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:
Add Reply
Dingo v Red Kangaroo
Topic Started: Mar 30 2018, 01:21 PM (1,800 Views)
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Dingo - Canis l. dingo
The Australian Dingo is a free-roaming wild dog unique to the continent of Australia, mainly found in the outback. Its original ancestors are thought to have arrived with humans from southeast Asia thousands of years ago, when dogs were still relatively undomesticated and closer to their wild Asian gray wolf parent species, Canis lupus. Since then, living largely apart from people and other dogs, together with the demands of Australian ecology, has caused them to develop features and instincts that distinguish them from all other canines. Dingoes have maintained ancient characteristics that unite them, along with other primitive dogs, into a taxon named after them, Canis lupus dingo, and has separated them from the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris. Dingoes have a relatively broad head, a pointed muzzle, and erect ears. Eye colour varies from yellow over orange to brown. Compared to other similarly sized familiaris dogs, dingoes have longer muzzles, larger carnassials, longer canine teeth, and a flatter skull with larger nuchal lines. The average Australian Dingo is 52 to 60 cm (20 to 24 in) tall at the shoulders and measures 117 to 154 cm (46 to 61 in) from nose to tail tip. The average weight is 13 to 20 kg (29 to 44 lb), however there are a few records of outsized dingoes weighing up to 27 to 35 kg (60 to 77 lb). Males are typically larger and heavier than females of the same age. Dingoes from the North and the North-West of Australia are larger than Central and South-Australian populations. Australian dingoes are invariably heavier than Asian ones. The legs are about half the length of the body and the head put together. The hind feet make up a third of the hind legs and have no dewclaws. Dingoes can have sabre-form tails (typically carried erect with a curve towards the back) or tails which are carried directly on the back.

Posted Image

Red Kangaroo - Macropus rufus
The red kangaroo (Macropus rufus) is the largest of all kangaroos, the largest mammal native to Australia, and the largest surviving marsupial. It is found across mainland Australia, avoiding only the more fertile areas in the south, the east coast, and the northern rainforests. Red Kangaroos have a white facial stripe from the corner of the mouth towards the ear. The amount of hairless rhinarium (skin on the tip of the nose) is dusky coloured and intermediate between the narrow band of Grey Kangaroos and the broad one of Euros. Males continue to grow through life and may reach 90 kg in weight. A 92 kg male was caught at Stubberfields Tank in Sturt National Park and this remains the largest individual in the many studies on this species. Males are typically red coloured (lighter in summer and dark rusty red in winter). Females may grow to 40 kg but usually range around 25-30 kg. They are typically blue-grey. However, the colouration of the two sexes grades into each other with small percentage of grey males and red females and some intermediate shades. To confirm the sex of an individual you need to view the abdomen where the pouch opening of females or the scrotum of males is usually obvious.

Posted Image




Hash Slinging Slasher
Mar 29 2018, 05:59 AM
People, this section is not for debate. Go to the kangaroo vs dingo thread (if there isn't one, then request it or make it yourself in the fantasy and fiction face off section).

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Replies:
WaffleKing
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
I've never really liked mindless dogs like SBT's. I never really got why if you didn't just want it to mindlessly attack things why you would even wanna have one.

That's why most of the dogs I have are Border Collie crosses. I love how intelligent they are, and how they incorporate that intelligence into making themselves really good at whatever they do.
Honestly I can say that I don't like SBT's and other dogs of that type (which I really don't) but the reallity that surrounds them is just sad. Yeah they might be at times mindless killing machines, but theyre still animals, that still have emotion and all they're senses.
People get them to do bad things, they get rid of them because they went over the top, and they are either euthanized for agression or sent to pounds and ilanimal shelters, where they are probably put down anyway.
I've known a few nice pit bulls and stuff, but I just don't like they're personality.

The culture that surrounds them is just really sad, and I don't wanna take part in that.

Back on topic, I think A male Red Kangaroo would take this in an all out fight more often then not.
Edited by WaffleKing, Apr 1 2018, 01:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grazier
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Taipan
Apr 1 2018, 01:18 PM
K9 Bite
Apr 1 2018, 12:08 AM
You're not a big fan of bully type dogs are you Taipan? Lol


Not running around unrestrained in the environment - infact that goes for any dog.

Why?

Exactly like I said, you want them to "stay in their place" and you turn on them when they don't. Kinda creepy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mauro20
Member Avatar
Badass
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Taipan
Apr 1 2018, 01:27 PM
Thanks but I never said I dislike them, simply they are a failed breed that has a penchant for mindlessly attacking other animals. In Australia, where we have rightfully banned APBTs, SBTs tend to fill their role - killing family pets, etc. They dont tend to kill people like APBTs however. They (SBTs) fill our dog shelters too - they are cool for mindless morons till they start killing and attacking other things, and then they get dumped.

True, you said they are $hit, and then hoped they would be shot (which in that situation would require some guy letting his dogs roam free harassing wildlife again), but you never said you "dislike" them.

The culture around these dogs isn't good. They often appeal to the worst kind of people, and pretty much any dog in their hands would be dangerous. Is Australia's policy really a good example, when it failed to reduce the frequency of dog attacks? Even the Australian Veterinary Association is against breed-specific legislation.
Quote:
 
Legislation to prevent dog bites and to manage aggressive dogs should focus on the individual dog and the owner not the breed. Breed-specific legislation for dog bite prevention has failed to reduce the frequency of dog bites both in Australia and overseas.

(...)

Veterinarians share community concerns about aggressive dogs, but banning particular breeds is not the solution. In 2012 the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) commissioned a report into the causes behind aggressive dogs and an alternative approach to address the issue. The report found that there was little evidence to support banning particular dog breeds as a way of addressing canine aggression in the community. Instead, education of the public and legislative tools that equip animal management authorities to identify potentially dangerous individual dogs offer the best results in reducing incidents with aggressive dogs.
Source: http://www.ava.com.au/policy/614-breed-specific-legislation

Some years ago, rottweilers were regarded as the super dangerous animals, then dobermans, now pitbulls (and apparently in Australia SBTs?). You go around blaming breeds and it will just never end. People will always find something else to be sensationalist about.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lightning
Member Avatar
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
The red kangaroo wins this, mainly due to size advantage.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grazier
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Mauro20
Apr 2 2018, 12:03 AM

Some years ago, rottweilers were regarded as the super dangerous animals, then dobermans, now pitbulls (and apparently in Australia SBTs?). You go around blaming breeds and it will just never end. People will always find something else to be sensationalist about.
I agree with your general point but just wanna point out sbts don't even have that reputation here, they're considered a lovely pet owned by all manner of people with no taboo or shame attached. In fact they're the most popular breed in Australia-
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2012/12/australias-top-10-most-popular-dogs/
I wouldn't even say there's a trend for their owners to be lowlifes, and indeed that's why they're lucky enough to NOT feature disproportionately high in dog attack statistics.
Taipan is just a weirdo.

Bull Arabs are becoming the new pitbull in australia, popping up in sensational news articles (and yes they are often owned by lowlifes). In fact here is one where an evil bull Arab attacked 2 innocent sbts, killing one and critically injuring the other -
http://www.mygc.com.au/bull-arab-put-down-following-deadly-dog-attack-on-the-gold-coast/

Sbts are beloved good guys in Australia.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WaffleKing
Member Avatar
Heterotrophic Organism
[ *  *  * ]
Grazier
Apr 2 2018, 07:52 AM
Mauro20
Apr 2 2018, 12:03 AM

Some years ago, rottweilers were regarded as the super dangerous animals, then dobermans, now pitbulls (and apparently in Australia SBTs?). You go around blaming breeds and it will just never end. People will always find something else to be sensationalist about.
I agree with your general point but just wanna point out sbts don't even have that reputation here, they're considered a lovely pet owned by all manner of people with no taboo or shame attached. In fact they're the most popular breed in Australia-
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2012/12/australias-top-10-most-popular-dogs/
I wouldn't even say there's a trend for their owners to be lowlifes, and indeed that's why they're lucky enough to NOT feature disproportionately high in dog attack statistics.
Taipan is just a weirdo.

Bull Arabs are becoming the new pitbull in australia, popping up in sensational news articles (and yes they are often owned by lowlifes). In fact here is one where an evil bull Arab attacked 2 innocent sbts, killing one and critically injuring the other -
http://www.mygc.com.au/bull-arab-put-down-following-deadly-dog-attack-on-the-gold-coast/

Sbts are beloved good guys in Australia.
What would you know?

It's not like you're from Australia or anything...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Taipan
Member Avatar
Administrator

Mauro20
Apr 2 2018, 12:03 AM
True, you said they are $hit, and then hoped they would be shot (which in that situation would require some guy letting his dogs roam free harassing wildlife again), but you never said you "dislike" them.


The last thing Australia needs is for inbred morons allowing their dogs to freely roam in the Australian Environment. Those two dogs should have been shot.

Mauro20
Apr 2 2018, 12:03 AM

Some years ago, rottweilers were regarded as the super dangerous animals, then dobermans, now pitbulls (and apparently in Australia SBTs?). You go around blaming breeds and it will just never end. People will always find something else to be sensationalist about.


^ Yeah that argument just doesnt mount a reasonable defence against the actions of the particular breed. I am not Grazier, I use facts, and the facts I use always back up my arguments, otherwise I wouldnt use that argument.

Here:

Taipan
Apr 1 2018, 01:27 PM
In Australia, where we have rightfully banned APBTs, SBTs tend to fill their role - killing family pets, etc. They dont tend to kill people like APBTs however. They (SBTs) fill our dog shelters too - they are cool for mindless morons till they start killing and attacking other things, and then they get dumped.


Posted Image

^ they are the raw facts with no sensationalism attached.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/more-staffordshire-terriers-killed-by-adelaide-councils-for-dog-attacks-than-any-other-breed/news-story/ffe3a3dbe1e98278dc5f12ce234a106a

As i said, they dont tend to kill people, so I am not saying they are as bad as ABPTs. But they mindlessly attack other animals.
Grazier
Apr 2 2018, 07:52 AM
Mauro20
Apr 2 2018, 12:03 AM

Some years ago, rottweilers were regarded as the super dangerous animals, then dobermans, now pitbulls (and apparently in Australia SBTs?). You go around blaming breeds and it will just never end. People will always find something else to be sensationalist about.
I agree with your general point but just wanna point out sbts don't even have that reputation here, they're considered a lovely pet owned by all manner of people with no taboo or shame attached. In fact they're the most popular breed in Australia-
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2012/12/australias-top-10-most-popular-dogs/



Correction, they were the most popular breed 6 years ago. They are no longer. Correct your error fool. In 2017 the Labrador Retriever was:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/home/pets/heres-a-list-of-the-most-popular-dog-breeds-in-australia-in-2017/news-story/9fb18cee13620568228886c5ba122cda

Grazier
Apr 2 2018, 07:52 AM
I wouldn't even say there's a trend for their owners to be lowlifes, and indeed that's why they're lucky enough to NOT feature disproportionately high in dog attack statistics.


"The fact is that half of all pure-bred dog attacks were committed by just five breeds of dog: Staffordshire bull terriers, Australian Cattle Dogs, American Staffordshire Terriers, German Shepherd Dogs and Rottweilers."
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/dogs-that-attack-should-be-put-down-immediately/news-story/03945f07cddc3c68a558d5b630bcc5de

"However, the staffy is far and away the dog most likely to attack out of the popular breeds.

The attack rate of staffies is very high compared with other popular breeds like poodles (31 attacks from 37,000 dogs) and maltese terriers (48 attacks from 56,000 dogs).

Out of the popular breeds, only Australian cattle dogs (382 attacks from 50,000 dogs) and german shepherds (278 from 50,000 dogs) have about the same attack rates as staffies.

Indeed, the figures tell us staffies are more dangerous than rottweilers, boxers and kelpies."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/dogs-can-be-bad-but-owners-can-be-worse/news-story/66d5f3b8e5579edac0f75922b79833f9

Your "not disproportionate" argument is rubbish - for it to be true, the Labrador Retriever should be the dog breed that attacks humans and other animals the most. It doesnt. Again you are wrong - you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

WaffleKing
Apr 2 2018, 10:12 AM
What would you know?

It's not like you're from Australia or anything...


Unfortunately he cant even use his local knowledge to his advantage. Again Grazier has been shown to be the most incompetent poster on this forum, even on his 'pet' topic. lol

Edited by Taipan, Apr 2 2018, 02:48 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mauro20
Member Avatar
Badass
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Taipan
Apr 2 2018, 02:23 PM
Mauro20
Apr 2 2018, 12:03 AM
True, you said they are $hit, and then hoped they would be shot (which in that situation would require some guy letting his dogs roam free harassing wildlife again), but you never said you "dislike" them.


The last thing Australia needs is for inbred morons allowing their dogs to freely roam in the Australian Environment. Those two dogs should have been shot.
The people who posted the video said they would shoot the dogs if they saw them again. As I said, fullfilling your wish would require someone letting his dogs roam free again - something you say you are against. Even them, there are plenty of non-lethal ways to stop them.
Quote:
 
Mauro20
Apr 2 2018, 12:03 AM

Some years ago, rottweilers were regarded as the super dangerous animals, then dobermans, now pitbulls (and apparently in Australia SBTs?). You go around blaming breeds and it will just never end. People will always find something else to be sensationalist about.


^ Yeah that argument just doesnt mount a reasonable defence against the actions of the particular breed. I am not Grazier, I use facts, and the facts I use always back up my arguments, otherwise I wouldnt use that argument.

Here:

Taipan
Apr 1 2018, 01:27 PM
In Australia, where we have rightfully banned APBTs, SBTs tend to fill their role - killing family pets, etc. They dont tend to kill people like APBTs however. They (SBTs) fill our dog shelters too - they are cool for mindless morons till they start killing and attacking other things, and then they get dumped.


Posted Image

^ they are the raw facts with no sensationalism attached.

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/more-staffordshire-terriers-killed-by-adelaide-councils-for-dog-attacks-than-any-other-breed/news-story/ffe3a3dbe1e98278dc5f12ce234a106a

As i said, they dont tend to kill people, so I am not saying they are as bad as ABPTs. But they mindlessly attack other animals.
First, I want to point out arguments like this:
Quote:
 
The attack rate of staffies is very high compared with other popular breeds like poodles (31 attacks from 37,000 dogs) and maltese terriers (48 attacks from 56,000 dogs).
Are just foolish. How many people bitten by a poodle or a maltese will even report it, especially compared to people attacked by a much more powerful dog?

By the way, the dog breed most likely to bite people? Dachshunds. At second place is the chihuahua, and at third place, the Jack Russell (a dog Waffleking likes a lot, ironically). Pitbulls were less likely than average to bite people (they were more aggressive towards other dogs, but less so than akitas or dachshunds, and about as much as Jack Russell terriers).
Quote:
 
Eight breeds common to both datasets (Dachshund, English Springer Spaniel, Golden Retriever, Labrador Retriever, Poodle, Rottweiler, Shetland Sheepdog and Siberian Husky) ranked similarly, rs = 0.723, P < 0.05; rs = 0.929, P < 0.001; rs = 0.592, P = 0.123, for aggression directed toward strangers, dogs and owners, respectively. Some breeds scored higher than average for aggression directed toward both humans and dogs (e.g., Chihuahuas and Dachshunds) while other breeds scored high only for specific targets (e.g., dog-directed aggression among Akitas and Pit Bull Terriers). In general, aggression was most severe when directed toward other dogs followed by unfamiliar people and household members. Breeds with the greatest percentage of dogs exhibiting serious aggression (bites or bite attempts) toward humans included Dachshunds, Chihuahuas and Jack Russell Terriers (toward strangers and owners); Australian Cattle Dogs (toward strangers); and American Cocker Spaniels and Beagles (toward owners). More than 20% of Akitas, Jack Russell Terriers and Pit Bull Terriers were reported as displaying serious aggression toward unfamiliar dogs. Golden Retrievers, Labradors Retrievers, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Brittany Spaniels, Greyhounds and Whippets were the least aggressive toward both humans and dogs.

Posted Image
Posted Image

Source: http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/S0168-1591(08)00114-7/abstract

Second, if you are right about these dogs, why has breed-specific legislation failed to reduce the number of dog attacks? Studies (including the one from the AVA already mentioned, which you conveniently didn't address) show banning breeds isn't helpful. And they are far from the only competent organization that says this.
Quote:
 
Any dog may bite, regardless of the dog’s size or sex, or reported breed or mix of breeds. The AVSAB’s position is that such legislation—often called breed-specific legislation (BSL)—is ineffective, and can lead to a false sense of community safety as well as welfare concerns for dogs identified (often incorrectly) as belonging to specific breeds.
From the American Veterinary Society of Animal Behavior.
Quote:
 
Dog bite statistics are not really statistics, and they do not give an accurate picture of dogs that bite. Invariably the numbers will show that dogs from popular large breeds are a problem. This should be expected, because big dogs can physically do more damage if they do bite, and any popular breed has more individuals that could bite. Dogs from small breeds also bite and are capable of causing severe injury. There are several reasons why it is not possible to calculate a bite rate for a breed or to compare rates between breeds.

Statistics on fatalities and injuries caused by dogs cannot be responsibly used to document the ‘dangerousness’ of a particular breed, relative to other breeds, for several reasons.
From the American Veterinary Medical Association.
Quote:
 
The trend in prevention of dog bites continues to shift in favor of multifactorial approaches focusing on improved ownership and husbandry practices, better understanding of dog behavior, education of parents and children regarding safety around dogs, and consistent enforcement of dangerous dog/reckless owner ordinances in communities. Effective laws hold all dog owners responsible for the humane care, custody, and control of all dogs regardless of breed or type.
From the National Canine Research Council.
Quote:
 
Current Breed Specific ordinances have proven ineffective in reducing the number of pit bulls in Topeka or the number of dog bites. Breed Specific Legislation, i.e. targeting a particular breed such as American Pit Bull Terriers, has generally been discredited in actual experience of cities, professionals and academic research as being both ineffective and expensive.
From the City Attorney’s Office of Topeka.

This should say enough about this.

Also, I'm curious. If I posted statistics and facts showing black people commit more crime, would you say it's because they are black? Or because of the several factors influencing black people in particular?
Edited by Mauro20, Apr 3 2018, 02:13 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Grazier
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
That last point is key. Its exactly the same thing and the mentality of someone who says "look at these statistics, this breed is bad and should be erradicated- fact" is very scary. Its just dogs now but anyone who approaches critical thinking in that way is dangerous.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
K9 Bite
Member Avatar
Herbivore
[ *  *  *  * ]
Shouldn't all this BSL stuff be on a differnt thread/topic? I would love to debate about this and see how other forum members feel about bully breeds...they arn't just mindlessly killing machines even though they were bred for animal aggression. There are some actual good owners of real American pitbull Terriers.
https://youtu.be/-kZ3P6YelAI
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ryo
Omnivore
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
This happened large scale in the Impressive Dogs thread as well, but it is a very interesting subject actually, which I think should have a thread of its own. Sadly not all the dog people are active anymore, but we still got plenty of opinions to go by.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mauro20
Member Avatar
Badass
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I will go make such a thread in Domestic Animal Discussion, then.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Interspecific Conflict · Next Topic »
Add Reply