good ones are used on pumas or leopards. That is really the whole flesh of my argument right there, and I believe it is more powerful than analysing and assessing 8000 cases. A simple math problem with an immutable answer.
Note- Sanderson specifically mentions with his little 35 lbs bull terriers that it is important to slip them together, and also important that they don't run free and even aren't bred to be runners. He is making it very clear that one small 35 lbs bull terrier can not safely beat a leopard or sloth bear in a fight, or survive fighting a leopard or sloth bear. They are viable as "lead-in catch dogs" and viable in numbers (2 good enough for a sloth bear as far as he is concerned, but says he likes to have 4 for a big panther).
Lead-in catch dogs are a different game than running catch dogs. Sanderson used lead in small bull terriers, Baker used running catch dogs weighing over 100 lbs, and the dogo argentino is also a running catch dog used on pumas that weighs around 100 lbs. What Sanderson details that you "can't do" (use free-running catch dogs on panthers and sloth bears), demonstrates how significant it is that Baker and Argentinians "do do". They do/did use free running catch dogs on leopards and pumas. This goes hand in hand with implications. Sanderson noted his bull terriers would be just dead for sure. One 35 lbs bull terrier would inevitably find itself stumbling into a 150 lbs male leopard and they would be instantly pinned and killed in 4 seconds. You and I know this. Right? So he carefully bays his targets up with timid bay dogs, and then carefully slips 2-4 bull terriers on the target at once. That is what you NEED to do to make 35 bull terriers viable catch dogs on leopards (and he mentions even using this method, they are not viable on tigers).
On the other hand, if you have 90-130 lbs free running catch dogs running loose while you pursue pumas or leopards, it follows each individual running catch dog can single handedly render a puma or leopard "hors de combat". Because they will inevitably run into a leopard alone and fight it. It's just the nature of the beast. In boar hunting is the same- every single dog that catches and runs free, MUST be capable of safely subduing a boar and taking the fight out of it 1 on 1. You can take 27 if you want, doesn't matter, each invididual HAS to be capable of 1 on 1. That is how it works with running catch dogs.
The dogo argentino is a running catch dog. Smut was a running catch dog.
The existence of the dogo argentino, a free running boar hound which finds and courses and catches and subjugates it's own quarry without hesitation, in puma country- speaks volumes. Its viability as a tool in that environment and for that purpose, means it is capable of taking the fight out of a puma 1 on 1. At least any puma it is likely to encounter.
The pen-fight training sessions exist to bolster the confidence of the hunters that the dogs they are taking out know about cats and can handle them and take the fight out of them. That is why they are having these 1 on 1 fights which could easily be mistaken for frivolous bloodthirsty recreation to the ill-informed (and frequently are).
Because a 1 on 1 fight with a puma is an inevitable reality for a free running catch dog in puma country, EVEN IF you weren't targetting pumas there would be a high risk of that outcome, and ESPECIALLY when you are, which... we know they are.
To reluctantly play devil's advocate...
A good argument for the cat side may be the absence and scarcity of free running catch dogs in much of puma country and leopard country. That's a good dog-knowledgeable argument, because it is respecting the significance of dog cultures and and their distributions and what they mean. Its respecting the working dog type as a real thing that is molded to its environment and also asserts truths by its existence.
The africans I used to talk to that did have free-running catch dogs (more greyhounds, staghounds and wolfhounds, though some bull lurchers - all still run free and catch) just didn't go in lion country, for example. It was just a no brainer that you just don't do that with running catch dogs. You might as well flush pups down the toilet as soon as they come out. In lion country of course you use evasive curs and hounds. That is where the ridgeback comes from, and also today they use a lot of blueticks and other coonhounds to hunt in much of africa. You could then also, if you so desired have lead-in catch dogs (where boerboels do have their origin), and when an animal is bayed you could then decide if it is wise to release the seizers. Or if a big male lion is bayed... maybe don't.
With free running catch dogs you don't get that luxury. Dogo argentinos, bull arabs and similar would not be suitable where they could put themself into a fight they definitely can't win and will assuredly die participating in it. Because it is certain they will do that, and you can't stop them.
The reality is, free-running catch dogs, aka boarhounds, are not popular in north america. And all the less so in northern reaches of north america. Is this telling? Is it the larger pumas, grizzly bears and maybe even wolves all helping to shape dog cultures to shy away from such dogs in north america? Dogs that definitely will put themselves into 1 on 1 fights with the worst the countryside has to offer miles away from your supervision and the assistance of other dogs?
Even when dogos are used in north america they are often used as lead-in catch dogs. They have bigger fatter dogos and they use them like pitbulls and ambulls, keep them tethered until they catch up to the bay. That is not how dogos were designed to be used, but lots of north americans use them that way.
Now is that out of necessity? Or is it just the style they are used to? But is that the style they are used to out of necessity? Or maybe it is connected to their emphasis on guns.
I don't really know, but I feel like this is a way more compelling argument for cat formidability, than simply nitpicking over the wounds a dogo procured during a random run in with a puma, or scrutinising the hell out of some videos. This is bigger picture stuff, and for me that holds much more weight.
I don't have nuanced grassroots knowledge of Argentina like I do with Australia either, so for all I know the dogo argentino could have been developed in a region that typically has smaller cougars, and maybe if you looked into it you may find a trend for running catch dogs (even mongrel versions) to be more common in regions of argentina with smaller pumas, and you may find a trend where they tend to use more bay dogs and curs in regions where pumas are bigger on average. I will say I have seen many argentinians using dogos as lead-in catch dogs (though it wasn't the idea behind them), so ... I don't know, totally speculating, all hypothetical. But these are the angles I would find compelling.
The counter to this angle would just be noting the use of biting dogs falling out of favour globally, for many purposes. It seems to me more likely it is just generally a dying artform with increasingly limited and remote rugged reaches of the globe clinging on to the traditional pasttime that was once much more widespread. We still have the usage in 1800s Sri Lanka, where leopards are among the most nasty. So...
My summary of the above- the dogo did not have control of the puma, and the puma also did not have control of the dogo. Both equally true. If the dogo did have control of the puma, you're right, there would be no bites on the dogo's chest, or anywhere. If it had control + skill for pumas, it wouldn't have been raked so much either (but we know it had no cat experience anyway, so trivial aside).
If the puma had control of the dogo, there would ONLY be one bite on the back of the dogo's neck or on it's throat, and there wouldn't be a shitload of scratches all over its body either.
Neither had control, and to me neither had clear ascendancy EVEN THOUGH the dogo was way more injured. If we score by injuries the puma "won the round on points", but neither had an actual dominant position in the traditional science of grappling and combat sense.
It was a sloppy, apparently brief, squabble which the cat managed to escape from. I don't really care to act like any significant aspect of the grander argument pivots on this insignificant little case.
Smuts didn't recieve medical treatment after those encounters, he refused it and the scratches weren't implied to be life-threatening in any way. I don't think those leopards managed to do this much to him, and stands to reason because he was a much much much better dog. The leopards still likely escaped, in that sense it was probably similar, but they likely also endured much worse than what this cougar probably did.
That can be true sometimes. You don't really know and can't really control what might happen with running catch dogs. Ideally you want everything to run smoothly, for the dogs to find close prey and run it down and subdue it quickly and you want the people to catch up quickly and finish everything quickly. That's what you hope happens, but the dogs aren't prepared for the best easiest day only, they have to be prepared for the worst day when things don't work out that way. The worst case scenario they have to be prepared for is find themselves alone fighting the quarry far away from the humans and other dogs for a long time. That will be experienced during their careers on more than one occassion, but yes they don't want that outcome and thankfully often manage to avoid that outcome. But you are talking to someone from such a culture and I know the small details like that can't be avoided consistently. It is a "workplace hazard" of boarhounds (regardless of their prey).
Yes, in that one case. You wouldn't draw big conclusions about the broader dogo vs puma situations from the specific circumstances of one case.
But yeah in that case it does seem like the puma accumulated a lot of damage quickly. Full credit for that. And then also managed to escape, does deserve credit for that as well, in some way. Even though escaping is easier than winning, it was still against the dog's wishes. So ... yes, good job cat.
I agree, but emphasis on "CAN BE". If the dog/s does/do its/their job properly that should be prevented. But lots of different things can happen. No different to boars. One day a boar might
all but decapitate one dog and gut 3 others and then run free and escape. Another day 1 dog which is already old and limping and is missing 3 teeth might find itself alone on a boar, far away from help, and it may be a bigger boar that is even more deadly than that other boar who killed 4 dogs, and somehow the old campaigner might pull off the miracle subjugation alone.
Such is the unpredictable nature of this activity. The true testimonies swing like that, and that is why it is a "sport" (in fact sports derive from such activity, these were the original sports). The outcome isn't certain, and that is where the beauty and drama and romance of the pasttime comes from.
The puma is not considered a totally unreasonably impossible target, in fact most testimony I have seen still definitely considers a good boar the "golden boy" that will most consistently provide the most epic challenges and be the hardest test. But definitely pumas are hazardous and it is a very dangerous adversary and bad things happen to dogs that tangle with pumas too.
How about this? I just fully agree with you. There is absolutely no small thing I feel I need to correct or address or query. I think that is exactly what happened down to every word.
Well yes, I agree with that to. A little surprised you do. I mean I'm pretty sure that "tibetan mastiff" a) wasn't a tibetan mastiff and b) had the leopard by the muzzle, but yes I do think it is similar to a dog deterring a leopard attack, only when a cat deters an attack it manages to do more damage on it's assailant and make them regret it more.
I might even say you are slightly underselling the puma performance almost. I mean it probably definitely deserves credit above those dogs who thwart assassination attempts by leopards, due to the damage done, but I would still just aim to keep the triumph somewhat reigned in and measured. But maybe not that much. Surprised you would make the comparison, but I do think it is fundamentally similar.
I basically continue to agree with everything else you go on to say, so no point quoting it, and I'm sure this post is more than long enough.
