Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Is their a land animal ever that could PREDATE on the SPANISH BULL? (no dinosaurs)
Topic Started: Jan 13 2017, 09:07 PM (7,835 Views)
Grazier
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Both B. taurus and B. indicus have been raised by humans for at least 7,000 years (Bradley, 2003) with emphasis on domestication in absence of predators.

I have a problem with the premise of what they're saying here, when have domestic cattle ever had an "absence of predators"? It's only very very recent that SOME have an absence of predators (in say england and new zealand and to a degree australia). Only very very recent that domestic cattle were in any way shielded from the cold hard reality of wild life. For the majority of the history of domestic cattle the only thing that separated them from wild herbivores was that some guy somewhere, in his mind, owned them. The cattle didn't know about that and roamed free in the wilderness amongst predators. Even fences are relatively new.

Also the reality is cattle aren't decimated by predators anywhere, ever. Sheep are, and they evolved with livestock guardian dogs to minimise this, without them, they are just fish in a barrel. But cattle can and do defend themselves and losses of cattle to predation are relatively minimal everywhere in the world, and its because they have always dealt with predators non-stop throughout the entirety of their domestication process, nothing changed for them in that respect.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
chui
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Perhaps you’re right, maybe cattle haven’t evolved in the complete absence of predators and do have some anti-predator behavioural adaptations (they do flee after all). But regardless, the study quoted demonstrates pretty convincingly that cattle are much more vulnerable to predation by jaguars and cougars than buffalo. According to their observations at least, while cattle will often scatter and flee, leaving weaker and young individuals vulnerable, buffalo will more aggressively confront the predator. Thus predation on buffalo was found to be significantly lower (almost non-existent) compared to predation on cattle, on a per capita basis.

Tony Almeida, who hunted jaguars in the Pantanal for over 20 years, in his book also states cattle is relatively easy prey for jaguars compared to wild animals like peccaries and tapirs which are more likely to offer strong resistance and less easily surprised.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Grazier
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Yeah I don't buy it. I do believe cattle are preyed upon by jaguars, but I'd wager their success rate is as poor as it would be for any wild animal of the same size. Cattle are still well and truly viable livestock in jaguar territory with no kind of protection whatsoever. It would be kind of insane if they weren't preyed upon at all, ofcourse they will be, and the ranchers will make a big deal out of it, but generally they are well equipped to largely evade predation. Cattle farmers would never tolerate losses even close to what wild populations of herbivores put up with.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
LeopardNimr
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
chui
Jan 26 2017, 01:09 AM
Perhaps you’re right, maybe cattle haven’t evolved in the complete absence of predators and do have some anti-predator behavioural adaptations (they do flee after all). But regardless, the study quoted demonstrates pretty convincingly that cattle are much more vulnerable to predation by jaguars and cougars than buffalo. According to their observations at least, while cattle will often scatter and flee, leaving weaker and young individuals vulnerable, buffalo will more aggressively confront the predator. Thus predation on buffalo was found to be significantly lower (almost non-existent) compared to predation on cattle, on a per capita basis.

Tony Almeida, who hunted jaguars in the Pantanal for over 20 years, in his book also states cattle is relatively easy prey for jaguars compared to wild animals like peccaries and tapirs which are more likely to offer strong resistance and less easily surprised.
chui
do you think a leopard can predate the bull?
or at least win in a fight?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Grazier
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
KingPanthera
Jan 26 2017, 01:53 AM
chui
Jan 26 2017, 01:09 AM
Perhaps you’re right, maybe cattle haven’t evolved in the complete absence of predators and do have some anti-predator behavioural adaptations (they do flee after all). But regardless, the study quoted demonstrates pretty convincingly that cattle are much more vulnerable to predation by jaguars and cougars than buffalo. According to their observations at least, while cattle will often scatter and flee, leaving weaker and young individuals vulnerable, buffalo will more aggressively confront the predator. Thus predation on buffalo was found to be significantly lower (almost non-existent) compared to predation on cattle, on a per capita basis.

Tony Almeida, who hunted jaguars in the Pantanal for over 20 years, in his book also states cattle is relatively easy prey for jaguars compared to wild animals like peccaries and tapirs which are more likely to offer strong resistance and less easily surprised.
chui
do you think a leopard can predate the bull?
or at least win in a fight?
Winning in a fight would not be "least", it would be greater than predation.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
hawkkeye
Jan 24 2017, 04:58 AM
Spears are absolutely great weapon when fighting against animals. Swords? Not so much. Swords are made for fighting against another men with weapon (or without), not against animals.
Nonsense, swords are fantastic weapons compard to virtually any natural weapon. Humans have killed brown bears and lions with knives.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
chui
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
chui
do you think a leopard can predate the bull?
or at least win in a fight?


Well if these fighting bulls are the size of a good sized Cape Buffalo at around 500-700kg as stated on Wikipedia then no. I think a lion or tiger would be required.
Edited by chui, Jan 26 2017, 04:57 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Mammuthus
Member Avatar
Proboscidean Enthusiast
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Spartan
Jan 26 2017, 04:55 AM
Humans have killed brown bears and lions with knives.
Wait, have they?

I'am not trying to prove you wrong, but can you give an account of this happening, i'd be interested to see this.
Edited by Mammuthus, Jan 26 2017, 05:04 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
hawkkeye
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
Spartan
Jan 26 2017, 04:55 AM
hawkkeye
Jan 24 2017, 04:58 AM
Spears are absolutely great weapon when fighting against animals. Swords? Not so much. Swords are made for fighting against another men with weapon (or without), not against animals.
Nonsense, swords are fantastic weapons compard to virtually any natural weapon. Humans have killed brown bears and lions with knives.
You never doing, or at least watching, historical fencing, wouldn´t you? Swords are terrible at killing stuff at really close range, like body on body (this is why practically no one use dual wield fighting techniques in the past - and if they do, they use sword and a short blade (south European fencing schools with rapier + left hand dagger, or that rarely used fighting style of samurais with katana + wakizashi in offhand).
Edited by hawkkeye, Jan 26 2017, 06:16 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
The All-seeing Night
Member Avatar
You are without honor
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
hawkkeye
Jan 26 2017, 06:00 AM
Spartan
Jan 26 2017, 04:55 AM
hawkkeye
Jan 24 2017, 04:58 AM
Spears are absolutely great weapon when fighting against animals. Swords? Not so much. Swords are made for fighting against another men with weapon (or without), not against animals.
Nonsense, swords are fantastic weapons compard to virtually any natural weapon. Humans have killed brown bears and lions with knives.
You never doing, or at least watching, historical fencing, wouldn´t you? Swords are terrible at killing stuff at really close range, like body on body (this is why practically no one use dual wield fighting techniques in the past - and if they do, they use sword and a short blade (south European fencing schools with rapier + left hand dagger, or that rarely used fighting style of samurais with katana + wakizashi in offhand).
Then don't fight the animals at knife-range.

Edited by The All-seeing Night, Jan 26 2017, 08:49 AM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Spartan
Kleptoparasite
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Mammuthus
Jan 26 2017, 04:58 AM
Spartan
Jan 26 2017, 04:55 AM
Humans have killed brown bears and lions with knives.
Wait, have they?

I'am not trying to prove you wrong, but can you give an account of this happening, i'd be interested to see this.
I've already provided this to you.

http://carnivoraforum.com/single/?p=8814481&t=10092555


Quote:
 
Swords are terrible at killing stuff at really close range, like body on body


Who's talking about "body on body"? A spear is obviously even worse at such a close range. You're not supposed to start cuddling with your opponent before trying to kill him.

Quote:
 
his is why practically no one use dual wield fighting techniques in the past - and if they do, they use sword and a short blade


That's wrong, duel wielding with two full-length swords was held in high regards during the 16th century (Giacomo di Grassi wrote a treatise about this) and not only for showing off (but of course not on the battle field).
If you know a thing about armed fighting you'll know that reach is key and a sword has much better reach than any horn, claw or jaw and is at least as lethal as any of these.
Venatores in ancient rome also used swords at times, even if the spear was more common.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Grazier
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
A man who knows animal anatomy could kill anything with a sword.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
animalkingdom
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
^Wrong if that was the case wouldn't the bovines in africa would have learned to adapted to survive lion attacks,1000 years of adaptation of buffalo surviving lion attacks vs 1 match of human with sword against any animal such as lion.

In roman times gladiator human used to fight against big cats with swords and armors and they still lost almost all of times.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Grazier
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
animalkingdom
Jan 26 2017, 12:18 PM
^Wrong if that was the case wouldn't the bovines in africa would have learned to adapted to survive lion attacks,1000 years of adaptation of buffalo surviving lion attacks vs 1 match of human with sword against any animal such as lion.

In roman times gladiator human used to fight against big cats with swords and armors and they still lost almost all of times.
Who lost almost all the time? The animals did, unarmed prisoners and Christians etc were fed to lions and other wild beasts, but for the most part armed men slaughtered masses and masses of wild animals. Hard to believe that passed as entertainment, but that's how it went down.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
hawkkeye
Autotrophic Organism
[ *  * ]
The All-seeing Night
Jan 26 2017, 06:42 AM
hawkkeye
Jan 26 2017, 06:00 AM
Spartan
Jan 26 2017, 04:55 AM

Quoting limited to 3 levels deepknives.
You never doing, or at least watching, historical fencing, wouldn´t you? Swords are terrible at killing stuff at really close range, like body on body (this is why practically no one use dual wield fighting techniques in the past - and if they do, they use sword and a short blade (south European fencing schools with rapier + left hand dagger, or that rarely used fighting style of samurais with katana + wakizashi in offhand).
Then don't fight the animals at knife-range.

Spear is better than sword at keeping animals (and not only them) at range, this is what I wanna tell. And if you fight animals at close range (as you suggest with you human killing bear with knives), spears are even more useless than swords. But with spear, there is much smaller chance than close fight even happen.

This is WHY spears was (and are) used in animal hunting (even boar hunting, where is good chance that animal charge you) instead of swords and even freaking swords made for hunting (google boar sword) was spearlike.

About two weapon fighting technique: in 16 century, we are talking about duels, and even here sword + short blade or only sword was much more used technique. Two weapon fighting was in high regard because this was hard technique, more of a spectacle than actual pragmatic fighting style. This is why gladiators who used two gladius short swords was so rare - gladiators with gladius and shield defeat them easily most times. Only advantage you got from dual wielding two long blades are two vectors of attack - which can be easily negated by oponent´s shield.
Edited by hawkkeye, Jan 26 2017, 06:22 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Zoological Debate & Discussion · Next Topic »
Locked Topic