Wild dogs?

[curwalker]

Wow. Perhaps you should right newspaper articles. It's fascinating, I know that you should never put too much stock in newspaper reports, but what people wrote here is rather the direct opposite about what newspapers "report." They make it sound like the bush is full of bloodthirsty monsters that kill everything on sight. But what you report is actually pretty normal behavior. It especially doesn't sound like packs of dogs killing for the sake of killing.
By the way, have you ever encountered cases of surplus killing?

[stepbystep]

Such a great discussion going on in this thread. Thanks to all, fascinating stuff!

Dogs are the best people

[corvus]

Just a reminder to all that the sheep being mauled/ killed here in Tasmania especially recently is not hearsay but fact and the dogs were domestic not DINGOS question is are they "pets" running free whenever or "pets " abandoned and collecting as a "pack" to survive ?
corvus

[curwalker]

From what you posted earlier they could already been feral for generations.
But as far as I know there are differences in the behavior of canids that hunt for survival and those that don't.
Save to say that any sort of wild-living canid basically belongs to the first group out of sheer necessity.
Based on data about wolves up here in Europe I think a few questions would need to be asked to solve the problem (they are usually asked in some way or another up here in Germany to see whether wolves or dogs killed livestock):
1) What protection measures for the sheep needed to be overcome (wild-living canids simply cannot afford to spent too much time and effort)?
2) Where any sheep eaten or simply killed (domestic dogs don't need to eat their kill)?
3) Where did the attacks happen (canids not socialized to humans in anyway rather tend to avoid human presence)?
4) In what manner where the sheep killed (same reason as for point 1)?
5) How did they look like (when they live wild natural selection kicks in and usually those closer to the general canid body-plan tend to survive)?

[sambar358]

There is no doubt that wild dog predation on livestock is a serious issue and despite extra resources for local dog trappers and the laying of 1080 poison and localized shooting by farmers and recreational hunters the problem seems to be on the rise. In East Gippsland where I live and do most of my hunting there are significant issues with wild dogs on the farm fringe areas and stock losses especially on sheep can be quite high when dogs start to kill and generally it will be a big kill on a flock rather than just killing a couple for food although of course some of the kills are eaten. The dogs quickly learn that sheep or young calves are far easier to catch than 'roos or deer so they concentrate on killing stock and often range over a wide area impacting on many properties. The culprits can be wild dogs, domestic and farm dogs off on killing sprees or the pure dingo living in the fringe country....there is no "line" as such where the wild dogs stop and the dingo prevails...a low-country dingo pack will kill stock just as efficiently as a group of wild dogs. I know of propery owners who have lost 50 sheep in a night to wild dogs and others where 20 calves were killed so these sorts of events are a serious financial loss to farmers and once a dog pack moves into the back bush they can certainly create havoc as they will keep killing until dealt with or enough pressure is applied to them that they move-on....then they start killing someone else's stock !

In the mountains the dingo hunts and kills to survive and the pickings are pretty slim compared to a paddock full of sheep down in the low country. From my experience their main prey would be wombats, possums, wallabies & emus with the occasional sambar deer calf as a bonus if they get lucky. I'm sure that they'd try almost anything like the fox and they'd certainly have a go at birds, mice and the fruits of blackberries and wild raspberries over the summer. I've never seen a "fat" dingo and they'd have to work hard for any animal that they manage to kill....their low-country cousins on the other hand have it far better on occasions.

Newspaper reports tend to sensationalize any animal V human incident and while there certainly have been deaths attributed to dingo attacks in AU I believe all have occured in popular tourist areas where tourist have been leaving out scraps of food for the dogs and the dogs have become somewhat used to humans and have little fear of them. I have never heard of anyone being attacked by a dingo or wild dog in the bush although I have heard of several reports of "close enounters" where a dog or dogs resused to give ground until the person made an effort to frighten them off. In reality our Aussie bush a pretty benign place and apart from a bunch of poisonous snakes and spiders we have nothing really that is a threat to our personal safety. when I hunted elk in Montana in 2007 I saw numerous wolves and a few black bears and grizzly bears and they all hightailed it out of there super-fast....but it was interesting and a little different just knowing that there was likely an alpha-predator out there beyond the light of the fire and I wasn't back home in Oz where things are far far safer !

Finally....this is a pic of a recent low-land wild dog killed by a deer hunter. Now that's a BIG wild dog and in very good condition. The other dog is an English Pointer itself not a small dog....and that pointer is very uneasy around that big "wolf". Cheers

sambar358

[curwalker]

Wow that is a big fella. Bigger than a wolf up here (in terms of mass, not height of course). Is this one still from the Australian Alps?

And believe me newspaper do not just tend to sensationalize, sometimes they downright lie. A few years back two boars came to the center of Berlin and caused a stop of traffic. To keep them from returning they were shot. In an english newspaper article it was suddenly stated that there were three boars and that a person was attacked by them, both things never happened. I remember an Australian article a few years back where a farmer claimed that he had lost 2000 sheep in one night to wild dogs (or perhaps just one wild dog), to which I only thought: "Yeah right."

What you say about the dog numbers rising brings to my mind the old question of "why?"
I mean they get shot, baited, trapped, poisoned etc. but still their numbers seem to rise? How I wonder, how is that possible? Baits and traps were enough to eradicate wolves from most of Europe and North America but the same is not possible with wild dogs?
In addition, is their data on how much percent of the affected livestock is killed? I know sheep farmers have a zero-tolerance policy for wild dogs (by the way thanks for pointing out that dingoes are just as likely to kill livestock, all this "only the hybrid does that" hits on my nerves and will not help anybody) but if my info is correct losses to cattle can be as high as 30% but are usually between 0-10%. Now my other questions is, do you know of any defense mechanism on part of the cattle? Do they form rings around their calves? Do they fight dogs off?

[sambar358]

Curwalker....yep that big dog was from some low foothill country around farmland so not an alpine dog as such. Apparently it had a go at the hunters English Pointer so it was dealt with rather swiftly. A wild dog that one....and one less sheep killer in the hills.

The wild dog problem is hard do explain but basically most of the trapping and poisoning measures are around private land and in areas where dogs are a problem either at that time or in the recent past. A lot of country and in essence very few trappers to cover a huge amount of country so they are really stop-gap measures.....some farmer gets his sheep or cattle hit so the trapper runs a line and tries to get the culprits....a couple may get caught but often they are pretty human-shy and beat the traps. They might run some 1080 poison bait stations and loose a few baits.... was it the target dogs or foxes or birds ? Some farmers are totally electrfying their perimiter boundary fences which is horrendously expensive and not 100% effective as wombats burrow under or trees go down over fences quite often. Others run Mareema dogs in with the sheep or cattle and I've heard of Llamas and Alpacas being used with varying degrees of success to try and combat wild dog predation on stock. Essentially we have a huge amount of bush and as most farms that have wild dog issues are on fringe-country so there will always be issues with wild dog predation on stock as they come down out of the bush and onto the farmland in search of an easy feed.....calves and sheep are far easier to kill than those bouncy kangaroos or big fast sambar deer with sharp antlers I guess.

Getting back to the original posters question though : I probably spend 50-60 days sambar deer hunting in the mountains each year and would actually see a dingo or wild dog probably on 3 or 4 occasions over that time....hear them howling more often for sure & see their tracks almost every trip....but actual sightings are very few and even then they are usually a "south end heading north !" Take care on the road getting to your walking destination and enjoy the walk out in the wilds of the mountains.....if you come across a dingo embrace the sighting for what it is...a rare enounter with one of our not-often-seen alpha predators.....and it's likely he's even more afraid of you than you are of him ! Cheers

sambar358

[curwalker]

Don't worry about it being hard to explain, I am already relieved you didn't start insulting me as I seem to get from most "hunters." Also try to understand the calculations behind Corbett's canoncial variation equation for the identification of "pure" dingoes; then you'll get a headache.

And I admit I am a bit envious, man what I would give to make some pictures of wild dogs like that, or at least see some. But I am on the other side of the planet so chances are very slim.

Did you ever notice any differences in the tracks (except size and differences due to environmental conditions of course)?

And what would you say was your most unusual/exciting encounter so far?

Now what you said about those killing measures (I personally belief in calling it as it is and not hide behind the word "control" as seems to be the official fashion) reminds me off what Purcell, Johnson and Reicholf stated about hunting. Purcell and Johnson both researched on wild dogs (or as Purcell called them "dingoes" [he had a very pragmatic definition of them actually]) and both stated the theory that the hunting measures basically result in the destruction of pack structures and as Guenther Bloch would have stated it (he mostly researched on timber wolves and pet dogs) a loss of the inheritance of tradition (the old teaching the young). Thereby not only get more dogs to breed (whose offspring then fight over the areas left vacant by killings) but they do not learn the skills to hunt wallabies, deer and such and therefore are more likely to seek out livestock. Now this has of course nothing to do with any sort of genetic "purity" as some dingo advocates seem to believe but rather something ala "old habits die hard" or "you don't eat what you don't know". If these dogs don't have the necessary skills they are "forced" to seek out new prey and then of course pass this habit on to their descendents, respectively these descendents also know nothing else (it is theorized that a similar processed let to the Tsavo Maneaters).
Up here wild boars can multiply similarly quickly as wild dogs do and according to Reicholf it was found out that killing the older boars (especially the matriarchs) leads to younger females breeding earlier leading to one factor of increasing populations. The other is that due to some boars being killed there is more potential food for younger ones and thereby the population is kept at a production peak (especially since usually more young are born than survive to adulthood, but with adults being constantly killed more younger ones survive) since at the same time control mechanisms of the animals are eliminated or diminished and vacant places are constantly created.
In addition since youngsters are usually more inquisitive and curious among mammals than their older brethren they are more likely to try new things and therefore more likely to seek out livestock as prey (in the case of dogs). So if the elder dogs are killed the pack may very well disintegrate (unless one or two younger dogs become the new leaders), more dogs breed and more dogs wander into vacant or filled areas.
So I think it's possible that the current killing methods actually lead to the very problem they try to eliminate.

[Overlandman]

From ABC News Northern Territory

Dingo rips sleeping bag off teen camper

Updated July 18, 2012 14:30:01
A Victorian teenager says her sleeping bag was torn off by a dingo while she was camping in the Northern Territory.
Rebecca Robinson, 13, of Benalla in central Victoria, was sleeping outside a tent in the Kakadu National Park on Sunday when she woke to find a dingo nearby.
Her mother Kate Robinson says it is the fourth such incident in the area this year.
"She's heard a ripping sound and the sleeping bag's been ripped," she said.
"She has woken up and sat up and the dingo is there at the sleeping bag trying to pull the sleeping bag away.
"So she's yelled at it and it's run off."
She says she can understand how dingo attacks have happened in the past.
"You can totally understand how something like that (Azaria Chamberlain) can happen," she said.
"You can see it happening again if something is not done with them."

Parks Australia says Kakadu National Park rangers have caught and killed three wild dogs today, and are continuing to patrol the area.

[puredingo]

"Not done with them"???.....How about taking a bit of responsibility for yourself for a start!

[Earthling]

"Not done with them"???.....How about taking a bit of responsibility for yourself for a start!

Yeah I too was amazed at this piece of verbal diarrhea. It amazes me that humans first port of call when something is done to them or their 'property' by another species of animal is to kill it. Humans scientific name 'Homo sapiens' means 'wise or thinking man'. If a species first thought at 'wrong doing' is to kill, then that has nothing to do with wisdom or thinking, but much more primitive urges.

Majority of humans are not wise or thinking, a name change to homo stupide would be sufficient.

[puredingo]

Homo selfious...would be also be apt. Meaning a specie which soley values the individual without consideration of the comfort or survival of any other type or even it's own.

[maddog]

It amazes me that humans first port of call when something is done to them or their 'property' by another species of animal is to kill it. Humans scientific name 'Homo sapiens' means 'wise or thinking man'. If a species first thought at 'wrong doing' is to kill, then that has nothing to do with wisdom or thinking, but much more primitive urges.

Homo selfious...would be also be apt. Meaning a specie which soley values the individual without consideration of the comfort or survival of any other type or even it's own.

Are we to believe wild animals are more sentimental and generous of spirit than humans? Here I was thinking that survival was a natural instinct of individuals regardless of their species.

Cheers

[Overlandman]

Noticed the kid got almost a full page spread in the Heral Sun...
Cant believe it says the latest attack was the first on a human in the area, as the human was not hurt.
Also
(Lodge general manager Peter Wilson said he hoped police would cull the dingoes now that one had attacked a girl.)

all it has done is to chew on her sleeping bag, not the girl

Regards Overlandman

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victor ... 6428431377

A DINGO tried to drag a Victorian teenager from her sleeping bag at a popular tourist spot.
Rebecca Robinson, 13, of Benalla, woke to find the dingo tearing at her sleeping bag in Kakadu, Northern Territory, The Northern Territory News reported.
"I could feel someone pulling me," she said. "I woke up and there was a dingo there chewing at my sleeping bag. It was small, yellowy colour. I could not see it that much, but I saw its face."
Mum Kate Robinson said she now understands how a dingo could have taken baby Azaria Chamberlain from Uluru 32 years ago.
"We have been talking about it constantly saying how we can totally understand how that can happen. Rebecca weighs 45-50kg - they are that strong and bold."

Michael Chamberlain, who was vindicated after a three-decade legal battle last month when a Northern Territory coroner found that a dingo was responsible for the disappearance of his daughter, said he was not surprised by the latest incident.
"I am glad the girl has not been harmed," he said.
Rebecca said she barked and the dingo fled.
It had chewed through her sleeping bag, and for a moment Rebecca feared it had bitten her feet, but she was unhurt.
The close encounter did not scare her.
"But I could not get back to sleep," she said. "I thought it was going to come back and chew the sleeping bag again."
Rebecca had been sleeping with a friend on a mattress under the awning of her parents' caravan when the dingo attacked early on Sunday morning.
It was the fourth attack by dingoes on campers at the Aurora Kakadu Lodge at Jabiru this dry season.
Campers have reported dingoes ripping open tents and pulling out bedding over the past two months, but the latest attack was the first on a human.
Lodge general manager Peter Wilson said he hoped police would cull the dingoes now that one had attacked a girl.
However, Jabiru police officer in charge, Senior Sergeant Roger Ilett, said the matter was being dealt with by patrolling Kakadu rangers.

[Earthling]

It amazes me that humans first port of call when something is done to them or their 'property' by another species of animal is to kill it. Humans scientific name 'Homo sapiens' means 'wise or thinking man'. If a species first thought at 'wrong doing' is to kill, then that has nothing to do with wisdom or thinking, but much more primitive urges.

Homo selfious...would be also be apt. Meaning a specie which soley values the individual without consideration of the comfort or survival of any other type or even it's own.

Are we to believe wild animals are more sentimental and generous of spirit than humans? Here I was thinking that survival was a natural instinct of individuals regardless of their species.

Cheers

I cannot see where I have said other species are 'more sentimental and generous of spirit than humans'. You are correct in your belief that survival is a natural instinct of individuals regardless of their species.
However, Humans have called themselves the scientific name 'Homo sapiens' which in latin means 'wise or thinking man'. When humans named themselves this it was because they believed themselves above animal instincts and prided themselves on using reason and wisdom to solve problems rather than their natural instincts.
If they were this once the majority are no more and its now back to natural instincts of survival of the fittest. Hence the reason for a name change for Homo sapiens...

[maddog]

It amazes me that humans first port of call when something is done to them or their 'property' by another species of animal is to kill it. Humans scientific name 'Homo sapiens' means 'wise or thinking man'. If a species first thought at 'wrong doing' is to kill, then that has nothing to do with wisdom or thinking, but much more primitive urges.

Homo selfious...would be also be apt. Meaning a specie which solely values the individual without consideration of the comfort or survival of any other type or even it's own.

Are we to believe wild animals are more sentimental and generous of spirit than humans? Here I was thinking that survival was a natural instinct of individuals regardless of their species.

Cheers

I cannot see where I have said other species are 'more sentimental and generous of spirit than humans'. You are correct in your belief that survival is a natural instinct of individuals regardless of their species.
However, Humans have called themselves the scientific name 'Homo sapiens' which in latin means 'wise or thinking man'. When humans named themselves this it was because they believed themselves above animal instincts and prided themselves on using reason and wisdom to solve problems rather than their natural instincts.
If they were this once the majority are no more and its now back to natural instincts of survival of the fittest. Hence the reason for a name change for Homo sapiens...

Perhaps the wise bit is deserved as we have the ability to debate subjects unrelated to survival or comfort, to read and write, to theorise over mathematics, science, morality and philosophy, to record history, to have religious superstition, etc. Have we observed other animals do any of these things?

Other animals attack and kill to eat to defend themselves, often launching brutal pre-emptive strikes against a perceived though not immediate threat, as do humans. The difference in this regard is that we may doubt that we should, sometimes even for food (for example moral vegetarians). Other animals suffer no such uncertainty. Surely such doubt can be describe as a sentimentality and generosity of spirit - another trait lacking in many of the lower animals, and further confirming our status as the 'wise' or 'thinking' species.

Cheers

[Earthling]

Perhaps the wise bit is deserved as we have the ability to debate subjects unrelated to survival or comfort, to read and write, to theorise over mathematics, science, morality and philosophy, to record history, to have religious superstition, etc. Have we observed other animals do any of these things?

Other animals attack and kill to eat to defend themselves, often launching brutal pre-emptive strikes against a perceived though not immediate threat, as do humans. The difference in this regard is that we may doubt that we should, sometimes even for food (for example moral vegetarians). Other animals suffer no such uncertainty. Surely such doubt can be describe as a sentimentality and generosity of spirit - another trait lacking in many of the lower animals, and further confirming our status as the 'wise' or 'thinking' species.

Cheers

Yes your correct many humans do think and theorise on various subjects, however, when faced with a 'perceived threat’ (cane toads, dingoes, asylum seekers by boat) humans natural instincts kick in and override any thinking and theorising(for the majority). This is beyond ‘fight and flight’, as humans will hold fast their particular ‘instinct’ over any thinking and/or theorising put in front of them, most for their whole lifetime.

Some will think and become vegans on ethical grounds or anti-war or pro-animal rights or pro-assylum seekers, however this is by far in the minority. So whilst some Homo sapiens will be sentimental and generous of spirit beyond their immediate family, the majority are not.
Maybe we need a sub-species for the humans that are evolving morally/ethically and the ones that are being left behind?

You say animals suffer no such uncertainty as to doubting their actions. How can this me measured by humans? Until other species talk human or humans talk other animals language this will never be answered.

[maddog]

Maybe we need a sub-species for the humans that are evolving morally/ethically and the ones that are being left behind?

Many would be tempted to agree, so long as pure morality were not the only measure. Unfortunately the sub-type is a difficult distinction to establish in practice as, while preferences will often be exercised against it, they have succeeded in breeding with the more enlightened type and the union has given rise to fertile young. I suspect the sub-type could only be (at best) classified as a breed or variety, with more pure individuals true to type.

You say animals suffer no such uncertainty as to doubting their actions. How can this me measured by humans? Until other species talk human or humans talk other animals language this will never be answered.

We have managed to effectively communicate with many other animals, so this is no barrier for measurement. We have also benefited from observation. If humans had, as examples, observed a ethical vegan lion movement, a gazelle generously assist hungry hyenas by offering a feast of its young, or chimpanzees conscientiously object and abstain from attacking a neighbouring troop, it would be fair to say that they too had reached the enlightened state.

[Earthling]

You say animals suffer no such uncertainty as to doubting their actions. How can this me measured by humans? Until other species talk human or humans talk other animals language this will never be answered.

We have managed to effectively communicate with many other animals, so this is no barrier for measurement. We have also benefited from observation. If humans had, as examples, observed a ethical vegan lion movement, a gazelle generously assist hungry hyenas by offering a feast of its young, or chimpanzees conscientiously object and abstain from attacking a neighbouring troop, it would be fair to say that they too had reached the enlightened state.

Saying humans have managed effective communication is perhaps going a bit toooo far. Have humans communicated from a worker bee as to what its feeling/thoughts are about its life/job? Or how a Dingo feels when it has all its pups suckling for the first time? Observation doesn’t cut it. 30 years ago humans had one book on the subject, now they have more, but still way less than needed for a good understanding on the subject. I’ve read a dozen or so and so far humans have no evidence as to what a bee thinks about their life. There is very basic observations, but no real knowledge.

As to a saying a carnivore needs to go vegan to show an enlightened state….Mmmmm…I guess your inferring that humans are at an enlightened state. Unfortunately even fewer humans are enlightened compared to those humans leading somewhat ethical lives. Compassion is certainly one of the ‘enlightened states’ and many animals have shown this. Stories of Dolphins showing compassion by saving sailors abound, elephants and their compassion to one another and their deceased, a gorilla showing compassion by rescuing a hurt bird at a zoo. Even further, monkeys and apes can make judgments about fairness, offer altruistic help and empathize when another species is ill or in difficulties. These are all from observations and some basic communication, but far from effective communication.

But given time humans will get better with communicating with other species and when a Dingo can tell humans what it feels/thinks when trapped in a ‘humane’ leg trap with strychnine-laced cloths slowly poisoning it to death….hopefully (if not before) that’s when real changes will occur.

[maddog]

Saying humans have managed effective communication is perhaps going a bit toooo far. Have humans communicated from a worker bee as to what its feeling/thoughts are about its life/job? Or how a Dingo feels when it has all its pups suckling for the first time? Observation doesn’t cut it. 30 years ago humans had one book on the subject, now they have more, but still way less than needed for a good understanding on the subject. I’ve read a dozen or so and so far humans have no evidence as to what a bee thinks about their life. There is very basic observations, but no real knowledge.

Earthling, although I have not read a dozen or more books on the subject, I would hazard a guess that a worker bee has very few feelings or thoughts on its job, as it is a lower order animal focused on the task at hand. As for the Dingo *&%$#!, I would suggest she feels maternal.

As to a saying a carnivore needs to go vegan to show an enlightened state….Mmmmm…I guess your inferring that humans are at an enlightened state. Unfortunately even fewer humans are enlightened compared to those humans leading somewhat ethical lives.

I made no claim that a carnivore need to go vegan to show an enlightened state. I merely suggested that if there were any evidence of carnivores adopting such a lifestyle for ethical reasons, we may consider that the species is demonstrating an aspect of higher order behaviour, for which homo sapiens can be distinguished from the lower order animals. They may alternatively demonstrate an understanding of subjects of equal or greater worth (such as mathematics, engineering, philosophy, the natural sciences, literature, etc), or perhaps even master a number of different fields of theoretical knowledge, and they too may qualify as 'wise'.

Compassion is certainly one of the ‘enlightened states’ and many animals have shown this. Stories of Dolphins showing compassion by saving sailors abound, elephants and their compassion to one another and their deceased, a gorilla showing compassion by rescuing a hurt bird at a zoo. Even further, monkeys and apes can make judgments about fairness, offer altruistic help and empathize when another species is ill or in difficulties. These are all from observations and some basic communication, but far from effective communication.

I agree that many, perhaps most, mammals are capable of demonstrating compassion. Though none have done so to the degree of homo sapiens. While the human too can demonstrate concern for an individual in distress, we also expended considerable efforts to further the welfare of populations that we often have had no direct contact (e.g. overseas aid to Africa), or the protection of species and ecosystems that we may never have seen (e.g. the Polar Bear or Antartica). No other species has managed to demonstrate such a degree of empathy or awareness for other organisms, let alone across continents.

But given time humans will get better with communicating with other species and when a Dingo can tell humans what it feels/thinks when trapped in a ‘humane’ leg trap with strychnine-laced cloths slowly poisoning it to death….hopefully (if not before) that’s when real changes will occur.

Unless of course that there is very little moral difference to humans trapping or poisoning an animal in order to secure what it perceives as its interest, and a dog (or cat, crocodile, etc) trapping or killing another animal in order to further its own interest. Homo sapiens can act with cruelty to rival any animal, but we have the capacities for thought that make us the highest order animal, and often our cruelty is driven by this capacity (e.g. culling). The dog has little more than its instinct, its dinner, its emotion, its pack, and its territory.

Cheers

[Earthling]

Apolgies to the OP for 'hijacking' this thread....

Earthling, although I have not read a dozen or more books on the subject, I would hazard a guess that a worker bee has very few feelings or thoughts on its job, as it is a lower order animal focused on the task at hand. As for the Dingo *&%$#!, I would suggest she feels maternal.

I made no claim that a carnivore need to go vegan to show an enlightened state. I merely suggested that if there were any evidence of carnivores adopting such a lifestyle for ethical reasons, we may consider that the species is demonstrating an aspect of higher order behaviour, for which homo sapiens can be distinguished from the lower order animals. They may alternatively demonstrate an understanding of subjects of equal or greater worth (such as mathematics, engineering, philosophy, the natural sciences, literature, etc), or perhaps even master a number of different fields of theoretical knowledge, and they too may qualify as 'wise'.

I agree that many, perhaps most, mammals are capable of demonstrating compassion. Though none have done so to the degree of homo sapiens. While the human too can demonstrate concern for an individual in distress, we also expended considerable efforts to further the welfare of populations that we often have had no direct contact (e.g. overseas aid to Africa), or the protection of species and ecosystems that we may never have seen (e.g. the Polar Bear or Antartica). No other species has managed to demonstrate such a degree of empathy or awareness for other organisms, let alone across continents.

Unless of course that there is very little moral difference to humans trapping or poisoning an animal in order to secure what it perceives as its interest, and a dog (or cat, crocodile, etc) trapping or killing another animal in order to further its own interest. Homo sapiens can act with cruelty to rival any animal, but we have the capacities for thought that make us the highest order animal, and often our cruelty is driven by this capacity (e.g. culling). The dog has little more than its instinct, its dinner, its emotion, its pack, and its territory.

Cheers

Its interesting you talk of the higher and lower order and use ethics and to a degree compassion to distinguish between the two.
For me all animals (yes that includes Homo sapiens/stupide/selfious) are one order. Animals. I have no better or worse than, they are all equal in consideration of interests. Why should one species interests be more important than another’s? Because it thinks its better? That’s not good enough proof I’m afraid and to be honest, very arrogant behaviour from that species. Ever heard of Speciesm?
To claim better than is a very western concept that has no firm grounding in science or ethics. And as we look into this concept of ‘better than’ it becomes more and more fallacious with time. Look at Sexism, Racism...

You are using ‘hazard a guess’ and ‘suggest’ without any real science or proof backing you up, which is the main problem when discussing this sort of issue with most humans, as humans don’t really know what a bee thinks/feels or what a dingo thinks or feels. Most humans guess…and to be honest when deciding fates off life and death and suffering that’s not good enough anymore. Hence the name change; to Homo stupide.

To use compassion to say humans are better than all other animals and then to watch humans use other animals with little to no consideration of their interests in cruel and sadistic ways is laughable, if it were not so sad. I use the lack of compassion in humans personal use of animal corpses, foetuses and eggs in the broiler industry, intensive piggeries and egg production as evidence. The mass cruelty to millions of animals in this country alone shows humans are far from compassionate and in fact one of the cruellest species on Earth, making cruelty an industry. And yes most people now know what goes on in these industries but they choose to ignore it…compassion?

To justify being cruel when killing animals as an example of humans intelligence…My God!…is this what humans have become?! A self interested cruel species furthering its own interests without real care towards other beings? Yes. Hence the name change to Homo stupide/selfious.



“What the meat industry figured out is that you don't need healthy animals to make a profit. Sick animals are more profitable...
Factory farms calculate how close to death they can keep animals without killing them. That's the business model. How quickly they can be made to grow, how tightly they can be packed, how much or how little can they eat, how sick they can get without dying...We live in a world in which it's conventional to treat an animal like a block of wood.”

“Do you eat chicken because you are familiar with the scientific literature on them and have decided that their suffering doesn't matter, or do you do it because it tastes good?” Jonathan Safran Foer

[maddog]

I second the apologies.

First, ethical behaviour and compassion are two indicators of higher life forms (e.g. mammals). Perhaps they are necessary, but I do not propose that they alone are sufficient.

Second, there are problems with the idea of speciesism (that we should regard all sentient species to be of equal worth or value). If we accept such an idea, we accept that each individual is of equal value (as a sentient animal in its own right). Consequently, the life of a chicken is to be afforded the same status as a life of a human. But do you really consider the life of a battery hen to be the equivalent of the human? If so, you must consider events such as the holocaust in Europe or the genocide in Rwanda, Cambodia, etc, to be of the same moral magnitude as the treatment of an equal number of caged chickens. Really?

Another problem with your proposal is the idea of speciesism as the same as institutional sexism and racism. The latter two were (largely) overcome by the very groups discriminated against, who were able to achieve their equality using reason. They are equal because there are no relevant distinctions between the races or sexes (i.e. they are human too). Neither of those groups relied upon the arguments of well meaning sympathisers with the placards and the slogan 'chickens are sentient animals too' to deliver them from their fate - but you overlook the fact that the chickens do. And if chickens were to employ reason and overcome anthropogenic speciesism, do you think it would convince the fox?

Finally, I eat chicken because it tastes good. And although it may be cruel to do so, so is nature. And to do what nature intended is not at all arrogant.

[Earthling]

I second the apologies.

First, ethical behaviour and compassion are two indicators of higher life forms (e.g. mammals). Perhaps they are necessary, but I do not propose that they alone are sufficient.

Second, there are problems with the idea of speciesism (that we should regard all sentient species to be of equal worth or value). If we accept such an idea, we accept that each individual is of equal value (as a sentient animal in its own right). Consequently, the life of a chicken is to be afforded the same status as a life of a human. But do you really consider the life of a battery hen to be the equivalent of the human? If so, you must consider events such as the holocaust in Europe or the genocide in Rwanda, Cambodia, etc, to be of the same moral magnitude as the treatment of an equal number of caged chickens. Really?

Another problem with your proposal is the idea of speciesism as the same as institutional sexism and racism. The latter two were (largely) overcome by the very groups discriminated against, who were able to achieve their equality using reason. They are equal because there are no relevant distinctions between the races or sexes (i.e. they are human too). Neither of those groups relied upon the arguments of well meaning sympathisers with the placards and the slogan 'chickens are sentient animals too' to deliver them from their fate - but you overlook the fact that the chickens do. And if chickens were to employ reason and overcome anthropogenic speciesism, do you think it would convince the fox?

Finally, I eat chicken because it tastes good. And although it may be cruel to do so, so is nature. And to do what nature intended is not at all arrogant.

You confuse speciesism with equal rights, which some do argue. I argue equal consideration of interests which is different ( I did mention this in my last post). I don’t expect a chook be given the ability to vote like humans do at elections. However, I accept that a chook has certain interests, such as adequate water, adequate food, space to act out its normal behaviour such as scratching amongst earth looking for food and interacting with their own kind and to live. Same as humans have interests, which is strangely similar to the chooks.

In your argument you say that groups who are discriminated against should rely on their own arguments rather than rely upon the arguments of well meaning sympathisers with the placards and the slogan 'chickens are sentient animals too' to deliver them from their fate. This is a common argument. In keeping with my equal consideration of interests that would mean all groups, human and non-human would need to argue their own case. Interesting concept. I wonder what any human with a disability profound enough that they cannot communicate effectively to stand up for their ‘rights’ has to say about that? Or any human with a disability that can communicate but with only other animal/human assistance? Or babies for that matter, as they cannot hold a placard and say we have equal consideration of interests too! See the problem? These groups need support from other animals (humans mostly) to make sure of their inclusion in the equal consideration of interests. Exactly the same as nonhuman animals need other animals (humans usually) to make sure of their inclusion in the equal consideration of interests.

You seem to be hung up on this its ‘nature’ thing. That ‘nature’ is cruel, therefore you can be. Sure its ‘nature’/natural for a fox to hunt and kill a chook. Its not ‘nature’ to keep billions of chooks each year globally in conditions where they are living in their own filth, with their own dead often rotting in their cages alongside them, where they will peck each other to death as they cannot move away, where humans pump them full of antibiotics so they all don’t die before its economically acceptable, where the ONLY time they see the sun is on the way to be slaughtered and they NEVER taste the earth…that is not ‘nature’. That is not natural. That’s about as far removed as natural as you can get.

[Overlandman]

German Tourist Attacked
From ABC Just in Web Site
Once again not the Dingo,s fault
Regards Overlandman

Rangers are patrolling Fraser Island off Queensland's Sunshine Coast following a savage dingo attack on a German tourist.

It is understood the 23-year-old man holidaying near Hope Valley on Fraser Island wandered away from his tour group this morning, fell asleep on a track, and was attacked by two dingos.
The man suffered serious injuries to his legs, arms and head.
He has been flown to a hospital on the mainland in a stable condition.
A spokesman from the Queensland Department of National Parks and Recreation says rangers have increased their patrols on the island.
He is warning holidaymakers and residents to follow government safety advice.

A 10-year-old boy was killed by dingos on Fraser Island 11 years ago.
The previous state government had promised to cull some of the animals

[curwalker]

I found the same article again, just this time it was called "German tourist mauled by dingos"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-28/tourist-attacked-by-dingos/4161248
Rangers are patrolling Fraser Island off Queensland's Sunshine Coast following a savage dingo attack on a German tourist.
It is understood the 23-year-old man holidaying near Happy Valley on Fraser Island wandered away from his tour group this morning, fell asleep on a track, and was attacked by two dingos.
The man suffered serious injuries to his legs, arms and head.
He has been flown to a hospital on the mainland in a stable condition.
A spokesman from the Queensland Department of National Parks and Recreation says rangers have increased their patrols on the island.
He is warning holidaymakers and residents to follow government safety advice.
A 10-year-old boy was killed by dingos on Fraser Island 11 years ago.
The previous state government had promised to cull some of the animals.

Wow, now its suddenly mauling, no longer a simple attack.

You can see a video (newsreport) here:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 6437501882

Interestingly the video only says "dingo" and not "dingoes."

You know what is really interesting? Supposedly all those wild dogs on the East and South coast get bigger and more dangerous all the time, but how many people get attacked and actually injured? The upper article was in Kakadu, were there are supposedly no or only few "hybrids" but still an "attack" happened. I remember someone on youtube claiming that a woman had been attacked by wild dogs a week or so ago, or maybe two, but where is that headline? If that really happened that is.
It's just odd in my eyes. When you read all those anti-wild dog articles you would think that the "pure" dingo is the good little environmentalist.
Why did these dingoes "attack" the guy anyway? And why does he "fall asleep" in the middle of nowhere? He should know better, it's not as though Germany isn't full of wild animals that could kill you.

There is another article, who also mentions the Kakadu incident:
http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BN ... 61983.html

German tourist attacked by Australian dingo
Saturday, Jul 28, 2012

SYDNEY - A German tourist was savaged by a dingo in northern Australia, officials said Saturday, suffering serious bite wounds to his head, arms and legs.
The 23-year-old was attacked by the wild dog after straying from a campsite on Fraser Island, popular with tourists, early on Saturday and falling asleep at a nearby walking track, national parks officials said.
He was airlifted to hospital with serious wounds to his head, arms and legs, said regional parks manager Ross Belcher.
"This incident serves as an ongoing reminder that dingoes are wild animals and need to be treated as such," said Belcher.
Fraser Island, off the Queensland coast, is known for its dingo population and a nine-year-old boy was killed by by one of the dogs there in 2001.
There have been several non-fatal attacks on the island. Last year a three-year-old girl and a South Korean woman were bitten in separate incidents.
A teenager had her sleeping bag shredded by a dingo as she was sleeping at a lodge in tropical Kakadu earlier this month, just weeks after a landmark ruling that baby Azaria Chamberlain was snatched in 1980 by one of the wild dogs.
Chamberlain's mother spent three years in jail convicted of her murder, but was released in 1986 when some of her daughter's clothing was recovered by chance near a dingo lair.
She fought for decades to clear her name in a sensational case which spawned a Meryl Streep film.

This one is similar (also only one dingo) except that the tourist is now 24-years old: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news ... ser-island

And there is Chamberlain again. Seriously, what is it with that? It happened about 32 years ago.
Weren't there at least 11 saltwater crocodile attacks in the last 12 years? No one seems to make such a fuss about that.

[maddog]

A new research project in north-west Victoria will examine the environmental benefits of wild dogs:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-31/s ... ct/4493116

Cheers

[Onestepmore]

Dingos are wonderful! Wish people would stop killing them. They're actually beneficial for maintaining a healthy balanced ecosystem when humans aren't interfering/interacting.
Feral dogs, get them out of the national parks. Forget about herbivore ferals, get the dogs out and some native species might get off the threatened species list.
I have spotted dingos in Namadgi NP and Kosciuszko NP, I have also spotted and been followed by feral dogs in the same parks.

Have you ever seen the carnage in a paddock of sheep when wild dogs have been rampaging? Farmers who have land next to National Parks and State Forest lose many head of stock - most killed for fun - mangled, throats torn, backsides bitten out, hamstrung. Usually many are blundering around badly hurt, the lucky ones you find early enough to shoot them or slit their throat. Flystrike, sepsis and crows usually get the ones we don't find. Not a pretty sight
Cows get their udders ripped out, calves are easily pulled down and killed or maimed.
You can't selectively say ' Oh I won't shooot/trap/1080 that one, it might have 50% dingo DNA' (if someone collects it's scat and sends it off for analysis!)

Look how many there are here, ful daylight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JkioRo8pcM

It's a huge problem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXhIkHxfpxk

[cdg]

I spent a few days with a dogger back in the 80's. its tough work. feral dogs are cunning cunning cunning. Thinking about some of the methods used then, i doubt they would be legal now. Traps are frowned upon. There are really only two ways to control wild dogs - shoot them out, and lay baits. baits cause problems when eaten by native wildlife. The question is - is there an acceptable native loss level?

Any serious wild dog removal program would need more doggers than exist these days. Its not just about shooting skill in that job, its a real hunting/stalking skillset.

I know many on this forum frown on any form of shooting, but I can honestly say Ive never seen a shooter torture or maim an animal in my presence. Yes, ive seen poorly placed shots, but they weren't deliberate and animals were neatly dispatched fairly promptly. In rural Australia, guns are just tools. i wish the rest of Australia could accept that fact.

I quite like just walking around the bush with a pack these days, but I have seen feral cats and dogs in the wild (sometimes curious dogs will stalk you for awhile) that I could have neatly removed if I'd been lugging a rifle (and if it were legal to carry a rifle in national parks).

I liken this to the feral weed problem. I always cringe when i see blackberries deep in the wild.

[maddog]

The question is - is there an acceptable native loss level?

Is that a question, or an appeal to emotion? Please explain.

I have seen feral cats and dogs in the wild (sometimes curious dogs will stalk you for awhile) that I could have neatly removed if I'd been lugging a rifle (and if it were legal to carry a rifle in national parks).

But what if those animals are filling an otherwise vacant niche? You shoot them out, and create a plague of prey animals. What have you achieved?

Cheers

[cdg]

The question is - is there an acceptable native loss level?

Is that a question, or an appeal to emotion? Please explain.

I have seen feral cats and dogs in the wild (sometimes curious dogs will stalk you for awhile) that I could have neatly removed if I'd been lugging a rifle (and if it were legal to carry a rifle in national parks).

But what if those animals are filling an otherwise vacant niche? You shoot them out, and create a plague of prey animals. What have you achieved?

Cheers

Its a genuine question. Baiting kills native animals. Is there an acceptable loss level?

I can tell the difference between a dingo and a feral animal. I think the native wildlife of any area would be thankful that ferals have been removed.