Posted on 02/28/2010 11:57:50 PM PST by OneVike
The wolves are killing for fun, not just for food. Wolves are leaving uneaten carcasses of elk, deer, moose, cattle, sheep, and everything else they kill for fun scattered along the Rockies from Canada to New Mexico.
The "rope" you see is the cougar's intestines. The wolves kill in packs, usually with one latching on to the anus/groin area, another rips open the gut cavity, another latches onto the throat area, another attacks the neck or spine. Then they leave the carcass, and search for another sporting event. They only need to eat one killed animal for every ten or so abandoned carcasses.
“Isn’t a pack of good hunting dogs able to do the same thing?”
I suppose they could, doesn’t change the level of aggression needed to do the task though.
BTW dogs aren’t wolves and wolves aren’t dogs.
We think nothing of using a pack of dogs to track down and kill a mountain lion. So I don't think it's unusual for a pack of wolves to do the same thing.
Genetically there is almost no difference between a chimpanzee and a human.
That is an insipid response. I suppose if you define "almost no difference" to be something like "shares 90 percent or more of the same genes" then there is almost no difference between humans and a prairie dog.
Chimps are a different species than humans. Wolves and dogs are not different species, they are the same species. The genetic differences between wolves and dogs are like the genetic difference between a short, skinny white human with straight red hair and a tall, dark curly-headed human.
Here's an SAT question for you:
Human is to chimp as wolf is to:
a. Rhinoceros
b. canine
c. fox
d. dog.
Here's another one:
Swedish is to Japanese as North American Grey Wolf is to:
a. Dog
b. Rhinoceros
c. Poodle
d. Hyena.
Think about it and let me know what you come up with.
No more insipid than your response that wolves are the same as dogs.
You did not pass your SAT. The answer to both questions is "c". Study up, don't comment on things you apparently know nothing about.
So a beagle is a wolf? Perhaps 50,000 years ago they were the same. To suggest they are the same animal today shows your agenda and ignorance. Study up yourself pal and push your liberal agenda elsewhere.
Looking at the amount of blood in the snow, I'd say it was a fresh kill.
Imitating human behavior.
Dogs are wolves. They differ at most 0.2 percent from wild wolves in their MtDNA sequence. I needed to italicize that “at most” because it is very common to see it written that dogs differ 0.2 percent from their MtDNA sequence. That means the maximal difference between dogs and wolves in their MtDNA sequence is 0.2 percent.
Historically, they did interbreed quite a bit. Accounts exist of settlers on the American frontier using bitches in heat to bring in the dog wolves, which would mate with them. Because dogs remain tied together after mating, it was easy to dispatch the copulating wolf with an axe.
This interbreeding has caused a great deal of genetic pollution in the European wolf population, leading to unusually colored wolves and wolves with dewclaws on the hind legs. We also have evidence that the black coloration in wolves in North America came from cross-breeding with dogs.
Now, a dog is a wolf that has adapted to a particular environment. It is just like the Arabian wolf is adapted to the deserts and the Arctic wolf is adapted to the frigid wastes. Neither animal could live in the other’s environment, yet they are of the same species.
A dog is simply a wolf that can live safely with people. It can read people better than the wolf can, and as a result, it is better able to learn from people than virtually any other non-primate species.
To me, it makes sense to call dogs Canis lupus familiaris. It makes as much sense as calling the Arabian wolf Canis lupus arabs or the Arctic wolf Canis lupus arctos.
Now, there are three groups of people who don’t like to call dogs wolves.
One of these groups are the people who hate wolves and like to talk about the negative aspects of their behaviors. They don’t want them to be associated with the domestic dog, an animal that most people like.
Another group is the people who don’t want people owning wolves. If dogs and wolves are the same species, shouldn’t we be able to keep a wolf like a dog? The answer is no. Wolves are too reactive and powerful for the average person to own. Their predatory behavior can be easily stimulated, which means that children and other domestic animals could be at risk from these animals.
However, I should also say that there are domestic dog for which this same caveat applies. And there are wolves that are very dog-like and not even remotely reactive or nervous (like this one.) But most dogs behave like dogs, and most wolves behave like wolves.
The other group that would rather I not call dogs wolves are the positive reinforcement dog trainers. After all, the training methods they hate are based upon an assumption that dogs are wolves, and wolves form packs that are ruled by a tyrannical alpha. If dogs are not wolves, then their behavior is very different, and thus, we can get away with training them using other methods.
So, you see, it is certain liberals who don't like facts who refuse to concede that dogs are wolves.
It would be interesting to see a pack of beagles take on a cougar.
But ability to defeat cougars is not part of the definition of what a wolf is. Is a beagle a dog even though it can't defeat a lion? Is a mastiff a dog even though it can? Dogs are dogs no matter whether they are small, hairy, bald, huge, mean, docile, smart, stupid, snub-nosed, fast, slow, etc. What makes a dog a dog is that it is a domesticated wolf, of which there are hundreds of breeds.
What makes a dog a wolf is that they are descended from them, and have not speciated from them in the time since they have been separated. They have instead become a new type of wolf, which looks very much different than wolves in many cases because the wolf DNA is very variable and because we have bred them for various traits that we find useful or desireable, hyper-accentuating the variances that occur naturally.
If we wanted to, we could probably make a breed of 3 foot tall humans, and a breed of 8 foot tall humans. We can give them hair of many different colors and types, skin of many different hues, big or small muscles, oriental or western eyes, and so on. It would take a little longer with humans, but within 20, or 30 or 50 generations, we could easily if we wanted to have some really weird looking people who look nothing like you and me. But if the girls were hot, and 8 feet tall, you would probably not mind the climb. And they would be human.
typical liberal speak
Thanks for the ping!
And please, explain why it is conservative. Please, I'd love to hear it.
From what I can tell, there is are two positions, but they are not liberal and conservative. There is the uninformed nimrod position and the other side, that relies on facts.
Not really, you’ve taken a ridiculous position that a beagle is the same as one of these wolves. Sure they have a very similar genetic makeup but they are not the same animal. Only a liberal would continue to argue a completely indefensible position.
Wolves are wild animals that are decimating wildlife everywhere they go in North America. Wolves are highly intelligent killers. They are not some noble beast that makes the world a better place.
Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. Dogs will forms packs in the wild and will kill. They do not show the cunning or methods that wolves use.
So go your merry way thinking a beagle is the same as a wolf just as Al Gore keeps thinking the earths core temperature is a couple million degrees.
Your failure to comprehend is astounding. What do you do for a living?
I catch people when they try to parse words to cover their lies.
Whatever you do, I don’t think it requires a lot of deductive reasoning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.