Category Archives: Animals

Repost: What Are the Odds of a Human Surviving a Wolf Attack?

This is a repost of a very nice earlier post from four years ago that is being posted around the Net right now.

From the Internet. Fascinating stuff.  A number of respondents said they would bet on the human or said that a smart human can indeed take out a wolf, although your odds are a lot better if you are armed with anything.

However, many other respondents said if you a wolf attacks you, and you are unarmed, get ready to die. You’re gone. Overwhelmingly, your chances of survival are near zero.

First thing to note is that they are extremely intelligent, far smarter than a dog.

I raised many hybrid wolves, mostly German Shepherd breeds, and one 80% wolf that was awesome with me and my partner, but no one else dared go near it – luckily it never really wanted to mess with people, but if you picked a fight with it, you picked the wrong one to fight with…

The thing with wolves is the intelligence and the chess match you are involved in from first encounter. They are always thinking two steps ahead and know what to do, even as youngsters…

…If you are in a fight with a wolf, I’d give you less than the minute it took for them to down a pig, and unless you’re some kind of ninja, you’d never remember what happened. They know where and when to strike you, know how to do it, and are so smart.

99% of the time, you are going to die.

Maybe if you knew some kind of special wolf triangle choke where you could incapacitate the wolf, but just like everyone else says, you’ll lose that fight 99 times out of 100.

A wolf is not a dog.

You wouldn’t stand a chance in Hell against an adult wolf.

Oliver Starr has dozens of accounts of living with wolves, including several on this very subject, and one thing that is quite clear is wolves are not just wild dogs.

Wolves chew right through solid metal objects. Think of what they could do to your measly flesh.

My friends had a part wolf dog. The most noticeable difference was the mouth. That wolf dog was very friendly, but he had a long head and was all teeth. Having read Oliver Starr’s story I would not give myself good odds of surviving if he had ever tried to take me down. He once chewed through a metal cooler to get some lunch meat and routinely chewed open food cans.

Wolves are not dogs, and it only takes two dogs to kill an adult human.

Even if you do live and kill the wolf, you might wish you had not survived:

If you do manage to fight the wolf off, you could be hurt really bad, possibly sustaining life-threatening wounds. A bite can tear open major veins, crush bones, and rip open your abdomen or throat.

Police are allowed to use deadly force against even large dogs that seriously attack them. It is considered a deadly force encounter.

That is why I as an officer am allowed to shot a wolf or dog that I feel is going to attack me. It is considered a deadly force encounter.

If you don’t have a gun, the best thing to do is to climb a tree, but that probably won’t work, as wolves are fast as lightning.

A wolf will kill most adult humans easily. That is why if  you fight a wolf, you must always presume it will be a fight to the death, and you had better want to live. Yes, some people have hysterical/psychotic strength, but that happens rarely and cannot be depended on. Best advice is to climb a tree (if you get the chance, good luck with that) if unarmed, otherwise shoot it if you have a gun.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, Canids, Carnivores, Death, Dogs, Domestic, ER, Law enforcement, Mammals, Wild, Wolves

Alt Left: Are Males Violent Because of Patriarchy?

The feminist argument is that males are violent due to patriarchy. They say this because all feminists reject biological gender and think that gender is a social construct. So you deconstruct gender, get rid of masculinity, and wa-law, males are as pacifistic as females.

I have said for a while now that if you want to understand men and women, study mammals, especially the higher-order ones. The males are always far more violent than the females. They fight, sometimes to the death, for access to females. The most Alpha male mammals end up with entire harems of females. The rest of the Beta male mammals are resigned to bachelorhood and probably never breed.

It’s even true with cats. I have had many cats in my life. The males were far more aggressive and even violent than the females. And these males had been castrated for Chrissake. Many of them seemed to have an almost wild, restless energy about them such that they never seemed to calm down much.

One thing I learned that in general you cannot have more than one male cat in a household. Most times I got more than one male, they fought like maniacs. They almost tried to kill each other. The theory is that the males are territorial. The other male is encroaching on the first male’s territory. At the moment I have only female cats. They are so much calmer. In case anyone is wondering, humans are mammals. If male mammals are a lot more violent than female mammals, wouldn’t it be logical to assume the same is true in humans?

I am indeed a biological essentialist. I think the feminists cut us men way too much slack. The feminists are Utopians. They think that if they can just fix up society enough, we men will stop being so aggressive and violent. If only it were that easy.

I’ll take the feminists one step further: Males are innately violent. I would even expand that to males and humans who behave like males.

Masculinity is not a requirement. Gay men are quite violent. Gay male relationships are more violent than relationships between men and women. Further, transwomen are extremely unmasculine in behavior (they behave like ultra-feminine women), but we can see how violent and dangerous many transwomen are – probably more so than cisgender men. I think this is the autogynephile group. The true transsexual group, mostly homosexuals, is probably less violent than cisgender men and probably even less violent than cisgender gay men.

It is from this evidence that I would say that the problem is something inherent in us men – in our minds – and just waging war on masculinity won’t get rid of it.

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, Cats, Domestic, Feminism, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Mammals, Man World, Psychology, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

“They’re Not Oysters,” by Alpha Unit

Connecticut, West Virginia, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Nebraska, and Alaska have at least one thing in common: each has a Panhandle (WV has two). The Nebraska Panhandle is the westernmost part of Nebraska, where the prairie turns into rocky mesas, buttes, and pillars, such as Chimney Rock. It’s where the Midwest becomes the West.

Cattle outnumber people by about three to one in Nebraska. While Eastern Nebraska has excellent cropland for corn, the rest of the state is abundant with grassland for cattle grazing. In the semi-arid Panhandle, cattle ranching dominates. That means Rocky Mountain Oysters are a celebrated delicacy.

This past April the Sidney Shooting Park held its 8th Annual Rocky Mountain Oyster Fry and Fundraiser at the Cheyenne County Fairgrounds west of Sidney, Nebraska. At the Silver Dollar Bar and Grill, also in Sidney, you can stop in for cold beer, onion rings, and Rocky Mountain Oysters – described by one satisfied customer as hot, fresh, and tender.

They might have been hot, fresh, and tender, but you and I know that there aren’t any oyster reefs in Nebraska. These Oysters are bull testicles – or, more accurately, calf testicles. In spring or early summer, ranchers dehorn and castrate bull calves that they won’t be using as breeding stock. They call these non-breeding stock steers. The males that keep their testicles and are later used as breeding stock they call bulls. The main purpose of castration is to calm their tempers, says Dr. Jake Geis, cattle rancher and veterinarian.

Simply put, bulls like to fight. They fight to establish dominance and even after they settle the hierarchy, they fight to re-assert dominance. Dr. Geis says that he’s worked on bulls that have been banged up fighting each other; sometimes the animal is so badly injured that a rancher has no choice but to put it down. Breeding bulls are essential so the problem can’t be entirely avoided, but castrating the non-breeding animals reduces the number of bulls from half the calf crop to three or four.

Also, bulls are more aggressive toward people than steers. Castrating bulls makes them mellower and safer to work with. A herdsman could be seriously injured or killed by a bull while loading or unloading them via trailers.

Another problem, says Dr. Geis, is that when bull calves reach puberty, they want to start breeding. Young females, or heifers, on the other hand, aren’t ready to breed. They can get pregnant but they can’t yet safely deliver and raise a calf. Castration eliminates this problem.

Arguably the most important reason for castrating bull calves is that Americans prefer the taste of steer meat to that of bull meat. The hormone profile of steers with their reduced testosterone changes the flavor of the meat. Dr. Geis says that not all cultures share this preference. He mentions that in Italian culture bull meat is preferred. This means they raise the bulls to harvest weight but have to manage all the problems with aggressiveness and fighting.

With a pair of organs coming off each calf, ranchers could easily end up with scores of them in a day’s work. The dogs get their share before the ranchers, herdsmen, and their families cook the rest just as they would any other part of the animal. The same as cattlemen have done for centuries all over the world.

When they’re not castrating bulls, beef cattle herdsmen are doing various other things with cattle such as feeding, giving vaccinations, tagging or branding, trimming hooves, assisting with births, performing artificial insemination, loading animals onto trailers, driving feed trucks, maintaining pastures, mending fences, and just about anything else that needs to be done on the ranch or feedlot.

2 Comments

Filed under Agricutlure, Alpha Unit, American, Animals, Cows, Culture, Domestic, Florida, Guest Posts, Idaho, Labor, Livestock Production, Midwest, Northeast, Regional, South, Texas, USA, West

Even Ducks Don’t Like Indians

You Indians better work on your personalities! You’re even starting to piss of the birds for Chrissake, and birds are pretty stupid. Where do you think birdbrain came from? And ducks are some of the dumbest birds of them all.

My high school biology teacher once told us that ducks were very stupid.

On her farm where she grew up, there was this path they walked down every day, and the path turned sharply into a low spot where a pond of water had collected in the trail.

The pond was easily avoided if you knew it was coming. The ducks would walk along the path and then turn the corner and land right in the water, upsetting and surprising them. They never learned anything from one day to the next, like a lot of humans I know. Every day they made the same damned mistake and fell into the pond squawking again. They simply could not recall that there was a bend in the trail and a hidden pond after it that they had fallen into the day before.

I guess these London swans* are not too stupid though! They seem have figured out like so many of us in the West that Indians are lousy people!

*If you are interested, there are three types of birds: ducks, swans and geese. They are all related as members of the larger Duck Family. Swans and geese are separate genera, something I was not aware of (I just learned that today!). Swans and geese are larger than ducks. They must be closely related though because swans and geese can interbreed to form hybrids (I just learned that today too!). Isn’t life cool? Here I am at 60 years old and I am still learning new things, even new basic facts about our world, almost every day! I don’t know about the rest of you, but I think that’s really neat. H who is not busy growing is busy dying.

I’m confused. Sure, humans have racist impulses; Ballets like Swan Lake are said to be ‘racist,’ but…UK Swans Hate Ethnic Minorities (right click to open in new window):

(Birds have more acute eyesight than human I check).

“Angry ‘Racist’ Swans are Terrorizing Students at Warwick University

The bullying birds have been spotted standing guard at a campus footbridge to stop humans from crossing. Students say they are being continually confronted on their way to lectures. And the birds – who are currently in their breeding season – are said to be particularly aggressive towards Indian students. One victim, a 24-year-old student who asked not to be named, said:

“I am from India, and they attack me especially – they focus straight on me. We have been warned that the swans will be a bit feisty at this time of year, but they go for me all year round. I think they don’t like too many Indians in England – maybe the swans here are a little bit racist.”

……………….

When the yanks pick an African ballerina to play Odette, the swan queen, they picked one with fairer skin and without peppercorn hair.

16 Comments

Filed under Animals, Birds, Britain, Domestic, East Indians, Europe, Humor, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asians, Wild

New Mammal Discovered!

16602591_10208554819414403_5421593211395932172_n

A new mammal has been discovered! This captive specimen has even been turned into a pet. They are characterized by a feline appearing head and tail, however the body is long, thin, and twisty like a worm or an eel. Very odd. Cryptozoology is not fake! New mammals are being discovered all the time.

1 Comment

Filed under Animals, Cats, Domestic, Humor

Why Are Some Animals Gay? Are There any That Do Not Reproduce Due to Being Gay? Wouldn’t That Be an Evolutionary Disadvantage? If It’s Just a Selected Few in a Group, How Do You Know That It’s Not an Anomaly?

Answered on Quora.

The PC line is that homosexuality is widespread in the animal kingdom. Actually it’s not. This line is taken to extremes recently, and it is not uncommon to hear PC types say that 10% of all types of birds and mammals are gay. That’s clearly nonsense.

There are cases of two same sex birds incubating an egg, but apparently there was a shortage of the opposite sex that gave rise to this.

I had a cat once that went into heat. You can hear and even observe when a cat is in heat. I won’t go into details. You will have to figure it out for yourself. When this cat was in heat, one of my female cats tried to mount the female in heat!

Bonobo chimpanzees (at least the females) are apparently often bisexual, but I am not aware of any gay bonobos.

If you drive mice crazy enough in the lab or subject them to very crowded conditions, male mice will attempt to mount each other. This is called lordosis. This pseudo-homosexuality is a side effect of the mice being driven crazy by overcrowding or whatever.

However, sheep are a good case for homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Approximately 6% of male sheep prefer to mount other male sheep. I am not sure what they accomplish when they do that, but that’s what they do. They don’t have sex with female sheep. That is quite an excellent analogy in the animal world to male homosexuality among humans. As far as why sheep are like this, I have no idea at all.

1 Comment

Filed under Animals, Apes, Birds, Cats, Cultural Marxists, Domestic, Herbivores, Homosexuality, Mammals, Sex, Wild

In Social Species Considered to Be More Intelligent, Are Females or Males Likely to be Dominant?

Answered on Quora: 

In most mammals, males are far more aggressive and even violent than females.

Take cats. I have had many cats in my life, sometimes whole herds of them, up to five at a time. Male cats are far more aggressive and violent than female cats. And they are so territorial that I can never have more than one male cat in a house. Frankly even one is an issue. The more I study male and female cats, the more I think they resemble male and female humans.

If you study other mammals – seals, elk, deer, etc., you will find much the same thing.

Leave a comment

Filed under Animals, Cats, Domestic, Mammals, Wild

Species and Subspecies in Current Races of Homo sapiens sapiens

We already dealt with the racist nonsense about Black people being a different species than the rest of us. By the way, this is just another way of saying, “Niggers aren’t human,” which is exactly what a lot of anti-Black racists say about Black people in precisely those words.

I hate to break it to these guys, but Black people are as human as the rest of us. We are all one species.

I did a lot of research on the question the other day because I wanted to see if there was anything to the racist argument. The overwhelming opinion, based on multiple lines of excellent evidence is that all races of human are part of a single species. I won’t go into the lines of evidence here, but you can go look them up if you want. And it’s good science too, not junk science.

One of the lines is that no human race has any particular type of DNA that is particular to its own race. In different species, the new evidence is that all species have areas of DNA that are specific to just them. This is true even in species that can and do interbreed.

In studying two types of butterflies in the Amazon that readily interbreed, it was found that one area of DNA in each species never transferred to the other. Obviously when you mate two different lines, you end with each line contributing a lot of its DNA to the offspring. This is the DNA that carries over so to speak in interbreeding. The areas of DNA that never carried over or transferred in interbreeding were two areas: one that gave it its blue flavor and another that deals with how the blue butterfly is able to recognize others of its kind. In the orange butterfly, the non-transferring DNA was also for orange color and for how the species recognizes its own species. This is where we get the notion that “species breed true.”

Another is that humans can readily interbreed with other humans. For an example of what happens when humans breed with other hominid species, we can look at the evidence of human-Neandertal breeding.

Human-Neandertal breeding was very difficult and most of the offspring did not survive for some reason. Neandertal males mating with human females was rarely successful. However, human males mating with Neandertal females apparently worked sometimes.

The example given that species can interbreed is dog and wolves. However, science now says that dogs and wolves are one species. From my study of birds, when two different bird species start interbreeding a lot, after a while, they usually merge them into one species on the basis that they interbreed.

Crossbreeds of different species often produce sterile offspring. Yes, a horse can breed with a mule but the offspring is a donkey and donkeys are sterile. I believe that ligers, the offspring of lions and tigers, are also sterile. There are other species that can interbreed, however the offspring are weak, sickly and fail to thrive.

If any human races were separate species, we would expect to see something like the results of the human-Neandertal interbreeding and we don’t see that. Blacks and Whites can interbreed just fine, immaculately, in fact.

The question then boils down to whether any races could be said to be subspecies. The German Wikipedia has done some work on that and they have concluded that based on geographic separation, Negritos, Aborigines and Khoisan (Bushmen/Hottentots) could probably be seen as subspecies. On looking at their work, I think the writers on the German Wiki are basing their argument on good, solid science.

I would also argue that these three could be seen as subspecies based on genetic distance. The genetic line of Negroid Africans specifically does not go back all that far. They are a new race that only arose 9,000 YBP.

However, the Khoisan are one of the oldest people on Earth with a specific line going back 53,000 years.

Previously, a type of Negrito Australoid in Thailand, the Orang Asli, had been found to be the oldest race of living race with a line going back 72,000 years.

The Aborigine of course are very ancient. They are quite distant from all other humans. In fact the two races with the greatest distance between them are Aborigines and African Negroids. If anyone would have a hard time interbreeding it would be them, but there’s no evidence of any problems. On the other hand, few if any of them have bred at all. African Negroids and European Whites are dramatically closer to each other than Africans and Aborigines. If Africans and Aborigines are one species, how could Africans and Whites be two species? Makes no sense.

It is important to note that by their nature, all subspecies can interbreed. They are only called subspecies because for whatever reason, they only live in a restricted geographical area. In addition, there are some anatomical and genetic differences in all subspecies. At some genetic and anatomical difference level, two types of a species are said to be separate subspecies. Since no humans are restricted to any separate geographical areas, we cannot use that metric for setting aside human subspecies. However, I would no problem with setting aside Aborigines, Negritos and Khoisan as human subspecies. There’s nothing derogatory or racist about that statement, at least to any rational person, which leaves out all SJW’s.

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

5 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Animals, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Australia, Birds, Blacks, Canids, Carnivores, Dogs, Domestic, Genetics, Horses, Khoisan, Mammals, Negritos, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asians, Thailand, White Racism, Whites, Wild, Wolves

Domesticated and Feral Strains of Many Mammals Can Differ Starkly in Behavior

I have heard that there are breeds of dogs who are very intelligent and others that are almost as dumb as rocks. Surely they are all the same species. Intelligence and behavioral differences are no matter. Dogs and wolves and dogs and coyotes are pretty much the same species. Dogs can and do breed with wolves and coyotes both. So what? Take a domesticated dog breed and put it in your house and what does it do? Probably makes itself at home and becomes your best friend. Now capture a wolf or coyote, drug it, put it in a cage, take it to your house, and open it up. When the coyote or wolf wakes up, what will it try to do? It will run out the cage, run around your house, tear stuff up, make a huge racket, and in a lot of cases, it would even try to attack you.

I am not going to make an analogy between Whites and Blacks and dogs and wolves here, but racists are free to draw their obvious conclusions.

Just for starters, say I find an unconscious Black human somewhere, and for some reason, the best thing to do would be to take the person to my house and take care of them for a bit. I lie them down on the couch. They wake up after a while like the wolf woke up in the cage.

Now is this Black person going to rampage around my house, make a huge racket, destroy a lot of stuff, and probably attack me? Well, not immediately for sure, and that’s true for even the worst ones. But some of the bad ones, if you keep them around a bit though…you get the picture.

A Black human is less feral and far more domesticated than a wolf is. Between wolf and dog the difference between feral and domesticated nature is stark and even frightening. Between an average Black and White human, the difference between a wilder human and more domesticated human is dramatically less stark. Black people are not feral humans in the sense of a wolf to a dog. A true feral human would be like those Wild Children that have been raised in the woods by wolves or bears. A Black human is orders of magnitude more domesticated than that.

Black humans, as you can see, after all are quite domesticated as far as mammals go. But are they still a bit more wild than Whites and Asians? Well, maybe so.

Saying that intelligence and behavioral differences between Blacks and Whites – well-documented – are prima facie evidence of two different species is utter madness. A more feral and more domesticated strain of any mammal can show marked differences in all sorts of behavioral and cognitive variables.

The domesticated and feral strains of all sorts of species are dramatically different. Even domesticated cats gone feral are often impossible to properly tame, and they are from a genetically domesticated line!

If you enjoy the hard work that goes into this website, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site. Donations are the only thing that keep the site operating.

6 Comments

Filed under Animals, Blacks, Canids, Carnivores, Dogs, Domestic, Mammals, Race/Ethnicity, Whites, Wild, Wolves

Interesting Racial Arguments: Blacks As Less Domesticated Humans, and Whites and Asians as Domesticated “Slave Races”

Great comment from Francis Melville. 

African Blacks are humans, period.

The main mistake about that by those who see them as a parallel species closer to apes than man relies upon the infamous argument of neoteny: evolution from ape to man (so as devolution from man to ape as some religious fundamentalists postulate) is supposed to have happened through greater and greater retention at adult age of traits only the primitive species’ infants shows before losing them at adult age.

But that argument, however seducing it seems, is fallacious the way it is used: clearly, for instance, dogs as we know them are descendants of the wild dog, which is a parallel species of wolves to the point only zoologists can distinguish them from other wolves. And from that lupine ancestry, dogs have evolved far more than humans are supposed to have evolved from more primitive men, they have kept infantile traits at a degree humans themselves never went to…yet they remain dogs and show no sign of turning into a kind of speaking intelligent species capable of writing with all fours.

Though they cannot survive outside an apartment and require the same care as a human infant or even more, they still bark and bite each one according to its capacity. Neoteny produces domestic or more domesticable animals out of wild ones and nothing beyond. Neoteny alone cannot make a lineage change of species, nothing of that kind of phenomenon has ever been observed under any microscope or otherwise through paleontological history. You could still invent more and more puppy-like races of dogs under the pressure of lawmakers prohibiting Rottweilers, none of these new races would end up being human-like or humanoid-like in any way, none of these dogs would suddenly learn to speak like Pluto, though they may look like cartoon dogs more and more.

African Blacks show many traits (though not all) of less or no neoteny compared to the mean European and even more compared to East Asians (for instance African babies learn to sit and adopt various other adult postures at an earlier age than other humans), but that may make an African a wilder human, NOT a lesser human…in the very same way Sub-Saharan Africa seems to be by its ecological vocation the conservatory of the wilder versions of so many other species, like the wild dogs, the wild asses (which include the zebra as well as countless other onagres), the wild buffaloes, and the famed wild elephants.

African elephants, for being wild and having never been domesticated, are not less elephantine than the ones used in India and Indochina as beast of burden or transportation, in the same way the wild African buffaloes are by no means less bovine than the domestic buffaloes used in India to till the soil: quite the contrary, anybody would qualify the African elephant as more elephant-like by its spectacular bodily features than its more modestly-looking Indian far cousin, for the same reason wild bulls and buffaloes have always symbolized the epitome of bovine nature with far more intensity and sacredness than domestic oxen.

Europeans are not more human than Africans, they are more domesticable and amenable to so-called civilized life, actually it is a more polite expression to say they are easier to enslave and put to hard work by neurological programming rather than by mere physical shackles only.

Some say among Haitian and Benin voodoo practitioners that Whites and Asians were the first species reduced to a more fragile and specialized one but far easier to put to useful work by the process of trans-generational domestication and bodily modification by the first animal tamers: according to them, non-Blacks are born out of the will of malevolent sorcerers to dispose of population of dependent slaves by birth. That is probably a short caricature, but there seems to be something real about it.

So many proverbs from so many cultures are wont to say laughter is what really makes humans human, animals being so serious in comparison of the most serious humans. Do Black Africans laugh less?

21 Comments

Filed under Africa, Animals, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, Blacks, Canids, Carnivores, Cows, Cultural, Dogs, Domestic, Europeans, Herbivores, India, Mammals, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, South Asia, Wild, Wolves