Post by Hardcastle on Dec 12, 2022 16:18:37 GMT
"Wow, look firstly I will not be able to respond to every point you brought up, I will mostly be responding on lunch breaks, probably finishing this response by the time I get off of work… Alright I'll try my hardest to address everything, I'm on mobile so excuse grammatical errors, bad paragraph placement, jumbled thoughts etc. It's cumbersome to type such a long reply on mobile, you know that."
Yep, no problem. I too am busy and that's why there are gonna sometimes be big spaces between responses. I just wait until I have the time to respond properly. No rush.
"Firstly regarding the weight of each Cougar in each video..."
We don't seem to disagree THAT much here (surprisingly), it seems 5 or 10 lbs here or there... I see no point beating the dead horse.
"I know from people that tell me about these things that they don't want their dogs to die. They cost a lot of money, they are a heavy time investment and raising another one will cost either time or money so ASSUMING that the Cougar had something dragging it down prior to the videos recording is not far fetched, it's simply a rational thought that anybody would have considering the culture. They consider their dogs family, why would they send them to their doom? Without protective collars as well? Suspension is very much warranted there."
No. I come from a long line of boar hunters who breed and raise boar hunting dogs. "Running catch dog culture" is a thing that spans the globe (in pockets) and history (bigger pockets - it's kind of dying out globally) with a consistent familiar foundation of attributes and principles and nuances. So I can glean a lot from a little when it comes to seeing glimpses of other running catch dog cultures.
A lot of what you said above is simply not true. The dogs aren't valuable. They are definitely not expensive, they grow on proverbial trees and multiply like proverbial rabbits. My family gives hunting dog puppies away, literally. We always have too many. The whole thing I explained earlier about every hunter having a "big roster" like an NFL squad? This is what I'm getting at. The cream rises to the top, the wheat gets sorted from the chaff. A dog proves its value by surviving, and proves it isn't valuable by dying. It's a very self-sustaining organic system which is actually entirely responsible for the quality of the bloodline (shrewd breeding practices are irrelevant, training is irrelevant).
Protective collars and chest plates are for the human's convenience primarily. We don't want to be tending to wounds and buying antibiotics and healing injured dogs unnecessarily. THAT gets expensive and time consuming. But if a dog dies hunting? Good. It's really no problem. I promise you they don't care. Maybe they get attached to a good dog and when he eventually dies after losing a step or two it will be like "he went out on his shield *sheds tear* respect *pours drink on the ground*", but dogs dying is generally part of the game and not seen as something that needs to be avoided at all costs. It's not even seen as a negative. It's just the accepted reality, understood as necessary and why the dogs (who survive) are special and why the practice in general is put on a pedestal among other forms of hunting. The loss of dogs is frankly a badge of honour for the sport. A dog that is not good enough and is gonna be killed by the quarry, best they do it now, early, get it out of the way, let the lineage improve. Iron sharpens iron. The worst thing that could happen is you think the dog has everything under control and then the human approaches and the dog gets killed or badly hurt to a point it lets go and gives up and then the human is in mortal danger. They aim to avoid THAT at all costs, and for that they need to know the dog is good. If it dies, good, it needs to, better now than then. They want their dogs to be totally in danger, fully at the mercy of the quarry, and then not die and subdue the quarry in a dominant fashion. Then... fuck yeah, we're ready to roll with this dog. If it can't do that, please die now. And they do. They "throw a bunch of shit at the wall to see what sticks". Some of the shit doesn't stick, and then some does, and the latter becomes the dogs that people are relying on as professional catch dogs in the field.
That's why the idea the cougars are SO disadvantaged in the pen fights is so silly. Maybe those who are used as an introduction for puppies. There's a bit of that which goes on no doubt, and as I mentioned it happens in dog fighting with de-toothed golden retrievers introducing pitbulls to fighting. But ultimately the dogs have to get accustomed to the real deal and fighting dogs will have sparring "rolls" with real toothed serious pitbulls before they are ever entered into a fight with money on the line, and ditto for dogos with pumas before they are entered into a hunt with human life on the line. Some of these pen fights intentionally have a puma contestant that is KNOWN for its exceptional ability to fight dogs, forget about a handicapped one, more like one which is better than anything they will probably find in the wild. They do the same with hogs in some parts of the world. A proven "dog killer" hog is prized in the training of hog dogs in the southern US, and if they kill some, great. Excellent. It means those they don't kill are all the better. You want a dog-killer hog on the "pay roll" (ie receiving table scraps, let's not go nuts) to improve your hog dogging operation. And the more dogs it kills, the better. Catch dogs are not valuable, inherently, those who walk through the fire become valuable. Catch dog pups are free, experienced proven catch dogs ultimately will be worth thousands. But nerfing their opponents is antithetical to the point.
I'm glad in Australia we don't do pen fights. We don't mess around with that. Pups learn out in the field alongside experienced dogs keeping them relatively safe. But still I understand what the pen fights are for, and your characterisation of them is not accurate.
And you know, why would it be? It's not your world and not your interest, you are merely defending the honour of the cougar while blindly swinging at the other side. Fine. I honestly appreciate it to keep me honest. If there IS a good point for the cougar side, a passionate cougar fan like you will find it, and I like that. But your swings at the dog side are often misses, I can assure you. This is a perfect example of that.
"Wait so you just admitted that a 130lb male Cougar would be too much for any single dog?"
Ahh, well to be clear I said all the dogs involved in that video. None of which was over 90 lbs. I think that's probably enough of a weight advantage, yes.
I DO think a 130 lbs cougar is getting close to being too much for any dog. I think we're coming up to very rare dogs that are both highly functional, and big enough to not be subdued and unceremoniously killed by a 130 lbs cougar. What you should understand is most catch dogs are fundamentally smallish and compact animals. The "pure catch" by function dog, the working bulldog, is naturally anywhere from 25-80 lbs functional weight, with rare "freak" individuals going up to possibly 105 lbs. Boarhounds, which are essentially bulldog x sighthound at their base, get larger because they pack some of that bulldog muscle onto a taller and longer sighthoundish frame. Normally still they are maybe 60 - 120 lbs, with rare freak individuals getting up to possibly 165 lbs (biggest fully functional working boarhound I have known, anyway). Even among working functional boarhounds/bulldogs there is SOME proportional deterioration that starts occurring towards the upper weight limits.
So yeah, a 130 lbs puma is arguably pushing it for all but very rarely large and capable boarhounds (historically boarhounds over 120 lbs were typically what they called "bloodhounds", not to be confused with "the bloodhound" you know (no relation), these were larger boarhounds "blooded" to target humans as prey. Humans, it turns out, call for a larger dog than boar, which in turn call for a larger dog than bulls. Size can be a detriment against boars and especially bulls, hence the ceiling of size we are talking about here. Bloodhounds (man hunting boarhounds) are extinct, dogging humans in that way (a predatory killing way) is naturally quite out of favour in the modern world. It was big in colonial times for terrorising natives and slaves, but has no real application in the modern world.
Anyway, despite this, some boarhounds DO push into bloodhound territory. Like this for example-
That's a working boarhound but one pushing up to bloodhoundian size, it's probably 33-34 inches tall and 150 lbs or so. But this is a rare boarhound. Working boarhound. I mean non-working breeds that USED to be boarhounds are now often 180-200 lbs (and in fact even some bulldog breeds are), but I don't pay them much mind. They're bullshit. I only suggest working boarhounds and working bulldogs can defeat wild cats at equal size, and admittedly there's a question mark around the 130-150 lbs zone, and then above that I'm all white flag and it's all cats. No argument. Gripping dogs just don't "travel" that high in weight. It becomes like they have sandbags strapped to their body handicapping them.
But down around 30-100 lbs? I have no question mark, you just don't know enough about gripping dogs if you think a wild cat has a good chance against one at equal weight. It's such an unpleasant zone for felidae. The discrepancy in prey targeted should be the clue. That tends to say a lot about a carnivoran's capacity to handle itself in a combative encounter. Felines shirk at bovids and suids, all of them, but especially mature healthy ones, when they are in that weight zone. Don't go near them. "Bulldogs and boarhounds", obviously, do go near them. More than that they target the most dangerous ones with a preference and engage them face to face.
And no they don't kill them, I don't shy away from that fact because it's truly unimportant. Fighting and killing are separate things which remain separate. Killing happens AFTER an opponent has had the fight taken out of it. Regardless of who or what is doing the killing, that's how it works.
Boarhounds and bulldogs are specialised for taking the fight out of things, but have very little to no emphasis in their adaptation on the next stage of killing. Which, traditionally, a human does with a blade. But only AFTER the target has been defeated... traditionally... guns are admittedly messing that up these days, especially in poor wild west 3rd world countries, but most legit gripping dog guys don't use guns. Some do, as we've seen, and it's unpleasant and not what the culture and tradition is about. It's dying out, like I mentioned earlier, thanks to guns. These dogs evolved before guns. The whole point is they face the danger, they take the fight out of the prey, and THEN a human is safe to unceremoniously and mercifully slay the subdued animal by piercing its heart with a blade. That's gripping dogs. (alternatively they could also rope up the animal and live capture it, gripping dogs merely take the fight out of savage wild animals so humans can do what they want with them, that's their niche and that is their function).
" There were 4 dogals 1 mongrel and 1 true dogo argentino, and the Cougar absolutely destroyed any dog that got close to its face, it defended itself as well as it possibly could've given the situation and wasn't able to land any killing bites on the dogs because of the large collars and also due to the fact that one of its arms were BROKEN. It was controlling the entire head of both the dogo and dogals with one arm, it even tossed the mongrel dog like a weightless paper bag on accident. That is a tremendous amount of strength. And no, I've worked with Cougar's before, I am familiar with them, when I say 110-115lbs I know more or less what I'm talking about. Whatever size that dogo was it was slightly smaller than that, it was larger than both the mongrel and the dogals though. "
I watched the video again and can see 1 dog is probably a dogo. I'll admit at first I assumed they were all dogals but closer scrutiny I agree 1 appears to be a dogo. I actually hate the video and don't like watching it which is probably why I missed some details. But ok? It's still no more than 90 lbs, and I continue to disagree on your weight for the cougar, but only by 10 or 15 lbs so I don't care that much.
The dogo kinda sucked. Which I know is basically me doing what you are doing for the cougar performances. But instead of arguing something was horrifically wrong with it, I just think it kinda sucked. Which is fine and normal. I'm a bull arab guy but some of the bull arabs in videos I've seen sucked. That's part of it. Even the gif I posted earlier-
There are 3 bull arabs there, the only one I'm proud of is the one who got the shit kicked out of it. The other 2 are too stand-offish and hesitant (though one is clearly a pup in training).
Comes back to the "cream rising to the top" "extended nfl squad" argument. They're not all great. You have the big roster and let the champions rise to the top and then you have a legit squad.
What annoys me about the dogo in that vid, and frankly the dogals too, is not that they are getting hurt or whatever, it's the hesitance. Hesitating to hold and then letting pain take them off a hold. That's shitty. Any catch dog guy would agree, that's undesirable. But it's not like "oh well there you go, that's dogos", no, it's that individual dog.
This actually to me comes back to what I said earlier that packs can actually promote bad habits. The dogo has a visible attitude like "it's ok, someone else will do it". In fact all the dogs do in that video. They wouldn't last in the yard of practically every boar hunter I know. And those boar hunters actively avoid using big packs very specifically for that reason.
Looks can be deceiving. Here's an example after a quick glimpse at the boardogs classified ads.
This dog looks tough as hell, and should be a fully hard catch dog that would grab a cougar by the face and ignore its claws, but by the admission of the guy selling it, it just isn't.
It is tentative and only will hold on scary boars with back up. That is THAT individual dog and HIS nature.
This dog reminds me of that dogo, in fact that dogo might be softer than this dog, because it had the big pack there but was still worried about commiting to a hold lest it get scratched. This dog is described as going hard provided it has back up. Which is not uncommon, but a truly good catch dog needs no back up.
Then you have these dogs-
You can't notice any difference by just looking, but they are hard. They don't care about their target's formidability. They go all in and lug come hell or high water. That's a reliable catch dog and a catch dog is nothing if not reliable (and notice the difference in price).
This is just dogs for sale this week. I've seen other times where they very specifically say "this dog works best alone, don't use with other dogs or he will be tentative and not commit to the lug".
Ultimately every individual dog is different, regardless of breed. You're gonna find a dogo that doesn't do what a dogo is really supposed to do, and ditto for pitbulls and whatever. Some might even still find work because... you know, can't all be world beaters but might still offer something.
Admittedly, I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't acknowledge that wild big cats ALSO vary from individual to individual. They absolutely do.
That's why some of these bad performances don't need your weird conspiracy theories, just "that particular cougar was a pussy" would suffice. That happens. And sometimes it might be like "jesus christ, that particular cougar was a nightmare, wtf?". That happens too. Absolutely. Hunters live for THAT cougar. That's the one they want to talk about.
That's why I don't really care about videos. They seem like the best evidence and strongest reference. But they really aren't, for either side. Individual variation means "and so?" for every video. A dogo being humiliated by a cougar is absolutely not off the cards by any stretch. It's really fine, that probably can happen. I'm more of a big picture guy, and just the simple fact that dogo argentinos are used as catch dogs on cougars in south america (and I know, btw, that there's really nothing special about dogo argentinos in particular), then that tells me that basically a cougar is not a mismatch for a dog of gripping dog lineage in a fight. I know what a gripping dog is, I know what its job is, I know what implications are involved when a gripping dog is a viable tool for a specific animal. It means, in short, that they can take the fight out of that animal in a close quarter engagement. Maybe not every time, depends on the individuals involved, but basically it generally works and hence why they are used for that task. Hammers can generally hammer nails, saws can for the most part saw through wood.
"The parallel between a lioness suffocating a zebra and the rest of the pride gnawing on it doesn't work here because if it was a 2 on 1 even a 3 on 1 those wouldn't have been able to get the job done. The Cougar would've likely killed 2 dogals and the dogo without the assistance of the collars had they caught the Cougar alone a decent ways from the hunters. The dogs very much NEEDED such a drastic numbers advantage, with the inclusion of 3 extra dogs they reprimand the Cougar's lower body, reducing its weapons and leverage, preventing it from getting a good hold in ETC. As you've said the Cougar wouldve killed either of those dogs 1 on 1 no issue at all, not even a little bit. And I'm going to be honest, If those dogs didn't have those collars? Who's to say that Cougar wouldn't have killed every single one of them, it looked plenty energized by the time they shot him dead. The dogs assailing the Puma's flanks weren't dealing lethal damage by any stretch of the imagination. Neither dog could enter its head/neck region so it could continue to fight and kill the dogo and the dogal and than focus on the last 3 dogals and mongrel of which aren't very durable, one bite to the back of the neck it all it takes, a bite to the top of the skull can knock a dog out instantly, it's happened before. A bite directly to the neck can incapacitate a dogal for a few seconds, giving it levity to maul the others as it recovers. The Cougar winning that fight without human intervention? I'm going to say it had a pretty decent chance."
Well I didn't see things that way. I was severely unimpressed with the dogs but also I don't think any of them were ever in any danger. All were lackadaisical knowing they had a mountain of help and if anything it made them all perform worse IMO.
Yes the cougar dug a claw or two into the odd dog and maybe even was able to bite on the odd dog in the messy melee. I don't think any dog is injured or worried about what took place in that skirmish. I also think it's a totally ridiculously unfair contest and says nothing positive about any of the dogs involved. I'd agree with you actually that in that display the cougar deserves more credit than any dog, but whatever, nothing that happened there is what my argument is based on.
I DO maintain that the cougar was probably a little big for all those dogs 1 on 1. And that honestly CAN go a long way against multiple opponents. Some dogs are good at maximising their numbers advantage, some aren't. Wild african painted hunting dogs and red-dholes of south asia are masterful at using their numbers. Wolves are "so-so". Curs and scenthounds are pretty good. Gripping dogs suck at it. The problem is they are specialised for a natural wolf-task that is typically performed by 1 wolf. 1 wolf in a big healthy pack will be the "heavy hanger" specialist that holds musk ox or elk or bison or whatever still by the fact while the pack eviscerates it. Gripping dogs are tapping into that natural wolf behaviour with their specialisation, but it's not something that benefits from numbers and EVERYONE involved in catch dogs will tell you the same thing. Numbers actually get in the way. Use totally different kinds of dogs and sure, they may help a specialist catch dog, but for the actual art of close-quarter combat and subjugation of an animal, gripping dogs really don't benefit from numbers. 1 or 2 is it, some maintain 1 is ideal. No one argues a big pack is ideal. Some amateurish idiots USE packs because it's inconvenient and somewhat counter intuitive to leave dogs yelping with "fomo" at home, and while you don't need a big pack for a hunt, you do need a big pack to sustain a hunting operation.
"Also I'm pretty sure those people knew they were going to be setting that mongrel on a cub. Sending a mongrel on an adult Cougar? It would bite it by the neck and carry it off, collar or not. It's too small. They KNEW what they were doing, those sick sadistic freaks."
Well I disagree. They may be sadistic freaks. In fact I'd argue they definitely are because I'd probably intervene and not just watch a dog maul a cougar cub like that. BUT the reality is they have no control over what they will encounter. That assertion is simply totally out of touch with the reality of hunting. Just seeing a cougar of any age in the wild is so difficult for a human being, the idea they have their dog like "not that one, not that one.. yes THAT one" is absurd. Their dog is free ranging and hunting and it finds what it finds. That's why you have to be very careful what kind of dog you are using in different areas. That's why if you were hunting in country with an animal, any animal, that can easily quickly kill a gripping dog... You wouldn't use gripping dogs.
You can't control what the gripping dogs will find and fight. They are fearless, as a rule (with exceptions noted above) and they are gonna fully commit to a fight with anything whether they should or whether back-up has arrived or whatever. I know lots of hunters in Africa and they make no bones about it- you simply do not take gripping dogs into lion country. You don't do it. There's a clear boundary line they do not cross with their gripping dogs. Gripping dog people don't mind losing dogs, but they also don't just sacrifice dogs with prescient knowledge they will definitely die. It's a dumb waste of time. So lion country and tiger country is avoided with gripping dogs. They know a gripping dog won't hesitate to charge in and grab a tiger or lion with full confidence, and then of course it will be killed rather quickly. It's way too small, way too easy to control and wrestle down and kill.
Again, they DO hunt lions and tigers with dogs, but we then move into the world of curs and pariahs/spitz and scent hounds or whatever. Dogs who are hyper-aware of their limitations and very cautious and careful and use lateral quickness and shrewd evasion to harass and distract dangerous animals. It's kind of cool to think you can have a dog that can actually safely interact with lions and tigers and bears and not die, and that's what dogs like rhodesian ridgebacks are. They are careful and frankly scared of dangerous animals and very nimble on their feet and they can at once harass and pester lions and tigers while also evading them. Dogo argentinos and alano espanols and bull arabs and etc are not compatible in lion and tiger country. They are too sure of their combative abilities and they will actually torpedo into a lion with intent to subdue it and then unceremoniously be killed in seconds. They can't live with lions and tigers, and do not.
You'll notice catch dogs have a presence pretty much consistently where they won't pick the wrong fight and get killed with 100% certainty. This is why catch dogs were SO big in Sri Lanka (aka ceylon) during british occupation, but far less useful in India. Well India had fucking tigers, so duh, BUT ceylon did not. It had leopards, some of the biggest and baddest leopards on earth, incidentally, but that's fine. Catch dogs could work with that. There is extensive literature from british hunters where catch dogs had great success in ceylon, and even including in the fighting of leopards.
You can read about it here-
"The first who answers to the magic call is 'Smut,' hero of at least 400 deaths of elk and boar. He appears the same well-remembered form of strength, the sullen growl which greeted even his master, the numerous scars and seams upon his body; behold old Smut! His sire was a Manilla blood-hound, which accounted for the extreme ferocity of the son. His courage was indomitable. He was a large dog, but not high, considering his great length, but his limbs were immense in proportion. His height at the shoulder was 26 1/2 inches; his girth of brisket 34 inches. In his younger days he always opened upon a scent, and the rocky mountains and deep valleys have often echoed back his deep notes which have now, like himself, passed away. As he grew older he became cunning, and he ran entirely mute, knowing well that the more noise the elk heard behind him the faster he would run. I have frequently known him to be out by himself all night, and return the next morning blown out with food which he had procured for himself by pulling down a doe single-handed. When he was a young dog, and gave tongue upon a scent, a challenge was offered, but never accepted, that the dog should find, hunt, and pull down two buck elk, single-handed, within a fortnight, assisted only by his master, with no other weapon than a hunting-knife; there is no doubt whatever that he would have performed it easily. He then belonged to Lieutenant Pardoe, of the 15th Regiment.
He had several pitched battles with leopards, from which he has returned frightfully torn, but with his yellow hair bristled up, his head and stern erect; and his deep growl, with which he gave a dubious reception to both man and beast, was on these occasions doubly threatening."
The Rifle and the Hound in Ceylon
This dog was only half gripping dog (manila bloodhound- an extinct large boarhound), the other half seemingly foxhound, but it was enough for him to survive multiple fights with leopards un-aided with only scratches. Samuel White Baker frequently mentions foxhounds and greyhounds being ambushed and taken by leopards, but remarks that "seizers of adequate size" (seizers are what they called gripping dogs -bulldog or boarhound - at least in part) could typically fight them off. That's fight off their ambushes. After the leopard gave itself every advantage and picked the battle.
MAYBE.... MAYBE... it's somewhat to the cougar's credit that I can't seem to find significant catch dog cultures in canada. Just retrievers... I dunno... Canada generally sucks when it comes to dogs so... jury is out.
But, all that aside, the fact is that in Argentina they have deduced from trial and error that you can absolutely catch cougars with gripping dogs. THAT, to me, says A LOT.
In that video, sure, a big brindle mongrel is laying waste to a poor cougar cub and it's a tough watch. But I don't believe the hunter can control the wilderness and decide what calibre of cougar his dog will find. I believe his dog is at least largely viable on most of what it will probably find in that environment. I don't know his dog, I don't know what he does, but even ignoring him there's definitely a clear indication that gripping dogs can be viable in argentina. That has implications. It implies that catch dogs are at least somewhat safe and able to handle themselves with whatever they may find in that environment. Able to handle themselves in close-quarter engaged fights, because (unlike many dogs) that is what they do and that is their nature. They don't work everywhere, they have a distribution range dictated by the upper ceiling of animals they can subdue.
Their stupid level of courage means that IF they are viable somewhere, it means they can safely subdue the animals in that area. Because over their career they WILL encounter... not just baby cougars, but all manner of cougars, and sometimes with no other dogs or humans nearby. Such is the nature of hunting (which understandably may have escaped you). If they are of gripping dog blood, they will simply charge in and attack whatever they can. That's why you can't use free-running catch dogs in Lion country, but it seems you can use them in mountain lion country. Like it or not, that says something.
"The fact that dogo argentinos are used in hunts on Cougar's at all says what? That doesn't inherently mean anything, how many are we talking about here? By which dogs are they accompanied by?"
It actually doesn't matter. A free running catch dog has to be able to handle itself, alone. The logistics of hunting are, like I said, escaping you, and this is where my background can be very educational for you if you are open to being educated. I sense you'd rather not be educated, but I'm gonna do it anyway.
In hunting you have free-running dogs, which can range from soft bailers (strictly stand back away from the quarry and bark at it), to hard bailers (apply more pressure and may sneak a nip, still very careful and frankly scared of the quarry), to curs (more pressure, more bites, still cautious and evasive) to rough curs (quite a lot of pressure, hard bites that may even linger as holds, if it is safe to do so, especially if they have support, still a bit cautious) and finally hard luggers (fully commit to a close quarter engagement no matter what, torpedo in, grab hold and then maintain the hold and fight the quarry into submission). Hard luggers can be free-running dogs, OR they can be lead-in catch dogs, or "drop dogs". The lead-in/drop catch dogs are typically squat and broad and specialised just for combat only. Not good at pursuing and running down prey. A bulldog is a lead in/drop dog by design, and before the term bulldog was ever used they were called "bandogges", which meant bound dog, referring to them being kept on lead by a handler for most of the hunt, only to be released after the free-running bailers and curs have the prey cornered, "held at bay" and settled in for a fight. Then you walk in with your bandogge and "let slip" and it runs over and takes the fight out of the bayed quarry.
But we also have running catch dogs, and that's what the dogo argentino is. It's a boarhound. It's not JUST a bulldog or bandogge, it's bull-blood blended with running dog to make an all-rounder that finds, runs down, catches and then fights the prey into submission.
You could potentially use lead-in catch dogs where there are beasts that are too dangerous for a catch dog to safely fight, and some legendary big game hunters did do that, like George P Sanderson who used bull terriers and small bullmastiffs in British India. Among the tigers and elephants and indian rhinos. Even though he did set a bull terrier upon a small juvenile elephant, and it lugged it, can read about his exploits here if interested-
Thirteen years among the wild beasts of India
With lead in catch dogs you can choose to refrain from releasing them on something silly that the bailers have bayed.
With running catch dogs aka boarhounds, you can't. They get away from you, sometimes kms away from you, and away from other dogs, and they will engage and lug anything they find. That's why they're not viable on certain game, and even in certain parts of the world.
On this day on this particular hunt maybe they'd encounter a small cougar, with their pack mates (whether same type or different) right there by their side, and the human only 20 metres behind them. And it's all quite nerfed and safe. No need to display much fighting prowess. But they need to be prepared for the worst day, not the best easiest day. There will be times over the span of their career where they WILL find themselves alone engaged with quarry and having to fight it alone for an extended period of time. It's inevitable and it's unavoidable with free running catch dogs. No matter the pack size, no matter what weapons their human might be using or whatever. They need to be able to endure a one on one fight with whatever animals they may encounter, or they will die at an astronomical impractical rate. Bailers are ok and curs are ok, because they prioritise their own safety, but catchdogs are prized for reliably committing to the fight no matter their odds. You keep that weapon sheathed in certain environments. Wherever it is typically unsheathed and let loose to run free as a finder/lugger all-rounder, you know it can handle itself in a fight with EVERYTHING in that habitat. One such habitat is the pampas of argentina/patagonia. Another is South Africa, but strictly out of well known lion territory. Another is Sri Lanka, crawling with leopards, but no tigers. Another is the southern half of North America. Like it or not, the running catch dog hot-spots do make a statement about the animals who live there being not beyond a running catch dog in a fight.
The northern half of North America ... there's perhaps an avenue of argument for you there, because admittedly running catch dogs are very unpopular in that part of the world. Weirdly so. Are cougars the reason why? Or wolf packs? Grizzlies? Maybe all of the above. That would be an interesting argument that would trouble me.
" A single dogo cannot handle a Mountain lion, with a protective collar they can survive long enough for the hunter to arrive and kill the Puma. You are implying that it is the other way around, no no. They have to kill the PUMA to save the dog, this can easily be handled by having more than one dogo. Which is usually the case. They can tank well, but to imply that it would unironically win in a fight based off of that? Is wishful thinking at best. Yes dogo's can't hunt tigers, probably because they are 5x bigger than them. What is that supposed to mean? That a Cougar can't kill a dogo because it engages 1 on 1 (supposedly) and doesn't die (they do)? Of course, dogos can be used to hunt small jaguars as well, because even though they are vastly superior the Jaguar doesn't have a heavy weight advantage, forcing it to FIGHT in which dogs may be equipped with gear to prolong said fight. Doesn't mean a Jaguar wouldn't beat a dogo one on one. It definitely can't beat a Puma, so it isn't beating a Jaguar. This is a false equivalence, based on a preconceived premise. “Dogo's are used to hunt Puma's therefore they win". No, dogo's are used to hunt Pumas because they are strong dogs that can take a beating when equipped with collars, it doesn't mean they would be successful in any unaltered confrontation between the 2."
I disagree with this for the simple fact that I believe in the killing ability of the cougar. I believe if a cougar can get the upper hand on a dogo, that dogo is dead. I know what cougars are capable of once their adversary is subdued, their killing ability is incredible. Any dogo not fit to fight a cougar 1 on 1 would be unceremoniously killed quickly in a 1 on 1 fight. The dogo basically has to win to survive. It's like if you're fighting a guy with a knife, you BETTER be winning, because the instant he starts winning the knife is being jammed into your jugular and you're dead. You better be controlling his arms and pinning him down with your knee on the wrist of his knife hand and etc etc. The killing ability of a cougar is no joke. A dogo has to control a fight to survive a fight.
I'm not aware of any cases of dogos hunting jaguars (have seen lots bailing scenthounds and even rough curs hunting jaguars, but not catch dogs). Having said that, I am aware of a bulldog named Hercules, son of Spanish/French Champion Caporal, fighting a jaguar in "an epic battle" in San Francisco in the late 1890s. The dog ultimately died from it's wounds, but was winning early on to such an extent and had thrashed the jaguar so badly that many in attendance chanted for it to be declared a draw.
My take away from that is... could a puma do the same? Have an epic drawn out battle with a jaguar where it was winning at times? Hmmm... don't think so. I concede jaguar superiority. That's my line actually. Gripping dogs reside somewhere under jaguar and above leopard/cougar, specifically at parity in the 70-125 lbs weight range.
"Regarding limb robustity.
Thay study is interesting and intriguing, I've heard of that before. Yeah the V dogs (I call vindolanda dogs “V" for short") seemed to have very robust bones, but if I am not mistaken dogo's are not V dogs right? I thought the V dogs went extinct a long time ago, and despite the fact that pitbulls, and dogo argentino's for example bare a striking resemblance doesn't necessarily mean that they are as robust. We'd need a modern day example of that. "
Thay study is interesting and intriguing, I've heard of that before. Yeah the V dogs (I call vindolanda dogs “V" for short") seemed to have very robust bones, but if I am not mistaken dogo's are not V dogs right? I thought the V dogs went extinct a long time ago, and despite the fact that pitbulls, and dogo argentino's for example bare a striking resemblance doesn't necessarily mean that they are as robust. We'd need a modern day example of that. "
The study includes a handful of undefined modern dogs (represented by stars), and some of them are more robust than the V dogs. Those V-dogs aren't extinct or sprinkled with magic pixie dust, they were just working boarhounds, like the dogo argentino (described as a "cane corso analogue" in the study), like a bull arab, like any kind of dog that still actually works as a boar hound. If they do that job they still are the same animal as the ones who did it back then. It's the non-working dogs who have changed. A dog's job determines what it is. A boarhound then is a boarhound now, and vice versa. And that's why they look so familiar in old artworks. They don't look like any pure breed in the breed encyclopedia, they look like mongrel working pig dogs.
This animal has been preserved.
Like I said, regardless, there are modern dogs with MORE robust bones than vindolanda dogs. There's no data on the dogo argentino specifically, but to me the vindolanda boarhound is the same animal anyway. "Breeds" are largely nonsense, dogs should more accurately be categorised by their function, not their breed name. A vindolanda boarhound has more in common with a working dogo argentino than a working dogo argentino has with a show or pet dogo argentino.
"I was referring to without the collar. No a Cougar isn't going to “one shot" a dog with a collar, skull bites take time, the instant incapacitation comes from the neck, wherein several critical arteries lie. A dogal for example is subject to being bitten on the back of the neck and having its spine broken, essentially killing it. This is an actual thing that can happen. Will it happen all of the time? NO! But it is always a threat that the Puma has, so equipping them with collars prevents this from happening. Biting on the lower neck could could knock a hound out, due to loss of oxygen to the brain happening so quickly. Have you've ever been choked out? I have, the more force is applied to the critical parts of your neck the faster you go out. And a Cougar has more than enough force in its canines to knock a dog out instantly. It won't KILL them, but they will be useless for a good 20 seconds. Cougar's- also unlike leopards have shorter duller canines, making their bite more “trauma” inducing. It's a very real thing an CAN happen, a collar prevents this. Pumas also employ a “bite and shake" maneuver, similar to a pitbull though to a lesser extant. You may see it in the 6 on 1 when the Puma grabs the dogals snout, it bite and shakes to deepen the bite and do more damage. This would bode terribly for a bite to the back of the neck, if it bites and shakes the dogal would've 100% been paralyzed. So pumas actually got an idea about biting in non fatal areas and shaking their heads to deepen the bite, and rend flesh. Leopards don't do that. (At least I've never seen them do it)"
You're very hung up on collars, the funny thing about that is that Argentinians are notorious in international hunting communities for not using any collars or any protection. They cop a lot of flack for it as it is deemed to be making hunters look bad that they put in no effort to minimise injuries which is then used by animal rights activists as fuel to muster up public outrage over the sport. The dogo dragging the puma down the cliff has something between no collar and a thin normal nylon collar any pet dog has to go for walkies. Hard to tell it's so blurry, but there's definitely no protection on that dog. So it's clearly not considered an issue. Again argentina (and spain, and portugal) are known for no protection
USA, who always love to go overboard with everything, are known for... going overboard.
Australia more what I would call "normal", but I'm biased
"No, no. Cougar's can and have clawed while being the aggressor. Search up “Puma attacks doberman" and notice how it was the dominant one yet it clawed the doberman in the stomach? The claws of a Puma are a multi-use tool. Yes, they may be used defensively, but also offensively. Horses have been killed by Pumas clawing at their necks and severing arteries, Leopard's have scalped people by clawing their heads etc. So we know for a fact that that is NOT true, Pumas do NOT strictly use them defensively."
I've heard the stories of the infamous "paw swipe kills" and etc, I just haven't seen it after decades of seeking out such information and being in communities where all of us were desperately seeking proof of such things and coming up empty. Most concluding and accepting the famous lethal claw swipe attacks are a thing of myth and legend. Grappling hooks on offense, attack-deterrents on defense. Offensive killer "knife blades", no.
This doesn't contradict your "clawing at the doberman's stomach a bit in the melee" case, more just refuses to attach an unseemly amount of gravity to a non-event. That doberman was very upset about getting bitten on the neck, I'm not so sure the kicks were a factor. My shoelaces might rub up against a guy's thighs while I'm sitting on his chest punching his face in, it doesn't mean I'm simultaneously utilising a shoe-lace attack.
"It isn't about my “expectations being met" it's about what I know to be true not being true. When a BIG CAT kicks, there will be BLOOD, lots of it, FRICTION against the dog as the Puma rakes and FORCE as it sends whatever part of the dog flying where it kicks. Whether the be the whole body or the head. Why isn't that the case in those video? Is it because I have false expectations? Or is it because the agencies that report on these things are telling the truth, and evidently so? If there ain't blood everywhere the Pumas don't have their claws. Simple as that. If there isn't friction when a Puma claws at a dog and the kicks instead glide over the dog with no blood and no friction there are no claws. Simple as that. After pen fights they appear “bloody and scratched” huh? What baiting fights have you been looking at? The ones I've seen don't show that."
We've been all over these issues for years in animal vs animal debating forums, and it's been determined with extensive scientific evidence that the skin of these dogs, and indeed many carnivoran animals, is nothing like human skin, much thicker and shifts and moves and it's simply not reasonable to expect it to react to claw scratchings the way a humans or even a tight skinned zebra or antelope's skin. Anything that sweats has unusually delicate skin with blood vessels unusually close to the surface. This was a done and dusted topic for me a long time ago and quite tedious to go back in to it. The expectation of "what should happen IMO" is just not a good argument. The whole point of my argument is you don't know what you're talking about, so for you to then use "what you think should happen" as evidence is literally a moot point.
Dogos of course can be wounded by scratches, but it's not deep blood-letting cuts, it's... scratches. We've all seen the photos. Scratches that aren't visible immediately but blood gradually appears in the shallow scratch marks and said scratches may swell. They're mostly an "after the fight you notice" kind of thing. During the melee the blood may not come to the surface right away.
It's nothing like a tusk injury which is a deep laceration that blood spills from. Claws just don't have that kind of edge on them. The teeth of a big cat can make a deep puncture wound, their claws make scratches. Scratch damage isn't super immediately apparent. You get the scratch, see nothing, and then some blood may come to the capillaries in a delayed response. A small amount of blood. Lots of scratches and some time and the dog will look pretty beat up, but during the fight you may not see much.
I could just as easily talk about the lack of blood on the cat despite it being ravaged by the dog's mouth. I could call “conspiracy” on that. Dog teeth sure as hell are more damaging than cat claws, but I just fundamentally hate when people do that and it's always stupid. Again I refer to the "jet fuel can't melt steel, 9/11 is fake" crap. I'm not gonna pretend I'm doing a thorough autopsy on the cougar during a blurry 15 second video, it's sheer idiocy and you should refrain from such tactics in the future if you want to be taken seriously. You "think" there "should" be lots of blood, whoops, you thought wrong. Learn from that. Reality isn't wrong, you are.
"Golden retrievers have their teeth removed in pit fights? Huuuh? Talk about a false equivalence and a red herring. What am I supposed to say to that? Golden retrievers are tampered with in pit fights and a golden retriever would lose to a pitbull regardless so therefore Pumas are no different? What is this ABC logic?"
It's just flawed logic to assert that if some pumas are tampered with it MUST mean dogos can't fight them fair. If that was true then it would be true that pitbulls can't fight golden retrievers fair, because SOME golden retrievers get de-fanged or muzzled to be bait dogs for pitbulls. It's a dishonest arguing tactic on your part and I'm pointing it out.
Like I said, there may be dodgy handicapping tactics used on some cougars, but it would only be for introducing puppies to cougars. At the end of the day dogos have to face real pumas in the wild, and the pen fights exist to prepare them for that reality. Part of that is introducing them to fully equipped fully clawed cougars in one on one sparring sessions in pens. They need to feel the claws now in the pen or they might be surprised in the wild, let go and get a human killed. Tonnes of evidence of clawed up dogos in pen fights. I frankly haven't seen any solid proof they are ever declawed, your expert analysis of "not enough blood" not-withstanding. It's logical they may do that as an introduction for puppies, like they do with golden retrievers in dog fighting. It is not logical they would ALWAYS only do it that way. What would be the point? The pen fights only serve as preparation for the real thing. No claws is no preparation. And we see the claws in plenty of the videos and pictures.
"See now regarding that picture, notice how the dog isn't bleeding? And no, it appears to have “trimmed" claws not entirely removed but trimmed to the point of dull nubs. Look closely at the claw, notice how it goes dull halfway through? That's what I'm talking about. Imagine if somebody chopped the front tip of your fingers off, you still have your finger but is it anywhere near as dexterous now? No. Same for the Puma, but worse. (P.s the forearm of the Puma is atrophied, whoever is feeding it isn't doing a good job)"
I don't see any of that, the sharp end of the claw disappears into the dog's head skin. There's an obvious big claw there and the end of it is obscured by the fact it's dug in. Your mental gymnastics are becoming a little much.
"Correct, pumas along with every animal that isn't a fighting dog that resides on this planet avoids fights among other animals. This is a sign of intelligence and self preservation. I haven't a clue why you'd dunk on it. "
Because here's the reality; If you are adapted to be "smart" and carefully avoid doing something for the sake of self preservation, you lose the ability to perform in that activity. Your ancestors have carefully shrewdly avoided it so expertly over the last tens of millions of years, so it follows then your ability for that has atrophied. Performing well in a fight isn't important in your adaptation, avoiding it is. You don't use it, you lose it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You'd have to be having fights regularly and being tested by them and prevailing to retain an ability to do well in fights.
I'm not criticising the cougar for wisely avoiding fights, I'm noting the ramifications associated with wisely avoiding fights. I don't think it should be ridiculed and mocked or put in the gallows for being a non-fighter, but it also should be acknowledged that it's not a fighter. Just don't assert it is a fighter and there will be no issue.
It's like saying "penguins don't need to fly, they're adapted to swim instead, stop making fun of them for not flying", I'm not, I'm just saying they can't fly. They stopped flying, and naturally they lost the ability to fly. Right?
"Oh they could if they wanted to, they just choose to swim instead, which is smart because ackshully you might crash if you fly"
Ahhh what??
"Also, might I add that without training, no dog, not even pitbulls will engage in such dangerous quarry, they need to be trained to be that way. Otherwise they revert back to nature's way, which is self preservation. "
Nope. You really shouldn't make statements about dogs if you know nothing about them. There's no training required, it is their evolved nature. Their selection has favoured the brave, those who want to fight and prize winning fights over self preservation have had more breeding success than those who didn't, so they have evolved to be fighters.
"If you want a Puma without that trait domesticate them the same way you've done dogs and make a smilodon out of them. But until than this point is moot, they'd still win because they are more effective killers and will fight within a point of reason."
They'd be a different animal then, wouldn't they? We don't need imaginary fantasy animals, we have a real animal here already fitted out with real attributes and inclinations, and part of that animal is an aversion to fighting and an atrophied fighting ability that has afflicted it's body and mind. It wisely avoided fighting, it shirks at fighting because it's the smart thing to do in accordance with its best interests as a wild predator, and as a result it's fighting ability is reduced. No shame in it, until we start talking about fights against real fighters, for some reason. Then we just have to calmly note that we have one animal that exists to fight and one animal that exists to avoid and minimise fighting. That's kind of significant, you know, because we're talking about... fighting.
The puma IS a great killer, and killing can end a fight, and that's the only reason this is interesting at all. But the reality of fighting, just a foundational principle of combat, is that you most likely won't have your perfect quick finish go your way in a face to face scuffle with a ready and raring opponent. Your precise KO punch or whatever is liable to glance off or miss, more often than not, and then the altercation will devolve into a struggle, and then suddenly if you are lacking struggling attributes (like, I dunno, stamina, or combat composure, ie enjoyment of fighting for it’s own sake) because you've carefully wisely avoided fighting for hundreds of thousands of generations, and specialised on quick finishes, you may find yourself in a pickle.
"Double the size? That is ridiculous."
FTR I used "double the size" as an example where yes, absolutely my dog would be in trouble. Meaning it goes without saying they could be fairly easily secured and held down with the grappling hook claws (not knives, funnily enough they wouldn't even work as subjugation tools if they were like knives). I never said the puma NEEDED to be double the size. It's just an example of when a puma could be a nightmare.
I do agree a 130 lbs cougar is also too much for these 80-90 lbs dogs, and probably a 100 lbs dog. At the point where it can hold the dog down and the dog can't fight, the puma wins thanks to its superior quick killing ability.
You underestimate the power in these dogs if you think that is likely when they are equal in size in the size range where these dogs are comfortable. Their power and capability to control and subdue dangerous animals is their niche specialisation and they are masterful experts at it. The puma is also demonstrably on their hit list. You can nitpick over the blood spatters you believe should be there all you want, the fact is pumas are targeted by catch dogs who only exist to subjugate and control dangerous animals and take the fight out of them with their mouth. So that says it all. The puma is not above being out-grappled and subdued by a dogo argentino.
