Woman killed by two bull mastiffs in Galway

steddyeddy · 05-06-2017 10:46PM

Ninjavampire wrote: »

Why would you need evidence? I thought it was known that dogs are pure blank slates that only learn how to maul innocent people from their aggressive owners?

Ah right. I was just wondering because that notion goes against everything we know about evolution and breeding. Dogs are exempt so.

05-06-2017 10:51PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is there any evidence yet to corroborate some of the poster's claims that the owner was irresponsible/abusive to the dogs and that the dogs weren't aggressive?

Quite a claim to make on a public forum when a life has been lost.

steddyeddy · 05-06-2017 10:55PM

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Quite a claim to make on a public forum when a life has been lost.

I know. That's why I'm asking for evidence, not assumptions.

NIMAN · 05-06-2017 11:12PM

We won't know until more details come out, whether these were pets, guard dogs or dogs being trained to fight.

05-06-2017 11:15PM

Ninjavampire wrote: »

Why would you need evidence? I thought it was known that dogs are pure blank slates that only learn how to maul innocent people from their aggressive owners?

In a hundred million years, our successors will dig up dogs remains, note the elongated mouth and teeth and conclude most breeds were designed to bite...and also dig up remains of posts from people who insist that the only reason they bite is because they have bad owners. They may be puzzled why our generation didn't spot the obvious...

steddyeddy · 05-06-2017 11:18PM

Deleted User wrote: »

In a hundred million years, our successors will dig up dogs remains, note the elongated mouth and teeth and conclude most breeds were designed to bite...and also dig up remains of posts from people who insist that the only reason they bite is because they have bad owners. They may be puzzled why our generation didn't spot the obvious...

There definitely exists bad dog owners. However amongst those number the people who think that there are no such things as dangerous dogs.

Samaris · 06-06-2017 06:48AM

Gael23 wrote: »

Reports today that the dogs were owned by her son.

Ah no, I was a bit afraid that was going to turn out to be the case. That family must be devastated. Anyone would be, their dogs kill their mum and finding the body in the house. Jesus.

There is no reason to assume the dogs were trained to be dangerous or that they were anything but family pets as yet. It may be comforting to believe that this tragedy could only happen because the owners were obviously bad or whatever, but without knowing the facts behind it, that is a wild (and given the circumstances, cruel) assumption.

Game Face MCGee · 06-06-2017 10:01AM

people need to get a grip when it comes to dogs. The reality is there are some dog which were bread for a specific purpose (hunting, guarding etc..) this is in their DNA. This is an unquestionable FACT.
Yes bad owners with these type of dogs are a disaster like this waiting to happen. But you cant discount the good owners dogs acting on their natural instincts in certain situations.
I'd use the eg of a lion, bear, ape etc.. bread in captivity. it knows nothing about the wild or attacking, but they have a natural instinct built into their DNA, which countless times has come to the surface and they have attacked members of the public. you cant separate dogs from other animals like "dog lover" do and 100% blame the owners

kunst nugget · 06-06-2017 10:06AM

Game Face MCGee wrote: »

The reality is there are some dog which were bread for a specific purpose

Like Hot Dogs?

LordSutch · 06-06-2017 10:45AM

Just looking at the size of this breed, and they're so big & powerful looking.
Just one of them would do more then enough damage, never mind two!

Do we know if she died from blood loss or the fright or what? (sorry to ask).

GerryDerpy · 06-06-2017 10:55AM

Game Face MCGee wrote: »

people need to get a grip when it comes to dogs. The reality is there are some dog which were bread for a specific purpose (hunting, guarding etc..) this is in their DNA. This is an unquestionable FACT.
?Yes bad owners with these type of dogs are a disaster like this waiting to happen. But you cant discount the good owners dogs acting on their natural instincts in certain situations.
?I'd use the eg of a lion, bear, ape?etc.. bread in captivity. it knows nothing about the wild or attacking, but they have a natural instinct built into their DNA, which countless times has come to the surface and they have attacked members of the public. you cant separate dogs from other animals like "dog lover" do and 100% blame the owners

+1 the same dog defenders would quickly point out how a captive circus lion was just acting naturally when he maims his trainer.

volchitsa · 06-06-2017 11:07AM

GerryDerpy wrote: »

+1 the same dog defenders would quickly point out how a captive circus lion was just acting naturally when he maims his trainer.

But doesn't that prove their point - lions haven't been bred (or buttered) to have a relationship with people, whereas dogs, even fighting dogs, have. I imagine fighting dogs have more potential to be dangerous than chihuahuas, but all dogs also have the potential to have a close relationship with a human, in fact they thrive on it. So dogs that have learned that relationship are very different from lions where humans are at best tolerated.

GerryDerpy · 06-06-2017 11:36AM

volchitsa wrote: »

But doesn't that prove their point - lions haven't been bred (or buttered) to have a relationship with people, whereas dogs, even fighting dogs, have. I imagine fighting dogs have more potential to be dangerous than chihuahuas, but all dogs also have the potential to have a close relationship with a human, in fact they thrive on it. So dogs that have learned that relationship are very different from lions where humans are at best tolerated.

There is a difference in having a relationship with the one that feeds you and being nice to all humans.

borderlinemeath · 06-06-2017 11:36AM

Dogs chose humans as their companions thousands of years ago. The simplistic version that most people think is true is that dogs evolved from wolves but it wasn't the typical wolf that was the forebearer of the modern domestic dog. It was the bolder, more confident wolf that wasn't as timid as the rest of his pack and went out alone. These individuals realised there was an opportunity to live off the rubbish and kitchen middens of early human settlements and so the "village dog" evolved. Not necessarily a tame wolf, but a more confident wolf dog who's diminishing fear of humans was soon capitalised upon by the humans who discovered that having a dog to help with hunting, to help carry or drag heavy loads such as firewood, or to protect from marauders was beneficial to the village. In return the dog received food and shelter and protection from predators. Win Win.

This is why dogs succeed so well as human companions. There has been so much evolution between the original wolf -> to village dog -> to domestic dog, there is very little left of the wild instinct so comparisons to big cats is absolute rubbish. It is however very evident when you see gobshiites wanting to breed wolf hybrids, because the wolf is so evolutionally removed from the domestic dog at this stage. You would get an exceptionally fearful animal who would retain a lot of natural instinct. But you still get eejits that want to do it.

volchitsa · 06-06-2017 11:46AM

GerryDerpy wrote: »

There is a difference in having a relationship with the one that feeds you and being nice to all humans.

Sure, but that's still nothing like the relationship lions have with humans, even when the human feeds them.

Like, it's not an owner-pet relationship, it's a more one of equals, in the lion's mind anyway, so when he's had enough one day, he just lashes out, because he's a lion and you're p1ssing him off. Whereas a dog wants you to be happy with him. The lion doesn't care. I think that's what people mean by saying the lion remains a wild animal even for people who had him from a cub - he doesn't need them, and at any time he might decide not to tolerate them any more. Just because. I don't really think a dog does that. But maybe I'm wrong.

ThinkProgress · 06-06-2017 11:55AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Sure, but that's still nothing like the relationship lions have with humans, even when the human feeds them.

Like, it's not an owner-pet relationship, it's a more one of equals, in the lion's mind anyway, so when he's had enough one day, he just lashes out, because he's a lion and you're p1ssing him off. Whereas a dog wants you to be happy with him. The lion doesn't care. I think that's what people mean by saying the lion remains a wild animal even for people who had him from a cub - he doesn't need them, and at any time he might decide not to tolerate them any more. Just because. I don't really think a dog does that. But maybe I'm wrong.

I agree... for most domesticated dogs anyway!

Occasionally you will get a very headstrong (usually male) dog, that knows how strong he is and might display similar rebellious traits. Mostly it's these fighting breeds, because they have been bred to lack fear to a certain extent... the majority will still fear or respect their owner in most cases.

But sometimes they don't, and that's when you can have major problems!

ThinkProgress · 06-06-2017 12:24PM

borderlinemeath wrote: »

This is why dogs succeed so well as human companions. There has been so much evolution between the original wolf -> to village dog -> to domestic dog, there is very little left of the wild instinct so comparisons to big cats is absolute rubbish. It is however very evident when you see gobshiites wanting to breed wolf hybrids, because the wolf is so evolutionally removed from the domestic dog at this stage. You would get an exceptionally fearful animal who would retain a lot of natural instinct. But you still get eejits that want to do it.

I completely disagree with this part... my experience tells me something very different.

I think where an attitude such as yours comes from, is probably because you see so many domestic dogs essentially being forced to live very human-like lives. Most dog owners force their dog to adapt to their lifestyle... in most cases, there is very little adaptation on the part of the human to the dog's preferred way of life. (which is a big contributing factor in why many dogs misbehave btw)

If you make the effort to give a dog a lifestyle and environment that is more in line with their nature, you will actually discover that they still possess much of the same traits and characteristics of their wild ancestors!

borderlinemeath · 06-06-2017 12:45PM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I completely disagree with this part... my experience tells me something very different.

I think where an attitude such as yours comes from, is probably because you see so many domestic dogs essentially being forced to live very human-like lives. Most dog owners force their dog to adapt to their lifestyle... in most cases, there is very little adaptation on the part of the human to the dog's preferred way of life. (which is a big contributing factor in why many dogs misbehave btw)

If you make the effort to give a dog a lifestyle and environment that is more in line with their nature, you will actually discover that they still possess much of the same traits and characteristics of their wild ancestors!

You may disagree, but pretty much every canine behaviour expert in the world have stated what I posted as their opinion. And the proof would be if you set dogs loose to fend for themselves they would starve to death because they have lost most of their hunting instinct. Cats on the other hand would survive because they have not evolved as far as the dog.

If you know anything about dogs, you would be aware that they are a companion animal. They thrive on human company. That's whether you have them live with you in your home, and let them lounge on the furniture or live in a tent or a caravan with them. Or if you're a farmer and work them during the day and let them sleep outdoors at night. It's nothing to do with their creature comforts (funny how that's the expression) or forcing them to live in close proximity. Again EVERY behaviour expert will tell you that keeping dogs apart from the family is what is detrimental to their well being and causes them to misbehave. What you seem to think is the complete opposite. I think I'll believe the experts though.

OldNotWIse · 06-06-2017 12:54PM

JohnFalstaff wrote: »

Undoubtedly.

Put down.

ThinkProgress · 06-06-2017 01:47PM

borderlinemeath wrote: »

You may disagree, but pretty much every canine behaviour expert in the world have stated what I posted as their opinion. And the proof would be if you set dogs loose to fend for themselves they would starve to death because they have lost most of their hunting instinct. Cats on the other hand would survive because they have not evolved as far as the dog.

If you know anything about dogs, you would be aware that they are a companion animal. They thrive on human company. That's whether you have them live with you in your home, and let them lounge on the furniture or live in a tent or a caravan with them. Or if you're a farmer and work them during the day and let them sleep outdoors at night. It's nothing to do with their creature comforts (funny how that's the expression) or forcing them to live in close proximity. Again EVERY behaviour expert will tell you that keeping dogs apart from the family is what is detrimental to their well being and causes them to misbehave. What you seem to think is the complete opposite. I think I'll believe the experts though.

Actually if you look at many feral dogs that roam free in some cities, they tend to fall back into their natural behaviours very quickly. They form packs, with hierarchies and close bonds to each other... they hunt and scavenge just like their ancestors would.

They also can learn to fear most people on the streets, just like most other wild animals if mistreated. Don't forget, wolves are not (and never were) just purely hunters... wolves have always been opportunistic scavengers too. This aspect of their nature has always brought them into contact with humans, because we humans were also opportunistic scavengers, and we were frequently competing for the same food sources throughout our shared history!

What you describe as a companion animal, is partly true... they are a pack animal. So obviously in the absence of their natural pack, they will bond exclusively to us humans. But this does not in any way suggest that they are conditioned only to form bonds with us... they are still fully capable of bonding with other dogs in a pack environment.

Lots of animals are like this in nature. Just look at dolphins, for example... do you know many people with a pet dolphin?? Yet look at how easily and quickly wild dolphins can form a bond with people... even with the land/sea barrier, they display these tendencies with little or no encouragement from us!! It's just in their nature...

ScumLord · 06-06-2017 02:22PM

volchitsa wrote: »

But doesn't that prove their point - lions haven't been bred (or buttered) to have a relationship with people, whereas dogs, even fighting dogs, have. I imagine fighting dogs have more potential to be dangerous than chihuahuas, but all dogs also have the potential to have a close relationship with a human, in fact they thrive on it. So dogs that have learned that relationship are very different from lions where humans are at best tolerated.

I think the word domestication has a meaning in peoples minds that doesn't quite line up with the real world. It gives the impression we saw wolves and thought they could be useful and we made them into dogs. Which simply isn't true. Dogs evolved to be tame around humans for access to our food, there was a happy intersection of interests and we got along. Dogs are closer to human parasites than to hunting wolves.

Dogs and captive lions probably do have a similar view of their human overlords. They probably see them as family and alphas, the problem with a lion is it could quite easily kill you by accident, dogs are relatively small, modern urbanised humans may fear dogs but I'd say any human that still deals with animals or is a hunter wouldn't see a dog as much of a treat. The fact is once a dog bites you it's used up all it's attacking options and the human likely still has one free hand to do damage with.

I don't think some dogs just have aggression in them and are dangerous as a result, I think it's all down to training. Keeping these dogs locked up in a house or back garden and only bringing them out for a walk each day means they're unfamiliar with new things and social interaction. I think most dogs can understand different territories, Ie, don't go into the neighbours property, don't let that person on mine but this other person is ok, don't bark at people and so on, but we keep dogs isolated these days, they're like a captive species with no rights.

ThinkProgress · 06-06-2017 02:56PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Dogs and captive lions probably do have a similar view of their human overlords. They probably see them as family and alphas, the problem with a lion is it could quite easily kill you by accident, dogs are relatively small, modern urbanised humans may fear dogs but I'd say any human that still deals with animals or is a hunter wouldn't see a dog as much of a treat. The fact is once a dog bites you it's used up all it's attacking options and the human likely still has one free hand to do damage with.

Lions are slightly different to most other cats, in that they form prides like a dog/wolf might form a pack. So in that sense they would have more of an inclination to respect hierarchical structures... that is of course assuming you know how to maintain a position of dominance! (which is tricky with an animal weighing 500 pounds of pure muscle) :pac:

But it's similar with a very powerful dog, bred for fighting. That dog will likely continually test it's boundaries and your leadership. But it's inclination is also to respect the pack, because he knows it's needed.

That pack hierarchy is very important, and it's the reason dogs have adapted so well in our world. We form families, they form packs... it's quite similar really.

It's the same reason that they might struggle without us, if on their own... but if you put them in a pack they would be much more capable of looking after themselves.

@borderlinemeath: Just as an aside to my previous post: This is why the point that you made above about domestic cats and dogs surviving in the wild, is a flawed analogy... Because most cats are not pack animals, they are solitary hunters.

But dogs very much are pack animals... so if you set a domestic dog loose on it's own, yes of course it would likely struggle. But if you set a bunch of dogs loose together, they would have just as good a chance of survival as the solitary cat. (as I alluded to about feral dog packs in some cities, they do very well surviving)

In fact, there is a good chance that solitary cat could end up becoming lunch for a pack of hungry dogs working together as a hunting team.

Your analogy was an unfair comparison, because of their different respective natures...

borderlinemeath · 06-06-2017 02:56PM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Actually if you look at many feral dogs that roam free in some cities, they tend to fall back into their natural behaviours very quickly. They form packs, with hierarchies and close bonds to each other... they hunt and scavenge just like their ancestors would.

Dogs adapt to their surroundings. So if they are proper feral dogs, they are most likely in packs to mate and reproduce. They may scavenge, but they don't really hunt. What is to hunt in a city? Zero, they live off the rubbish. According to Ray Coppinger, it takes about 100 humans worth of rubbish/garbage to maintain 7 scavenging dogs. There's mostly loose social structures and close bonded groups tend to be familial, although pups are left to fend for themselves from about 10 weeks and many die. This is at odds with a wolf pack, who protect the cubs for much longer, and the pups are always well protected within the pack, and along with the elderly dogs who can no longer hunt, are the ones that are fed first from a kill.

A hell of a lot of packs of dogs that roam city streets are either pets or connected to homes who just let them roam for the day, so they aren't true feral dogs, but just scavengers looking for an opportunity. Yet they make their way home to their humans at night.

They also can learn to fear most people on the streets, just like most other wild animals if mistreated. Don't forget, wolves are not (and never were) just purely hunters... wolves have always been opportunistic scavengers too. This aspect of their nature has always brought them into contact with humans, because we humans were also opportunistic scavengers, and we were frequently competing for the same food sources throughout our shared history!

The most successful opportunistic scavenging wolves were the ones who became village dogs. Why bother hunting when the food is presented to you at the outskirts of a settlement? This is where the environment shaped their behaviour.

What you describe as a companion animal, is partly true... they are a pack animal. So obviously in the absence of their natural pack, they will bond exclusively to us humans. But this does not in any way suggest that they are conditioned only to form bonds with us... they are still fully capable of bonding with other dogs in a pack environment.

Plenty of dogs don't get on with other dogs, usually because their early socialisation wasn't adequate enough, even though they came from a litter themselves. Malamutes are known for their aloofness towards other dogs, and many a malamute owner has to resign themselves to never owning more than one dog during their Mals lifetime. Lots of dogs don't suit a daycare environment as they are obviously uncomfortable in the company of other dogs, again this is due to their environment or perhaps a incident with another dog who obviously doesn't like other dogs.

Lots of animals are like this in nature. Just look at dolphins, for example... do you know many people with a pet dolphin?? Yet look at how easily and quickly wild dolphins can form a bond with people... even with the land/sea barrier, they display these tendencies with little or no encouragement from us!! It's just in their nature...

Of course there is, lots of animals are kept as pets -dogs and cats are the most popular, tropical fish, reptiles, rodents (highly social animals) even stick insects if that's your thing. But keeping a dolphin as a pet would be impractical, no matter how evolved the communication could be. And also unethical and against the law of every country in the civilised world:)

borderlinemeath · 06-06-2017 03:04PM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Lions are slightly different to most other cats, in that they form prides like a dog/wolf might form a pack. So in that sense they would have more of an inclination to respect hierarchical structures... that is of course assuming you know how to maintain a position of dominance! (which is tricky with an animal weighing 500 pounds of pure muscle) :pac:

But it's similar with a very powerful dog, bred for fighting. That dog will likely continually test it's boundaries and your leadership. But it's inclination is also to respect the pack, because he knows it's needed.

That pack hierarchy is very important, and it's the reason dogs have adapted so well in our world. We form families, they form packs... it's quite similar really.

It's the same reason that they might struggle without us, if on their own... but if you put them in a pack they would be much more capable of looking after themselves.

@borderlinemeath: Just as an aside to my previous post: This is why the point that you made above about domestic cats and dogs surviving in the wild, is a flawed analogy... Because most cats are not pack animals, they are solitary hunters.

But dogs very much are pack animals... so if you set a domestic dog loose on it's own, yes of course it would likely struggle. But if you set a bunch of dogs loose together, they would have just as good a chance of survival as the solitary cat. (as I alluded to about feral dog packs in some cities, they do very well surviving)

In fact, there is a good chance that solitary cat could end up becoming lunch for a pack of hungry dogs working together as a hunting team.

Your analogy was an unfair comparison, because of their different respective natures...

Of course feral dogs survive well in cities! Look at the rubbish we produce! Put them in Yellowstone or a similar environment and watch them die out. They don't have the hunting abilities or the strength to kill in the true wild. Why? Because they are not wolves, and at this stage are too far removed to survive. Which was my original point.

ScumLord · 06-06-2017 03:04PM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Lions are slightly different to most other cats, in that they form prides like a dog/wolf might form a pack. So in that sense they would have more of an inclination to respect hierarchical structures... that is of course assuming you know how to maintain a position of dominance! (which is tricky with an animal weighing 500 pounds of pure muscle) :pac:

Male lions probably aren't too bad, they don't actually do a whole lot other than fight other males that threaten their access to females, in the wild females do the majority of the hunting and keep the male feed. Basically male lions are there for riding and the minute they can't keep all the females serviced they're out on their hole. So with no females around the male lion will do what he does best, relax and eat.

Dogs have had some sort of behavioral changes too, I don't think they mature in the strictest sense of the word, they remain pretty submissive and childlike. So there isn't as much of a drive for dominance as there would be in wolves.

Murrisk · 06-06-2017 03:25PM

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

Genuine question, but could you show some links to where a Lab/Lab's have mauled people to death? I can find any amount of them for pit bulls.

If you look through this list, there are a good few labrador retriever fatal incidents there. Not so much in the last few decades, but go back a few decades and they are mentioned fairly frequently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Media_reports_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States

ThinkProgress · 06-06-2017 04:05PM

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Dogs adapt to their surroundings. So if they are proper feral dogs, they are most likely in packs to mate and reproduce. They may scavenge, but they don't really hunt. What is to hunt in a city? Zero, they live off the rubbish. According to Ray Coppinger, it takes about 100 humans worth of rubbish/garbage to maintain 7 scavenging dogs. There's mostly loose social structures and close bonded groups tend to be familial, although pups are left to fend for themselves from about 10 weeks and many die. This is at odds with a wolf pack, who protect the cubs for much longer, and the pups are always well protected within the pack, and along with the elderly dogs who can no longer hunt, are the ones that are fed first from a kill.

Actually they do hunt... they have been shown to hunt many small animals, including stray cats and even rats! In cities such as Mexico city, for example, there are large populations of feral and stray domestic dogs that do very well surviving. (although obviously living much shorter lives)

Yes, they live off rubbish too... but this is in their scavenger nature anyway. And why turn down a free lunch? They are very adaptable creatures. But their pack is vital to their survival.

A hell of a lot of packs of dogs that roam city streets are either pets or connected to homes who just let them roam for the day, so they aren't true feral dogs, but just scavengers looking for an opportunity. Yet they make their way home to their humans at night.

I am not referring to family dogs that roam... I am referring specifically to dogs that live year round in street packs. They have no owners!

In fact, these packs tend to be very hostile to any outsider dogs that attempt to join their pack... so your scenario of family dogs tagging along with them is not really the case. A new dog must work very hard to be accepted into an established street pack!

The most successful opportunistic scavenging wolves were the ones who became village dogs. Why bother hunting when the food is presented to you at the outskirts of a settlement? This is where the environment shaped their behaviour.

This scenario about the village dogs, is an oversimplification of wolf-human interactions.

You are attempting to isolate this from general wolf behaviour, which from my research is not true. There is evidence all over the world, that wolves evolved very closely to us as both hunters AND scavengers...

They did not simply become scavengers because we decided to give them food. They were always partly scavengers in nature.

Plenty of dogs don't get on with other dogs, usually because their early socialisation wasn't adequate enough, even though they came from a litter themselves. Malamutes are known for their aloofness towards other dogs, and many a malamute owner has to resign themselves to never owning more than one dog during their Mals lifetime. Lots of dogs don't suit a daycare environment as they are obviously uncomfortable in the company of other dogs, again this is due to their environment or perhaps a incident with another dog who obviously doesn't like other dogs.

Dogs are very pragmatic in nature... they will form packs, not necessarily just because of a need to companionship, but also just out of the need for survival.

Within the wild street packs that I mentioned, there are frequent fights among fellow pack members... these fights can range from innocuous, playful and occasionally vicious and sometimes even fatal. Sometimes a defeated dog is forced out of the pack... but mostly it's usually just to assert dominance and control.

Of course there is, lots of animals are kept as pets -dogs and cats are the most popular, tropical fish, reptiles, rodents (highly social animals) even stick insects if that's your thing. But keeping a dolphin as a pet would be impractical, no matter how evolved the communication could be. And also unethical and against the law of every country in the civilised world:)

But do you know many people with pet dolphins?

Their propensity for bonding and affection is innate to them... it is not dependent on our training or even on us feeding them.

Wolves are very similar in this respect. We may have trained or conditioned other (often less desirable) traits into them when domesticated. But we did not teach them to form close family bonds with us... those behaviors and traits are, for the most part, quite natural to them!

borderlinemeath wrote: »

Of course feral dogs survive well in cities! Look at the rubbish we produce! Put them in Yellowstone or a similar environment and watch them die out. They don't have the hunting abilities or the strength to kill in the true wild. Why? Because they are not wolves, and at this stage are too far removed to survive. Which was my original point.

As I've already explained, they don't just eat rubbish in cities... they hunt as well... from my reading, they will hunt basically anything that is smaller than them. Depending on the environment, that could mean cats, rabbits, rats etc In asia, there is even accounts of dog packs killing monkeys!!

Yellowstone...?? lol

How the hell would we know? You would have to release some to find out... I think you are stretching things now tbh! We started talking about city survival... now it's yellowstone!! lol

Apart from changes in size and breed specific jobs/tasks... dogs have not been altered as much as you think from their ancestors. I think you have an exaggerated view of how much our pet dogs have evolved.

The point is, dogs need a pack for optimal survival... that is their nature. Your domestic dog and cat analogy is a very bad comparison, and it does nothing to further your point about dog domestication!

How do you think domestic cats would do in yellowstone?(can't believe I'm actually asking that question) And I'm not just talking about them catching small rodents to eat... I am referring to all the predators that would see them as dinner too!

Most solitary hunters are big... they are big for a good reason. Without the protection of a pack, they are more vulnerable to being killed. Also a pack gives you a better chance of mating. So small domestic cats would be more vulnerable than a pack of dogs working together, helping each other to survive imo!

muddypaws · 06-06-2017 04:11PM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Actually they do hunt... they have been shown to hunt many small animals, including stray cats and even rats! In cities such as Mexico city, for example, there are large populations of feral and stray domestic dogs that do very well surviving. (although obviously living much shorter lives)

Yes, they live off rubbish too... but this is in their scavenger nature anyway. And why turn down a free lunch? They are very adaptable creatures. But their pack is vital to their survival.

I am not referring to family dogs that roam... I am referring specifically to dogs that live year round in street packs. They have no owners!

In fact, these packs tend to be very hostile to any outsider dogs that attempt to join their pack... so your scenario of family dogs tagging along with them is not really the case. A new dog must work very hard to be accepted into an established street pack!

This scenario about the village dogs, is an oversimplification of wolf-human interactions.

You are attempting to isolate this from general wolf behaviour, which from my research is not true. There is evidence all over the world, that wolves evolved very closely to us as both hunters AND scavengers...

They did not simply become scavengers because we decided to give them food. They were always partly scavengers in nature.

Dogs are very pragmatic in nature... they will form packs, not necessarily just because of a need to companionship, but also just out of the need for survival.

Within the wild street packs that I mentioned, there are frequent fights among fellow pack members... these fights can range from innocuous, playful and occasionally vicious and sometimes even fatal. Sometimes a defeated dog is forced out of the pack... but mostly it's usually just to assert dominance and control.

But do you know many people with pet dolphins?

Their propensity for bonding and affection is innate to them... it is not dependent on our training or even on us feeding them.

Wolves are very similar in this respect. We may have trained or conditioned other (often less desirable) traits into them when domesticated. But we did not teach them to form close family bonds with us... those behaviors and traits are, for the most part, quite natural to them!

As I've already explained, they don't just eat rubbish in cities... they hunt as well... from my reading, they will hunt basically anything that is smaller than them. Depending on the environment, that could mean cats, rabbits, rats etc In asia, there is even accounts of dog packs killing monkeys!!

Yellowstone...?? lol

How the hell would we know? You would have to release some to find out... I think you are stretching things now tbh! We started talking about city survival... now it's yellowstone!! lol

Apart from changes in size and breed specific jobs/tasks... dogs have not been altered as much as you think from their ancestors. I think you have an exaggerated view of how much our pet dogs have evolved.

The point is, dogs need a pack for optimal survival... that is their nature. Your domestic dog and cat analogy is a very bad comparison, and it does nothing to further your point about dog domestication!

How do you think domestic cats would do in yellowstone?(can't believe I'm actually asking that question) And I'm not just talking about them catching small rodents to eat... I am referring to all the predators that would see them as dinner too!

Most solitary hunters are big... they are big for a good reason. Without the protection of a pack, they are more vulnerable to being killed. Also a pack gives you a better chance of mating. So small domestic cats would be more vulnerable than a pack of dogs working together, helping each other to survive imo!

Wolves live in family groups, mother, father, litter, then the litter hang around to help raise the second litter, then start to move on. The pack theory came from a scientist studying a group of captive wolves and has long ago revoked his findings. It would be the same as coming up with a theory of how humans live together based solely on studying a prison population.

I'm interested in your research, could you link to some of your reading please.

ScumLord · 06-06-2017 04:22PM

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Most solitary hunters are big... they are big for a good reason. Without the protection of a pack, they are more vulnerable to being killed. Also a pack gives you a better chance of mating. So small domestic cats would be more vulnerable than a pack of dogs working together, helping each other to survive imo!

Spiders are solitary hunters and they're not big. An animal doesn't need to be big to be a good hunter, it just needs to be good at killing something and good at staying out of the way of other animals that can kill them. The only reason I could think for domestic cats not doing to well in yellowstone is that there's a native population of bobcats which would have some crossover in prey. A bear or wolf probably isn't going to bother with a cat because it's too small for their needs, chasing it would be a waste of energy.

kunst nugget · 06-06-2017 04:35PM

While all this seems quite fascinating, it has shag all to do with what the death of a woman by two bull mastiffs in Galway at the weekend.

Woman killed by two bull mastiffs in Galway

Comments