Quora post dump/archive

[Hardcastle]

Are the red wolf, eastern wolf, and dingo subspecies of grey wolf?

We'd all like to believe science is immune to politics, but unfortunately it is not.

One example of that is the push to try and classify the dingo as it’s own species. It is not, it is assuredly definitely Canis Lupus familiaris, as it is more accurately a breed of dog (the original, perhaps, and a wild animal, but still technically a dog). Genetically it is closer to some breeds of dog than other breeds of dog are to one another, so it is firmly under the “dog” umbrella, and dogs are firmly established as Canis Lupus.

The red wolf and eastern wolf are a little more debatable (I nearly said contentious, but the dingo issue is actually highly contentious, it just shouldn’t be. Like I said it is contended for unscientific political reasons).

It seems they are most likely both grey wolf (canis lupus) and coyote (canis latrans) hybrids, and this actually makes genetics and taxonomy extremely difficult and complicated to deal with (hence why classifying dog variety scientifically is nearly impossible). It’s very difficult to determine whether they are recent lupus/latrans hybrids, ancient pre-historic hybrids (which may warrant a species classification to some), or even a distinct type of wolf that also incidentally hybridised with coyotes.

It seems these debates on red wolves and eastern wolves are somewhat politicised as well. In every case (red wolf, eastern wolf, dingo) there are people who very very badly want to freely kill them, even totally eradicate them, due to the threat (sometimes perceived, sometimes real) posed to livestock.

They’d like to eradicate wolves too, but that’s a tough argument to make. Some kind of “abominable” recent hybrid that “shouldn’t be” and is a “mistake” and a “crime against nature” etc etc?… they may be able to finagle a green light to eradicate those. So they fight tooth and nail to make sure it isn’t classified as a unique species or sub-species and is instead just a mongrel menace, they’ll even come up with stories about how the mixture of genes makes them confused, “unnatural” and “mad” and especially dangerous and damaging. Whatever it takes.

The dingo situation is arguably even more complicated and heated. Australia also has “feral dogs”, which actually both sides are convinced need to be eradicated (not me, but I’ll get to that later).

So the “good guys”, the people who want to defend and preserve the dingo, actually fight to have it labelled as a distinct species, which can be protected while the “dog cull” continues. You can find scientific-looking articles arguing it is and even studies saying “ackshully we looked at it and yeah it’s a different species soo” and I know that’s definitely not true and can see what they are doing. Almost a “noble” lie? But misguided, definitely factually inaccurate and also unnecessary and the wrong way to approach the argument.

The bad guys, the guys who want to obliterate dingoes from existence, argue the dingo is just a dog and shouldn’t be here anyway. They’re technically more accurate than the good guys. The dingo did technically come to Australia approximately 5000 years ago, with people, and tbh when it first arrived it was an invasive species and was ecologically devastating to native wildlife (not AS devastating as the first humans were 60 000 years ago, but still did some damage).

However, the damage is done, and the ecosystem, as it tends to do, has adapted to dingoes. They are now demonstrably beneficial for the environment. They’ve become especially beneficial for the environment as new invasive species have come to Australia, including herbivores like feral goats, wild cattle, buffalo, wild hog and deer, but especially for the work they do in suppressing feral cats and foxes, which are genuinely currently in the process of decimating the lower trophic level as very advanced and prolific predators of animals.



Where dingo advocates shoot themselves in the foot, is in giving the green light with no resistance (even usually encouragement) to slaughter feral dogs.

The methods to kill feral dogs are totally indiscriminate, and dingoes would be firmly in the crosshairs even if they somehow managed to get protected status for the “unique species” Canis Dingo. The farmers and hunters already have their spiel all lined up “no no that one wasn’t a dingo, see the white stripe on it’s belly, yeah that’s a dog, yep” (dingoes can actually be a range of colours). Never mind the fact they also just “leave poison laying around” as their primary method of control (which btw isn’t only indiscriminate against dingoes but also eagles and native carnivores - though there’s even a dumb fake argument that native animals are immune to the poison- don’t believe it. Again the politics here are very tricky and thick).

The reality is Dingoes ARE dogs, and dogs are dingoes. Feral dogs are therefore naturalised to the Australian ecosystem. They are good for the environment. We shouldn’t be killing any of them. Not wantonly. I mean I actually have no problem with farmers shooting problem dingoes/dogs in self-defense. They can defend their own stuff, that isn’t the issue. The issue really is the huge government operations to persecute dogs relentlessly using drone technology and dropping baits from helicopters and etc etc etc. All super over the top, with tax payer money, for a problem that doesn’t exist (they are the opposite of a problem, they are beneficial) and the methods themselves are actually bad for the environment. Both via the killing of the pro-environment dogs, and indiscriminately killing vulnerable native species.

Farmers should be responsible for their own livestock, and even some farmers are actually learning dingoes are good for their pastures and good for their profits.

link

Cattle farmers more so than sheep farmers. Sheep farmers do genuinely get worked over by dingoes and feral dogs, HOWEVER… it was frankly absurdly ignorant for them to ever expect to free-range sheep with no protection. Sheep evolved with protection, and are not viable animals anywhere on the planet without it. Sheep exist only because livestock guardian dogs exist, otherwise they are wild mouflon hiding up on the steepest windswept rocky cliffs of the Zagros mountains, eating lichen. If they want to live in a normal place and eat delicious grass? They absolutely require livestock guarding dogs to exist, it is not negotiable, and never in history were they expected to exist without them.

The sheep farmers simply need to re-learn how to be real sheep farmers and we need to stop with this incredibly destructive 1800sy ignorant madness.

Dingoes are dogs, and dogs are dingoes, and feral dogs and dingoes should be free to sort themselves out and take their rightful place as trophic regulators and apex predators of Australia.
------------------------------------------------
Are the red wolf, eastern wolf, and dingo subspecies of grey wolf?

[Hardcastle]

Why are there so many feral cats and dogs in Australia, and why aren't they adopted more often by people living in Australia's cities (especially Sydney)?

Feral cats and dogs in Australia have nothing to do with people not adopting them, lol. Australia actually has extremely low tolerance for stray dogs and cats. You won’t see any in our towns and cities at all. We are totally “clean” and free from stray cats and dogs compared to probably any country in the world.

Ferals are a different thing, and they speak more of the vacant trophic level opportunities that are provided by the ecology of the continent itself. With or without human beings. This continent is a land of opportunity for animals, and it is thirsty to have it’s niches filled. So many have been empty for tens of thousands of years.

The top half of this pyramid was basically shorn off when humans came to Australia 60 000 years ago-



The lower levels remaining stacked, as they were “under the radar” of human beings, this left a gulf begging to be occupied. Cats and dogs show up… it’s only natural some will return to the wild and establish populations. And they did, exceedingly successful populations.

There are 3 million feral cats in Australia. That might not sound like a lot, but if you combined every individual feline in Africa (a landmass 4 times the size of Australia), and I mean lions, leopards, cheetahs, servals, caracals, black footed cat, jungle cat, sand cat and african wildcat (actually the ancestor of the domestic cat) you would get 895 000 individual cats. 700 000 of those are leopards, btw, who are extra successful due to adapting to exploiting human settlements. A significant portion of those leopards are almost like “stray leopards”.

The cats in Australia are wild cats, and there are 3 million of them. This speaks of the enormous opportunity available for animals to thrive in Australia due to mass extinctions that opened up niches and whole trophic levels.

It’s not about Australian people not adopting stray cats, they’re adopting all the stray cats anyone could, they are also shooting all the wild cats they can and trying to eradicate them, and still they are this successful despite that.
-------------------------------------
Why are there so many feral cats and dogs in Australia, and why aren't they adopted more often by people living in Australia's cities (especially Sydney)?

[Hardcastle]

How can you tell if your dog is the bully or the victim when it comes to fighting with other dogs?

It’s actually quite difficult, most people get it wrong. Dogs are having a whole conversation in body language before any fight breaks out, and we miss most of it. Then we see the first dog growl or attack and assume they started it. Often they are reacting defensively to provocation and threatening behaviour from the other dog. Often but not always. They still are kind of “bad” for reacting like that. Insecure and scared. A good dog should actually de-escalate, but at the same time, they shouldn’t have to.

Look for a dog getting tense, closing it’s mouth shut, ears pricked up, leaning in towards the other dog and holding their face close to the other’s face and being still and ready for action. The tail may be wagging, doesn’t mean friendly. This dog is being a macho jerk.

If one dog is lowering itself and licking the others mouth, you should know it is actually trying to de-escalate a hostile situation. It’s saying “hey buddy relax, everything is fine, be cool man, you’re a tough guy I get it, but we’re all friends here”. The people present and watching typically have no idea and are laughing and smiling and talking to each other all friendly. The dog standing tall and having it’s mouth licked is actually already being a jerk and should already be corrected for it’s anti-social aggressive behaviour. In fact it should have been knocked down a peg as soon as it’s ears started pricking up, but the people involved need to know what they are looking at, and they usually don’t.

For example-


The pitbull here is de-escalating and appeasing the wheat coloured dog on the left. The dog on the left is actually acting like a dickhead and the pitbull is being cool and putting it’s ego aside. It’s behaviour is the only reason a fight isn’t breaking out. It’s kind of saying to the wheat dog “hey you’re a big strong guy, I wouldn’t want to mess with you” and it doesn’t mean it, but it is stroking the dogs ego to keep the peace. If the wheat coated dog met a clone of itself, a fight would be guaranteed. If the pitbull here didn’t get the response it wanted and the wheat dog kept acting like a douchebag, it might suddenly grab it and beat the hell out of it. 99.999% of people would see it as an unprovoked attack, but it’s actually being SO provoked already in this photo.

Just ftr this is not pro-pitbull propoganda, often they do commit unprovoked attacks, it’s just incidentally a pitbull in this image and that is what is going on here. It’s really going out of it’s way and swallowing it’s pride to appease a rude (though likely out of fear and insecurity) dog and keep the peace. Humans do similar things, act like macho dickheads when they feel insecure or nervous, but we are better at reading people and seeing through them, most people can’t read dogs so clearly, so a fight can seem to really just explode out of nothing and usually the winner will be perceived as starting it because we missed the whole context of the disagreement.
----------------------------------

How can you tell if your dog is the bully or the victim when it comes to fighting

[Hardcastle]

Can a Great Dane kill a wolf?

Maybe don’t count on your couch potato pet great dane to do it, but absolutely-

“Colonel Lyon’s hounds were, as I have said, used chiefly after jack-rabbits. He had frequently killed coyotes with them, however, and on two or three occasions one of the big gray wolves. At the time when he did most of his wolf-hunting he had with the greyhounds a huge fighting dog, a Great Dane, weighing one hundred and forty-five pounds. In spite of its weight this dog could keep up well in a short chase, and its ferocious temper and enormous weight and strength made it invaluable at the bay. Whether the quarry were a gray wolf or coyote mattered not in the least to it, and it made its assaults with such headlong fury that it generally escaped damage. On the two or three occasions when the animal bayed was a big wolf the greyhounds did not dare tackle it, jumping about in an irregular circle and threatening the wolf until the fighting dog came up. The latter at once rushed in, seizing its antagonist by the throat or neck and throwing it. Doubtless it would have killed the wolf unassisted, but the greyhounds always joined in the killing; and once thrown, the wolf could never get on his legs. In these encounters the dog was never seriously hurt. Rather curiously, the only bad wound it ever received was from a coyote; the little wolf, not one-third of its weight, managing to inflict a terrific gash down its huge antagonist’s chest, nearly tearing it open. But of course a coyote against such a foe could not last much longer than a rat pitted against a terrier.”

Outdoor pastimes of an American Hunter by Theodore Roosevelt

Note that no one respects or reveres the ferocity and deadliness of the grey wolf more than Theodore Roosevelt. Many times throughout his writings he talks about how wolves are too savage and mean for dogs and how they can kill “even the fighting dogs like mastiffs and bulldogs”, sometimes “with a single snap”. Frankly I think he gets a little carried away with over-inflating them (but no doubt there is some merit to his words).

Still, he concedes this individual Great Dane had their number well and truly.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Can a Great Dane Kill a wolf?

[Hardcastle]

What is the smartest type of Mastiff?

Probably depends what counts as a mastiff to you, and what counts as smart.

3 separate unrelated groups are generally referred to as “mastiffs”, and in one of those groups 2 related but different sub-groups share the moniker. It seems in recent centuries it has come to just mean “large dog”, perhaps owing to it superficially resembling the word “massive”? It’s not clear. But originally mastiff comes from the latin word mansuetus (meaning Tame), which translated in old french to mastin, and ultimately mastiff, mastyf, mastive, etc in old english (from what I have read they struggled to decide on the spelling).

So “tame” is kind of a weird thing to name a type of dog. They say it’s because mastiffs were tame and hung around the house, yeah… nah. They weren’t even that at this time, in fact that’s a very new “role” they have found in retirement. In the 1500s through all the way to the 1800s the word mastiff was used for dogs that “tamed” wild beasts, savage vagabonds and unruly livestock. I’d suggest that definitely was the intention behind the name.

They also, incidentally, often weren’t “massive” at all. With weights as low as “40 lbs” often mentioned in old literature for weights of mastiffs preparing to “tame” some bull or bear in a baiting spectacle.

Given all this information, the “true mastiffs” are clearly the branch on the dog family tree occupied by gripping dogs, which includes both bulldogs and boarhounds and their retired sloppy “massive” descendant breeds, such as; english mastiff, bullmastiff, neapolitan mastiff, dogue de bordeaux, alano espanol, presa canario, cane corso, great dane, fila brasileiro, dogo argentino, boerboel, american bulldog, english bulldog, boxer, American staffordshire terrier, staffordshire bull terrier, english bull terrier and american pit bull terrier.

This is the family of dogs that should rightly be considered “mastiffs”. Even though many now aren’t fit to “tame” anything (and indeed are more noteworthy for being tame), they descend from the dogs who evolved to perform that duty.

There are, however, other dogs people call mastiffs. Other unrelated dogs. Like, for example, livestock guardians (turkish mastiff, pyrenean mastiff, spanish mastiff, transmontano mastiff, etc etc). Clearly this is just because they are also “massive” like SOME “mastiffs” incidentally became as well. There’s also the tibetan mastiff, actually just a “massive” village pariah not closely related to the mastiff family OR the livestock guardian family (though loosely may share a common ancestor with very ancient “proto mastiffs”).

This may seem like “TMI”/”TLDR”, like “just tell us which is smartest!” and fair enough, but it’s nice to have some context, I think, to understand that these very different animals have very different brains wired for very different purposes.

Arguably the “true mastiffs” are the dopiest and least intelligent. Their role was very simple and highly specialised. You point them at something and they go over and bite it and hold on (shift their weight somewhat shrewdly in the ensuing struggle, but it’s not rocket science).

This is complicated by the “bull terriers” in the true mastiff family, who, as the name suggests, have terrier blood influence. Terriers are very sharp and clever independent little dogs who no one would call stupid. Some of that rubs off on bull terriers.

The tibetan mastiff is quite clever, too clever for it’s own good in some ways. It has the same brain as a husky, chow chow or shar pei. Smart and cunning, but it does not translate to trainable at all.

LGDs have their own distinct brain again. It is also a very independent and primitive almost “wild” kind of brain but with a supressed prey drive and altered bonding and protectiveness instincts. It’s again smart but not in a way that actually benefits you as a dog owner or would-be trainer.

True mastiffs are dumb, but eager to please and tractable. So you will “pull your hair out” with frustration much less with them than LGDs and Tibetan mastiffs, even though they are dumber
-----------------------------------------------

What is the smartest type of mastiff?

[Hardcastle]

Do Bulldogs with flat faces have any advantages?

No. A somewhat shortish and broad muzzle with a deep mandible and strong muscular cheeks was favoured in the evolution of big-game catching dogs to help them hold a grip more steadfast. This created a general vague impression of a somewhat “blocky” “stocky” thick heavy-set head compared to other dogs. This was a genuine feature and advantage for that lineage of dogs to help them perform their role. But that was something like this-



Later, when descendants of these dogs started to be bred for cosmetic aesthetic purposes, people found they could exaggerate and enhance this general impression of blockiness and robusticity in the head by just favouring flatter and flatter faces, very much to the detriment of the dogs, not just their functionality but also their health and general quality of life (breathing freely is nice).



The aesthetic appearance of the dog in this lower photo is not the result of functional adaptation, but rather is designed as an exaggerated caricature of the dog in the above photo. There is no advantage, it’s just unfortunate.
----------------------

Do Bulldogs with flat faces have any advantages?

[Hardcastle]

How are French bulldogs and American bulldogs related?

The “french bulldog” isn’t the REAL “french” “bulldog”. The real french bulldog survives as the Dogue De Bordeaux-



Which itself is a largely ruined show dog. But it descends from documented lineages of fighting bulldogs that were bred in the 1800s in France and her colonies for the purpose of blood sports.


The legendary Caporal, undefeated champion of the Pyrenees during the 1890s. All dogue de bordeaux’s descend from this dog.

The American bulldog is fairly closely connected to the above “french bulldogs”, just in that they are the same basic animal and were part of the same pool of “western European bulldogs” (all readily intermixed without hesitation) that were kicking around during the time of bull, bear and lion (etc etc) baiting.

The French bulldog is a little different. England started breeding bulldogs smaller and smaller in the early 1800s, to make bullbaiting a more dramatic spectacle, and these miniature bulldogs were also trendy pets for young men. When bull baiting was outlawed in 1835, they became ONLY trendy pets. Said young men who were lace workers are said to have been displaced by the industrial revolution, and migrated en masse to France to find work. Taking their dogs with them.

The trend of miniature bulldogs died in England, and the English bulldog started it’s journey towards becoming the extremely stocky and burly meatballs they are today. The boys in france also had their own ideas and pushed their bulldogs in a different cosmetic direction. Later these men would return back home to England with their now peculiar little bulldogs, and they would become known as “French bulldogs”, to differentiate them from their long lost brothers who now looked different.



The English bulldog and French bulldog both, in truth, descend from dogs that were once like American bulldogs. At least some american bulldogs. There are some other american bulldogs (like Johnson bulldogs) that went on their own journey of mutating into something else for the sake of fashion. In typical american style, fashionable = big.



All of these bulldogs SHOULD really look like something that can actually catch a bovine, nothing too exaggerated or weird, just a functional strong durable compact dog, something like this-



Take away the role, and then you get the variation, all the different “takes” on what people “think” a bulldog “should” look like. When you have the bull catching role, the bull decides what they should look like, and you’ll find they look the same all over.
---------------------------------------

How are French bulldogs and American bulldogs related?

[Hardcastle]

What are the differences between a bulldog and a mastiff?

Historically the line is extremely blurry, and indeed before 1631, there’s no mention from anyone of the term “bulldog” . Before that the ancestors of bulldogs were often called mastiffs (misspelled in countless ways) or alaunts or butchers dogs. The word mastiff is believed to derive from the latin “mansuetus” which means “tame” or “to make less harsh”. Some have suggested this was referring to how tame mastiffs were, but I think it is in reference to their function, which still is to “tame” dangerous animals so they can be safely approached to be handled, roped, castrated or killed with a blade.

This is the role of the gripping dog lineage, what it evolved to do.

In portugal they are called “fila” meaning to “hold, arrest, grab”, in italy and spain they are called “presa” derived from the latin “prehensus” meaning to “grip and seize”. The english would later call them “seizers” in the colonies.

Mastiffs are tame? No, they tame other things.

The “bulldog” it seems is more synonymous with the moment that grabbing and seizing things transitioned from a utilitarian need, to a form of entertainment. They started differentiating between the country boarhounds as mastiffs or bandogges (bandogge meaning “bound dog”, as specialist catch dogs are often kept on lead until the end of the hunt where they are released to fight and subdue-or tame- the bayed quarry), and the bullbaiting/bloodsport dogs as bulldogs. But still they’d cross all of them all the time quite readily and freely, and mention “this dog here is a cross between bulldog and mastiff” when describing a dog that was about the participate in a bear, lion or bull bait. Interestingly they’d also say these “bullmastiffs” weighed sometimes as little as 40 lbs. So the idea mastiff means large “massive” dog is also a myth, it seems.

It just meant tamer of beasts, and they might be big or small. Some were really big, because they were boarhounds. They’d cross a compact specialist catch dog “bandogge” “mastiff” “presa” whatever with a tall running sighthound, ancestors of the deerhound, wolfhound and greyhound, and this combination would give the progeny muscle from the catch dog but also great height and length and the resulting dog would be generally quite large.

Larger than both parents in weight and presence. This hybridisation was extremely popular and excited sportsmen a lot, and became the “preferred alaunt” among noble gentlemen who enjoyed the privilege of hunting wild beasts. The more “purish” bulldoggish variety would become more associated with blue collar butchers and townsfolk who watched blood sports. It wouldn’t be “the alaunt” OR “the mastiff”, but rather “the butcher’s alaunt” or the “butcher’s mastiff”, or the bulldog. It was the tall majestic boarhound varieties of the upper class who would unofficially take the “rights” of the word alaunt and the word mastiff. Later on the wild game they targeted would go largely extinct, and a select few noble families (mostly just one actually, the Leghs of Lyme hall) would continue breeding these boarhound mastiffs for fun, because they just liked having them around.



The english mastiff descends from these retired boarhounds turned children’s playthings. Over the ensuing centuries they would become heavier in bone and more placid and lazy to be better ornaments around the house, and eventually become show dogs with standards that encouraged growth in mass with no ceiling and no limitations. In the past needing to run down a wild animal and fight it put a restriction on what could be a viable size. That was no longer there, so they got really big and slow and frankly quite useless.

Bulldogs kept doing some bull and bear baiting, but ultimately that dried up as well, and they too became silly looking accessories and mutated into frankly useless freaks.

However, the colonies retained more serious work for such rugged “beast taming” dogs, and some persists to this day. In the USA, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, New Zealand, India, Pakistan… even in the “old country” of spain the bullfights and boar hunting persist and keep the dogs gainfully employed.



In summary, the difference between mastiffs and bulldogs SHOULD be basically nothing, they’re just different terms which have been used for the same functional family of dogs. In reality today one is typically a gigantic heavy slow mutant show dog which has trouble breathing, and the other is a smaller heavy slow mutant show dog which has trouble breathing.
------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the differences between a bulldog and a mastiff?

[Hardcastle]

This one is actually a comment, but I want to keep it anyway-
-------------------------------------------------------------

IMO you’re both kinda right but I have minor disagreements.

I’d argue cane corsos and neo mastiffs BOTH descend from bulldogs. Neapolitan mastiffs were still called “italian bulldogs” in the 70s. The cane corso and neo mastiff are just two different “takes” on trying to preserve the italian bulldogs as a breed (totally the same as the alano espanol, before world war 1).

The great dane and english mastiff definitely descend from boarhounds. It’s extremely well documented in the case of the english mastiff even though today it isn’t fit to be a boarhound and looks like it’s meant to be some kind of heavy guard dog. No. Just know that’s just all pure ruination. Not unlike what we see with the english bulldog.

In the 1700s and earlier the ancestors of great danes and english mastiffs were exactly the same, totally interchangeable. And both frankly looked like bull arabs or maybe largish bull arabs.

They were both the result of crossing big bulldogs (like the alano espanol, but every european country had their own) with big celtic sighthounds. Made large bull lurcher boarhounds and these are the roots of the english mastiff and german mastiff aka great dane.

Most of the others are bulldogs, mutated into monstrosities. I think the fila brasileiro and bully kutta are also boarhounds, marooned in foreign lands. The dogo a “recreated” boarhound, like the pig dogs of australia (bull arab et al).

Actually the wolfhound, in truth, is basically a boarhound too. It’s realisticall the result of crossing deerhounds with mastiff/bulldogs.

But yeah corso, neo, dogue de bordeaux, boerboel, ambull, boxer, presa, alano… these are bulldogs. Pitbulls are mostly bulldogs with a sprinkle of terrier.

This is my view of things. It’s really all perspectives and nothing to get worked up over, BUT yeah I don’t think “big heavy mastiff” was ever a thing before conformation breeding. I don’t think there was a “big heavy guard mastiff” in ancient history. You could use a boarhound as a guard dog, you could use a bulldog as a guard dog, you can even cross them together and make a guard/attack dog (bullmastiff). But there’s no “mastiff” separate to boarhounds and bulldogs. When it came down to real functions you only had bulldogs, and boarhounds. Big heavy stupid throw-rug mastiffs weren’t a thing because they are stupidly useless and impractical and never would have existed when dogs were serious.

Mind you, the bulldogs could get PRETTY big, and the boarhounds could get even bigger. But both WERE limited in size by the athletic demands of their roles. Like NFL players are PRETTY big, but even they have ceilings because they need to be somewhat mobile to perform their role. Ditto for gripping dogs. If you can’t lug a boar or catch a bull you are pointless as a gripping dog. Intimidate some people maybe, but by then you are already a “retired” “pet” no longer bred for performance.

The heaviest genuine working gripping dogs ever were the “bloodhounds”, not to be confused with … bloodhounds, but rather gripping dogs descending from boarhounds that were especially bred to target human beings (tribal natives, slaves, convicts, criminals, etc). They seemed to genuinely get up over 150+ lbs in working weight. Way back in the day when bulldogs and mastiffs both were described with very very modest weights (60 lbs big, 108 lbs monumentally huge, sometimes “mastiffs” described as weighing 40 lbs, push me and I will show you the historical references), bloodhounds were, even then, described as quite enormous.




Spot the Cuban Bloodhound

This actually makes sense to me, because it’s the bulls and boars who determine “maximum” weights for gripping dogs. They use their weight against them. Their “protests” against being subjugated violently toss the dogs too and fro, and too much weight will make the dog’s neck dislocate or their brainstem detach from the spinal column. Will make them severely injure themselves when they come crashing down to earth from 25 feet into their air etc etc. Bulldogs have to be smaller than boarhounds, and boarhounds have to be smaller than “bloodhounds” (again please understand I don’t mean the bloodhound as you know it, I mean man-hunting gripping dog).

A boar can’t easily swing a 90- 130 lbs dog around too much, and so a large boarhound serves as an anchor that can drain the fight out of a boar. A bull CAN throw a dog that size around quite easily so it’s actually better for the dog to be able to “go with the flow” and just ride out being tossed around by holding on and having the power-to-weight ratio to withstand incredible g-forces and maintain a grip, maybe even tossed away up into the sky only to come crashing back to earth. They had to be smallish to survive that without severe injury. A very compact dog is actually ideal, so actual bulldogs could be as low as 20 lbs and up to maybe 80 lbs, very very rarely up near 100 if they were freakish athletes.

Bloodhounds were tasked with taking the fight out of humans, humans can’t buck and toss a large dog, they are devious sinister apes with dexterous little mischievous hands that can cause damage to anything too frail. So the man-dogs were especially big, big thick durable legs, thick heavy hide and a big burdensome weight that couldn’t be thrown around by a man at all.

Styles make fights. The bull would easily destroy the bloodhound, and the man would easily destroy the bulldog.

So if anything is, maybe the “bloodhound” (only surviving “breed” of bloodhound is the fila brasileiro) the “mastiff”? Again I don’t buy this due to mastiffs described as weighing 40 lbs, 60 lbs, sometimes 100 lbs if they are weirdly big… I just don’t think “giant” is what mastiff means. Most ARE giant, NOW, but they are all messes.

Mastiff is derived from the latin “mansuetus”, meaning “tame”, which I think refers to their ability TO TAME other beasts, and so in THAT sense mastiff is an umbrella over all of them. Ofcourse now we can’t help but associate it with “large dog”. The giant boarhound english mastiff kind of claimed and monopolised the term and we now associate it with that big throw rug lump of crap and every big useless lump becomes a “mastiff”. I mean I guess it’s up to you to decide what you want to go with, language DOES change and isn’t necessarily “wrong” for doing so. I kind of don’t like the word because of all the confusion and damage it has caused. I do believe gripping dogs should be thought of as either bulldogs or boarhounds, and if they don’t fit either category then… there you go, there’s something wrong with them.
---------------------------

Why do presa canarios remain so rare in the united states?

[Hardcastle]

Just a comment-
----------------------
The skull size difference “lbs for lbs” is alarming until you understand the size difference between a wolf and a “mastino napoletano”. At equal weights, wolves are 25% taller and longer. So yes they have much bigger skulls, not because they have “giant skulls”, but because they are much much much bigger (and proportionately, much much lighter).

The only dogs as tall as northern timberwolves, are Great Danes and Irish Wolfhounds.

Given this fact, the Neapolitan mastiffs skull is actually quite impressive in proportion to it’s frame. It is 85% as long as the wolf’s skull and equally wide.

Also equally deep


I know the vibe of the conversation is “wolf hyping”, and they still warrant hyping, but it’s important to get a visual on what we are talking about. Not two canines of equal size where one has an enormous skull. The wolf’s skull is in proportion to it’s enormous frame. The neo's is actually disproportionately large for it's compact and stubby frame.
------------------------------
Could I beat a singular wolf in a fight?

[Hardcastle]

Bolushi's post to Masood
-----------------------
I’m bored, so here goes, lol, Masood Rahimi made a post about me. I cried myself to sleep since. Anyways, it’s pretty easy to pick apart. I’m doing this for the reader, because I don’t think Masood will read this. Although if he does there’s not much he can do to counter this.

‘’Wrong, wrong, wrong, all day long lmao. Adult wolves hardly push 120 lbs and the largest one ever tipped the scales at 175 lbs. Cougars on the other hand can easily exceed 200 lbs and the largest individuals have surpassed 250 lbs.’’

Hmm, okay:


90lb Brazilian cougar


130lb male cougar from Patagonia named ‘’Pepito’’




Marcao and Tupa, two adult male cougars from São Paulo region weighing 45 and 40kg. These would be considered Atlantic forest biome cougars.



Put this in the search bar to find the pdf ^ that’s the site:


This is the largest cougar population, and males average 71kgs while females 41kgs:
Hinterland's who's who - Cougar

The cougar that killed the tiny wolf on Vancouver Island was much larger unless we use the absolute minimum female weight and largest male island wolf weight:

‘’The average weight of 13 adult male cougar from 2 study areas on Vancouver Island, was 55.5 kg and for 26 adult females it was 39.5 kg (Logan and Sweanor 2000).’’
Atlas Accordian July 29

Cougars are fully capable of being 120–130lbs and be fully grown males.

‘’Mountain lions are larger, stronger, faster, more aggressive, more durable and have a much stronger chomp.’’

Only larger when you want to assume a cougar from the largest population. Stronger? Sure, physically. Faster? In short bursts because it has no stamina, sure. More aggressive? Nope. It has a tough defense display which is actually a sign of inferior aggression. More durable? Okay. Durable enough to take a bite from a wolf and not suffer immensely? LOL on that last statement. K, let’s just take a look at their skulls:


If the wolf was inclined to try it could crush the cougar’s skull.

‘’While the wolf doesn’t have any physical advantages that would necessarily give it an edge, it does have a few attributes that it could rely on to strategically pinpoint the feline’s vulnerabilities/weaknesses. Wolves are more intelligent, cunning, with greater endurance. Regardless, it would be greatly overwhelmed by the cat’s larger size and superior strength. So it’s clear that the cougar completely stomps the wolf approximately 100% of the time.’’

So, you’re saying 2 carnivores that weigh roughly the same could result in an 100% win rate for one of them? Nah. 2 wild carnivorans of the same weight can go either way usually. Even if the cougar has the advantage at parity, which is does not, it would still not win 100% of the time. At parity the wolf is 8 inches taller. Do you not understand the leverage and reach advantage a parity wolf has?

‘’The fact that you compare certain dog breeds to the sheer power and extraordinarily tremendous strength these exotic felines possess is laughably ridiculous and absurd.’’

Please show me cougars subduing bulls:
Bulldogge montage

Cougars never touch boars at all, dogs do:







Cougars never prey on adult boars, please find anything that suggests they can semi-regularly prey on adult boars. Persian leopards can, sort of, and even they find boars to be a tall order. And a Persian leopard would run over a cougar. You have yet to show me a cougar preying on a working gripping dog and killing one. You said you didn’t have to because cougars kill bigger, stronger animals but considering leopards and cougars have gripping dogs under their noses 24/7 there’s no excuse. Wolves have killed Gr Ch game dogs instantly, cougars have not. Meanwhile gripping dogs:

Dogo Argentino vs Cougar (Real fights)



The cougar attacked the Dogo first, and then it was dragged down the hill. That team of dogs kill cougars regularly. They hunt them. You want more? Here you go:









An American Bully of all things also subdued a cougar, and this is an NA cougar:


LGDs have straight up killed leopards, and they’re of similar size to leopards. ‘’But spiked collar!!!’’ alright, I’ll show you an account of one of those African LGDs being attacked by a leopard and the GPS collar exploded, they have radio tracking collars for the purpose of studying, not spiked collars. Spiked collars aren’t common.

‘’One farmer reported that his Anatolian Shepherd had fought off two baboons – which are often reported killing small stock and ripping open their udders – that were aggressively threatening his herd. Other anecdotal accounts were reported of LGDs protecting their flocks from jackals, cheetahs, baboons and caracals. One LGD killed a leopard in defence of its flock. Cases of LGDs killing predators usually occurred near the corral after the dogs’ initial warnings had not been heeded; a high incidence of rabies was found in jackals killed by LGDs (Marker 2000c).’’
link

‘’We have some observational data on how the livestock guarding dogs interacted with predators, with the dogs becoming very agitated and barking loudly at the approach of the predator. In some instances, farmers have witnessed their dogs fighting with predators, and the dogs have been recorded as killing jackal, leopards and baboons that were threatening the stock. Although adult Anatolian Shepherd Dogs, which weigh approximately 40 kg, outweigh baboons by 20-25 kg, they are fairly similar in size to leopards, which averaged 46 kg for males and 30 kg for females in our study area (Marker & Dickman in press).’’
link

Note that in this study, which is the study for the radio tracking collar incident, there was mostly only one dog per farm.

‘’Zlatan was placed on the farm of Mr F van Rensburg in the Baltimore district and is guarding cattle. He has become an integral part of the herd and is well bonded with the members of the herd. He is still somewhat over friendly, but this in no way impacts on his guarding abilities. He recently had a fight with a leopard but survived when his radio tracking collar exploded in the mouth of the leopard.’’
link

By the way, these same LGDs can take down a kudu, face to face too.

‘’The three most common problems were chasing game (which sometimes resulted in the dogs killing and occasionally feeding on wildlife such as kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros)’’
link

‘’Like all other big cats, cougars utilize their lower body strength to wrestle down animals several times their size ranging from elk, caribou and even moose. A solitary wolf could never accomplish such a thing, there’s a well known reason wolves have evolved to thrive in packs. Wolves, unlike feline predators, simply do not have what it takes to fend for themselves. It just doesn’t work like that, evolution designed them to dominant and adapt as a well oiled machine, a single cooperative hunting unit. Their pack mentality is what allows them to continuously thrive, survive, and dominant over the course of millions of years of evolution. It teaches resourcefulness and versatility.’’

So why did this lone wolf waltz up to a female cougar and steal its kill?


Unlike big cats, wolves and especially gripping dogs use their mouth to anchor onto prey animals and take the fight out of them. As you saw in the montage of dogs subduing bulls. Gripping dogs in particular can go along for the ride, wolves have to anchor their prey down.

The top tier prey a cougar AND lone wolf can take down is an elk. We have videos of both doing it.



‘’Also the fact that you’re STILL arguing with me over a debate with a very clear and obvious winner despite initially noticing/realizing the photographic evidence I uploaded of a cougar overpowering and killing a full grown wolf, which laid helplessly in the ground means you definitely are choosing to continuously harass me.’’

Lol, have fun. I’m not the one bragging about a cougar killing a 70lb wolf subspecies:
link

‘’65–90lbs’’

I’d be so bitter if I did that too. I feel you, friend. That staged video of what also appears to be an island wolf is about 10% better. Frankly I don’t care about wolf vs cougar, but considering I know way more than you about both I guess my input is needed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolushi post on Quora

[Deleted]

Was going through old messages that Antonio archived in an email, found a screenshot from Quora of me being a dumbfuck, as of now it's well over a year ago.
When I say ''been there done that'' to cat fans I'm not lying:
 

[Hardcastle]

Nov 21, 2022 4:51:31 GMT Bolushi said:

Was going through old messages that Antonio archived in an email, found a screenshot from Quora of me being a dumbfuck, as of now it's well over a year ago.
When I say ''been there done that'' to cat fans I'm not lying:
 

Lol
It's funny when someone starts talking and you know exactly how they are wrong because you used to think the exact same way about the exact same thing and have since realised how dumb you were. I do it all the time. Do these cat fans think I didn't used to believe a cat could just slice open any dogs throat with its razor sharp claws? I've been 8 before, of course I have held that belief. They are never saying anything new to me.

[Hardcastle]

Take notes kids, this is how you rape a grown man (responding to Comfy lounge who is responding to quora posts on carnivora)-

---------------------------------------------------------

Read this and read it well, ComfyLounge-

"The lack of struggle from the Cougar as gravity is dragging her and the repulsive mutt down the cliff shows you that she was probably shot before-hand or ran to absolute exhaustion. That is why the dogo was only released moments before the video started, they wouldn't have been comfortable with that engagement if they knew an element wasn't on their side already. Also that's likely a sub adult female."

Anything else? Maybe "she" was also grieving the loss of her pedophilic husband in the crimean war? Overcome with sorrow, she henceforth vowed never to participate in violent activities again, and in effect staged an anti-war protest in that very moment when she was attacked by the dogo.

Of course that's what happened. She didn't live up to the performance expectations of "comfy lounge", a random dork who has his whole sense of self worth tied up 100% in his totem animal going above and beyond merely surviving as a wild predator, and instead expects her to carry the burden of his failures and make him proud for the first time in his life by fighting impressively like a nordic berserker. Never mind the reality of the animal being a predatory coward extraordinaire with a microscopic heart and lungs who deeply fears and loathes combat. No no, if the performance of a cougar (lol nice choice, idiot) in combat (lol) is less than amazing, something has to be wrong. She surely understands the gravity of her responsibility, and would have performed much better, if not for all the weird random silly crap we can scramble to make up on the fly. Those are the reasons we didn't see a Steven Segal-esque performance.

There's no other possible explanation for the disappointing humiliation suffered by the cat. It can't just be that this moron, loser, nerd has unrealistic visions of what a mountain lion is and what a mountain lion can do, no interest in the real animal and its niche or lifestyle, and of course was never going to accurately predict what its performance would look like. Let alone said retard having absolutely no concept of what a catch dog is and what a catch dog does. It could never be that the idiot had stupid ignorant moronic expectations in the first place of how this would play out, and was wrong because fucking of course they were always going to be wrong when they posess no fundamental understanding of what either participant is as an animal, no intellect and no insight into anything as it pertains to combat or anything relevant to the topic at hand.

No, definitely there are instead unseen paranormal factors. It's not comfylounge who is wrong, it's the video who is wrong. Sounds legit... I missed you guys...

"Yes, those 'stag' hounds as you call them? They don't belong anywhere near a Cougar. Weak, pathetic and fragile. Stag hounds have an average weight of around 75-80lbs the Cougar that they were attacking was not only very vocal and scared but was also MUCH smaller than anyone of these small dogs... You posted 4 pathetic dogs mauling a Cougar CUB, and daddy human still had to dispatch the Cougar himself, though the dumbass, lazy, no good "have my animals do everything for me" 'hunter' claimed the Cougar would've died anyway... I agree, it was a 4 on 1 and it was a CUB. I don't know what you think this is going to prove to anybody besides somebody retarded and worthless enough as yourself and your delusional handler whom is so lonely he never found a true purpose in his life in the 30+ years he's been alive. The guy that killed a Cougar with his bare hands, remember that? That's how the Cougar looked. Those mutts ain't worth sh!t. Adult Cougar's don't make sounds when they're being attacked, they remain silent."

They were greyhounds and one was throttling the throat of the cougar while the others largely watched. It's not that relevant but noteworthy that a 50 lbs "dogo cub" would beat them all up, silently.

When precisely do all the superior attributes kick in exactly? Tell us. The agility, speed, power, sharp claws.... I'd have thought the cubs claws would still be pretty sharp, and yet they couldn't deter a thin skinned greyhound which dislikes pain. Not encouraging.

50 lbs is too low for a greyhound, ok, so when are they big enough to beat a greyhound? When are they big enough to beat a dogo? 80 lbs? 90? 100? At some point I might even agree a cougar can kill a good dog. It only needs a monumental weight advantage. One which allows it to control the proportionately stronger dogo's body (demonstrable fact according to scientific studies - yeah I got you, son, sit tight) with its forelimbs so it can place a lethal kill bite. It can happen. Just doesn't happen close to parity with a working dogo, and that's why dogos are viable catch dogs for cougars.

In truth I don't give a shit about videos of greyhounds mauling cougars or random mutts mauling cougars or coyotes mauling cougars or dogos mauling hundreds of cougars (whether fair or otherwise- there are plenty of both)... I care about the actual functional application of catch dogs and the implications inherent with their viability as working dogs used to catch certain animals.

Catch dogs can only work on that which they can safely control and subdue with their gripping bite. The cougar is, evidently, firmly under that umbrella. It is not even considered on the deadlier edge of that umbrella, it's right up in the middle near the handle and not a big deal.

Sometimes, on some game, catch dogs manage to overcome a vast power disadvantage with footwork and skill and agility, power is still essential, especially power to weight ratio (and that's why bulldogs are incidentally the strongest dogs, stronger than dogs bred for strength, the strength required to subjugate bulls 55 times their size - by far their greatest challenge - and one not surpassed by any wild predator - has rendered them into stronger dogs than "strong dogs" like draught dogs through cut throat natural selection), but on a powerful bull or very large boar the dog is forced to hold on and "go for a ride", drain the fight out of it's mighty foe like an anchor, before it can press it's offense. During the draining process it uses footwork and instinctive weight-shifting nouse to carefully wheels it's body out of harm's way and shrewdly minimise brutal punishment to itself, while also being built to endure the inevitable punishment it surely will experience from time to time being so fully committed to such an impossibly hazardous task. Unlike a wolf or big cat that can just run off when things get tough and try again another day, the bulldog has to fight through the... fight.

Hence WHY it is a fighter, in the true sense. And not a cowardly "predator" that opportunistically preys on the vulnerable like Jeffrey Dahmer.

That's how gripping dogs, aka mastiffs (not to be confused with modern pet mastiff breeds- rather "tamers" of "harsh and severe" beasts - what the word mastiff actually means- working bulldogs and boarhounds) deal with the upper echelon of dangerous animals they are tasked with taming using their grip and anchoring technique

A cougar? That's not the upper echelon. That is what you could call "mid" shit. It's just a carnivoran, like the dog, and one around its own size. Slightly bigger, sometimes, no big whoop. It has many glaring weaknesses to exploit, it is not prepared for this contest.

Lets actually look at the puma, properly, in a way you never would. With a sober emotion free analysis of what it actually is as a humble living organism just trying to survive on earth.

We can agree it is a predator, of course. And even more we can agree (I presume; since it is constantly used as an excuse), that it is a predator that dislikes unnecessary conflict because it could be injured and that would compromise it's hunting ability. Fucking excellent excuse, clap clap for the cat and it's shrewd discernment there.

Guess what? If you don't do something, you can't do it. You avoid doing something, you suck at it. The better you are at avoiding it, the more you suck at it. That's how natural selection works. Use it or lose it, pussy.

Cats are ambush predators. Cats put an astronomically monumental amount of effort into expertly avoiding a fight. They sneak up on unsuspecting prey, watch it and assess the threat it could potentially pose (skulking away from dangerous individuals that might hurt them), then they wait with extreme patience until their soft target is at its most vulnerable, and then they strike. And when they strike, they strike with sincerely impressive precision and skill to ensure there is minimal fight.

They kill their target very cleanly and fast. Agree? Right? That's the coolest thing about them as we all know.

They are expert masterful assassins.

Until they fail, which circumstances dictate, and data demonstrates clearly, they will on about 9 out of 10 attempts. Even after stacking all the odds in their favour like I detailed above. AND THEN, when they fail their quick-kill, they expertly disappear. Spring off back into the shadows like a ninja disappearing into his haze of smoke from the pouch he tossed at the ground. Fight avoided.

Fight always successfully avoided. One way or another.

Kill slider set to 100, fight slider drained down to nothing. That is cats.

No surprise then that cats have incredibly limp and thin combative substance. Yes if they get their kill it looks awesome, but that's not a fight. That's what all you pin dicked little boys get boners for, but it's not a fight.

"One-punch-man with his 255th consecutive first second of the first round KO to retain the longest held UFC championship in history", no. Sorry. Not reality.

Fights go back and forth, and fighting back and forth calls on certain attributes.

NUMBER 1(!) is stamina, not a coincidence and not a surprise that cats have THE WORST stamina out of all carnivores and basically all animals.

Again, look above at how masterfully and carefully everything about them is geared towards avoiding a fight. They are unusually poorly equipped to fight out of all animals. Their hearts and lungs being tiny and weak is merely a reflection of that fact.

Again, use it or lose it. "I'm gonna carefully avoid fights because I'm so clever and ackshully it's really the best way to avoid injury when you're solitary soo I'm like so smart" yeah sure, and also now you're a sissy and a coward who can't fight. That's the trade off. That's the cold hard reality.

All animals are a balance of strengths and weaknesses. No animal is just awesome at everything. Your strengths detract from other areas and diminish you in some way. It is unavoidable. Cats are exactly as bad at fighting as they are good at killing. I for one am extraordinarily impressed with their killing ability. It never ceases to amaze me. Colour me a cat fan. Just don't talk to me about them being good fighters or I will rightly know you are an infantile imbecile.

They are physically badly equipped for a fight, and they are mentally badly equipped for a fight. To encourage them to flee when predation attempts don't work, they are literally inspired by the emotion of fear and dread and panic. Their body betrays them and floods them with the stress hormone cortisol to tell them to gtfo of that fight immediately. This is the real reason their performances so consistently disappoint you so. This isn't thundercats, this is real cats, and real cats aren't superheroes. They are predators, they are cowards, they don't rise to a challenge, they fold like a napkin under duress and flee. It behooves them to do so from an evolutionary standpoint.

"DO NOT FIGHT" is engraved into the core of their soul by mother nature, and they are punished when they disobey, or when something mean, like a catch dog forces them to disobey.

Lets see what a catch dog actually is. The sober reality.

Is it an independent survivalist? Nope. Falls incredibly short. Is it a masterful assassin? No, at killing it is a sloppy inept oaf. Does it require "daddy" human to help it survive by providing it with food and shelter and giving it water and nursing its little pathetic woundsies? You bet.

It's got a very specific little niche role that it performs for a specific little sub-culture of specific little upright hominids.

Shall we all point and laugh at its limited scope and its juvenile dependence on a symbiotic partner? Be my guest.

But King Leonidas said it best in the movie 300-

King Leonidas : You there, what is your profession?

Free Greek-Potter : I am a potter... sir.

King Leonidas : [points to another soldier] And you, Arcadian, what is your profession?

Free Greek-Sculptor : Sculptor, sir.

King Leonidas : Sculptor.

[turns to a third soldier]

King Leonidas : You?

Free Greek-Blacksmith : Blacksmith.

King Leonidas : [turns back shouting] SPARTANS! What is YOUR profession?

Spartans : HA-OOH! HA-OOH! HA-OOH!

King Leonidas : [turning to Daxos] You see, old friend? I brought more soldiers than you did!

----------------------------------

A jack of all trades is a master of none. And catch dogs are a master of one; Kicking your ass.

What they evolved to do for upright hominids is really quite simple; Shoot straight at the most dangerous animals people dare not touch, and take the danger out of them with your mouth so they can be safely handled. End of job description. Every fibre of their being is specialised for just that. Their body and minds are perfectly honed for that task.

They don't get filled with stress hormones and feelings of dread and panic when confronted by a fight with a challenging adversary, they are filled with joyous rapture and enthusiasm for the task before them. Diving into that fight face first is them fulfilling their destiny as a living organism, and satisfying all their primal instinctive biological directives. They exist to fight that which should not be fight-able. The prime specimens of the most dangerous animals, looking them right in the face and going towards them and "taking the bull by the horns" (or nose, as it were) and making them fold.

They make the unfoldable fold, those which are immune to even lions and tigers (in their prime state) fold to a bulldog. And you think the fold-happy fold-merchant that is a cougar, mr-folds-alot, will stand up to them like Chuck Norris and resist bending to their imposing will? You are a clown. Find a new hero, you baby dickhead.

"There's a reason you and dale are banned here, like 2 peas in a pod. 2 stupid delusional mentally stunted doggie fanboys that will sink as low as they can to shelter their delirious beliefs. "

Look around, idiot. Everyone is banned. It's you and three 14 year olds left smelling each others' assholes. You remain because you have an embarrassing boner for pumas, like the sick and twisted universally reviled and despised international sex tourist known as Taipan. That's it. That's why. You're the one brand of pussy that bitter old senile fool (hopefully dead soon? Surely?) has patience for.

That’s because he too, foolishly, hitched his wagon to the puma on forums discussing fights between animals. A boneheaded blunder if ever there was one, and one the rest of us have had to pay for ever since with his trigger happy bans and frustrated disciplinary actions. Why do you think he's so mad and angry all the time? Lol. He's essentially been scrunching up his betting slip in a rage for 20 years. Puma was the wrong pick. Whoops. Hardy fucking har, you stupid old leathery ball bag.

All the hundreds of actually intelligent posters are gone. All of them. Not one exception. Cat fans and dog fans and wolf fans and bear fans and hyena fans and etc alike. I could list 40 cat fans who respect me more than they respect Taipan. Cat fans have made actual blogs about how fucking shit taipan is (saiyamel, leopjag). Gato Gordo actually was a puma fan but even he got disgusted by taipan and his lack of morals and character and left on ethical grounds. Everybody did. You think that weak dribble of piss activity that comes into carnivora each day from about 4 infantile no-IQ teenage rejects is what made that forum? No, the people, the hundreds of great knowledgeable posters from the past (myself one of the most legendary and best of all time- hence why you all NEVER stopped talking about me), are what made that forum.

Here's what Big Bonns, who was the legendary most knowledgeable respected bear expert in animal debating ever, from the original shark attacks board, the granddaddy of them all, had to say about taipan, and ME (my original username was Gun Bullety)






“Staggeringly good”. Me. Has anyone ever said you are "staggeringly good"? At anything? Even your mother?

"Rhodes" is Taipan, a seedy dodgy criminal scumbag.

You are a loser, and you fraternise with losers and drug addict perverts on a dead forum. Come to quora and let's really talk. You can be my muse. I enjoy talking to you a whole lot.

PS- forgot one thing.

Remember I promised to show you that dogos are actually proportionately stronger than cougars? And that your weaker morphology BS was demonstrably factually incorrect. Here you go-






www.docdroid.net/KvLS3JU/vindolanda-dogs-part-1-pdf
www.docdroid.net/RZoxLpU/vindolanda-dogs-part-2-pdf

These images from the vindolanda study are selected because they demonstrate-

What constitutes a boarhound
How they know the bones belonged to a boarhound
how much more robust the boarhound bones are than wolf bones and pleistocene wolf bones.
"Wait... but there's no cougar in the study, phew! I'm still in the clear!"

Wrong, you diseased stinking asshole bastard.

From Carnivora, the undisputed shining beacon of glory from that loser forum, the reverent reference that all adhere to, the biblical doctrine of carnivoran ascendancy- the Carnivore limb robusticity, complete with the breakdown of its implications from reddhole (another legendary poster that has... surprise surprise, moved on)-
carnivora.net/carnivore-limb-robusticity-study-t2687.html

The bones of the puma are approximately 15% more proportionately robust than the corresponding bones of the grey wolf...

Oh wow, very impressive. Golf claps all round.

In the vindolanda study the bones of boarhounds are 28% more proportionately robust than those of grey wolves. The most robust grey wolves out of a collection of grey wolves. They have more data. (And I'm with-holding from looking towards the even more robust bulldogs of yore, I don't need to rub it in).

And again, go back over the implications and the analysis of reddhole.

These figures correspond with the predatory capacity of carnivores, their potential to struggle with larger, more difficult prey.

This totally fits in perfectly with my earlier point. Cats, and wolves, both pick weaker vulnerable prey, they use different strategies to stack the odds in their favour, and even so, even with this caveat the puma STILL avoids struggling with prey species, forget specimens, forget conditions, even the species pumas target are vastly inferior to what catch dogs target. Both boarhounds and bulldogs.

A biggish deer makes fans fall to their knees for the cougar, a biggish deer only requires a greyhound in the dog world. You wouldn't even waste a boarhound or a bulldog on such petty scratch.

When cats want to be adapted to taking REAL big game with actual viable success? Oh that's when cats start evolving to be 500 lbs, because that is what it takes for them to achieve such a feat using their beloved little dexterous arms that turn you on so much (despite being demonstrably an inferior weaker more limited grappling technique, clearly).

AND STILL those 500 lbs cats won't mess with a prime healthy bull in a fair face to face fight, lest they inevitably get shit whipped. A puma? LOL forget it. A cattle farmer need not acknowledge the presence of cougars in his pasture at all. Feral hogs and wild boar need not even raise their eyebrow from furrowing about in the mud when a puma is looking at them. It's not a threat. It's a light weight and isn't fit to target such animals.

I think we are done here.
--------------------------------------------

Quora Link

[Hardcastle]

So some insanely long responses to "Rainyday 120" in this thread-
Dogs that were bred for hunting often have high prey drive...
--------------------------------------------

"Yes, I am aware that Cougar's are very robust and hold a lot of weight for their size but it seemed pretty clear to me that it was a 110-115lb Cougar, it was definently smaller than the dogo, that much i am certain."

Which one are we talking about here? The one being dragged down the mountain and offering no resistance whatsoever was smaller than the dogo, yes.

The one being mauled by the pack of dogals was considerably larger than all of them. That was actually a fairly big male cat (and I agree it could have killed each dog assailing it 1 on 1).

The one pulled out of the tree by a dogal was about equal in size to the dogal hanging off it (and each of the rest of the dogs).

I'd say 75 lbs, 130 lbs, 85 lbs, respectively.

The dogs were about 95 lbs in the first video, 65-85 lbs in the second and 75-90 lbs in the tree video.

Or are we talking about the mongrel vs cougar video?

I'd say that dog was about 100 lbs, and the cougar was a juvenile probably as low as 55 lbs.

There's not a lot to take from these videos in a vacuum.

But that's not all we have to go on, not really. We also have logic, reason, and above all education... like are you generally a very knowledgeable dog guy who knows a lot about hunting with dogs or??

"6 dogs certaintly IS overkill, that's basically admitting that the Cougar is a vastly superior animal, if you need that much of a numbers discrepancy I would certainly say so"

Flawed logic. Do you think like this when you see 6 lions attacking a baby zebra? "Oh look they needed 6 lions, that proves the baby zebra would have kicked their asses if they weren't cheating". That's kind of the rationale you are employing here with your analysis. No different. And yes, it's as silly as it seems.

These aren't matchups carefully balanced to be fair poised pitched fights to see who wins. It's a hunter and his dogs hunting a cougar. They don't foresee that their methods will be scrutinised in our debates in this way, it's not the point. They think we are idiots, and they might be right. They are simply trying to remove cougars from an area. End of story.

Hunters often have a lot of dogs and typically way more dogs than they need per hunt. You need a stable of hunting dogs for breeding purposes and rotating to cover exhaustion and injuries (even deaths), it's no different to how an NFL team has 50 players signed and also a practice squad of 8 players to bring in if necessary. That is despite only being allowed to field 11 players on the field at the same time. It's a big operation where the players are actually competing against their teammates to be the main guy in their position. Without that, if they just had 11 offensive players and 11 defensive players and that's it. The standards would suffer. The same is true for hunting dogs, a hunter typically has a big roster so he can always be" throwing a lot of shit at the wall to see what sticks". This has a "cream rising to the top” effect. Someone who races greyhounds will also have a lot of dogs, someone who races horses many horses. They can only use one, but they have a lot. It's a production with a team behind it. Same deal with the UFC, a whole gym of fighters and trainers etc etc needs to be behind 1 individual fighter who has to go out in the cage by himself. Can't just have 1 guy doing pushups in his garage. Never gonna happen.

There are of course no rules in hunting, so a hunter MIGHT field his whole "squad" and his "practice squad" at once, maybe. Mostly they don't do that. If they do, it's indicative of a disorganised amateurish foolish hunter flying by the seat of his pants who never really had good guidance in how to be a real hunter.

In Australian boar dogging culture the whole emphasis at the moment is on hunting "1 out", which means using 1 dog per boar. That's like an unwritten agreed upon "rule" of sorts in Aussie pig dogging culture (or at least the prevailing dominant culture) to be like "doing it right". But it's loose and free and the main way pups are trained is letting them tag along with experienced dogs so it's definitely not a consistent thing, but often 1 dog catches a boar by itself. A dog should be a "1 out dog" to be crowned as like a "pro" aussie pig dog. That's finding, running down, catching and subduing a boar by itself, and "running on" to catch more after the boar is dispatched. That's the ideal, and it is not rarely met. There are thousands of great "1 out finder/holders" around the country.

At the same time, many do fall short as well, but may still be able to help out in some way. Some dogs might JUST be a great finder, or might just be a handy "lugger" you can rely upon to be dropped on a mean troublesome more and subdue it but could never find one or run down a fleeing speedy one. Some might be good "bailers" and good at applying pressure to make boars move out of thick scrub by nipping and biting and harassing them. Some might just be really fast and able to run down fast small boars that are getting away in the distance. Some might just be breeders, and serve no other purpose, but they are going to breed and add a specific attribute to the line. They may even tag along sometimes too.

So a hunter may have a big team, but still he expects his best dogs to be 1 out dogs, and in Australia at least he'd NEVER dream of using ALL his dogs at once on one boar. That's just considered beyond stupid here. He might have 20 dogs, and he might take 4 out, but then still rotate them all 1 at a time per boar. Maybe release all four if he stumbles onto a large mob of pigs, and each dog then is conditioned to catch it's own, rather than cooperate with it's peers.

It's not even to prove how tough the dog is, it's about efficiency and an observation through trial and error that multiple dogs cause more problems than they solve. Some dogs may need a friend or two, but if a dog is a 1 out dog other dogs will only cramp his style. Get in his way, trip him up, make him more susceptible to being injured, etc.

Multiple dogs at once can also cause dogs to learn bad habits from one another. So the best dog may actually be lowered to the level of the worst dog by working with it (sometimes, it's possible for a worse dog to be more dominant in personality and more influential, and thus persuade a better dog to be worse). Once guys get a good 1 out dog, they like to keep him working alone, or ultimately training his next crop of pups (who will naturally defer to the mature veteran).


Maybe a dog can work ok with some stand-offish bailers keeping the target occupied and in place, but is better off alone for the fighting/lugging of the prey. It's pretty clear to me we actually see that in the "cliff" video. The dogo has the task of actually engaging and subjugating the quarry, the bailers (appear to be collie/herder mongrels or something) are tasked with "baying it". Dogos are SUPPOSED to be able to do everything, but sadly that's not often true these days (and hence why dogals exist) so in that video the dogo is JUST a fighter. That's his only job in that specific "squad". The bailers bay up the cougar and then the dogo comes in to fight and subdue it.

Every squad is different, every hunter has different ideas. Many of them are frankly dumbass hicks with dumb ideas. Like having your entire huge stable of dogs maul some animal messily and randomly while you try and take pot shots at it with a gun and hope you don't hit a dog. That's just an idiot, but so? There's a whole plethora. A responsible, efficient hunter either wants an all-rounder 1-out dog that can do it all alone, including subdue the animal so it's safe to approach and slaughter the target with a blade to the heart. Or maybe a modest efficient team of finder/bailers and maybe a catch dog. Some might have 2 all-rounders that are borderline 1-out but better safe than sorry, that's not uncommon. Especially with younger dogs. A dog will usually grow into being a 1-out dog, rather than start as one from puppyhood. There are team combinations that make sense, and then there's just a big mess of every dog you have randomly mauling some wild animal all over. Some of these videos are clearly the latter, but it's incorrect to then extrapolate that these dogs NEED things to be a big mess in order to be viable practitioners in their field of expertise. That's ignorant. Again a lioness doesn't necessarily need a bunch of her cubs and sisters and her husband gnawing on the wildebeest she's suffocating, they might just be doing it. It doesn't speak to her ability to take out a wildebeest alone.

Hunters are going to err on the side of caution for themselves. I think the fact there's a video of a single dog (the brindle mongrel) hunting cougars (even a small one), or the single dogo that dragged the cougar down the cliff while 2 collies watched and nipped... those are more significant and telling than a video where a hundred dogs rip at a cougar. It's not what happened in these videos that is decisive or indicative of a fair fight or whatever, it's the implication that... we are seeing a cougar hunting unit in both videos. They didn't pre-arrange for the cougar to be small or juvenile. They have no idea what they are going to encounter, they are each expected to subdue "a cougar" they might encounter, basically alone. They may be "hoping" that they "probably won't" run into a massive male cougar, but there's obviously a reasonable expectation that these dogs can probably subdue a cougar they are likely to find 1 on 1 without dying. That they can go up to a cougar toe to toe and face to face and take the fight out of it, probably, provided it's not some freak cougar (knock on wood). The fact catch-dog type dogs are viable on cougars at all, proves this true. More so than any video or collection of videos. Just the fact they use dogo argentinos for cougar hunting in argentina says that actually yeah. A dogo can take the fight out of a mountain lion. You can try and use a pack all you want, with free-running catch dogs the reality is such that they inevitably WILL eventually end up 1 on 1 engaged in close quarter combat with the quarry. It's unavoidable. They don't hesitate or wait for backup (not with anything), and if they're free running and all looking for quarry and we're talking a career of mixed unpredictable situations then yes, it's impossible they won't sometimes end up having to fight the target alone for a while. For this reason you can't use dogo argentinos to hunt tigers. You can have 100 thousand dogo argentinos, but you can not hunt tigers with them because of what I already described- it is inevitable over a career that tiger hunting dogo argentinos WILL find themselves 1 on 1 engaged in close quarter combat with a tiger and no one around, no man or dog. That WILL happen for sure, and with tigers... game over. Dead dog immediately, and that's why you just don't do it. No one ever hunts tigers with running catch dogs.

You can hunt big cats like lions and tigers with dogs but they have to be very evasive and very cautious agile dogs that can safely harass lions and tigers in a coordinated pack assault and evade them in the process, and stay well away and well back until they have back up to help them distract and harass the tiger/lion. You can't use catch dogs, which are their own animal which is distinct from other dogs. Noteworthy for the fact they are totally fearless and have no hesitation and simply torpedo into any target and latch on and engage in a close-quarter fight. You can ONLY use such dogs on things they can safely control and subdue with their grip. IF a wild animal IS targeted by catch dogs, then it follows that animal can't easily kill said catch dog in a face to face fight, and in fact is much more likely to be dominated and controlled by the gripping bite of the dog. One way or another.

For bulls and large boars the dog can kind of ride out the vigorous attempts of the beast to kill them by just holding onto their face and going for a ride and draining the stamina out of them like an anchor before pushing the advantage.

You've kind of carefully noted this won't work on a puma because it can claw at the dog and reach it in the fight no matter where it's holding. The dog can't just hold it in its blind side and ride out its retaliations safe from harm until it's tired. If the cougar is able it will just reach over with it's paw and grapple the dog into a prone position and kill it.

Well... exactly. That doesn't bode well for the puma. If the puma is stronger and can gain ascendancy in the struggle it can instantly easily kill the dog. So ... what the hell? Why are free-running catch dogs viable tools for hunting pumas? It means they are actually controlling the puma, preventing the puma from taking control by instead controlling them. Instead of the puma taking them down and sprawling over them for a killing bite, evidently the dogos/dogals are generally able to take control of the puma and take it down and sprawl over it and maul it. Put the cougar in a position where it can't effectively mount its killer offense.

Most interactions on film seem to reflect that reality. It seems most of the time the dogo actually wrestles the cat down onto it's back and is in charge of the fight while the cat is reduced to defensive raking to try and get the dog off it. A dominant cougar would absolutely just wrench the dogo down onto ITs back and hold it still and kill it with a bite through the neck or skull or spine or whatever. It would all be over pretty quick, and I do believe this may be the reality with the biggest mature male cougars. But clearly to be viable MOST pumas a gripping dog is liable to encounter on the pampas of argentina are controllable. The existence of the practice confirms it.

The available videos don't really matter, the fact is dogos are used with success to hunt puma in Argentina, and this fact unavoidably is burdened with the implication that average vs average at least the dogo will probably win the fight. WHEN you understand what a dogo is, and how hunting with running catch dogs works, the fact it's viable for cougars, means it can beat cougars.

"Regardless each dog had collars on and that may have prevented a few deaths, dogals aren't very durable. "

What makes you say dogals aren't durable? Totally untrue. Little in nature is more durable than a working bulldog lbs for lbs, a dogal (as a boarhound) is about half bulldog so still pretty durable, and notoriously so. These are dogs that take massive punishment as a matter of course. They don't avoid damage expertly the way a wolf or cougar does, they are built instead to withstand and endure an unusual amount of it because they target anything they are set upon, even if it's fighting fit prime specimen who SHOULD be immune to predation at that time in their life (from any predator, let alone a dog), and they take it on face to face with no ambush. Their quarry has every opportunity to just obliterate them violently, and sometimes they do.




These dogs need to be adapted to take that and keep going. And this is reflected as well in their anatomy. Studies on the skeletal remains of working dogs from ancient roman settlements showed that some, specifically those who had healed wounds from boar tusks (aka boarhounds), had considerably more robust bones than wolves, even pleistocene wolves.





Vindolanda dogs part 1
Vindolanda dogs part 2

Bone robusticity says a lot about durability, but also says a lot about predatory capacity. With carnivorans it's incredibly consistent that limb bone robusticity correlates with the size and dangerousness of the prey that carnivoran typically targets.

You can read about that here-
Carnivore Limb Robusticity

Boarhounds, which the dogal and dogo both are, have incredibly robust bones, are incredibly durable, and are adapted to struggle with incredibly large and dangerous prey for their size. When I say little is more durable than a working bulldog/boarhound, I mean it. The figures for their proportional robusticity scores are massive compared to wild predators. Cats appear to have more robust legs because they have some extra pronounced muscles to facilitate their dexterity and rotating and moving and using their forelimbs in certain ways canines can't, these movements require certain ligaments and muscles and this gives them an aesthetic of fat legs, but actually, bone wise, they aren't more robust than gripping dogs. Wolves yes, gripping dogs (bulldogs and boardogs) no.




In the above image the two large "dogs" are a great dane(left) and a northwestern wolf(right). Zoom in closely on the actual individual bones and you will see each bone in the great dane is considerably more robust. Way more robust.

Now a great dane isn't even a working boarhound, BUT, it used to be. And you can see some of those durability and predatory capacity adaptations reflected in its bones. They dwarf the wolves bones (and that's part of the reason they weigh 40% more at equal height and length). The puma is below, and it has more robust bones than the wolf for sure, but not necessarily the great dane. We don't have data on the great dane's ml% limb robusticity score, BUT we do have data on the boardogs of ancient rome in the vindolanda study and they are more robust than wolf bones to a greater degree than the limb bones of the puma were more robust than the wolf in the limb robusticity study (and the puma actually has extremely robust bones compared to other wild carnivores, but.. it seems less robust than boarhounds and bulldogs).

The puma still definitely enjoys a dexterity advantage. It can do a lot more with its paws (including grappling down prey) and in a hypothetical arm wrestle it would destroy any dog, BUT this doesn't mean it's actually more durable or even stronger. It's not.

The body of a dog works differently, there's no dexterity in the limbs but there is stability provided by the limbs, it doesn't grapple with it's paws, it grapples with its jaws, it's whole torso with the head and neck connected is a "dexterous forelimb", and it's limbs serve only to push and pull against the ground to facilitate the grappling of the mouth and torso. For this purpose bulldogs and boarhounds have incredibly sturdy and robust limb bones, and if you read the carnivore limb robusticity study again (and the break down by reddhole, even better, because he's analysing it as it pertains to these kinds of discussions) you'll see the limb robusticity laws and correlations apply across carnivora regardless of whether feliforme or caniforme and regardless of dexterity. Either way the limb bones reflect predatory capacity because they are still used as tools to struggle against the strength of your prey. Dogs and cats are built different and work different, but dogs still use their limbs in a predatory context. They lack the visible thickness of limb because their limbs aren't dexterous and don't have muscles related to those movements, but their bones show they are extremely robust, durable and strong. There's also a width to their shoulders and density/thickness to their torso and head and neck and etc, their "grappling limb" aka their whole body, is extremely strong, and it seems strong enough to most of the time immediately flop a similarly sized cat onto the ground and onto it's back after they get a hold of them with their mouth.

A collar might prevent a death, that would look a certain way, you'd have a cougar grab a dog with it's forelimbs, wrestle it down, have it subdued and then bite it's collar and find it's not working out and then the cougar would spring away into the night. I feel like I may have basically seen similar in various leopard/puma preying on pet/street dog videos. You can't, however, just see a video with a puma and dogs wearing collars and say "well, if it wasn't for the collars...", huh? Where? Where was the collar bite that didn't work thanks to the collar?

"One good bite and they're done."

That's right, so there's no excuse. When a dogo or dogal or mutt or whatever runs up to a cougar and grabs hold the cougar SHOULD just grab them and pin them down and kill them with a bite through the neck or skull almost instantly. That's their expertise, the quick kill. So they SHOULD do that and WOULD, IF they won the initial struggle for ascendancy. It would be so easy for them, if they just won the wrestle in the first place. Seems they don't usually, if the sizes are even close. The pack excuse doesn't even work because they'd just kill the first one that got a hold of them, they have time alone with the first dog, whether it's 5 seconds or 5 minutes or more. Either way, if the superiority cat fans claim was accurate the first dog would be dead before the others even got there. This is what would definitely happen against a tiger. Doesn't happen on cougars, so... You may be overestimating the puma, underestimating dogs, or dare I say- definitely both.

Much of your analyses in the following paragraphs are covered by the above...

"A Puma is far more dangerous to a single dog than a boar is"

Well not according to people who hunt both. Boars kill dogs more frequently than pumas (perhaps may be the reason pumas avoid boars entirely), and are considered more dangerous. The dexterity of the puma, the fact it can retaliate and dish out scratches even when it's secured with a grip and under control is a good point, while there may not be much a boar can do when it's firmly secured by the side of the face. Yeah ok, that's fair. But, those scratches aren't a big deal, those scratches are for deterring and these dogs won't be deterred. A boar actually can kill a good dog and is quite liable to, a puma? Less so. It could, but it needs to win first. That's just it, those scratches... it shouldn't need to even do that if it was anything like the "fight favourite" you propose it is. It can claw at the dog that's beating it up, ok? The dog doesn't care, your concern should be why it's getting beat up in the first place anyway. Cats don't "scratch" offensively, they scratch defensively, out of desperation. Offensively, when they are in charge and controlling the action, their claws are grappling hooks used to hold their opponent still so they can apply the finishing bite. They scratch when they are losing. That's not to kill, that's to make the bad man go away. Catch dogs don't go away. Not from mere scratches. So yes it can defensively desperately scratch a dog that's mauling it. Whoopy. I'd maybe focus on the fact it's being mauled instead, and how problematic that is for your argument.

"The “declawing" thing isn't a myth, it's real. There are many videos on here that show the Puma in a cage with a dogo raking at it directly, no blood and no friction can be seen. Case closed, they were declawed, I believe there was a video going around of a dogo attacking a Puma that was caught in a trap. Within seconds the dog was bathing in it's own blood and its head was flying into the air with each rake of the Pumas legs. THAT is what a clawed Puma's kicks look like. When they kick there is a lot of force, friction and blood. In the baiting fights there is no such thing. Case closed, they are declawed. There is no denying it."

Lol no, that's not how it works. You sound like a conspiracy theorist talking about how jet fuel can't melt the steel in the twin towers. Your expectations not being met doesn't prove something is wrong, more likely your expectations are foolish and flawed and ignorant.

There are plenty of videos of dogos bearing significant scratch marks/blood/scars after pen-fight training with cougars. Declawing a cougar is not a simple easy thing to do and it's clearly not the "norm" to do that. They want the dogs prepared for the clawing they will receive on a wild cougar.

Declawing may have been done? here and there? No solid proof, but it's plausible. Sometimes golden retriever "bait dogs" have their teeth removed so pitbulls can beat them up. Does that mean a pitbull needs a golden retriever to have its teeth removed in order to beat it up? No, it means some people are just especially shitty pieces of garbage, stupid moron hicks, again. So? It's not the norm, it's not what dogos are made for, most pen fights CLEARLY feature cougars with claws, you can often see the claws-


Whether they do the damage you hoped they would is neither here nor there, in fact pumas falling short of your expectations in general is not a good argument. Stuff like this-

"I've seen a lot of footage, no, they do not fight back. Sometimes they sit there, confused, looking around as the dogo mauls their legs. Completely petrified and unresponsive"

Not a good argument. That's our argument. They're not the fighters you think they are. They don't see themselves as fighters, they are predators who absolutely abhor fighting. They want minimal fighting. Everything about them is geared to minimise fighting. The way they hunt prey is all about making sure it can't fight back. Hence the careful patience and the ambush and even the impressive quick killing ability. That's all to minimise any possibility a fight might break out. They hate fighting. So when assailed by a fighter, yeah, they can appear to kind of largely shut down and not do what you want them to do. This is equally true in the wild and in a pen fight scenario (maybe MORE so in the wild, the pen fighters got a little used to it at least- similar to how in the roman arena the wild cats were the worst fighters, those raised from cubs practicing fighting in captivity performed way better).

Cats really really hate conflict, they want to be the one in control attacking the unsuspecting vulnerable victim, when it fights back something went wrong, and their body tells them that by flooding them with stress hormone and dread and telling them to get out of there. They also are adapted to not-fighting as reflected by their awful stamina. “Fatigue makes a coward of us all”, and it’s basically the number one weakness a fighter simply can’t have.

So yeah, they often look like shit and disappoint you in a fight. They aren't fighters. Gripping dogs are fighters and love fighting and live to fight. The more struggle the more they like it, the more hurt they get the more fired up and excited they get. They live for that, and cats live for quick kills on ambushed prey and skulking around in the shadows avoiding fights. Being disappointed in them performing poorly in a fight just shows you don't understand your favourite animal very well.

"I simply have to ask you a simple question. Would you be confident in a single male dogo argentino that is experienced to charge into a mature male Puma that has a lot of territorial fights under his belt of equal weight to be victorious more often than not? Because I simply cannot, that isn't possible. The dogo, no matter how bad will have no response the overwhelming speed and ferocity. I'd go as far as to say a complete mismatch."

I'd feel very very fine with it. Because you said equal size, wouldn't worry me. Some animals scare me. A baboon, a chimpanzee, a human being even. These are very dangerous for a dog. It's a bad match up, a bogey opponent. A jaguar or tiger or lion, also absolutely scary. A polar bear would be terrible. A very large tom cougar that is double my dog's size would be a problem, because then it can relatively easily hold my dog and pin it down with it's forelimbs and apply a quick killing bite. That's bad. But you said equal size. At equal size? I can name hundreds of animals that worry me much more than a cougar. I don't think I'd have much to worry about at all. Superficial scratches, that's it.

--------------------------

It continues...